User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251Auto-archiving period: 24 hours

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Hello Jimbo. As someone who is now dipping their toes into Wikipedia can I ask you how you think it will evolve in the future. As good as it is (and I am impressed by the depth and accuracy of many of the articles) do you see wikipedia continuing for a long time to come yet? As I understand it there is competition out there though not with the same success, but there is bound to be another wiki out there now or in the future that will one day compete. What do you think can be done to stay ahead of the competition? --Jonty Monty (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ps did you enjoy the bagpipes? :). --Jonty Monty (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll leave space, above, for Jimbo to answer, but Jimbo has made many statements about the future of Wikipedia. He has indicated that point-and-click updates to articles, as WYSIWYG edits, are likely to become more popular among a wide range of editors. When asked about millions of articles, he noted the major articles could be translated between the expanding 260 languages, and Wikipedia would have far more than 100 million articles. Also, he has noted that he intends to stay involved with Wikipedia for many years to come. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:53, 12 October, revised 12:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I see the future of Wikipedia being a fairly bleak place but I sincerely hope I am wrong and I continue to edit in the hope that I am. Every day we make it harder for people to edit, particularly those that are not intimately familiar with Wikipedia's thousands of rules, policies and guidelines. We block more and more users and IP's for smaller infractions and develop more tools to restrict editing like Pending Changes and ask ourselves why more people aren't editing. Why would they? It is human nature that if something is hard to do, we will do something else so as we implement new ways to make it harder for people to contribute by protecting templates, articles and even entire namespaces we damage the foundation of why Wikipedia was established and we erode the concept of "Anyone can edit". We need to get back to our beginnings of Assuming good faith and foster a spirit of cooperation and trust rather than implement new ways of showing our editors, future editors and readers how much we don't trust them and how we think that we need to protect Wikipedia and its articles and content from the people we should be hoping will be positive contributors. Kumioko (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Improvements everywhere as surveyed users said would edit if knew where to help: In one of those WMF surveys, the least worry of editors was the "editing technology" (9% concern). However, more users (41%) said they would edit more if they knew "where to help" and "avoid conflicts" or arguments with other editors. Our coordination tools have had "growing pains" due to time to learn what is effective, while some over-sized templates (or too-small template limits) have hindered quick tasking for editors to follow (1.6 million articles reformat 2-4x slower than needed). The monthly WP:GOCE drives have been fantastic to fix listed articles, averaging "99 copy-edit errors" each. However, I think we could switch other tasks to 2-week edit-drives, to gain people who could not commit for a whole month, and have more short drives. The slow Javascript tool-buttons or over-size templates (I mean S-L-O-W) have been disastrous to "quick-moving people" who do not want to wait "37 seconds" to edit-preview a major article. Hence, the new Template:Cite_quick can show that same article in 10 seconds, and allow 900 cites, not just 400. Tests with the new Lua script cite modules are showing similar results (scaled up because the test2 wiki seems 2x slower than enwiki). Plus, Lua modules can be more complex, and analyze article text faster than ever before, to allow modules to "suggest" other improvements during editing. The edit-window tool buttons are being redone faster. Meanwhile, some bots are getting better: DASHBot is updating citations to insert the archive-URL links, to have fewer deadlinks in future months. The copyvio bots (VWBot) are listing about 20 articles per day, some with "close paraphrase" text. Ironically, that was another area hindered by over-size templates, but the common link-menu Template:La was just updated 40% smaller to allow collaboration pages to be larger without hitting the too-small template limits. As more people discuss templates, from a scientific view, then template limits could be raised to reasonable limits. Just recently, the NewPP preprocessor limits were changed because some French Wikipedia templates tried to implement a huge database (knowledge base) in templates (perhaps like {cite_doi}'s 6,000 database subtemplates), and the French template crashed an Apache server (so the template limits were changed). I guess my point is that WP is coming out of the technology "dark ages" where better techniques are being used for templates, plus smart Lua modules, and WYSIWYG editing for newcomers. Plus, Jimbo has been pressing for better tools as well. And those technologies should quicken our coordination tools, without S-L-O-W editing nor asking people to edit during whole one-month drives because the tools were too slow to fix much in two weeks. We could not seriously ask people to help edit major articles if everything stayed as slow as in recent months. Faster editing, faster templates, and smarter tools were needed, and they are being developed in the next 3 months. -Wikid77 21:25, 14 October, 13:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikid77. It was apparent from your first comments onwards that you are extremely au fait with the technology, something I confess to be lacking. It does though appear that Wikipedia will not lack any new technology going into the future. Something I'm sure will keep it ahead of the game. Jimbo Wales staying for a few years yet will surely be a benefit. I still don't know if he enjoyed the bagpipes though. :) Oh,and thank you for the replies. Jonty Monty (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, we currently have at least two for-profit projects coordinated by Wikimedia consultants in Wikipedia project space:

• Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA
• Wikipedia:Communicate OER

Roger Bamkin is a former trustee of Wikimedia UK, and Pete Forsyth is a former WMF staff member. Both are involved in these projects with their own for-profit consultancy businesses (Victuallers Ltd. and Wiki Strategies, respectively).

We have discussed Gibraltarpedia at length. Wiki Strategies' Communicate OER seems to be less beset by conflicts of interest, and a little more transparent (especially after this addition earlier today), but I still wonder if there should not be some kind of approval process and transparency ground rules for for-profit projects wanting to have a page in project space (i.e. a page whose name begins with "Wikipedia:" followed by the project name).

This could be something for the Affiliations Committee, for example. Are we not otherwise entering horribly grey areas, with projects like Pete's at one end, and (for argument's sake) a Nestlé-funded drive to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nestlé products at the other, coordinated from a page like Wikipedia:Communicate Nestlé products? Or is this the future of Wikipedia? I am not sure many volunteers will want to contribute their time for free, while others are getting paid. JN466 12:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Discussions are currently underway to resume the publication of Gibraltar DYK hooks on the main page: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Outstanding_Gibraltar_nominations. JN466 13:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you've done a lot of hard work to address a very real problem, but I don't see a solution coming: one after another, the proposals come in to make paid editing subject to draconian standards or impossible approvals. I doubt if any will ever achieve majority, let alone consensus; they ignore the fact that if you make the procedure draconian, it will be bypassed. We should probably settle for notification to the arbcom-l list and leave it at that. However, you put your finger on what will be the most difficult angle: the interaction between editors who are getting paid, and those who are not getting paid.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The difference between covert operations and overt ones is that Wikipedia can condemn and dissociate itself from the former, and not from the latter. It is a question of reputation management. Open collaboration with commercial, social and political entities will be potentially disastrous unless these interests are ones that enjoy very, very broad support. There is also another angle: it's the interaction between the editors who are allowed to have a recruitment page for their paid project on-wiki, and those who are not allowed to have such a page. The current approach looks a lot like "If you are an ex-staffer, or an ex-chapter trustee, or have lots of GLAM friends, then you can advertise your for-profit project on-wiki. But if you are Joe Bloggs, we will delete your page and ban you." The criterion should not be who you know, but what kind of project you're running, and which masters you serve. And that, as well as the payment structure, should be very transparent on-wiki, on every page related to such a project; for the benefit of both editors and the general public. I am slowly seeing a dystopian vision of Wikipedia in 20 years, and it looks a lot like this: [1] JN466 14:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, I think it is important to distinguish between straightforward paid editing and the more subtle practices of using Wikipedia to make money. Your comments may have some relevance to the former, but it is the latter that under discussion here. It is not surprising that people who are committed to the aims of Wikipedia find themselves drawn to areas where they can be paid while also advancing those goals. The difficulty is that when one's livelihood is based on Wikipedia, it is all too easy for one to rationalize conflicts of interest. After all, one has to eat. It may not be possible, or even desirable, to prevent these kinds of projects, but there should be a bright line drawn when it comes to support from within the projects. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the present time no one makes a living off Wikipedia, some WMF staff and Jimbo (somewhat) exempted. That being said, if someone was, I would expect them to act in an ethical manner if only to protect themselves. There is an old expression, you don't crap where you eat. I expect that a successful professional Wikipedian would be very careful about his standing on the project and very careful about the work that he did. After all, if it is for pay, someone may check to make sure they got their money's worth, if reviewers don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. I advised Pete of this conversation, and he can of course speak for himself, but he is actually on public record regarding this, telling The Signpost this April that "All my income relates to Wikipedia; it's my day job. I am comfortable with my income, but I won't be rich any time soon." I agree he is circumspect, and of course he continues to volunteer here like everyone else and is in good standing, but I am fairly sure that he is not unique in earning his living here – it's just that others like https://www.wiki-pr.com/ who work with throwaway sockpuppet accounts are far less open about it. JN466 23:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt you say "someone may check to make sure they got their money's worth". Given the choice between the paying client (who wants results if some kind) and volunteer colleagues (who have no particular expectations), which do you think most people will choose to please? I get the impression that you are thinking in terms of paid editing of articles. In the case of Gibraltarpedia, for example, the benefit was clearly intended to come in the form of positive media coverage (following the Monmouthpedia model). The ways in which Wikipedia were used as a means to this end are obvious, but there is no direct paid editing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JN466 writes: "I am not sure many volunteers will want to contribute their time for free, while others are getting paid."

