User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

The trustworthiness of Wikipedia

Hi Jmmy.

The Wikimedia Foundation envisions a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. [1] But "knowledge" of something implies well-founded confidence in its accuracy. While Wikipedia is untrustworthy, it is sharing something other than knowledge. This is a problem for the foundation, since it is failing to realise its vision, but also for humankind, who deserves an encyclopaedia it can trust.

At Wikimania 2014 you said, "We're trusted slightly more than the BBC. Now, that's a little scary, and probably inappropriate. ... We all know it's flawed. We all know we don't do as good a job as we wish we could do ... People trusted Encyclopedia Britannica - I think it was, like - 20 points ahead of us. ... I'm not going to rest until people trust us more than they ever trusted Encyclopedia Britannica in the past." [2]

Are you doing anything at the moment aimed at either improving the public's understanding of Wikipedia's reliability or improving its actual reliability? If so, would you like to share those initiatives here? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Everything I do related to Wikipedia is aimed at those things, so I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question. I think one of the biggest changes is the hiring of Lila as CEO coupled with her intention to radically increase investment in software development to help make it easier for us to get our jobs done. There are many ideas that have been floating around for years but we haven't had sufficient developer resources to do them. (It is my view that in the past 5 years we have significantly underinvested in engineering.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please elaborate on how technological fixes will solve the unreliability problem? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there are many ways but let's just talk about one example. Watchlists are a very primitive way to surface new edits to experienced users. A more sophisticated "news feed" style watchlist could take into account a variety of factors to do a better job of showing us edits that need to be scrutinized and as well as new users who are writing in areas that we care about so that we can evaluate them, greet them, welcome them, coach them. Imagine if edits to articles that you personally care a lot about (medical articles say) were scanned and highlighted to people who are part of the relevant Wikiproject if they contain certain "likely problems" (for example, a link to a tabloid newspaper is probably not the best link in a serious medical article, but that's an editorial judgment that could, in some cases, make sense).

That's just one example and a random brainstorm by just one person (me) on some ideas that people have proposed over the years. But I hope it is indicative of the kinds of things that I have in mind.

Here's another one: I set up a link in my browser to go to a random female British author whenever I click it. I click it and see if there is some small thing I can improve. But this is very very primitive. What if, instead, the system could take me to an article which based on several factors is likely to need attention. (For example, if readers have expressed displeasure, or if someone recently posted on the talk page, or if an ip address recently edited it, or...)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Wikipedia:Verifiability policy rates as "questionable" any sources that "lack meaningful editorial oversight", and that this class includes Wikipedia itself. Deltahedron (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. How do you feel about scholars reviewing our medical content for accuracy, and us putting a prominent badge at the top of those articles, linking the reader to the fact-checked version? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of the information found here has to hinge on the verifiability of that information. Reliable sources...references...all of that tedious, unexciting stuff. It's quite frustrating when you know that something is true - to be unable to say it here because you need to reference reliable sources. But that's the only way we've ever found to increase both our reliability - and the perception of our reliability. When people tell me that Wikipedia can't possibly be reliable because any idiot can come by and put falsehoods here - I always tell them that if some fact really matters to you, then don't believe what Wikipedia says, click on the little blue number and read the original source of where we got that fact from. If there isn't a blue number - then forget that we ever said that. HOWEVER, if you just need to know something trivial, for idle curiosity - then Wikipedia is pretty darned reliable (and we have studies that show that we're at least as reliable as Encyclopedia Brittannica.

The problem is not our actual reliability (which seems to be pretty amazingly good) - but the perception of our reliability (which is kinda terrible). The bizarre part about that is that while our editor community is shrinking - our readership is climbing. That's odd...you'd think that if this perception of unreliability was prevalent, that fewer people would be reading Wikipedia. I suspect (without evidence) that convenience trumps perceived reliability for most people. If I want to know "Will there be another series of Crossbones (TV series)?" (darn...no!) then being able to tap the "W" icon on my phone and type one word into the interface to get the answer is ASTOUNDING. The fact that the answer might be wrong...0.1% of the time...is actually less critical. If I were instead researching how people used dockyard cranes in Medieval Europe (which I was actually doing last week) - then I still use Wikipedia - but not for the answers it contains, rather for the curated links it gives me to the source documents. In that regard, Wikipedia is more like a highly effective version of Google-search than it is an encyclopedia. It gives me the links to the source material, and functions kinda like the Brittannica "propedia" that summarizes and organizes the knowledge that can be found elsewhere.

