This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization: Matthew Gault (8 December 2021). "Wikipedia Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Wikipedia Edit". Vice Media. The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.

Copyright issue

Hi Jimbo, I have a concern about how Wikipedia handles the CC BY-SA license. In particular, I'm worried that if we delete from public view (using anything that masks who contributed what such as WP:Delrev), we are violating the license to use people's work and are thus in a state of copyright violation. The exact requirement is that each person making changes is to "indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications". I'm assuming the legal folks at Wikimedia have thought about that. I'd like to hear what the thoughts on the issue are. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Do you mean WP:REVDEL? Signed, IAmChaos 06:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, all that research I've done and I got the link wrong. Yes, that's right, thank you. Hobit (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hobit, the requirement you cite is part of CC-BY-SA 4.0, but absent from the 3.0 (Unported) license Wikipedia uses. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep, that was pointed out to me elsewhere too. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia by Steve Kirsch. Interested in your thoughts...

Good morning. Whilst trawling the internet this morning, I came across a scathing piece by a user who spoke out about vaccination against COVID, and claims that Wikipedia's "higher editors" pretty much destroyed his profile, removed his awards, donations, etc, and turned him "from a good guy into a menace to society" across the space of about 4 days.

I was interested in seeing what yourself as founder of Wikipedia, and other seniors thought of this. I'm sure the guy's probably just getting back at Wikipedia, but he's casting the site in a very bad light.

The article is here. Your thoughts on it would be most welcome. Thank you. Dane|Geld 10:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a good promotional piece on how Wikipedia requires good sourcing and, if no citation is provided, the content can be removed or changed. MarcGarver (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Not to pass judgment on what was done to this guy's BLP, but any author that invokes Sanger (who only recently called to kill those who disagree) in a positive way isn't doing his cause any favours. Granted, this article is a month old, almost a lifetime in the ever-spiralling vortex of Larry's descent into madness, but it'll complicate getting his point across and taken seriously just the same. AngryHarpy‍^talk 11:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Per this article [1], an interesting man. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

He got the idea that vaccines are dangerous from a man he hired to clean his carpets is probably all we need to know about him.DeCausa (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Now now, clean carpets are a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the best you could say is that at least, unlike Sanger (who has got as far as retweeting Neo-Nazis on Twitter now), he doesn't appear to have fallen so far down the nutcase rabbit hole that he's emerged in Mongolia. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in some part-time work, this offer for a $1,000 per hour wage to debate him may still be available. MrOllie (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't read the article, so I could look at our article with virgin eyes. First thing I notice is the huge connected contributor tag, although the article has already been pared down and rewritten, and is plenty well watched enough now that it doesn't need to remain tagged. Secondly, we have The following month, Kirsch appeared in a YouTube video posted with Bret Weinstein and Robert W. Malone to discuss COVID-19 vaccines. In the video, Kirsch makes several false claims, including that spike proteins used in COVID-19 vaccines are "very dangerous". cited to [2] and [3]. Neither source says "several false claims," or says he made any statements about spike proteins. The first source says The third person in the video is identified as "serial entrepreneur" Steve Kirsch, who said he is an engineer. He cited a claim by Canadian viral immunologist Byram Bridle that the vaccine doesn’t stay in the shoulder, where it’s injected, but "goes throughout your entire body, it goes to your brain to your heart." That isn't false, it's just dumb to point out, because obviously it spreads throughout your body, otherwise it wouldn't be an effective vaccine. The second source says One post (here) links to a YouTube video (here) with the caption: “Spike protein is very dangerous, it’s cytotoxic (Robert Malone, Steve Kirsch, Bret Weinstein).” which is about an instragram that isn't archived and no longer exists linking to a youtube video that isn't archived and no longer exists. Then it says The 15-minute video shows three individuals discussing the COVID-19 vaccine and the spike protein is repeatedly described as “very dangerous” and “cytotoxic.” It does not name who described it, just that it was repeatedly described. In fact, the first source says Bret Weinstein, who is identified in the video as an evolutionary biologist, is the one who says the spike protein in the vaccines "is very dangerous, it’s cytotoxic."

Us: Kirsch makes several false claims, including that spike proteins used in COVID-19 vaccines are "very dangerous".

Source: Bret Weinstein, who is identified in the video as an evolutionary biologist, is the one who says the spike protein in the vaccines "is very dangerous, it’s cytotoxic."

Looks like, as it is currently written and sourced, it's a BLPvio. Making negative assertations about a BLP without supporting sources is pretty much a no-no. Also, at this point the connected contributor tag is pretty much just a badge of shame. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@DaneGeld, he's unhappy because he'd been editing the article about himself and had inserted some things sourced to his own websites or to sources WP doesn't consider reliable. The fact he'd done so had more or less missed the radar (the article had been barely watched) until his COVID misinformation campaign started, at which point other editors noticed the article had been heavily edited by its subject and, as we always do, started checking the sources and removing the stuff that wasn't adequately sourced. And of course the article about him changed once his misinformation started to get covered heavily in RS and people saw the article also hadn't been updated.

And then he wrote that WP "transformed me into an evil person in just four days", which had the again normal consequence of getting even more eyes on the article. Personally I don't think the article in its current version makes him look any worse than any of the recent press coverage has. But of course he'd like the article to include stuff from sources we don't consider reliable -- he'd been arguing for that at the article talk. He also wants us to do original research to somehow prove that what he's arguing is true, which as an editor yourself you know we don't do, and he'd been arguing that at the article talk too. Which is what finally got him blocked: he was being disruptive.

Oh, and the reason the article about him in Everipedia article looks just the way it did here back in August is because Everipedia copied all of Wikipedia when it forked, and Kirsch's article hasn't been edited since. Just one more thing Kirsch doesn't understand but thinks he does. valereee (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Good edits to the article, valereee. It happens, from time to time, that an article subject "has" a more or less self-written BLP in peace and quiet for years, and then at some point someone notice a ton PAG falls on them, which they often feel is somewhat bewildering. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the PAG dealing with treatment and sourcing for BLPs seems not to be adhered to in the article. Trimming cruft and adding recent events is all well and good, but adding BLPvios isn't a good look. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, GGS. SFR, I've joined you at the article talk, sorry, didn't see that before now! valereee (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Just letting everyone know that valereee completely addressed my concerns at the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it was actually an interesting article to work on.

I think one of the problems we have is that when someone is as difficult to work with as this article subject, it gets editors into a bit of punishment mode. He just doesn't play nice with anyone whom he can't persuade to do what he wants, which is exactly how he managed to get himself into so much trouble at CEFT. valereee (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the type of thing happening too much of WP over the last 5 or 6 years...any person or entity associate with extreme or fringe views with that coverage published in RSes have had their articles because hit pieces and laundry lists of every "bad" thing that can be said about that topic at the cost of covering the topic objectively and in a dispassionate, impartial manner. We don't want to whitewash away this criticism when it is common to multiple RSes, but I've seen this used to push a singular critical statement into articles, creating the laundry list effect. And even when this criticism is backed by many sources, some editors take it to meN that all other parts of these articles covering what you normally expect of bios or groups are taken as having undue weight compared to the criticism and significantly reduced. As such we end up with articles like this one here which come to only or heavily focus on negative coverage, which is not appropriate in tone, as well as OR with wikieditors adding their only feelings only these people or groups in wikivoice just because it may seem close to the same criticism from RSes. We need to be far more aware if this problem, though at the same be diligent for those that want to paint these people and groups far too much in the positive direction. Eg we have to watch for coi editing and overreliance on sps sourced, but still should look to incorporate standard objective material we would normally include. --Masem (t) 14:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't know - Sanger's article is remarkably friendly to him considering his recent social media includes cosying up to Neo-Nazis, claiming fascism is a leftist ideology, and suggesting that people who reject gene therapy for COVID should be executed (and thats just in the last week)? Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Although, when and if Mr. Sanger's more outrageous assertions begin to define him, similar to like-minded individuals such as Donald Trump, Alex Jones, and Mike Lindell, and such defining characterizations are found in reliable sources, then Mr. Sanger's article should be edited as needed. ValarianB (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ironically, it appears he's such an unimportant (and, sadly, commonplace) figure these days that reliable sources seem content to define him by his criticism of Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• These comments sorta self-demonstrate my point. Up front, we should care less exactly how an individual editor feels about a person or group, but as soon as that turns to the idea that WP should vilify these, without the clear backing of multitude of sources is part of the problem. Editors seem to get blind by their feelings on these topics towards NPOV issues when there is an apparent amount of criticism towards a person or group that seemingly backs their position. Even with a multitude of sources calling out on figures with the same negative voice, WP still should figure out how to present that in a dispassionate voice and in a manner that can lead the reader to understand why the person/group is hated without actually telling the reader they should hate them. If the sources aren't there in multitude, we should not be trying to crowbar that in or making very sure it is attributed opinions. Whereas someone like Alex Jones is universally called a conspiracy theorist, you just don't appear to have the same type of sourcing in this case to be throwing that much criticism at Kirsch. Of course, most of the time fixing these is simply a matter of wording and rearrangement rather than removal of information. --Masem (t) 01:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• He is (/was) an interesting guy for more reasons than antivaxx stuff. his fortune came from selling the influential niche publishing application FrameMaker (which he was the business force behind) - though as somebody who used that application professionally for around 20 years I find it pretty hard to forgive him that too! Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Masem said it well. This story has a lot of different components, many of them very defensible regarding Wikipedia. But we also have the general underlying issue described. Just becoming more aware of / open to seeing the problem will help. But tweaks in the policies and guidelines will help, including updating to adapt to the major changes in media that have occurred in the 15 years since they were essentially set in stone. We should also apply our internal rules to discussions about what Sanger said; it seems that many responses there have been ad hominem regarding Sanger rather than about the discussed issues. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just sitting back thinking about how Jimmy's page could become the seed for some pretty interesting video games, especially if you branch out to the drama boards and talk pages of controversial articles. The possibilities are endless. Atsme 💬 📧 21:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you so much for creating Wikipedia! It sure was a great idea! Leejordan9 talk sandbox 22:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

New navigational box, for pages helpful as introduction

Hi. We have a lot of introductory pages, and a lot of guides and central pages to help newcomers to find introductory pages. I felt that instead of adding another page to list the links, perhaps a nav box might be helpful to some newcomers.

Below is what I came up with so far. Please feel free to comment, provide feedback, etc. this is Template:Introductory pages. thanks!

Thanks! ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 20:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)