Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Faking credentials[edit]

User Essjay famously pretended to be a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States. Nine years ago this caused a major upheaval at Wikipedia. At the time, you said "I regard it as a pseudonym [m.e.] and I don't really have a problem with it." Later in 2010, interviewed for the film Truth in Numbers? (15:00 in), you said "Even to this day [m.e.] I defend it. This is a young man who made a mistake. In the grand scheme of things what he did was pretty minor [m.e.]. Having a pseudonym, and - sort of - fleshing it out with some traits [my emph] - that's really no big deal [my emph], I mean, that's part of online life. "

We have a similar situation this week. See current ANI discussion. A long-standing editor, who represents the Foundation in Nigeria, has (apparently falsely) claimed to be a lecturer at Adekunle Ajasin University, and a biochemist by occupation. A number of users are saying, as you said of EssJay, that this is no big deal, or words to that effect. In the current case, one user compares it to saying they are an astronaut, another has no particular issue with it (although finds it problematic in certain situations). The culprit himself says it is no different from representing yourself as a 'vampire or a goat'.

Now I think it is a big deal, and that fabricating an online identity is quite different from fabricating credentials. I think this is an issue for the Arbitration Committee, and today I will make some enquiries about that, but in the first place I would like to understand your view. Has it changed from 2007-10? Or is it still no big deal? I also seek the community's views on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Damian (talk • contribs) 09:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy's thoughts[edit]

I don't know the facts directly, so I can only comment based on the general principles. I think faking credentials - in the sense of printing up or photoshopping them or lying about them over an extended period of time - is a big deal. I think a young person being foolish and coming online and making up some stuff to make themselves look important is bad - but I'm not so authoritarian or moralist in my personality that I'd excoriate them. It's not great, but it's not necessarily a big deal. I feel the same about a lot of juvenile indiscretions - not good, but let's be realistic, people are going to do things they shouldn't. In most cases, they should apologize and we should accept their apologies.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess you are saying that it's wrong to fake or photoshop any official records such as a diploma and submit them as credentials, but it's OK to lie about them on your Wikipedia user page. Thanks for your reply. Peter Damian (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Did you even read what I wrote? I did not say it is OK. In fact, I said the exact opposite: I said that it is bad and a big deal. You surely must understand why I get so exasperated with you when you clearly have a good talent to read closely, but you also seem to do so in a selective manner.
What I am saying is pretty clear. There's a sliding scale here, as with virtually all moral wrongs. With different factors, how harshly we judge things will reasonably vary. Lying on a user profile page is clearly "lying over an extended period of time" and therefore pretty serious. Less serious would be someone who says it in passing in a conversation - that's still NOT OK (I say this in all caps so that you can't possibly misrepresent my position again). Other mitigating factors can be youth, newness to the community, emotional upset at that moment, etc. We should also consider behavior after the lie is caught - is there an apology, an explanation, etc.? At the end of the day, taking into account a wide range of factors is what mature moral judgment is about. Not every wrong deserves permanent excoriation and reputational damage. Forgiveness, when appropriate, is a virtue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, it was not clear that 'lying about them over an extended period of time' meant doing this on a user page. Now understood. I agree that there can be mitigating circumstances. Peter Damian (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
PS you are almost the only person who actually answered the question, and thanks for that. Most people below did not say whether it was OK, or whether a big deal, but passed to questions like whether it was possible to verify credentials. Others said that it didn't matter because credentials don't matter. I think they meant that credentials don't matter to them, but of course the question is whether credentials matter to other people, or to people in general. I think for most people, seeing and believing that someone is an actual rocket scientist, or a fields medal winner, influences how they interact with that person. A further confusion is between 'identity' and 'credential'. A credential is something intended to engender trust or authority. An identity is just an identity. I think you agree with that. Peter Damian (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, apology accepted. In terms of those other questions, I will have a stab at them because they seem to be of interest as well.
  1. Is it possible to verify credentials? I think that it is, to a reasonable degree of certainty rather than to an abstract standard of perfection, and for some people more easily than others. I just looked at a favorite Wikiproject of mine and selected a user from there whom I don't personally know: User:Shellnut. He makes a number of statements about his background by way of explanation of his interest in shells and his expertise. Some of it would be pretty hard to verify - that he is a former PhD student but changed plans and became a lawyer instead. The law degree could probably be verified easily enough in public databases, but isn't relevant - the unfinished PhD is a bit hard. That he wrote and sells a shell management software application is readily verifiable by clicking. That he is editor of The Festivus is likely easily verified by visiting their website to see who the editor is. Of course the skeptic might say that the user known as Shellnut could be simply impersonating the real David Berschauer but remember that I said "to a reasonable degree of certainty rather than to an abstract standard of perception". That someone would go so far as to fabricate all those details begins to feel significantly less likely than that he very simply is who he says he is.
    Clearly in some other cases, the verification is even easier. University professors with a position generally have a web page and a public email address, and a simple email from that email address saying "Yeah, this is me" is pretty good.
    Just as a word of caution: Faking source email addresses is not very difficult. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    No, it is damned near impossible in this use case. Let's use you as a test case. :) Your user page says "I teach computer networking at Namibia University of Science and Technology in Windhoek." A quick google finds me your official email address and confirms that fact well enough. I could email you and say "Hey, this is Jimmy from Wikipedia. Just confirming that the Pgallert at Wikipedia isn't an imposter." That'd be kind of a weird thing to do right now, because we don't generally confirm identities like that, but suppose we had a culture of doing that and publicly "vouching"? And software to support it. So that someone could go to a page with facts about you and each one would have one or more "vouchings". "Verified by email confirmation to official address at University" this one might say. "Know him personally from the university" another might say.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Do credentials matter? I think that they sometimes can, but I'm also someone who cautions against "credentialism". I remember a certain competing encyclopedia project to this one which attempted to emphasize credentials which ended up in the embarrassing (in my view) position of an entry on homeopathy written by someone who was unquestionably a highly qualified advocate of homeopathy. I wouldn't accuse the proprietors of that project of being blind credentialists, but it's an example of a bad place where excessive faith in credentials can land you. Even so, especially in some areas and some positions, credentials of a group of people do give a good reassurance that isn't groundless. I like to see a Wikiproject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods this one where a significant number of the participants are actually professionally qualified in the field. I'm assured that they are looking after and helpful to those whose knowledge comes in an amateur fashion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
To be clear (and perhaps now you are misunderstanding me!) my question is not whether credentials matter in the sense of ‘are a good thing’ but rather, whether they impact people’s behaviour and interaction with one another. The turning point of the EssJay case was when he was found to have ‘used it in content disputes’. But behaviour can be influenced without credentials being used like that. As long as they are visible on a user page, they have the potential to influence. We should ask whether that is a good thing. I would say that either users should be forbidden from displaying them, or at the very least they should be prepared to defend them. (Which is not the same thing as having to defend them). Peter Damian (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I think we agree. I think they do impact people's behavior and interaction with one another. People can rely on them more heavily or less heavily and that would impact our evaluation of a particular situation. For example, someone might come and lie and say they have a PhD in Organic Chemistry and then edit exclusively on the history of the Beatles. That's not relying on the lie nearly as directly as if they claimed to have a PhD in Modern Thought and Literature from Stanford University and talked about specializing in the ideas of the Beatles during their turn to eastern religious thought. It's still a lie, and it would still potentially influence people's behavior. I doubt whether forbidding people from adding them is the right answer, but I also think that if someone makes a claim to a credential or expertise, it opens up the valid point that they should be willing to back it up. I would go a step further and say that people ought to be proactively seeking to give basic assurances. Most people do, actually, in a small scale way, by disclosing their real name and university affiliation. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, someone *might* do that as an imposter, of course, but could also be quickly found out if any alarm bells were raised.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Case study #1. Inside of a mainspace article, someone writes that he is an eminent biochemist and a researcher, also a member of the canadian society for biochemistry and molecular biology, USA, and this becomes quoted and repeated across the internet over an extended period of time. What is your opinion about the case ? Pldx1 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm always skeptical of partially blinded examples - if it's a real example, I'd like to see the example so that I have the full context. Since you mention this as being in a mainspace article, I already think it a bit unseemly for someone to use such prose to describe themselves, even if it is all true. If it isn't true, then it's particularly bad. And it is worse that it is inserted into a mainspace article than if it is on a user talk page (although for clarity, I don't think that's ok either). If I'm being asked to judge a person morally, I'd need a lot more context. Was this someone young and foolish who now regrets it? Was it posted for a short period of time and then removed by that person? Was it relied upon in a content dispute? Was it relied upon to gain material benefits of some kind (as opposed to just being a lark)?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Jimmy, this is an attempt to play a gotcha game with you; the above is from the autobiography Wikicology wrote with one of his sock accounts. The whole saga has already been documented above. ‑ Iridescent 15:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The matter is currently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikicology, so ArbCom can consider more facts than have been detailed here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear User:Iridescent. Are you suggesting that Jimbo Wales, or any other reader of this page, is not aware of how to Google search a whole sentence ? It's one click distance to find the newspapers that reproduce this assertion. And since these articles are about the Owo City State, and have a WP-like appearence, it becomes immediate to examine the Owo article. Nigerian academics have'nt access to deleted pages at en:wp. And probably wouldn't care. But they have access to Nigerian press. And probably care. Pldx1 (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Pldx1,aka Trickster, maybe you should care about what you do instead of speculating about what other people probably care about. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Community thoughts[edit]

