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
ColonelHenry (talk | contribs)
18,072 edits
→Possible COI editor at RfA: Added wikilink; no content change.
Line 746: Line 746:


==Possible COI editor at RfA==
==Possible COI editor at RfA==
Jimbo...seeing that you had a tough discussion on COIs with a user named CorporateM, and that CorporateM and a user named Keithbob seem to overlap on a few articles, and that Keithbob has some suspicious COI and copyvio editing patterns...you might be interested that Keithbob is being discussed at RfA.--[[User:ColonelHenry|ColonelHenry]] ([[User talk:ColonelHenry|talk]]) 07:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo...seeing that you had a tough discussion on COIs with a user named CorporateM, and that CorporateM and a user named Keithbob seem to overlap on a few articles, and that Keithbob has some suspicious COI and copyvio editing patterns...you might be interested that [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Keithbob|Keithbob is being discussed at RfA]].--[[User:ColonelHenry|ColonelHenry]] ([[User talk:ColonelHenry|talk]]) 07:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:30, 21 January 2014


    (Manual archive list)

    The Day We Fight Back

    Note to those just arriving at, or re-arriving at, this discussion: there seems to be emerging support and excitement for a proposal by Jehochman, below. Please engage with that now, rather than a blackout, as there also appears to be emerging consensus that a blackout is not right at this time for this issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: occurs in middle of 2014 Winter Olympics, 6-23 Feb 2014. -Wikid77 04:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Just putting this out here for preliminary discussions: The Day We Fight Back.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If WP:RS articles surface we should certainly write a WP:NPOV article on it.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So is the plan to shut down Wikipedia again for a day?--MONGO 17:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that is what Jimbo means, regardless of anybody's opinion on government surveillance and related issues, they do not threaten Wikipedia directly enough, imo, for any action to be taken. Snowolf How can I help? 19:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No kidding. But aside from shutting down the website for a day, what other means of protest are both available and obvious enough to make our opinion obvious.--MONGO 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And how long do we "fight back" against the amount of data Google and others collect? Intothatdarkness 17:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm...without that Google data collection...Wikipedia articles would not appear in a google search. Some collection is part of how your search engine provides data to you.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm..and their scanning of e-mail for targeted advertising purposes and other activities relate to Wikipedia articles how, exactly? It's not just searching...Google collects and uses far more than that. Intothatdarkness 19:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have essays or related articles ready in time: We can use the words "avoid" or "counter" while the word "fight" is problematic because of connection to wp:ANI WP:BATTLEground mentality, but there might also be conflicts with some users who like mass surveillance. I suggest a new essay "wp:Avoiding mass surveillance" but be prepared that everything new will be dragged to AfD or wp:MfD and allow extra time for people fighting against any progress to improve coverage. Meanwhile, it is good for people to remember those who have been arrested over false perceptions, and those celebrity sex tapes, with people a few months underage, have led to charges of child pornography where perhaps 19 is considered legal age. It is good to remind people to clear the browser's temporary files, to erase controversial work files, and beware of mobile phone zoom-lens cameras at an Internet cafe, or even in public restrooms. There are cameras and snooping everywhere. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet another case where Wikipedia should avoid politicizing itself. I recall posting several times on this user talk page asking if Wikipedia were co-operating with "collection agencies" (pun intended) and was assured Wikipedia was not so doing. That is far different from the "action" being called for in a political manner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. SOPA connected to Wikipedia, but I don't think this connects enough for action. Seattle (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Another useless protest? Can we avoid politics and attention-grabbing gimmicks and just focus on building and improving the encyclopaedia? Thank you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. There are enough internal issues here that should be addressed as it is. Intothatdarkness 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three comments, based upon our SOPA experience:
    First, because of our community consensus policy, Wikipedia cannot respond as fast as reddit.com or icanhas.cheezburger.com can. If we are going to participate, we need to hammer out the details now, not later.
    Second, before Wikipedia got on board the SOPA protest, news sources kept speculating on us: "but will Wikipedia join the protest?" Wikipedia joining or not joining is a very big deal.
    Third, we need to be really careful not to overuse the idea. Wikipedia protesting one thing in four years has a lot of impact. Wikipedia protesting four things in one year has far less impact. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond any other protest activities, the focus could be on "consciousness raising" as providing information which people might expect, about mass surveillance. Even with the Golden Globe Awards on Sunday, Wikipedia was mentioned in discussing the "red carpet" as an obvious website to check for background information. -Wikid77 01:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that too. The mass surveillance articles can always use help. petrarchan47tc 02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The relative importance of this thing needs to be considered, though. It's true that if Snowden's revelations came along ten years from now, the potentially watered-down effect of Wikipedia's response would be a nonissue. But revelations such as these have no precedent in history, so the third point may have less validity than the first two. petrarchan47tc 21:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Snowden merely provided further confirmation of what many already knew.--MONGO 21:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He provided hard-core, undisputed evidence straight from the source which has enjoyed 8 months of nonstop, excellent media coverage and sparked indignation and action across the globe. Previous NSA whistleblowers and Congresspersons like Wyden were all but ignored, and have expressed deep gratitude that Snowden blew the lid off this story so that it can finally be addressed in open courts and by the general public. Remember, "We don't spy, not wittingly" was the NSA's accepted line prior to Snowden. petrarchan47tc 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. And the UK's GCHQ is just as guilty. Eric Corbett 21:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Et al. petrarchan47tc 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear..some countries with similar forms of government, outlooks and language have been working cooperatively behind the scenes...big shock! Thank goodness Snowden blew the lid off all these things or else we would have all been in total darkness as to the nefarious activities of big brother.--MONGO 02:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "The fact that this has made it to the floor of the House of Representatives is unquestionably good. It is another step…in the march to a real debate,” Wyden said, and added that Snowden’s disclosures made it possible. “We wouldn’t have had that seven, eight weeks ago.” This fact was acknowledged—albeit begrudgingly—by other House members... during a... hearing with officials from the Department of Justice and the NSA. “Snowden, I don’t like him at all, but we would’ve never known what happened if he hadn’t told us,” said Representative Ted Poe." * petrarchan47tc 02:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • “So, today I’m going to deliver another warning: If we do not seize this unique moment in our constitutional history to reform our surveillance laws and practices, we will all live to regret it,” Wyden continued. “The combination of increasingly advanced technology with a breakdown in the checks and balances that limit government action could lead us to a surveillance state that cannot be reversed.” petrarchan47tc 03:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A little while ago it was proposed that we join with various multi-national corporations in taking a stand for Internet freedom, and I commented that we would be better aligning ourselves with other Internet non-profits. I still think that, but the aesthetics of the facebook banners they are proposing leave me a little cold. The Franklin quote: try telling that to Winston Churchill. And I'm particularly nonplussed by the image of of some guy (is it Rosanne's husband? have they run it by him?) who's so annoyed with the NSA he's about to kill his work colleagues. I know its just what some random people thought would grab people's attention, but it strikes a tone that's a bit too right-of-centre for my liking. Maybe Wikipedia should be part of this once they've had a re-think about what it is they want to convey. Formerip (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a campaign about putting a banner on your site, not about shutting it down. Formerip (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question we should be asking is what can we do to support people's right to read freely, without fear that their reading habits on Wikipedia will be used to harass them somehow. This would be a good time to remind people that "Freedom from fear" means freedom from being oppressed and targeted for harassment based on your Internet use. For those who think this is "no big deal," I'd suggest you take a look at "Top Secret America," a reputable, open-source book and website that came out way before Snowden, and get a handle on what we're talking about here. When serious thinkers in intelligence ethics are formulating arguments along the lines of, "Well that guy was a national level legislator, he should have known better that he's fair game for anything anyone can possibly dig up by hacking his digital trail and exposing it to the public ..."-- with social norms like that, what chance do the rest of us have to defend ourselves against smears, harassment or worse? Who's going to want to run for public office under those circumstances?
    • We already know one thing we can do to support people's right to read freely without fear that their reading Wikipedia will be used to harass them. We can set up a TOR exit node in Wikipedia's server room, set up so that it can only access Wikipedia and Wikimedia, and with the ability to edit Wikipedia blocked. That way, anyone can read Wikipedia in an untraceable way. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Except Wikipedia bans TOR because admins can't easily catch sockpuppets if they use TOR. You see, Wikipedia and the NSA do have something in common (the NSA usually has to DOS tor users; direct spying on TOR directly being more difficult). Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy Macon's proposal specifically addresses this (read only). Guy, is that idea written up anywhere in more technical detail? – SJ + 19:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can write up detailed instructions or even provide an image of a virtual machine that is already set up, but I doubt that the WMF developers need either. I have found them to be extremely competent in the past.
    To expand on what I wrote above, the TOR node I am describing would:
    • Talk to a strictly limited set of domains (Wikipedia, Wikimedia, etc). It would not have access (read or write) to any other domain.
    • Be blocked from editing Wikipedia or any associated project (Wiktionary, Wikinews) that we may decide to give access to.
    • It should have bandwidth throttling. Just being a TOR relay node that is unlikely to be controlled by the NSA has value; every new node increases the security of the network. That being said, we don't want to give the TOR traffic unlimited resources.
    • Just to be extra careful, we should block read access to any kind of executable file (.exe, Javascript etc.) to make it harder for a Wikipedia editor to compromise a TOR user's privacy See Tor (anonymity network)#Firefox / JavaScript anonymity attack on Freedom Hosting users.
    --Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What percentage of readers will visit the Wikipedia home page when they're here, do we know this? petrarchan47tc 04:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we do know the percentage as a steady rate, from pageviews of Main_page during the prior 2010 Winter Olympics (Feb. 2010 Main_page stats), as 5.1 million/day unchanged during the event (2014 average: 9.0 million/day). However, the Olympics will take space on the Main_page, as covered each day. Also, "viewing" does not mean reading the page, and so a Main_page banner might be needed to get attention on 11 Feb. -Wikid77 06:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If we decide to say something, we'll almost certainly want to add a link to our statement near the top of every article for the day. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all...this is NOT a Wikipedia protest. Just because Jimbo brought this to our attention here does not mean he is sponsoring this or involved in any way. Guys...this has been out there for a while and Jimbo is not the first to share this. If you don't want to take a stand as a group because that is what our guidelines and policies state then don't...but those guidelines and policies ARE NOT TO CONTROL US AS A GROUP and/or whatever we want to support or protest as that group. Those policies and guidelines are meant to help us write articles not control us as a community.

    I support this Jimmy!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, as noted above, we can expand (or highlight) the related background articles, beyond "mass surveillance" without actually protesting any specific issue. -Wikid77 06:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Very strong support. Let's not go black over this, but a banner and a tailored main page are fitting. It just wouldn't look right for all our closest allies to participate only to have Wikipedia remain silent on an issue of such gravity. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We could use the same mechanism we use to put Jimbo's smiling face on our fundraising banners. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Support for HectorMoffet's every word. petrarchan47tc 07:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Support for banner and main page educational words and pictures. Let the free encyclopedia spread the news. Jusdafax 07:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were done naïvely, it would be tantamount to lifting all blocks and bans, a radical affirmation of the principle that anyone can edit. If edits from the Tor network could be clearly identified in the history, or if they all went through a review similar to pending changes, then edits by Tor users could get extra scrutiny. —rybec 05:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I could only see supporting this if it was expanded to deal with the sort of surveillance conducted by Google and other tech companies on a daily basis. Otherwise it's just more politically-motivated electronic masturbation. Is Google's surveillance "good" because they do it in the name of advertising profits? If we're going to NPOV it we should include all these activities. Intothatdarkness 14:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason why non-governmental global surveillance isn't worth mentioning too. Although, to put it into perspective Google doesn't have prosecutors, prisons, an army, an air force, or armed drones. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Jehochman proposal. Gandydancer (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - And as we are an encyclopedia with much in the way of information, I think should last a full week, not just a single day. Out goal, as noted above is to inform by sharing what others say. I think that this is something we can do well here. - jc37 20:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caution - Ideally, this could be the beginning of a series of one-day featured topics on timely concepts from politics, as well as other fields like extrasolar planetary systems. But filling the entire Main Page, even for a day, means creating and polishing a lot of material. We have to make sure that we don't declare to the world we're going to do something big, then show them a sloppy job. We also have to make sure that the NPOV is not compromised, as this is not something that we can easily argue is strictly necessary for our continued operations. Wnt (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. A most excellent idea put forth by Jehochmah, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Jecochmah's idea of using our own articles in a protest stunt as total madness. A potential banner or similar on the issue must in no way be linked to Wikipedia's ordinary content unless is a very neutral manner to explain background. Using our own articles to argue a cause would totally damage our principle of neutrality. Iselilja (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, we would never change articles away from NPOV. What's proposed is to display a custom, one-day-only message at Main, and to have a banner of some type above articles. I suspect your objection still stands, but just wanted to clarify that our articletext is sacrosanct.HectorMoffet (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Not because it so much matters, if you could get it together in a few hours, but that seems doubtful, making it a considerable distraction for far too many resources (our editors' time) from article creation/curation, which given the size and difficulty of that vital task cannot actually afford such distraction. These libertarian/authoritarian issues are undoubtedly as ancient as the first time two people decided to live together but this project is not going to do much for it, except to create informational content that people demand/desire -- by hook, by crook, through persecution, and prosecution -- to read and pass along. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This would completely contravene the no advertising, it doesn't matter if the articles were neutral, so were Gibralterpedia articles in DYK, and I know enough about that to know it caused uproar. We should not resort to backing any cause, (almost) no matter what. Matty.007 17:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: It's a well-thought-out proposal, will be fine as long as we stick to NPOV -A1candidate (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose in the strongest possible terms. This is a political statement and we must not take political positions. It is antithetical to our mission. Everyking (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that's it. It is not a vehicle to promote ANY political agenda, at all, no matter how nice or nasty it is. If the WMF wants to jump on the bandwagon for this campaign and they feel it is line with their goal to promote free knowledge, then fine, they can issue statements and do interviews etc., but they're encyclopedic projects must remain neutral. I opposed the SOPA action, and I will oppose this for the same reason: we must not stray from our original purpose to provide a compendium of neutral free knowledge into some kind of internet activist group. It's an insult to our donors, we promised them that we would not be like all the rest of the internet wikis with clear POV's (e.g. Conservapedia), and would be genuinely neutral on political matters. Please stop. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 18:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongest possible oppose this is a bloody awful idea that ignores two of our five pillars. Just to remind you the first states at "Wikipedia in and encyclopaedia ...[it] is not a soapbox". Pet projects on political issues fly in the face of that. NPOV is the second pillar being utterly ignored here. This issue also needs to be discussed in a centralised forum (WP:CENT springs to mind), rather than the talk page of an admin, which isn't somewhere most editors will have bookmarked. If you're going to try and play political games, you need to get a wider buy-in than this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose While I can see merit in a protest regarding SOPA, I don't see merit in this. Seattle (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The Main Page Project

    • On the assumption that the proposal has already been supported, I've gone ahead and created Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back in a similar vein to the April Fool's Day Main Page campaign, due to the already-overwhelming likes for Jehochman's (IMO brilliant) compromise above. Please don't hesitate to add to the basic framework I created (and partly ctrl c, ctrl v'ed off the AFD pages) :D.--Coin945 (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure you realise just how massive and fractured the Wikipedia community actually is. If anyone who has every touched the edit button is required to have a say so all thousands of us can have an organised discourse on the topic, then I really don't think we'd ever get anywhere. This is a genuinely good idea and I see no reason why we can't just go with the flow rather than resort to overly-bureaucratic systems. In any case, I didn't actually declare the nomination supported. Instead I explained that I created a page (created prematurely because I think the proposal will go through anyway), so when it eventually does we'll already have a basic framework to work off of. But Ben Moore is right. We don't have much time at all to be flapping about.--Coin945 (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need for hyperbole, no one is suggesting "anyone who has every touched the edit button" need be consulted. Just e.g. a week-long straw poll or mini-RFC with a limited number of properly-developed options, per precedent. benmoore 16:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's a good idea to put together a concrete example of what the page might look like. People will have a much easier time evaluating the proposal if they can look at something. We can prepare the page while concurrently having a centralized discussion to decide "go" or "no go". That way we aren't caught short of time. Lastly, I suggest Edward Snowden be considered for the featured article that day. We'll have to work hard to get it up to featured condition in time, if it's even possible. Love him or hate him, he's been a central character for this issue. Jehochman Talk 20:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries, Maile-- I think everyone recognizes that a decision of this magnitude can't be made by insiders on Jimmy's talk page. As Jehochman says, we're informally just working out what it is we're proposing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree - those of us reading this page tend to be fond of "drama" that many others can do without. Wnt (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. There's a difference between "drama" and a legitimate controversy.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is plenty of Support for this, but I also think it should hopefully only help to try to garner a wider consensus from the community, and/or seek out consensus from members of the community that frequent the above-mentioned individual project pages for the various subsections of the Main Page. — Cirt (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I left comments there and propose we copy further discussion, including the survey below, to that page. – SJ + 19:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey

    Editors who support a one-day banner on every article:

    Editors who support a one-day banner on the main page only:

    • Only as an explanation of what's going on on the main page that day (Jehochman's proposal above). And it should be neutrally worded as noted by Jimbo Wales, above. - jc37 19:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support both of the above proposals to be placed simultaneously. Fine with Jimbo wording it, as it eliminates wrangling over the wording. Jusdafax 21:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors who oppose any banner:

    Comments

    • Honestly, I think most people don't give a shit. Just look at the rather undeveloped pages for the more interesting and recent leaks about MUSCULAR or TAO, from the last fall. (The pages were even more stubby before I worked on them yesterday [1] [2].) I think the general public now thinks: "NSA/GCHQ/FVEY spies on everything I do electronically using OMGWTFANOTHERPROGRAM? I don't care as long as they don't van me." Someone not using his real name (talk)

    Ask (for community discussions), and you shall receive

    The conversation has become rather fractures, but here's the various discussions that have been going on over the past 2 or so days. Please weigh in.--Coin945 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    So I'll ask the same thing I asked before: wouldn't it be a better idea to come out against TPP? Copyright limits are a lot more germane to Wikipedia than surveillance, plus TPP has a deadline and has been publicized a lot less. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal status

    The current draft of the proposal is at Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day. Notable changes include:

    • A title all our own: we are "educating" more than we are "fighting".
    • An arbitrary mockup: while we hope to see great improvements in quality as we get more feedback, we do now have enough proposed content for the creation of mockups.

    Additionally we should emphasize plans for a watchlist notice to have a site-wide conversation before actually implementing this. We're planning to do something new on Feb 11-- if our whole community doesn't support this, we need to learn that on Feb 10 (or earlier), not on Feb 11 (or later) after we've already made the change.

    My role here is very agnostic-- I don't know "what" we should say, and if the community ultimately decides to stick with status quo, that's 100% fine. We just want to present them with lots of options and let consensus sort it out.

    Feedback on Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day is greatly welcome as we brainstorm, polish, and present this idea to the community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, HectorMoffet - fantastic work. petrarchan47tc 23:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note we're getting QUITE a lot of pushback from the TFA coordinator and other mainpage insiders who are generally opposed to the whole idea of deviating from status quo in any way. That's a debate above my paygrade, but others might want to look into soothing things with that community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. petrarchan47tc 00:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your work, Hector. I really think, though, that a centralised vote is now overdue. Wikipedia isn't good at making decisions quickly and 11 Feb is looming fast. At the moment, I think there's a strong chance of it being remembered not for any effective protest (sorry, "awareness day"), but for a whole load of squabbling and acrimony. Can some please set up an RfC? Formerip (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I think my initial brainstorm was helpful, but I don't think it actually embodied Jehochman's vision. Hopefully he and others will start to take over the process. As for what we have so far, it's not at a state where we would want to trouble the community with it until a proposal has the consensus of the proposers. If Feb 11 comes and goes without this issue ever having been raised, that's fine. I'm the guy you go to when you need brainstorming, I'm not the guy you go to when you want to finish and present a major proposal. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Naked woman in Niqāb as an illustration of adequate muslim dress

    There is an article on Russian Wikinews on «How a muslim woman should dress in public» (translation). The picture in the lead section implies that they may go naked, provided that they wear niqāb (and site admins reverted my attempt to remove the picture). May I ask for your opinion: can this be an acceptable behavior on Wikimedia sites? --Grebenkov (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It is ludicrous and wrong, and likely racist. Nothing can justify it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The general stance upon the non-muslimic world is that girls should show parts of their body (like the face) who are judged to be as immodest as a bare breast. Yet, on Wikipedia, there's given the impression that everything execpt showing the face would be fine. This is not normal!--37.230.15.218 (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Я напишу по русски, ибо уверен, что добровольцы охотно вам переведут. Пожалуй, я бы дал такую же оценку (смотри предыдущее сообщение) вашим обвинениям в расизме участника, о котором вы ничего толком не знаете. Я бы дал его потому, что мне этот участник известен давно. Ну а автору топика обратится к вам посоветовал я, но он откровенно слукавил, на форуме Википедии поднимался вопрос о допустимости ссылок на Викиновости и именно с этим вопросом я его к вам и отправил. Однако он похоже струсил и сжал обсуждение до формата допустимости иллюстрации. Если вы считаете, что ссылок из Википедии на Викиновости быть не должно, то скажите это. Или скажите что-то прямо противоположное. В этом вопросе давно пора поставить точку, уже откровенно надоело, что примерно раз в полгода форумные троли начинают подобные обсуждения. скажите уже наконец своё окончательное слово и мы его зафиксируем в правилах Викиновостей и Википедии. Заранее признателен. --Schekinov Alexey Victorovich (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Google translate, which is clearly broken in many respects: I write in Russian, because I am sure that you are willing volunteers translate . Perhaps I would have given the same evaluation (see previous post ) your accusations of racism party , which you did not really know . I would give it , because I have long known this party . Well, the author topic will appeal to you advised me, but he frankly slukavil Wikipedia forum raised the issue of the admissibility of references to Wikinews to this issue I had and sent to you . However, he chickened out and squeezed like the discussion to illustrate the format of admissibility . If you think that the links from Wikipedia to Wikinews should not be, then say it . Or say something quite the opposite . In this regard, it is high time to put an end already frankly fed up about once every six months forumnye Trolls begin such discussions . has finally tell his final word and we will fix the rules Wikinews and Wikipedia . Advance grateful . - Schekinov Alexey Victorovich (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    Alexey asked me to translate his speech, so I'll make a try. "I'll write in Russian because I am sure that volunteers will help with translation. Perhaps I would have the same assessment (see previous message) to your accusation that a person you know nothing about is a racist. I would give it because I know that person for a long time. As for the user who started the thread, it is me who advise him to write you but he is somewhat cunning. The discussion at the Russian Wikipedia was about admissibility of the links to Wikinews, and this was the question I suggested him to ask you. However he, seemingly, quailed and shrink the discussion to the question of acceptability of the image. If you think that there must not be links from the Wikipedia to the Wikinews, say this. Or state something opposite. It's time to close this question, I really fed up with forum trolls starting this kind of discussions. Tell your final word and we'll fixate it in Wikinews and Wikipedia rules. Thank you in advance." Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    После того как я назвал вандалом человека, который массово убирал ссылки на Викиновости из Википедии без консенсуса Викисообщества меня заблокировал администратор русской Википедии David.s.kats. Я не желаю работать под "патронажем" таких персоналий и посему покидаю Википедию. Единственным условием моего возвращения может быть снятие флага с этого человека, который позорит админкорпус руВики. Я отдал много сил Википедии и давно уже являюсь человеком Викизависимым. Чтож, есть повод с этим покончить, есть немало более комфортных для созидания мест. Спасибо, Джимми за всё что вы сделали и делаете. Удачи вам в ваших дальнейших делах. С уважением, Алексей. --Schekinov Alexey Victorovich (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    English mutation: "After I called the vandal the man who cleaned the mass of links to [Russian] Wikinews Wikipedia without consensus [of] Wiki community, administrator has blocked me [by] Russian Wikipedia David.s.kats. I do not want to work under the "patronage" of personalities and therefore leaving Wikipedia. The only condition for my return may be the removal of the flag from the man who dishonors adminkorpus ruViki [ruwiki]. I put a lot of effort and Wikipedia has long been a man Vicky [wiki-]dependent. Well, there is reason to do away with it, there are a lot more comfortable for the building sites. Thanks, Jimmy for all that you have done and are doing. Good luck in your future business. Sincerely, Alex." --21:27, 14 January 2014 (Google Mutation from me. -Wikid77 07:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

    The image is listed at MediaWiki:Bad image list. Shouldn't that make its use on Russian wikinews impossible? Or are Russian projects insulated from it? Formerip (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It was uploaded directly onto ru.wikipedia and the uploader cited flockr.com in the copyright and that bad image list is anyway en.wikipedia specific. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is that even in scope for Commons? Wait, don't ask... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, asking that question and expecting a serious answer from commons is a pretty doomed approach. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I beg your pardon? I seriously hope you were joking and if not, then this is totally unacceptable behaviour of a board member/founder. Trijnsteltalk 18:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • You wouldn't be the first person to miss seeing a smiley, I've made that mistake myself. There was a smiley at the end of Jimbo's post to which you're replying. If that's not enough, you should presumably start an RfC/U :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could be wrong, but I don't believe that Jimbo was joking at all; the smiley was more of a "we all know what we're talking about here" rather than lol just kidding" thing. Commons is an embarrassment to the rest of the Wikimedia projects. From refusing to deal with a sexual predator on their own to fighting to retain that appalling Pricasso-in-action video, they are corrupt from top to bottom. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I read that as Mr Wales smiling while he slapped Commoners in the face again. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Those pesky commoners need a slap sometimes! :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hard to respect a leader of an organization that prefers to perpetuate the stereotype that Commoners are all deviants than address the specifics. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Indeed, but that's not what he said. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Not only is it not what I said, it is not even remotely close to what I believe. I do believe that there are certain commoners who, when presented with any comment of any kind about commons which isn't positive, will respond by making up out of thin air an allegation that was not said, in an attempt to spread the idea that only people who are not worthy of respect (because they hold such ridiculous ideas such as that "Commons are all deviants". And Tarc is right about the meaning of the smile - it means "we all know what we are talking about here" and Saffron Blaze has courteously stepped in to provide yet another example of why and how for so many Commoners, rational discussion of the problems of Commons has become a waste of time for the rest of us. If you aren't ready to listen, if you hear in every concern "Commoners are deviants" then there isn't a lot of point in trying to talk to you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I'm having a hard time trying to come up with a way to say this in the nicest and most thoughtful way, but I'm afraid you've been the role model for that sort of behavior over the years, Jimbo. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Thanks for the explanation; otherwise I too have to disagree with you. Please note that Commons is not the old Commons. The days Commons was hijacked by a closed group of people who always shout "Commons is not censored" had gone. There are so many fresh bloods there who know how to keep the community in a positive direction. Jee 16:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I won't thank you for the explanation given it looks to demonize a Commoner that is trying to be helpful. It is hurtful when every chance you get you paint Commons as being broken. You frequently make snide comments, and I could provide numerous diffs, where you tar the lot with a wide brush, as you did here. Perhaps it is not what you mean, but it isn't unreasonable that many on Commons are perceiving it that way. I am simply asking for you to address the specifics, or the person, not the whole community. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If Commons is so horrible Jimbo then why don't you do something about it? Stop acting like a lowly, regular contributor. You are not. That you got the Foundation to change their policy statement on living people when you felt personally slighted is a pretty good indicator that you are more than capable of getting things done when you are sufficiently motivated. Maybe you will take action that will not be popular or may even be abusive, but you bitching and moaning like you are powerless to do anything is far more annoying.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You claim that it's useless to begin a serious discussion with Commons users and admins, in fact, it's even "a waste of time for the rest of us" according to you. And you also claim that we apparantly don't want to listen to concerns. Well, first of all, that's not true. I know lots of admins and users who are always willing to help, to listen to complaints, and to spend their free time to make Commons better. They are all volunteers, as you know. Besides, I haven't read any serious concern in any of your comments on this topic. The few things you said are, summarized: 1) comments about the usage of an image (it's "ludicrous and wrong, and likely racist"), 2) the comment that "expecting a serious answer from commons is a pretty doomed approach" and 3) as a response on my comment: "rational discussion of the problems of Commons has become a waste of time for the rest of us". And then you tell us that we don't listen to complaints? You might be the founder and a board member, but I'm a steward. Does that make us any different of other volunteers? No. One thing maybe, that you're the face and spokesperson of Wikipedia. And I'm not. But that doesn't give you the right to complain about other projects, just because you disagree with policies, people or whatever. As I said on Commons, I just ask you for "a little understanding". A bit of respect for all the hardworking volunteers of Commons. @The Devil's Advocate: just because he's Jimmy doesn't give him the right to change the rules and policies per his wishes. He can probably arrange a bit more because of his contacts of board people, but he has no more rights than any other user. Trijnsteltalk 20:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can get a general idea of the discussion from Google translate but it's definitely imperfect. The worst case is the russian discussion on this page. (I think Google was better with the article talk page and edit summaries. maybe someone wants to provide better versions for what's on this page) Anyway, in addition to ludicrous/racist it seems to be irrelevant to the content of the article. Seems at least one person tried to move it lower on the page and was reverted and ~3 removed it entirely and were reverted. (reverts generally referred people to discuss on talk first) --Jeremyb (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The Google Translate results for Russian-to-English have produced some confused phrases, so perhaps try a 3rd intermediate language, such as Russian-to-Arabic and then Arabic-to-English, as a trick to give some better phrases. I formerly used other websites, for machine translation, but some of them have quit translating whole paragraphs or switched to Google or others with problems. -Wikid77 19:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    When I first tried to look at the study first hand their site was broken. (HTTP status 504; seems fixed now) The article only seems to link to a page a few hops away from the actual study. direct link in case anyone else wants to read: http://mevs.psc.isr.umich.edu/files/tmp/Women_Dress_Demographics.pdf --Jeremyb (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Perhaps you can explain, while you're here, why you added that image to the article? I recognize it is a strong socio-political statement by someone notable for creating provocative art, but I also recognize it as something that only should be used within the appropriate context. Plopping it into a generic article about Muslim dress seems like an attempt to demean, mock, or otherwise attack certain religious sects.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would go as far to say that adding that image to that article is a blatant act of bigotry. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tarc, that gratuitous nudity is no more offensive to the average devout Muslim than the four gratuitous images of Muhammad on our article, Muhammad. The effective difference is you can empathise with the degree of offense in one case, but not the other. (The image was removed from the Russian Wikinews article on the 14th and hasn't been restored.[3]) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apples and oranges. This image's inclusion is an act of provocation; the Muhammad images are included for the sake of information. I view it the same as I view this that was once at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. No purpose other than to piss someone off. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're both apples. You don't know the thinking behind the inclusion of that offensive image on ru.Wikinews, any more than I know the thinking behind your defense of the gratuitous inclusion of offensive images on Muhammad. In both cases the images inform the reader. In the Russian case, it informs the reader what a naked woman in a niqāb looks like and tells them something about the work of an artist. In our case, it informs the reader how some artist imagined a scene from a remote time and place might have looked, and informs the reader about the art of a certain time and place quite remote from the life of Muhammad. One of them looks like an orange to you because you can't feel the degree of offense it causes many of our readers.
    Gratuitously including artist's imaginings of Muhammad pretty much guarantees the very people who should be reading a historically accurate account of the life of Muhammad wouldn't touch that article with a barge pole, any more than a devout Muslim would bother reading that Russian article with the nude on it. All apples, really. You just don't get it.
    Just to head off the usual eruption from onlookers (Tarc already knows this): our article may need one or two images of Muhammad to illustrate the "Western reception" and "Islamic depictions" sections. I'm addressing the gratuitous splattering of such images elsewhere in the article where they add about the same amount of useful information to Muhammad as the nude image does to the ru.Wikinews article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is the point I'm obviously failing to make clear. Tarc is neither offended by images of Muhammad nor insulted when they're added to Muhammad gratuitously, because he's from a culture where it's just not offensive, so he thinks our Muslim readers should just suck it up when we gratuitously pepper Muhammad with them. Whereas he's all full of sympathy and outrage (!) when we insult them by gratuitously inserting nudity into an article about Muslim dress, because, well it's nudity, innit? Nudity is just offensive. Everyone knows that. Innit?
    But almost all culture is relative. I'm pretty sure the Yali wouldn't be offended by either example. But they might be offended if we included an image of a dead ancestor in Yali people, and insulted if we did it gratuitously, knowing they find it offensive. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about the fact that non-Christians will generally not be offended by this type of Jesus image, yet such depictions are unthinkable in the core articles on Christian topics, even in a reception context? That's systemic bias at work. As well as a kind of reverse censor ship. When the wrong kind of people want to censor something, then we will do it no matter whether it really makes sense.
    • On the wider topic: It's apples and pears, actually. Nudes are more universally offensive than depictions of religious leaders. But the motivation seems to be the same in both cases, with maybe a few more genuine anti-censorship extremists in the Muhammad images case. After all, the last sentence in my previous paragraph applies only to the Muhammad images, not to the recent Russian case. (Though maybe it does, as Russian culture seems about as relaxed about nudity as is European culture. So the image breaks a taboo, but only in the way in which an effective ad may break one.) Hans Adler 14:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, you and Anthonycole got crushed by the community consensus that the Muhammad images are not gratuitous and are not used with the intent to offend, whereas this image clearly is. Please stop hijacking this discussion to further your own limited and extremely minority POVs on censorship in this project. Both of you. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, am I supposed to let your "oh the poor offended Muslims" pose just sit there. If you don't want me drawing attention to your hypocrisy, don't, you know. I barely touched that farce and neither did Hans, as far as I recall, after the joke of an arbcom case where you, who should have been banned from the encyclopedia for your behaviour on that article's talk page,[1] were given a "tsk, tisk". As for that heaving mass of slack-jawed, no-neck bigots and oiks that rushed into that RfC concluding the images weren't gratuitous ... they would, wouldn't they. See you in round 2, Crusher. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Tim, there was bullying and lying. Next time, and there will be a next time, I'll see that anyone who lies to the community or bullies others (such as telling them to shut up as you've just done here) in that argument is, at the very least, banned from the topic. I didn't know how to deal with outright lying and bullying then. Now I do. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there really ever is a "round 2", I have not detected any appreciable shift in the Wikipedia community that would produce a different result, so i'm not really sure why you are looking forward to such a thing. Recall that what we say here is part of a permanent record, so the moment where you dismissed those with an opposing p.o.v. in "round 1" as a "heaving mass of slack-jawed, no-neck bigots and oiks that rushed into that RfC..." is now set in stone. What makes it more egregious IMO is that it wasn't a heat-of-the-moment comment; you first posted that section of text at 15:05, whereas the charming line above was posted at 15:47. Forty-seven minutes to reflectand clarify one's words, most people tend to soften and tone down, yet you deliberately ramped the rhetoric up. IMO a case could be made to request that you be barred from participating in any future Muhammad image RfC, based on the above. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis? While I'm sure almost every editor who opined in that RfC was acting in good faith, I'm also sure most of them were bigots and/or morons. If I'm not permitted to freely express that assessment (born out of a lot more than 47 minutes deliberation), then I've misunderstood something fundamental about this community.
    That's your style, though. Bully and game the people you disagree with out of the debate, anything but engage them in actual debate, because that's not your strong suit, is it? Actual debate. When you do, rarely, timidly have a go at actual debate you tend to get eaten alive by any passing teenager. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, well, I am sorry that you have chosen to take the discourse along this path, but I shall choose to disengage rather than fire back, as I am done with those sorts of antics these days. As I'e said before though, we all presented our opinions to the Wikipedia community; I judge that to be the measure of an effective debater; the one that makes the more convincing argument to the neutral observer. Yours did not. There's nothing else to say. Tarc (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If your position is that you want both Muhammad and nudity to be censored, then you are on the wrong track. For example, Scientology followers apparently believe that even the mention of Xenu is a terrible thing, let alone open discussion of their religious "tech" as we do here. Will you take a 'bigoted' position and say that no, cults can't tell us to take down our articles because they think that people talking about their procedures will get sick? Free speech is a single, stable solution to the ethical dilemma that is the same for everyone. Censorship offers an infinite number of solutions, each precisely tailored to the wants and needs of a particular person in power.
    To be clear, the use of that illustration is not strictly necessary for the article. It is arguably educational in that when you read niqab it takes closer inspection to see the boundaries of the garment; though it is also arguably deceptive if someone really does just look at the picture and get the impression the article is saying Islam accepts a woman wearing just a face veil. It may put off some people from reading, and it may draw in others by curiosity. All told, sure, probably it could best have been cut, but Wikinews articles are the ephemeral records of an author, not articles to be endlessly weighed and rebalanced. It is definitely not racist to include it - the abuse of that term to apply to dislike of some religions (Islam, Judaism) but not others (Christianity) should clearly be invalid. It does suggest an anti-Islamic sentiment, which I might hope is, but often isn't, limited to the rejection of the tenets of the religion rather than the rights of its followers. But none of us can be without bias in regard to religion, because ultimately there are some which we disbelieve and must condemn in no uncertain terms, and others that we may believe in with great intensity, or at least somewhat. That is a part of our politics - as is the display and criticism of this image. Wnt (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wnt: not censorship - editorial discretion. Censorship would be removing the nudie niqāb image and Muhammad images from all the projects. I oppose that - they have a place, including: the former in Peter Klashorst and an article on the photo itself, the latter in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Depictions of Muhammad, Muhammad#Islamic depictions of Muhammad and Muhammad#Historical Western views.
    Regarding the inclusion of the nudie niqāb image in a generic article about Muslim dress you say, "It may put off some people from reading, and it may draw in others by curiosity. All told, sure, probably it could best have been cut..." That's exactly what I'm advocating: exercising that kind of judgment when an image has little or no noteworthy (worthy of noting in the article in question) information to convey but creates such offense that, in sum, it does more harm than good to our mission. (See Principle of double effect.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the thing is, Wikinews articles have authors; they're not the handiwork of some fungible community. Some authors have better judgment than others, in the view of some audiences, but with the English-language Wikinews always teetering on the very edge of oblivion, we're in no position to lambast the Russians for using and abusing their freedom to spice up an article. Wnt (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's discuss Articles for Creation

    For reference: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Society of American Historians And another example, an entirely different case: [4]

    It is my sense that in both of these cases, if the article had been created, it would have survived an AfD quite easily. So why is AfC following what appear to be much higher standards for inclusion than AfD? The inconsistency strikes me as deeply problematic.

    Note that in addition to the inconsistency between AfC and AfD there is the deeper inconsistency of coverage of what anyone would admit are quite obscure and unimportant bits of pop culture cruft (which I don't mind, on the premise that as long as it is well-referenced and is what people want to write about, that's fine) while simultaneously rejecting an article about an academic society which is clearly notable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Likely because recent pop-culture cruft tends to be documented with many easily-accessible web-based sources (which Wikipedia tends to bias toward), while the two articles you link would rely more heavily on either older print sources or items generated by the organization itself. If it can't be quickly verified, it's easier to reject as not notable. Intothatdarkness 19:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I proposed an AfC review/AfD merge recently [5] - the people there didn't go for it, but if someone wants to reopen the idea you have my vote. Wnt (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have any studies about AfC and whether or not it delivers on its promise of being a friendlier process than classic New Page Patrol? (To me as an almost outside observer, it seems that AfC is gentler in terms of not hitting new articles with lots of cleanup templates and speedy deletion requests, but quite strict in what is deemed acceptable for mainspace, but as I said, I would welcome any data). —Kusma (t·c) 21:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Kusma: I am not aware of any (recent) studies into this subject, but i can give a limited account of my own experience in new page patrol / afc reviewing. Back when i still did new page patrol a page tagged for removal was virtually always deleted (Often quite soon after its creation) and the majority of the editors didn't make any edits after that occurred. The amount of questions regarding a tag or removal was also very low: Just a handful for every couple hundred tags i would say.
    AFC Reviewing on the other hand tends to yield a boatload of questions by comparison. During the heights of the January backlog drive last year i received several questions a day on my talk page requesting another review \ advice \ explanations for a review i did, and another couple question of the same type by mail. Since the review template also points users to the IRC help channel I am quite certain even more users ended up there to ask assistance.
    AFC is not perfect by any stretch of the word, but i do like to assume that it is preferable over new page patron in a majority of the cases - and at least in cases where editor feedback is required. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Kusma At the Wikimedia Foundation, we're on the verge of completing some in-depth research in to article creation trends across all the major Wikipedias. We'll be publishing it on Meta and doing a talk (which I expect will be webcast) about it soon. We looked at what impact AFC was having on article deletion rates for new editors and compared it more experienced editors, as well as to userspace drafts in English and other languages. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Walling, WMF have been "on the verge" of fixing this for over 5 years. When are you gonna pull your finger out of your ass and actually do something?
    A nursery for new articles written by new editors is a good idea in principle, but too often, AfC just doesn't want to cut them loose and let them grow up.
    Articles for Creation has some intractable WP:OWNership issues. Outside editors who have attempted to intervene have encountered stiff opposition. Arbcom is poised to desysop an administrator who ignored AfC processes and would not kotow about it on WP:ANI afterward. It's a real shame. HiDrNick! 21:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    From my experience, I find myself getting in a negative, non-inclusionist mindset when I review AFC articles. Taking Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Society of American Historians by itself, it's pretty good, but a majority of AFC submissions are not suitable for inclusion, and a large portion of those probably never will be. After reviewing more than a couple AFCs in a row, I start to get discouraged and I find myself wanting to just decline the article and move on. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, AfC reviewing can be mentally exhausting. I review from the back of the backlog (so possibly the easier articles have already been handled), but a typical period of reviewing for me might include ten to fifteen declines - of which at least three-quarters are articles obviously created to serve as advertisements or PR puff pieces, usually by editors obviously linkable to the article subjects - and maybe, if I'm lucky, one or two approvals. And I'm by far not the toughest reviewer out there, and I really enjoy when I am able to send an article live. AfC as I experience it is an ocean of crap punctuated by the occasional raft of good stuff; it can be very easy to slip into the mindset that everyone submitting an AfC is there to sneak in some puffery/advocacy and that it's your job to hold the line against such COI incursions. If someone's being paid for working on those articles, it's sure not me, and I've come to resent being asked to to such PR staff's work for them. Jimbo, I know you dislike paid advocacy; I would encourage you to try patrolling the AfC backlog or staffing the IRC #wikipedia-en-help channel for a few days to see just how much of the flow AfC deals with is exactly that and how exhausting it can be. If the advocacy spam wasn't gushing in at such an astounding rate, I suspect we'd be able to do a much, much better job with the articles that their creators actually, genuinely cared about and thought were encyclopedic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And, after having ruminated on my own words for a while, let me add a few more things. First, that we're drinking from a firehose of crap does not excuse poor-quality reviews. Reviewer exhaustion might explain some of it, but it doesn't excuse it. It's absolutely true that sometimes articles that could fly on their own are declined at AfC because a reviewer is too conservative or doesn't know what they're doing, and that's not something that should be happening. However, that leads me into...

    ...the second point, which is that AfC, other than some basic, non-binding guidelines drafted by Wikiproject:AfC, is pretty much anarchy. Each reviewer does their own thing, according to their own standards. No one reviews reviews, except in unusual cases. No one judges whether reviewers are qualified to be doing reviews (yet. An RfC was just closed on this issue and brings us closer to having reviewing be a user right). No one really knows where the line is for "this article is good enough to move into mainspace", so everyone sort of rolls their own. New editors, for whatever reason, are drawn to AfC as "somewhere I can help", and sometimes make a mess of things. Old editors, for whatever reason, decide that AfC needs to be cleaned up right now, and also sometimes make a mess of things.

    I've been brainstorming, very vaguely, some possible ways to ameliorate these problems lately. As far as the firehose, a trial balloon on the CSD talk indicated that there would be support for a CSD criterion that would apply to AfC submissions which could not ever meet our inclusion standards (submissions that would meet A7 or A11 in mainspace, for example). Support was lacking for making AfC an "X tries and done" system and for disallowing AfC submissions from editors who are clearly the article subject or their representative. As far as the anarchy...that's tougher. I suspect we need an RfC of some sort firming up the guidelines according to which AfC reviews should be done; the trouble is that there are so many possible threads to that that I'm having trouble visualising how such an RfC should work. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Fluffnutter AfC was created long before WPAFC ever came on scene to service the queue. Each volunteer has tge basic ruberic of things they should be checked, but beyond that it's typically left up to the volunteer's discretion when looking for specific things that need to be in a candidate mainspace article. AfC is the only place for editors who have a CoI to submit their proposed article, so a CSD to obliterate CoI submissions makes it imposslbe for a CoI editor to ever get a article in even if the article were appropriate. As to the "X tries and done" proposal, that was turned down because the consensus has been that as long as the editor is making forward progress to getting their submission to acceptability, we're happy to give them as many tries as they need. It's only when the submission gets re-submitted ~4 times without the issue being corrected to the level of the reviewer's satisfaction that we start looking at other tools in the box (MfD, page protection, deleting the active submission template, etc.) to deal with the submission. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A major problem with AFC reviewing is that a lot of the editors doing the reviewing aren't qualified to review. They frequently deny requests that would otherwise stand up under scrutiny and hold articles to a much higher standard than if the editor just creates them from scratch. I also agree that there are serious ownership issues with some of the admins who "run" the AFC process. If you don't agree with them you aren't welcome. AFC is a good place to see some very abusive admin conduct towards new users. Kumioko (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      KumiokoCleanStart {{citation needed}} If you're going to throw those kinds of assertions out, you better have diffs to back it up. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The burdeon isn't on me to prove it anymore. I no longer care. I left the comment in case Jimbo or someone else cares enough to try and fix it. Believe what I am saying or not, it doesn't really matter. Its a fact that has been repeatedly stated in multiple venues (including this one) and all anyone needs to see it is to go and look. Yes there are some good reviewers and some good work is done there but there are also a lot of process ownership issues and new users are frequently insulted or ridiculed in the comments on the AFC's. That is also a major reason why backlogs are so long there, people don't want to help out with it because of a few jerks. That is also a contributing factor to why there are over 1000 articles pending review and about 17000 eligible for G13 speedy deletion. Because too few are allowed to participate and those who do are often the wrong ones and share a decline and delete mentality. Kumioko (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      KumiokoCleanStart If there is such a grave problem then that problem should be fixed by all means. However, the comments above are akin to calling a plumber to repair a leak, while only providing the name of the city you reside in. Sure, you may not truly care anymore but you still minded the issue enough to spend time to write several posts about it. If the problem is as widespread as you mentioned, it should be relatively simple to provide a diff or two for people to have a start. If not for the sake of you caring anymore, then for the sake of giving people a handle to actually do something with your comment / observation.
    As for the backlog on AFC i don't believe the rationale provided is entirely valid. Deletion criteria G13 is quite new, yet from its interception applied to several tens of thousands of declined AFC submissions made in earlier years. If it were not for the diligent efforts of several editors (Hat tip to DGG and Anne Delong among others) that backlog might still be be more extensive, or might have been cleaned out without verifying the declines themselves. The 1000 article backlog of current submissions is about three to four days worth of submissions, so while it is definitely bad i cannot see how that would be directly related to a couple of people being jerks or having a high bar on allowing people to participate. If i am missing something here please do correct me on that one. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Then feel free to ignore my comments, everyone else does, which is precisely why I have no intention of spending time mining through AFC submissions. I've seen the comments, others have seen the comments, anyone who's worked there for more than a day has seen them. Their not particularly hard to find if one simply spends a little time there. But I know without hesitation that anything I say will be summarily ignored as it has in the past, so there is little reason for me to spend my valuable time when no one will believe me anyway. That's why I invite you all to perform due diligence and look for yourselves. Do not take my word for it. But as your reading the comments think about how hard it is to learn the rules here and how those comments affect the submitter. Many don't come back because the first contact they have to the site is some burned out reviewer calling their article "nothing but crap" because they just spent the last 4 hours declining and deleting article submissions. Kumioko (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are a few random things, but I am not going to waste much time on this issue:
    1. is there a "requirement" for inline citations?. This isn't uncited, it just needs more and an inline cite. This is a stub, but is characteristic of thousands of articles already here.
    2. Stubs never get approved in AFC, yet any editor can simply create the article without going through AFC. If the article wouldn't meet Speedy deletion criteria or would survive an ARC, then it should not be declined which is standard practice currently.
    3. Angelo Frattini (Sculptor) - This version was declined and its currently being improved further but this is not a bad start for a work in progress. Should we require all AFC's to be B-class or better? Also the message says it might be 2-3 weeks for a review...sure seems like a backlog to me and doesn't really matchup with the 3 or 4 day assessment by Excirial. It took a month for it to be reviewed the first time.
    4. The list goes on and on. Just look through some of the articles at Category:Declined AfC submissions and you'll find a lot more. Especially look through needing footnotes and non notable. Notability is so subjective that a lot get declined and meet criteria. Anyway, I have invested enough time in this considering I don't beleive anything wil come out of it anyway. Kumioko (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to search those, i appreciate the effort.
    1. The Incite decline reason is likely one of the largest problems in past declined article's. That decline reason used to be a default decline reason in the AFCH script that the vast majority of the people use to review content. It was removed some months ago for obvious reasons, but it left quite a legacy from the time it was still in active use. Newer article's should no longer have to face this decline reason though.
    2. True. I like stubbies because they are easy to check (and source, if so required) but they are declined way to often. Agree on the acceptance criteria as well; those criteria are sometimes set to unrealistically high levels for a new article. Sometimes it DOES seem as if the accepted article should be at least C class, instead of being a starter class article.
    3. I should have explained that "4-5 day comment" to start with. If i recall correctly there are about 200-300 new AFC submissions each day, so the 1000 page backlog is about 4-5 days worth of new submissions. That said there are quite a few caveats: During December the backlog grew to some 2500 pages, likely due to the holiday period. As a result the average waiting time for a submission was quite a bit higher than the usual wait (Which isn't all that short either). What also factors in is that some editors such as myself tend to review from the front of the queue (Newest first). The rationale for that this is that it makes no sense to have someone wait two weeks for a review if the page is clearly a decline on first glance. Also, reviewing recent submissions first increases the chance that the original submitter might still see the review and stick around. There is a side effect to this though: Article's that already look decent on first glance might end up waiting somewhat longer on average for a review.
    4. *Sighs* Can't argue on that matter. Notability has always been somewhat subjective, and the decline reason is often overused rather then underused. Your second comment ties in with this issue - if the page wouldn't be CSD'd or AFD'd it should be fine in most cases.
    I suppose that if we can hammer the acceptance criteria back to normal standards things may improve. This might need change on a few fronts though. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't the Draft namespace in part intended to remove the bureaucratic hurdles of AfC? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Partially, but this is also being done IMO to help eliminate the thousands of pages in userspace that just sit around for years taking up space. Kumioko (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let us go a further step back and ask just what it is that gives total newbies the idea that their very first act on Wikipedia should be to write a new article? When I joined the project back in 2007 I stuck around for many months and thousands of small edits before I worked up the nerve/cheek/arrogance to start writing a new article from scratch.
    As a semi-regular AfC reviewer I can confirm that the "in-tray" is an ocean of raw sewage that we are forced to dive into to seek out the far too rare pearls. IMHO a fundamental flaw in AfC is that there is no "this is crap, go away!" decline option. We are far too polite to the vast majority of spammers and time-wasters that submit their rubbish - all the decline templates include an invitation to fix the abovementioned problem and submit it again. Spending an hour or two at the front end of the submissions list (the fresh stuff nobody else has taken a look at yet) is enough to burn up all the AGF of a saint.
    I have just reviewed and approved Society of American Historians. At the time of the previous review none of the independent references that exist in the current version existed. You need to judge a decline by the state the article was in then, not how it looks now.
    The notability problem that many such "worthy" subjects struggle with is that their adherents hardly ever publish anything outside of their own walled gardens, thus genuinely independent reliable sources are hard to find. Basically academics seriously suck at publicity - pop singers, wrestlers, etc. (or at least their managers) are masters of the art. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps there needs to be an Academic Org Notability Guideline? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a SNG for academics/professors - WP:PROF, so maybe we can look at using some of its criteria to build one for academic orgs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I signed up because an article I was looking for was missing and decided to write it. In previous discussions about article creation rights the amount of people joing and getting stuck here has long been a consideration against restrictions to eG autoconfirmed. Agathoclea (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree with your observation that a declination ought to be discussed in the context of the article as it appeared at the time. However, at the time User:Chris1834 first edited it with a comment Half of the sources are internal, you need independent sources to establish notability. it did have three independent sources. While I can view only one of them, I'm troubled by the notion of looking at the ratio of sources. The comment about "half" troubles me, as I suspect we have over a million articles with fewer independent sources, and I bet we have many with under half independent. I don't recall ever seeing such a concern used as an argument for declination. (I can imagine it being an editorial concern re wp:weight etc.). At the time of declination, it had 14 reference, eight of which I believe are independent. I wouldn't be surprised if this exceeds the median number of independent references.
    I'm also surprised at how long this discussion has gone on without even notifying User:Chris1834 of its existence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually at the time of decline it had eight references, five of which were primary, one of which noted the society in passing and two that couldn't be checked online but based on the titles didn't seem to be about the society. To me it didn't seem to have enough sources. The decline did not mean the society was not notable, it meant they didn't have what I was lead to believe is a requirement for a new article. AFC states "Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This article didn't have that. I would be happy to follow whatever guideline is put forth, as I have shown that I did in this case. Based on current policies, I would decline this article at that point every time.
    • Yes, it was a fair decision to decline the draft article, based on the fact that possibly only one source was independent, reliable and about the Society.
    Generally I think AfC does an excellent job, though there are many people that delight in bashing their efforts. It requires a good level of knowledge about Wikipedia's various notability guidelines, about page-naming, copyright, MOS (and good judgement) then from this subset of Wikipedia editors you have to find people with the time and the patience to be consistently involved. New articles continue to arrive in waves, day-in-day-out. I worked at AfC a lot last year and rapidly got burnt out - the older drafts can be very complex and, occasionally, the authors can be abusive and/or time consuming.
    The problem comes down to a lack of experienced editors, in my view. And part of the process of encouraging new reviewers to take part would be forgive the occasional mistakes. We're all human and have to start somewhere! Sionk (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The start of a solution to this interminable mess was the Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles - a way to allow us to standardise treatment of new articles from new users, to give them all equal assistance, and to re-focus of positive encouragement for new editors rather than stark automated deletion messages. Two-thirds of the community supported it, and agreed to try it, but Wikmedia Foundation refused - WP:ACTRIAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.25.248 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a one-time-only opportunity to create a new system from scratch in the new Draft namespace, one that takes the best bits from AFC, NPP and even ACTRIAL. However the longer we take to get it designed and implemented the more the "old ways" will become established as "standard practice" in the new namespace so let's do this properly and not drop the ball. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And one of the first steps is ensuring that there are clear criteria which reviewers (accredited, not "whoever signs up") follow to the letter. No "Way too much content for the amount of references" for an article where each (list) section has a source (which covers everything in the list), or "List needs a lead explaining why it's important in addition to the parent article it depends on" (true for FLC, but there are still scores of lists with single-sentence ledes; this submission still hasn't been approved, despite there being precedent for standalone lists when the list is lengthy enough). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Accredited reviewers"? "Standards followed to the letter"? Wikipedia should work hard against bureaucracy like that, and shouldn't apply criteria at AfC that are contrary to the "anyone can edit" spirit that has made Wikipedia's article space as awesome as it is now. —Kusma (t·c) 10:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Anyone can edit" ≠ "Anyone can competently review drafts and properly help newbies" - try not to confuse the two concepts. It is precisely the absence of accreditation and standards that has landed AfC in the condition it is in. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • If AfC needs accreditation, maybe it should rather be scrapped as being unwiki and unwieldy. —Kusma (t·c) 12:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Having our first line of defense-cum-introduction squad staffed by people who enforce their own rules as they like and refuse to discuss why they have rejected an article is just a recipe for disaster. Hence why a vetting process is very much necessary. Not necessarily as strict as RFA, but much better than allowing anyone to review. What if a vandal or sockpuppet chose to review (I can imagine the latter... "needs more tits")? Or would you rather potential new editors be driven away so that anyone can edit is understood in the widest possible way? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Why can't we just revert, warn and block people who make bad edits at AfC just like we revert, warn and then block people who make bad edits in mainspace? We allow vandals to edit our featured articles, but we revert and block them afterwards. I don't see a reason why it has to be different just because edits happen in a different namespace (other than the MediaWiki: namespace). —Kusma (t·c) 12:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Reviewers or writers? Yes, we can block vandals posing as reviewers, but the damage is done: the once-hopeful editor who submitted an article for review is probably not coming back. You're forgetting, our goal at AFC is not to provide information to readers, but to provide a venue for people to try and write articles without having to worry about arbitrary deletion or drive-by tagging (like in main space). We are trying to reduce bad experiences. If they have a bad experience there, they're gone. As for undoing or reverting an actual editor who made a bad close, that's usually when WP:OWN pops up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Crisco 1492 says "the damage is done." Yes, the damage is done this time, but if we block the person who did the damage, it will make one less person to do similar damage 100 more times in the future. However, I see other problems with Kusma's suggestion of "Why can't we just revert, warn and block people who make bad edits at AfC just like we revert, warn and then block people who make bad edits in mainspace?" For a start, an average AfC submissions is never seen by anywhere remotely near as many people as the average article, so that most often the bad decision will never be noticed. In fact, one of the biggest causes of problems at AfC is that the number of submissions is far too high for the number of people assessing them, which is bound to mean that many submissions don't get looked at by more than one person. Then there's the question of what counts as a bad enough "bad edit" to justify a block. If I start blocking editors just because their judgement as to how much sourcing a new article needs is different from mine, it's a good bet that I'll find myself being hauled before ANI pretty soon. Blocking for outright vandalism, spam, BLP violations, etc, is one thing, but blocking just because of poor judgement is much less straightforward. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Of course it isn't quite as simple as I try to make it sound. However, if reviewers often make bad decisions at AfC, they should be told to make better decisions or stay away from AfC. Speedy deletions at least get looked at by nominator and deleting admin (and when doing CSD work one should always tell people about bad tagging); if AfC submissions are declined by just one editor and then never looked at again, the process needs to be improved, and more people need to get involved in double-checking each other's work and giving each other feedback on their reviewing. Unfortunately I have no good idea how to get more people into AfC work (I do have bad ideas like starting to use "no AfC reviews" as RfA oppose rationale). —Kusma (t·c) 21:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey Crisco 1492 if you're going to bash my assertions and judgement calls (Like the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival award winners and List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival selections), mind doing it to my face? Being that other editors reviewed and agreed, how about you let this bone go? Are you going to tell me that the current state of the "selections" article is what we want to have in mainspace. Did you not get advice that we don't need a bulk copy of the content that is on the Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival site? Did you not understand that the DYK nomination that you were shepherding and trying to get past the reviewers does not have any bearing on the review of AfC articles? In short the submissions were declined appropriately, declined by an editor who knows what they're doing with respect to policy and therefore is "accredited", and your retreading the same argument over and over again only serves to prove that you have a personal vendeta for my having taken an action that displeases you. Hasteur (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hasteur, you have just proved my point. Do you see how combative you are coming across? I deliberately did not name you (talk about the action/content, not the editor), and did not intend to single you out. I have no personal vendetta with you, but those two edit summaries were the freshest in my mind (and you did ask for diffs). If we were to, say, meet at an FAC or GAN, I would not consider you any better or worse for our past interactions.
    As for the selections article: is it perfect? No. Is it better than half of the lists in main space? Likely. Does it fit the relevant policies (particularly WP:SALAT)? Yes. We're not expecting a first time user to produce something like List of films of the Dutch East Indies or Citra Award for Best Director on their first go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to Sphilbrick for notifying Wikiproject Articles for creation about this discussion. Yes, this discussion did start out with a specific Afc submission as an example. As an experienced Afc reviewer, I would like to say that I also would have declined the article which originally sparked this discussion, with a comment encouraging the submitter to improve the referencing and resubmit. At the time of the decline there were no independent sources. The Society's web site is cited extensively. The book sources were all to people who were not only members of the society, but had had their work sponsored by it. The book about American Heritage was written by the son of its managing editor. As another editor commented (sorry, I don't remember who), just because there are currently a lot of poorly cited articles in the encyclopedia is not a good reason to create more. It's true that the article may not have been nominated for Afd, but only if no one happened to take the time to examine the neutrality of the sources. Wikiproject Articles for creation, or any group of editors in the future who attempt to apply standards to the articles, will always be open to regular criticism by those who interpret the standards differently, and that's a good thing because discussion is how consensus develops. I have interacted with many new editors who have submitted initially unacceptable articles and who, after making improvements at the advice of Afc reviewers have gone on to be great editors. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that AFC is trying to follow higher standards of inclusion than AFD. I tried to have an article about Michael Pollack created (draft at User:WhisperToMe/Michael Pollack) and I felt it would survive AFD, but some other editors denied it on grounds that it has a little too promotional sounding of content. I'd rather just post it on Wikipedia and let the AFD process take place if needed. If editors think it focuses on wrong aspects of him, they can cut it down at their leisure. Also, I found some film articles in AFC and I want to move them out of the AFC process and into the mainspace, to free up room for articles that are debatable. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have just said in reply to you at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk - which page is worth reading in connection with this topic - if you are confident that a particular subset of submissions all meet Wikipedia policy, you should go right ahead and approve all of those submissions. It does not seem to me that Articles for Creation imposes any bureaucracy or restrictions to prevent people from doing exactly that. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I've went ahead and started approving articles after working on them. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Applying higher standards than AfD? I don't quite get that. AfD is a subjective process too, where questionable decisions are often made. And involves a number of participants over a long period. Unless Wikipedia is written entirely by robots there will continue to be a variety of interpretation, preferences and decision making. Including at AfC. I suppose a useful tool for AfC would be a method to overrule or change another reviewers decision, politely and without confusing the author of the article... Sionk (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole point of Afc is to have a place where new editors, COI editors and unregistered editors could make articles. Very often the reason new editors start editing is that there is a topic which they feel is missing from the encyclopedia. That's the way it was for me. (Here's my first article, an Afc graduate.) We'd lose large numbers of productive editors if we didn't let them create new articles right away. Afc is supposed to guide potential contributors in the way of NPOV and referencing, while weeding out attack pages and non-notable topics, getting copyvio material removed and rewritten, etc. Aside from the backlog (which has been bad lately because of the bounceback from the G13 notifications) it has been doing a reasonable job of this. However, some new editors just drop off a submission and never come back, or give up after one decline, and the articles are abandoned. For many this doesn't matter, as they will fade away under G13. However, perhaps 5 - 10% of these could be made into decent articles, and once the original editors have stopped working on them the only benefit to having them in Afc is that they aren't deleted right away. Since they need adoption by new editors anyway, why not move them into the new Draft space where they are more likely to be worked on? They are clearly categorized and easy to find. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oooh! Clever! Is there some link to these transclusions from the AfC project page? Could a holding category be created? I realise DGG and youself were looking at old drafts, I should probably pay more attention to conversations on the Project talk page! Sionk (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • All these discussions need to bear in mind the sheer imbalance between the volume of the in-tray (about 200 articles per day) and the number of people reviewing them (the bulk of the work is done by about 20 people). It would be ideal to have a system whereby promising editors and articles could receive personalised and dedicated support, but there simply isn't the volunteer hours at the moment to do this. We barely manage to give each submission a boilerplate review within 3 weeks with the numbers we have. What AfC really needs is another two dozen or so people. --LukeSurl t c 00:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me that imbalance seems like the same disease I commented about at WP:ACC - it's a problem of make-work. People come up with more and more elaborate processes that "have" to be done, and when there aren't volunteers to do them, that excuses doing them arbitrarily. Let's just focus on the basics: provide some reliable sources, be at least marginally comprehensible (in English), have the purpose of providing information about a topic. Wnt (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should also really help to transition to the Draft: namespace and more normal ways of commentary. For example, consider an article like this - the poor guy obviously has no idea of how he's supposed to write an article. I just want to dash off a quick comment, but it seems like you're supposed to put it in a special review box or something - bu not now ... why the heck is the article in talk namespace anyway? To one uninitiated it seems inaccessible. Wnt (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion for AFC criteria

    As I mentioned above, I think having some explicit criteria against which AFC submissions are checked and passed/failed. Nothing fixed in stone, but a checklist which writers can check their work against and reviewers can cite when failing nominations. A very rough wording (as I'm heading out the door in a few minutes to catch a flight) could be like this:

    1. Submission is written in grammatical English (the title is not 100% important, IMHO, as the person passing the AFC can change the title during promotion)
    2. Submission explicitly shows the significance of the subject and has sufficient independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage to establish notability (a suggestion for writers could be three or four)
    3. Submission uses references to support all potentially contentious information and direct quotations (this is all that's required per Wikipedia:Citing sources; citing absolutely everything is not required by policies or guidelines, just recommended; also note that formatting is not included here, as WP:BURL is just an essay and running Citation Bot or a similar tool takes very little time)
    4. Submission is written neutrally and does not contain promotional language
    5. Submission does not contain violations of copyright

    Basically, enough that an article would not fail the average AFD, while also filtering out copyvios and spam. Thoughts? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Those criteria look very onerous, far more so than the existing AfC guidelines (or, at least, my understanding of them). Like you say, the drafts that are likely to fail at AfD need to be held back. As long as there is reasonable evidence of notability and the article is not a complete car crash, it will be likely to survive AfD. There's no need to reliably source everything, or remove all problematic grammar/language. In most people's books, "multiple" independent reliable sources means "two or more". Many things can be cleaned up and improved when the article is in main space. Sionk (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are roughly the criteria I judge articles by, though "grammatical English" is a higher bar than I'd aim for (is it understandable? yes? then who cares at this point in the article's lifespan if there's a run-on sentence or two), and the number of sources that are adequate to demonstrate notability will vary based on the topic. At a minimum, to pass an AfC I expect to see an assertion of notability and enough reliable sourcing to back up the notability claim and any BLP content or contentious facts, no copyvios, and neutral language. However, notability is a very fiddly thing (cf: the crapshoot that is filing an AfD), and it may be that any "guideline" that says "article must demonstrate notability" is just passing the fight one step down the line, so we can argue about what constitutes notability instead of whether we need to consider notability. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sionk, those criteria are basically the current reviewing criteria anyway.
    Someone, I think it may have been Anne Delong had in fact created a rather elegant process flowchart for AfC reviewing, the chart contains "checkpoints" similar to Crisco 1492's suggestions. The chart was displayed and discussed at the AfC Project talk page where it was well recieved. Unfortunately it was not subsequently incorporated into an "AfC Reviewers guide", thus it is currently languishing somewhere in a Talk page archive. I would really love to see it resuscitated and adapted to the process flow we need to develop for the new Draft namespace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, it wasn't me that made the workflow chart - I just found it when it become lost in an archive at one point. However, this topic has been covered quite thoroughly at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions, and it changes are to be made in the criteria it would make more sense to discuss them at the talk page there. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is on this archived discussion page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 4 —Anne Delong (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fluffernutter: "grammatical" as in "not a broken Google translation", not "grammatical" as in "follows the whole MOS". As I said, very rough wording.
    @Dodger67: Perhaps they are (I should hope so), but considering the discussion above it appears people are going above and beyond the current guidelines (and that's not a good thing). I could certainly get behind a flowchart like that, so long as we actually follow the flowchart.
    @Anne Delong: Sure. I'll drop over there now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And opened here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While Jimbos's original post is perfectly appropriate, some participants in this discussion may not be aware of the progress towards improving AfC over the past few months:
      Creation of the new Draft namespace (originally essentially an AfC initiative)
      Creation of a set of minimum 'qualifications' for reviewers.
    Further discussion will take place on how such a 'permission' will be implemented. Due to issues of quality and timeliness of reviewing that are common to both AfC and NPP, perhaps it may be time after all (two years further down the line) to revisit just exactly what the community agreed by consensus at WP:ACTRIAL (emphasis on 'trial') which was rejected at the time by the Foundation as being contrary to Founding Principles. I have reviewed these principles, and while the Wikipedidia is undoubtedly the encyclopedia anyone can edit, I have been unable to find any mention that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia where any editor can immediately create an article in mainspace. I'm not sure that Jimbo actually followed the WP:ACTRIAL - at least i'm not aware of him having commented on it at that time or since. There is no question that a very large number of articles submitted through both AfC and NPP are unmitigated crap and nonsense (with a great many more pages created in good faith that would never stand the test of AfD), no substantial discussion has taken place however as to how the numbers of competent reviewers for both tasks can be increased. In deference to Crisco 1492's list of criteria (which I broadly support) and various suggestions by others, I feel that the scope of such detail would be better discussued at this juncture in a more appropriate venue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, the way I think things ought to be is as follows: AfC and the incubator both feed into Draft space. Their tags are taken solely as an appeal for help. Articles can be moved on an editor's own initiative from Draft: to mainspace or from mainspace to Draft: if he really believes it is uncontentious that they either have or don't have what it takes to meet GNG. This could be abused as moves can be abused, and it can be resolved at AfC review/AfD like contentious moves are resolved, but AfD/AfC review doesn't have to be a mandatory stop up or down. Articles should only be actually deleted if they fail speedy deletion criteria, which can be found for really bad articles in any space; this is more of a behavior issue while the Draft/mainspace question is more of a content issue. Nonetheless, a stub sentence with two reliable sources belongs in easily searchable mainspace, because something is a lot better than nothing. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    the problem with demoting new articles that need work, is discriminating between (A) those that need more work, but will pass afd,; (B) those that need more work but with the work, might be acceptable; (C) those that regardless of work , are never likely to be usable WP content, generally because of WP:NOT or WP:N; and (D), those that qualify for speedy under the General criteria.
    we should be able to deal with class D better, if the people screening AfCs actually do nominate them for deletion (tho we need to remember that many half of the articles deletable as copyvio can be rescued by stubbification , if it's thought there's an underlying topic worth thr trouble, and t=that the boundary between what is and isn't G11 promotional is rather fluid). We should be able to deal with class A better , by placing them into mainspace, which requires re-educating a certain number of the reviewers. The other two are problems. Examining thousands of one-year-old declined AfCs has shown me that only about 10% of the people asked to make changes & resubmit actually do so. Getting the backlog down to a day or so will help, because there's a chance they'll be around, but even so, the great majority get discouraged.. It will take careful individual work with each of them individually,and no technical fix will do that. An even smaller number of those asked to merge ever do so--I think the only practical possibility is for the reviewer to merge, or accept under a variant title and mark for merging. The ones who do not discouraged are often the COI editors, who often resubmit without changes indefinitely. I can think of nothing better here than to use MfD much more widely, but it would help to have distinct decline reasons, for "might be notable if you can find some more references," and "looks like it will never be notable."
    I am not surprised that reviewers get confused, because it is a minority of articles that any of the prebuilt answers are really suitable--most of the time I give the contributor the real explanation and advice on their talk page. Some of this could be adjusted, but so far, essentially every request for improvement has been rejected, even that of not telling people to look at the article for reasons if it will already have been deleted, or letting reviewers edit what will be posted. . I've given up making suggestion to the developers, and just deal with individual articles however works best.
    In any case, tinkering with the system will not solve the basic problems: we need to have a way to work with individual contributors, and if that fails, to work with the articles. This can not be reduced to an algorithm, and will be neither quick nor easy--but it will be effective. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: for the Wikimedia Foundation's product/design/engineering staff, I can say this: my team has been budgeted to work on article creation improvements and testing this fiscal year, including work on the Draft namespace which was launched over the holidays. Others have said that we have a unique opportunity to rethink some of our process and tooling around article creation with this, and I think that's correct. Right now there is a lot of leeway to try new things -- a great example is the idea of instead of deleting new articles that need work, we simply demote the promising ones to draft status. This has happened a little bit already. There is a lot we can do with software as well, to enhance how drafts help new authors learn the ropes and experienced editors ensure quality. Some of our ideas are being listed on the Talk page for WP:DRAFTS (please check it out and comment) and on our technical documents. It seems pretty clear that many of AFC's problems can be solved through experimentation with proper drafts namespace, socially and technically. Hopefully in 2014 we will find that Drafts are a welcome replacement for AFC and similar systems that aren't serving us very well right now. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See above for why I think your efforts will not solve the basic problem--but they can improve things at least marginally--at least they can if this time around you actually listen to and follow the suggestions from those with the experience of working on the submissions. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    'Drafts' will never be a replacement for AfC - replacing one system with another or even just another name will not address the core issues. Rather than starting all over again after Brandon's draft of an Article Creation Workflow start page two years ago in the aftermath of WP:ACTRIAL and attempting to reinvent the wheel, perhaps we should still be looking at those core issues: Quality of reviewing and quantity of reviewers. Software solutions are not a panacea when it comes to addressing human cognitive issues - it's been proven with the New Pages Feed and its Curation Toolbar that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
    As I've suggested several times, I feel the community should be looking towards the possibility of cloning the albeit excellent NPP software and adapting it for use at AfC (with the feed being the 'AfC 'draft' pages coming from the Article Wizard and/or other places), and then finding solutions for educating the reviewers of both systems.
    WMF staff appear to be polarised on the issue of Foundation involvement in local Wikipedia issues. While one member of the staff had repeatedly insisted that AfC is not within the Foundation's remit, there are others who feel it falls within the scope of providing a proper landing page for new creators and user retention.I'm still wary of allowing a top-down Foundation solution to be imposed on the community rather than listening to the voice of experience of the volunteer team who actually do the work at AfC. If budgets are being allocated, then there should also be some formal Community-Foundation coordination, which I don't see happening. What I do see are confusing discussions spread around several venues, including Jimbo's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly thought that drafts were very much intended to replace Af, and that their basic purpose was to bring the AfC material into a more logical position, with the side benefit of giving us an opportunity to rethink the process free of the constraints of trying to modify a basically flawed procedures. I think you defended in on that basis, and it was certainly what I and most of the others there were voting for, so perhaps you could explain. Do you perhaps mean that they are intended to replace or include other things also, such as the incubator? That's OK, too, but if there is any suggestion that we are going to maintain the existing AfC process within drafts except as a very temporary measure, I think that's a lost opportunity. If you seriously intend to do that, I think the result will be a successful MfD on the AfC pages in whatever location, Indeed, that was the alternative I was considering,and supported drafts workspace only as a preliminary step to major changes, not as being itself a solution . And, since you and I have worked on this NPP and AfC reform for a very long time now, I thought you had a similar view to my own.
    Of course the NPP software--which I think is software developed by the foundation-- is a good set of relatively simple well-integrated procedures, and cloning it would be a reasonable step also before developing it further. It was developed by people who knew how WP worked in practice, and who listened to suggestions. If that's what developers do, it doesn't matter where they are located. Nor do I think that the people at enWP in contrast to WMF have a monopoly of good ideas--sometimes an outsider or relative outsider can have the necessary insight.
    this has been discussed here because Jimbo was pretty horrified as some of the things AfC was in practice doing, and calling such things to his attention has been another very useful way of solving problems. AfC has been a rather isolated activity, and it needs wider exposure. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Walling, seriously, do you realise how much bullshit you're saying? "my team has been budgeted to work on article creation improvements ... we have a unique opportunity to rethink some of our process and tooling"

    Your corportate-speak bullshit wouldn't bother me too much, except you draw ridiculous conclusions;

    "Drafts are a welcome replacement for AFC and similar systems that aren't serving us very well right now"

    ... I can't even begin to explain how wrong you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.27.18 (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Academic organizations and notability

    As a tangential offshoot of part of this discussion, this has been started Comments sought. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Why AFC?

    I think we're missing the big picture.

    Many years ago, Mr. Wales decreed that unregistered users would no longer be allowed to create new pages.

    AFC is a way to circumvent that decree - OK, with checks... but it's still a hack, to let 'em make it in TALK namespace, and make it live on their behalf (on the whim of the elite who bother to register).

    I guess <1% of new articles are submitted to AFC, and I estimate that 80% of them are COI - yet we give them so much care and attention. Whereas the poor saps who bother making an account to write their first article get royally shafted with spam warning/CSD notices.

    It's grossly unfair that so much time is invested trying to help the mostly-spammy-AFC-submissions, but so very very little in helping the other new editors.

    Everyone who rocks up to Wikipedia and wants to write an article that isn't utterly inappropriate should receive help, support, positive feedback, and encouragement.

    That's the entire point of ACTRIAL, and - amazingly - the community agreed. But WMF vetoed it.

    Thus, Mr. Wales - back at ya. Why won't you let us treat all new editors equally?

    If even a fraction of the enormous effort that goes into dealing with new-page-patrol could be funnelled into actually helping new users instead of warning them, then the wiki would be a nicer place.

    But it's so much easier to tick a box in Twinkle (or whatever) to 'WARN: UNREFERENCED" or "CSD: NOT NOTABLE" than it is to actually try to help. 88.104.19.169 (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The way I read bugzilla, the WMF didn't veto ACTRIAL, and no-one seems to have asked Jimbo or anyone else at WMF in public. Did a volunteer developer (brionv?) close the ACTRIAL bugzilla entry? (I think the paid developers have to plan and allocate resources in the Foundation's annual plan.) If the community came up with a way to fund it, or wrote the code ourselves, or even redesigned ACTRIAL so as not to need technical creativity, then perhaps we could have ACTRIAL after all. Did any other Wikimedia projects try auto-confirmed article creation yet? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WMF vetoed the trial. Erik Moeller (Deputy Director of the WMF) refused to permit the required changeComment 43 - instead saying we needed to develop other ways of resolving the problem (none of which have happened, except for the utter fiasco of the VE - in which the community eventually managed to disable the botched implementation). They flat-out refused to implement the change, despite an utterly overwhelming consensus on-wiki.
    "Funding" is not relevent; as one of the developers explains in that bugzilla, it could be done with a 1-line change (Comment 26).
    Jimbo was well aware of the discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.19.169 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks IP. Very useful links. It sounds like WMF staff left the door open to a trial on a smaller wiki. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpret it as WMF saying that the consensus can fuck off, and they'll do whatever they like. But I appreciate that YMMV.

    Let's dicuss the relevant ArbCom case

    I'm reluctant to bring this up given that the case is still ongoing, but your thoughts? And what of the scope? Wikiproject AFC seems to be getting a slap on the wrist for this one, what with the only remedy against them getting snowballed. Also, what is your thoughts on the WP:OWNership that goes on in AFC? KonveyorBelt 18:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I do wish people, up to and including Arbcom, would stop talking about "Wikiproject AfC" and "AfC" as if they're monolithic bodies sharing a single leader, a single opinion, and a single approach. Right here on this page, you can see a number of people who participate in AfC weighing in with a wide - hugely wide! - variety of opinions regarding the process, the relevance of policies, and what AfC's future should/could look like. "AfC" isn't a person or a sentient entity; if people who participate in AfC have misbehaved, let's talk about them rather than using a broad brush to tar everyone who's ever tried to work in or improve the place. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The case is just another typical admin-throwing-their-weight around, and taking the easy option of deleting articles rather than trying to help people contribute. Arbcom won't do anything about it. Pretty normal everyday wikipedia stuff; not much more to say about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.19.169 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with AFC and admins in general is that when the system is abused, nothing is done. Its a minority of admins to be sure...but its still a major problem. That has been a major point of frustration for me and others within the project for a long time. That's why I don't edit articles anymore and why I am so critical of the existing system. Until admins are held accountable for abusing the tools or baiting others into a situation where they can use their tools against them, this is not going to get better. Its not admin bashing, its simply a matter of the admins not doing anything to maintain their own reputation and allowing a vocal minority of their peers to be naughty without interference or repercussions. An admin can do nearly anything they want because it requires Arbcom intervention (and that is long, complicated and usually pointless). AFC's biggest problem is that some admins want to delete everything or they want to build up their stats and AFC is a good place to build up their numbers quickly. Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said; that's pretty much why I gave up too. I don't blame the admins; it's just unfortunate that what they are mostly exposed to is the nasty side of Wikipedia, and they naturally forget that it's actually about trying to create great articles - because they spend all their time fighting idiotic vandals, trolls, and so on. They forget the bigger picture, and are too keen to click buttons. A new user can be blocked instantly for a minor digression, but an admin gets away with almost any type of behaviour - if they are ever actually admonished, they can just say sorry, and carry on as if nothing ever happened. It's all because adminship has become such a big deal - instead of being seen as janitors. The heart of Wikipedia is the people who create content, yet all the major decisions are made by the people who mostly delete it - and that includes the decisions about who becomes an admin, and which admins have done wrong. It's a very fundamental problem. (But it's slightly off-topic in the discussion about AFC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.19.169 (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It bears noting that the majority of AfC reviewers aren't admins - certainly the majority of the ones I see participating in AfC-related discussions across the project aren't - and the bulk of AfC reviews/deletion taggings probably aren't done by admins either. A fair number of admins do participate there, and you're of course welcome to have your feelings about that, but AfC reviewing actually tends to attract a high proportion of new(ish) editors who just want to help out. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    They're certainly not. I didn't mean to imply they were. I was only talking about admins in the context of the arbcom case, not in relation to work in AFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.19.169 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is when non admins do the reviews they either submit them for deletion or ignore them and move on. They don't have the ability to delete them and many aren't really that experienced so they make mistakes in the review process. Particularly with regard to notability. So then when some admins want to build up credit as an admin they just run over to AFC and delete a bunch of submissions without checking to verify if they actually meet the criteria. They just assume the reviewers know. Or even worse they use their own flawed criteria (don't like stubs, doesn't have enough inline citations, doesn't bark like a dog, smell like a fish, etc.) and delete them. If they are wrong, then nothing happens other than the article occassionally being restored. They know they won't be held accountable even in cases of extreme problems. So there is nothing to lose. Worse case scenario someone just tells them they made a mistake...but they still keep the tools...because they are "trusted"....forever. Then the one who submitted the AFC sees how we do things here and leaves, likely telling all their friends about what a cesspool Wikipedia is. I will be the first to admit that a lot of crap, advertisements and spam are deleted and rightly so, but a lot of articles with potential are also deleted as well. Unfortunately the only ones who can see them to fix them are the admins...only a couple hundred of which are active and only a handful of those pay any attention to AFC. Kumioko (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. If those admins had common sense, they'd tag them instead of deleting them - thus being judge but not executioner. But common sense is so rare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.157 (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to think it will be better with the Draft namespace but unfortunately I think it will just be the same since as far as I know all the rules are staying the same. Not that it really matters all that much too me. I'm retired from editing anyway, the only reason I am even bothering to comment is because I am bored. Kumioko (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Same. I'd email you my ID, but it's disabled; no worries; same tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.157 (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with AFC (IMHO) is, we should decide if new users are allowed to create live articles or not. If they are, then AFC is pointless. If they aren't, then all of them should receive equal help developing an article. Currently, that's not the case, because people who register and create a live article are dealt with in a totally different way to those who go via AFC. There's also the problem of bureaucracy-creep within AFC - the discussions of what articles should be passed amazes me, because to me it is perfectly simple; if a submission is unlikely to be speedy-deleted, then it should be accepted and made live. If it is likely to be CSD'd, then the question is whether or not it is possible to make it a worthwhile article; if it is, they should be helped, and if it isn't, they should be told why not. But that's what should happen with *any* new article.
    As stated earlier, the solution is ACTRIAL - which means any new article from new users gets treated the same way, and we do everything we can to offer help and support for anything worthwhile. That needs a paradigm change in Wikipedia - for 'possibly worthwhile articles', moving away from the spam-template warnings (CSD notices etc), and towards constructive feedback. I live in hope that that will happen eventually, but I fear it's going to take a virtual collapse of the current bureau-centric entrenched community before it happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.19.169 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimbo?

    Mr. Wales, I know it is typical for arguments on your talk to fizzle out, but this is key to the future of Wikipedia.

    So let's hear from you;

    How should new users, creating new articles, be treated?

    Years ago you decided that unregistered users couldn't.

    That has had repercussions; AFC is one of them.

    How do you think we should deal with new users making pages?

    It's not realistic to expect them to create a 'valid' page (in the Wikipedian sense) without help. It's just too hard, given the bureau-creep. Unless someone knows about the complicated Wiki policies, they've got no chance.

    Right now, if someone who has never edited creates a page, there's about an 80% chance it'll just be deleted - they'll get template warnings and notes about CSD.

    If they go via AFC, that's slightly different; it depends who reviews it, but they might get help.

    But it's wrong that AFC process is different from the norm.

    Anyway - just... say something. Anything, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.27.18 (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    School filter censoring articles about WWII

    Hi, I'm a school student doing an essay on wartime literature (poems, diary extracts, that sort of thing) about world wars one and two. However, my school's filter (London grid for learning) blocks pretty much all Wikipedia articles about the Nazis, which are obviously an essential part of the topic I need to research. Adolf Hitler is blocked, as is World War One, the Nazi Party, the SS and the Holocaust (as well as many, many others). On each of the block pages, the only reason given is "intolerance". No other online webpages I've found about world war two are blocked, so the only thing I can think of is that the Wikipedia articles have been blacklisted. I'm sorry if this isn't the right place to post this, but I think it's ridiculous that such an important learning resource is being censored just because it might somehow offend someone.

    Cheers,

    Aethersniper (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A dig around LGfL website suggests that a company called Atomwide may be responsible for maintaining and updating these filters. Someone may wish to email them at the email address on that page to draw their attention to this discussion. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes, I hope not. I think the most useful thing whoever is behind this problem could do would be to go out of business. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you (Arthur) can't email the company yourself, but I've just done so - they have now been informed of this discussion (assuming they read their sales email). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aethersniper:, I'd say that this is the level of competence I expect from professional purveyors of "filter"s, but I have to admit... even I overestimate them at times! You have access to this page but not key educational articles ... geniuses at work. Anyway, try this: take any page (come to think of it, maybe not this one, depending on how annoying their program is, but any random page or a new one) and PREVIEW (don't save!) the following text: {{:Nazi Party}}. If that doesn't work let me know and we can get to work seeing what in the content sets off the "filter" and I can write a Lua script to strip it out without otherwise damaging the content. Wnt (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To move ahead to the next step -- if their program blocks the content wherever it is, it might be triggered to spot the images (such as swastikas), so you can try Help:Options_to_hide_an_image#Hide_all_images_until_click_to_view and see if that circumvents the problem. Wnt (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wnt: I honestly don't think it's any word or phrase that does it; I must've visited tons of obscure pages with phrases like "Nazi Party" or "Adolf Hitler" and it didn't block a single one of them. The only explanation seems to be that the Wikipedia articles have been manually blacklisted for whatever reason. The good news is one of the teachers finds it just as ridiculous as I do but the filter on those pages is so strict that even the staff can't access them. I'll help you as much as I can but I'm only able to see the effects of the filter while I'm in school. Probably the best thing I can do on my end is get one of the teachers to send a complaint to LGFL. Thanks again. Aethersniper (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Come to think of it, there's a risk that the school is under a "schoolblock" from the Wikipedia end (sigh...) and you won't be able to make edits there - can a blocked user/site preview a page?, I don't know - anyway, good luck and let me know how these ideas work for you. It should still be true that "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." Wnt (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking does not prevent read access to Wikipedia, Wnt, so whether or not a schoolblock is in place isn't relevant here. They can still view the page's source while blocked, however. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you got the idea. If a user has some pages blocked, but has access to preview any page (even his own talk page, come to think of it - do schoolblocks allow IP's own talk page access?) then he can type {{some article name he wants to see}} into the other page, the one that isn't censored, to get a copy of the one he wants. However, I still don't know if blocked users can preview pages, so maybe it's not a problem. Wnt (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked users cannot preview pages because they cannot edit them. The sole exception to this is their own talk page. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 23:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    All but one of the articles you mention are semi-protected, which implies that they are vandalism targets or otherwise problematic. I wonder if the filter might be crawling for that and blacklisting articles with a murky history. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 15:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt it. I've been able to access semi protected articles before, and it's also blocking smaller pages such as obscure concentration camps and Nazi laws. As much as I'd like this to be true because it at least makes some sense, it doesn't look like it is. Aethersniper (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Besides, I don't think people doing this kind of thing put that much thought into it, or else... no, my suspicion - I'm looking forward to data! - is that it will turn out that the company blocks any page on which its software can identify a swastika in an image. Wnt (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably the best thing you can do is contact your local newspaper. Explain that due to the filtering, you can't do your homework. It's a good story and will embarrass the people who need to be embarrassed and will make it clear that these filters just don't work and do more harm than good.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Good plan. One of the teachers has sent an email to the company who provide the block, so I'm going to see what happens there before doing anything else. In the meantime I've been able to get around it by using HTTPS instead of HTTP, but this filter is in place all over the country so there's potentially millions of schoolkids who can't access these articles. Aethersniper (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible answer A nice trick I've learned to get around filters of that sort is to put the direct link into Google Translate and click the link in google translate. That might get around a manual filter. KonveyorBelt 17:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on this conversation, I've added some ideas to Help:Censorship. Wnt (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I encountered a similar problem in the early 00s and the only thing that appeared to offer any kind of explanation was that the company that provided the filter software was German and that they had formulated a very conservative block-list based on post-WWII incitement legislation. I complained to our IT dept (I was a Librarian and had to manually override the blocks for Library internet users) and they ended up removing the filtering entirely. I would have thought/hoped if automated filtering software was being used (personally not a fan) things would have improved in the last decade or so! AnonNep (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, can we stop throwing the word "censorship" around. Every school in the UK with students under 18yo is required to have a filtering system which must block clearly inappropriate websites (i.e. porn, drugs) in a similar manner to parental filters used in private homes. This is a legal requirement and failure to implement it (or to implement it properly) will lead to schools being judged inadequate in their child protection responsibilities, and even to legal action. However, there is no single provider of filtering software; schools either use their own or one is provided by the educational ISP that they use. Of course, this means that the way the filters work varies wildly between providers. They may block on word scanning, on categories or even on individual URLs. Also, the technical support at most school can override the filtering to whitelist URLs (in order to circumvent false positives) or blacklist them (in order to block inappropriate sites "missed" by the filter). Anyway, I tried to access the pages mentioned by the OP at our college on Friday, and they were all accessible. What may have happened in this case is that either these pages have been added to a category mistakenly, or someone operating the filtering system has simply made an error (it is, of course, ridiculous that an article on WWI is inaccessible to students). If I was the OP my first port of call would be their own school's IT support section. Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You can dance around it but politicians, in requiring that 'Every school in the UK with students under 18yo is required to have a filtering system which must block clearly inappropriate websites', is demanding censorship of internet access. In some cases, as it appears here, the IT Dept, doesn't have the knowledge, technical or otherwise, to differentiate between neo-nazis and WWII history, or, breast cancer research versus boobs, or, prize roosters and cocks, or spurious information and bollocks... Its still censorship and its why automated filtering will always be pathetically flawed in practice. Aside, of course, from giving politicians a brief media sound bite of success, that never mentions the years of mess and cost then created, but rarely funded. AnonNep (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. You're stretching the definition of censorship when, as in this case, all parties have agreed to its use (parents and students have to sign an Acceptable Use Agreement when they enter the school). I totally agree, however, that technically flawed or badly administered automatic filters cause more problems than they solve (I could give you endless ridiculous examples from my own experience such as "Breaststroke" or "Bikini Atoll"). The problem is, of course, that given the sanctions that can be applied to schools if they fail to implement the filter properly, most are more likely to overcompensate rather than run the risk. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're using different terms for the same thing. Censorship is defined as "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body" Do we have suppression? Yes. Is it considered harmful to schoolchildren? Yes. Has it been determined by the government? Yes. It is quick and simple. The British government is censoring Wikipedia. I myself do not like the idea of the UK enforcing its nanny state policies on Wikipedia, given that the site is largely benign. Perhaps the WMF should take a stand on this. KonveyorBelt 01:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I know that there are two common (and wrong) ways of disqualifying censorship from being censorship: the first being that when content is prohibited by the government, that is not censorship because it is illegal - and the second being that when content is prohibited by someone other than the government, that is not censorship because it is a voluntary private contractual relationship. But never have I seen one person argue both at the same time in the same paragraph before! Wnt (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Konveyor Belt, the UK government isn't censoring Wikipedia, in this case a faulty filter is doing so. For example, I checked this out on our own college system today and I couldn't find a single enwiki page that was blocked (and I tried quite a few that I thought might be obvious candidates). So there's nothing really for the WMF to "take a stand on" there.
    @Wnt: my argument is that self-censorship isn't technically censorship. Any parent who disagrees with the policy not to allow their child access to inappropriate material at school is quite at will to home-educate their child. In 20 years in education I have never met one who has disagreed with it. In the end, though, you are obviously free to disagree with it yourself but in the real world that policy is not going to change any time soon. Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in the real world I just showed the OP how to read any page on Wikipedia he wants by simple transclusion, which he said his teachers couldn't do before, and then I added the information to Help:Censorship, so I'd say I just did change the policy, at least so far as people who RTFM are concerned. Wnt (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, all you've proved is that it's a faulty filter if it can be subverted. There are also other ways of doing so, although a watertight system with realtime content analysis will detect these as well. I think we're getting off the point, though, which is that those pages clearly shouldn't be blacklisted in the first place - I'd be interested to see why they are but I can only think that it's an error in the setup of the filter rather than some dark conspiracy theory. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah - I've just noticed that the OP said the block listing said "intolerance". That's your answer; someone in either the school's IT department or the LGFL has added the word "Nazi" to that category and set it up so that it blocks any page containing the word. That's simply just incompetence, I'm afraid. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite, being required (or even strongly pressured) to sign an agreement as a condition of attending a public school (or even a private one) does not make such suppression consensual or "self-censorship" and IMO it is still censorship. And I can tell you that my parents strongly objected to such censorship (manual rather than technological in those days) when i was in grade school, and that I object on principal now, although I am not a parent, and I think that I would object even more strongly if I were a parent. DES (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I quite agree that there is an argument as to whether a consensual agreement is still censorship. As a parent myself, my view is that my children's school would be failing in its duties if it did not filter sites such as pornographic ones, but I would completely disagree with blocking non-harmful sites on spurious grounds. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm, the bastards are blocking torrent sites too. I know we can laugh, and say that clearly those sites are 'illegal', but I still think it's the thin end of the wedge. UK customers of talk-talk, virgin, and most other ISPs can't access pirate bay or may other sites; we get redirected to http://www.siteblocked.org instead. Pretty damn disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.157 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, well that's a different issue - and I don't think anyone could argue that it's not censorship as it affects Internet feeds to everyone. Not that it takes too long to get round the filter... Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, 100%; sorry it's not totally on-topic; I'll not discuss that point further here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.27.18 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Extant organizations

    Years ago you commented on the Talk page of 1.800.Vending that the article was basically a collection of trivial complaints. The article relied exclusively on primary sources to include legal disputes from a prior company by the same founders.

    When I deleted the poorly-sourced contentious material (again), an edit-summary accused me of being part of an organized white-washing attempt (I do not have a COI here). Also, two AfDs resulted in a KEEP consensus based on the premise that they were infamous, even though there were no reliable sources to verify that sentiment. I added a Template:COI editnotice to the Talk page and someone from the company dutifully followed the instructions and used Talk, only to be told by a well-meaning editor that they felt the lawsuits (only cited to court records) should be kept.

    We have special policies for articles about medical topics and people. Given the tension around corporate pages, isn't a guide on pages on organizations long overdue?

    While I am not planning on taking it out of user-space for the obvious reasons, I whipped something up in two hours that - for whatever faults you may find - would be a huge improvement to not having a policy: User:CorporateM/Extant Organizations. Certainly there are a few regular editors experienced with company articles that could do it better.

    Sincerely, a former PR pro, frequent COI contributor, regular volunteer and author of 18 GA corporate/org pages.

    CorporateM (Talk) 06:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (For the record, we have no special policies for articles about medical topics. WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS are guidelines. We're waiting for a high profile death, poisoning or maiming - the equivalent of the Seigenthaler scandal - before elevating WP:MEDRS to policy status.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure why this is here rather than at Village Pump. (Thanks to OP for notifying WikiProject Companies)
    Is this limited to a small number of companies, or is this a huge problem that justifies instruction creep? Aren't the unverifiable complaints covered by existing policies and guidelines?
    I really like the OP's proposed guideline on lawsuits and awards. Would you like discussion of the content of your proposal here or at the proposal's talk page?
    --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I have a conflict of interest with a large number of company articles, I do not think I should actually write it. That would inevitably lead to discomfort that someone with a potential financial interest in corporate pages wrote the guideline for them. My hope is to inspire someone else to. I noticed that large portions of both BLP and MEDRS are basically repeating or simply interpreting pre-existing policies, but they are helpful nonetheless. CorporateM (Talk) 13:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If we have a special policy for every article, the outcome is that there is no policy at all, just groups of people mandating how each article must appear. There should be no need to have special rules for how to handle an article about a company as opposed to a religious cult, commune, scientific academy, sports team, etc. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's for "organizations" a scientific academy and maybe even cults would fall under the same category I would think, as would churches, non-profits, government organizations, etc. Promotional editing is equally problematic on articles about schools and non-profits, though the community tends to find it less offensive than on corporate pages IMO. Many of these issues like when to include awards/lawsuits are common topics of RfCs and editorial disputes and areas where policies need to be clarified and interpreted for a specific case. CorporateM (Talk) 13:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Going further, almost anything can get an award or be the topic of a lawsuit: a person, an artwork, a product or even a country. I wonder if a consensus on inclusion can be found by digging into all those RfCs and disputes. If not, your form of words makes sense to me. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think when it comes to actors for example, there are different community standards on when to include awards. I am not so sure though, because it is not an area where I edit heavily. CorporateM (Talk) 15:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the "significant controversies" section is extremely problematic. And yes, as a COI editor, one who uses AfC to create articles you are paid to create, I think that you should not be proposing such things as a kind of template for people to work from. Very innocent title, very bad idea, coming from a paid editor. It's not "you" personally, I just don't think that people who derive an income stream from editing/creating Wikipedia articles should be involved in policy discussions concerning the format of the articles they are paid to write. Wikipedia COI practices are extremely weak, so obviously there isn't a force on earth to prevent you from engaging in this kind of thing, but I think that you should voluntarily not participate in such things. You make money off Wikipedia. It's allowed. Great. More power to you. But I think that the unpaid people should be originating and drafting stuff like this. Coretheapple (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What he did was the equivalent of taking it to the talk page. He is being transparent about it. He provided a start and wants non-COI editors to take it the rest of the way. I fail to see the drama. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's my point. He shouldn't be doing it. I'm not saying he broke any rules here. That is the problem. I'm asking for self-restraint, for Pete's sake, for people who make money off Wikipedia to not make Wikipedia policy in any way shape or form. Is that so terribly unreasonable? Has Wikipedia gone so sour that it's just unimaginable that a paid editor be asked to not get involved in drafting policy about the articles he is paid to write? Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The chief problem is that when I say "like BLP" I only mean that it is a guideline for a group of articles in a similar category, not that we should slant NPOV in favor of the article-subject. So this is the best way to communicate an idea. The draft is not even intended as a starting point - it's terrible. But I hope someone will be inspired to do it better and if no one is inspired, then it probably was not a good idea. CorporateM (Talk) 17:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Gotcha. But someone other than a paid editor who writes corporate articles should be drafting policy on corporate articles, lest Wikipedia find itself in another p.r. debacle. See, even though you suggest otherwise, people will use your draft as a starting point. See the "take it from there" comment below. Coretheapple (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This draft includes the phrase "Unsourced or poorly-sourced promotion or contentious material should be removed immediately and without discussion." This is obviously baaed on the WP:BLP standard. It is probably needed on BLPs, and has gained wide consensus, but it has also lead to more than a little trouble and drama. IO don't think it should be extended into this area. Insted discussion should be recommended.

    On procedure, i think this should be made a proposal, or perhaps a pre-proposal at the idea lab or some other project-space page, so that it can be widely discussed, and the resulting text will not be uniquely identified with CorporateM or indeed any single user. DES (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec)For a paid editor to draft a policy on corporate articles, which is the very center of the paid editing controversy, and then for non-COI editors to "take it the rest of the way" is as much a potential public relations disaster, as any of the black eyes this project has gotten recently over paid editing. I can see the headline now "PR Man Drafts Wikipedia Corporate Articles Policy." It doesn't matter how much it's changed. Coretheapple (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with DES and Core. Someone should just start from scratch for the obvious reasons. I also do not want to foster detailed discussions or prepare a proposal, but I hope someone else will be inspired to do so. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 17:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    CorporateM, I happen to believe that you have a very good handle on this subject (paid editing) in some respects. I've actually quoted you on my user page (might not be there anymore, but I have). But it worries me sometimes that your objective is to make paid editing respectable. While individual paid editors may be fine individuals in their own right, I have a problem with paid editors becoming involved in what is essentially governance. Mind you, my point of view on this is in the distinct minority. Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with Coretheapple here. A good idea is a good idea, whoever it comes from. As long as CorporateM is being transparent (and he is) and as long as any ultimate proposal is thoroughly discussed by a wide range of editors, that he started the process or even that some of his suggested text is ultimately used is not a problem of any kind, in my view. But if Coretheapple thinks that a complete fresh start is needed, why not prepare a draft of his own and put it on an appropriate page for further discussion? CorporateM, would you have any objections if I used some of your text as a startling point for a draft on this subject, assuming no one else does one before I have time?? I know that under the CC license I don't need to ask, technically, as long as I attribute properly, but I would prefer to. DES (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that we have absolutely zero need for any such thing. Coretheapple (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrm. As you say, I have no authority to stop you, but I agree with Core that it is generally a bad idea. At some point an anti-COI extremist or a POV pusher unhappy that the guideline prevents them from adding non-neutral content will create a false narrative about my involvement and gullible passer-byers will believe it. It's just a recipe for disaster. But I think you have been inspired, which was my only objective.
    Core, I don't know if I would really like to see COI participation legitimized. I think for a time I did, but I have grown increasingly skeptical over time (hypocritical I know). CorporateM (Talk) 18:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then perhaps you could take the lead and cease representing companies here? Re "anti-COI extremist": I think you're dealing with a species as rare as the dodo bird. Wikipedia is probably the most backward major disseminator of information on concerning COI issues. Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Does CorporateM's polite and reasonable approach hold back progress, in your view? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, I think that it is the best way to advance the interests of his clients. I think that's true generally with paid editors who are hired for the purpose of getting their clients' name out there on Wikipedia. The ones who hire sockpuppets and go around acting like baboons are swiftly swept out. The smart ones play by the rules (except for maybe the so-called "Bright Line Rule," as that is not a rule). Coretheapple (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the baboon analogy; thank you for that. But their being blocked doesn't prevent them from opening dozens more accounts (as we've seen in recent cases). Don't you think that an honest, transparent and open COI editor in a place where we can keep a very close eye on him, is far less problematic than thousands of dishonest, untransparent, and absolutely unscrupulous COI editors in places where we don't even know about them? (This question is directed at you, but I would also be interested in Jimbo's views.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because dressed-up, officially sanctioned COI is, if anything, even worse than the current situation. It means that PR machinations are perfectly OK with Wikipedia as long as they are "transparent," which simply means that you know when you're being screwed rather than wondering what that weird feeling is coming from behind. It's just a convenient excuse for turning over Wikipedia to the PR crowd and paid advocates even more than it currently is. Coretheapple (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing to keep in mind is that if you establish a "Sanctioned COI Editing" thing, with transparent paid editors acting like boy scouts and pretending to be interested in working on behalf of the project, you'll still have the baboons creating sockpuppets. That's because we're talking about two different kind of outfits: respectable PR people and sleazy PR people and paid-editing types. The respectable ones either don't edit Wikipedia at all or they already are transparent about it. The unrespectable ones are and will continue to be troublemakers. So all you'll do is give a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to COI editing, get justifiably condemned in the press, and accomplish absolutely nothing. Coretheapple (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Core, over the years I have seen a few of the baboons develop into adequate or even excellent editors. I have also see the respectable ones become more stringent about their own practices as our expectations have evolved. We will always have troublemakers, but we will also always have people coming in ignorantly and looking like troublemakers who are prepared to learn. I agree it's not the usual situation, but it does happen. We will always have people trying to evade any rule or restriction, but that's no reason not to have rules. I'm not sure we should call it policy--doing that tends to lead to unanticipated over-rigidness, , but we do need agreement on guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's quite a quantum leap, from total permissiveness (which is what we currently have) to "over-rigidness." Right now we have a guideline that allows untrammeled participation in Wikipedia by the PR industry. PR people create articles, either outright or through the AfC process. People make a living doing this. They openly advertise to bring their clients into Wikipedia. This means that Wikipedia content, especially for small corporations, is skewed entirely toward organizations that have the PR savvy enough to do it. They are not more notable, just more anxious to get in Wikipedia and less scrupulous and ethical than ones that don't. Some pay-for-edit types actually advertise how they can get you in Wikipedia and raise your article to Good Article status. They can correctly claim that they uphold the highest standards of Wikipedia. I don't know if any of this is worse than the fact that Mr. Wales occasionally surfaces and says, against all evidence, that these victors are losing, that paid editing is not flourishing but on the run, and that generally black is white and one plus one equals three. Coretheapple (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now PR people and paid reps, if they adhere to the so-called Bright Line Rule, confine themselves to the talk pages of articles. I have heard this held up as a model of propriety and best practices. I think it's a terrible practice. That's because PR people have only one objective, which is to serve their clients. If their clients' interests intersect with Wikipedia, fine. But if they don't, whose interests do you think are sacrificed? PR people can be counted on to fix minor, picayune errors to the point of obsessiveness. But if there are gaping holes in an article that do not show his client or employer in a favorable light the PR rep will remain silent. "Oh not to worry," I hear. "Articles with PR reps draw a lot of scrutiny so that can't happen." Bullfeathers. It happened to an article on a major corporation that has drawn extensive scrutiny. Major details fell out at one point, and the PR rep was like the Sphinx, and he knew damn well they weren't there. Coretheapple (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has veered terribly off-track from the actual topic at-hand. What Core is referring to is PR reps that are gaming the system through civil POV pushing. Volunteers are not professional journalists, so they tend to be overly sympathetic to the PR rep and begin to see things from their point-of-view, especially if they disclose and articulate their arguments well. I was surprised recently when I saw an article that went through the bright line and included a huge Corporate Social Responsibility-type section using mostly primary sources.
    In the traditional business-sense it is a legitimate practice for corporations to advocate for their point-of-view, transparently and ethically and when independent publications like Wikipedia reflect that point-of-view, it is a job well-done. Wikipedia is the outlier, because we do not allow advocacy of any kind, civil or not, and expect PR reps to act as-if they were fellow editors.
    However, like all things, it must be handled on a case-by-case basis. Individual editors can be blocked for gaming the system, whether they follow the Bright Line or not, which would lead to de-legitimizing their business. However, it is difficult to tell who is actually gaming the system and who is doing the best they can from their position. CorporateM (Talk) 15:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually wasn't referring to civil POV pushing but to behavior falling entirely within the current rules. Your point is correct regarding journalists vs. volunteer editors. However, I think it has more to do with lack of experience in dealing with PR representatives in any capacity whatsoever, as well as lack of corporate experience. Also, while this is no great revelation to anyone, it was to me: in viewing a "Wikipedia Weekly" video I was struck by the tender years (and, frankly, naivete) of the experienced editors participating, some of whom seemed to be administrators. Coretheapple (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I would somewhat lean towards the problem you describe not being with the behavior of PR reps, but that there are not enough processes and standards for the volunteers that collaborate with them. There is not necessarily any specific, clear solution, but rather varied ones that will each help a little to reach an imperfect but better state. A guideline for company pages should help any editor enforce higher standards of neutrality, regardless of which contributors are involved. CorporateM (Talk) 22:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    How would that help? We already have elaborate rules on neutrality, promotion, sourcing etc. What we don't have is the kind of rule found in every other web entity that requires disclosure to readers. Do you object to a meaningful disclosure to readers that a PR rep was involved in the organization of the article, its formulation and/or content? Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I'm concerned that an "extant organizations" policy might have the effect of legitimizing paid editing. To be quite frank about it, the fact that the idea originated from a paid editor, and your comments above, make me concerned about that.
    Incidentally, I'm curious about something. You've been described as quite honest and transparent on your paid editing. However, your user page does not explicitly say that you are a paid editor. It says "I contribute to Wikipedia relatively equally in both a volunteer and a marketing role," which is not a clear disclosure that you are a paid editor. It seems to me that you should say that you are a paid editor, that you make a living doing this, that people pay you to write and edit articles about them. "Marketing role" doesn't provide that information. In addition to that, you have a website in which you solicit business and make certain claims about what you can and cannot do. I just think it's kind of strange that your user page emphasizes all the awards and accolades you've gotten and how you urge people to report astroturfing etc., while at the same time not saying explicitly that you are a paid editor, or providing a link to your web page in which you solicit business. This does not strike me as transparent at all. Your clients have this information and so does the general public (I read about this on an external website). Why don't you disclose this to your fellow editors? Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This whole thing is related to why we do need to allow some corporate editing, and why we already allow some BLP editing by subjects: Often the party with the conflict of interest is the only party motivated to fix anything. If Wikipedia had had a sane policy of this sort created by non-shills, then there wouldn't have been any need for a shill to start one. But just like there's often no interest in fixing bad articles about corporations, and sometimes no interest in fixing bad BLPs, there was no interest in coming up with a workable extant organizations policy either. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed evidence gathering on alleged irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia

    Hi Jimbo! FYI, the process of evidence gathering on alleged irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia is finished. While there may be more info trickling in over time, the process is effectively over and whatever is there is ready to be evaluated. I've notified meta:SN, please forward the info wherever else you deem appropriate, or leave a note at the talk page if you have any questions or suggestions.

    Also it would be great to get a sense of how long you think it may take for WMF to take a look at this info & offer some guidance.

    Many thanks! – Miranche T C 08:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jimmy, no need to read all that, we're already working on this and we will probably inform you privately when needed. Trijnsteltalk 21:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Trijnstel! Please let me know if there's any info I can help out with. – Miranche T C 23:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to read all that anyway as I'm quite interested in the issue. But as I may not have time to really get through it all, a private NPOV summary agreed by multiple people (preferably of different political viewpoints) as well as anyone's personal perspective would be good too.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Jimbo, can you tell me have you really gave an exclusive interview to "Jutarnji list" newspaper that was published on the 14th September 2013? --Roberta F. (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your interest, Jimbo. The talk page discussions are largely in English but the submissions are both in English & Croatian, so if you need any help in translation or clarification please drop a note. – Miranche T C 06:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The Great Book of Knowledge

    I listened to an amazing hour-long radio program analysis of Wikipedia's effect on the world, on CBC Radio Onel last Tuesday evening. It's called "The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1", with Philip Coulter speaking to moderator Paul Kennedy in the program Ideas. It is posted for listening on the show's web site at http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/. Part 2 will be aired January 22. This is significant coverage; CBC Radio has about 4.3 million listeners per week (according to Wikipedia!). —Anne Delong (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Law of Florida is mixed with dirt in Wikipedia RU

    Hello Jimmy and others!

    Russian Wikipedia violates this important rule, which has relation to the laws of the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons (must be respected in any jurisdiction). The source - almost fiction literature with violation against living famous people of Russia: http://www.kulichki.com/moshkow/CULTURE/MUSIC/RYBIN/kino.txt (Кино с самого начала). Part of text (to show that it is almost fiction):

    " - I invented a new game - thoughtfully said Choi . - What ? - In the girls throwing stones . - Are you absolutely furious ? - Oleg rolled over and closed his eyes . Choi took the two fingers tiny pebble about the size of a sunflower seed and gently let him back in the pink one lying close to the pretty girls. Hit in the right shoulder blade was ignored and Choi began slowly to prepare for the next attack . The game drew him , but not enough to stand up to search for suitable shells, and he limited the search area radius outstretched right arm, which has become blindly raking sand and pebbles , while giving it a striking resemblance to the breaststroke swimmer , if not for the left hand , which , however, as all the rest of the body remained perfectly still . Oleg opened his eyes , and his face was slowly acquiring meaningful expression with a clear shade if not anger, discontent is completely clear , and, as it seemed to me , it was not due to the fact that the offended lady , but rather of the fuss that makes hand -wiggling Tsoi sculptural group in harmony , which is a fixed three of our body. Choi , with his characteristic tenacity , continued his work . Found - threw found - tossed . Slip . Hit . Hit . Hit . Slip . Hit . It is not flagged in the same back and alternately - that it , in the back neighbor .... " (translation).

    In this stupid book is written that members of the legendary band: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashina_Vremeni (alcoholics). And Russian Wikipedia uses this info. Other heros of this "source" say for millions of people that Viktor Tsoi was in psychiatric hospital (in the same time, this info is the crime, see below):

    Articles of Russian Wikipedia about the Kino (band) contain the illegal information. This info have relation to legal acts in the US and Florida: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0394/Sections/0394.4615.html (Russia also). Great number of Russian laws is violated (even dead man has right be free of violation against his reputation after death). Nobody gave permission to talk about the such "facts" for attention of millions of people.

    Other "source" about psychiatric hospital has the preamble (the info is not accurate, we are not responsible for approval). This is the slander and breach of patient confidentiality at the same time: http://domknig.com/readbook/9973/ :

    "Several sections of the book are occupied with reprints of publications about Victor and Tsoe group MOVIES from various publications - the official press and self-publishing, central and peripheral. Sometimes they sin inaccuracies, but we also reserve the statements in these articles, interviews and notes on the conscience of their authors." (translation).

    By the way, for an interview. We have included in the book are just a few where the most authentic, from our point of view, look answers Victor, although it should not be taking anything for granted. "

    Because in Russian Wikipedia are violated law of the US and your words also:

    ((((Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006, and May 19, 2006; Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.)))),

    Please say to administrators of English Wikipedia - need make warning in relation of admins of Russian Wikipedia (violations must be deleted and the bad sources must be banned: almost fiction book "Кино с самого начала" - in first). My topic here can be removed (I gave the info for the good of Wikimedia Foundation: reputation will be saved - including). Thank you Jimmy! P.S. The rule of Russian Wikipedia also contains the info about respecting of USA law and of your words on this issue: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A1%D0%9E%D0%92%D0%A0 (living persons). - 37.145.186.224 (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    Unfortunately, administrators of English Wikipedia can't do anything to, or about, administrators of Russian Wikipedia. (Though Jimbo perhaps can, and this page is a suitable place to ask for his input.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't they have the same possibilities as all Wikipedia users - to contact anyone via discussion pages or e-mails?--37.230.15.218 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the language gap makes it difficult to assess the concerns above. I've started to reach out to people who might be able to approach 37.145.186.224 using their own language, and then summarise the issues for us here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The language barrier makes it hard to understand what is going on at all, much less to try to help. There are good people in Russian Wikipedia who are better placed that I am to help with any specific problems.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • He can be everyone. Russian Wikipedia uses fiction literature as source and violates reputation of living person in the same time. Dead people are violated also for the attention of millions of people. When Russian and USA law forbid do it. Rule of Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales forbid do it also. OneLittleMouse, you - administrator of Russian Wikipedia and you must implement this important rule on the practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons (нельзя осквернять репутацию живущих ныне людей, согласно этому правилу). Согласно другим правилам любой Википедии, нельзя использовать беллетристику в качества источника в статьях Википедии. Нельзя осквернять репутацию покойника для внимания миллионов человек, когда нет законного права (тем более, используются очень сомнительные источники). OneLittleMouse, you must remove any materials from articles of Russian Wikipedia, when these materials have relation to this book: http://www.kulichki.com/moshkow/CULTURE/MUSIC/RYBIN/kino.txt ("Кино с самого начала"). http://translate.google.com - 2.94.5.68 (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    OneLittleMouse again mixes with dirt the rules of Wikipedia and the US law also: https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Dmitry_Rozhkov&action=history (his colleague helps to him). Translator: http://translate.google.com 2.93.247.147 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • SUGESSTION of the innovation: to respect independence in different jurisdictions of Wikipedia and create troubles for any violators in the same time. Example:

    Russian vandals with flag of administrator of Wikipedia often have profiles in English Wikipedia and in other projects, where is used English language (like OneLittleMouse in English Wikipedia). Other projects (Meta, Commons and so on). When the such people make violation against common rules of Wikipedia, their English profiles will be blocked (1 warning before). Why the such scheme can work on high level? Colleagues of violator will be afraid getting the same strict sanctions vs them. Everybody can make request to such colleague: "need provide respect in the relation of common rule and remove violation" (colleague will do it, because he does not wish be blocked in English Wikipedia and in other projects on English). Request is intended for attention of colleagues, which have profile in English Wikipedia, or in other project on English. Any violators with flag of administrator will respect the common rule, when this innovation already in force (violator not from English Wikipedia). Any absolutely administrators (not from English Wikipedia) have possibility become a violator, when they do not wish remove violation after first request (without conflict before this). He must have profile in English Wikipedia, or in other projects on English, as in other cases for reach the goal (this goal: all Wikipedias without violations). In accordance with common sense, the precedent can be created even now (and become rule with corrections later). We took care on this issue: one of administrators of English Wikipedia got request to ban OneLittleMouse (and the violator already got from us more, than the 1 warning - respect the common rules of Wikipedia). All so easy and can be mistake? Violators with flag of administrator of Wikipedia - not from English Wikipedia. These violators will lose prestige in eyes of own colleagues and in eyes of any users (very important component of this innovation).

    Note: If you will see, that the page of OneLittleMouse does not exists (precedent created). Administrators can discuss this issue in any place (to find wise decision). User was banned (his page does not exist in English Wikipedia forever). Or in other projects (English). http://translate.google.com - 2.94.9.184 (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    Biggest lie

    Jimbo, I am always fascinated by the things that different people might lie about, that they later regret, or that they feel confident that a lie served them or someone else better than if they had told the truth. If you feel comfortable sharing, what has been the biggest lie you've ever told, why did you tell it, and do you feel that it was justified or not? - 69.241.73.94 (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What's yours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.157 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Reducing template usage

    Jimbo, I did catch your major issue, to reduce excessive templates, and could be implemented by Bots which substitute text for unneeded template calls in thousands of pages, once decided by consensus as being excessive templates. The wp:VE users must be going crazy, when seeing another template used after "every 20" words. Bots to reduce templates would become a routine activity in Wikipedia. Another easy option is to change many giant navboxes (of 500 wikilinks) to auto-shrink as a simple one-line boxlink to a separate wp:navpage title, instead of spamming those 500 wikilinks at the bottom 400 pages using the navbox (400×500 = 200,000 wikilinks); see essay: "wp:Overlink crisis". We also need to start forking massive Lua modules into logical subsets where only a "few" 100,000 pages are reformatted when some template options are changed/expanded. We currently have several Lua-based templates which trigger the reformatting of 1 million to 7 million (or more) pages, such as with talk-pages and all archives. Adding a simple feature to a massive Lua module can bog the wp:Job_queue(s) for weeks, or months, as all the related pages are totally reformatted, simply because a new option was added for use in a few articles, among millions of articles, templates, talk-pages and user-space pages which are triggered to reformat. One solution would be wp:Configuation_forks, carefully selected to split the related pages into separate groups of perhaps "only" 200,000 pages each. Only rarely would all configuration forks need to be updated as a system-wide change. There would be an average formula to calculate the potential impact for reformatting of pages, just as software developers have found the average 1-update-in-10 generates another software bug (or IP-address users edit 27% as often as username-based editors). More later. -Wikid77 01:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The People's Operator

    Jimbo, do you have any comment about Mr. Dale Curtis Marshall? Between January and May 2013, he was working for The People's Operator, where his role was to "develop content and strategies for the blog and social channels while also assisting with copy and creative for branding and promotions". Do you think he considered Wikipedia a "social channel" for branding and promotion? I think he did. But who can blame him? I hear that The People's Operator is a fantastic new venture, doing a lot of good for various charities, while they try to become profitable themselves. And look, their Wikipedia article was created by a UK-based marketing consultant. I'm sure the article will get balanced out, neutrally, now that your friend Andrew Lih is working on it, with the help of the Wikimedia Foundation's Funds Dissemination Committee member and co-founder of Wikimedia UK, Mike Peel. Is Wikipedia's article about The People's Operator okay as is, or do you think it should get a re-boot and wait for neutral, unaffiliated Wikipedians in good standing to give it a shot? - 50.153.112.1 (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, if it's not too taxing, could you please comment on this edit that seems to have deliberately removed the taint of the Cash for peerages scandal that Andrew Rosenfeld (co-founder of The People's Operator) was involved in, with Tony Blair? It appears to have been the work of a highly-focused single-purpose account. Where have we seen that Vandoeuvres name before? Oh, yes, that's right. Pretty nifty how we have yet another "connection" to a former Soviet Asian republic that evolved into a brutal regime that stole from its people. - 50.153.112.1 (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd think a bit of this might be worth looking into if it didn't appear to come from Mr. 2001. After a certain point a banned user throwing around wild accusations has no credibility. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Per usual, Smallbones, the truth will out, and you'll be left with that brown nose of yours. Saint Peter, hit the deck, man! Jimbo, do you approve of Martin Tiedemann (a Labour/Co-operative councillor) authoring content so closely tied to the Labour party's Rosenfeld and Garrard (your new partner and his buddy)? It seems that Tiedemann did a fairly good job being objective on that edit, but wouldn't it just be better if he had kept "hands off" to avoid even the appearance of improper editing? - 50.153.112.1 (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Some additional interesting edits that made sourced content disappear from David Garrard's BLP, here. Garrard helped Jimbo's partner Rosenfeld make millions -- we wouldn't want his political scandal getting in the way of a pristine BLP, would we? This was a really nifty edit, too. - 50.153.112.1 (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible COI editor at RfA

    Jimbo...seeing that you had a tough discussion on COIs with a user named CorporateM, and that CorporateM and a user named Keithbob seem to overlap on a few articles, and that Keithbob has some suspicious COI and copyvio editing patterns...you might be interested that Keithbob is being discussed at RfA.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=591682181"