I can think of a place where this happens all the time: open-source software. In the world of software, the users of the software benefit, so often have a clear motivation for improving the software. The Japanese telco NTT use and have contributed lots of code to PostgreSQL. The developers who work for NTT are probably (gasp!) getting paid to contribute. And yet, so do unpaid volunteers. This happens routinely in open source software. The contributors to the Linux kernel: lots of them work for big companies like IBM.

But in open source, there seem to have been ways for people to continue running community-directed projects with some paid contributors. The Subversion project was managed by a company—CollabNet—for a few years before eventually becoming an Apache project in 2009. While it was being managed by CollabNet, the community leads instituted a firewalling policy that said that new employees of CollabNet would have to earn commit access and other community privileges in the same way; they couldn't avoid going through the same processes community members would go through.

The problem comes not with corporate contributors or even corporate owners of projects, but when those corporate owners end up being bad open source citizens or, to use wiki parlance, they are dicks to the community. The reason LibreOffice, MariaDB and Jenkins exist is because quite a lot of developers aren't happy with Oracle. (As a Java developer, the continued idiocy over software patents, OpenJDK and the now deceased Apache Harmony frequently gives me cause for bad nightmares.)

It seems pretty simple to me that the line shouldn't be about money. I've suggested this thought experiment repeatedly: if Bill Gates suddenly decided to fund a programme to pay a group of Wikipedia editors to take a year off from work, live in subsidised housing and be paid a living wage to contribute to writing, translating and improving Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, that'd be pretty cool. They wouldn't be "getting rich" off editing Wikipedia (we all know that in the money/power/sex stakes, the historians, lexicographers and academic book authors are only a few rungs below Goldman Sachs investment wizards), there would be strict conflict of interest limitations so they'd not be able to write about the programme itself, nor about Gates or Microsoft or POV pushing, it'd all have to be universally agreed good things like science and history and medicine and so on. If your interest is improving the encyclopedia, and these people are improving the encyclopedia and not, oh, "profiteering!" or something, it shouldn't be a big deal.

That's not to say the Foundation ought to pay for it, or the chapters. No thanks. But if a billionaire philanthropist decided to, I can't honestly see a big problem with that.

As for outreach projects and Wikipedians in Residence? I do think it's probably time for some actual discussion about them. I mean, the easy thing to start with is: the Wikipedians in Residence we have had with GLAM institutions seem to do a pretty good job. GLAM seems to be a pretty damn good thing. There is a feeling among some that the GLAM people are separate from the community. This is unfortunately true, and we need to fix this gap. That the Smithsonian and the British Library and other such institutions want to work with Wikipedia shows we are doing something right. And we should work with them because we have very similar goals. The Smithsonian's mission very simply is "The increase and diffusion of knowledge". That seems eminently compatible with what we're trying to do on the Wikimedia projects.

While it might be quite difficult to work out the details, I think that we need to find a way to ensure that the community is involved with and aware of the good and productive GLAM outreach work that's going on, and making sure that the GLAM community isn't a separate thing from the community. It seems to me the problems with things like Gibraltarpedia and other things stem from not enough talking to the community. I think, in general, if we can get over the whole "paid editing is teh evil!" thing, productive outreach projects that are based on a shared mutual goal of sharing knowledge should have nothing to fear from community discussion.

Disclaimer: I may have had a few sandwiches bought for me by cultural institutions and I may have written some Wikipedia articles about objects contained therein. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate this and will mull over it. Just one brief comment on Gibraltarpedia and QRpedia: the big problem is that what was being "sold" there was Wikipedia's SEO value (see this screenshot of a Wikimedia UK slide entitled "Improving a city's Google position on the web", and then watch the entire video). This is something Pete Forsyth categorically says he will not do. Pete makes it quite clear to clients that he is not in the SEO business, and that if his clients are even thinking of SEO, or asking for SEO metrics, their approach to Wikipedia is probably inappropriate. You do not see Pete at DYK, trying to get his project's articles on the main page. The other problem is that QRpedia/Gibraltarpedia were advertised as "a phenomenally cheap, and very, very imaginative way to absolutely energize a city and put a city on the map" (time code 17:41), or "marketing ... done at the lowest possible cost", and "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia". At that point, when paid consultants make low cost a prime selling point for their project, the whole thing begins to look like cynical exploitation of volunteer labour, in return for kiddie awards like barnstars and DYK credits. I would go so far as to say that any suggestion of SEO benefits, and any promise of commercial or marketing value in project proposals, agreements, contracts, MOUs etc., should instantly disqualify a project from consideration. The rationale for any Wikipedia project should be educational value, and based on the common good, rather than a promise of competitive advantage. JN466 12:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not sure many volunteers will want to contribute their time for free, while others are getting paid." - Only if your volunteers are jealous dicks, I hope people contribute to Wikipedia because they want to make Wikipedia a better place, whether or not anyone is making money from it doesn't factor into it at all.

Some users seem more worried about the sales pitch and the perception than the actual work. Whether or not SEO is mentioned doesn't stop it from being true - if you energise a community to create Wikipedia articles on subjects on local attractions, it's going to look good on Google. This is obvious, should this fact be omitted from the record and instead communicated through nods and winks?

What's important is that organisations realise that their best interests are to act in Wikipedia's best interests. That ad-copy isn't in Wikipedia's interests, but energising the community is. Whether that's through Commons donations, a Wikipedian in Residence, or just opening yourselves up to editors, it's up to you. I have a really hard time believing that getting articles like First Siege of Gibraltar (1309) onto DYK is somehow harming the project. - hahnchen 13:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What I don't think will happen is the one-dimensional responses like "our competition has a vanity article, we need one just like that" once someone above the level of a summer intern spends five minutes learning about Wikipedia. If a company wanted to contract with me for my expenses and possibly a small honorarium while supplying me with records, resources, and access to databases, I'd have a go at their article if it interested me.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JN466, I broadly agree with that, but with one big proviso. Museums and cultural institutions are often measured on things like website visitor statistics as a metric for "engagement". Sadly, just like everything from healthcare to policing, in the UK, "target culture" rules. Funding for cultural institutions is often dependent on their meeting "targets". (Academics now have to meet 'engagement' metrics as part of the Research Assessment Exercise.)

And Wikipedia can help with that. You do some scientific research, and if there's a Wikipedia article on the topic, that's better public engagement than if there isn't. Wikipedia can help scientific, academic and cultural bodies better meet their targets and goals for engagement and so on. But that is only really problematic if the whole point of the institution differs significantly from that of Wikipedia. If the British Museum want to increase engagement on African art, say, and Wikipedia is the way to do that... and as a result, they get more money from the government for having met their target, is that such a bad thing? They'll spend it on some dastardly thing like preserving historical artefacts.

Telling the British Museum "hey, you know that Rosetta Stone. We get pretty good SEO on that. Just saying." is rather a different matter from the Gibraltarpedia situation which, well, wherever the line is, it has danced back and forth over it a few times. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not sure many volunteers will want to contribute their time for free, while others are getting paid." My income is not solely based on Wikipedia, but in addition to traditional marketing/writing work, I help companies contribute with a COI.

What I find is the greatest misconception is that helping a company contribute with a COI is just like volunteer work, but with cash. The truth is companies have dozens of stakeholders involved that all need to be educated on the rules, and it's an immense amount of work, pressure and delicate consulting.

Telling companies that their version of the truth is incorrect, that they must accept factual errors because they are not reliable, that their CEO is not notable or that what they think is neutral is not - it's all tough work. Meanwhile, contributing as a volunteer is fun and easy. It is not a good comparison to make. Corporate 18:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am roughly in agreement with you, Tom. But the sales pitch should be, "Wikipedia can help spread important knowledge". It should not be "Wikipedia can help you get one over on the museum next door". And it definitely should not be "Wikipedia can bring you tourist dollars that would otherwise go elsewhere." Getting people to learn about the Rosetta Stone is one thing, and consistent with the WMF mission. Getting them to spend money in Gibraltar, or any other "product", is another.

Speaking of Gibraltarpedia, Gibraltar has had two hooks on the main page these past couple of days (one running right now), with another ten or so lined up for the next couple of weeks. The product placement continues. JN466 12:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking of projects that promote for-profit causes, what do you think of Wikipedia:GLEE? For example, User:BlueMoonset is vastly outperforming all of Gibraltar (so far as I can tell) in GA's (30) and has over half their DYK count (21), focusing exclusively on some TV show I never heard of. Wnt (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you believe that BlueMoonset or someone else associated with the Glee wikiproject is profiting from it, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, Wnt. I haven't heard anyone suggesting that wikiprojects are inherently bad or that wikiprojects dealing with for-profit subjects do not belong here. I believe the main issue is the distortion of Wikipedia's original goals for one's own interests. I see no indication that the Glee wikiproject is doing this. Do you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why is it "spam" to cover a place in good detail, but ordinary editing to cover a current TV series in exhaustive detail? I still kind of wish that all the countries and towns would fight to get the most exhaustive coverage of their regions in Wikipedia, even if that means providing some indirect financial assistance to editors, but I'm not at all sure I'd say that about TV series. Wnt (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltarpedia is not "providing some indirect financial assistance to editors". The people involved with Gibraltarpedia are not being paid to edit, they are being paid for other services as "consultants". It is that extra-Wikipedia part that has caused concern about for-profit enterprises that leverage Wikipedia's volunteer base for someone else's benefit. I guess you haven't been following the discussions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and another Gibraltar hook on the main page. ("Did you know ... that the HMS Victory, containing the remains of Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson, was towed into Rosia Bay, Gibraltar, after the 1805 Battle of Trafalgar?") JN466 09:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider edit-limits, term limits and mandatory wikibreaks: In some articles, the text is slowly slanted by hundreds of tiny edits to remove text phrases, or to slant text "one word at a time". If the system controlled per-article edit-limits, then such "death by 500 tiny cuts" could be thwarted. I have proposed that only suspected editors would be monitored, and any other editor could nominate an editor for edit-limit controls. That would make the concept feasible, rather than restrict the edit-count of every editor at every page. At some point, a person with "600" edits to one article needs to face a limit. Since 2006, the Swedish WP has had those 1-year term limits for admins, to be re-elected during one of 4 quarterly re-elections during the year. Wikibreaks, even for 1 week, can help people to gain a wider perspective. Other types of limits should be considered. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There are a lot of words I could use to describe this proposal. "Stupid" is perhaps the most polite. I especially like the bad faith assumption that people making a lot of edits to an article (e.g.: to maintain one with an ongoing history) are "slowly slanting" it - even if you try to soften your bad faith by claiming only some editors would be "monitored". Term limits for admins is pretty much WP:PEREN, and you have no right to dictate to anyone when they can and cannot edit. Resolute 00:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My thoughts exactly - not to mention it violates the prime directive of Wikipedia, i.e., anyone can edit. Mugginsx (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good god, I hope that's not the prime directive. I thought it was something about creating an encyclopedia which assembles the whole of human knowledge for the free use of humanity. Has the process obscured the product? OF COURSE not everyone can edit, see WP:COMPETENCE for an essay that is on the money... Carrite (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." is the closest thing we have to a Prime Directive. "Everyone can edit" is a means to that end, and very very very far down the list.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anent your dictum - in many cases the arguments on Wikipedia involve figuring out precisely what is "knowledge" and what is ephemeral "opinion." Sadly, "opinions" win out on many articles, asserting to users that such is "knowledge." While "dry science" articles may work out OK, the areas of sex, religion, politics, history and biography all are generally tainted and do not always follow the precepts of being "knowledge" at all. Collect (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good, but in actual practice some of WP's most bitter and dysfunctional content wars have dealt with matters of "hard science" ("climate change" and "race & intelligence" come to mind), while a microscopic fraction of the million-ish biographies on WP have had any problem at all. The biggest POV warriors tend to accumulate around (1) matters of nationalism; (2) matters of current politics; (3) matters of debate about current social policy. In general, matters of history and biography are not content war zones. Where to draw the line, if any, on matters of sex is a special case; if there is a problem with the topic of religion is has to do with page "ownership" by adherents. Each of these are relatively minor causes of disruption on En-WP. Carrite (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most reliable sourcing is fairly well defined for most areas. For example, the academic history sources are fairly well defined. Issues would only arise when people don't stick to them and insist on using lower grade sources that suit their particular POV. Most issues arise because of a lack of objectivity while writing the encyclopedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we do have some