User talk:Jimbo Wales

A suggestion for spending your money

Hi,

Just defended my dissertation; I'll be losing access to my university library's databases in a few months. I suggest that Wikipedia get the same access to various databases (JSTOR, AcademicSearchPremier, etc) that your local university has, and choose a team of volunteer researchers to utilize that access. Of course I volunteer to be one of them. ;-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Count me in too!:) prashanthns (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What companies own the databases we'd like some access to?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are tons of them. Some well-known ones for starters:

• JSTOR – is a not for profit organization, extremely reputable, also active in Facebook.
• EBSCO – EBSCO seems to be a publisher and makes fishing lures and...
• LexisNexis owned by Reed Elsevier Inc.
• Project Muse – is a not for profit collaboration between participating publishers and the Milton S. Eisenhower Library
• IngentaConnect – owned by Publishing Technology plc
• Access World News – owned by NewsBank
• And so on. Don't wanna clog up your Talk.
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Are those all independent companies, or are they owned by major publishers?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If this could be pulled off somehow, and reasonably on price, it would be made of awesome. rootology (C)(T) 14:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not in academia and JSTOR would be so useful for Wikipedia. I have thought the same. I suggest Wikipedia invest in this and newspaper archives. I don't know how it could be co-ordinated, though. Computerjoe's talk 15:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Many universities offer borrowing privileges for people who donate $US250 (or other amount) to their library. I'm not sure if off-campus access to databases is included. That probably depends on the university, and if it is included, it may be more restricted. That's another option to look into, and the borrowing privileges would certainly be helpful too. --Aude (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been suggested several times before in various forums. The main issue is that no company wants to give away their resources to everyone capable of registering a Wikipedia account. You've go to be able to set some sort of threshold for who gets access. Or, alternately, I suppose the Foundation could buy licenses similar to those that universities buy, but the cost would likely be very prohibitive. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless worth talking JSTOR atleast. It would go a long way in improving several important categories of articles...also, JSTOR is non-profit. Worthwhile for the fondation to buy access and have a Wikiproject with access to it. prashanthns (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking for selfish reasons, but what would that kind of individual access cost per year/month? — Ched (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of them don't offer individual subscriptions (including JSTOR). This was indeed discussed at length and in detail on the mailing lists recently. Might be useful for participants in this discussion to look that up and see what useful information has already been dug up. Avruch ^T 18:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

@Ling.Nut. My public library, one of the best in the nation, offers a limited selection of such databases to any cardholder. These databases are remotely accessible via a proxy. The only authentication is that you have to enter your library card number. [1]. A godsend for those without access to a large university's subscription. I suggest that the public library (online and off-line) is a valuable alternative to subscribing to private databases. -Truckbest23098 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not always an option. I live in a small borough. Our libraries don't have access. Computerjoe's talk 19:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so sure. Do some research. There are many free resources available. Many universities allow local residents to enter their library for free and use their collections online and off-line. The resource I cited is available to anyone who lives in Massachusetts. Residents of many small towns in the western part of the state like North Adams and such have access to the BPL's entire circulation network. What is the general area of your residence? I bet I could find something.--Truckbest23098 (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I do have a university nearby but I don't fancy trekking there and back. It would be good if Wikipedia could get editors access (perhaps editors could apply to view specific articles to ensure it's not just used by the general public) in the right of Wikipedia. I don't see how/why they'd object. Computerjoe's talk 22:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My point, of course, is that Wikipedia is a non-profit organization that was most recently having trouble raising money and considering ad placement. As such, the organization is not in a position to spend money unwisely. High quality database subscriptions are expensive, reaching into the five figures for institutional access. As you yourself demonstrate, a free alternative is easily available. Moreover, the distributed nature of Wikipedia ensures that someone somewhere will likely have access to a particular requested article. In other words, the plan of giving a limited subset of Wikipedians access to these databases is already in place. There is already a large number of people on Wikipedia who have access to these databases. Perhaps those with access can flag themselves so people in need can contact them and they can pass a copy of the article along. Now, if you're talking about paying for every Wikipedian to access these databases, I'm listening. --Truckbest23098 (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that Wikimedia is a non-profit without a large budget for things like this, I just wanted to say that we were not "having trouble raising money" and absolutely were not "considering ad placement".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt universities would be forthcoming with this. Computerjoe's talk 15:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

saying "The plan is already in place" is true in theory but more or less false in practice. There is (or there used to be; deletionists probably got it) a userbox for folks with JSTOR access who are willing to share. But a clearinghouse of requests is lacking. And my original idea still stands as a superior alternative. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I should say that the plan is in the process of being carried out. The hard part, access, is already solved for a subset of Wikipedians. I'm not sure your original idea is superior. Firstly it will cost extra money: around four figures per database to allow several thousand people to access it, for a total in the mid-five figures -- per year. Secondly, you will have a whole series of issues regarding who gets access and who does not. Thirdly, it will take time and administrators to negotiate the deals with each subscription. If a significant subset of Wikipedians already have access to these databases, it would seem not only more economical, but more expedient to simply set up a request clearinghouse much like the Admin notice board or Req for deletion board (Legal issues aside). -Truckbest23098 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Getting official access is far and away superior because of the last three words of your post: "Legal issues aside."
• "Time to negotiate deals"? That sounds a lot like someone's official, paid job.
• "Who gets access and who does not" is a trivial question. Two options:

1. Depending on how many seats (or whatever they are termed) are acquired, select a number of folks (raul, Sandy, G-guy, TimVvickers, various WikiProjects such as MILHIST and BIO, etc.) to invite a set number of other folks to have access. My First choice, since you start with trusted individuals. Also you can deliberately spread topic coverage, so folks in the Video games WikiProject don't get every single access seat (or whatever it's called).
2. Let the community decide. My second choice.

Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Choice of access is not trivial. That was a long explaination you had to give. Imagine the fight over who gets access and who does not. If implemented, it would be a vaulable commodity, and I assure you tempers will flare / accusations of unfairness etc. I for one do not condone futher stratifications of Wikipedia users as it is a major turn off for me. Legal issues, I conceed. A _formalized_ system of article exchange will likely violate T&C. But, it would be very hard for database providers to enforce or stop such an exchange system. It does go against the spirit of such things and takes advantage of the database providers. -Truckbest23098 (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I'm a veteran arguer, and I don't think there will be arguments. There's no power whatsoever involved, and only a truly modest amount of prestige. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, from personal experience, I can assure you that access to JStor sadly confers neither prestige nor power. That's not the point: I object to providing the real economic value that access to Jstor confers. Quick research also shows that T&C may not be as big of a problem as I thought: Jstor for example allows for "ad hoc" distribution of articles. -Truckbest23098 (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What a wonderful idea! When I was an undergrad at Columbia we had access to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) database. That was incredibly useful for more than just definitions and can definitely be useful for building articles. Valley2city^‽ 03:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I started the thread, and added a suggestion about how to allocate seats/choose volunteers. I think I've added all the value I can add to this thread. Unwatching– Good Luck & ping me if anything ever happens. Later! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As an aside User:Foxhill/internet reference sites accessible with a valid UK Library card is useful for those in the UK but may be out of date. Nanonic (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I don't think this will happen. Access is too expensive for the foundation to pay for and then give away even to a small subset of users. One solution might be to ask the foundation to examine possible ways to offer this as an add-on you pay for but I think we all know how that would be recieved by large portions of the community. Given the significant increase in traffic these providers would likely recieve if we started adding more links to them, I don't think it would unreasonable to expect a discount thus making it possible for the foundation to make a bit of badly needed money as well but as I said this will never happen. There's too much opposition to these things within the community. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Ling Nut is mistaken. There is already a clearinghouse for requests, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. Under utilised and lacking on exposure perhaps but it's there. Also, I have to say to anyone making the claim that you're sadly mistaken if you think there is going to be no arguments over who get's access to a valuable commercial subscription provided by the foundation at no cost. Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Wales' USA networks "Characters" spot

It is clear that anyone who, when asked for an explanation of themselves as it relates to their greatest accomplishment, cannot measure themself in anything but racist terms (old white men) is, at his core a racist. Not that we can't benefit from the contributions of a racist, but it's important to know who one's idols really are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.96.210 (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how "old white man" is a racist term in any way.-- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 16:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. That's one of the weirdest arguments I have ever heard.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we need an article entry on the idea of Old white men to explain the idea the IP?--Tznkai (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That was out of line. I'm not saying the OP has a point, but it is considered out of touch in some places to say a person can be 'white'. 122.107.135.153 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sunday Times article

Just thought you might like to read the Sunday Times article, featuring an interview with you, in which Giles Hattersley lies about Wikipedia's coverage of him. [2]. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of the article, can you expand upon what you mean about him "lying"? I have already taken serious issue with the article and asked them to retract it - I am badly misquoted and misrepresented in it, in a number of ways. I took at face value the honesty of his complaints about Wikipedia, though.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What I take it DuncanHill is refering to is that Giles Hattersley talks about his own entry on wikipedia but that there is no record of such an article existing until it was created today after the article was published. Davewild (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I created it as a rebuttal, if some Admin doea not wake up and protect the page we will look like even bigger idiots, who cannot even defend ourselves properly. FGS Wales get your act together, wake up, and defend this project from this rubbish. Giano (talk)

What I mean here by lying is deliberately saying something that is untrue. It is of course possible that someone in the pub told him that we had an article with false statements in it, and he took their word for it without checking his facts. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is a 30 year old fashion journalist worthy of a Wikipedia article anyway? Personally, I preferred having no article at all - so anyone who goes to look can see that Mr. Hattersley was simply wrong. I'm interested to know what proposal Jimmy is making tomorrow that the article refers to, though. Avruch ^T 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea, and I'd appreciate some help researching this. Perhaps the bit about him having his own entry was the doings of an over-eager editor, and he didn't write it that way. Is it possible that our entry on Roy Hattersley at some point listed Giles as his son? Or that the claim appeared in Wikipedia somewhere at some point in time? I think it quite important that we be 100% sure our facts are right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found anything, but I didn't search every article of course. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Have just used Wikiblame to search the Roy Hattersley article for the word "Giles", and it at no time appeared in the article since at least 14:34 on the 4th July 2007. I could search further back, but I suspect that such a search could be done faster by someone at the Foundation. DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't have that many revisions and presuming it's working properly wikiblame found no mention of Giles or giles ever in the Roy Hattersley aricle. No deletions in the log so only possibility I could have missed presuming the tool is working would be oversights since I obviously can't see that log but it seems to me not that likely unlike with the Giles article. Also looked in the Roy talk page Nil Einne (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

using the same tool, no mention of a Roy in Arena (magazine). We're looking for a possibly phantasmal needle in a very large haystack.--Tznkai (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No Roy or Hattersley in The Sunday Times according to Wikiblame.--Tznkai (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have emailed the Sunday Times to complain about the article, will update when/if I get a reply. I also tried to add a comment to the online version of his story, but it does not appear to have been published. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Jimbo, since you are currently involved in this it my be best to mention it to you. As highlighted above and in other places e.g. [3] it appears to most people that Giles Hattersleys article was only created recently after Giles Hattersley's story in the Times upon which it was deleted by you not long after. This makes it sound like Giles Hattersley story was nonsense (ignoring how he misquited you) since we didn't have an article on him until he made noise. As a BLP regular, I understand why an article may be oversighted if it contained highly inaccurate or libellious information but given what's happened here, we need to clear up ASAP if this (oversighting the article) is what happened or else people who don't research the story properly are going to start accusing us of trying to hide the fact we did have a potentially libellious article for a while. Cheers. Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC) So just to be clear, the article has never been oversighted then? Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your concern completely. I am deeply concerned about us making an allegation that Mr. Hattersley has lied. That, if true, could be a job-ending issue at a newspaper of strong reputation, which the Sunday Times is. For this reason, I have deleted the article about Mr. Hattersley, which appears to me have been created for the sole purpose of making this claim. Wikipedia is neither a tabloid, nor a newspaper of any kind. There are many possible explanations for what Hattersley wrote, including but not limited to:

• An overzealous editor misunderstanding what Hattersley actually wrote, and turning the claim false in the process
• An old version of the article which was oversighted - but I have checked the oversight logs and personally found nothing... although I would like to have this confirmed by others, more experienced than I in oversight log checking
• An innocent error on the part of Mr. Hattersley based on a faulty memory of the claim being made on the other Hattersley's page - though people seem to have adequately checked up on this as well
• An innocent error on the part of Mr. Hattersley based on a faulty memory of the claim being made on some completely unrelated website (who knows, only he can help to shed light on that)

