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 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Jimmy, the External links for this article were discussed earlier, along with those for Hugo Chavez. (Archive from your Talk page.) This is the current non-resolution. There appears to be a consensus of one (Chzz) against adding them, so s/he wouldn't add them. The reasons against adding them are apparently the same ones used before, by Chzz and (Admin) KillerChihuahua, in the Hugo Chavez article (which eventually added the links, but that discussion was more about using them as a hostage to change the body of the article). Without canvassing, there's no way to get any more input. I suppose I could invite KillerChihuahua back to the discussion as s/he participated earlier, but I would point out this (about KillerChihuahua) from the Archive:

And now I see you deleted EL for David Cameron, a few minutes before deleting all the relevant EL for Ed Miliband. And you didn't stop with collected news articles - you deleted ALL the usual MP links including voting record, Hansard speeches, etc., etc., etc. THEN you only reverted your Ed Miliband comments, and you blamed User:Off2riorob for not noticing you didn't actually change the Miliband article, just added 'edit comments' in your edit-reedit changes. Well, since you didn't revert your David Cameron deletions, you're obviously being quite economical with the truth. What on earth are you trying to accomplish here? I truly hope someone knows the Wikipedian way to stop you, because I admittedly have no idea on the proper procedures. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that there were any consequences for his/her behavior, although I suspect an "ordinary" contributor would have been summarily banned. So no, I don't believe in inviting someone prone to such destructive temper tantrums, and this certainly wasn't the first time. I don't know of any way to address this within Wikipedia rules. Hamid Karzai is an important world leader, constantly in the news, and imo it's a no-brainer to include these links in his article, and the same for people of similar stature. Googling provides No one article can be so perfect that our readers can't benefit by being provided with collections of other views and Karzai "in his own words". What is the point of Wikipedia if it's not to educate its readers? However, I'm not interested in devoting all my waking hours to arguing this (obvious) point, one article at a time, especially with Admins who do NOT play by the rules yet are treated with kid gloves. (And I'm certainly not the first to point this out.) Consensus on the principle, fine. I thought that had been accomplished. Consensus on hundreds if not thousands of articles, one by one, repeating the same arguments, is not fine. If as many Wikipedians were interested in world leaders as are interested in movie celebrities, it might be different. They aren't. So, I leave it to you. 75.59.206.69 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be left to article talk pages. I personally find saved searches a poor thing to add as an EL, especially since there would be a very high rate of linkrot. However, perhaps consensus disagrees with my view, why don't you engage there and see?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but just exactly how does one "engage" with an empty room aka Talk page? I waited two months, and then posted another request. Are you suggesting I canvass? btw - the last active contributor to the article was banned as a sockpuppet. I doubt assorted bots would be interested or capable. So who would I canvass if I followed your suggestion to do so? As I said, I thought the general principle was established in the Hugo Chavez discussion, and didn't have to be repeated. As for "saved searches" and "linkrot", I don't see the connection with the links I suggested. Sorry. Perhaps you should follow the links to the previous discussions. Anyway, I addressed this to Jimmy directly because he's been involved in the related Hugo Chavez discussions. If the answer is to try to get people on various partisan Afghan forums ginned up enough to converge on this Hamid Karzai article and create enough of a kerfuffle that more editors are attracted to the resulting carnage, I supposed I could do that. Doesn't seem all that helpful in the long run, but it does seem to be how most articles get sufficient attention these days. Or Bel Pottinger. (Which is of course meant as a joke, but I am serious about how one is supposed to get consensus without people.) 75.59.206.69 (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo. Please can you give a definitive answer to a discussion which dropped into the archive while you were away. It's at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 89#Response please Jimbo. I'm having the usual problems trying to repost it here thanks to over-eager admins, as explained in the section immediately below that one. Malik P. Mark Johnson the 3rd (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, let's not forget go all the way back to the supporting documentation, including WP:NPA's, WP:ABF, etc starting here. I'm quite happy that I brought the issue originally for viewing - it proved to be entertaining and insulting at the same time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I can answer. Yes, I 100% support blocking a sockpuppet under those circumstances. I think that there's virtually no reason why any user ought to create a sockpuppet account, and a reason like that one is just not even remotely good enough. What the penalty should be for a user in otherwise good standing who screws up and then apologies is a different matter. But the block itself was exactly the right thing to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For the way you have been dealing with the Bell Pottinger affair in the media! :) PaoloNapolitano 18:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was archived by MiszaBot III before Jimbo had responded. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, do you think administrator attrition is causing editor attrition or more the other way around, on balance? Are there any ways that the more quickly declining admin ranks could be caused by decreased editor retention? There are several reasons that fewer admins cause editor biting. Consider how fast WP:ANI is archived compared to about five years ago during the fastest growth period. Is there any reason to believe that admins make better decisions under one fifth the available amount of time? If it were entirely up to you, how would you prefer Foundation resources be allocated towards editor retention and admin retention, in terms of percentages of the entire budget? My opinion is 25% for admins and 1% for editors. 