POV warriors who make scores of edits to the same article to slowly move it to their direction, we also have writers who make huge numbers of edits to an article to get it to FA standard. We also have many patient vandal fighters who find themselves reverting vandalism once or twice a day on a particular vandalism target. My suspicion is that an edit limit that stopped individual editors doing more than a certain number of edits on any one article would hit our vandalfighters and FA writers long before it hit the POV editors. We do need better ways to deal with POV editing, but not a solution that was more disruptive to our content writers and our vandalfighters than it was to POV warriors. ϢereSpielChequers 00:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously if there is an article that has slowly been degraded by a multitude of tiny edits to now be a POV concern, that should be addressed and the editors that did it sorted out and sanctioned... if this is a hypothetical then? There are MANY HIGHLY contentious articles that I watch, specifically in the Creation-Evolution debates, and there are MANY POV editors that come and go and have all different tactics, from blatant vandalism to the highly annoying WP:TE editors, and anywhere in-between. I'd venture a guess that MOST of the articles that are targets to these kids of POV editors are probably HIGHLY watched and these kinds of edits don't last very long and these kind of editors are quickly identified and dealt with. Tiny word-by-word POV edits are still against policy and if they keep doing it it usually earns a ban... As for implying some sort of "edit count cap" or something, that's pretty silly, there are TONS of HIGH volume editors that are contributing quality edits, and there are probably VERY VERY FEW high volume POV editors trying to do what you say... kinda like throwing the baby out with the bath water, as the expression goes. These articles and editors can be dealt with with existing means.. — raekyt 15:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally know nothing about this partnership. I am deeply concerned about any collaboration with people who practice censorship. But I also acknowledge there are many complexities and possibilities. I'll investigate and if I'm unhappy about it, I'll let you know. And if I'm happy about it, I'll let you know. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Amanda Todd currently has 760,034 views and its existed for less than three days. Is it good to have things like this on Wikipedia, to bring people to Wikipedia, as well as to help bring attention to a serious problem in society? Its currently up for deletion, with some people saying no. Your opinions please. Dream Focus 07:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "to help bring attention to a serious problem in society" is never a good reason to have an article. Having an article "to bring people to Wikipedia" isn't very convincing either, we should have articles because they are on a subject that fits our policies and guidelines, not for external reasons. We want to be a neutral encyclopedia, not a popular forum. Whether we should have that article or not is a fair discussion, but we should certainly not decide to keep it for either of the reasons you provide. Fram (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually just asking the founder of Wikipedia for his opinions, but since you posted yours, I'll respond. You say we're not a popular forum, but we cover things that are popular enough to be covered by the media, which is why we seem to have more articles about popular culture than anything else. And the guidelines were never voted on, just argued nonstop by whatever small number of people were around at the time, until one side gave up, and others got their way. Also, see WP:NOTLAW. Dream Focus 09:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The answer hinges on how we define Wikipedia as an "encyclopedia". Since the entire concept of a print encyclopedia has changed over the last two decades, it is open to interpretations that may very well include topics such as the suicide of Amanda Todd. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People read about it, they want to know what happened, and we tell them, based on reliable sources. That is appropriate. We can't hijack their eyeballs and turn them somewhere else, but maybe we can do something to put the problem in context - find overall statistics from some of the more obscure sources about the incident that describe the overall problem, for example. We have many degrees of freedom here, and deleting articles because someone doesn't like what they talk about is not the best of them. Wnt (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you wish to do original research for the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're one of the most viewed websites in the world, so the first point is not necessary, and "bringing attention to a serious problem in society" through our articles is very, very POV. In this case however, we aren't bringing the attention, Amanda Todd's suicide did. We are merely covering the event and aftermath. I am very often a person who !votes delete on news topics, but in this case, there is a difference between a widely covered news story, and a widely covered news story that causes a significant public debate. The former often adds little value in an encyclopedia, IMNSHO, but the latter does. Resolute 16:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, Wikipedia has a huge problem: bullying. Bullies are easy to recognize. For example, the cyber bully user:Tarc bullies this 15-year-old girl even in her death. Look how much sarcasm and stupidity there is in Tarc "delete" comment: "Delete - WP:ONEEVENT, and not likely to be repeated, hurr hurr. But seriously, this is a sort-of variation of missing white woman syndrome, the media's endless fascination with pretty white girls that have Bad Things(tm) happen to them, whether it is being spanked by a father, gone missing in Aruba, or off themselves with a bleach. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)" The Arbitration Committee is well aware that Tarc is a bully. You, Jimbo, are well aware that Tarc is a bully, and yet nobody does a thing to kick this bully off from the community. Jimbo, if nothing is done about bullying on Wikipedia,sooner or later somebody will commit suicide as Camelbinky predicted here.108.60.151.5 (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Tarc to edit his comment. I don't think your hyperbole is helpful here though. Also, do you have a history of conflict with Tarc that you'd like to mention? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to his arguments here. Yeah, the "hurr hurr" about a girl who committed suicide from cyberbullying was ... extraordinarily bad PR. But - trolling has its redeeming qualities. Ultimately, if our society's response is solely for people to run around decrying the injustice and asking for the photo creep to be caught and the cyber bullies punished, however emotionally appealing that response might be, the outcome is that we send kids the message that suicide "will make them all pay", and that could kill more people. People should have the right to the whole gamut of emotions here, both nice and nasty; but our editorial decisions should be based on correct interpretation of policy rather than sentiment. Wnt (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc always takes a jaded view towards things, and that isn't necessarily bad. Often I agree with him, and while I don't in this specific case, his crudely worded objection has some merit. Not enough to overcome the landslide of opinion in that AfD, but just enough not to dismiss out of hand. The big difference in this case, crystal balling as it may be, is that the national scope of this within Canada is likely to produce lasting change to the legal system. It has led to debates within Commons, while at least one province is already tabling improved laws. However, it is not unfair for one to wonder if there would have been so much interest had it not been a pretty white girl who was the victim of this torment? Resolute 16:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well first off, Camelbinky didn't predict suicide, he hoped that someone would would commit suicide in order to effect the change that he feels the Wikipedia needs to adopt, and he was soundly rebuked in that thread for expressing such a thing. Second, the "bully" rhetoric is something from the Mbz1 and Daniel Brandt school of harassment. They are charter members of the Tarc Fan Club, though this could always be pot-stirring from some of the junior members...A Nobody, Joehazelton, etc... Who knows. Third, I struck part of the original comment as requested, but the sentiment remains; people kill themselves all the time for a variety of reasons. Our society focuses on the young, the pretty, the supposedly innocent. Why doesn't Steven Good get an article? Why not Ashlynn Conner ? "Reporting what reliable sources say" shouldn't mean just being a bunch of lemmings every time they go into a feeding frenzy about a particular one. Tarc (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may be a bad reason to keep something, but WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST is definitely a worse rationale for deletion. You're mentioning recent suicides and asking why we don't have an article. Maybe it's because nobody started one yet! Google gives just one result^[4] for "Steven L. Good" (a different one than yours) - if it were up to me I'd put an article up now based on the two sources, but I know too well that without a few extra news sources I'm likely to have a jackal pack after me on AfD in no time. It's something I ought to do but just can't be bothered. Maybe someone else will. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this was a good time to update the peace dove.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what Wikipedia seems to exist for seems at least to some at times (me, now) is as a venue for bullying, of the worst, nasty, horrible, suicide-inducing sort. From out-of-control longterm Wikipedia editors, many certified as Wikipedia administrators. I have recently reached the 100,000 edit mark reached by less than 200 wikipedia editors. The overwhelming issue, as I see it, for wikipedia, is how will wikipedia deal with long-term, harassing, nasty, evil wikipedia editors in its inner core of wp:ANI frequentors. I have personally been subject to long-term bullying (wp:harassment) while i have worked on pretty non-controversial topics of well-documented historic sites, and am at no risk personally of committing literal suicide and am not wishing to commit Wikipedia-suicide, but I have become attuned to motivations for suicide and have become attuned to theories about bullying, simply as a result of trying to understand the nasty, long-running, bullying-type attacks against me. I am about ready to write some "DO NOT EVER THINK ABOUT CONTRIBUTING TO WIKIPEDIA" type article aimed at academics, for publication outside of Wikipedia. It is a horrible environment, almost any professional would be crazy to get involved here, because there are no effective mechanisms to stop nasty, horribly, hate-filled long-run programs of attack, which eventually become (in my opinion) conflicts of interest: a long-run bullying attacker within wikipedia has to prove herself or himself correct in attacking a given target, so continues on any excuse whatsoever. That's my main experience with wikipedia. I have enjoyed contributing on non-controversial historic sites topics, but my main learning is about the difficulty of dealing with long-term committed sadistic bullies. --doncram 22:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across what looks like a violation of Wikipedia's trade mark - and I'm not sure what to do about it. I looked for contact information on the site concerned, and can see none. Who or what do I pass this over to at this side? Never come across this before... Peridon (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that User talk:Geoffbrigham is the place for this. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Left him a message. Peridon (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 99#Wikipedia, a wiki (February and March 2012).

—Wavelength (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]