  • This is why we're supposed to be anonymous editors, and it shouldn't matter whether i'm a janitor or a PhD in biochemistry when i edit. Besides, there are some janitors who are far smarter than some PhD's so that metric isn't even reliable anyway. So what's the big deal? Just tell the user "It doesn't matter who you are. It matters whether the things you say make sense and whether you have reliable sources." SageRad (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @SageRad: Can you clarify whether (a) you think editors shouldn't mention credentials at all on their user page, for the reasons you suggest or (b) it's perfectly OK, even if the credentials are falsified? Peter Damian (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • This person seems to have fabricated a biography for Wikipedia (now deleted, see the thread at Wikipediocracy). There should be an ArbCom case if this is not met with a ban at AN/I and this person should be out the fucking door, end of story. Lying about oneself is bad enough. PUBLISHING LIES about oneself is quite another. That the bio failed to meet GNG and was deleted is neither here nor there. Carrite (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I note further that according to the AN/I thread this individual made FOURTEEN attempts at putting a COI autobiography up on WP. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The COI self-advertising and legal threats issues here are totally different from Essjay. Besides, as the article explains, Jimbo changed his mind after the first comment quoted above, saying Essjay's inaccurate credentials had been used in disputes improperly. The only thing that I can say in this editor's favor is that you can be an "academic" and a "biochemist" without publishing or being a professor; for example, a lab tech might be hired straight from an undergraduate biochemistry degree, and would qualify. I don't know what he wrote in the article though, because it's deleted. I'd be less concerned with whether an ad is right than that it is here to begin with. Wnt (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Note The statement from Jimmy that I quoted was from 2010, three years after the Essjay incident. Peter Damian (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I'll take your word for it; duly struck. I should work on my skimming comprehension. Wnt (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • (ec) All of us are anonymous. Whatever we say about ourselves is unverified, and we should keep that in mind when interacting with them. Without grossly violating a user's privacy (see WP:OUTING), there is no way to tell if what they say about themselves is actually true. And it doesn't matter anyhow; presumably they are not quoting themselves as Reliable Sources! The only "falsification" that matters to us at en.wiki is if someone falsely claims a Wikipedia identity; when someone falsely identified themselves as an administrator, they are very quickly slapped down. In the case you are talking about, if he misrepresented himself to the WMF, that is an issue for the WMF to deal with. I can't imagine it being a case for Arbcom. (I gather that you weren't able to get much support at the ANI discussion and so you are WP:Forum shopping your issue here. Like most forum shopping, it does not appear likely to give you a different result.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • You gather wrong. There has been little discussion, in that ANI thread, about the impact of misrepresenting one's academic or professional standing on Wikipedia. And I don't think Peter is looking for a result here. He appears to be looking for an intelligent discussion about the issue. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • "All of us are anonymous"? What does that even mean, MelanieN? - 2601:42:C104:28F0:1CD2:7F01:B895:818 (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It means that we all are operating from behind the anonymity of a computer screen. Even if we register with a user name, even if we give information about ourselves, there is no way for anyone else to know if what we say is true or not. On my user page I describe myself as a woman from San Diego, but the rest of you have no way of knowing if that is true; I could be a guy in Florida or a kid in Hawaii. If I claim to be a doctor or a politician or a librarian or a retired Navy SEAL, it is just that: a claim. And if someone says "Aha, MelanieN, I have checked you out; you are not really a retired Navy SEAL, in fact you are a secretary in a real estate firm, here's the proof" - they are the ones in the wrong and subject to sanctions, not me. --MelanieN (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Melanie, I apologize for taking this thread further off topic, but are you saying that if a Wikipedian edits with their real name as their user name, and they attend a WMF-sponsored edit-a-thon, and they present an official form of identification, and six or seven other Wikipedians can verify that they appear to be who they say they are, that they are still "anonymous", because there's a 1% chance that the photo ID is a fake? Seems to stretch the limits of "assume bad faith". - 71.230.8.193 (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Melanie, what does this have to do with faking credentials? Peter Damian (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between assuming a persona for fun or for personal safety and using that persona for personal gain. While I agree with that going around debunking editors' cover stories can be wrongful, any wrongfulness in revealing that someone has been using the aspects of his or her cover story for gain does not necessarily mean we ignore the wrongfulness that was revealed. The sort of exclusionary doctrine this suggests appears to be imported from 4th Amendment jurisprudence, when really the analogy is only tenuous. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Peter, your complaint about this person is "A long-standing editor, who represents the Foundation in Nigeria, has (apparently falsely) claimed to be a lecturer at Adekunle Ajasin University, and a biochemist by occupation." You add "Now I think it is a big deal, and that fabricating an online identity is quite different from fabricating credentials." I totally don't see any difference. In your mind, it would be OK for me to fake being a Navy SEAL, but not OK for me to fake being a professor? That seems like a distinction that exists only in your mind. On the other hand, this is from Wikipedia policy: "Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy."
Mendaliv, you make a distinction about using a false persona for personal gain. I don't see any evidence, here or at the ANI, that the subject has gained any financial reward for his (allegedly) exaggerated claims about himself. --MelanieN (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
"the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other." Horseshit. See WP:SOCKPUPPET. The WP:DUCK test is used to "investigate" editors all the time. If he quacks like an {{expert}}, then he must be an expert? It seems this guy has been involved in several WMF grant applications. When donors' money is on the line, there should be this level of scrutiny, from the WMF, before money is handed out. I have no confidence that he hasn't personally benefited from receiving grant money. wbm1058 (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Avoiding the two specific cases, but talking about the issue in general; It is difficult to challenge asserted credentials without outing people. We currently have three options for those who assert credentials here:
  1. Out yourself fully such as an academic I know one editor whose userpage and university bio linked to each other.
  2. Assert credentials but leave them unverified.
  3. Don't assert credentials on wiki
The second option is risky, and I'm aware of one incident where an academic chose not to out themselves when their credentials were challenged. I think it would be helpful if the WMF and or chapters were to offer a verification service for editors. ϢereSpielChequers 14:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
A 4th option would be: Ask a known expert to evaluate the responses of someone claiming credentials, as perhaps an easy method to debunk someone who should know more about the subject matter or places, such as, "What color are the trees in Nairobi in November?" or similar, based on quick replies (not researched for days/weeks). Someone really aware could answer questions of the expert very quickly. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I would also like to hear from Davidcannon, who proposed Wikicology for adminship with these words:

" Wikicology is a lecturer at Adekunle Ajasin University in Nigeria. He focuses primarily on Nigeria-related topics, but also contributes to numerous topics, such as Medicine, Biochemistry, Molecular biology, Governments Politics, History, Culture, Business and other encyclopedic subjects" according to his user page — a claim I have checked, and find to be true."