67.6.191.142 (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As neither admins or non-admin editors get any resources that I am aware of, dividing zero as you suggest should not be difficult. Personally, I think the barriers of entry are higher standards (thus, anyone cannot just edit it, at least for an article which is watched, without a significant risk of being reverted for good cause) and too much drama (the subsequent condescending note or block notice left on talk). I happen to agree that we are no longer just looking for bodies with fingers, and it is more important to concentrate on keeping experienced editors (who get bored or offended, and leave) and giving them resources to do their jobs.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but in fact according to [1] the foundation has decided to devote considerable resources to editor retention, which seems foolish to me as it has leveled off to a slope sustainable for decades, while all the admins will be gone in less than seven years at the rate they've been leaving. I hope that Jimbo will be able to address the question. 67.6.191.142 (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the story here. Why do you say 'ethical blindness'? Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and the whole point of it is that there is no editorial, or ethical view, on contributions. Crowdsourcing should ensure, and indeed has ensured, that the truth will out. Surely ethics does not enter into it? 31.52.4.223 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical considerations enter into every human activity. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So should Stormfront sympathisers not be allowed to edit the article about Stormfront? There have been discussions about this before on Wikipedia, and it was concluded (I think) that someone should not be prevented from editing Wikipedia simply because of the views they hold. But there are several questions tangled up here. Even if you hold that ethics does come into it, who is to decide, on an encyclopedia, which is the right ethical position? To do that you would have to set up an ethics committee, and decide which editors were ethical and which weren't. But that is antithetical to the principles of Wikipedia. Note what Michael Irwin says here [2] in an early Wikipedia discussion about editorial control - " I am leary of any "editorial boards" or "validated" material coming back from Nupedia to Wikipedia automatically. " The whole point about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit, and any attempt to impose a central editorial or even 'ethical' standards board is wholly opposed to everything Wikipedia stands for. The systems and controls of Wikipedia - namely of hundreds or thousands of faceless editors monitoring content - are all that is required. 109.151.137.189 (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is and should be an inherently ethical enterprise. Bell Pottinger lied, mislead, and behaved in manners not consistent with our values. The idea that Wikipedia should be aggressively amoral and hope like hell that somehow "crowdsourcing" (a misleading term) will lead to truth is just wrong. I expect people to behave in a thoughtful, kind, responsible and ethical manner when editing Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did they actually lie? That's important. There was an accusation of vote-stacking. Where was that? 31.53.50.138 (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that acting in a way that might damage the reputation of one's client is also an ethical issue for a PR firm.--Boson (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad to see this ugly banner ad at the top of Wikipedia. I thought ads had no business being here? Your close ties to the center shouldn't override our endeavor to be a neutral and adfree website. ThemFromSpace 23:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that if there is not a strong community response, it won't be the last one, and there will be a decreasing amount of affiliation with WMF. However, I doubt that this is the most effective forum.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not an ad per se, I was wondering about that banner as well... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps better for the project would be to maintain a page in the Wikipedia namespace (or maybe on Meta or the Foundation wiki) that lists studies such as this that are looking for Wikipedian volunteers (that the Foundation is happy are genuine and appropriate). This page could be prominently featured in the usual centralised advertising for internal pages. To offset some of the reduction in visibility, it could be part of a series of "Have you seen?" banners pointing to internal things and shown to users no more than once per day. Other things in the sequence would be things like Commons' picture of the year contests, Arbitration Committee elections, GLAM projects, etc. It's probably worth me pointing out that I clicked the banner and took part in the study (I like taking part in things like that) and my participation earned a small donation to the Foundation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I'm happy to see that banner. Because it's just that, a banner. "Ad" is from Advertisement and Advertisement != Research. Also ads try to sell stuff and could make a conflict of interest with the article of the product they want to sell or brand itself. Research doesn't have that problem. A banner from a research project is not less or more annoying that a fundraising banner, and if it helps to raise money to the Wikimedia Foundation then I'm happy. I just finished the experiment and if they indeed transfer the money (I'm skeptical by nature) I'll donate half of it to Wikipedia.--Neo139 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you feel as happy when the ads are for Wikipedia's "marketing partners".--Wehwalt (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This response is absolutely uncalled for and offensive. Your argument is incoherent and false and insulting to good people. The idea that the Wikimedia Foundation legitimately wants to support research relevant to Wikipedia by assisting researchers in recruiting participants implies that we are about to take paid advertisement is just mind-boggling and the exact opposite of AGF. Let me be clear about this: there are no plans to take advertising in Wikipedia, and no relationship between announcing on behalf of research projects and taking advertising. I strongly support such banners and think people should be ashamed of themselves for behaving in a silly manner about them. Crippling academic research into problems that we genuinely face serves exactly what purpose?