Giano was deeply wrong to create the article and deeply wrong, as usual, to bark at people about it. However, I have unblocked him because this is not really about Giano, and I trust that he has the good sense to stay very far away from this situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• The page Jimbo was written to set the record straight. It was factual, it was referenced and it was accurate. The matter was widely known and discussed for 21 hours before I wrote the page. The page was openly writen, I also discussed it with an Arb at the time I was writing it. I posted openly concerning it on the Admins Notceboard, where upon it was vastly edited and expanded by others. The page needed to be written by an editor, who if checked would be seen to be a reliable mainspace editor; my mainspace edits are reliable. You are reading far too much into this, and quite frankly I find your aspertions insulting. If you had dealt with this matter 24 hours ago, when Wiki En began reporting it, you would not find yourself in this mess. It was not deeply wromg to write the page, it was the right thing to do. Giano (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid, sir, and your writing an article which cast aspersions upon a journalist at a reputable newspaper, based as it turns out on a misunderstanding of the facts, was completely unacceptable. Your persistent barking at others was and is equally unacceptable. As it turns out, and of course unknown to you, I was dealing with this matter in a timely fashion. But, the right way to handle it is not to write a hatchet-job article as you did, but to allow me to contact the journalist and his editors to find out the facts in an orderly manner. Your mainspace edits are precisely what is at issue here: you engaged an egregious BLP violation. I recommend that you stay very far away from doing things like this in this or any other similar situation henceforth lest you earn yourself what will be a richly deserved permanent ban.

I cannot for the life of me understand why someone who likes to fashion himself as a good mainspace editor would even begin to imagine that the right way to respond to Mr. Hattersley's article would be to do what you did. Shame on you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"based as it turns out on a misunderstanding of the facts" - do you have a reliable source for that? DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's also worth noting Mr Hattersley's other example - the article on Deal Castle which he claims was started by an 11 year old. It may well have been, but that was in 2004, so it's hardly breaking news. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  Didn't we have a 10 year old admin at one point? Who cares... --Tango (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

These two forum postings that are completely unrelated to Wikipedia say that Giles is the son of Roy: [4], [5] --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just a word about the state of the majority of British national newspapers, and especially those from the News International stable; check your calender against the date printed on the front page - just in case they are making that up as well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Please be careful not to traduce Mr Hattersley; he has written about many notable people, including Peaches Geldof and Paris Hilton; he has also interviewed people of lesser import, such as Jilly Cooper, although she does complain that he got that wrong too. Let it not be said that whereas mainstream journalists, paid a relative fortune to preen and peacock on expense accounts, sometimes get it wrong, whereas we unpaid volunteers, giving up a lot more than our time, also do so from time to time. When I write an article here, I'd hope it stays written because I care enough to try to make it so. Would that others had the same commitment. This whole thing makes me feel ill. Actually make that "more ill". --Rodhullandemu 22:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• • What he said. I think a lot of people fell for the mistake of thinking the Times of today is the stolid, newspaper-of-record Times of fifty years ago. It isn't. – iridescent 22:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Even The Times crossword isn't what it was, which is why I switched to Araucaria in The Guardian. Now that is a crossword that can take up to an hour to complete! --Rodhullandemu 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

re the action of blocking Giano - and not the situation

Jimbo, did you - in blocking Giano for incivility - request and receive permission of the ArbCom, as required by the WP:AE conditions relating to Giano? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That would not be necessary in this situation, but as others have noted, the point is moot now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What? One needs permission to block editors? GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That only applies to enforcement of the civility parole, not all blocks for incivility. Also, must we have drama just because Giano was involved? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The block has already been undone, what can possibly be gained by arguing about procedure? --Tango (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(To Apoc2400) Blocks for incivility are de facto enforcement of the Giano civility parole, what else would it be? (To Tango) Well, basically I am hoping to find out if Jimbo is acting like "a regular sysop" or is in his "Constitutional Monarch" mode - because if I made as many pratfalls as a admin I would have been asked to hand in my flags some time ago. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There was no error here. It was a good block. Giano really screwed up here, and of course he is unlikely to apologize for it and accept that WP:NPA is hard policy. That I decided to be generous to him is an entirely different question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we stop handwringing about the block for a while? Deciding to write an article like this is rather silly at best, but if you are going to do something that monumentally dangerous/ridiculous, you should behave perfectly. Giano did not handle it well, and I'm sure most of us are scratching our heads wondering how Giano's WP-persona managed to leak into mainspace. Surely it will not happen again, so lets just move on. Struck most of the previous comment, as it seems silly in hindsight, and I'll take my own advice.--Tznkai (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, would it be possible for you to inform us of exactly what the "misunderstanding" was eventually? I'm awful confused, I spent a couple hours rummaging around the site trying to find out where the false claims could've been made, and when.--Tznkai (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The latest informaton that I have is at Talk:Giles Hattersley. As it turns out, writing a hatchet job article about a man based on an alleged "lie" he told in a newspaper, was a really bad idea. The paper made an error, as it turns out. Even if the claim were to have been true, Wikipedia is not a tabloid, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and writing an article like that which was almost completely about this one article, is just not even remotely acceptable. In my view, Giano has crossed a very big line here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Did the article say "lie"? I only saw it say "error". --Tango (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The article wasn't a "hatchet job". DuncanHill (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just a second here - why have you put "lie" in speech marks - I never used that word - I used the word "error" get your facts straight Wales - if you can. Now I'm out of here, you keep that page deleted because if people see it, they may just wonder what you are talking about. Giano (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm the only one to have said that Mr Hattersley lied - which seems to have been wrong of me, a combination of an unclear reference to something he was told ages ago and some over-eager sub-editing seem much more likely. I certainly didn't see Giano saying it anywhere. DuncanHill (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are the one who said it. Here is a rewrite to omit the scare quotes: "As it turns out, writing a hatchet job article about a man, based on a suggestion that he lied in the newspaper, was a really bad idea." Don't let Giano distract you with my use of scare quotes there. The point is: he did a very bad thing and he is entirely unapologetic about it. I wish that he would do what you have done: apologize for the error. I consider that extremely unlikely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Another newspaper article with mistakes, like most newspaper articles... holding forth about mistakes on Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How about " based on a suggestion that he lied in the newspaper" be replaced with "based on an article under his name containing a demonstrable error"? DuncanHill (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone really wanted to write a hatchet job on Mr Hattersley, 5 minutes' googling would give them more than enough for a much longer and more detailed article than Giano's innocuous stub. DuncanHill (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Innocuous? I recommend that you reconsider. A biography of a journalist at a high quality newspaper which has nothing other than a claim of this sort is exactly the kind of BLP violation that I am working so hard for us to rise above. If you don't agree with me that it is NOT ok to sum up a man's career with the suggestion that he did something as bad as that, then I don't even know where to begin. We have a serious moral obligation to get things right. Anyone who doesn't agree, should leave the project.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh has below said it more clearly than I could. DuncanHill (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The article stated that Hattersley claimed there were falsehoods in his Wikipedia entry (true as far as we knew), and that another journalist had questioned whether he had one (true). That was the extent of the "hatchet job" "BLP violation". Skomorokh 01:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