Did you not check and say you did? Are you just really bad at verification of evidence? Did you attempt to intentionally deceive the community — and if so, why? We do need an explanation about you failure to perform verification and as to the degree of your involvement in this false identity scam. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that statement means that Davidcannon checked Wikicology's claim that they had contributed to all these areas on WP (verifying which wouldn't have been difficult and arguably part of due diligence in nominating). I wouldn't read too much into this.-- Elmidae (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It's beginning to look like the editor does have the qualifications he claims - his claimed academic and professional standing appears to have been exaggerated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
By credentials I mean claims about employment and occupation. I don't dispute that qualifications are also credentials. Peter Damian (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Credentialism sucks. Its as simple as that. Just look at all the bullshit "honorary" degrees floating around and all the crooks calling themselves "doctor" (of whatever) and fraudulent online "colleges" issuing degrees for $100. I think ignore all credentials might be a good policy as well as a disclaimer for our readers. As said above "It doesn't matter who you are. It matters whether the things you say make sense and whether you have reliable sources." should perhaps in someway be formalized into Wikipedia's official description. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The template does seem like a good thing for improving content; and maybe not a problem because "expert" is pretty general and can be satisfied with AGF, I think, as well as how reasonable the expert's contribution seems to be. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Its pretty hard to verify credentials online, and in general I'm not sure we should try to attempt it. As an example, I've identified myself to the WMF a couple of times. I think I faxed them my drivers license and passport. But do they really know who I am? A faxed drivers license could very easily be faked. Credentials, such as degrees, are even harder to verify. So the general solution is probably going to be "ignore all claims of credentials". Sure, I've seen several editors who claim to have PhDs, and in general I believe them - you "can tell" if you've seen enough of them - but I would never take such an online claim at face value if it involved something important.

There is one situation were I think we should verify claims. Paid editors need to declare that they are representing companies or people. If we didn't have this, then we'd never be able to keep up with all the ads people insert in Wikipedia. But there is always a chance of a Joe-job, e.g. a firm's competitor could hire somebody to say that they were hired by XYZ company to embarrass XYZ. So for paid editors claims, it does make sense to have them verified. I'll suggest that for every paid editor declaration we need to have a verifiable statement (e.g. with telephone and other contact info) sent to OTRS from the employer. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that people generally don't ignore all claims of credentials. I suspect this is why the many glaring errors in Wikicology's edits were not spotted. If he is writing about poison gases and people see he is a professional biochemist, they are likely to assume it is OK. As I first did, when someone pointed me to one of his articles (an article that on further investigation turned out to be a crock). It's one thing to make false claims in an article about theology. I don't think anyone will die as a result. But making up symptoms? That seems dangerous to me. Peter Damian (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a case for Doc James
Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
"Credentials, such as degrees, are even harder to verify." Is this true? I'm admittedly not an expert on the topic, but I thought universities generally will verify a degree on request. For instance, a quick Web search found National Student Clearinghouse, which appears to allow you to verify degrees from many U.S. institutions, as well as some other credentials like professional certifications. I do understand that due to privacy laws verifying will usually require the consent of the awardee. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm an expert on the topic, and I say... EEng 22:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Get the joke? And seriously: even assuming you can get Institution I to verify that Person P earned Degree D (which in fact you can generally do), how do we know that User:IamJohnSmith really is John Smith?
Exceptions include addresses for "verified Facebook" accounts and the like, and most *.edu addresses for faculty members. Collect (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Oops, forgot. Right you are. EEng 00:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised that people say that how one presents themselves on Wikipedia, whether or not it is fabricated is of no importance. Of course, we are mostly anonymous individuals but it's clear when someone says they are an academic or a lawyer or a physician (or any occupational position indicating advanced training), their opinion is taken more seriously than User:JustARegularEditor. I think people calling themselves Dr. or Prof. in their username are being deceptive if the names are not accurate unless it's clearly a nickname (like Doctor Feelgood). I seen people take other's user page self-description at face value and not have any skepticism about whether they are who they claim to be.
As for meaningless credentials, the ones that get me are "best-selling author" (on what list?) or "award winning". These I see in biographies more than Wikipedia user pages but if you scratch the surface, they often turn out not to be very notable achievements. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Should credentials matter (whether academic or not)? Not really (although credentialed editors provide expert insight). Should editors flash phony credentials? Definitely not. Fake credentials are a cheap yet effective way to gain credibility; excluding caution by editors over the Essjay drama, many would trust an editor with recognizable credentials more than your average editor. When editors claiming phony credentials enter content disputes and other drama over the accuracy of content, their non-expert bad-faith manipulative opinion (e.g. one who claims that they'll hang their degree on "Learn X in Y<168 hours" for a programming topic) is more likely to prevail to the detriment of our readers. Esquivalience t 02:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I see that in addition to the active ANI thread and this discussion, there is also now an active request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikicology. How many different venues is he going to be dragged before, all at the same time? --MelanieN (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:TOU policy already forbids ". . .misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive . . ." So, for employment history that includes employer, "affiliation" would apply (although perhaps there will be an "intent to deceive" question). For academic study, it would seem to apply only if the person states the institution of study (but perhaps "affiliation" does not stretch that far). At any rate, generally, especially academic and job credentials that are unverified, no one should take any stock in. I don't when it is generally irrelevant (see eg., WP:NOR - don't tell me you know 'the truth' about content, show me) in specific contexts it will be relevant (see eg., WP:COI) but it is not generally so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Forget about the fakers - the same protocols (if followed) can be ignored for an academic, based on their expertise, despite their COI of having a book/article for $s on that topic, while paid PR reps can COI disclose on Talk Pages & then allowably edit the article after a lack of response, & an ER doctor can become the be-all & end all of everything medical (even psychiatry) despite not having the relevant qualifications for those specialties. Yep, the system is seriously fucked up. AnonNep (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
