User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Inappropriate sketch

Jimbo, do you think it is ultimately legitimate to post this "kid-friendly" Japanese cartoon of minors in underwear on the English-language Wikipedia: File:Lolicon Sample.png?--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We are getting into borderline trolling territory here, but as explained in the failed deletion debate, this image is not considered illegal under State of Florida law. As with Virgin Killer, it has provoked debate on many occasions, but has survived because of the context. Please don't keep asking Jimbo about things that belong on the relevant talk pages.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is in extremely poor taste, amateurish, and as an illustration on the Hentai and Lolicon entries (a valid subject for an encyclopedia) it is WP:OR of the worst kind. It isn't, however, illegal. I think it should be deleted, or simply left orphaned on commons, for these reasons that have nothing to do with it being tacky and stupid, although I think it is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Jimmy. :~) --FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's crummy artwork, "tacky" also fits and if someone were to rm from the article, it would likely be a help and a kindness to readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If this image shows that Lolicon is tacky and stupid, then it is doing a good job. It has survived because it is copyright free, and would not need a fair use rationale for use in an article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not original research as the artist has done other lolicon images as an artist outside of this. It's just a lolicon image done in his style. Simple as that, and nothing more. It was done to provide a free image to illustrate the topic, which it does very well. It's infinitely better than the previous image, which actually was amateurish and in extremely poor taste. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I find that unpersuasive. Is he a notable artist in this field? If not, then an image "in his style" is original research for these topics, plain and simple. It's as if we had an article on Impressionism and had a homemade Wikipedia painting instead of Monet. The lack of free alternatives is never a good rationale for violating the intellectual standards of the encyclopedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, Jimbo, I think you're on a loser with that argument. WP:OR's statement on Original Images states nothing about the notabilty of the image's creator. If that's an issue, why is it not part of policy? Does this also mean that none of the photographs I've taken for WP could ever be used on articles, because I'm not notable as a photographer? BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 20:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Does it need an notable artist to illustrate the term lolicon? Anything what is used inside this image is supported by common knowledge about japanese/manga art style and lolicon as genre itself (depiction of minors, around 12 years old). As long we don't state that this image is an typical illustration for an japanese artist, we do nothing wrong, since there is no rule that hentai or lolicon must have an original japanese author. --Niabot (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the principle involved is whether the encylopedia is engaging in some unacceptable activity or is merely responsibly describing it. For example, if we are treating the topic Lolita complex - themed written literature with a prominent quote box giving a representative example of the same, if such literature itself is not legitimate, to showcase the literature would, in turn, be illegitimate also.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything objectionable, because every photography of multiple kids at the beach would/could have the same effect, but does not comply to the art style. Looks like Don Quixote found a new target. --Niabot (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've just stated to Gwen Gale following her deletion removal from the article of this image, it is extremely tame compared to some material on the subject, and whilst tacky, it serves to illustrate the genre without requirement for a license. It's copyright free, and isn't harming anyone. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no defence, but how can Jimbo say this is OR, when we have images of users own genitalia uploaded and in use on articles? This is nuts, guys. What the hell is the problem??? BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 18:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Gwen Gale, but I believe this doesn't violate WP:OR... I quote Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, - this does neither. It illustrates the subject in a format which has been published for quite a while. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 18:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Just another example, that also does not fall under WP:OR

This was discussed hundreds of time. All discussion lead to the result, that it is not affected by WP:OR. Same goes for many other images.--Niabot (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, ok but can you verify that the image supports the sources cited in the article? en.WP is not a forum for original artwork, tacky or otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Since when do we have to verify the use of images? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It does. And anyone can proof it, even he might stumble on much more ridiculous content, by doing so. --Niabot (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since "forever," Wikipedia:Image#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) It doesn't have to, to the best of my understanding. The image is there to illustrate the genre and aid in its identification, it doesn't need to support the sources, although as Niabot says, It does. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 18:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite a source supporting your assertion that this given image illustrates the genre? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Now you try to run in circles, looping back to some of the oldest words in history: “I know that I know nothing” --Niabot (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC) PS: In other words: You can't proof anything that does not only depend on theoretical thesis.

