THC Science

Archives

This manual archive index may be out of date.
Future archives: 184 185 186

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

(Manual archive list)

Bright Line Rule: self-COI exception?

Jimbo, since you are an expert at the Bright Line Rule and presumably User:Guy Macon is not, could you speak to Macon's claim that the Bright Line Rule does not apply to User:28bytes' authoring a Wikipedia article about a software product that he was also marketing for sale to the public? Does the Bright Line Rule really only apply to "paid advocates", while those with a personal and direct financial conflict of interest are exempt? - 2001:558:1400:10:60BE:E938:FAFA:1EC7 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was quoting one of the multiple occasions where Jimbo has made it crystal clear what his bright line rule is and is not.

"The Bright Line Rule is about paid advocacy editing - i.e. someone who is being paid to write on behalf of a client or employer. Nothing even remotely similar to that is involved here. While the edit might be legitimately be debated on other grounds, the Bright Line Rule as a best practice has nothing whatsoever to do with this kind of case."[1] -- Jimbo Wales, 5 December 2013 (Emphasis Added)

I would also point out that the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this is also crystal clear:

Wikipedia:No paid advocacy

Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest limit

For the record, I fully agree with the advice found in our Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, you have selected one instance where there was no financial conflict of interest (the spouse of a spouse's client), and then used it to try to apply to this instance where there was a financial conflict of interest. At best, you're being naive; at worst, disingenuous. Let's wait for Jimmy Wales to respond; obviously, the intent of the question was not to gain your opinion about your opinion. - 2001:558:1400:10:60BE:E938:FAFA:1EC7 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than speaking to the specific example, about which I know too little to comment, I would say that in principle there is no material difference between being paid to write on behalf of a client or employer just because one is self-employed. I wouldn't regard that as an exception at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought you would say, Jimmy, and I agree. Thank you for confirming my belief that Guy Macon was off base in his assessment of the Bright Line Rule. - 2001:558:1400:10:60BE:E938:FAFA:1EC7 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I add an image to Commons, and in particular Wikipedia, I am in deliberately raising my exposure, which in turn may raise sales of my images. Should I stop? Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Every Wikipedian who does good work may impress someone somewhere and in some way improve their financial situation as a result. That isn't the point. As a side note, I have not given much thought to COI at Commons but it strikes me that because commons functions as a repository, the issues become somewhat different.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the bright line rule applies to the self-employed, then it's even closer to conflicting with BLP than I thought. People are normally allowed to edit articles about themselves under certain circumstances. If editing an article about your employer is prohibited, and that applies to cases where your employer is yourself, that would seem to prohibit you from editing an article about yourself.

(Note that it is no answer to say "you're only prohibited if there's a financial interest"--the whole point of saying that you count as your own employer is to state that your personal interest is equivalent to the employee's financial interest. If being self-employed is like being paid, and being paid means you can't edit an article with the wrong birthdate for your boss, then you can't edit an article with the wrong birthdate for yourself either.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP emergency exceptions trump everything. Even in BLP situations, best practice under the bright line rule is not to edit about yourself to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But of course exceptions for emergency situations are valid. There is no conflict at all between the Bright Line Rule and BLP - they are 100% consistent and while there may be some interesting borderline cases (1) I can't think of any and (2) they will be borderline cases just as all rules have borderline cases and therefore not valid objections to the general principle.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are exceptions for any reasons, even BLP emergencies, then the rule isn't so bright line any more, is it?

Furthermore, if there are exceptions, wouldn't the argument for having such exceptions work in reverse? That is, if you normally can't edit an article about yourself but you can under the BLP emergency exception, why wouldn't there be a BLP emergency exception letting you edit an article about your boss, with a similar justification? Sure, the latter is different because you could always phone up your boss and ask him to make the change himself, but I doubt that that's what you're suggesting. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia takes action against a PR person for removing clear defamation about his company, we're going to have a PR problem ourselves. WP:IAR means that there are no "bright line rules" without exception, except the one about trying to improve the encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also already pointed out that IAR and bright line rules don't mix.

I'd also argue that improving the encyclopedia isn't a bright line rule either (and, of course, that IAR is wrongly phrased when it invokes improving the encyclopedia). I've heard, more than once, the argument that we shouldn't remove information based on respecting a subject's privacy or other personal concerns, because that benefits the subject personally but makes the encyclopedia less useful for people who want to find the deleted information, and that's the opposite of improving the encyclopedia. My reaction in this situation is improving the encyclopedia be damned, at some point improving the encyclopedia at the cost of harming someone isn't worth it.

(You could define "improving the encyclopedia" such that by definition an encyclopedia that harms someone has not been improved, but that's cheating. By that reasoning "improving the encyclopedia" means nothing at all.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales: and @Guy Macon:, any consensus of the Wikipedia community on PAE (Paid Advocacy Editing) at the links Guy mentions DOES NOT have much relevance; it is trumped by a)policy and b)the law. Because PAE is flat out illegal. If User:28bytes authored a Wikipedia article about a software product that he was also marketing for sale to the public, and didn't prominently disclose it, that user has broken the law (provided the law was in force at the time when the user did so, which it looks like it was NOT). FTC regulations bar PAE, and they apply to any edits to wikipedia. "All editors are expected to follow United States law on undisclosed advertising, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission at…" - and that is from an actual wikipedia ~~policy~~ guideline. Is ancient behavior cause to go after an otherwise good user? No, not IMO. --Elvey (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elvey, I'm with you up to the point that you said that WP:COI is "actual Wikipedia policy." It isn't, which has been a source of frustration for many of us. I just had a PAE rub that in my face very recently. It isn't, and it isn't going to be. Coretheapple (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I have a reference to an actual law or court ruling supporting the claim that "PAE is flat out illegal" in the US please? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has lawyers and any Wikipedia policy based on legal concerns ought to be sent by them first. You really have no business proposing a change in policy on the grounds that something is illegal, when you're a layman with no legal training. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...a layman who went strangely silent when i asked for a reference to an actual law or court ruling supporting the claim that "PAE is flat out illegal" in the US. I call shenanigans. No such US law exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FTC 16 CFR Part 255 is relevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, if you haven't gotten an opinion from the WMF which says that FTC 16 CFR Part 255 is relevant, how do you know that it is? It may sound like it would be relevant if you interpret words in a certain way, but it would take a lawyer to know whether that's the interpretation that the law would accept. And you're not a lawyer. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not. That rule (255) specifies "advertisements" and as everyone knows or ought to know, Wikipedia articles are not, per se, advertisements. Any overt ad in an article may be readily deleted or emended by any editor, so the FTC rule does not apply. The examples presented in that section (255) clearly bear no resemblance at all to Wikipedia's status. 255.5 presents some examples which might impact Wikipedia if Wikipedia allowed "commentary from editors" to remain in articles (their personal opinions or views on a product or service for which they are compensated). As long as editors can not cite their own work concerning a product or service for which they are compensated, the Wikipedia articles do not compare with any examples. I am amused, moreover, that it is clear that book reviewers under 255.5 must declare that they got the book for free -- since pretty much everyone knows that review copies are sent out from publishers. And, technically, the FTC should require film reviewers to pay for tickets -- but again, people who do not know that reviewers in general get "free stuff" are disingenuous. Since Wikipedia does not allow such "ownership of edits" (others do not alter the reviewer's comments in a newspaper, etc.), the issue does not arise here. IANAL, but I strongly suspect the WMF legal team would agree. Collect (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If, as Jimbo claims, FTC 16 CFR Part 255 is relevant, one can only wonder why the WMF sent a cease and desist letter to WikiPR[2] (which cites violating our terms of use and our trademarks, but does not cite any specific law or regulation, and which mentions potential future litigation, not prosecution) instead of contacting the FTC and seeking prosecution.

I think that what is going on here is pretty clear. The quote "any consensus of the Wikipedia community on PAE (Paid Advocacy Editing) at the links Guy mentions DOES NOT have much relevance" says it all. Somebody doesn't like the community decision (I don't much like it myself, but I follow consensus even when I don't agree with it) and is grasping at straws in an attempt to ignore that decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll comment here as a COI contributor who has studied the legal issue. I think because Wikipedia is different than other crowd-sourced websites, the exact application of the law is ambiguous. For example, on other websites each piece of content has a distinct author and often their comments represent personal opinions. We don't disclose any authorship information to readers at all, which makes it difficult to disclose when an author has a financial connection.

Rather than citing exact passages from the law, I would look to its basic principles. It's intended to prevent covert advertising and corporate interests that purport to be part of a grassroots movement. CorporateM (Talk) 23:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a correction/clarification. I thought a specific passage was being cited, but it appears it was the entire document. I would take it for granted that the document is relevant, the question being to what extent and in which circumstances. CorporateM (Talk) 02:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, err…, apologize for having a life; I've been AFK for a couple wonderful days. I have little expectation a reasonable debate partly because, I just realized, I have seen a user make edits on behalf of the powerful credit reporting agency Moody's that I think only a paid advocate would make, that is, I strongly suspect I've witnessed involvement in criminal activity. The FTC stated (in March 2013) that the Guides

"apply to “any advertising message . . . that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser . . . .” ⁹ The Guides refer to advertising without limiting the media in which it is disseminated.:⁹ 16 C.F.R. § 255.0(b)."

So, the Wikipedia article edits made are advertisements, and everyone ought to know that such edits are advertisements. My reading of the Guides is that the FTC indicates that a paid editor would be considered an endorser and liable for any false statements she made on wikipedia. Furthermore, the seller is also liable for misrepresentations made through the endorsement. (See Examples 3 and 5 on page 4 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.)

Furthermore, per § 255.5, (page 10): The paid position of the editor must be fully disclosed, because it might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), so such CoI disclosure in the CRA article as long as it contains such advertising is a legal requirement, but there is no such disclosure. (See Examples 7, 8, and 9 on page 12 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.)

So, reading passages from the law is the way to go, IMO, rather than looking at what a pseudonymous Wikipedian has to say. The opposition's arguments are so weak that it turned (above) to the dirty tricks of accusing me of running away (I hadn't) and resorting to shenanigans (Jimbo's answer is quite sufficient, despite the bluster that attempts to discredit it.) and demanding I provide something I'd already provided in my initial post. Sad, really. And predictable. Because the idea that Guy and Collect are advancing - that 16 C.F.R. § 255 is not relevant - is not just wrong, it is preposterous. Furthermore, IMO, the consensus of the Wikipedia community is against PAE; due to various shenanigans, there is a manipulation that makes it appear that there is opposition. There was a non-admin closure of Wikipedia_talk:No_paid_advocacy - it was not diligent either, and I had specifically called for closure by an experienced admin, and called out the divide-and-conquer/distract shenanigans inherent in, e.g. a competing proposal created by a user who argued against <sic> banning paid advocacy, etc. --Elvey (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were Wikipedia to be a repository of "opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience" of its editors, then it would fit more nicely into the FTC's regulations. One problem is that often editors make COI edits by proxy, but in other cases the community makes it overly difficult to remove overt BLP violations. So you'd have to look at different circumstances:

If a COI editor produces an advertisement, which a volunteer places into article-space by proxy, would the corporation be accountable for it? The FTC usually holds the corporation accountable for the actions of "agents"
What if a COI editor produces bias content, that is still more neutral than a borderline attack-piece that was there previously?
What if the content is promotional (only slightly), but the PR rep didn't realize it?

One thing I heard a lot from lawyers at an annual marketing conference was that in a lot of areas, the interpretation of disclosure laws is not always clear and it's not always clean-cut. The bar is whether the communication is misleading in a way that influences readers unfairly and that bar must be interpreted for each circumstance individually.

I think we could promote more consistency by creating either

A policy about promotion, which helps define it and attack it with the same fervor as copyvio
A policy about company articles, similar to BLP, but completely different, that merely defines the application of NPOV to corporate pages

Either would help create more consistency and compliance with community norms and both have been kicked around on and off.

CorporateM (Talk) 15:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A brief note on FTC rules. Does Wikipedia contain the "opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience" of its editors? It obviously contains the "findings", and in most cases, even where the articles do not look like pure promotion it will reflect the opinions, beliefs, and experience of the editors. So yes, edits to Wikipedia articles can be considered as endorsements and are subject to FTC rules. If you are not clear what an endorsement is in the context of Wikipedia you can pose the question directly to the FTC at endorsements@ftc.gov .

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so complicated. Either there is a Bright Line Rule or there isn't. Right now there is what Elvey calls a test case: an article that he has offered for deletion on the legal grounds that he states above. It is a clearcut example of an article that was created at the behest of the subject and in return for payment. So let's see if there is a Bright Line Rule or if this company gets away with it. Either the article is deleted on that grounds, and there is a Bright Line Rule, or as seems more likely it survives deletion, in which case there is no such thing as a Bright Line Rule and, in that case, I'd respectfully ask Jimbo to stop talking about something that doesn't exist. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we all can get past the notion that there is such a thing and that the approach of Total Annihilation of paid editing has been rejected, it will be quicker for us to get down to solving the real problem, which is the creation of commercially-driven, POV content — which we all agree is out of bounds. COI editing needs to be declared (without repercussions) and the contributions of COI editors supervised (without malice). Carrite (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to obtain clear community consensus from a diverse group of people about anything. The lack of overwhelming consensus, which doesn't exist anywhere, does not mean the rule does not exist, nor does it mean that it does or that Jimbo should stop talking about it. IMO, it is a useful message to communicate that the volunteer community owns Wikipedia and PR reps are cautious guests whos top priority is to avoid the appearance of impropriety while improving articles. It should not be interpreted technically-speaking; meaning I don't see the community banning PR reps who correct grammar through direct editing. It is the right message for "the masses" who do not have the experience or knowledge to show good judgement for each situation and therefor the right message for a spokesperson to communicate. CorporateM (Talk) 18:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I find amusing is how various Wikipedians dither about with no demonstrated legal experience or credentials on this matter, yet they claim to have special personal insight into how exactly the FTC guidelines are (or would be) enforced. Meanwhile, over two years ago, a notorious banned Wikipedian had the foresight to engage in a conversation with Betsy Lordan of the FTC's Office of Public Affairs. Her response to the specific question of a paid editor creating or modifying content on Wikipedia (without disclosure) ranged from a sort of 'no comment' reply, to it being a problem only if the action constituted "an endorsement for a product in advertising". Elsewhere, Lordan is quoted as saying, "The [FTC]’s revised Guides governing endorsements and testimonials are guidance. They are not rules or regulations, so there are no monetary penalties, or penalties of any kind, associated with them." It would appear that User:Elvey and User:Jimbo Wales would be coming dangerously close to violating Wikipedia's "no legal threats" policy, except that their legal musings are about as reliable as this car. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment self-reverted; user now blocked] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claims about the FTC are worrisome, and if we have any choice in the matter, it should not be to encourage them. I'm well aware that crazy court decisions sometimes come down where companies and money are concerned, but let's be clear: inviting the FTC in to prosecute editors is like letting a cobra loose in your house to catch the rats. Wnt (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment self-reverted; user now blocked] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm not that crazy is on the right track. Most likely the FTC itself does not know. It would be useful to encourage them to figure it out... CorporateM (Talk) 01:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that User:I'm not that crazy is a bit crazy. He is citing Thekhoser's interpretation of the FTC guidelines which is something like citing the turkey's interpretation of how Thanksgiving dinner should be conducted. In particular the k assumes that since he was banned for putting advertising on Wikipedia that nobody else ever puts adverts on Wikipedia, thus since there is no advertising on Wikipedia, the FTC law on misleading advertising does not apply. A bit circular that. Rather a plain reading of the FTC's guidelines says that anybody who puts advertising messages onto Wikipedia without revealing that they are being compensated by the sponsor is breaking the law on misleading advertising. And "advertising" is clearly very broadly defined. As I said, if you have any questions on the guidelines, please just ask the FTC directly at endorsements@ftc.gov

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Smallbones, it seems that INTC was citing Betsy Lordan's interpretation of FTC guidelines, not Thekohser's. Advertising is not "clearly" broadly defined, as the FTC still has not made any comment regarding whether content in Wikipedia constitutes advertising. In fact, I have an e-mail from Lordan myself, where she says there is no guidance from the FTC regarding digital advertisers and Wikipedia. She does say, though...

Below are all the pertinent links to recent FTC initiatives for digital advertisers.
Endorsements and Testimonials Updated Guidance – 2009

Announcement that Guides (guidance) Have Been Updated
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

Enforcement Actions

Legacy Learning – Case alleging deception stemming from lack of disclosure in endorsements
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/03/legacy.shtm

Reverb – Case alleging deception stemming from lack of disclosure in endorsements
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/08/reverb.shtm

Closing Letters

Letters announcing that the FTC is closing investigations in endorsement-related deceptive advertising cases without bringing charges. (The letters explain why.)
http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/staff/130222nordstromrackletter.pdf

http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/111116hyundaimotorletter.pdf

http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/100420anntaylorclosingletter.pdf

http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/staff/120927hpinkologycltr.pdf

Dot Com Disclosures Updated Guidance – 2011 - 2013
http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus41-dot-com-disclosures-information-about-online-advertising

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/03/dotcom.shtm

Search Engines, Updated Guidance – 2013
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/06/searchengine.shtm

Native Advertising, Workshop – 2013
http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2013/12/blurred-lines-advertising-or-content-ftc-workshop-native

I think the "Closing Letters" are particularly interesting, how the FTC decided many times not to prosecute companies for "payola"-style blogger schemes, as long as the company modified its behavior. - 2001:558:1400:10:78BC:4C64:2414:814F (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:closing letters - in general it's better to modify your behavior (i.e. quit breaking the law) before you are investigated. That they were not formally prosecuted (but just agreed to stop their earlier practices) is not reason that we shouldn't have rules that prevent abuses. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last one seems closest, Native advertising, though I think that volunteers being paid, with none of the revenues flowing to Wiipedia or the Foundation, does present a special challenge in terms of the corruption of the process. Native advertising is defined as "a form of paid media where the ad experience follows the natural form and function of the user experience in which it is placed."Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we're talking about here is not really the same thing at all as native advertising, which is a way of presenting paid-for advertising with the full collusion of the media owner. The much closer parallels are probably things like businesses contributing fake reviews to consumer review sites, or for that matter writing fake letters to newspapers' letter pages. Barnabypage (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I usually cite the .com disclosures document. I agree the reference was to comments by the FTC, not by TheKohser and the FTC itself is the best source to get information from. However, I do not believe it is common practice for them to make themselves available to provide a consultation. I have sent an email as suggested by SmallBones to endorsements@ftc.gov. Can we prevent this string from being archived right away in case they do respond?

The other thing that can be done is reporting blatant astroturfing to Attorney Generals in NY and CA.[3]submit Alternatively, I would wonder if the WMF would join other crowd-sourced websites that are more aggressive about pursuing astroturfing businesses legally. Wiki-PR is far from the only one. I do not know if that is something WMF would consider doing and/or if it would depend on community input, but it seemed like there was broad support for the case against Wiki-PR, who is not the only one by far. CorporateM (Talk) 18:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple - I'll be astonished if it's against policy to point out where a user has broken the law.

Please stop it with the straw man, and please stop ignoring the law, Carrite. --Elvey (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many more times Elvey will need to be told that the FTC Guides are just that -- guides -- not laws, before he will come down off the roof and stop shouting about "criminal" activity on Wikipedia? I'm setting the over/under at 4,200 times. Where are you Newyorkbrad? He seems not to be learning quickly enough! - 2001:558:1400:10:B9FF:AB59:868A:DE42 (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Harwood - paid editor?

Jimbo, Tara Harwood was the WMF's Head of Administrative Services for nine months between 2010 and 2011. There is a "Tara H." advertising on Elance their "ethical" Wikipedia editing services. It would appear to represent Harwood, but you never know if it is a "joe job" account. Looks like the Elancer never received a paying project via that platform, but nonetheless, if this is an actual former WMF head employee, doesn't this account sort of look bad for your Bright Line Rule? The Elance listing clearly says, "I can create or edit Wikipedia articles", not "I can create or edit the Wikipedia Talk pages associated with articles". Maybe someone at the WMF could reach out to Harwood, currently a data analyst at SumOfUs, and ask her to delete or modify the Elance profile (if it is hers)? - I'm not that crazy (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain what is 'your Bright Line Rule'? I'm assuming it's different from WP:PAY and WP:NOPAY? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 15:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Bright Line Rule" is (as might be expected) a bright-line rule intended to reliably prevent issues with conflicts of interest; the rule is that paid editors or representatives for any given organization should not edit the article directly, instead limiting themselves to requesting changes on the talk page of the article, or similar avenues. It's simple and effective, but unattractive and restrictive, as there are many direct edits an editor with a conflict of interest can legitimately make, and slow response times for indirect edits. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bright-line rule a particularly American legal phrase, then? I'd don't recall encountering it, until reading it in a Wikipedia context. AnonNep (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; now I'm curious, too. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the phrase originated, but I am pretty sure that it was first popularized when it was used in a US supreme court case. In 1948, in the case of Wilkerson v. McCarthy[4], Justice Frankfurter's wrote the following in a concurring opinion:

"When a plaintiff claims that an injury which he has suffered is attributable to a defendant's negligence -- want of care in the discharge of a duty which the defendant owed to him -- it is the trial judge's function to determine whether the evidence in its entirety would rationally support a verdict for the plaintiff, assuming that the jury took, as it would be entitled to take, a view of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff. If there were a bright line dividing negligence from non-negligence, there would be no problem. Only an incompetent or a willful judge would take a case from the jury when the issue should be left to the jury. But, since questions of negligence are questions of degree, often very nice differences of degree, judges of competence and conscience have in the past, and will in the future, disagree whether proof in a case is sufficient to demand submission to the jury."

It is such a useful concept that you see it appearing in a fair number of legal cases after 1949. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that! It makes more sense in terms of Duty of care, as that 'bright line dividing negligence from non-negligence'. (Although, still a bit unsure on how/why its been adapted for Wikipedia.) AnonNep (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "bright line" has become part of the vernacular and is used more widely than in the strictly legal sense, so it wasn't really adapted just for Wikipedia. "Slippery slope" is another term used in constitutional law that has become part of common language, and thus is commonly used here. While not exactly opposites, you often see the terms used in the same argument, as in "we need a bright line to prevent a slippery slope". First Light (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite to a bright line rule would generally be an Elephant test MChesterMC (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

We actually have a Wikipedia article on Bright-line rule, which states it is "a clearly defined rule or standard, generally used in law, composed of objective factors which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation." CorporateM (Talk) 01:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critics and critiques

Hi Jimbo. Happy New Year. I'm curious about your position on sites like Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy. I believe I have read comments from you that were derogatory about these external sites, but again and again it has been outside pressure that has resulted in the unmasking of abusers here and that has exposed improprieties here, often resulting in various reforms and cleanup.

It also strikes me that Wikipedia hasn't managed to develop healthy internal controls and review; instead attacking, banning, berating, and browbeating those who seek reform from within. Certainly the external sites mentioned have their own problems with bullies and abusive characters, but hasn't Wikipedia's own lack of systemic oversight and its own failure to deal with bullying, harassment (in various forms), and dishonesty (in various forms) created the need for external supervision and oversight? Thank you for your kind consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Websites with numerous vicious insults: Of course there are problems with POV-pushing and even various insults in Wikipedia pages, but the level of hostile remarks allowed by other websites, without oversighting or blanking or redacting the insults, raises questions of whether they are helping or, ultimately, hurting Wikipedia, on balance. To reduce hostilities here, a call for wp:RfC on a user's actions has often led to self-correction of excessive badgering, or else site-banning of troublesome users. In fact, several admins have resigned the tools, when faced with strong opposition for their excessive actions. The key tactic is to let the WP community debate the issues for several weeks, and not wp:SNOW-close a discussion before the wider community can decide the corrective means needed to reduce the various problems. A person with only a few enemies can be seen by the community to be a passive non-threat in general, given enough weeks for average users to respond. It can be surprising how many "strangers" will !vote together during an RfC to correct the misguided actions of some users. An outside website is not really needed to resolve those cases. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The answer, of course, is that a certain number of the Wikipediocracy (WPO) regulars have no intention whatsoever of helping Wikipedia and would like nothing better than to "hasten the day" of its demise. Then there are a certain percentage very definitely want the best for the project. With all shades of opinion in between those poles as well... Ultimately it's only a message board and people will see what they want to see in the inkblots... The function of the site is akin to that of an opposition newspaper relative to a government administration, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I very much like Carrite's summary of Wikipediocracy. It is an opposition site, and as such, has its pros and cons. I do read it regularly although I havent contributed.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughful replies. I have seen signs of maturity in how some challenging situations have been handled on Wikipedia. I've always thought that a general discussion board for article work would be nice, a less formalistic way to get outside thoughts from a broader audience apart from the individual projects and talk pages. The teahouse and help desk seem to function pretty efficiently. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has been saving lives again

I thought this was a quite interesting example of one way Wikipedia helps people. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent link to responses: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 January 3#Jung Myung Seok. Graham87 04:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness of storms and household dangers: There are many articles which help users avoid risky or dangerous situations. With hurricanes, it has been helpful to note the great danger, in low-lying areas, from immense storm tides with waves often 3–4 metres (10–13 ft) higher than the projected storm surge which is often under-warned for various hurricanes or typhoons. I think people are learning how an approaching tornado sounds like a growing intense wind, a "freight train" which grows louder and louder, because it is heading directly for the listener, who has perhaps only 20 seconds to enter a "safe room" or stair closet or a bathtub with mattress/pillow on top. With micrwave ovens, we even have an entire paragraph which recommends to cook with a popsicle stick when "superheating" a coffee cup in a microwave ("Superheating#Occurrence via microwave"), to avoid the explosion of steam-driven boiling water when stirring or pouring powder into a smooth, superheated hot mug. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I often enter my "safe room" when editing wikipedia and always avoid superheated hot mugs. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I doubt this holds a candle to the number of lives saved by the illustration from Meth mouth. (now there's an image you can't unsee ... I wonder what the filter people would call the thing to block it?) Wnt (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is wonderful how meth perfectly protected the front teeth of the "Meth mouth" to show the need to widen meth's anti-decay power by smoking more along the side teeth as well. Also, we have "Goldilocks" which warns little girls not to stay in bear houses. ;‑) Wikid77 08:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

possibly, the Crystal un-Method? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Other natural disasters... I can't remember whether the schoolgirl who saved numerous lives because she knew that receding seas could mean an imminent tsunami, learned this from Wikipedia or in a geography lesson. But maybe the geography teacher had been reading Wikipedia anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Archive & the death of dead links

This probably isn't the best place to post, but since I know it's been discussed here before and this page is widely viewed, I figured I might as well drop a note here, especially as a few people have asked me about it. I've been talking with the Internet Archive for some time about how to use their archiving system to prevent linkrot (especially reference linkrot) on Wikipedia. All the technology is in place on their end to essentially eliminate linkrot on Wikipedia; they've been crawling all references added to Wikipedia within minutes of them being added to Wikipedia for quite some time. I have a meeting on the ninth to discuss how best to move forward, but it's likely that I'll be acting as WiR for the IA and driving community consensus/tool development on our end to take better advantage of the IA's technology. The primary end goal is literally the end of linkrot, with some cool secondary stuff - like the popularization of the Archives' television news search as a way to allow Wikipedians to verifiably cite television news broadcasts. In other words, as long as community consensus can be achieved (and I'm not imagining that'll be terribly hard on an issue like this!) we can expect, effectively, a total end to dead links on Wikipedia within the next two or three months. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds pretty awesome!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This would be very helpful to many of the Mexico geography articles which tend to rely on government website information.Thelmadatter (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about this? I seem to recall looking for some Indonesian sites I've used in the archive, and those didn't show up. Luckily Webcitation didn't die, so I'm still using that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the info I currently have is from a couple in-person conversations with Alexis from the IA, both at events that were focused on different things where we were kind of just chatting in a corner, so I may get a few details wrong currently. Looking at one of my email threads, I should have said 'consistently within a couple hours' rather than a few minutes, but the IA has definitely been crawling all new external links on at least the English Wikipedia (not yet sure about other projects) within hours of creation since at least September (and doing their normal periodic crawls before that,) and is going to continue to do rapid crawls in the future. I should have significantly more info about the project and a path forward after the ninth, and will post an update either here if this thread is somehow not archived yet, or on my own talk page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sounds useful. Hope it works... we could save a lot of trouble in the long run. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent medical disclaimers

Hi Jimmy. Do you have a view on this kind of thing? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permalink to avoid confusion -- since reverted. Rgrds. --64.85.214.177 (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a well-worded disclaimer is warranted. We should be discussing the content and placement of the disclaimer, as opposed to whether or not to have it at all. I don't particularly care for this particular implementation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just to be clear, we already have a medical disclaimer (2 clicks away via the tiny "Disclaimers" link at the bottom of every article). So no one's discussing whether or not to have one at all, but whether to have a brief disclaimer (with a link to the full one) on medical articles themselves. Are you saying you support having some kind of brief medical disclaimer somewhere on our medical articles themselves? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I support having some kind of brief medical disclaimer somwhere (at the top) on our medical articles themselves.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extensive and continuing discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer. It is complex and hasn't been closed, but it looks to me as if the views opposing any additional disclaimer have more support, numerically at least, than any others. DES ^(talk) 15:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more complex than that but yes, there are mixed views. One of the arguments against it is one which does not impress me in the least: that other sites don't have them. Other sites don't have any of the kinds of disclaimers that we have, such as "The neutrality of this article has been disputed" - a disclaimer that no one is suggesting we get rid of. We are different from WebMD, the Lancet, etc., in some important ways.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, the "disclaimers" link doesn't appear on articles in "mobile view" - it's behind a link consisting of 3 horizontal bars in the top left corner that most readers will never click - so Ironholds has lodged a request at Bugzilla to have that fixed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please treat people with dignity and with common sense

I am talking about this case. I explain the situation in a few words.

the user is sysop on one of Vietnamese language Wikipedia.
The user was blocked from English wikipedia 2 years ago for disruptive editing.
The user has never socked before requesting the unblock on AN yesterday.
The user is not interested in editing English wikipedia.
The user is asking for the unblock only because being blocked and templated here on English wikipedia is damaging his reputation on Vietnamese wikipedias.

Please treat him with dignity and with common scene, and unblock the user or at least remove the templates from his user page. 76.126.140.7 (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your summary is really factually correct, then I agree with your conclusion. If for no other reason than WP:SO.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge my summary is correct.

Jimbo, Wikipedia has problems with decreasing number of editors. I'd like to give you some suggestions on how to make Wikipedia, more sane, more friendlier place with less drama and more content editing.

It is good to remember that enforcement of any Wikipedia's policy is not nearly as important as well being and health of a person.
Behave first like humans and second like Wikipedians , not the other way around.
Don't impose indefinite blocks.For an established contributor a maximum block duration should not be longer than one year. Here's why:some editors will not return after the block expires. The ones who do return could always be re-blocked, if they don't behave. It takes only a minute to block somebody. On the other hand the arbcom spends days discussing appeals and then there are thousands of pages of insanity on drama boards.This is not rocket science, only common sense.
Treat people with dignity and kindness. You will achieve much more this way, if you really want a user to stay away versus punishing him.
Delete banned users list. It is an absolutely unneeded scarlet letter.
Stop the community bans. It will remove lots of dramas.Besides let me please quote Tarc on the subject of the community bans: "What this sort of thing comes down to is how many supporters you can line up vs. how many opponents they can line up. It's like World of Warcraft, sometimes there's just too many orcs and not enough humans."

Please listen to me, Jimbo. If my suggestions are incorporated it would benefit some editors, but most of all it would benefit Wikipedia.76.126.140.7 (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this remind me of mbz1 and the recent AN drama, dear Comcast IP? Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're exactly right, and we could make a few conclusions of it:

There are more than one person who is not going to edit wikipedia, but is bothered about being blocked here. Such people should be unblocked because keeping them blocked violates the policy that blocks are not for punishment, especially not for the real life punishment, and in a worse case scenario reblock takes only a minute.
Sometimes different people are expressing the same sentiments, but it doesn't mean they are the same person, Jehochman
It is rather sad that somebody who is not a member of the Wikipedia community should ask the community to act as humans.

I think anybody can get unblocked with a simple appeal after 6 months of not socking. The banned user list is necessary to coordinate enforcement. If a editor doesn't get along well with peers, they can be excluded. Jehochman ^Talk 12:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, the user who is being discussed here is not banned. He was blocked by a single admin. He hasn't socked for two years. Why don't you go ahead and unblock him now?

But you're mistaking about special offer. For example Willbeback hasn't socked, and he made a public apology, and he is still blocked, which IMO is wrong. If he wants to edit Wikipedia why not to give him another chance? Reblock takes only a minute. Besides, Jehochman, what is a point in non-socking, if somebody as you states that non-proxy IP from Germany and non-proxy IP from US are operated by the same person at the same time? IMO SO is a silly policy anyway. Much better proceed like that. Let's say somebody misbehaved. Don't block him. Instead make him to serve the community service. For example a user could be allowed only to revert vandalism for 6 months, or something like that.71.202.123.162 (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone should lump together and put all kinds of "socking" on the same level - there's positive and negative socking. The ones who continue their negative behaviour under "socking" should not be equalized to the ones "socking" in a positive and constructive way, by behaving well, contributing to the quality of Wikipedia, doing nothing but constructive edits and comments etc . Generally refusing anyone who "socked" to get unbanned is therefore counterproductive to the overall quality of the project.--37.230.10.40 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing by WMF employee on oDesk

[5] Blog post

[6] Mailing list discussion

Can't the WMF make it clear to its employees and contractors that doing stuff like this is very bad for public relations? Hell might be other people (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to hear from Sarah on this. However, it's worth pointing out as a correction that Sarah has never been a WMF employee to my knowledge. Still, I very very strongly condemn such editing, and this is no exception. (Except that I'd love to hear from Sarah on this as it doesn't seem 100% confirmed yet.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems strange that if Stierch has "never been a WMF employee", her Wikipedia user page says "Although I work for the Wikimedia Foundation" and "I also am the Program Evaluation Community Coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation". Or, it is possible that Mr. Wales is making a hair-splitting distinction that Stierch may be a "paid contractor", but that doesn't make her an "employee", which may be the case. Trust me, we're all waiting to hear from Sarah on this, and she's been notified (for almost 15 hours now) on her Talk page. - 2001:558:1400:10:78BC:4C64:2414:814F (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to make a hair-splitting distinction. I just don't know and have received conflicting information.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought she once did a research project for the WMF (about women editors, I believe), but was never hired as an employee. Which would be working for the foundation without being an employee... not sure on my memory of this though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. She is on the staff. She's also possibly as popular as Jimbo in some circles (if not more so), so I hope Jimmy will leave it at a very very strong condemnation. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 03:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though I should note that she was listed as a Community Fellow until 31 October 2013. Not sure when she was hired as a staffer. It could just be that she hasn't updated her profile on EN Wiki. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just got this from the Foundation: "although she started as a volunteer, and then was made a Fellow, Sarah is currently an employee of the WMF".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you "point out as a correction" something that you hadn't confirmed before correcting? - 2001:558:1400:10:FC49:2FE8:A83C:ECDE (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she was notified of the blog post and the mailing list, but not of this discussion. Pinging @SarahStierch: so she knows about this. Rgrds. --64.85.217.168 (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Sarah has found enough time for Teahouse greetings, but hasn't penciled in an appointment to respond to Jimbo here. - 2001:558:1400:10:FC49:2FE8:A83C:ECDE (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As this is obviously a staff matter and I'm a board member, I can't comment at the present time except to repeat my usual principled objections to such things in the strongest possible terms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a WP matter. If it's OK for Sarah, a WMF employee, to hire herself out for $44.44 an hour, or $300 per WP article, then obviously it's OK for any of the rest of us editors to do the same, and your "principled objections" are nothing more than pissing in the wind. Eric Corbett 17:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is also a WP matter and I encourage you to make your thoughts known to the Foundation. I'm just saying that I'm withholding further comment at this time because it is a staff matter. I did not mean to imply that it is not also a community matter.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over 150 sound files in danger of deletion on commons because of complex US law

commons:Template:PD-US-record is a licensing tag over on commons, (a similar one exists on en.wikipedia, but is not being used by any files) that is used on 162 sound files. The license's accuracy has been raised into question, but the consequences of it being deleted would cause almost all sound files that are not community created or government works to be considered copyrighted. I know the foundation is legally responsible to not allow copyright violations on its servers if they know about them. Would it be possible to get a official foundation legal opinion on the license? Z ginder 2014-01-06T18:10:25Z

@Zginder: - sure, by asking the legal team. :-) Best way is to write to legal@wikimedia.org, with a link to where a discussion is happening so that they can respond. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is neutrality and what does "I am neutral" mean?

Hello Mr. Wales. I contribute to French Wikipedia and would like you develop your paradox about neutrality by the related paradox. If I must or can write what people think and if I am someone, can I write what I think ? Must I wait other people think like me to write the results of my point of view and how can I have people agree with me if people say "you are alone to think that so you are not neutral" ? That's not just a game. A lot of ideas cannot be written on French Wikipedia because they are not considered serious by serious people. My books are not published since nobody agree with me. The situation is locked and I know my idea are suspicious because I use those of René Girard to see the world and free people from dark ideas. I think your neutrality is very useful to prevent people from project their emotions to facts and write anything or so but I don't project and just read in the book of life. Anybody can check what I pretend seeing by seeing oneself. French Wikipedia seems to reproduce official ideas but where are the contests by popular people ? Are there less intelligent than people who refer to quantity ? Is quantity always right ? If I can't contest Alzheimer does exist and if my experience is not thought but other people, it is just the opinion of a clown or the suggestion that allow us to cure what we call "Alzheimer" in a few days ? Curing Alzheimer people is easy : just be a humane being ! If you can read French, please read my message here https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Wikip%C3%A9dia:Neutralit%C3%A9_de_point_de_vue#remise_en_cause_de_la_neutralit.C3.A9_expos.C3.A9e_par_le_fondateur_de_Wikip.C3.A9dia_Jimmy_Wales_appliqu.C3.A9e_aux_sciences_humaines otherwise please ask me to explain. I hope your year 2014 will be nice and joyful. --Nicolas Messina (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Nicolas, Wikipedia is a tertiary source built from information published in secondary sources. If you have done research on alzheimers then I suggest you submit your research to a medical journal. If after peer review they publish it then others may well add it to Wikipedia articles. Original research without peer review is not really ready for Wikipedia. We don't want to be the first to publish new ideas, especially medical ones. As for neutrality, it can be a difficult thing to achieve, sometimes there are different theories amongst academics and where that happens we try to cover the leading theories, giving them due weight based on their coverage in reliable sources. One test is to see if you can cover both sides in a dispute without seeming to favour either. But the easiest way to achieve neutrality on Wikipedia is to write about things that you find interesting but don't have original theories of your own. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Often, the "Original Research" allegation is used to stall/choke off discussions on Wikipedia talk pages that include very interesting and promising thoughts and theories by those who do not want any change to their version of truth. There's a difference between including "Original research" in an article and generally discussing this on a talk page. Sadly, most times, someone has a promising and genuine idea on a discussion page and it is nipped in the bud being labelled Original Research, although in the end the discussion could have helped developing the idea to get published and then have it included as sourced material that improves the article.--37.230.10.40 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good thing, then. What you talk about sounds fun and interesting - discussions about new ideas - but it doesn't really belong at Wikipedia. There are lots of places to do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concept of an Enyclopedia

Don't you think that an Encyclopedia should stick only to facts, giving the reader the opportunity to form his own opinion? As it is, most articles include a bunch of quoted point-of-views thrown together in an often wild order and solely the order in which these are put i.e their sequential arrangement form a point-of-view, by itself, leaving room to manipulate the reader and giving the editor the possibility to educate the reader rather than giving him the opportunity to act as an individual and form his own view?--37.230.10.40 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no easy answer to this issue. A quoted point-of-view is often a salient fact. And quoted-points-of-view (like all facts, but easier than some facts) can be arranged so as to give an impression. Achieving high quality neutral articles which serve to educate the user rather than to inflame passions involves a lot of thoughtful judgment. It's why I say we are not transcription monkeys. We can and should exercise judgment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double Standard concerning the requirements for an edit and a revert

For an edit to be accepted to be included in an article, it needs to be well-sourced and -justified. On the contrary, a revert of an edit that fulfills the mentioned criterias is accepted without any justification or source proving that the revert is worthwile and reasonable. Isn't this quite a double standard?--37.230.21.43 (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would need to know to which edit you were referring to really answer your particular issue. One type of "removal first" is for weakly sourced claims in any biography of a living person. In too many cases, an editor will view a contentious claim as "justified" if it shows a person in the light which the editor wishes to portray the subject. WP:BLP seeks to make clear that such edits are improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collect presents the issue well. In most cases I would say that the standards for inclusion and removal should be perfectly reciprocal. (Though individual examples are useful in terms of really chewing on the principle.) In biographies of living persons, there is a deliberate asymmetry for negative/contentious information. There are other areas where an asymmetry is called for (health information that might be dangerous if wrong, etc.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How long average reader views a page

Jimbo (et al.), I think we once discussed how long the average reader views a page (before changing to another webpage), but I could not remember what words to search in the talk-page archive, and Special:Statistics has average edits per page as "21.29" but I thought somewhere the average pageview duration was clocked at about 10 seconds (before next page viewed). Anyone remember the duration? -Wikid77 16:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the average pageview duration at Wikipedia is much longer than 10 seconds.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 213: / Line 213: @@
 ::I think a well-worded disclaimer is warranted.  We should be discussing the content and placement of the disclaimer, as opposed to whether or not to have it at all.  I don't particularly care for this particular implementation.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 15:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 :::Thanks. Just to be clear, we already have a medical disclaimer (2 clicks away via the tiny <small>"Disclaimers"</small> link at the bottom of every article). So no one's discussing whether or not to have one at all, but whether to have a brief disclaimer (with a link to the full one) on medical articles themselves. Are you saying you support having some kind of brief medical disclaimer somewhere on our medical articles themselves? --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Anthonyhcole|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Anthonyhcole|email]])  15:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
+::::Yes, I support having some kind of brief medical disclaimer somwhere (at the top) on our medical articles themselves.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 17:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 ::::There is an extensive and continuing discussion at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer]]. It is complex and hasn't been closed, but it looks to me as if the views opposing any additional disclaimer have more support, numerically at least, than any others. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 15:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
+:::::I think it's more complex than that but yes, there are mixed views.  One of the arguments against it is one which does not impress me in the least: that other sites don't have them.  Other sites don't have any of the kinds of disclaimers that we have, such as "The neutrality of this article has been disputed" - a disclaimer that no one is suggesting we get rid of.  We are different from WebMD, the Lancet, etc., in some important ways.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 17:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 :::::Presently, the <small>"disclaimers"</small> link doesn't appear on articles in "mobile view" - it's behind a link consisting of 3 horizontal bars in the top left corner that most readers will never click - so [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] has lodged a [[bugzilla:59743|request at Bugzilla]] to have that fixed. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Anthonyhcole|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Anthonyhcole|email]])  04:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)