Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Benjiboi (talk | contribs)
50,496 edits
ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)
43,041 edits
comment
Line 209: Line 209:


:May it had prohibited some discussions, if the board had a bit more offensive told, why he's a good man for the board. In the press release it's really a bit in a strange connection. And this together with the actual critics at de:WP depending the sponsoring/advertising on the "Wikimedia Deutschland" Website, the mood at de:WP actually is very down. Germans sometimes are... - strange. Or very critical. Or both. But at the end it would be a little much to make all in the way we're Germans are contented. I belive, we're never all can be getting contented. [[User:Marcus Cyron|Marcus Cyron]] ([[User talk:Marcus Cyron|talk]]) 00:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
:May it had prohibited some discussions, if the board had a bit more offensive told, why he's a good man for the board. In the press release it's really a bit in a strange connection. And this together with the actual critics at de:WP depending the sponsoring/advertising on the "Wikimedia Deutschland" Website, the mood at de:WP actually is very down. Germans sometimes are... - strange. Or very critical. Or both. But at the end it would be a little much to make all in the way we're Germans are contented. I belive, we're never all can be getting contented. [[User:Marcus Cyron|Marcus Cyron]] ([[User talk:Marcus Cyron|talk]]) 00:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

==Congratulations and a question==
Hi Jimbo. Congratulations on the 3 million mark. That's a really amazing feat.

On a less positive note, I'm wondering if you're aware of the ongoing campaign of harassment, stalking and intimidation that goes on here against editors who hold minority perspectives. I've been hounded and stalked for months now for suggesting that we abide by the neutral point of view policy. My harassers have used the administrative noticeboards for a series of frivolous reports against me that is time consuming and harassing to keep track of, they've posted incessantly about me on various talk and discussion pages, they've made repeated attempts to have me blocked and banned. They also stalk me around article space and disrupt my contributions. Now they've gotten Arbcom to impose a restriction that I'm not allowed to discuss or object to this censorship and POV pushing anywhere on Wikipedia. I find this Orwellian and totally unacceptable. It reminds of the Nazis and book burning, and I'm deeply troubled by it.

Is there a way to rein in those who push to block, ban and intimidate anyone who attempts to balance our article coverage on political subjects? I think it's very important that good faith editors are treated with respect no matter what their opinions are, but that hasn't been my experience. Thanks for your thoughts on this serious issue. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 03:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:20, 30 August 2009

Opinions/advice please

Hi, I've been working on WP:Paid, regarding paid editing issues, and there is indeed some sharp disagreements which is likely expected. I've done some research including past comments on this talkpage and would like your opinion and any ideas. Some users feel we must include a statement about paid admining. If we do I feel it also has to be accurate. Is there anything on this draft you feel should be changed and if so how:


I have a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Opinions/advice please but it may be of only so much interest to most folks. Comments there would also be fine but that thread may expire before this one. -- Banjeboi 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is discouraged as it is likely perceived as a COI ..." (emphasis added). This statement is absurdly mild. What doubt is there that it would be a conflict of interest? That is what conflict of interest means. As for "discouraged", isn't it clear that an admin who used admin tools or authority at the behest of some third party would be de-sysoped? This proposed policy would acknowledge that Wikipedia admins are for sale, which I certainly hope is not the fact. This is crazy. —Finell (Talk) 17:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely would be a conflict of interest, I agree with Finell. As written, the sentence is misleading, that there is no policy against it. Indeed, this page *should become* policy against it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what it means to do an admin action at the behest of a third party. Asking an administrator "Please block User X, he is a vandalism-only account, here is the evidence." seems fine to me, especially since it would be up to the administrator to indeed determine the validity of the person's claim and then take responsibility for it themselves. @harej 18:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't confuse the issue, harej. The discussion is about an admin exercising admin authority in exchange for payment. —Finell (Talk) 22:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asking an admin to "block User X as a vandalism only account, here is the evidence, and here is $10 for the blocking" is definitely not kosher. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it is not kosher even if User X really is a vandalism only account. —Finell (Talk) 23:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposition that today, without adopting a new policy, an admin is permitted to accept payment in exchange for exercising administrative authority or tools. This shows how easy it is to slide from the idea that allowing paid advocates to edit Wikipedia is alright, to accepting the idea that it may be OK to bribe the police. —Finell (Talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with Finell offering blocks for payment. I also agree that, even if there's not literally a place in policy where this is explicitly stated, it is so well-understood that de-sysopping would be pretty much guaranteed, and overwhelmingly supported by the community.
The only grey area I can see is this: what if there's a general Wikipedia-related engagement (for instance, providing a training in Mediawiki software) and, related to the subject matter involved with the engagement, the consultant (an administrator) sees a case of obvious vandalism, that happens to be against his client's interest. Would a block be acceptable under such circumstances? I would say "no," but I also wouldn't consider a violation terribly egregious.
What about if the administrative button in question wasn't the "block" feature, but the opportunity to see a deleted version of an article, in order to explain to the client why it was deleted? On that matter, I'm not so sure. Curious what any or all of you think. -Pete (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Paid needs help. It started as a summary of existing policy, however there is no existing policy, therefore all attempts to tighten the language have been strongly resisted. The above text ("[admin payment]...is discouraged as it is likely perceived as a COI") shows the flavor of recent versions of WP:Paid. A group proposing restrictions on paid editing has started WP:Paid editing/Alternative text. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the language is off: the problem with paid adminning is NOT that it's a COI, it is betrayal of trust, which is ever so much more severe. There are lots of things that would be betrayal of trust that the policy doesn't have to mention explicitly; "COI" is a euphamism for bribery in the case of admin paid to use admin powers to do a specific thing requested by the payer, such as unblock X user.
No how, no way is it acceptable for an admin to take payment or receive compensation of any sort in exchange for performing a particular administrative action (including advocacy edits, edits to protected articles, using their admin status to support an agreed upon point of view on noticeboards talk pages, private conversations, etc). It would be a huge betrayal of trust, and if caught doing so intentionally, and they are "found guilty", they should be de-sysopped permanently and also banned from WP for a duration.
The suggestion that it might be allowed or allowable is so revolting, that I almost think admins ought to now be required to give and every few years re-affirm an oath of office of sorts, and specifically promise they will never do such a thing. --Mysidia (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a betrayal of trust, but the specific betrayal is a conflict of interest, as that term is used in ethics. An admin has a duty of loyalty to Wikipedia to carry out administrative duties and use administrative authority and tools solely in the best interest of Wikipedia; when an admin is paid by someone else to achieve some other objective, the admin has a conflict of between the bests interests of Wikipedia and the interests of the client or employer who is paying the admin. In law, if you have a duty to a person or organization, you are not permitted to assume a duty to another whose interests may conflict with the person or organization to whom you owe the original duty; if you do, the conflict of interest is called a breach of trust. —Finell (Talk) 04:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you completely Mysidia, and you have said this more eloquently than I could have. We might as well say that there is no policy against murder - this is true, no one has ever written it down, because it is obvious and plain. This is why I object and will veto (yes, veto) any purported policy that says something as wishy-washy as this. We need very strong statements that certain things are a total and complete violation of trust and what it means to be a Wikipedian, and the current wording fails that entirely. Much of what has been written on this page is of value - there are complex questions about what it means to edit, when you have a job and a potential conflict of interest... but the core principles are actually very simple and obvious to most people. Johnuniq, I haven't read the alternative text yet, but I fully support people working to codify what has always been obvious, rather than allow for a subtle shift in policy based on specious "there is no policy against it" logic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Murder is considered a crime so I think we're safe on that one. So ... what would be an accurate and NPOV statement. That page has being developed as a summary not a proposed guideline. You have said yourself that paid editing is a misnomer and I agree. Work on banning paid advocacy, strengthen existing policies, drive well-meaning paid editors underground so only the actual problem editors are dealt with - these are the basic building blocks I've read that seem to hold promise. Please avoid characterizing my work as specious logic, I may be thinking down the road a bit but frankly people look for loopholes to justify what they wish to do. If we have no policies against what they are doing then blocks are quibbled about and lengthy debates rage on because ... we have no guidelines and policies to suss out the issues. I'm fine if we state all paid editing is wrong and those who do so will be blocked as long as we actually have that covered somewhere so when people who ask to be unblocked contest we can point them to the relevant policy page. Moving forward ...