So cite a source as to that image, which is not something like a verifiable map, mechanical drawing, geometric image and so on. Otherwise, it's the uploader's own original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC * 3) As I've said, it's not OR since it was created by a Wikipedian and doesn't violate WP:OR's terms for images. Not does it violate the Wikipedia:Image#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature terms either, since it's both relevant to the article (a quick google image search of Lolicon will show you that the image is drawn as Lolicon) and it's signficiantly related to the article's topic (it's Lolicon, the article is about Lolicon, ergo, it's related). I don't see how a source would help, but if you really want one, I'll go find some which describe the Lolicon format. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 18:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how taking a photo and uploading it is original research. I see how drawing a theory might be but you seem to be interpreting the rule in the strictest of interpretations. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a photo. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be a photo. It is not original research, eaither. It illustrates the topic very clearly and without being pornographic, too (which is a bonus, IMO). This one illustrates the generally-sexualized nature of lolicon without being pornographic. If you do any research at all on lolicon, you will find this image illustrates the topic very well. As it is a free image, and as you are attempting to improperly apply WP:OR to it (see the quote from the policy, above, from BarkingFish), it is perfectly appropriate for the article. It does not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. If you think it does, then you need to show how it does so. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the corresponding articles (Lolicon, Superflat, Manga, Anime, Manga iconography, ...) and the corresponding sources and you have all facts you need, to be sure that this image is not OR. But you play the Don Quixote again. --Niabot (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Photos are not the same things as drawings and this all looks to me like y'all's own original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter. There are probably a million unsourced statements on this site. Are they all original research? No. The fact is, most things here are not original research but they lack a citation because it doesn't exist. We tolerate them because not only do we assume good faith but we also understand that not every accurate statement can be sourced. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a photo, to be an original image created by a Wikipedian. It's not OR, Gwen. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 18:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed it as original research, someone put it back. Still, a citation would be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally someone would say: "RTFM". In this case someone should say: "RTFAALOTEOTP" (read the fucking article and look over the edge of the plate) --Niabot (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, now you fall into incivility (or whatever) because you can't verify the original artwork. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You say, that you need a proof that this is lolicon artwork. What makes you believe that it isn't, after you read the cited sources? --Niabot (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, you're dealing with an obvious field expert here, doesn't look like you'r going to make much headway using logical arguments and whatnot. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It all sounds like sundry OR to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you implying that there is no free-use replacement image for this subject? Because either WP:NFCC is being improperly applied to the article or your interpretation of WP:OI is wrong. Because if all original illustrations is going to be considered original research, then it creates a Catch-22 that causes harm to the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 19:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

ISBN 978-0-345-48590-8, ISBN 4-88468-008-1, ISBN 978-4-86182-031-1, ISBN 978-4-86238-151-4, ... I hope you don't want more sources. --Niabot (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Gwen: please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and stop repeating yourself. _→AzaToth 19:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I normally don't post in discussions like this, but this was one of those instances where I thought I could offer something marginally useful from both a reader's and admin's perspective. First, I had no idea what Lolicon was until someone mentioned in on #wikipedia-en. I thought it was some 4chan meme and thought it was a portmanteau of LOL and "icon"... yeah, silly, I know. Then, I read the article, and maybe it was just me, but the image genuinely solidified my understanding of what the article described.

As a test for images, simply furthering the understanding of the article probably isn't sufficient for justifying its appropriateness when it comes to controversial topics. However, if the overtone of the article is greater than or equal to the overtone of the picture, then as a rule of thumb, the picture might be appropriate if it furthers understanding of the article's text in a significant way. In this case, they're cartoons in underwear, and from my understanding of the article and the various sources in it, it's representative of the form of cartoon anime described within the text of the article.

The image could just as easily be replaced with non-free content referenced by reliable third-party sites and solidly avoid any argument about original research while still serving the same purpose; however, it's my understanding that user-generated content for which an open license is available would be preferable and more conducive to replication of knowledge than non-free images as long as the user-generated content is representative of the style of the non-free content.

...but again, that's just my opinion. I'd say if consensus ends up being that it's original research, then simply replace it with non-free content referenced by the sources describing it. That said, I'd probably argue that it's less a debate about original research as it's a debate about the overtone of the image itself (and thus about WP:CENSOR). Either way, I mainly just wanted to say that in my case the image helped me understand the article and the subject itself. Whether or not that's the case for others, who knows. *shrug*

Most importantly, however, I would suggest to everyone involved that they should take the discussion to the article's talk page, which would be a far more appropriate venue for discussion regarding the article's content.

--slakr^\ talk / 19:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice': To make all users aware, this thread and the discussion above are now the subject of a posting at AN/I. This message is posted as a courtesy so that persons involved may comment there. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 19:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What A confused and messy disscussion. Maybe have a break. Edit: Really! They are bad taste and I also notice the creator made Wikipedias mascot? What!? The other image seems to be...less dis-tasteful. Maybe because she's older. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Gwen Gale and Jimbo Wales are entirely correct here; I made the same point at AN/I, in a similar context, not so long ago, with the same kind of response [1]. WP:OI is phrased in a way which doesn't limit the types of images allowed, but it seems clear to me that it is intended mainly to allow the use of user-created photographs and scientific/technical diagrams, whose appropriateness can be evaluated by the same relatively objective standards that text can be. To interpret it otherwise would be to sharply limit the class of nonfree images which can be allowed. If a user-created drawing or otherwise nonphotographic image of a person is to be allowed, for example, than all but the most iconic non-free photographs of people, living or dead, would be disallowed, since user-created replacements would always, in theory, be available. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Im always wondering why you are so happy with Fair Use Images. Most projects can't use this images and have no other replacements. Now say, that no one should be encouraged to create images, just because you can be happy with FUI on EN? --Niabot (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not the issue. Accepting that interpretation of the OR policy would require the removal of thousands of fair use images, which is a really strong indication that there's a consensus-by-practice against that reading of the OR policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This phenomenon only applies to wikis (languages) which have the possibility for fair use. Of course i would like to use a real moviescene (screenshot) or movie poster inside german/french/... articles. But we can't do this and we won't create new images for such cases!⁽¹⁾ Most FUI are used for exactly this case, which shows, that your indication is wrong and has nothing to do with a “consensus-by-practice”. At least if you look at wikipedia in total. --Niabot (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

⁽¹⁾ Last part of this sentence applies only to works, which are genuine.

Sketch used appropriately within the context at "Hentai" then? How broad, exactly, is the guideline at CENSOR? For example, the sketch we've been discussing (which incidentally is by the creator of the WPdia's manga mascot), as noted by Jimbo, is used on the English WPdia twice, the 2nd time in a subsection at Hentai wherein any number of subgenres are discussed, yet the subsection uses this one pertaining to a Lolita complex theme to illustrate the whole subsection. I deleted it once saying it wasn't necessary for the illustration of the subsection to single out children from among the subgenres, yet this edit was rv'd with an edit summary citing WP:CENSOR. ...Which, btw, states:

[...S]ome articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article.

--Reasonable?--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

How it looks to me: Someone switched from Don-Quixote-Mode to Crusades-Mode --Niabot (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. A few lines down, it goes on to say she has "two older brothers", meaning she has no sisters and she is the third of three children in her family. Seeing how other featured, high-quality articles like Sarah Palin and Gwen Stefani do not list birth dates and maintain MoS policies of including the in the lead and infobox already, I did not find it necessary to add to the Early life section. ★Dasani★ 05:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A few lines down where? I've no objection to the change, if it is sourced, and if the d.o.b. is handled in a standard way. Unfortunately the source listed in that paragraph didn't say that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Child protection policy: please clarify

Jimbo --

This morning you tagged Child protection as policy [2] with instruction not to revert policy tag without approval from you or the Foundation. The page you marked as policy, however, was an information page that did not actually state the policy but gave more nebulous information about child safety and pointed to the policy within WP:BLOCK, found here: [3].

Anticipating that you were trying to tag the policy itself, I have moved the text of the policy from WP:BLOCK to WP:Child protection where you placed the policy tag. Please take a look at this diff [4] and indicate if this is the policy you intend to tag or if you want to revert it to the softer, non-policy language. Thanks. Minor4th • talk 17:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your change is correct, but I don't think it makes a huge difference. There is no reason why a policy page shouldn't be informational as well. :-) But my overall point is that just as we have things like WP:BLP which are policy, and which also have implications for blocking policy, there is no reason to "hide" this very important policy in the block policy page. It's worthy of a standalone page, because it is firm policy and it is important policy.

Ideally, all policy pages should be in agreement with each other, and harmonized from time to time if discrepancies appear. I think it is absolutely fine to have WP:Child protection as a useful standalone policy page, and to re-iterate and emphasize the point in WP:BLOCK as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your speedy response and for the clarification. Minor4th • talk 18:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

All of these pages are relevant to the newly tagged policy:

• Wikipedia:Advice for parents

• Wikipedia:BLOCK#Child_protection_issues

• Wikipedia:Child protection proposals

• Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

• Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors

• Wikipedia:Youth protection

The last one, Wikipedia:Youth protection is versed in much more detail and was a proposed policy at some time. This seems like a much better example to be policy than Wikipedia:Child protection. Can you take a look at it? And if not, maybe we can merge them both. Feedback ^☎ 20:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI - the policy now includes advice to young editors, not in as much detail as the page you referenced, but that page is linked as well on WP:Child protection. Remember this policy page is a redirect from what used to be WP:PEDOPHILIA, and that is how the policy was initially framed. It's a good question though -- exactly how much of this does Jimbo and WMF want to be actual policy, and what is merely advisory or guideline status. My understanding as this was developing was that it was meant to address the pedophile issue alone (somewhat in response to recent media reports that WP is a haven for pedophiles or some such nonsense, coupled with the fact that the policy has been in place for a long time but there was no memorialization of the practice until very recently.). Minor4th • talk 20:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think all of those pages should be thought about carefully and harmonized. "Harmonized" might mean one of several things: merged in some cases, edited to be consistent with each other in some cases, split into two in other cases, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You added back inaccurate info to a BLP article

At BLP article, Michael D. Roberts, you added back inaccurate info, His most recent film is in the 2006 film American Dreamz. This is one of the problems of adding unsourced and poorly sourced info to the main-body-text of articles on WP:BLPs, as you have done. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The information is not poorly sourced, as I was working from a perfectly valid source. I made a mistake, but the mistake was not one of poor sourcing. Rather than simply complain to another good-faith contributor, I have now gone back and improved that portion of the article. Thank you for calling it to my attention, but may I suggest that you could have fixed it yourself in less time than it took to complain to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If instead of reverting and adding back in unsourced information to a WP:BLP article, you had worked on the unsourced information on the article's talk page, or on a subpage of your userspace, the issue of inaccuracies you introduced to the article, could have been avoided. In the future, I hope you will consider those alternatives, instead of adding unsourced info to a BLP article. -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I added no unsourced info into a BLP article. I added back information, with a source, and then worked through each line of it to make sure that the information in the article was reflected in the source. This is best practice. I do not agree that in the case of routine editing of completely uncontroversial material, it is desirable or necessary to work on a subpage or talk page while in the process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In your hastiness to add poorly sourced info to a BLP article you added inaccuracy. Again, there is simply no reason why not to proceed more cautiously on BLPs, and work on unsourced info on the talk page, before adding it to the article. There is just no rush, to revert against the removal of unsourced info on a BLP page, and add back in questioned material, instead of working it out in detail, first, on the talk page or a subpage. -- Cirt (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You may have the last word. This is too bizarre to argue about. I'm proud of my work to improve these articles. My work was a very good example of best practices.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, nobody's perfect when it comes to writing articles, even BLPs.--Milowent (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem was not that it was unsourced but that it was dated. Despite its uncited nature the fact was correct and a credit to the article when it was first introduced. Time just rendered it obsolete. The lesson here is to avoid time dependent statements, the correct fix was: [5]
IMHO this was in poor form, Cirt. extransit (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"I was working from a perfectly valid source." "My work was a very good example of best practices." No, it wasn't. IMDb is not a truly reliable source anyway, so not a perfectly valid source, and you added two unsourced paragraphs back with your not really reliably sourced one[6]. In the next four edits you made, you slightly rewrote things, removing some "fact" tags, without adding a source.[7]. Your final update was more of the same[8]. Apart from that, you added the imdb link as a plain link, not as a reference, even though the article already had references, and articles should stick to one style. Nothing terrible, nothing to raise a fuss about, but not really something to promote as a "very good example of our best practices" either. Let's just keep things in perspective here... Fram (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDB for the record fails WP:RS. It is a user generated database. It is indeed a contraduction that we constantly refer to it in external likns for referral which is fine but where possible it should be avoided in inline citations and replaced with newspaper/more professional sources. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia:Citing IMDb was a failed proposal, there is an apparant consensus regarding use of IMDb - here are a few discussions about the subject, which are all broadly similar. July '07, August '07, July '08, July '08, July '08, October '08, November '08, August '09 and March '10. There are plenty others.