You think this system is messed up? Most every other system involving more than 1 human makes this one look like a swiss clock. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hate like hell to drop-in a shameless plug for a much needed and very worthy project, but...how hard is it to see that WP:Project Accuracy is designed to lay the foundation to eliminate issues just like this one? A credentialed editorial board - identified with accreditation on a WP page - reviewing our finest articles for promotion (with a level of protection) and acknowledged as such with the project's gold seal. If we can get enough community support for it, we will waste far less time on the drama boards, and will care a whole lot less about who edited the article and got it to the stage of promotion. The fact that our articles are moving in the direction of being reviewed and approved by a recognized, qualified (identified) editorial review board is like introducing a vaccine during an epidemic - it will eventually save the project from a killer disease. Just saying. Atsme📞📧 20:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Here here. However, as with copyright investigations, I fear that fact-checking queues would be endlessly backlogged without some incentive to clear them. Give the community some funding for this. To firewall the WMF from liability for content, have the community evaluate the performance of the copyright investigators and fact checkers, and give the community the power to set pay rates and to fire underperformers. Would something like this be workable? Certainly a better use of funds than throwing small parties that do next to nothing to actually develop content. We need to give those looking for money the right incentives! wbm1058 (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
So you will pay people to check the work of the people who work for free. Fact checking is very dull work and is subject to debate, as we see in the presidential campaign. Possibly it would be a better idea to use the money to get people to write, directly. At least start reimbursing reasonable expenses for books and subscriptions. You'll need the same books and subscriptions for the editorial board to factcheck anyway. Basically, you'll need to give them access to everything that the writer had. The writer, of course, may no longer be active, and finding copies may be an adventure in itself for the board. This could be expensive. Again, it seems more logical to make the same resources available to the writers in the first place. And, of course, the gold seal of approval only applies to one version of an article: six hours later subtle vandalism or just plain mistakes could be there ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Well, we already have The Wikipedia Library which affords access to various journals, etc., and there are book grants available. Besides, the off-Wiki academic/expert/practitioners that will form the pool we will draw from for the relative editorial review board (topic based selections) will already have access to books/information they need. With regards to the reviewed articles, think beyond FA promotion and liken it to published works in a medical/scientific/trade journal that have been peer reviewed and also undergo review by an editorial review board prior to publication. Such a level of reliability will not need two versions rather it will need protection of a level that may be a bit inconvenient as far as instantaneous publishing but we won't be sacrificing the anyone can edit policy. Over time, it will substantially reduce disruption resulting from WP:Recentism, tabloid journalism, vandalism, incompetence and so many other types of editing that chips away at the project's credibility. BTW, some of the points you've made have already been discussed at length here and are still being discussed here. Atsme📞📧 20:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I am involved with The Wikipedia Library as George Mason University's visiting scholar, and I think produce more FAs than all other visiting scholars combined (or in the ballpark) but that access, while very useful, only goes so far. Thank you for the information and the link. I think you underestimate the cost, the difficulty in finding experts (and the number needed) and getting them to agree and then actually perform in a timely manner, and overestimate the willingness of FA writers to go towards the brave new world of another, untested process that would reduce twelve years of FAC to a lesser process. I personally would have some resistance to a process where others are paid for reviewing work for which I am not, not even my expenses. But I'm just me. Suggest you run such things by WT:FAC and see what people think. I do not monitor meta and similar due to lack of time and interest. --Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Coming back to Peter's original question... If it turns out that someone has been exagerating (or blatanly lying about) their credentials, titles, real-life accomplishments, sizes of strategic body parts, or whatever... then what? Should the communitity take action? Of course not. The community is going to simply lose trust, every next action of the editor will be scrutinised, questioned, undone, twisted, reverted and what have you. That will probably happen all by itself, and Wikipedia will no longer be a fun place. If it does not happen all by itself, and nobody really cares, then yes, they get away with it, but no harm will be done anyway. So, I guess that ultimately it is no big deal. - DVdm (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
There should be some mechanism for the Foundation, or OTRS, or someone to officially certify an editor's asserted credentials. Then we will know which credentials we should assume in good faith, and which credentials we should scrutinise, question, or take with a grain of salt, i.e. any asserted credentials which have not been officially certified. If officially certified credentials later turn out to be fakes or forgeries, then we should take action. wbm1058 (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I always take claims of credentials from a new editor with a grain of salt. Make that a bucket. Actually, I just shrug these claims away. Our policies are designed to make sure that the quality and the value of an edit can be judged from the edit itself. On the other hand, an editor's credibility can perfectly (and perhaps only) be judged from a significant history of good edits. Credentials are often claimed by new editors when their contributions get rejected per original research, unsourced, or (only primary) sourced by their own academic work. There's a ton of academics with big, real, relevant credentials out there, but blocked/banned because at some point they insisted that credentials are more important than our basic policies. By design, they are not. So, no, I don't think there should be such a mechanism, and there probably never will be one—at least not for the bulk of regular editors or administrators. I think that attempts to install such mechanisms are a waste of time. - DVdm (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
So, getting back to the incident that triggered this thread, the problem is that the WMF did not take the guy's claims with a grain of salt. If they had taken the time to scrutinize his edit history, then they would have seen that he shouldn't have gotten his hands on a penny of WMF grant money. wbm1058 (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Are you making that up, or do you have any evidence that his academic or job history was the reason any grant was given? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't really know anything much about the thought process that goes into grant decisions. Maybe his asserted credentials were not considered. Clearly his edit history was not seriously considered. This begs the question of what actually was considered, and why the grants were awarded? wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Though, loose speculation about such individual matters is probably against policy. One could ask the grant's people why they provide sandwiches, etc, for editing sessions, do you honestly think there is a perfect editor vetting process? On the other hand, there is an auto-patrolled vetting process, which English Wikipedia administrators vouch for and this editor got that, so maybe his editing is not all horror. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Peter Damian did a great service, I think, by bringing up this matter. Grant monies must be especially well protected because much of it is money given in trust to WMF by individuals who may not have much money in the first place. Whatever the grant decision process is, this event shows it needs improvement.Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Progress in economics by speaking about education?[edit]