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was fair comment and I stand by it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I support the general idea of this initiative in principle, but I am also slightly concerned that there is an issue about transparency. I would like to know the background to the research and details of why/how the researchers and WP are partnered. This is just so that I can feel informed. When you talk about "Crippling academic research into problems that we genuinely face" you may well be making a valid point, but I have no idea because I don't know where to look for information about what problems the research is looking into. If it's very obvious that the research is likely to be of benefit to WP, then I am sure that would put a lot of editors' minds at rest. --FormerIP (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm unaware of the Foundation being secretive about anything, so it seems like an easy enough thing to ask them. But I'd like to challenge the assumption here that everyone needs or has a right to be informed about every detail of everything affecting the website at all times. That's just not generally a good use of the Foundation's time and resources, and it also reinforces what I think is a very unhealthy conservativism in the community about change. We need to break out of the idea that every software feature (for example) needs get "consensus" support (defined as high as 70% in some people's minds!) for even some very major software changes. We need to break the idea that the Foundation needs to get permission to run banners in support of research projects. We really need to break the idea, which is preposterous nonsense, that if we don't scream bloody murder and get out the pitchforks, that the Foundation is going to start running paid advertising soon. Not every slope is slippery, and most things are better handled by getting informed before protesting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: we have an outside organization, unaffiliated with Wikipedia, paying a bunch of money (much of which will be funneled to the foundation) so that they can put a banner with their logos for everyone to see. If it looks like a duck, and swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Buddy431 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of money? Where did you find that out? --FormerIP (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, assuming Berkman actually come through, it's like $25 average for 2000 survey-takers, which works out to $50,000. I'm not sure how much of that's going to get donated to the Wikimedia Foundation, but it's probably not insignificant. Buddy431 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well maybe that wasn't a great idea. But I don't think it's fair to suggest that that effectively makes it a paid advert. It's sort of vaguely like a duck, but it isn't one. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, your last sentence is exactly what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that WMF should have sought my permission for the banners and I don't want them taking down. But I would have liked for there to have been (for example) a convenient link to basic information about why the banner was there (e.g. "WMF is collaborating with Harvard and Sciences Po on a research project that we hope will..." etc etc). If there had been more information, then there would have been less protesting, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask me again when that happens. For the moment, I prefer a non-profit organization to be self-sustainable with a 5-hour banner about a research by a university, displayed to users only, rather than a 6 week aggressive fundraising campaign. I don't get mad at Mozilla Foundation because Firefox uses Google as default search engine. That way they can hire more employees and make a better browser while keeping it free software. You can change it to Yahoo if you want, or remove it. The same principle could be applied here. I use Wikipedia not because its banner-free (which I find amazing) but because it's contents are free and good. With more money, they could hire more employees and make a better encyclopedia. And if something can make Wikipedia better while remaining free without annoying the users (or with little impact like this banner) then +1 to that. (BTW, I agree we should discuss this somewhere else) --Neo139 (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What ad is this? Can I get a link? I've long since suppressed the damned banners, since my contributions consist of my work as an editor and admin. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ANI#Harvard/Science Po Adverts. Note, though, that they seem to have been disabled for the moment as per Brion at Meta. They were supposed to appear to a small sample of editors, and instead may have been showing up for everybody. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you were on IRC earlier and asking for information in relation to BP. If you refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Boris_Berezovsky -- I am advising you of this due to Wikipedia:Bell_Pottinger_COI_Investigations clearly stating that this article was edited by BP editors, yet issues in relation to the admitted COI editor still stand, and that is unacceptable as per my comments at the ANI (and on the investigation talk page). Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 00:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reason why adding material such as this should not be, imo, at all "controversial". Not only is it important in its own right, it's also the last bulwark against articles which are spun. Some of these articles are caught, such as this one, but I suspect many more are not. If we truly want to inform readers.... 75.59.206.69 (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here. I think this appeared today in the Evening Standard's lifestyle magazine. The Wikipedia manipulations are also mentioned there. After you challenged the first response that the company didn't break the law by pointing out that it said nothing about ethics, he now managed to address your concern by saying something that is literally true and superficially adresses your concern:

"on the basis of what has been reported so far, I can see no example of people behaving improperly, though perhaps behaving indiscreetly."

Yes, this appears to be a problem. So far the press have just mentioned in general terms that Bell Pottinger were behaving improperly w.r.t. Wikipedia, but it appears that so far no specific example edits have been discussed in detail. I think you should ask him which of his clients you should pick for a detailed analysis. Hans Adler 11:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I really think he should fire whoever is in charge of his PR for allowing him to give interviews in this situation. Hans Adler 11:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I see the people who brought us the secret video have already taken care of this. Bell Pottinger targeted environmental campaigner on Wikipedia Hans Adler 18:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I note in the BBC's coverage of the Bell Pottinger affair that they quote "David Gerard, a UK-based spokesperson and volunteer for Wikipedia". This seems odd, considering the recent statement made on this very talkpage by a WMF employee which states that David Gerard is not a WMF employee and appears to state that Gerard does not speak for the WMF. It might be helpful if you clarified who the WMF's spokespersons actually are. If Gerard is not a spokesperson, why does he continue to be credited as such? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did the press let facts get them in the way of a news story? If DG is listed in someone's rolodex under that heading, that's all the "fact checking" they need. — Coren ^(talk) 15:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think most organizations would take steps to correct any such misconception. They would contact the reporter to set them straight and ask for a correction. They would ask the person involved to stop speaking to the press unless they make it clear that they have no official capacity with the organization. It not clear to me who the spokepersons for the WMF actually are, or if Gerard is the de facto spokesperson, which is why I asked here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, David Gerard is still a UK press contact. We have many press contacts, volunteers, in many countries around the world. David's been doing that for years. Now that the UK chapter exists, has funding, and has started hiring people, I expect that role will eventually transition into the chapter, but for now, there's nothing at all unusual or wrong about this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much the case. I started doing the volunteer press thing in 2005 because we needed someone to do it, and kept on doing it. As Wikipedia became ridiculously popular I cut back severely, as dealing with press storms and working a day job started to conflict badly, so WMUK do it and I'm backup. And my phone number is public so I still get calls, and stop by the OTRS queue every now and then, and so forth.

To answer what I suspect is Delicious' real concern, I try quite hard not to give my own personal views (you can get those on the mailing lists) but my estimate of community consensus and ideals. I also stress I don't work for the WMF and am speaking as a volunteer. So far I've yet to be lynched by the Wikipedians or hideously embarrass the Foundation - David Gerard (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't questioning your ability or your impartiality, David, merely your status. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry for being so touchy - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious, you have a woefully uninformed (though unfortunately common) perspective on the press, and clearly didn't read the comment already there on the page when you commented on my talk page. I'd have hoped you'd have paid more attention to detail were the matter as important as you consider it. I must apologise, that's uncalled-for snappiness on my part and you really didn't deserve it. I'm sorry.

To quote myself: "Press quotes may resemble words actually said by the person they're attributed to, in some circumstances. (This is then called "reliable", while the person's own words are called "COI".) That was a 20-minute phone call compressed to a sentence."

FWIW, I gave my title (as I always do) as "volunteer media contact". The journalist then wrote something, the subeditors then edited it some way, and what ended up on the page bore a familial resemblance to anything I said. This is par for the course. The process is one of throwing out as robust soundbites as one can come up with on the fly and seeing just what the press can do with them that time - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I merely noted the apparent disconnect between the BBC article and the statement by a WMF employee, and asked who the spokespersons for the WMF are. I did not read the discussions on your talk page when I left you that message. I take it from Jimbo's answer that you are one of several "press contacts". Is there a list of these anywhere? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David is listed here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the UK list - the Foundation one is http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room#Regional_contacts - I'm there in "other regional contacts", and my phone number is in lots of lists and will probably be so for years (Alison Wheeler's no longer on that list but still gets calls) - David Gerard (talk)

By the way, this is a useful illustration that Wikipedia does press the way it writes an encyclopedia: ad hoc, volunteer, and somehow more or less works with rough edges - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Par for the course, like I said.

I'm going to sing my one note song again and wonder aloud "When the hell are we going to stop pointing at news media as examples of reliable sources?" – they are barely adequate sources at the best of times. I know we're never going to wean the community away from those rags as sources, but can we at least stop pretending they are somehow venerable or exemplary? — Coren ^(talk) 15:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a journalist I almost take offence to that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying news media don't have their place, BWilkins, or that they are unreputable. But as encyclopedic sources, they suck. — Coren ^(talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jimmy, will you see my talk page about problematic editors? i don't know why my previous comment was erased from your talk page. i thought wikipedia took potential and definite pedophilia issues seriously. 114.31.211.21 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, "outing" editors who you believe are pedophiles will get it removed. If you want to email WP:OTRS feel free to do so (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we take the issue seriously but the right way to handle it is not a public witch hunt. Email is better.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, the Italian Wikipedia community made a decision to blank all of Italian Wikipedia for a short period in order to protest a law which would infringe on their editorial independence. The Italian Parliament backed down immediately. As Wikipedians may or may not be aware, a much worse law going under the misleading title of "Stop Online Piracy Act' is working its way through Congress on a bit of a fast track. I may be attending a meeting at the White House on Monday (pending confirmation on a couple of fronts) along with executives from many other top Internet firms, and I thought this would be a good time to take a quick reading of the community feeling on this issue. My own view is that a community strike was very powerful and successful in Italy and could be even more powerful in this case. There are obviously many questions about whether the strike should be geotargetted (US-only), etc. (One possible view is that because the law would seriously impact the functioning of Wikipedia for everyone, a global strike of at least the English Wikipedia would put the maximum pressure on the US government.) At the same time, it's of course a very very big deal to do something like this, it is unprecedented for English Wikipedia.

So, this is a straw poll. Please !vote either 'support' or 'oppose' with a reason, and try to keep wide-ranging discussion to the section below the poll.

To be clear, this is NOT a vote on whether or not to have a strike. This is merely a straw poll to indicate overall interest. If this poll is firmly 'opposed' then I'll know that now. But even if this poll is firmly in 'support' we'd obviously go through a much longer process to get some kind of consensus around parameters, triggers, and timing.

Poll

Discussion