IMDb makes no claims as to the accuracy of it's user generated content, as far as I can see, yet IMDb seems to be the source for most of the information in this article. In addition the article looks like an indiscriminate list - IMDb may be fairly accurate for film information, but it isn't a good measure of whether someone appearing in pt.1 of a 2 pt. Good Times episode 35 years ago is notable. The few additional references are all movie reviews, and are unlikely to give any insight beyond establishing notability of film appearances, so that means the main source (and only source for biographical information on a LP) is IMDb and an interview with the subject on a Church of the Latter Day Saints commercial website, discussing his connections to scientology. That's the reference for the "Right Track" program and award, which there seems to be no other reference to on the internet. Ia a Mormon newsletter more or less reliable than the unreliable (for biographical info) IMDb? I don't know, but I think this article is a long way from being an example of Wikipedias best practices. Weakopedia (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not an example of "best practices". Agree with comments by User:Fram, User:Dr. Blofeld, and User:Weakopedia. -- Cirt (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Small Language wikipedias

Dear Jimbo Wales,
I got a talk page massage (Heading "Hello") in my user page by you. Its an honour for me to receive a personal massage from you.
Its unfortunate that my language is having some sock puppets & fake accounts. I humbly request you to confirm the originality of that massage. Will contact you with all my details once originality is confirmed.
Please apologize me if I'm making an unnecessary fuss. Singhalawap (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Agreed with Singhalawap, pls verify that. -- බිඟුවා ^{සාකච්ඡාව} 06:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It was not an impersonation. The SUL utility confirms. extransit (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Singhalawap (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo Wales, Sent the reply to you with a CC to your assistant. Singhalawap (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Singhalawap, great! We will both be on our way to Wikimania for the next 16 hours or so, but will respond as quickly as possible!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

James Delingpole

In case you haven't seen it: [9] --JN466 12:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sort of BLP issue with Judith Curry

Several editors at WP:RSN were dicussing whether a particular blog posting[10] was a reliable source regarding climate scientist Judith Curry's opinion on the book, The Hockey Stick Illusion. In the course of this discussion, we discovered that the blog was based on a comment made by Curry at this same blog.[11] Curry is apparently a regular reader of this blog. The question arose whether this was indeed Curry and not someone else just using her name. Another editor performed what I believe to be, a good faith, but possibly ill-judged experiment and created an account at another site using the name "Judith Curry" to see if anyone would notice it was a fake.[12][13] Yesterday, Curry discovered the fake and posted the message, "If anyone spots a post with my name on it at a site other than collide-a-scape or climateaudit, it is an imposter (imposter(s) are afoot)."[14] I was wondering how we should proceed. Should we send Curry a note to let her know that no harm was intended? If so, someone with diplomatic skills such as yours might be appreciated. The full discussion at RSN is here.[15] Thanks for your attention to this matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should not be going around impersonating living people for any reason at all. I would suggest you leave her alone as enough upset has likely been caused already. Attempting to contact her and say you meant no harm will likely only worsen her experience, and for what? Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a duty to let her know what happened. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

She already knows what happened, an impostor posted a comment in her name on a chat forum, the fact that it was a jolly wikipedia editor testing his theory is neither here nor there, if people are posing as you do you think we should ring her up and say, no worries it was just us wikipedia editors? Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, but I think an explanation and apology are probably in order. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think a ban of Yoenit would be on the table as well for this stunt. Tarc (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No need to talk of bans, the guy was just proving a point. I can e-mail judith curry and explain the situation, i have mailed her before mark nutley (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Has it occurred to anyone to wonder whether it's worth this degree of on- and off-wiki effort and distress to get blog commentary into an article, regardless of its provenance? It's no use arguing over who wrote the blog comments if people have lost the picture to the extent that they think this is what building an encyclopedia looks like. MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)