Jimbo, I don't know if it is or isn't presumptuous, but I was sincere when I wrote this:

I can't stop imagining a world in which you give a Davos speech on the flawed roots of trickle down, so all the billionaires who would have been even more wealthy in purchasing power terms if they hadn't spent so much lobbying for greed can all go outside and burn Okun and Rand effigies in the snow, and then come back inside and pull the strings to get back to whatever [1] would look like if [2] had fewer inflection points. Maybe you can condense it all down to an elevator pitch. I would even go so far as to suggest that the solution is such a win-win that the blue line on this graph need not decrease for the green line to continue increasing past all time highs.

I had been trying to ask you about the effects of finance industry size[3][4] and college administrations[5][6] on the cost of formal education, because it has become the largest and fastest growing component of median family spending.

However, given that you are a sought-after speaker on developments in contemporary education, but not economics, I wonder if it would be better if you were to speak on the extent to which all recent postsecondary education subsidies have been reflected in tuition increases? EllenCT (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo seems to avoid finance questions here, perhaps because there could be many very time-consuming details. For years, WP had lacked articles about general business subjects (MBO, "Management by Objectives", management by the numbers, Management by wandering around), but of course had many thousands of corporate pages. I checked for loan origination topics, as for commercial loans or mortgage loans with the "Federal calendar" or Actual/365 (actual-day except leap day) or Actual/366 (including leap). However, the various econ pages could be updated: macroeconomics, Trickle-down economics, Reaganomics, Voodoo economics, supply-side, tuition increases, lottery funding of education (etc.), and then post questions at the related talk-pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Those are some of my favorite subjects. Because of what were at least in part well-intentioned errors by e.g. Art Okun and Ayn Rand, my ability to edit on the crux of that topic area is affected by what Jimbo says on wiki and in public. If our positions were reversed, I would expect Jimbo to bring this to my attention with solutions, as is my intent here in accordance with what we ask of editors involved in such situations.
Is there a deeper connection to the optimal order of general educational instruction? When income inequality affects postsecondary education, it does so in a way that directly harms its meritocratic aspects, e.g. by tuition increases and subtle elitism. In primary education, we require certain subjects to be learned prior to teaching others, partly to make prior topics of instruction useful for learning subsequent topics, and partly because we want to provide the most useful and applicable skills to the largest number of students. In postsecondary instruction, sometimes those who are unable to grasp certain concepts are precluded from progressing further. What does that mean when any subject of instruction can be offered as an article in an encyclopedia striving for sufficient quality to provide self-directed learning without regard to their current prerequisite skill set? Do postsecondary education credentials become non-meritocratic participation awards for having sufficient money, connections, and patience with a corrupt and outmoded but successfully self-perpetuating bureaucracy? And if so, is there a good reason to require such credentials of those who are allowed access to jobs and thereby additional wealth? Do wealthy people perform better labor? Certainly being well-connected can help salespeople, but does that suggest that the real economy is performing a market function, or simply propping up an inefficient cadre? Should we be rewarding people for secret handshakes, meaningful glances, and Jim Crow discrimination? No! We must restore the meritocracy, and we will. Jimbo can help in a way that will make that goal orders of magnitude easier. EllenCT (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Funding the tertiary education sector is a tricky business. It might not be so bad if people took the attitude of Frederick Elder, who after the University of Oklahoma burned down said, "What do you need to keep classes going? Two yards of blackboard and a box of chalk."
If educational institutions see students as customers to be bilked for as much money as possible (and more as alumni) these problems will not go away.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
That is why I am suggesting that when someone asks Jimbo about education, that he hold off on simply reiterating the inherent values and reciting the growing pains of general online searchable encyclopedias, and instead depend more on critiques such as Lucca, David O.; Nadauld, Taylor; Shen, Karen (March 2016). "Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in Federal Student Aid Programs" (PDF). newyorkfed.org. Staff Report No. 733 (Federal Reserve Bank of New York). Retrieved 5 April 2016.  and Gordon, Grey; Hedlund, Aaron (September 28, 2015). "Accounting for the Rise in College Tuition" (PDF). Working Paper No. 21967. National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w21967. Retrieved 5 April 2016. , which is a chapter in this book. EllenCT (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I just browsed those papers - quite interesting. I'm still unlikely to speak outside my area of expertise, but I'm also a little confused. If you posit in your mind a dreadful "trickle down" person, wouldn't they enthusiastically embrace these results? After all, these papers seem to show that a major factor of the increase in the cost of a University education is government subsidy of that form of education. At least one conclusion someone might draw from this is that reducing subsidies would cause prices to fall, so wouldn't prevent nearly as many people from getting a college degree as we might have otherwise thought.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. I was trying to explain with the Asher Edelman, Ron Paul, Nick Hanauer, and Paul Ryan quotes that the political parties have drifted so far to the right of the actual demographic center that the so-called political spectrum has folded in on itself and collapsed. That is exactly why this is an opportunity for you. The people with expertise on the issue are almost entirely all in on the scam. Our tradition is to afford no extra respect for subject matter experts, and upholding that tradition for a few speeches off-wiki would serve everyone well at this juncture.
And maybe I'm wrong to call supply side proponents trickle downers. Wealth has trickled down, it just skipped over the working class in the industrialized world and left them behind. It's not a fundamental error of ideology, just a matter of tuning nations' tax and transfer incidence to obtain optimal growth. Do you remember when growth topped 5.3% in 1983-85 after the Reagan tax cuts? I don't, but Reagan's Joint Economic Committe Director James K. Galbraith sure does. ("When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected.")
In any case, when subsidies aren't being siphoned to bloat the finance sector and postsecondary institutional administrations, "the state receives a $4.5 net return for every dollar it invests to get students through college." Don't take that on faith, just look at how much more college graduates pay in income tax. EllenCT (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The nature of government education subsidies has changed over the years. Direct subsidies to public colleges have been shrinking, so tuition becomes an increasing percentage of their overall revenue. I'd guess that the colleges would generally be indifferent as to whether their funding comes directly from the state or indirectly via subsidized loans. Seems to me that the big winners in this are the education finance industry, with the students the big losers. We need a political revolution to change that. The high water mark for student-friendly funding was the 1960s, when the children of the WW II GI Bill vets were getting their college educations. Their antiwar campus protests freaked out the upper classes, who feared that there was too much democracy, so they set out to reverse course by lobbying for cuts in direct public college funding. This necessitated more and easier student loans so the colleges wouldn't have to cut tuition and programs. That's my understanding of the issue, though this isn't an area of expertise for me either. Unfortunately the pendulum isn't likely to flip back in the other direction without trauma of some sort to trigger the flip. wbm1058 (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that, except I'd quibble that the "political revolution" required to correct the tuition finance situation has already occurred, and only political gridlock -- that Jimbo could blow open himself, by addressing the issue publically -- stands in the way of the needed reforms. The education finance industry (and their university administration bedfellows) are so obviously bloated and abusive that even the rigged plutocracy of the austerity-crazed bipartisan border that tries to pass itself off as centrist is poised to crack down on it. They just need a slight push which Jimbo could supply regardless of whether he has the confidence to try. EllenCT (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
One can only hope that The Signpost scoop that he will be the running mate of Donald Trump University is dead wrong. We can only hope that our next president will bring "change we can believe in". You're so right about "almost entirely all in on the scam", so many that the field of potential Democratic VP candidates is very slim. The New York primary is going to be HUUGGGGE! Go for it, Jimbo! wbm1058 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I am feeling 😃 😊 😐 😒 about this editor.
EllenCT (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC) selected EllenCT (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
There are two significant issues that I see in the finances of the American tertiary education system, from my distant vantage-point.
One is that the independence of the institutions is affected by receiving federal (and in some cases state) funds.
The other is the confusion between education and running a business, that I mentioned above.
I believe that there is huge scope for cutting the cost to students in the US by innovating - free (as in speech) textbooks would be a start, and perhaps something Jimmy could speak to.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC).
The independence of medical schools, for example, is also affected by the research grants they receive from Big Pharma. They have to get funds from somewhere, and the best way to keep them independent is a good, competitive mix of funding from both public and private sources.
Textbooks are a natural monopoly in dire need of some reasonable regulation. Students have no choice but to buy the books their professors specify. wbm1058 (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Getting the details right is not trivial: "Take Scotland's recent experience as an example. When the Scottish National Party took power in 2007, it eliminated tuition fees at public universities. As The Economist reported in October, though, getting rid of fees did not markedly increase access for graduates of public secondary schools or low-income students. Critics of the policy have pointed out that funding free tuition for all instead of, say, targeted need-based grants, provides a windfall to the affluent at the expense of the working class. One study found that the free tuition plan essentially redistributed 20 million pounds from poor students to rich ones." EllenCT (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Does the solution involve the proportion spent on instructors? Per student? Per instructor? More sources: right, left, centrist, bipartisan, subject matter expert. EllenCT (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Big state colleges are increasingly dominated by wealthy students "public universities are actively luring these (wealthier out-of-state) students at the expense of those in their state, as they cope with cuts to state funding"... "Because the state contributes a smaller and smaller proportion of UW-Madison’s operating budget, the university administration naturally considers alternative ways of raising revenues, and the many wealthy applicants offer a quick, attractive alternative". As I was saying. The elites don't want too many educated people who can see past their spin, and thus might orchestrate a political revolution. wbm1058 (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
When the states start increasing public higher-education subsidies again, they should mandate that the funds go directly towards teaching-professors and other core programs, and limit the amount for administration and research-professors whose work primarily benefits private companies too cheap to pay for their own R&D (I don't know how much of a problem that might be, but watch out for it). wbm1058 (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
What if the problem of poverty is that it's profitable to other people, such as college presidents? Income inequality is real and extremely deleterious. EllenCT (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Imo, Critical Thinking is important to learn and practice especially as a developing child and adolescent. It can be encouraged in school, e.g. essays, or discouraged, e.g. multiple choice and Rote learning. The three Rs, basic science, and objective world history are also crucial. All aspects of democratic societies are almost entirely determined by the critical thinking abilities and knowledge level of the voters. Post high school education is available to those who want it bad enough. The quality consistency of the grade school and high school education is a huge problem in the USA and not nearly as much so in the other advanced societies. The adult illiteracy level was 50% in L.A. as recently as 2004, according to NPR. So, its a real mess. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The projects are known for their high-quality critical thinking. What would [7] look like if [8] had fewer inflection points? EllenCT (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean by "projects"? Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Foundation Projects like Wikipedia and Wiktionary have their talk pages used as examples of arguments by IBM. Remember the Monty Python skit where an argument required payment? EllenCT (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, do you agree that the disagreement is not due to anyone's fundamental error of ideology, but a question of tuning nations' tax and transfer incidence to obtain optimal measures such as maximizing years of productive life? EllenCT (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Mobile apps[edit]

Why are there even mobile apps instead of a geometry responsive web site, anyway? How many developers work on that less than a percent of page views? EllenCT (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