I've read through the the two major cases and previous threads on this and various other writings. I'm not looking for new policy, I'm looking to accurately reflect the current status. If this version seems wanting or inaccurate what should be changed? -- Banjeboi 04:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do contribute to Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text if you don't like "Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining." Actually everybody is invited, but we're asking that editors follow a WP:1RR policy. Smallbones (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree, again, with the statement, "Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining ..." On the Wikipedia:Administrators policy page, the first example under the heading "Misuse of administrative tools" is "conflict of interest", which paid admining plainly is. (The notion that there is no existing prohibition against paid editing, at least in the sense of paid advocacy editing, is belied by the long history of sanctions against editors who violate the COI guidelines.) Also, what other policy page has statements like, "Although there is no policy prohibiting blah blah"? The policy page normally is the policy prohibiting blah blah.
Wikipedia:Paid editing is being written and edited mostly by a very small number of editors, and is of poor quality. For starters, the two hat-notes at the top of the page contradict one another. The first begins, "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process." (Typographic emphasis omitted.) The second hat-note contradicts the first in this run-on sentence: "Note: This page is not a policy or guideline, it is an attempt to summarize existing policies and guidelines that relate to the general topic of paid editing." (Typographic emphasis omitted.) Since the premise is that there is no existing policy about "paid editing," and this proposed policy(?) page doesn't purport to create a policy, where is this project going? Further, the page is influenced by the viewpoint that it is permissible to win a content dispute by disrupting the opposing editors' Internet connection (or by an admin blocking the opponents' IPs addresses?) because that does not violate 3RR or any other specific prohibition. The page also treats community approved incentives on Wikipedia itself as part of the subject of "paid editing," along with being paid by an outside party to influence Wikipedia's content. This proposed "policy" page is a mess, and the whole thing is destined for the scrapheap, in my opinion. —Finell (Talk) 17:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo: I urge you to ask a few board members, arb comm members, or stewards, who actually know something about Wikipedia's policies, to look in on this page, before something embarrassing is adopted as policy by "consensus". —Finell (Talk) 17:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the conflicting hatnotes I've removed the "proposed" one as consensus has been that we are summarizing existing rules not proposing anything. The reason the page is a source of disagreement is that our current rules aren't as clear. Even in the recent dysop case and RfC there was disagreement if paid editing is blockable in and of itself. We are a long way to proposing anything and I rather doubt the page would be among the first proposed changes to existing rules. -- Banjeboi 18:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward ...


I'm looking to accurately reflect the current status. If this version seems wanting or inaccurate what should be changed? -- Banjeboi 18:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can tell you with some amount of assurance that any administrator found using his tools for remuneration would be immediately and summarily desysopped by ArbCom as a gross breach of trust. For that matter, we have removed so-called "advanced" tools summarily from editors because they have done paid editing. — Coren (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's very helpful actually, we can cite Arbcom then. Can you point me to some (all?) of the cases so we can state this is what has happened in the past? I've only seen one case and paid editing didn't seem to be the core issue for the actions, just a subtext. -- Banjeboi 23:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo or anyone else, I've seen the Nichalp(spelling?) bits, are there any other paid editing or paid admining cases that were addressed by Arbcom? I think this would help lay groundwork for expressing general disdain or whatever. -- Banjeboi 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At a boy, Jimbo

The 'overseer' idea is a welcomed amendment. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change in anonymity policy

I would just like to say that I believe we are making a critical mistake by further limiting anonymity in any form or fashion.

At the personal level, this type of policy will undoubtedly discourage some editors from contributing. On a systemic level, it will potentially pave the way for eventual community acceptance of additional restrictions. To outsiders, it will further legitimize the negative "elitist" stereotypes that are already costing us quality contributors. Philosophically, it will undermine the ideals that many contributors believe so strongly in.

As an active and upstanding [registered] Wikipedian for more than half of a decade, and as someone who has never contacted you about any other matter, I sincerely request that you reconsider your position on the matter -- and I call on you to postpone further action so that a broader range of (now informed) contributors may offer insight and work towards establishing consensus. 69.117.250.169 (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

67.., do you understand the compelling reason that motivates the experiment of flagged revisions (and that it's an experiment, rather than a final decision)? I don't think anyone denies that your concerns are valid, but there are also clear benefits to the system. If you were to enumerate them, and describe alternative solutions to those underlying problems, it would add a lot of credibility to your argument. -Pete (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The latter half of my request explicitly entails soliciting a broad range of the community for insight and alternative solutions.
Personally, I have only had a few moments to ponder an alternative to flagged revisions, but I will offer the following conundrum: Suppose we introduce a 60-second delay before anonymous edits go live. Would this not be an indiscriminate method of accomplishing the same goal as flagged revisions? 69.117.250.169 (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it would. But more to the point, there should be ample opportunity to propose alternatives and variations like that during the trial period. Again, there's been no final decision made -- Wikipedia is merely testing out a technology (and one that has met with measurable success on the German Wikipedia). So if you want to develop alternatives that mitigate the consequences you outline above, there should be ample opportunity. -Pete (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may officially be an experiment, but once it's done it's done. As with all politics, it is much more difficult to change the status quo than it is to change a proposal. Based on my experiences as a seasoned editor, I honestly do not foresee a large number of admins and hardcore contributors speaking out against a policy that makes things significantly easier for them. 69.117.250.169 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Since it's rather prescriptive, and lacking detail, I can't see how it's indiscriminate. However, if you are suggesting that "pending edits" should be somehow subject to review before being approved for "live transmission", that's little different from what happens already and flagged revisions, in that it still requires some intervention. The only benefit would be to delay approval for 60-seconds + reaction time for an interested editor to confirm or deny the edit; whereas those of us who watchlist contentious articles tend to be able to react as frequently as we refresh those watchlists. Unfortunately, articles that aren't watched won't be updated as frequently using flagged revisions unless they are brought to somebody's attention, and that is only likely to happen if they are listed somewhere. These technicalities have not yet been made clear to us, unless I've missed something. And, to be clear, I see little connection between flagged revisions and anonymous editing. Rodhullandemu 00:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not mind debating things with anyone here, I do not want it to shift the focus from my original request. I came here to make a request. But in answer to answer your question, there's a vast difference between delayed revisions and flagged revisions. Under a delayed model, edits like "George Washington was a flaming homosexual" or "Miley Cyrus (1992 - 2009)" would never make it to the end-user. Patrolling users and bots would have sufficient time to weed out bad-faith edits. With a flagged revision model, Editor A has editorial power over Editor B. Editor A will have an inherent level of human fallibility and bias, which may mean that some of Editor B's legitimate content will be censored. If I understand correctly, the rationale behind these policy changes is to prevent the scenario described alongside the delayed model. Anything beyond that is simply an invitation for unintended censorship.
EDIT: Ironically, my edits to this very page were just erroneously reverted by an editor in good faith. Afterwords, my second reply was filtered out by the automated edit filter. If, as an anonymous (but seasoned) editor, I can be censored not once, but twice, then what are we to believe will become of flagged revisions? 69.117.250.169 (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Flagged Revisions has anything whatsoever to do with anonymity. It will allow ip numbers the opportunity to edit things that they have long been forbidden to edit. But editing as an IP number is less anonymous than getting an account.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. On one hand, an IP is easier to trace to a location. This is true. However, I don't believe many IP editors remain IP editors out of concern for being located -- editing from Universities around the world makes me frighteningly traceable -- and those who do already just run though Tor or a private proxy (or series of proxies). As I mentioned above (I am the IP who unleashed the previous tirade against registration), the question is more complex than just "anonymity". I'm sure we all have our separate reasons, but some of us are proudly anti-elitist and would like nothing more than to see the sum of human knowledge appear out of no-one but everyone. Some us don't see any benefit to registration aside from becoming an entity to which this knowledge can be attributed. Nevertheless, two things really bother me about flagged revisions. First, it systematically enforces discrimination against IPs and new accounts. We already have enough paranoid editors looking shifty-eyed at every IP. I don't see de jure discrimination easing the situation. Second, flagged revisions add another layer of extra work to the few editors who still contribute. Protectionists already revert everything anyway, but contributors will also now be forced to revert or pass edits. Not a terribly efficient process, anyway. 128.61.29.242 (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Jimbo, you are right -- edits made from IP addresses can be more easily traced by the general public. However, there are some scenarios (e.g. implementing verifiable information directly opposed to a dictatorship government, or making controversial edits that could endanger the life of an established editor using a personally identifiable username) in which editing from an IP address could potentially help facilitate anonymity and/or plausible deniability. With that said, physical anonymity was only one aspect of my commentary.
The central and most important concern is whether or not everyone in the world can freely and indiscriminately contribute quality material without subjective interference. If we partition our contributors into "trusted" and "untrusted" factions based on their credentials, we introduce some level of inherent bias, and we risk further isolating ourselves from the common man.
I'm not going to sit here and condemn you for your viewpoint. I'm sure that you have spent hundreds of hours pondering how to deal with hoaxes and character assassinations. All I'm saying is that this particular method of dealing with it will eventually change the scope of our project, and for that reason, I believe that the community should be invited (via global pop-up notification--not unlike the transition from GFDL-CC-BY-SA, or the current proposals) to participate in public brainstorming. Our entire community can come up with something better than flagged revisions. 69.117.250.169 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To outsiders, it will further legitimize the negative "elitist" stereotypes that are already costing us quality contributors. Do negative "elitist" stereotypes actually cost WP quality contributors? I shouldn't be surprised if the stereotypes do just this. Let's look at that /. thread. There's an interesting comment (though one hugely overrated at "4, Insightful") near the top: The fundamental aspect of the Wikipedia concept was the fact that there wasn't a bureaucratic layer between your information and the world. Before I first edited, my own impression was that there was no protective layer between any fool's misinformation and the world. Actually this impression has lasted; and my contributions, for what they're worth, come despite the knowledge that the underinformed, stupid, drunk, childish, obsessed, and borderline insane are likely to debase these contributions. (See the editing history of the article on the indisputably and long dead Jacob Riis.) So I wonder: To outsiders, will this change do something to lessen the negative "any crap goes" stereotypes that are already costing WP quality contributors? I shouldn't be surprised if these stereotypes do just that. However, rather than merely guessing why those qualified to edit well do not edit and why those not qualified to, do we have any research on the relative importance of the reasons? (Any PhD theses on the matter?) -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I previously read an article speaking of how elitist editors were killing the Wiki. Quite a few blogs have noted that the number of active editors has fallen off, and I commonly see attribution to protectionist editing practices and elitism. Can't say for sure, though, how that holds today. 128.61.29.242 (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That Inquirer article appears to imply that (a) reduction in increase is the same as (b) decrease. That assertion comes as a great surprise to me. Either the author's head is seriously confused or my own is. The author huffs and puffs but says very little; however, he helpfully cite this, which says that "the growth rates of Wikipedia have slowed". I don't know about you, but I'm not the slightest bit alarmed to hear that the growth rates of Wikipedia have slowed. (Incidentally, remember that "elitism" is an obsession of a large part of the mass media, leading to such bizarre phenomena as the pretenses by US political candidates that they're monolingual and that they prefer junk food to tasty food.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That article just happened to be a recent one discussing the problem. Nevertheless, the linked blog post reveals that edit numbers are dropping off while reverts are holding steady (making reverts a larger portion of the whole and contributions a smaller portion -- basically, it means we edge closer and closer to the point at which all edits are reverted). The only way Wikipedia can actually shrink is to delete pre-existing content while contributing no content whatsoever. Thinking of a cumulative process like Wikipedia as an absolute doesn't make much sense. Also, you should keep in mind that The Inquirer is not American and not really "the mass media". 128.61.30.181 (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am posting this on behalf of 69.117.250.169, who was disallowed from doing so by edit filter 225. Rodhullandemu's comment is provided for reference. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Since it's rather prescriptive, and lacking detail, I can't see how it's indiscriminate. However, if you are suggesting that "pending edits" should be somehow subject to review before being approved for "live transmission", that's little different from what happens already and flagged revisions, in that it still requires some intervention. The only benefit would be to delay approval for 60-seconds + reaction time for an interested editor to confirm or deny the edit; whereas those of us who watchlist contentious articles tend to be able to react as frequently as we refresh those watchlists. Unfortunately, articles that aren't watched won't be updated as frequently using flagged revisions unless they are brought to somebody's attention, and that is only likely to happen if they are listed somewhere. These technicalities have not yet been made clear to us, unless I've missed something. And, to be clear, I see little connection between flagged revisions and anonymous editing. Rodhullandemu 00:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not mind debating things with anyone here, I do not want it to shift the focus from my original request. I came here to make a request.
But in answer to answer your question, there's a vast difference between delayed revisions and flagged revisions.
Under a delayed model, edits like "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER" or "Miley Cyrus (1992 - 2009)" would never make it to the end-user. Patrolling users and bots would have sufficient time to weed out bad-faith edits.
With a flagged revision model, Editor A has editorial power over Editor B. Editor A will have an inherent level of human fallibility and bias, which may mean that some of Editor B's legitimate content will be censored.
If I understand correctly, the rationale behind these policy changes is to prevent the scenario described alongside the delayed model. Anything beyond that is simply an invitation for unintended censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.250.169 (talk) 01:37, August 27, 2009
There's no way you can guarantee these edits won't make it to articles particularly poorly watched ones (Miley Cyrus is obviously a bad example there). (There's no way we can guarantee it under flagged revisions either, but it is less likely.) Also you appear to be under the mistaken impression that editor A will have more power then they would under your proposal. Under your proposal as happens now, there's nothing stopping these editors reverting you if they wish to 'censor' you. These edits won't be seen by most readers the same as with flagged revisions. And under all flagged revision proposals I'm aware of, editors are only allowed to reject bad edits. Editors practicing censorship, whether intentionally or not, will have their privileges revoked. In fact, under your delayed edit proposal, weeding out those who do such things is likely to happen less often since it would require revoking all their editing privileges whereas in the later case, we can just remove the editors right to be a reviewer if they make a poor one. In other words, being a reviewer will, not surprisingly, come with greater responsibility and accountability. Nil Einne (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, there's one problem with the "IP is less anonymous than an account can be" line of reasoning: it's generally accepted practice for an experienced, account-holding editor to use an IP if they wish to be anonymous (I believe that's what's happening here.) But if our friend were to make a second account, to be more anonymous, and leave comments here, that would be in violation of our sockpuppet policy. I'm not sure what the ramifications of that are...just thought I'd point it out. -Pete (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I have three options here: 1) use my personally identifiable username and risk jeopardizing my reputation both on Wikipedia and in real life, 2) create a second account and violate policy, or 3) post legitimate content from an anonymous IP address which (without a warrant) cannot be used to personally identify me.
On a side note, there is an increasing risk of having an account compromised when using a public terminal, network, or WiFi hotspot. 69.117.250.169 (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. Sockpuppet policy doesn't forbid the use of alternative accounts. Nor does it require accounts be linked (it's generally encouraged but editors are explicitly allowed to have alternative account which aren't linked). And editors are perfectly welcome to (and many do) have multiple accounts for security purposes. However you don't need multiple accounts for security if you are using a public network of WiFi (well unless you don't trust your computer's security, but in that case the network is of limited relevance). You should instead just make sure you always use the HTTPS to login. Using another computer (whether public or private) that you don't trust or in a location where you are afraid of people watching you etc are cases when you may want to consider an alternative account for security. What is forbidden under policy is when you misuse an alternative account. If you wish to express views which you don't want to to be linked to your account, creating an account for that would likely be okay within reason. If you are always using your alternative account to comment on issues, I think that will raise eyebrows (obviously creating multiple alternative accounts is far worse). Similarly if you continually disrupt wikipedia with the alternative account or always behave very poorly, then that would be against policy. Obviously replying to yourself, participating in the same discussion under multiple accounts etc is also against policy (i.e. a good rule of thumb is make sure your accounts never interact or participate in the same area). One thing I would emphasise, logging off and appearing anon makes little difference when it comes to sockpuppetry. If what you are doing is forbidden under policy then whether you use an IP or another account is irrelevant. In most ways it's actually worse since it makes tracking you when you do do such things more difficult so people are more likely to start to wonder whether you are up to no good, particularly if you use multiple ISPs (even if that isn't on purpose). And in fact, using your IP means that if you are linked, your IP will become known. And it may be easier to link your account to the IP if information about you is known, and it's obviously easier that you may actually forget to log in one day and reveal your IP then it is for you to use the wrong account (unless you are continually using the other account). A good idea whether you are anon or using another account is to at least mention you are an established wikipedian even if you don't reveal you identity. If any of this was new to you, I suggest you reread Wikipedia:Sock puppetry Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This contention of a "change to anonymity policy" is pure nonsense. What flagged revisions means to me at one level is that edits will stack up until resolved by an admin or other approved reviewer. It may be that vandalism will be reverted, but for the interests of the encyclopedia, contributions from individual editors, whether IP or registered accounts, may escape scrutiny, and that might be a concern. However, those whose purpose here is not constructive are likely to be detected by other means. Rodhullandemu 23:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the BBC and the New York Times lying about you?

The New York Times says

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html

Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People

Mr. Wales began pushing for the policy after the Kennedy and Byrd hoaxes

This sounds accurate and very reasonable.

The BBC says

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7851400.stm

Editorial row engulfs Wikipedia

The proposal comes after edits of the pages of Senators Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy gave the false impression both had died.

The call for flagged revisions came from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales

Saying a live person is dead is a real dirty and low thing to do. It's even worse if it's done to an influential person, like Ted Kennedy. I suspect that the Ted Kennedy incident was the straw that broke the camel's back that cause you to make those proposals (unless the BBC and New York Times are lying and you never did).

I wrote in the Ted Kennedy article a very short sentence (long paragraph would be too long) mentioning that after his erroneous report of his death in January 2009, Mr. Wales proposed changes in Wikipedia editorial changes.

Some people might be opposed to that because they want to no mention of anything remotely negative of Wikipedia. Other conceivably might think they "own" the article.

I'm not asking you to decide whether or not this should be included. The information is just FYI for background. What I am asking you is "Is the BBC and New York Times lying about you and that Kennedy's false report of dying had no role in your proposals for editorial changes in Wikipedia?" I will have lost much confidence in the reliability of the BBC and New York Times if they lie about you.Dellcomputermouse (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those quotes claims any causal link. They say the proposal came after the high-profile vandalism, that is perfectly true (although I think it had been being discussed from time to time before that, the recent push came after). Good journalists often word things very carefully to avoid making claims they can't back up while still making an interesting sounding story - that is what has happened here. Nobody has lied. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have long supported that this feature be developed and turned on. It has taken a lot longer than I would have liked. And yes, after that annoying day, I did begin a new push to hurry up and get this implemented, and that pushed was at least a partial cause I believe for the subsequent end of discussions with a proposal that gained 80% support. (Before this, I think we had gotten into a "wait and see" and "discuss forever" mode.) I haven't read the two articles you linked, so I can't vouch 100% for their accuracy, but there is no question that those events did play a role in the history of this feature. (But it is worth noting that I should not be given credit for thinking up the feature, nor should there be any simplistic reading that those events were the "cause" of the feature... which had been in development and testing for years). Is that helpful? Is that what you were asking?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mr. Wales, for your answer. You are a reasonable and thought provoking man. I see your answer as what a normal person would have expected (that there was a problem, but the huge magnitude of saying Kennedy was dead, probably was the last straw or shove that got you started again, as it would to many leaders). This is what the BBC articles and NY Times articles seem to be saying.
One problem with Wikipedia is that there are no useful behavioral standards for administrators. There is one who is quite abrasive (name not mentioned because I'm not asking you to wiki-arrest him). Legalistic administrators can always fabricate a defense by saying the bad administrator did some good (just like Hitler liked children). Instead, there should be an emphasis toward good editorial skills and good people skills in administrators. Without a push from you, this is impossible (or about as likely as Parliament disbanding or Congress resigning as a group). You should give it some thought to how to improve the lot of administrators, some of which are quite amateurish and, in some cases, not helpful. This is why I said I would exit Wikipedia yesterday and plan to do so in a few minutes. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also Loaded question. There are a lot of reasonable explanations that don't involve bad faith by any party. Jehochman Talk 00:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:TimothyRias

User:TimothyRias is going around Wiki, deleting everything I contribute and calling me noname. May be he does not command his English enough and does not know that the word noname in English means an insult. Could be.

I am Yuri Kornyushin, 69 years old and professional theorist in Physics. I am a Doctor of Science, Physics & Mathematics since 1984. I was invited 3 times in my life abroad (I mean that it was not my decision) to give invited key lectures on International Conferences. I have published 3 books in Physics. I have never been to MIT, but somebody picked up 5 of my theories to post them on The net advance of Physics tutorial site of MIT. NASA ADS in Harvard University keeps 51 of my papers starting from 1972. Two of my papers could be found in some tutorial archives at the Princeton University. Several of my papers, starting from 1967, could be found on the internet sites of the US Government, Ministry of Defence, Energy, and Medical Physics sites.

Nobody should be called noname, especially on the pages of Wikipedia. It is not polite at the very least. Concerning myself, User:TimothyRias could at least go to Google and check for Kornyushin before calling me noname. I came to contribute to Wikipedia, to contribute to the knowledge in Physics. Concepts of names and nonames do not belong to Physics. On the pages of Wikipedia what should be discussed is the subject of the contribution, not names and nonames. These concepts do not belong to the knowledge at all.

My main contribution to Wikipedia up to now was my talk Self-action in a system of elementary particles. It was deleted as I have mentioned. Now I posted it on the Wikiversity, and it is not yet deleted. May be User:TimothyRias is not yet aware of it. This talk is devoted to the explanation to the readers of one of very important and widely used concepts in quantum mechanics, a concept of non-applicability of self-action in quantum mechanics. It is a purely quantum mechanical concept and it is not at all easy for understanding for those who know Classical Physics only. Strange enough that it was going without saying. I mean that I have never seen discussion of it in any texbook or other source for students. May be it is trivial for User:TimothyRias (he did not write that it is incorrect, so I hope he understands it). Anyway Wikipedia exists not only for him and the like. --81.13.187.150 (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Yuri Kornyushin, 29 August 2009, 11:06[reply]

Let's try to see exactly what has happened. First, exactly where has anyone called you "noname" (or anything else)? Secondly, although you say "My main contribution to Wikipedia up to now was my talk Self-action in a system of elementary particles", there neither is nor ever has been an article titled "Self-action in a system of elementary particles"; exactly what are you talking about here? -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC) strikethrough 10:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was an article at that title, it was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-action in a system of elementary particles and was written by Yuri Kornyushin (talk · contribs). Hut 8.5 09:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5 is right; sorry, I've no idea how I missed that. Well, it was deleted via the regular process, in the course of which nobody called you a "noname" or anything else. There's no namecalling at User talk:Yuri Kornyushin and no suggestion of earlier namecalling in the very short history of that talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC) strikethrough 11:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually TimothyRias did call Yuri Kornyushin a "no name" at the AfD. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I'm even shorter of sleep than I'd realized. -- Hoary (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that we are going off a tangent here. AfD discussions are not the most civil of places, and the clear conflict of interest does not help things; I understand that you feel offended, but we have stuff far worse than that in AfDs. I assume that he's just using it as a shorthand for nonfamous or whatever, if that makes you feel better.
But, um, why are you here? If you want to complain about his conduct, it's probably better to discuss this with him on his talk page first, explaining what statement you are talking about (you need to link to the discussion if you want a response; most of us can't remember a month-old statement without some prompting). If you want your article restored, deletion review is that way. Tim Song (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMF Board

Dear Jimbo, this announcement has raised quite a few eyebrows on German wikipedia, see discussion. Some people argue that a board seat seems to have a price tag of 2 million dollars. Given your rather tough stance on paid editing, are you comfortable with this development? Your statement would be highly appreciated. Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Board seats are not for sale. "So there's no tie between the grant and Omidyar Network taking a board seat. That's absolutely not part of the conversation. It something that Omidyar Network likes to do with our organizations, because we think we tend to be able to help and we have experience, but there's no tie with the grant that we've made to Wikimedia Foundation." [1]

Since the discussion is in German, which I can barely read and can't really write effectively at all, I think it'd be best if you asked Arne (in transit back to Germany now) or Erik (probably in transit too, though I'm not sure of his exact schedule) to join that discussion. Ting and Michael Snow, while not native speakers, are also much better able than I am to write in German.

I'm 100% comfortable with the appointment of Matt to the board. He brings serious expertise, he shares our values and mission. He also was instrumental in getting us a $2 million grant, a not-insubstantial achievement.

I really like the Omidyar nonprofit grant making model. They understand, because of their roots in the venture capital world, that to be successful requires more than just money: it requires expertise, access to a network of people, the ability to make connections, etc. Just as traditional venture capital firms provide a lot more than just money to startups - and have been incredibly successful at generating new businesses, Omidyar provides a lot more than just money to their nonprofit grantees - and I have every reason to think that this will be successful.

I think that people who are concerned that this is "buying a seat" can take some comfort in the fact that not one board member supports the notion that it would be ok to "sell" a seat on the board. But additionally, I think it's important to remember that it would be absolutely impossible for anyone to get their money's worth, if they have some nefarious purpose in mind. A board seat simply wouldn't be worth $2 million - how the heck could you ever make anything back out of it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your statement. I have posted a link to it on German wikipedia. Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May it had prohibited some discussions, if the board had a bit more offensive told, why he's a good man for the board. In the press release it's really a bit in a strange connection. And this together with the actual critics at de:WP depending the sponsoring/advertising on the "Wikimedia Deutschland" Website, the mood at de:WP actually is very down. Germans sometimes are... - strange. Or very critical. Or both. But at the end it would be a little much to make all in the way we're Germans are contented. I belive, we're never all can be getting contented. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and a question

Hi Jimbo. Congratulations on the 3 million mark. That's a really amazing feat.

On a less positive note, I'm wondering if you're aware of the ongoing campaign of harassment, stalking and intimidation that goes on here against editors who hold minority perspectives. I've been hounded and stalked for months now for suggesting that we abide by the neutral point of view policy. My harassers have used the administrative noticeboards for a series of frivolous reports against me that is time consuming and harassing to keep track of, they've posted incessantly about me on various talk and discussion pages, they've made repeated attempts to have me blocked and banned. They also stalk me around article space and disrupt my contributions. Now they've gotten Arbcom to impose a restriction that I'm not allowed to discuss or object to this censorship and POV pushing anywhere on Wikipedia. I find this Orwellian and totally unacceptable. It reminds of the Nazis and book burning, and I'm deeply troubled by it.

Is there a way to rein in those who push to block, ban and intimidate anyone who attempts to balance our article coverage on political subjects? I think it's very important that good faith editors are treated with respect no matter what their opinions are, but that hasn't been my experience. Thanks for your thoughts on this serious issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=310827092"