When you consider that reporter's careers are heavily dependent on their perceived veracity, it's not good. much like calling the fellow a liar somewhere on this talk page isn't good. --Versageek 01:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt a graceful withdrawal from this discussion, since after catching up on all the backstory, the BLP issue is more about WP:UNDUE than anything specifically included in the deleted article. --Versageek 16:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What's "not good"? Mr. Richmond's professional observation published in a reliable source? Skomorokh 01:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's highly questionable if the blog is a reliable source for such a contentious claim in a BLP particularly when we don't know what level of editorial control is exercised over the blog and more to the point, the primary purpose of biographies is to describe someone's life (taken from our very own article). It is unclear if Giles Hattersley's life is notable enough for a biography, but what is clear that if it is, it is entirely inappropriate for more then say ~1/20 of it to be about some article he wrote, which may or may not have contained errors (bear in mind that at the time, we didn't have the clarification from Hattersley and we hadn't even confirmed that it wasn't oversighted and we still don't have a reliable source discussing the fact the article never existed) and which barely made a splash (especially at the time, although even now there is still no relible source discussing the article unless you include the blog). Wikipedia biographies are not places to correct 'errors' someone made about wikipedia (or anything else) nor are they the place to 'defend wikipedia against falsehoods'. They are definitely not the place to engage in OR (e.g. using the logs to 'prove' your point). If you create a biography article for any other reason then to talk about the life of a person, you are creating it for the wrong reason. If you create an article and start to write about a potentially non-notable controversy and don't even go into a great amount of detail about the persons life, then you are doing the wrong thing. Any of these are highly inappropriate per BLP and do wikipedia and its editors a great disservice. I for one am grateful that Jimbo Wales had been proactive in protecting wikipedia from editors engaging in this conduct. If anyone feels offended by any of this, I say tough, I for one have always felt it best to be straight up with other editors when I see their conduct as bad or wrong (this is not a personal attack, I am referring solely to poor conduct) and when they don't even apologise for that behaviour, I see no reason to feel sorry for them Nil Einne (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish that we enforced WP:NPA as rigorously as we seek to enforce WP:BLP. In the past I have been slandered in projectspace, and there is no effective recourse. Editors who participate under their real world identities should be protected. It is a shame that people feel the need to use pseudonyms. (And if somebody uses a pseudonym, they also should be protected from personal attacks!) Jehochman ^Talk 10:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming G's report of what he wrote is correct (a couple of arbs have implicitly affirmed this as has Jimbo), given history of past conflict etc. this is the type of misuse of a block, for simply giving undue emphasis to a statement otherwise compliant with BLP, that would have us seriously questioning an admin's access to the tools. Then there's the above misrepresentation of the edits in question ("hatchet job" etc) and patronising and frankly clueless comments which accompanied the unblock (complete with wondering aloud about about trolling, how extraordinarily amusing). Given that Jimbo recently couldn't be bothered to use what remains of his 'executive power' to start a trial of flagged revisions (arguably significantly more useful than any number of dubious "BLP blocks") what exactly is the point of his continuing to be anything other than a figure-head?--Misarxist (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, this is complete and utter... well, the word I'd like to use is one I don't prefer to be on the record as having said, so I'll just stick with "bovine manure". I've checked that article. I've read the sources. The text and the sources agree. We don't block people for using a bad source without a hell of a good reason to be sure they're deliberately misrepresenting them. "Hatchet job"? Apparently "assume good faith" doesn't apply to some people's contributions anymore. If you'd blocked him for edit warring, that could maybe pass, but blocking him for harassment over this is absurd, and pretty ironic that someone who loves "no personal attacks" so much would be fine putting an accusation like that permanently in Giano's block log. I'm highly committed to getting our biographies of living persons articles correct, but that doesn't require us to alienate committed contributors without a bloody better reason than this to think they were deliberately smearing someone. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sunday Times

Can we now assume that the Sunday Times is no longer a reliable source? DuncanHill (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It was always the somewhat less reliable version of The Times. There is no such thing as a 100% reliable source, that's one of the reasons it is so important to cite sources, it allows people to judge the reliability of the information for themselves. --Tango (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the most common sense explanations of the reliable sources policy that I've ever seen. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia policies are easy to explain using common sense - it's the applications of them that go horribly wrong. --Tango (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) Depends a lot on which bit of the Sunday Times. The Insight Team are one of the finest investigative journalism groups in the world, a reputation built over thirty years. In contrast, the style and lifestyle is much less reliable but it's only intended as frothy light reading. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Insight Team (or what was leftof them) were dispanded in the 90s.Geni 12:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Either them (or a clone) has behind the peers and cash investigation a week or so back. That said, I don't read the Sunday Times .... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither. The term has become a tag to use on any bit of inhouse journalism that they want to give prominace to.Geni 13:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It was always like that. The core team was always small, pulling in people/resources as needed. A source close to the Sunday Times tells me that the permanent core (three) went in 2005. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please undelete Giles Hattersley