  • That sounds like a horse and buggy manufacturer saying "Why invest in internal combustion engines when they are less than a percent of miles driven?" Obviously there are valid reasons to consider the relative investment in mobile web versus mobile apps, but your analysis is pretty simplistic. In terms of revenue, one reason (again, just a factor, not overwhelming) is that mobile apps generally have very easy internal payment/donation systems attached (in-app purchases) whereas mobile websites do not. There's a huge amount to be said about this, and I'm not taking any big position, I'm just saying - this is a sophisticated choice. (And not one that I'm personally involved with analyzing for Wikipedia, by the way.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
What is our revenue strategy for pure voice I/O at geometry 0x0? EllenCT (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Apps do seem optimal to pull in revenue/resellable data. But if you think that makes them a good thing, then you should say the same about spam email. Wnt (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @EllenCT: Your question about the apps is overly simplistic. Have you tried the apps? I think they offer a much nicer experience than the mobile website, and they were significantly easier to make than the mobile website was for a variety of reasons, some technological and some cultural. Many features and design patterns that were pioneered in the apps have been adopted as beta features or production features on other platforms, such as using imagery and metadata in search forms, which both statistical analysis and usability studies have shown has a significant impact on a user's ability to find what they're searching for. From the technical side, the API-driven nature of the apps has pushed the boundaries of our API development, which promotes re-use of our content beyond just the apps. I think our apps have a definite place in our platforms given that they have million of people using them. And regarding that comic you posted, a modal window has never been used to promote the apps, and there are no plans to do so; my opinion is that disrupting a reader's experience in such a manner is not worth the potential reward of getting people to use the apps. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Deskana (WMF): But if we look at the above table we see 98% of mobile users are not using the app. Do these users get a good experience? Do you have better data about this? --Salix alba (talk): 21:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Salix alba: My point was that number of page views is not the only metric with which one can evaluate the rewards from investing in a particular platform. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I have not tried the apps. Can they zoom? Do you have a link for them? EllenCT (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
You can find the apps in the Android play store and the Apple app store. They are significantly different from each other at the moment, as the iOS (Apple) version has just been refreshed in a major way with some really interesting ideas.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I received a Samsung Galaxy Tab as a Christmas gift (Ok...someone loves me. ;) ) so I checked out the apps on the tablet and I have to tell you, the experience was not fun. Is it possible that the numbers of people using them is just because...wait for it....that is all there is? Perhaps I am just not understanding the basics of the discussion but I have to tell you, Wikipedia apps are not easy to use unless all you want to do is read....and even that is no great joy. As far as I am concerned, Wikipedia is far behind on apps. Smart TVs and tablets make it essential that we stay ahead of this curve and in my opinion...this is an issue we are falling behind on. Now...how stupid did I just come across? No...that's OK.....I'll find my way out. ;) --Mark Miller (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
If you have a chance, check out the direction of the iOS app. I agree with you that we need to invest in this, by the way. Good progress has been made, in my opinion, with the direction of the iOS app.
Here is how it was explained to me in an impromptu demo at the WMF - except that this is my own words and so any clumsiness is mine. One major issue with mobile apps is not merely hoping that people go to the command line of the Internet (Google search box) and type something that leads to us, but rather to realize that apps are unfortunately silos with the major way that people get to them being the app itself pushing something interesting to the user. Apps that succeed tantalize us during those bored moments with tidbits that we might find interesting. So the concept of the iOS app is not just "replicate the mobile website in a native app" (a reasonable first thing to do) but rather to be an answer to the question "What would bring people to the app every day?" So it's about pushing out the photo of the date, news of the day, etc as notifications. It's about customizing a feed based on what the user did before. Were you looking at World War II articles yesterday? Hey, here's a good one for today! Not all of this is fully realized in the current version, and certainly not yet anything close to optimized. But it's a very interesting path to take and I'm excited to see what comes next.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Would someone care to explain to me why this matters? The last time I looked (about 10 minutes ago) meta:Vision said: Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. That doesn't require an app. That doesn't require a method of pushing content to users. Wikipedia's contribution to that vision is to build a freely available encyclopedia. The mobile site could do that much better, in my opinion, if development didn't have two mobile platforms to maintain, not to mention iOS and Android variants. Building a freely available encyclopedia is irrelevant to "pushing" content at readers, or tracking what they read. Provided they have (uncensored) Internet access, anybody can go to Wikipedia in their browser and if they wish, edit it.
The pragmatic reasons for building an app that I can think of are as follows:
  1. Some people expect there to be an app: so? If you want to read about something, you don't need an app.
  2. Somebody else might make an app: how is this different to Wikiwand on desktop?
  3. It's easier to make donations through an app: how cynical.
  4. Building an app is easier than a mobile web interface: given that we would hope for cross-platform accessibility, we need a mobile site for non-support mobile OSes.
By the way, I did download the app to my iOS device to have a look. I can't say I'm impressed. For one thing, the featured article image on the front page has a three-click attribution path. BethNaught (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
What's more, the iOS Wikipedia app appears to use the Commons Picture of the Day rather than Wikipedia's featured picture. Bringing other projects under the Wikipedia branding is deceptive and denies other projects their due recognition. BethNaught (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with pretty much anything you've said, and I particularly note that your negative attitude is not consistent with "Assume Good Faith". Please step back and take another look at things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you have become used to me being perpetually negative about Flow and therefore read such motives into my above comments. That's wrong, but I can't blame you. In truth, I am genuinely puzzled as to why "pushing" content at readers is an important part of our vision. I legitimately asked for someone to explain that. It seems obvious to me that if developer effort is not split, quality will improve, and hence to be worthwhile an app must have particular value to the mission; I am asking for reasons why it does.
As for my comments about the app, they are specific problems I see with it and I am still concerned by them. I shan't bother repeating them for rhetoric as they can be read above. BethNaught (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
You are right that I've come to expect negativity from you, as well as baseless and rude allegations against the WMF staff like the one above of the app being "deceptive" or that interest in financial matters is "cynical". I encourage you to reconsider your rhetoric and attitude as it isn't really persuading anyone.
As to the specific question of "push" I don't really even understand what you are asking. Our vision is a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet in their own language. Achieving that vision requires a lot of precursors, including being a very popular and widely used and well-funded operation to achieve that vision. There are some widely known and well understand facts about the direction that the Internet has been heading, including the rise of the app ecosystem on mobile, and the use cases of mobile are different from the use cases on the desktop. Staying up to date with how people actually want to use our work is important - why are you so negative about it? We know that on mobile people like apps that push interesting content to them - this is a popular feature elsewhere and is very likely to be a popular feature here. One way to use an encyclopedia is "when I have an idea I want to know more about I go to google and search for it and then I often end up reading about it at Wikipedia". Another way is "They send me stuff every day that I find interesting and that is based on things I've found interesting in the past or things that other people who are similar to me have found interesting". Insisting in your rude manner that anything other than the first pattern is somehow inconsistent with our vision is puzzling to say the least.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I never said "pushing" was inconsistent with the mission, I questioned its importance. TheDJ has made some helpful comments about apps below; I'll drop this issue, since he has actually convinced me that the apps are a useful thing to make. As for "deceptive”: that was perhaps a bad word. I didn't intend it to mean deliberately deceptive, but don't you agree that it is (unintentionally) misleading to brand a Commons featured content process as Wikipedia? Perhaps if Commons were named, it might gain more awareness and more contributors too.
I could expound on why I'm so jaded with the WMF, but I know what your reaction will be so I won't. BethNaught (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
"That doesn't require an app."... Indeed. Like writing an encyclopedia didn't require the web. An overly simplistic argument. As someone who writes both mobile websites and mobile apps for a living, you have no idea how big the difference is. Most consumers don't either. If you question consumers, at most they give very vague impressions. Yet from pure experience, I know that the difference is huge in long term retention, if you do it right. This is a road we need to keep open, explore, tweak and improve. Not solely, but definitely included. What people seem to keep thinking is that writing a mobile web version of Wikipedia is easy. It's not. We are a legacy system of 15 years old. There is nothing more complicated than retrofitting the modern web on top of that. Mobile web is only easy if you throw out the old stuff. But that will never happen, because we have a community that relies on all that old stuff (Which is why WikiWand CAN do it, because they don't have a community to care about). People don't appreciate the apps and the mobile version, because they see them as limited forms of the desktop website, but instead they are platform optimized versions of Wikipedia that are driving technical changes behind the scene of the entire technical stack, at a sustainable, steady and mostly unnoticeable pace. Ever so slightly, these 3 'platforms' are merging and moving us forward. It's the only way to do it, without aggressively changing desktop. Is either of the platforms ideal ? no, and it will be a long time before any of them is, and that is just fine, as long as we are making progress. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
How is the experience disabling JavaScript and CSS on your platforms? EllenCT (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
You are gonna have to be a bit more specific with the question, i can interpret it in too many ways. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
On the platforms you use, when you turn off JavaScript and CSS, such as a blind person might with a low-end screenreader, or a mobile user without hands free, or a telephone call, can you still edit Project wikis? EllenCT (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
What does that have to do with this discussion ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
How could it not? EllenCT (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I think there are reasons for the skeptical tone here, including a fundamental mismatch in philosophy. For example, the Wikipedia app on the iOS App Store is presently Rated 4+, which according to App Store (iOS) means it "Contains no objectionable material", and in particular, does not contain mild or infrequent occurrences of cartoon, fantasy or realistic violence, and mild or infrequent mature, suggestive, or horror-themed content which may not be suitable for children under the age of 9, and definitely does not contain frequent or intense cartoon, fantasy or realistic violence, mild or infrequent mature or suggestive themes, mild or infrequent bad language, and simulated gambling, and certainly frequent and intense offensive language, excessive cartoon, fantasy, or realistic violence, frequent and intense mature, horror, suggestive themes, sexual content, nudity, alcohol, and drugs is right out. Now you don't need Google self-driving AI to predict a collision here! True, Apple obviously wants to turn a blind eye since Wikipedia is highly valued, but at some point the philosophical contamination inherent in any rating scheme is bound to take the upper hand. Then either you're letting Apple censors directly dictate to individual editors which things they can and cannot tell people in a "Rated 9+" article about the Holocaust, or you're going to be throwing that nice shiny Apple app in the trash, and presumably not telling the community why since they apparently demand a nondisclosure agreement about rejection letters.
The situation is confusing, because we are accustomed from the 1990s of an idea that civilization is rising and technology advances. Today, the fragmentation of software into proprietary silos, the domination by corrupt middlemen, the lack of privacy and security, and the compromises to function made to allow this to happen, put us into a situation where civilization and technology are steadily declining. For example, Facebook simply is not as good as an old fashioned webring of user built sites, Twitter is not as good as old fashioned chatrooms; they are just more marketable and more prosecutable. And so we have the old conflict between those who want us to be ahead of the technology curve and those who think we should be most accessible, but now the techies naturally want as little to change as possible, while the low-tech low-expectations crowd pushes for revised software. This can be confusing. But I think it would make sense for Wikipedia to anticipate reduced readership and money flow as it retreats to its original user base. Wnt (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Requests for source material[edit]