The general public are also unaware of the fact that for any common question you're likely to be searching for the answer to, there are likely to be dozens of reliable editors watching articles and deleting incorrect information added by random idiots within a very short span of time...and those same random idiots don't get much fun from putting garbage into very obscure subject matter where it might linger for a while before being removed. Even when you point out this undoubted truth to people, we're faced with the problem that people are not good at estimating probabilities and risk. If a junk edit happens in (say) Theory of relativity - then it's going to be fixed in a matter of minutes. Since those changes happen maybe weekly - the probability of you landing on that page while the information is incorrect - multiplied by the probability that the change actually affects you - is a very, very small number. But people are bad at estimating risk...so that's a hard line to sell to people.

I'm not sure we need technological changes, or even changes to editing rules or habits to make us more reliable (although greater reliability is obviously desirable). Mostly we need public awareness of how reliable we already are - combined with education in how to use Wikipedia when the answer really matters...and when it doesn't.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So your argument would be that we are right and everyone else, including all the people who use the encyclopaedia, are wrong? Deltahedron (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

More seriously, any useful risk assessment should include an estimate of the impact as well as the probability. While the probability of being misinformed about medical information may be low (I couldn't say), the impact of that misinformation may be very high. We regard that as an acceptable risk simply because we don't have to take it. Deltahedron (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, Deltahedron, no one knows the probability of being misinformed about medical information. No one has done a rigorous systematic review of the various small studies into the reliability of our medical offering. I've looked at all of those studies, I think, and in my opinion, a rigorous systematic review is likely to conclude nothing can be inferred from them about the reliability of our medical content. Most have fatal design flaws including tiny sample size, dubious measure of reliability and opaque selection criteria. What's really needed is a large enough, well-enough designed study. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

But that's my point. For something as important as medical advice, you really shouldn't trust Wikipedia - you should use it as a curated set of links to documents that are presumed trustworthy (or at least more trustworthy than Wikipedia). It's very easy for some random idiot to change the name of a drug as treatment for some condition - but much MUCH harder for them to point the references that back this up. We need to educate people that they really shouldn't take our information as "The Truth" in any situation where it deeply matters. So I'm quite prepared to take the risk that there really is a second season of Crossbones (TV show) in the pipeline (despite Wikipedia saying that there isn't) - because it's just not that important to me. In that situation, convenience trumps absolute reliability. But in deciding whether the drug my doctor just prescribed my kid has side-effects that might concern me, then I'm still going to go to Wikipedia - but I'll pretty much ignore what it says and follow the little blue numbers to the actual medical journals that report the studies done on the drug. SteveBaker (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm asking you to imagine a Wikipedia you can trust. Actually, I'm asking Jimmy to imagine a Wikipedia we can trust. I'd really like to know where he stands on the question of a prominent link on our medical articles to versions of those articles that meet WP:MEDRS. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

While I want Wikipedia to be as accurate as we can manage, I hope we never ask people to trust us. People shouldn't ever trust Wikipedia. They shouldn't ever trust Britannica, or the New York Times either; hopefully we can push that into the public consciousness as we try to make a point about how trustworthy (or not) we are. A stable version, which represents our best work? Perhaps a good idea. A version of Wikipedia we tell people they can trust? A truly awful idea. WilyD 13:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you against the concept of people trusting all possible sources of information? Or are there some you think people should trust? Deltahedron (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, okay we can have a long discussion of how we're talking about trust like it's a boolean quantity when it ain't. There are no sources of information people should trust completely, or distrust completely. But "Oh, you can trust this" reeks of "Oh, you can trust this completely", which is awful, yes. Of course, one could be using "trust/not trust" differently. WilyD 15:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The foundation is the one talking about sharing knowledge. And, yes, I agree, trust should not be blind. And it is a thing of degrees. But there are some sources about which it is possible to say "I trust this". We can and should be one of those. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. However, even with the most perfect information about the risk, it would remain true that while we lay that risk off onto other people, it will give us little incentive to get things right. Deltahedron (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we agree, we have a moral responsibility to minimise that risk as much and as quickly as possible. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think I was too compressed about risk. I'm not suggesting that WP or WMF accept legal responsibility for medical or other information in the same way as a doctor or othe rprofessional. What I am suggesting that that WP/WMF aspire to get things right and be reliable, say so in public and accept the reputational damage if we are not. If I publish an academic paper and it proves to be wrong, my reputation suffers, and I may fail to get a job or promotion. Fortunately in my area of mathematics, people will not be killed in the ruins of a collapsing theorem, but it could happen to others. If we absolve ourselves from all blame in advance by saying "you should have known how to use our encyclopaedia", then we insulate ourselves from all those real-world consequences. I would argue that WP's position should be: yes, we are an encyclopaedia, we aim and claim to be the best, most accurate and most reliable there is, and if we screw up then tell us so and shame on us. That way we take a risk and have an incentive to Get It Right. Technological tools are part of that; so are processes and culture. Have we got any of those right at the moment? Deltahedron (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

In his state of the wiki address this year, Jimmy said with regard to our biographical assertions, we need to do more than the minimum required by law in portraying our subjects. I think that applies to the reliability question, too. The trustworthiness of Wikipedia is a moral vision thing, not a legalistic ass-covering maneuver.

I'm working on a strategy for this, and I'm in email discussion with another user devising another strategy. Both of our strategies involve the "current" or "dynamic" Wikipedia article sporting a prominent badge, linking the reader to the reliable version. So, I'd like to know where Jimmy stands on that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree on the moral point as well: we have an obligation to get things right. Deltahedron (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

A system like Watson (computer) could perhaps be trusted to not just highlight problems but also correct them. We would then only need to check if the correction made are appropriate. Count Iblis (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Think software is the least important factor in improving reliability. I would venture that reliability is a function of the degree of expertise of editors in the topic they are editing. There is no bot that can recognize an article that makes wrong or otherwise problematic statements, or uses bad sources. There is also no bot that point out missing content and add it. That makes the key problem finding out how to attract and retain expert editors in different topic areas. I personally think that the biggest obstacle to retaining expert editors is that they are not generally willing to monitor what they write indefinitely nor to defend it in endlessly recurring discussions with laypeople with all kinds of different personal or partial perspectives. The idea of identifying certain revisions as reliable would certainly be one way of making it easier for expert editors to justify spending their time on writing for wikipedia. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  I think that's absolutely right. What expert in their right mind would choose to spend the rest of their life riding shotgun? Eric Corbett 20:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I endorse this view. Partially-informed enthusiasts will generally outlast more broadly informed laymen or experts in most topics, with the result that there's widespread content which sounds plausible and may appear to be properly-sourced but in fact reflects oversimplified, biased, or misinformed views of highly motivated but unqualified editors. This appears to occur irrespective of the underlying topics or categories. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A good example would be the the article Mass–energy equivalence. Which tells us in no uncertain terms that "mass cannot be converted to energy,[citation needed]". (I added the tag.) Of course the matter is actually of some fairly deep physical and philosophical debate as the SEP entry on the topic will show. JMP EAX (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Another example is Quantum teleportation which assures us that quantum computers are useless basically as " For example, a qubit cannot be used to encode a classical bit (this is the content of the no-communication theorem).[citation needed]" (I have added the tag.) As to the persistence of some: that text was added by an editor who is blocked indefinitely, after the block... JMP EAX (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Another example is just about any humanities article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Place a prominent link on an article to the version that has passed rigorous independent expert review?

In my opinion, it all hangs on the quality of the reviewers and their rigor. If this goes ahead, we need to have the highest standards; higher than any existing encyclopedia, journal or textbook review process. We should be the benchmark against which those are measured.

I think we should reverse the usual process, and have anonymous writers and named reviewers. We have to have anonymous writers - it's the way of this wiki and that's not going to change. Naming the reviewers would offer the readers transparency, and (if our reviewed versions become the gold standard of reliability) offer the reviewers prominent kudos. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious how many experts you think it'll take to review 4.6 million articles, and how all those experts will be recruited and paid for. How strict would this review be? Would it be like GA? FA? Higher? And how would this system be integrated with the actual wiki? What happens to articles that don't pass this (presumably extremely stringent) review? --Jakob (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Jakob, I shall ask the relevant scholarly societies, ones with decades (some with centuries) of experience in peer review, to manage this independent external review process. And I'll ask medical charities with public education as part of their mission to fund it. The Wikimedia Foundation should not fund it, to avoid any semblance of undue influence over the process. Critical review of all our current best medical articles, and rigorous fact-checking of all our other medical articles should cost less (probably a lot less) than $10 million.

I'm personally only interested in making our medical content reliable. The idea is scalable, though, to any field well-covered by serious scholarship.

This won't affect any of our existing practice, but we will need to agree whose reviewed versions we should link to. That will require discussion (not here please) and a new policy or guideline governing that decision-making process.

Articles that don't pass fact-check won't get a badge with a link to the fact-checked version, and errors will be listed on their talk pages. Class As and FAs that fail critical scholarly review won't get the badge linking to the critically-reviewed version until they pass a critical scholarly review. The societies managing the review process should have most say in how the review and fact-checking processes work. Wikipedia's role here is to put a prominent badge at the top of articles, linking the readers to the most recent rigorously fact-checked or critically reviewed versions.

I'm curious to know Jimmy's position on that proposed practice. Obviously, it will affect my confidence going forward with this if Wikipedia's most prominent evangelist is enthusiastically supportive, indifferent or actively opposed to the proposal. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The "most read" ten thousand articles account for a huge percentage of usage, and we can remove "popular culture" as being intrinsically non-reviewable, alas. The 2010 list of "most read" pages shows the ones at the 10,000 level has only 2% of the readership of the top actual articles (about 90K down to under 2K views per day). I suspect that, barring web-crawlers, the top 10,000 actual articles account for well over 95% (possibly quite a bit more) of total page views. [3] confirms this a bit. Collect (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it would be easy to identify specific fields of knowledge that require expert level knowledge of somekind to assure reliability. And starting with the 10,000 most vital would be obvious.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• The key to recruit expert editors would be to find some way to make it relevant for them as a career move, for example by having their name officially attached to specific articles so that they could put it on their CVs as a public outreach kind of thing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct abbreviation for September - Sep or Sept

Some (many? most?) American English grammar books suggest that the correct abbreviation for September is Sept. except when used in a table where it can be abbreviated as Sep (without a trialing period) to keep the columns a fixed width. In January 2014, a small group of editors used one of their bots to change all instances of Sept. to Sep throughout all articles - effectively stating that their new grammar will replace what reliable sources use. In my opinion, this violates the suggestion to use American English in articles. Robert - Northern VA (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you asking this question here? And who has suggested that American English should be used in articles? Eric Corbett 19:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR.--ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:ENGVAR#Consistency within articles

While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently.

According to WP:ENGVAR#Retaining the existing variety

An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another.

I interpret these to mean that it is not appropriate to force one convention on every article - which is what their bot has done. So yes, I am trying to make it clear that a small group of people have violated the intent of the MOS by forcing a totally non-standard edit on the entire encyclopedia. Robert - Northern VA (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Look it says "SEP". That Jules was such a fall guy. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Sept" might be more common in AE, but I don't think "Sep" is actually inadmissible, so I don't think there's a real ENGVAR issue here. As to whether setting up a bot in this way is a good thing, that's a different question. Formerip (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Really? "June" has the abbreviation Jun for one single reason - postmarks had space for three letters using interchangeable type - thus the earliest use I found for the three letter months is with them. Collect (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Appending: The "Bishop Marks" (first modern date stamps for letters) only had two letters for the month -- thus "IV" was June!). Collect (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That tiled calendar from the ruins of Nero's villa at Antium seems to pre-date interchangeable type by about 1900 years? (Didn't Bishop Marks use "VI" for June?) But I thought we were discussing September? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I was addressing the modern three letter usage. And (to the English), I was J and V was U in the font used in the marks <g>. There was no need for any abbreviations being three letters until the era of the postage stamp and the need to date items in a fixed format. I found no earlier reasoning, but using a date stamp which had a specific limited space for the month "slug" was a clear basis for such abbreviations. Collect (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd be truly amazed if there was "no need to date items in a fixed format" before 1840. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Bishop mark" dates to 1661 -- but it was not until the invention of the postage stamp that significant amounts of mail existed which needed dates -- going from near zero to over 68 million Penny Blacks being sold in only nine months. Thus the need for accurate dating became more essential. Collect (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt it. I just doubt it was the "first need". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Current arbitration request

Hi Jimmy. At a recent and still outstanding arbitration request, several editors have said that a statement from you would help clarify the dispute. See here for one example. Would you have time to comment here or there? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that Sir Jimmy can override WP:Site ban at will? Why would his input be required? Don't get it. AnonNep (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Editors have always been given a degree of latitude on their own talk pages regarding this. Tarc (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • So WP:Site ban "Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below." needs to be changed? (It can be hard enough to keep up with formal rules, let alone informal ones) AnonNep (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I think that it should be changed to reflect current practice which involves a fair amount of latitude particularly in mild or reasonable cases (as well as my user talk page which serves a somewhat special community function to some degree). It should not be changed, I hasten to add, to invite banned users to post here in general!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• There is nothing helpful that Jimbo can say—this one is up to the community. If Jimmy announces that the banned editor's comments can be removed, media outlets will get a space-filler to the effect that Jimmy Wales refuses to consider reasonable and good-faith comments from new users who are only trying to understand how great wrongs can be tolerated! If Jimmy says he does not want it removed, the troll can post forever while expanding threads based on hot air, trying to make muck stick. No media outlet is going to take the time to understand that the comments are extremely lame, and are part of a long-term campaign to attack the no paid advocacy ("brightline") position promoted by Jimmy Wales (and to settle old scores). Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Nail on the head.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If you don't like reading the words of banned "trolls", perhaps you should just unwatch this talk page. Being here isn't a right, this is still at its core just a user's talk page; not ANI, not the Village Pump, nor any other public forum. Banning users from this page happens via a simple "Jimbo says go away", not a community vote. There's no reason to argue against the opposite, i.e. "it's ok for me to hear from this person". Tarc (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • That's not right—it's up to the community. For example, you might revert a banned user and I'm not going to restore that and tell you to unwatch the page if you don't like it. This page does not belong to Jimbo. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
      • In fact, it does. As I've noted before, I have no problems with some banned users posting to my own talk page, and there's nothing you can really do about that either. Banned users adding content to articles is one thing (though if it is good content, it should remain); banned users simply asking questions of the project's nominal leader is quite another. If the question or comment is truly, crystal-clear trolling, then it can be removed by anyone. If the only reason you can give for a reversion is who the author was, then you're in the wrong. Tarc (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
        • This is an interesting philosophical debate whose answers we don't really need to reach in order to solve the current question. Speaking of all users, we neither want to have them beyond all community rules nor do we want to have them subject to absolute control. People should have some flexibility to manage their own space, while at the same time should be expected not to disrupt the project. Relaxation is a value. Beyond that, there's the additional and quite thorny question of what my ability is to set my own rules here, given that I have a (mostly theoretical) rule as a final court of appeal after ArbCom as well as a few other reserved powers (such as to dismiss ArbCom and call for elections). Those things make this page somewhat unique although not in my view in the sense of "beyond the rules" but in the sense of an aspiration to the highest values we can muster, including both firmly dealing with people who are being disruptive *and* a sense of generosity and forgiveness of past error for people who genuinely want to contribute.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
          • So, in Plain English ... AnonNep (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Jimbo this is an arbitration case involving a specific set of circumstances. Why can't you just simply say, "no, if a suspected banned user posts on my page he should be allowed," or "... he should not be allowed" and "if a nonbanned user posts what the banned user says, that should be left alone" or "not left alone." There, that is it in a nutshell. These were editors pitching in to help you out and now they're in jeopardy over it, so why not give some clear guidance? Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
            • I refer the honourable apple to the answer given by Johnuniq, and affirmed by Jimbo, above. Although Jimbo may of course wish to adopt some option based on some of the wording you suggest, but that's up to him. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
              • I saw that. I guess I'm having trouble accepting that as a valid response. But if that's his final word, fine, let's close out this discussion and let Jimbo police his own talk page for Mr. 2001 and other banned users. I'm not a fan of Mr. 2001, and no longer believe he is constructive, but I'm not going to stick my neck out to make this page Mr. 2001rein and I don't understand why anyone else would be so inclined. Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

How banning works on Wikipedia

There seems to be a misunderstanding on the mechanism used to enforce banning on Wikipedia. Other sites might use strict technical measures or gather and keep information from the registration process to enforce bans, but Wikipedia has chosen, to a very large extent, not to use these measures. So how are bans enforced?

The key parts of enforcement are WP:Ban means banned and WP:BANREVERT.

• WP:BMB states at length that all edits by the banned editor are covered, there is no need to review whether the edits are good, bad, or indifferent. This makes a ban much easier to enforce.

WP:BANREVERT says re: "Edits by and on behalf of banned editors" that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule" (bolding mine). This is stated without qualification. So

• Anyone may revert a banned user's edit. This is not limited to admins, checkusers, the founder, arbcom members, or even to registered users. Anyone may revert a banned editor.
• Any edits by a banned user may be reverted. It is not limited to article pages, user talk pages, your own user talk pages, or any other pages. Any edits from a banned user may be reverted.
• The revert of a banned editor should go unquestioned. The reverter does not need to give any further reason. I'll suggest that the reverter decline to answer almost any questions on the matter, as the banned editors and their enablers may want to cause disruption by long, tedious, and inflammatory discussion on the matter.
• The reverter is allowed to make as many reverts as needed without regard to the three-revert rule. Reverting banned editors is specificallly noted as not being WP:Edit warring
• Note that "all editors are expected to respect the enforcement of policies by not undermining or sabotaging them," even though "no editor is personally obligated to help enforce any ban."

So putting this all together, if a banned user makes an edit anybody may revert it. If the banned user or an enabler puts that edit back, then anybody can revert that edit, if the banned user or an enabler reverts again, anybody can revert this edit again. Sooner or later the banned editor will discover that he can't force the edit onto the encyclopedia and will likely be blocked for 3RR. Admins can't interfere on the side of the banned editor, or even question the reverter.

Thus just a few editors can deny the banned editor the ability to force edits onto Wikipedia, just by reverting him (it always seems to be a him) on sight.

There have been some questions on Jimbo's role on this page. Personally, though I may revert any banned editor on sight on this page, I would not do it if I thought Jimbo was in general against this type of reverting here. He states at the top of this page that he has an "open door policy (business)" so that may suggest to some that he means that anything can be written on this page by anybody for any reason. I doubt it goes that far. Jimbo has also written on User:Jimbo (5th paragraph) that

"Over 3,000 Wikipedians monitor my user and user talk page via a watchlist, and I trust them to edit and remove errors or attacks. (my bolding)". So if anybody think "anything goes" on this page, or that Jimbo has said that nobody can be reverted on this page, they are just not reading what Jimbo has said.

So several folks have been demanding for about 2 weeks now that Jimbo make a statement that I (specifically me) am allowed to revert banned editors on this page. While I do not claim to speak for Jimbo, my answer to that would be "Why do I (Jimbo) have to make a specific statement to you that I support Wikipedia's policy on banned editors? Why do I have to repeat what I've already clearly stated on my user page? What are you trying to make me say?" Jimbo's silence on this matter speaks volumes.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I seem to have had an edit conflict with Jimbo on this. His "Nail on the head" comment above seems to say everything. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"I trust them to edit and remove...attacks" That is a misrepresentation and a strawman. Most edits made here by Mr. 2001 and others are not attacks on Jimbo or anyone else, rather they are criticisms. KonveyorBelt 17:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

How banning actually works on Wikipedia

It doesn't, because there is no real name registration through a verifiable email and sign-in to edit; IP editing is allowed and many IP addresses are by their nature "dynamic." Sock puppetry is rife and effectively unstoppable, outing is specifically prohibited, and unsubstantiated claims about presumed alternative identities strongly frowned upon. So, a dose of realism that should solve the problem... If the query by Mr. 2001 or whomever is clearly a troll — hat it, don't censor it. And if the query raises a valid point in a pointy way, grit your teeth and move along. Carrite (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• My feeling on this is very simple. In light of his latest comment and refusal to take a stance (albeit for good reasons) I think that people should stop patrolling this page for banned users. If Jimbo wants to remove them, he has a keyboard and he should use it. We have better things to do. Smallbones I admire you greatly but on some things we differ and this is one of them. Not only should there be no reversions when third parties re-post what banned users post here, but the banned users themselves should be allowed to post here unless Jimbo specifically removes them. This is his page, and like paid editing it is his problem. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What you're suggesting is that, in choosing not to comment, Sir Jimmy is endorsing an informal application of rules - as opposed to what is in policy. That may be what you hope but there is no evidence for that. All we can say is that 'no comment' leaves the rules as they stand. And, as they stand, IMHO, they don't support your position. AnonNep (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I think you're overanalyzing it. A couple of users have gotten in hot water at arbcom (Smallbones and the guy who brought the case) for trying to protect this page from obvious banned users. Jimbo can't or won't intervene on their behalf, so to me this is a situation in which volunteer editors have better things to do with their time than patrolling his page for banned editors. Coretheapple (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Quite the opposite - I'm thinking of it in terms of existing policy rather than what someone might be able to get away with (doing that would be overanalysing it). Policy backs up what's happening, unless Sir Jimmy, and by extension, his talk page, are granted 'special snowflake' status, where anything goes. Problem with that is it brings us right back to the content of many of Mr. 2001's additions here - how policy seems to be applied arbitrarily. There are two options: go by policy, in which case those reverting are correct (and how they spend their time is their business) or the rules don't apply here, at all, ever. If its the latter then lets see it put forward as a policy suggestion and see what everyone thinks. In general, lets just settle this so everyone knows where they stand. AnonNep (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
        • But as happens so often, the policy conflicts. It's not clearcut. In this case a nonbanned user reinstated what the banned user posted, and he was reverted. Policy is not clear as to whether that was kosher. Added on to that is the question, "how do you know this is a banned editor and shouldn't it be determined someplace first." Above all there is the question "What does he want because this is his page." All that kind of crap muddies the waters. Yes, people can waste their time delving into this murky puddle of mud if they want but Jimbo isn't, so I can't understand why anyone would waste a minute (and maybe risk getting in trouble) by protecting this man if he won't himself. Coretheapple (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Meat-puppetry is a failed proposal but to get to that you've acknowledged 'a nonbanned user reinstated what the banned user posted' and the policy on site banned users posting anywhere is clear... unless this is talk page is special (in which case it needs to be discussed and exceptions placed in existing policy). As to determining 'banned', I'd suggest there's agreement by omission: WP:BANREVERT refers to those suspected of ban evasion without proof, because, if there was proof, the username and/or IP would be banned from posting in the first place. And, personally, the motivations of those reverting are their own, I'm more concerned about policy being implemented without favour, or, if needs be, to be changed to reflect practice. Informal power structures and arbitrary decision making beep me off to no end. AnonNep (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I just find it weird that this is a case involving his talk page, and editors working on his behalf, and he won't or can't step in at the case page and make a clear statement there on that situation. I did, even though it was at the risk being dragged into a total waste of time. Coretheapple (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The WP:SIGNPOST and inappropriate images

This random photo of tits is what visitors to Signpost's Traffic Report were met with today.

Jimmy, in this weeks Signpost Traffic Report User:Milowent published it with a section for Power Girl (#8). It read:

Power Girl is a DC Comics heroine. Though she has all the powers and abilities of Superman, the picture at left, which is substituted for the non-free images of Power Girl on her article, illustrates one of the primary reasons for her popularity. The ability to fight villians with a large chest is apparently another one of her powers. This article enjoyed a burst of popularity on August 11 and 12, probably in advance of the August 13 release of Worlds' Finest issue number 26, which finally substituted the male fantasy version of Power Girl with someone a bit more 21st century; a hoodie-clad African American woman named Tanya Spears.

An editor, unknown, has removed the image with the comment:

is this for real? what the fuck

What the fuck indeed. Although the Power Girl article does discuss her breast size under the "Physical appearance and costumes" section, do you think there is any need for Signpost writers to be inserting random photos of tits into their publication? 175.136.66.69 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the Signpost's editor-in-chief is currently on wiki-break this week. —Neotarf (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. I see User:Tony1 copy-edited the publication too. He is a long-term contributor to Signpost and should have picked this up. Both Milowent and Tony1 could comment. With random use of imagery such as this, is it little wonder Wikipedia has a reputation for being misogynistic amongst its female editors. 175.136.66.69 (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the shock and horror, IP 175.136.66.69! And yet you insist on edit-warring to keep this image on Jimmy's talk page when you claim it does not belong in the Signpost. Misogynistic, indeed. —Neotarf (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Proof, if any were needed, that Wikipedia's gender imbalance is no cause for concern. Formerip (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the goings-on at Signpost, which are a mystery to me, but if you are suggesting that showing or talking about female breasts is inherently unsuitable or a sign of systemic bias, Formerip, then I suspect you are missing the point. That said, I guess your comment is cryptic enough to be viewed in half-a-dozen different ways. Which perhaps makes it pointless? - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, this is proof. User:DangerousPanda, one of Wikipedia's esteemed administrators removing the image from this talk page with the comment "nice, but they do not belong here". What the hell is this place? A frat house? 182.186.152.84 (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you read a different meaning into my statement? "Nice" as in "oh nice, someone is edit-warring to include this pic here when it doesn't belong", and "they do not belong here" refers to "inappropriate images do not belong on this page". Get your own mind out of the gutter the panda ₯’ 00:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

My mind is not in the gutter dear User:DangerousPanda. I don't have a problem with the image. What is wrong with a photo of a woman's cleavage that makes it so objectionable to be shown here? Is it you, who upon seeing the cleavage of a woman has their mind diving head first into the gutter? It would certainly explain your "nice" comment much better than the cocknbull reason you came up with just above. 182.186.201.225 (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as the topic of this thread, including the photo here was quite appropriate. Revent^talk 00:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I also don't see how the image of the female human body displaying is 'misogynistic', seriously. I am a woman and I'm not seeing the big deal here. It seems like a bunch of people are having a knee jerk reaction to something that isn't even that big of a deal. I've boldly restored it. Tutelary (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Why don't y'all mosey over to the Ice Bucket Challenge edit war, and leave the Signpost alone. —Neotarf (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I copy-edited that page in edit-mode, and in the briefest of looks at the display mode didn't notice that unfortunate image. Every image of the subject on Commons shows an emphasis on breasts, so my search for a less gender-sensitive image of the subject failed. The substituted logo image solves the problem, as does the removal of one phrase in the accompanying text. Incidentally, an awful lot of non-free images are used in the article on this subject; I'm surprised that doesn't breach the non-free content policy. Tony (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) What is clearly inappropriate about the use of the image in The Signpost is that it has no direct connection with the Power Girl character. Also of concern is that the editor over-focused on one physical attribute and selected a close-up photo. I also wonder about an article with quite a few images, if all are non-free. It seems that improved editorial judgment in in order all around, and a more level-headed conversation about it here might be helpful as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've had enough of your criticism, Cullen, so don't push me. I'm contributing to the SP under duress, and I left partly because of your and Mr Wales's carry-on here, making me look like the enemy of every hearing-impaired person in the world. Tony (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)