I'll repeat my request from the article talk page here in case you miss it: It seems we have the facts now. Since this was intended as a temporary deletion until we had the facts, could you please undelete and allow the community to decide what to do? Thanks. --Tango (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Highly likely an AfD tag would be slapped onto it within minutes, which might be helpful towards sorting this out. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I intend to AfD it myself as not notable, I just want the chance to do that and for other people to disagree with me. (Please note, my request for undeletion is not an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, I think allowing the community to make this decision will prevent further disruption.) --Tango (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be better that we get the full facts (who made what mistakes) before we start considering an undelete. Two wrongs don't make a right, and we have no reliable sources to say what exactly happened at this stage. I'd say leave it a few days before we even consider it - even then the best thing to do might be to start from scratch when emotions aren't running as high. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sunday Times made the mistake, who within that organisation made it is their problem. --Tango (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we centralize discussion to Talk:Giles Hattersley or vice versa?--Tznkai (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify who you are replying to? Are you agreeing to my request? (The indent would suggest so.) --Tango (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I fixed the indent, above. I agree with Ryan that there is no hurry at all for an undelete. Facts continue to emerge and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What relevant facts do we still not have? If there are some, then I fully support waiting, but I can't see anything we're missing. I think we need to have an AFD on this sooner or later since, if it remains deleted as a "temporary deletion", someone is sure to drag it up in a few month's time when looking for something to complain about. I think getting it out the way sooner rather than later is for the best. Perhaps I have more (misplaced?) faith in the community's ability to have a rational discussion about it than you. I think waiting will only reduce participation, which will reduce the credibility of the final result, and drag this whole thing out. --Tango (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that I have a higher degree of belief in the ability of the community to have a rational discussion about this than you do, actually. There's just no reason at all for you to frame it in that way. You can have the discussion now, in fact. You can start working on a replacement article in user space, in fact.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What gives you that surety? How do you know my degree of belief? I don't want to start a replacement article, as I've said before I don't think the article should exist, I just want the community to make that decision. You said it was a temporary deletion until we had the facts, unless you can tell me some facts that we don't have yet, I can't see any reason for not undeleting it. --Tango (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This situation should be allowed to defuse for a few days before any further action is taken. Re-posting the article so that can immediately be the subject of a deletion discussion would not serve a useful purpose under the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It would allow us to end this, that's a useful a purpose. --Tango (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tango, though I think your intentions are very good, NYB and JW are correct: letting people vent about the article now would just create all sorts of unnecessary drama. There is absolutely no need to have a subject this minor be recreated immediately. Let's let tempers cool, then have a rational discussion about it. (Full disclosure: I really couldn't care less if the article stays or goes.) IronDuke 01:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And I would like to note that there's nothing preventing anyone from having a discussion about it now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's very difficult to have a discussion about an article people can't see. Also, if I start an AFD about an article that doesn't exist it will probably get immeadiately closed since it makes no sense. Even if we could have the discussion now, that isn't an argument for not undeleting it. --Tango (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee mailing list being leaked

It seems that somebody is leaking (or claiming to leak) private emails sent to the Arbitration Committee mailing list [6]. Is this true or fake? I assume that this is a security leak and it should be fixed ASAP. As somebody who may have sent private information to the list, and who was assured that the list was composed of very trusted individuals and that any emails sent would be handled confidentially, this is very worrying. Please alert the developers and get this fixed soon. 98.134.245.215 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not that sort of leak. The site purports to be leaks by Kelly Martin, former ArbCom member, in violation of the trust and goodwill of others. I have no idea what I could possibly do about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are emails from years ago, there's not a lot that can be done about them. I think the list has recently been reduced to just those that actually need to receive the emails so hopefully that will stop any future leaks. --Tango (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The leaks are unacceptable; they are also, at least formally, copyright violations; but as a practical matter there are no good options in dealing with them. This is a most regretable situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's ex-arb Kelly Martin (talk · contribs). Wikipedia Review thread where he talks about it. He has no new emails. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's her explanation. I thought she'd overcome her addiction to Wikidrama, apparently not. Kind of sad really. the wub "?!" 00:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Why is Kelly Martin not banned for doing that? --Conti|✉ 01:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

To the original poster, she was on the mailing list from October 2005 until September 2006, so if your posts were outside that time, they should be safe. the wub "?!" 00:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yawn Moving on. No-one can possibly find three-year-old mailing list mailing list archives useful or illuminating.

98.134.etc is clearly a sockpuppet (probably an arb or ex-arb), and would have most likely been checkusered and blocked immediately if he/she had taken up the opposite side of the issue. I have to wonder what arbcom (rather more specifically, that era's arbcom; I have no intention of casting such aspersions on current arbcom members whose tenure does not date back to that time period) has to hide, since Ms. Martin is obviously taking the initiative to clean up any actual private information in the emails before posting them. --Random832 (contribs) 00:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"probably an arb or ex-arb" Any proof of that? It could be anyone who reads WR or Kelly Martin herself. What is the opposite side of the issue you talk about? --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No proof, but who but they would take this side? The opposite side would of course be that there's no problem with these posts, since any personal information sent to the list is being redacted. --Random832 (contribs) 00:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything on the arbcom list is supposed to be confidential. Is that having "something to hide" to you? Also, removing real names etc. does not equal removing all sensitive information. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, maybe they just missed the post where she said she would be redacting personal info - it isn't on the front page. the wub "?!" 01:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a confirmation that Wikipedia volunteers handling sensitive information: at least the arbitrators, checkusers and oversighters should sign legally binding Non Disclosure Agreement (and their real life identity should be known to WMF). I think OTRSers and admins might have to sign NDAs as well but for the arbitrators it is an absolute must Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, all current Arbitrators are identified to the Foundation. Certainly, all checkusers and oversighters are. --Deskana (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am quite sure the real life identity of Kelly Martin is known to WMF since she has worked there. What I am not sure about is that she has signed the legally binding non disclosure agreement that includes a ban on disclosing privileged information on the Wikipedia volunteers that she has got access to due to her work as an arbitrator. If she did then we probably should explore legal avenues to stop such behavior. If not then we should ask people who has such an access to sign the NDA. Leaks my Kelly seems to be relatively mild so far with not much of the harm done, I could easily imagine publications from the arbcom mailing list can be much more damaging. We do not want the situation to repeat in the future Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal avenues? You should realize that the arbcom-l mailing list in no way constitutes "privileged" information in any legal sense. The closest it came, from NYB, who is legally qualified, is of being questionable in regards to copyright. PII (Personally Identifying Information) is being redacted. While you may have qualms about the morals or ethics of this decision, I would be frankly amazed if any judge would consider this appropriate. There would be also a problem in that if a single other person on arbcom-l had not been asked or required to sign an NDA, then there would be a good argument that there was nothing more than a "gentleman's agreement", if that, as to privacy. And then, of course, there's grounds for irony - perhaps Kelly could submit the archives to wikileaks? Achromatic (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to say "there's nothing we can do about it" when you (the collective "you") made assurances that private matters could be safely sent there. I think it is incumbent upon you to do everything you can to stop the leaks, be they it by using copyright, or any confidentiality agreement that was signed to get on this mailing list, if only to maintain your credibility. As far as the leaker claiming to redact personal information, what makes you think that someone who has already broken one trust can be taken at their word? To Sam Korn, who yawns above, real names don't change in three years, occupations don't change, addresses don't change, employers don't change. It is extremely worrying that a person such as yourself would be trusted to have access to the list. 96.15.204.38 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are you? Clearly you are an established user either here or on WR. As for " As far as the leaker claiming to redact personal information, what makes you think that someone who has already broken one trust can be taken at their word?" how about, given that she already HAS posted some with personal information redacted, we wait until some is actually posted before claiming that she broke her word? Much is being made of this supposed "breach of trust", but should we really ignore it if it comes out that arbitrators had been abusing their positions? And if they weren't, this will be more embarrasing for Kelly Martin than anything. --Random832 (contribs) 01:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to the list. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 15:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In my view, Kelly's actions in creating this blog are commendable. Her new blog should be seen not as an embarrassment or as an offense against the power structure, but as a reminder of the ArbCom's severe deficiencies with regard to transparency and openness. I recommend the establishment of an official process for disclosing the archives, and I recommend that in the future the ArbCom conduct its normal deliberations in public, reserving its mailing list only for sensitive information that must be kept secret due to privacy concerns. Everyking (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The lesson, of course, is that if you don't want to be embarassed, don't do or say things that would embarass you if people found out. There are enough people around here that thrive on transparency that you simply can't count on keeping your secrets. WilyD 16:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Leak of current posts

See this post, from someone who offered to post archives from arbcom-l and checkuser-l through Jan 16, 2009. Puts paid to the notion that former arbitrators are uniformly trustworthy, in a way Kelly's disclosures didn't. Avruch ^T 00:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Will Mr Hattersley himself be publicly stating that at no time did he accuse either Wikipedia or its editors of libel? 'Cos in the article as it is on the Sunday Times website he appears to be doing exactly that. DuncanHill (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what he will say. But I am pretty sure that relaxing about it for a couple of days will do no one any harm.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You've spoken to or emailed the chap, I just thought that a false allegation of libel & what he intended to do about it might have been part of the conversation. DuncanHill (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this will come as a surprise to you, but is usually inappropriate to reveal what was talked about in private conversations and it is definitely none of our business. Jimbo is handling this in appropriate way, dealing with it constructively and keeping a level head rather then getting angry and yelling at people to fix it, something which usually just makes the situation worse and which is liable to do wikipedia and its editors a great disservice and cause far more harm to us then the article by Giles Hattersley ever did. Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A private conversation would be "how's your family" or "what are you doing for Easter" or "has that nasty infection cleared up". The founder of Wikipedia talking to a journalist about an article about Wikipedia isn't a private conversation. It is Jumbo doing something on behalf of Wikipedia and it's a great shame that once again Jimbo has shewn that he doesn't trust, or as far as I can see, support the community. DuncanHill (talk)

You seem to be confused between "personal" and "private". The conversation isn't personal, it is private. --Tango (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think it is. I don't think it is appropriate for Jimbo to have such conversations and refuse to tell the community whatever it is he has said, done, or been told on our behalf. As it is we get this "you can't discuss this or make your own decisions because I am dealing with it but I won't tell you what I am doing" rubbish which serves no constructive purpose whatsoever and simply alienates editors. Patronising the community, as Jimbo seems to do more and more lately, is not leadership. DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I bet the other end of his conversation considers it private. And I think relaxing about it for a couple days is good advice...I think it'd be a good idea if you could step away from this for a bit and come back when you can be a little more even tempered. That would make this dicussion a lot more effective...RxS (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He's a journalist for Pete's sake - I'm sure he's familiar with the idea that when you tell someone something it may be repeated elsewhere. I am well aware thank you of the standard response to criticism of Mr Wales, that the ones doing the criticising should go away for a while. DuncanHill (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I doubt even a journalist would agree that his private communications must be published whenever someone on the internet anonymously requests it. I'm sure he understands that things he says may get around (as we all do) but that's a long way off from expecting or accepting that his private communications will be published necessarily. And I’m not suggesting you go away, just that you step away from this topic until you can discuss it more even temperedly. RxS (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing anonymous about me. DuncanHill (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs Homework

Did you get it done? :) Fritzpoll (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about privacy in Wikipedia

Hello, mr. Wales!

Is it acceptable do discuss user`s private life on Wikipedia pages and to give personal evaluations and comments on it?--SkyDrinker (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussing other user's lives outside of the wiki in the wiki is foribidden without said person's consent, and warrants an instant block. See WP:OUTING. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 02:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but what say Jimbo about whis? User was said some fact of his biography, and other users react negatively to discuss details--SkyDrinker (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo has his hands full with other issues, and he (supposedly) does not override policy anyway. Your question has been answered; if you wish to interview Mr. Wales for his opinions and thoughts I suggest you contact him and present your credentials and request an appointment. Also, please do not refer to Wikipedia as "wiki" - there is such a thing as a wiki, and such a word, but this is only one wiki among thousands. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It`s very important for me - Jimbo`s opinion. At some Wikipedia has problem with discuss about privat life of one user. And Jimbo can will help me. --81.94.22.20 (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Per my message from a few days ago

Per my message from a few days ago, I have been doing my homework. What I am trying to do is craft a proposal for FlaggedRevs which is not controversial, that addresses as many competing concerns as possible, and gives us a clear track forward at the end of the trial. I had hoped to have something ready by Monday (today), and I still may, but due to having diverted a few hours of my time yesterday to dealing with the Giles Hattersley hatchet-job biography situation, I'm running somewhat behind. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that! I suggest you go for "as uncontroversial as possible" rather than "not controversial", otherwise you will fail. There are people that have a seemingly religious objection to FlaggedRevs and will not be persuaded by any proposal. --Tango (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think "not listen to any proposal" would be a more accurate description of some of them. --Deskana (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you both give good advice. I don't expect to get unanimity, but the idea being put forward in the press, that there is some kind of deep split in the community about this, and that this is a huge controversial step for Wikipedia, is one that I find a bit foolish. (Particularly in the cases where they call to ask me about it, and I explain it to them, and then they go write something inflammatory and the opposite of what I have said!) I think that there is a pretty solid middle ground, there are some legitimate concerns that need to be dealt with, and that not everyone will get everything they want, but that there is a position which almost everyone will agree is better than the current situation, and which will provide us with real learnings for moving forward in a productive way. Some people will - quite legitimately - vote no, and who will vote no will depend a lot on what I end up proposing. Other people will - quite illegitimately - declare the end of the world and that I'm a tyrant, more or less no matter what happens. So, yeah, well get "as uncontroversial as possible" and leave the press to claim the world is falling. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs)

I am sure there are many opinions to consider, but here is what I think is important to gain consensus:

1. Focus on underwatched BLPs.
2. Make it clear that flagged revisions will not be used on all articles. As long as that possibility is looming, many will vote against any kind of implementation.
3. Put in safeguards that makes sure this will not lead to Wikipedia editing grinding down to a halt, or giving too much power over article content to a small wiki-elite.

--Apoc2400 (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not rule out flagged revs on all articles at this stage, I see no reason to. If we get up and running on just BLPs and it's only taking a couple of minutes to flag new edits, then why not expand it? Let's make one decision at a time. If people object to flagged revs on all articles then they need to speak up when someone actually proposes that, if they speak up now they need to be slapped with a wet fish. --Tango (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - Wikipedia-en is huge. Plenty of our low profile articles have redlink and IP editors as their major or sole contributors, flag revs will probably work very poorly on the fringes of Wikipedia space, definitely a place where we'll need compelling data before we consider turning it on wiki-wide.--Tznkai (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you disagreeing with? I was saying it's something to consider after we have some data... --Tango (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone has the time to stay around and evaluate every new proposal. When would we have time to write articles if we did that? I prefer to know exactly what I vote for, not some kind of open-ended let's-see-where-it-leads. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You do know what you vote for. You vote for the proposal at the top of the voting page. You would rather make a decision now, without any facts to go on, than wait until there are facts and make the decision then? Just to save a little time? --Tango (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If I vote yes to a "let's turn on flagged revisions and see what we do with it" proposal, then I risk that it is applied to all articles sometime when I'm not looking. I'd better be safe and vote no. If I know that it will be BLPs and some other articles that need it, then I would be willing to support. Starting with a smaller trial to see how it works is fine, but I want to know where we are going before I support the first step. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, it was discussed already somewhere, but we (Russian Wikipedia) have some experience with finding some not-so-controversial rules for using FlaggedRevs to fight vandalism/BLP/copyright issues, etc. (Actually, we also had strong opposition to FlaggedRevs, but now everybody see that there's nothing bad in FlaggedRevs.) See ru:ВП:ПАТ. Russian Wikipedia will be happy to share its experience. Ilya Voyager (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Giano, Jimbo, Giles Hattersley and BLP-Hysteria

There are bigger issues at stake than Jimbo and Giano and personality conflicts. I think we collectively handled this very badly, and I include myself. What we have seen in action, is what many of us have long suspected: our BLP-culture is hysterical. Its fine to take BLP seriously - and its fine to take BLP a little less seriously than others - there is room for legitimate disagreement. (I do not include no concern at all for BLPs as a legitimate position) We need to stop pretending there is a magical bright line that everyone will immediately recognize, and anyone who crosses it does so in malice or total incompetence. Even if there was a bright line it remains the the responsibility of every Wikipedian to be calm, rational, charitable in conflict. In other words, to explain their reasoning, rather than simply state their positions. This latest incident was notably free of peace makers and consensus building. On a project where we all feel so strongly about Neutrality and consensus, little was found, built, or sought. I myself, jumped into to thick of it - and my conduct was civil - yet still seriously lacking. It is not enough to be civil and polite, we must actively work towards peace and consensus in times of heated conflict.

Giano's intent in writing the article as a defense or a rebuttal was flawed in conception. Yet we should not to harshly judge him just yet. He thought he was doing right. He stands by his work. He told me, and has repeated on wiki that the article was "factual referenced and true" Which in fact it was. It was also, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, An article that was nominally Giles Hattersley, but really about his Wikipedia error. Lets reconcile these two ideas for a moment. What if Giano's intended rebuttal was to create a factual referenced and true neutral) article - and what if he failed, but did so genuinely.

Thus, I return to the subject of BLP-hysteria. In the midst of our entrenched positions on BLPs, we forgot to actually talk to eachother, instead of at eachother. Our collective response to this article was to edit war over it, then protect it, then delete it, all the while bickering with eachother. Giano did not write a properly balanced article (so says me anyway), but after a night's sleep, I can hardly blame him for it. Current event related BLPs have bizarre arcane rules, their own special jargon, and a culture of BLP specialists and their WP:BLP-is-a-stupid-anti-Wikipedia-policy opponents. Even a Wikipedian who has broken through the cultural barrier to get into the general Wikipedia culture will find themselves quickly lost in BLP Wikipedia culture. Our urge to "do no harm" with BLPs is laudable: our tendency to treat people who make purported BLP mistakes is not, and our inability to accept legitimate disagreement is worst of all.

Returning to the latest incident, I think apologies (in the order listed) should be made. First, I apologize for my failure to really do anything particularly useful in this mess, despite being involved in it. I'd like to think I didn't make it worse, but I very much may have - I certainly did not help in the ways that I should have, as I described above. Second, I ask Jimbo to apologize to Giano. No one man can be held responsible for an entire culture gone wrong, but Jimbo, you are our Founder, and you must serve as a leader. You must be the better man, always. Calling Giano's work a hatchet-job was, to put it mildly, insulting (especially to anyone who considers themselves a serious writer) and unhelpful, even if you felt it was true. Third, I ask that Giano apologize (though, as he has left, it scarcely seems necessary for him to do so.) to Jimbo and others at whom he has directed abuse. There are those who will disagree with you, because they share your devotion to making Wikipedia a better place - and by now you should know that you have a special talent for making even innocuous words deeply aggravating and even hurtful. Finally, I think the entire section of the community who was involved and pissed off should apologize and forgive eachother. It may not happen, but it would help the next step.

That next step, in my opinion, is a reexamination of BLPs. Not of our need to get them right - that ship has sailed - but of how we handle the discourse, how we protect Wikipedia, Living persons, and the contributors from harm. --Tznkai (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the picture you paint of a mass of collectively wrongheaded but well meaning people. There were a relatively small number of concretely poor decisions, among them creating the article in the first place. The best decision would have been to protect the title against creation once it became a news item, but no one had the foresight to take that step. I don't know about "hatchet job" - and opinions on what that means presumably vary - but as you note, the article was not well balanced and only barely better than a stub. The edit warring was as predictable as it was regrettable - all articles mentioned in the news are subject to that sort of thing.

The way the "Hattersley incident" has been twisted by various people to justify expanded criticism of Jimmy, Giano or anyone else is simply wrong. A few people made a few poor decisions in the short period of time before the article was rightfully deleted; that isn't the basis for an indictment of "How Wikipedia reacts to BLPs" in my mind. More important than an exchange of apologies is a committment from some people to take it easy a little bit and not take themselves and everything else so seriously. Giano shouldn't have created the article, and he probably should not have been blocked (I haven't seen the edit summary referenced in the block), but done is done and let's not turn it into more than it is. Avruch ^T 19:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Libelous comments concerning Professor Carl Hewitt

There is another one brewing at Libelous comments concerning Professor Hewitt.--67.169.144.164 (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that link doesn't help. Article? --Rodhullandemu 22:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The bit in question is pretty obviously Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Scientific_disputes. WilyD 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's not, to my mind, the incisive, yet neutral and reliably sourced writing for which we should be noted. In short, it's a shed of a section which should be put out of its misery one way or another, and arguably falls foul of WP:BLP; in fact so poorly-written is it, that whereas I would normally be tempted to move it to the talk page, it is apparently beyond rescue as it stands. Therefore, I will remove it and invite any interested author to reconstruct it in their userspace, with proper sourcing, before restoring it to mainspace. Thanks for pointing this out. --Rodhullandemu 22:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We do need to take extra care to make sure articles about us are written with flawless observation of policy - there is an obvious conflict of interest, the only way to with which is to be painstakingly precise and leave no room for mis-interpretation. It seems this article has not achieved that, so removing the offending sections seems like a good idea. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ryan Postlethwaite/GH

Hi Jimbo. I've created a short bio for Giles Hattersley. It's well referenced and I think it shows how he's notable - he was shortlisted for young journalist of the year at the British Press Awards and was also the youngest ever chief interviewer at the Sunday Times. I've left the Wikipedia controversy out because I don't believe it's notable enough to include - we don't have any reliable sources that say exactly what happened, and I think from a BLP perspective it's wrong to include even a mention of it when it wasn't even Hattersley's fault. If there's some significant coverage of it in the news, then we can take another look, but at the minute there only seems to be one blog entry from another journalist. Would you mind if I moved it into mainspace? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• No Ryan, that is not a good idea at all, considering the present climate and unfinished business. Giano (yes, it is he, with a new password) (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The accusations and explanation seem to have been covered by the Telegraph's communities editor in his blog [7]. I think that's a pretty legitimate source. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, a blog is not notable in this instance. The blog also gives that writers personal impression and doesn't rely purely on facts. It most certainly shouldn't be used to source information in the article. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good enough source for the facts, it certainly isn't a good enough source (on its own, anyway) to show notability. --Tango (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What happened?

Moved to User:Tango/GH discussion

rights

Hello,

Recently there was a discussion on the nl.wiki about your administrator rights, currently you still have local admin rights but your not active on the Wikipedia. (But as special moderator you don't have to be confirmed every year).

The question is now if you don't mind if we remove your rights voluntary, because you will not even notice the are gone. You are also a developer so you have the admin rights on all wikimedia projects. And a desysop will also make it possible to remove your right but it should be a waste of our and maybe your time.

I hope you will respond quickly, Abigor (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thnks for your message, I was just placing the message I will not vote if it comes to a de-sysop. I complete understand how you feel about it. Abigor (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Jimbo is a fluent speaker of Dutch and an active, responsible contributor to the Dutch Wikipedia, I can't see why he shouldn't have admin rights there. Oh, wait a minute, what's that you say...? Everyking (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sign book

Jimbo it would be good if you could sign in my sign book.→RatónBat→ 17:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

LETTER FROM CHINA

Dear Jimmy Wales,

Thanks for reading my letter, I am a user and editor of Chinese Wikipedia and I want to share some ideas about the development of Chinese Wikipedia.

The Chinese Wikipedia finally got the Turning Point, after the long-term banning by the PRC government, Wikipedia could be visited in a certain degree of free, from our experience, this free would be keep if there is no big change. The most frequently used language Wikipedia can be used by a number of 400,000,000 netizens partly free, but what can we see is that the Chinese Wikipedia is a superficial encyclopedia, Original article with high Quality is so little, most of the featured articles are the translate version of English or other Wikipedia. Facing the competitors such as baidu encyclopedia(baidu baike in pinyin, a product by a Chinese company) Wikipedia is losing its advantage gradually.

In my point of view, Wikipedia is a encyclopedia for all of the world for free and NPOV, it could be and should be written by people who have different view, whether you are left-wing,right-wing,communist,or even you are a nazist, you have the right to edit the area you are good at, so, why Chinese Wikipedia should be the translate version of English Wikipedia?

What I want to do is beginning a program of inventing Chinese experts to edit the Chinese Wikipedia, some of Chinese experts are not unlike the idea of Wikipedia, just because they do not know the program and our idea, so why do we tell them the idea. NPO also need marketing, if no one know us, we would be forgotten.

I think the following things could be done:

1. Begin a program officially .

2. Sending Inventing E-mails to professors in each university.

3. Set a group to help these experts getting used to the use of Wikipedia.

4. Contact the administrator of BBS in some Universities to begin the topic of Wikipedia.

These are just a start of the program, more and more things should be done to improve the quality of Chinese Wikipedia.

Best Wishes to Wikipedia

Raintwoto

raintwoto@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto (talk • contribs) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Giles Hattersley

Jimbo, could I ask you to review the new article at Giles Hattersley? This is not a restoration of an old version but a completely new article, written from scratch, without any of the elements that made the last one a problem. Page protection is still in place until March 14th to prevent any short-term mischief and to enable you to review the article in the meantime. Hopefully this will resolve any lingering issues with this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The article looks fine.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)