I propose that there be a new entity (a Wikipedia page or a Wikipedia namespace or a Wikipedia WikiProject or a Wikimedia project or something else) where editors can list articles needing sources, and where journalists and webmasters and scholars can read what is listed and provide links to the needed source material (perhaps also producing it). The new entity can also include, for each article listed, specific information about the details required in the source material. Although I have had this idea for probably several years now, I am prompted to mention it at this time because I am having some difficulty in finding suitable source material for the article Journey to the Safest Place on Earth. (Please see also User talk:Garagepunk66#Journey to the Safest Place on Earth.)
—Wavelength (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC) and 22:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:REX? Choess (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, but that page appears to be for requesting specific articles and books and other publications. My proposal is about requesting material with specific information but with no specification of articles or books or other publications. In the article mentioned above, I cited three different sources, but all three of them omit the names of the authors and the dates of the articles. Also, the second one now denies access. WP:REX does not appear to be intended as a place for requesting information about that film, information which might be found at webpages not yet identified, information accompanied by author-and-date information.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
What? You don't have an underground lair full of minions working their way through Category:Articles lacking sources?!? And you call yourself a wikipedian? EllenCT (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2009 is my favorite subcat. EllenCT (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is another example. I am interested in finding reports either for or against the hypothesis that left-handedness is correlated with concavity of the right cheek (more than the left cheek), because of the right cheek being supported by the right hand while the left hand is writing; and vice versa. If no research has been done on this hypothesis, then the new entity would be a convenient place for me to post an expression of my interest, for possible action by interested researchers. After the research has been adequately done, then the researcher(s) can produce an article about it (in compliance with Wikipedia requirements for sources) and secondary sources can do likewise. Next, they can post one or more comments with one or more links below my expression of interest.—Wavelength (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I would always consider asking at wp:Reference_desk, where many people have answered numerous questions about extremely obscure subjects, and they do not seem to mind the effort, just pick a relevant topic category. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
That is a good idea. You can also try a commercial search engine on the pertinent terms to try to find where the most applicable active forums are. EllenCT (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I have posted a question about this hypothesis at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Updated demographic statistics on Wikipedia editors[edit]

Does anyone know if there is a reasonably up-to-date source regarding demographic statistics on regular English Wikipedia editors? I mean statistical information regarding various parameters such as age, gender, level of education, occupation, native language, etc. The Wikipedia article itself does contain a table with this kind of info in Wikipedia#Community section (namely this table [9]). However, the info there is based on a survey from April 2009, so it is 7 years old. It'd be interesting to see more up-to-date information if it is available... Nsk92 (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Grossly and criminally disgracefully understudied... Median age is in the middle to late 30s, 85% male, give or take. College educated. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Carrite, if you are going to use such outrageous language as "criminally" then please leave my talk page and don't come back. It is totally unhelpful. Who should be arrested and what crime have they committed? Obviously, no one and none. Being a jackass does not build an encyclopedia, it builds a culture of hostility. Stop it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I think "criminally" in a non-literal sense is not that uncommon an English usage. Compare definition 4. Wnt (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@JW. I didn't realize you were such a literalist. Apologies for the use of such confusing hyperbole. Carrite (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. No need to whisper, Wnt, it is a common use of the word. Carrite (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Grossly understudied - we can all agree on that. But why so? IMHO because it's a political topic around here, especially the % women, but probably also because of a few quarrels involving US vs. UK vs. the rest of the world, young and old, liberal and conservative, etc. But rationally, all parties should agree knowing the demographics should allow us to improve the encyclopedia. So why doesn't the WMF go ahead and just do it?
Perhaps, because of the political implications. The main holdup here IMHO is that people want to get this exactly right, do everything in the very best possible way. I'll suggest that there is no best possible way, that there are many cheap and fast good ways, that we should just go ahead and do it. If somebody complains that the survey was biased against xxx (the complaint will almost certainly happen) then we should just go ahead and make a few corrections and do it again. The biggest problem IMHO is that the "best possible way" to many people's way of thinking is to do a census or population study, i.e. try to get data on everybody. That is impossible and trying it will certainly bias the data - and it's also expensive and slow.
We need a random sample of the population. 1000-1600 responses of randomly sampled editors should do it. It's not that hard. Let's just do it. Results could be ready in a month. Jimmy, any chance that you could make this happen via the WMF? Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Such studies have been done in the past and will be done in the future. I apologize for not knowing how to point you to the results. I strongly support thorough investigation into the demographics of active Wikipedians, but also in studying what their motivations are, and what the reasons are that people leave the community, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Findings from 2009 study
Perhaps folks can help provide the needed links. It is worthwhile to include the graph of the 2009 study. The fine print show that there were nearly 44,000 respondents. I say that's too many! 1,000 - 2,000 would do just as well. It's too many to do on a regular basis. Also it is not just the English language editors - I'm not against surveying non-English language editors, but if we get the methods down for en:Wiki we can then go on to other Wikis. Doing everything at once ends up doing almost nothing at all for 7 years.
Note that the presented results could be recorded from a survey of 5 questions. If these are the most important questions - and I think they are - then we should not fool ourselves that we need a long survey instrument. Keep it spectacularly short! I'm not against up to 10 short questions, but the additional questions should be well thought out before including them.
The WMF can do such a survey. Say sample the editor after every 2,000 edits for a week (that's probably too many) and tell them "we've got 5 very quick questions - can you help us get a handle on en:Wikipedia's demographics?"
We shouldn't combine this with any other study. e.g. we got demographics info with the harassment study (attempted census). But folks who want to answer a survey on harassment are likely not typical of the overall population of editors.
All we need is the commitment to do this, and to do it soon. Does anybody out there know a reason why it shouldn't be done soon? Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
You should talk to the research team at Wikimedia, I think they'll find this very interesting and they'll be able to tell you what their current research efforts include!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, we need to measure how it's changed. Some type of wiki survey, perhaps? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I've contacted a few people but don't expect to hear from them until after the weekend. Meanwhile, does anybody have links to more recent surveys? Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Make small donor fundraising great again[edit]

Source: https://frdata.wikimedia.org/yeardata-day-vs-ytdsum.csv

Is there a plan to make sure large grant donors don't even matter, e.g., for anything other than the non-program endowment? Should there be? EllenCT (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The revenue from small donors is highly correlated with page views on desktop. The ongoing switch from desktop to mobile is having a material impact. Yes, the fundraising team is aware of the issues and working on solutions, but there is very likely no magic bullet. Among the things that are happening, to good effect, is enhancement and optimization of the email campaign to existing donors. Personally, I am confident that mobile payment solutions will continue to improve thus changing the current poor revenue situation for us on mobile.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Is that an actual long term trend?
page views web requests "non-mobile" (e.g. desktop and laptop) browsers mobile/tablet browsers mobile apps
June 2013 171 billion 50 billion 3 billion
June 2014 139 billion 92 billion 2 billion
June 2015 155 billion 101 billion 2 billion
Does anyone want to sample the other months to see if desktops stopped decreasing when, for example, the Microsoft Surface hit the market? I could see how that might cause problems for an ontology that wants things to be "non-mobile" (meaning laptops and desktops) or tablets, but apparently not both. This is why you want to let your CTO candidates take questions from the community, by the way. EllenCT (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The Surface Pro 4 and Surface Book were released on October 26, 2015. Why does https://browser-reports.wmflabs.org/ not have category totals? I used that source for this next graph, which apparently uses very different definitions:
Whether or not the page views in the first graph are probably just HTTP requests, which means there is one for a page and one for all the images on that page (I guess) does the long term trend does suggest an actual decrease in desktop browser page views? EllenCT (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I was curious as to how desktop and mobile traffic relate as well. Someone else can hopefully point to a better resource, but this chart from http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyAllProjects.htm seemed helpful. Ckoerner (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Pageviews in phones with desktop-view setting[edit]

I try to keep my mobile phone set to "desktop-view" (but poor menu-design promotes unclick of the setting), and I see the regular desktop/laptop pages and edit-screen interface, but using the phone's ultra-slow "touch-SCREAM" (touch-screen) interface with dreadful tiny touch-keys and zillions of typos at auto-spell correction. I suspect many users would use desktop-view once they know to get the full-page articles and edit-screens (and videos), rather than the limited mobile-phone "m." webpages. This is the mobile-desktop crowd. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the Foundation could look for editors who seem to be doing well with their mobile devices and send researchers out to videotape their techniques. EllenCT (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I've written a (short) FA using a mobile device as an exercise, but it's not an experience I'd care to repeat. That's using desktop view; as per virtually everyone else who's ever commented on it, I find mobile view bad to the point of unusable for reading (hey, we've got a version of the site with enormous fonts, which loses most of the formatting and with key information missing altogether on all but the most basic of articles, and we're so proud of it we're going to constantly reset your device to use it no matter how often you try to disable it!), and completely unusable for editing. ‑ Iridescent 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Who can test whether mobile users give as much (in donations and contributions) as desktop users when you make desktop mode the default for them? EllenCT (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2016 (U TC)

Wikimania Esino Lario[edit]

Hello and sorry if this question is already answered somewhere. Otherwise do you have any plans to visit Italy this year? --Neolexx (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that you've just linked to a page which lists Jimmy as speaking in Esino Lario at 10:30 on 24 July, I'm not sure what more you're expecting him to add… ‑ Iridescent 20:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
24 June. Shame on me, I honestly and somehow (don't ask me how) missed it in the programm but now I see it. So thanks to him he didn't add anything about my manual reading abilities... :-) --Neolexx (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Just confirming: I'll be at Wikimania, as always. I'm also likely to be in Italy for a conference or two - I usually am.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo.[edit]

An edit that wasn't supposed to be reverted from my edit, the user said it was unessary on your user page but I think that revert needs to be reverted. It was nesscary. (Sorry 'bout spelling.) DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this use of the logo okay?[edit]

Wikipedia logo Trump.png

Are you looking to "Make America Great Again" and would you accept a nomination? Does this mean WMF endorses a "Trump/Wales" ticket? Does this mean anyone can put stuff over WMF trademarked images like that? --DHeyward (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It was done as an April Fool "joke" and has been nominated for deletion. Since it appears to violate the WMF's terms of use for the logo, it should be deleted anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The opinion of a respected Wikipedian who is also a lawyer might be very helpful at this point. Paging Brad... EdChem (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Added clarification: I mean on the legal issue raised in the deletion discussion. EdChem (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I find Donald Trump so horrifying that my usual ease with bad jokes is tough to maintain in this case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Deletion request is leaning towards keep though, care to vote? I wonder if someone slaps a WP:COI warning to your talk if you do... God I love wiki drama. Darwinian Ape talk 14:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Although perhaps not as deliberately offensive as the Pricasso video, some people on Commons are having difficulty understanding why Commons should not be used for this sort of thing. I would urge the WMF to delete this image as an office action due to the trademark and WP:BLP issues involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It is incomprehensible to me that Commons can host a picture of Jimbo that some guy painted with his dick while this mild humorous topical reference would be considered unacceptable there. Gamaliel (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

As I've said, there are BLP issues for Trump and Jimbo here. Also, Jimbo's wishes on the matter should be respected.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
See Satire#Legal_status, and maybe also Satire#Censorship_and_criticism_of_satire. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
It might be satire if it was even remotely funny. Laugh, I thought I'd never start. This is similar to fake accounts on Twitter which claim to represent another person's views.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

AI researchers say the community doesn't argue enough[edit]

At the end of page 9 here Wikipedia is called "very unbalanced" because we spend so much time talking about things other than "claims or evidence". I have mixed feelings about this. When the alien archeologists mount the hard drives from the rubble, the record will show that I, for one, did my part. EllenCT (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that isn't at all what it says.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
How does "arguments and evidence" appearing only as input to the "policing agent" in the economic model on Table on page 6 here make you feel? I can think of a few other nodes there that need to be upgraded with arguments and evidence. EllenCT (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you are confusing the suitability of text for natural language learning vs quality of text from a human point of view. Humans don't speak like a textbook declaring only facts, we have all sorts of elements to the conversation that are more nuanced. This can be a challenge when trying to teach AIs to learn from human text. HighInBC 14:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
So would you agree, then, that the WP:NOTHOWTO prohibition of procedural information is therefore deplorable and should be abolished? EllenCT (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160412003535/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales