Archives

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

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

On 12 July 2011, a brand new Commons account uploaded 7 images to Commons. Five of them were images of dildos inserted into a man's anus (two of these have been deleted for quality reasons, although the quality of the remaining ones is equally poor). Each of these were nominated for deletion.

• file:Anal.jpg - deleted "Low quality, blurry. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose"
• file:Anal2.jpg - kept (four deletion requests) "While blurry, is educationally distinct from other photos in Category:Sexual penetrative use of dildos"
• file:Anal3.jpg - kept (three deletion requests)
• file:Anal4.jpg - deleted "very low-quality"

The other three images uploaded by this user show a man having sex with a blow-up doll.

• file:Puppensex 1.jpg - kept (three deletion requests) (This image was actually deleted in the second deletion request as "out of scope" but un-deleted.)
• file:Puppensex 2.jpg - deleted (but restored) (Deleted as "COM:SCOPE, very low quality", then un-deleted.)
• file:Puppensex 3.jpg - deleted (but restored) (Deleted as "COM:SCOPE, very low quality", then un-deleted.)

Note that none of the images uploaded by this user are currently in use in any article or userpage on any WMF project. The account has made no other edits on any other WMF project. It seems clear that this is someone using Commons for to satisfy their own exhibitionism. The quality of these images is such that if they were illustrating anything else, they would be deleted without discussion, but images of a sexual nature are notoriously difficult to delete. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say one thing - I don't recall actually seeing some guy screwing a doll like that before, so there is indeed something vaguely educational about it. Question: Are you guys going to reargue every Commons close on a sexual-themed file here from now on, or is someone going to close the curtain on this sorry scene? Wnt (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When Commons cleans up their act, starting with banning out the Commons Is Not Censored XfD closers and ending with a rational relationship between content and the project's educational mission, then "we guys" will stop beefing. Until then, Commons is the gift that keeps on giving. Carrite (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they can ban their good admins who uphold core project principles, sure. Or they could ban the people who want to undermine their project, destroy its content, scare away editors with threats of outing and IRL harassment or just drive them away in disgust, revoke its tax exemption, slander it in the press, report it to police on unsubstantiated charges, split it, disband it, and destroy it. Some people here expect WMF to be run like a company, and if there's one thing that every company in the whole wide world agrees on, it's that you fire whistleblowers, no matter what the legality or the cost, and blackball them ever after. That goes even when their warnings were justified and could have saved lives, let alone when they are driven by some kind of ideological hatred for what the company seeks to accomplish. Wnt (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what most of the so called critics here want is for Commons to be run in a responsible manner. Kevin (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone consider creating /sex chat or take similar action, so that those that seem to get a huge kick of using Jimbo's user talk page as a soapbox to repeatedly shout rude words can have a friendly space to take their diatribes? The repetitive and manipulative soapboxing of sexual topics here (mainly driven by "friends of Greg Kohs") has not only dominated this page for a week but appears to be a childish attempt to get as offensive as possible in an attempt disrupt, rather than enable any meaningful discussion of the issues that might encourage collaborative improvement. --Fæ (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that people are on their best behaviour here. But this has gone on for far too long, for people to be pussy footing about over the issue. The language should be robust enough to a) convey the nature of the problem, and b) expose the ridiculousness of some of the things that have happened in recent months. You will agree that it seems to have got worse since the WMF backed off on the image filter issue, you got reverted yourself over the 'toothbrush'. Quietly waiting for the right thing to be done hasn't worked, it has simply emboldened certain behaviours. Such that now there is a real problem with "Human male" in the searches. John lilburne (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fæ - you made me realize that I missed two images. Two that you voted to keep, as it happens. Greg Kohs, on the other hand, was not involved in any of the deletion discussions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I see now that I missed two files due to the similarity of their names to other uploads.

• file:Anal 2.jpg - kept (three deletion requests) see below
• file:Anal 3.jpg - kept (four deletion requests) "Commons is not censored"

It is worth quoting full the original closure of one of the deletion requests.

Kept: Pornographic content is not a reason for deletion. Human sexuality is a valid topic of educational enquiry. I accept this is a truly, truly awful photo, but we really don't have anything similar which is better. If we had a range of images showing anal toy use in high resolution that are in focus I would happily delete this - I'm all for getting rid of bad images when we have suitable replacements - but we don't. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not bringing this up on Jimbo's page as an excuse to discuss someone's choice of masturbatory practices or to use naughty words like dildo and anus on Jimbo's talkpage. I think the discussions about Commons here are well-served by relevant examples. These are quite simply poor quality images, as even those who wish to keep them admit, so the rationale for keeping them is ideological. Note that some of these images have open deletion discussions which were started in December. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is that about 'WMF has backed off the image filter issue' alluded to a bit above? I strongly support providing optional filters. Not that I think having an image filter system in place stops us needing to stick to the educational mission of Wikimedia. We don't even have good encouragement of attached citations yet for images so they can be used easier in articles. Perhaps a request for a citation for a notable topic that might reasonably use a picture might stop some uploads and a lack of conceivable use would make deletion more obviously an option. It isn't easy to deal with groups of editors who have grouped together into gangs with an in-group culture and point of view which is detrimental to the overall educational aims of Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image filter has been shelved indefinitely. Implementation was scheduled to begin in January, but two board members up for re-election have since said that they no longer support it, and Sue Gardner has referred people interested in status to their statements made on Foundation list, as reflecting current thinking. See [1] --JN466 12:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also note Commons' "Hot Sex Barnstar", courtesy of Beta M: [2]. Wikilove, Commons-style. --JN466 12:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that there are over 10 million images on Commons, it's a credit to the search and categorization system that you manage to ferret out this stuff. Of course, I have no idea how many days work you have had to put in to find all these sexual photos from socks to sex toys, and then how many days you have invested in using so many forums to soapbox your anti-sex opinions. It seems a pity you did not take up the repeated open invitation to positively present your views at the Wikimedia UK board meeting or that you appear uninterested in helping to work on improving Commons or Wikipedia policies with regard to refining the definition of educational scope and quality of sex education images, and instead seem to prefer a strategy of random erratic lobbying and ranting; in the process encouraging well known stalkers and harassers of Wikimedians to play their games. I find it sad that you prefer to make a name for yourself by disrupting rather than joining those of us genuinely passionate and committed to the values to improve how the Wikimedia movement works and how to enforce meaningful policies across all projects. When you are tired of ranting into the void, you might want to reconsider how to use my offers of help in establishing meaningful change and gaining the wider support of the community. --Fæ (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you not get one of those barnstars? I Noticed that Cirt had to rush around replacing them whilst the Beta M affair was in full swing, so someone on Commons knew quite quickly what the score was there. My advice is that you probably don't want to be seen as the one standing on the steps trying to beat back change for too long. John lilburne (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reflect on what I have already said. I would like Commons to mature as a community and for the Wikimedia projects to have credible governance that the Wikimedia movement can respect and support. I am an advocate for improvement, transparency and accountability. Completely. Random soapboxing (I include Jimbo's user talk page as "random") and ranting are ineffective methods of getting the the wider community to support a change in policy and then apply it. None of us is a subject of a Tsarist regime and accusing me of beating back change when I encourage it, is bizarre. You might want to consider your own activities, the fact that I fear to engage with you on-wiki due to your potential to make personal attacks against me off-wiki if you don't like my opinion, is hardly conducive to engaging others like me to engage with, or support, any initiative with your name, or the names of others in the travelling circus, stamped on it. --Fæ (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fæ, you are such an advocate of transparency and accountability that you recently threatened to stop posting to the Wikimedia UK mailing list if the archives were made public. The archives used to be public but for reasons unknown they were recently made private. The extent of your commitment to openness and transparency is self-evident. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • How long will it take for Commons to mature? It is incapable of doing so having sucked on the teat of NOTCENSORED for so long without really understanding that it doesn't mean accepting every dick shot that get uploaded, not applying common-sense with regards to the perceived age of the uploader, and stuffing categories, filenames, and descriptions on the same in the knowledge that it will spread the image wide and far across the project. Wider community support on this is impossible, and frankly not necessary, everyone knows that it is only a matter of time before the issues with Commons, and the issues with BLPs will cause a shitstorm external to wikipedia. Do you really encourage change? I'd have thought that you'd have realized the hurt that chatter on a website might inflict, and that the machine that is wikipedia is in fact now THE MAN. I was indeed surprised when you teamed up with pigs to offer support, and as I said then and say now "voices off stage will continue to manipulate you into espousing wrong headed opinions." It seems that you have been unable to do so and continue to rail against, "supporters of Kohs", rather than acting correctly. I swear I can see you supporting pigheaded propositions because "supporters of Kohs" are against it. John lilburne (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring Wikipedia Review links (I assume) with the "spam" blacklist is indeed a very bad idea, though not nearly the worst we've seen proposed here the past two weeks. Unfortunately the idea appears already to have been introduced with blacklisting of http://www.encyclopediadramatica·ch/ - it should be rejected entirely. That said, is anyone going to clue us in on how Greg Kohs has anything whatsoever to do with this discussion? I explained myself about the river crab above, so it's only fair. Wnt (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Kohs has anything to do with anything, you'll need to ask Fæ about that. My reference to "voices off" is a play on a title. Thanks for asking BTW as I'm sure that many wouldn't have picked it up. John lilburne (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Looking at a link from the user page, off wiki lobbying can be a problem, but it also fulfils a useful function. Saying they should just talk to some board isn't really a counter. What I found really worrying there though was very active support for a website that names particular editors on Wikipedia because of this sex pictures issue. That sounds like inciting harassment to me and incompatible with WP:CIVIL. Dmcq (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fæ, I have tried to work on this problem in the community for years. In 2010, I worked for half a year, with Dcoetzee and others, on drafting a sexual content policy in Commons, only to see the Commons community vote against having any policy whatsoever on sexual content. I similarly worked for months in Meta on brainstorming possible image filter designs, liaised with Robert Harris, had accusations lobbed at me in German Wikipedia that "I had had dinner with Sue Gardner in London" (WTF?), and now the image filter is dead. I truly have done what I could do in the community, Fæ. The result is that nothing has happened, that Commons is a bigger embarrassment than ever, and that Wikipedia remains the only major website in existence that freely mixes Pokemons with hardcore porn (including in Wikipedia mainspace), without offering any filtering ability, while repeatedly referring to its role in educating the little girl in Africa. What are we trying to teach her? How to become a porn actress and have sex with a dog? (Note discussion on Reddit.)
    • A culture where admins award each other this barnstar is an embarrassment. If I were a donor, I would not want to be seen dead supporting such a culture with my money. As for giving a presentation to the Wikimedia UK board, who is Wikimedia UK in Commons? You yourself got threatened with removal of your filemover rights by a Commons admin when you tried to fix one of these search problems, and were accused of "pushing POLA [the "Principle of Least Astonishment" endorsed by the Foundation board, specifically for Commons] onto Commons". To wit: when you, as a Wikimedia UK director, go to Commons to do what the Wikimedia Foundation has urged Commons contributors to do, you get threatened by a Commons admin and have to retreat. There is little you or Wikimedia UK can do about Commons, even if you wanted to. JN466 13:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For those interested, many adult-media "Keep" decisions in Commons are really easy to find: [3] Many of these discussions and discussion outcomes are unmitigated disasters from the point of view of how an educational charity should conduct itself, especially given that it makes all of its content available unfiltered, and most of the stuff sails past school filters. I have nothing against porn, but very little of this stuff has a realistic educational rather than recreational use, much of it is unbridled exhibitionism, and presenting it like this is irresponsible and an abuse of donors' faith. Show me one educational website, let alone a charitable tax-exempt one, whose contributors upload images and videos of themselves wanking, and that hosts and curates comparable material in a comparable manner. JN466 15:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image filter is clearly a no-brainer - the foundations representatives needs to get back on track and get it implemented asap - seems like the only objection is that supporters/anonymous free speechers want everyone, underage or not, to be exposed to pornography whether readers like it or not. Youreallycan 17:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling exactly and I'd expand it to whole articles too. I would though always want it to be obvious when something is missing. If a person does not want to see images or read text defaming the flying spaghetti monster then there should be reasonably easy to see markers for the missing images or text making it obvious that content has been self censored. Dmcq (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image filter is not a good idea until after Commons has its misguided admins removed. If there were an image filter, any discussion about undue exhibitionism and other nonsense would be dismissed with "you don't have to see it". The WMF model is broken until it can recognize obvious obviousness: some people (at their current maturity level) believe that any editorial judgment is a human rights violation (aka NOTCENSORED), and no arguments will ever deflect them from exploiting Commons (see commons:Category:Santorum neologism-related images for yet more examples). The free-speech advocates are doing a great job, but they should do it on their own website. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely true and has always been a consideration: that installation of an image filter might lead to a vast increase in adult media, under the rationale that anyone who doesn't like them can now filter them out. As Johnuniq says, what Commons needs first and foremost is an administration that signs up to the Foundation's core values (incl. privacy/consent issues, POLA, educational value rather than free speech, etc.), rather than being in open rebellion against them. --JN466 02:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a good consideration, but I still believe in fixing problems rather than using them for political ends. Problems should not be hoarded up. Dmcq (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Text and image are 2 different things, save for the text-based image. Image is meant to be understanded universally at first glance without knowing a specific language. Jimbo, I know you have little ability to do with this since the vulva incident on de.wp main page. Just so you know, this might not be the problem right now (I may pretend those sexual images are non-existent while using Commons service), but soon it will ruin the whole WMF, specifically donation income. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In one sense our donation revenue is inherently vulnerable, as apart from Wikimdia UK it is overwhelmingly dependent on an annual appeal. But in another sense we are far less dependent on our indirect public image than most charities. We have nearly 500 million viewers per month, so many of our donors and potential donors are going to be more knowledgeable about our sites than the average journalist. If the press go off on some tabloid rant about not being able to use Wikipedia because of its porn content then there will be plenty of donors whose own experience will contradict that. I'm not saying we don't have a problem with sexually themed content, but when we make changes we should act in a proportionate manner and make the right changes for the right reasons. ϢereSpielChequers 06:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, it's not "sexually themed content" that people here are complaining about. Most of us are quite mature—we understand and welcome due sexually themed content. What Commons needs is a donation from a researcher of 10,000 images of penises in all their glory, provided proper notes are available describing the subjects and showing that the images are typical of the populations they portray—that would have educational value. What we do not need is random exhibitionists uploading whatever appeals to them—that is not sexually themed content, it is undue nonsense and a misuse of WMF resources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Commons but I'd have problems with that lot here under WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. We're supposed to summarize. Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has a wider scope than that. What Jonuniq describes would have educational value, if underpinned by statistical data. And as long as it has realistic educational value, it is a valid upload in Commons. However, what Johnuniq is talking about is very different from Wikimedia contributors going into the bathroom, having a wank, and uploading a mobile phone snapshot or video of that – that's literally how crude it has become. And this sort of stuff is kept in Commons under NOTCENSORED. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nudity_and_sexuality-related_deletion_requests/kept --JN466 18:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If i try to compress this discussion to a point where only the difference in opinion is left, then i come to this:

Some see the images as educational, others do not.

So i may ask you this questions:

• Would one illustration for a subject be enough?
• Is an image of low quality that shows a practice or detail that no other image on Commons shows valuable or not?
• Should we delete low(er) quality duplicates? (Considering media of all kind, including flowers, buildings, persons, ..., with a duplicate being defined as a picture that shows the same subject)
• How should the perfect illustration for a penis should look like?

--／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 19:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there is that Commons participants will argue that any variation is a difference worth keeping. Witness the discussion here where one of the crew argues that there is not another one on Commons with the exact same skin colour. The denizens of Commons will argue that the length of fingernails on the hand of a masturbator are unique enough to warrant retention. John lilburne (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I might address only one of your questions -- the one related to the topic of this section -- if images are of obvious low quality, as these are, does it matter that we have no other images? These images are not used in any WMF project, which suggests that there is no particular need for them. I would remove these from any article here, not because of their content, but because of their quality. I would also suggest that there is no great mystery to the act of putting a dildo into one's anus and an image would not add to the reader's understanding. The mystery here is why these images continue to exist on Commons. The answer is a very small cabal of Commons admins and users who will vote to keep anything sexual no matter how poor the quality or how slight the chance of the images being used on a WMF project. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add that Commons isn't only a database for including images inside Wikipedia articles. It is a media library that anyone can use to obtain freely licensed media. That none of our projects uses an particular image could have various reasons or no reason at all. But third parties might already (re)use them without that we are able to see it inside the typical "usage" message on the description page. The same goes for many other images as well, but no one cares about them. At least not the people that blame Commons to host inappropriate sexual content.

The following words are meant to be humorous, but at same time criticism: If i would upload an image of the Eifel Tower on daily basis, then i doubt that i would get any problem and no one would complain. But if i would upload an image of my Eifel Tower on daily basis, then ...

--／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 20:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 16,000 Eifel Towers, after the first 100 or so they novelty tends to flag. My suspicion is that that the novelty would droop after the first couple of shots your Eifel Tower. John lilburne (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niabot, it is my understanding that while images on Commons may be used by anyone, Commons exists as a central repository for WMF projects. It does not exist as a webhost for images that are not expected to be used in WMF projects. Perhaps you should read Commons:Project scope again. Carefully. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please refrain from one-sided quoting or to give things a not intended meaning? Thank you. PS: A link for you: [4] --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't quoting anything. Any argument for keeping an image based on the rationale that someone might be using an image outside of a WMF project is bogus argument and should be discounted in deletion discussions. Of course, there is no point in trying to argue that on Commons, because logical argument plays no part in the decision process over there. So that we are both clear, you understand that Commons has no obligation to host images that are not being used or might reasonably be expected to be used in WMF projects, yes? And that Commons:Project scope is quite explicit about that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be discounted? I'm sure that we don't have an article for every building/wheater situation/rock/festival we have photographs from. It essentially means that such pictures are likely not to be used by our projects, not even in future. Still we keep them because of potential usage by reusers. Going after "... that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, ..." with the appendix "The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Is it so hard to understand? BTW: We are way off topic right now. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of us has a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope of Commons. I do not know which of us that is, but it may help resolve some of the conflicts here if we figure it out. The Commons' scope policy sets out two uses, either in a WMF project or only on Commons itself (there are other limiting conditions), and then it says "A media file which is neither: realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons". We likely disagree on how blurry low resolution images of a man inserting a dildo into his anus can reasonably be considered to be "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". That's fine, but I understand Commons to be a repository of images which will be or could be used on WMF projects, not a general repository for images. Let me use an analogy - I tell you that I have my coats in a closet and you are welcome to use them. That does not mean that I am allowing you to store your coats in my closet. There will be coats in my closet which I am not wearing, but they are my coats and I expect to wear them at some point. Does that make sense? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. If i go after your illustrative example, then you speak about your own coats. That is somewhat limiting and contradictory to Commons mission. Commons is a repository for any kind of free media that could be used in educational context by any WMF project or "all". That means that any kind of educational (in a "broad meaning") media under a free license is welcome, even if it is not used by the Community [WMF would be wrong at this place] itself (at the moment)+ - but by others. What you describe is a closet in which you can only put coats that would be in your own size so that you can wear them anytime, while leaving your visitor not the option choose a size which would fit them. Going after all the previous comments the closet would be even more restrictive. It would not allow coats in red or pink colors, just because you are sure that they don't look good. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 23:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking of education—and pictures of crotches—I saw this article on Slate.com today. Some academics wanted to do a study about genital color and had a difficult time finding "Explicit images of anatomically normal, un-retouched, non-pornographic, similarly oriented" genitals. They eventually found some, and published their study. This got me thinking, maybe there is some educational value to a repository of free pictures of genitals, since it's apparently needed by some legitimate academics. Not to say that Commons has to be the place for such a thing, (or that there shouldn't be filters etc.) but it's an interesting example of how hosting images of naked people may not be a completely useless practice. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That sort of thing is what I had in mind with my above comment at timestamp "10:08, 17 April 2012". Lots of pictures of bits would be useful providing they were taken under controlled conditions with useful information available (generic info about the subject, and an indication of how they were chosen—are the pictures typical of something?). Judgment should show that a multitude of good quality and statistically informative anatomy shots would be helpful, while "look what I did today!" shots are not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah yes, I see that now--that is basically what I was thinking. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Commons has 1000s of pictures of penises and arseholes. How many do we have of toes, knees, hairlines, belly buttons, ears, noses, eyes ...? Do we think the public is stupid or something? You cannot look at these pictures divorced from the transactional context that led to their being on a Commons server. Commons has become an ad-hoc web host for exhibitionists, something that is readily apparent to anyone looking at the material. JN466 11:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me be so bold as to quote from Commons:Scope again: "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: ... Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality". After the first dozen or so erect white penises, all of the rest are out of scope, by Commons' own definitions. The people who seem to be controlling Commons have diverged from the stated purposes of Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really, shouting "arseholes" yet again from your soapbox in order to scare the children and cause general offence? Does anyone else find this ranting reminiscent of Father Jack Hackett? --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Penis - 2,248,Toe - 2,217, Knee - 3,184. Obviously very rudimentary numbers and slightly glib; I am highlighting a serious problem with all of these discussions. Which is that we are working with minimal data and adding a layer of confirmation bias. Someone needs to do the legwork of serious research into these numbers/problems. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look at the relevant search results? The first 500 search results for "penis" overwhelmingly show close-up photographs of human penises. [5]. The search results for "toe" overwhelmingly show something other than human toes. [6] The same with "knee": [7]. Really. Look through them. --JN466 14:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, with the amount of foot fetishists out there, one would assume we'd have millions of pictures of toes. But, I must plead ignorance: I've never searched for pictures of penises--or feet for that matter--so I, like most users, am basically ignorant of what Commons hosts. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't exactly make you the ideal person to comment. :) --JN466 20:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Fæ; people shouting arseholes is such bad form when there are hardly any at all worth mentioning, and could be easily covered over with a nun like veil of secrecy. John lilburne (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'm very sure that what we get presented all the time in such discussions are the extremes and biased data. What Jayen said in the previous comment is an clear understatement for this procedure of making selective or false claims, while presenting preselected examples as "evidence" or as "average". --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 11:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. has just lost a Commons-related court case in Germany: [8] From what I can make out, Commons has, for years, falsely declared that German stamps are in the public domain, refused to take them down when a rights holder complained, and as a result Wikimedia Foundation Inc. has now been found liable for infringement ("Für die unlizenzierte Nutzung der Briefmarken-Motive haftet die Antragsgegnerin als Störerin"). Is that summary correct? --JN466 16:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure all understand, we sought the recent judgment from the court only for the purpose of challenging the court decision on the signature issue, and we won that as we expected. I also have made some comments on the stamps and public domain issue. The full discussion can be found here. Geoffbrigham (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons needs common sense - they considered the copyright on a US First Day Cover - and only looked at whether the stamp was copyright - and ignored whether the cachet was copyright <g>. Perhaps it is time to rethink this whole idea that everything must be free of copyright in the first place - and then just bar copiers of Wikipedia from ignoring posted copyrights. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The adversarial legal system is one where people only have the rights that they pay for. If even Wikimedia Commons won't stand up for the public domain, who will? There is nothing in Commons that will not be the subject of some kind of copyfraud sooner or later. Sure, it's a free licensed image you can alter and reuse however you want - but don't do any cropping that might remove a visible or invisible watermark, or magnify a de minimis element; don't copy it if it has a person because that's subject to "moral" rights - is the data used to make the image copyrighted? Commons is already "puahing the envelope" just claiming they have the right to display a public domain image, when whoever photographs it could claim copyright. (Or whoever has moved it across their servers, or maybe the library that owned the book, who knows?) Either we give up on the whole idea of the public domain, in however general a sense, as a lie, and accept that someday even the word "the" will be the trademarked/copyrighted/look-and-feel patented property of some corporation, or else we stand behind Commons proudly when they fight the good fight in court for the defense of Wikipedia and all its readers around the world! Wnt (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the weather like up there on your soapbox, Wnt? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really to the point where it's impermissible "soapboxing" to suggest that the WMF has our support when it makes its case in court, but perfectly acceptable "watchdog" behavior to say that the WMF has made "false" statements by maintaining a policy its lawyers believed would prevail in court? (and partially did) Wnt (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pulling the following quote of Jayen466 out of the middle of a long discussion above in order to focus attention on it. I had never heard of this as a potential problem in Wikipedia before, and I think it is one that we should take seriously. I think that Jayen's methodology here is basically sound and his analysis should be refined and expanded. Let's discuss how we might do that. Please don't veer off into random other arguments: I want this discussion to be focussed solely on how we might measure the problem. I'll comment further, below.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will just say that, as in Otis Ferry's article, these "Legal issues" sections often look intemperate and vindictive.

With respect to the charge of white bias, I tried to have a look at the frequency with which these legal issues sections occur; in this search, I found – on the first page of 100 search results – 45 biographies of Black people that had a "Legal issues" section, vs. 28 biographies of Caucasians that had such a section, and 3 of Hispanics – i.e. nearly 60% of these sections were in biographies of Black people. That did seem suspiciously high. I didn't do an exact count of the biographies on the second page of search results, but there seemed to be rather more Caucasians on that page than there were on the first, with proportions roughly reversed, and Caucasians outnumbering Blacks 2 to 1. --JN466 02:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of factors here (probably more than a couple!) that we should consider. First is the question of whether Wikipedia itself has a bias towards reporting more "legal issues" for blacks than whites when all else is equal. If so, that's absolutely something that we can and should make a very strong effort to correct. Second is the much more difficult question of whether our culture as a whole is such that for people of sufficient notability to be in Wikipedia, there is more reliable mainstream press coverage of legal issues for blacks than whites. If so, then we still should do something about it (recognizing as per my usual that "verifiability, not truth" is wrong) by noting the overall bias in the press and working to correct for it, just as we make similar judgements about all kinds of things.

A first cut would be to follow Jayen's methodology (though perhaps in reverse - starting from a random sample of biographies and then looking for "legal issues" or "controversies" sections, and seeing the overall numbers. This would confirm that there is a problem. To determine the nature of the problem, though, will require more judgment - looking for a representative sample of "similar" biographies... for example black and white judges, black and white baseball players, black and white professors, etc. Looking even deeper after that, we'd want to look into whether the press appears to have unbalanced coverage. This is not going to be perfect, but I think that a reasonable conclusion can be reached.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To address the specific question within Wikipedia, one could use a case-control type of approach, where starting from a known outcome like inclusion of a legal/controversies section you try to evaluate (using multivariate statistical analysis) the independent contributions of candidate risk factors, such as race, sex etc, alongside potential confounders, such as profession, nationality etc. 'Cases' would be biographies containing a legal issues / controversies section, whereas 'Controls' would have no such section. The sampling frame would be defined a priori as Biography pages with certain characteristics (perhaps BLP or people living since a certain year?), and one might want to restrict the study to pages a minimum size, large enough to contain multiple sections. Obviously, good study design would be important, but given the ready availability of historical Wikipedia archives (from before this particular discussion!) there should be few overheads. However, by itself such a study couldn't provide any direct information on the much more difficult question of whether our culture as a whole is such that for people of sufficient notability to be in Wikipedia, there is more reliable mainstream press coverage of legal issues for blacks than whites. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong about this but my feeling is that general Western bias is more or less equal against blacks and Hispanics, so that 3 figure for Hispanics vs. 45 for Blacks makes me think bias isn't at work on Wikipedia. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:25, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

An interesting notion. I'd surmise that it is Western media in general that has a more critical and dirt-digging eye towards blacks and crime, so if a black person is suspected of criminal involvement in a matter, more media outlets will pick up the story for the news cycle than if the suspect were white. It is a variation of missing white woman syndrome. Speaking of which, I have come across many "Murder of Jane Doe" type of articles over the years in the Wikipedia, and I'd wager that many of those Janes aren't black, primarily because the media does not pay as much attention to such crimes. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be bigger issues with race in the USA. I'm not sure how true this would be outside the USA though. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the nation, the ethnic groups under pressure will likely vary, but racism - both explicit and implicit - is a problem almost everywhere in the world in one form or another. A similar issue, which we shouldn't discuss in this thread so we can stay on track, is our tendency (unproven, but anecdotally it seems true to me) to excessively identify Jewish people as Jewish when we don't pay attention to other ethnic groups. I've never been sure whether that's positive or negative discrimination. What I mean is, I think many Jewish people are proud of the accomplishments of Jewish people and will want to add that. And many anti-semites think it is useful to go around making lists of Jewish people to further their POV that "Jews control the world" or whatever.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is the article on Franz Boas who very specifically did not consider himself to be Jewish in any meaningful sense - but German and American. His talkpage is frequently visited by both Jewish and Anti-Semite editors who wish to label him with the label he categorically refused for himself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus—I think that Wikipedia should avoid a parochial perspective and abide by sources. I find you saying on the Boas talk page: "If Judaism is a religion and Boas was not religious then how was he a Jew exactly?"[9] Sources tell us that Boas was Jewish: "By contrast, thoroughly secularized Jews were also among the emigrants; they included Franz Boas, the father of American anthropology."[10] Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop I find your perspective to be the most parochial that exists -namely the one that assumes that the categories that are meaningful to you should also be so for others. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely an encyclopaedia should include stuff that is relevant to the understanding of a subject, and not because it makes some 3rd party feel better, or worse about themselves? If we include tags for everyone that it Hindu or Muslim then we have potentially every notable person in India, and consequently we have lost the information about those people where their religion is a defining fact about them. Similarly if we add Greek to all people of Greek ancestry then we have lost the fact of where being Greek was a defining factor in their lives. John lilburne (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John lilburne—you express that you feel that Boas' Jewishness is not "relevant to the understanding of a subject".[11] You are certainly entitled to hold that opinion personally. But we are expected to maintain a global perspective and we are expected to give consideration to reliable sources:

"Finally, as a German Jewish immigrant, Boas identified with the plight of African Americans. In Germany he had been the victim of anti-Semitism leading to his decision to migrate to the United States, where he endured outsider status as an immigrant and a Jew. By attacking racist science, which concluded that blacks were inferior to whites, Boas was able to mount an indirect challenge to the anti-Semitic belief that Jews were an inferior race."[12]

"Boas's Jewish ancestry undoubtedly sensitized him to prejudice and discrimination toward others"[13]

"Franz Boas the anthropologist held the upper hand over Franz Boas the German Jew."[14]

Whether or not to include allusions to the above sorts of considerations is an editorial decision. Writing is an art to some extent, meaning that the article will stand with or without such references. Do you see that there is valid and relevant material that can be discussed for possible inclusion in the article? Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Herrings. The article of course should and does explain Boas relation with Judaism which was important to his experience in Germany and later in the US. But it should not say that he was "a Jew" because that statement is in direct contradiction of the way he experienced that relation. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus—you say that "…it should not say that he was 'a Jew'…"[15] when in fact he was a Jew. We defer to reliable sources. Reliable sources know that being a Jew has nothing to do with what one believes or does not believe, or practices or does not practice. Your opinion can't override that which is determined by reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a jew is not a matter of scientific fact it is a matter of identity. Having a star slapped on your coat does not make anyone a Jew - identifying and being identified as a member of a community does. Boas did not identify as such, and only his antisemitic opponents identified him that way during his life.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, being 'a Jew' can never be 'fact' - 'Jewishness' is a social construct, and as such, only an opinion - and as to the question of Boas's 'Jewishness', opinions differ. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—it wouldn't matter if Jewishness was a social construct. The salient point is that reliable sources all concur that Boas was Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do not. All sources that actually discuss his relation to Judaism (his biographies for example) instead of just label him agree that that is not an meaningful label for characterizing him. And what about Boas himself, why is he not a reliable source?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed no such opinion at all regarding Boaz. But if you want my opinion the plonking of every D-list Celebrity and 2nd grade sports player, where there Jewishness does not make a significant contribution to their life's work, into the same tag as Boaz does not only him a disservice, but is unhelpful to the reader too. Eventually, and I shudder at the thought, you are going to need a 1st class Jew, and a 2nd class Jew categories in order to separate out those of true importance to Jewish culture and history, from the also rans. John lilburne (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend a different methodology than the search engine one. The search engine ratio methodology is effectively meaningless since it isn't a randomly selected group, it is based off a search engine result (I'm not sure how the search engine decides the order of results) and it also appears to assume that the number of articles on Hispanic, black, white people etc are the same alternatively there may be an implicit assumption that the ratios should be that of the USA for some reason. What is relevant is what is the ratio of articles about a particular ethnic group/race, subdivided by profession etc, with a negative section versus not having a negative section. By comparing the ratios in that way any bias would be uncovered. Using a random number generator to pick articles from within wikiproject biography Category:WikiProject_Biography_articles appears to be the best way to get a decent sample for example. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If some sort of bias is eventually judged to exist, I shudder to think what the remedy will look like. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:13, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Why "shudder to think" what the remedy will look like? I can't imagine what you mean. The only possible remedy is to edit Wikipedia to fix it, just like any example of bias. If we have accidentally adopted a double standard, deciding the a minor legal issue for a white judge is not relevant, and the same minor issue is relevant for a black judge, we can fix that by being aware of it and thinking about it and discussing it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if editors know about it that's the first step to fixing it. Regarding methodology, I have to agree that when we can't explain why "tolling bells" are not made out of metal, we can't really rely on the search results. And regarding blacks versus Hispanics, I'm not sure it's a valid comparison. The level of discrimination against the groups was never perfectly the same, and Hispanics in the U.S. often identify proudly with external national origins which give them extra resources to fall back on - for example, by having Spanish television networks which also broadcast in Latin America. But the data, carefully obtained, could tell all. Wnt (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have so many questions about this. And since I'm often the one to say the unpopular things that I nevertheless feel should be addressed, here goes. What if black people have just had more legal issues than white people, whether due to societal problems or police bias? What would we do in that case? And for that matter, how could we tell the difference between that and media bias? Are we to take an imbalance in "legal issues" sections alone to mean Wikipedia has a bias that needs correcting (that seems to be the only method mentioned thus far)? Do we then go about with our own version of affirmative action, either putting legal issues sections into not-so-deserving bios or removing them from deserving ones? Racial bias and other minority issues suck, but I'm not sure an encyclopedia is in any position to correct it. We may just have to report on the shitty world as it is. Just saying. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:43, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, but I do think you raise an issue that needs to be reflected upon. I do agree that merely seeing the numbers (which we don't have yet, other than JN's quick-and-dirty study) doesn't in and of itself prove bias - there are many possible reasons for it. I suspect, though, that further study will reveal at least some problems that we can deal with, which is why I say I disagree with you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Many biographies don't list people as "white", they list them only as Americans, or whatever country they are from. Sometimes instead of that they just list them as Jewish. Nowhere in the Wikipedia articles does it say they are white. They do mention if someone is black though. We have categories such as category:American people of French-Canadian descent, Category:American people of Scotch-Irish descent category:American people of Mexican descent, etc. So you might just have to include all of those in your searches for whites and Hispanics. Dream Focus 18:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In terms of sampling, this seems to be a better search: it gives just a little over 7,000 results, i.e. less than half of the other search method, and here all (or nearly all) search hits really are living people. To counter any potential bias in the listing of search results (i.e. that there might be more or fewer Caucasians on the first or last pages), we could sample as follows: Count Black / Caucasian / Hispanic / Asian people on the first page of 100 search results, on the 11th, the 21st, the 31st and so on, to the 70th page. (These pages can easily be reached without clicking through all the preceding pages, by adding &offset=1000 to the URL.) For a very rough first indication, 1,369 of these 7,000 biographies seem to have the word "African" in them, most commonly in the "African American" category. Clearly that will not cover British, Nigerian or French Blacks, nor does it cover all African Americans – this search, looking for biographies that do not contain the word African, includes African Americans like TQ (singer) and BeBe Winans for example. So these 1,369 biographies are probably far from the complete number of people of African descent among those 7,000, but it establishes a first ballpark estimate for the lower limit. I am short of time currently, but if someone wants to jump in, that would be swell. :) --JN466 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming that a bias exists (and it wouldn't surprise me if it does), I don't think we should go about fixing it as a bias. Rather, we should rethink our policies on biographies. I.e., can we come up with a set of policies or guidelines that will remove the bias without explicitly addressing it? For example, I note that many biographies have a section titled "Criticism", which becomes a catch all place for critical opinions on a person. Sections titled "Criticism" or "Legal Issues" are examples of poor writing, and systematic biases aside, are unfair to any individual of any race. Perhaps a set of tight guidelines on how to write biographies is where we should be headed. --regentspark (comment) 19:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Again, it's why I think we should use pending changes to restrict the editing of biographies to people who have taken such ground rules to heart, and lock the door to people writing with a grudge. There should really be a kind of editorial team in the traditional sense of the word for biographies of living people; it could still be a very large team, but it should have norms and standards that are meticulously upheld. The points you mention should be among them. --JN466 19:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree too, on the solution that is, but I don't think we necessarily need to wait to see whether someone concludes there's a bias before getting started on that. I don't have all that much faith in our ability to accurately determine this bias thing, but whether or not anyone else does, this seems like a good thing to get started on right now. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:08, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a useful inquiry, but we need to be very careful about how we define things. Take, for example, the article on Frank DiPascali, who is a white person. He has pleaded guilty to federal charges. Yet, if you searched for the headings "Legal issues" or "Legal troubles" you would not hit this article. There is, however, a heading that serves the same purpose: "Criminal and civil complaints and guilty plea." I suspect that Mr. DiPascali would PREFER "Legal issues," not that his Wikipedia article is his biggest problem. His "legal issues" also dominate the lede to his article. So does Mr. DiPascali count as someone (who happens to be white) who has a section on their "legal issues"? For that matter, Mr. DiPascali's former employer, another white man (Bernard Madoff), ALSO does not have a section in his article entitled "Legal issues," but he has headings that are "worse", including "Plea, sentencing and prison life," and a few that include the word "fraud." So we just need to be careful with our searches. Neutron (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to explain why the enquiry started off this way: the article that sparked this discussion contains the following passages: "Yet a large portion of the wiki article was dedicated to D'Angelo's 'Legal Issues' (a subheading seemingly exclusive to black musicians, intellectual property pages and anzac biscuits), including a DUI charge and a marijuana possession charge. [...] The entry on Keith Richards, the grandfather of recreational drug use and all comedy based on chemically-eroded intelligence, includes detailed information on his drug use and trouble with the law. But he does not have 'Legal Issues'; his story is a rich and balanced biography. Even Lou Reed, who wrote songs about drugs as well as under their influence, apparently never possessed them. R. Kelly, on the other hand, has serious 'legal issues' pertaining to an alleged statutory rape. Yet this disturbing crime is lumped in with a sound pollution charge for playing music too loudly in his car. This juxtaposition is offensive: who cares about a sound pollution charge? Certainly not the young survivor of sexual assault." --JN466 19:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, Wikipedia tends, if anything, to make sure legal problems are in every BLP they can be squeezed into - so I doubt any "racial bias" on that end. We also do not list "non-notable" people, although it appears that if the crime is in the press, the notabiity of the people involved seems to vanish as a concern :( . That said, the term "legal issues", along with the other "controversy" headings, I find problematic, and suggest they be avoided wherever possible. Collect (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I don't think you can extract anything useful this way, other than an impression. One can guarantee that any celebrity person in the news will have a section dedicated to any brush with the law that they may have had. So one might want to look for bias in the edit histories, for example how much resistance there was by editors to the inclusion of a DUI arrest. For example if on average a Black has his DUI arrest added with 2 reverts before it sticks, whilst for a White it takes on average 6 reverts then that would indicate a bias. Similarly you could average the average length of copy devoted to a DUI arrest. For example 2 sentences for one, 4 sentences for the other would again indicate some bias. You might wonder why WP has a category "Puerto Rican murderers" and what the bias was for that. John lilburne (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC, response to JN's last) Let me be clear here, I am not saying there is not a problem, I just don't know whether there is or not, and what you have found thus far does not answer the question, in my opinion. When I look at Keith Richards' article, one thing I notice is that of the four sentences in the lede (which is probably too short for an article of that length, by the way), one (25 percent of the intro) is about Richards' "notoriety for illicit drug use" and "several drug busts", and as you say, there is a lot more in the body of the article. So are we really giving less attention to his drug use and legal problems than someone who has a "Legal issues" section? I'm not so sure. As far as other examples, how about David Crosby, which has a heading "Drugs charges and prison time"? And then on the other hand we have Willie Nelson, whose article is full of "legal issues", but no heading by that name. Oh, and here is an interesting one, Nick Nolte, which has a heading "Legal troubles." And as the final one I will look up right now, Roger Clemens has a "Controversies" section with sub-headings "Accusations of steroid use" and "Adultery accusations." Now, I have been a little one-sided in my research, since the four persons I have just mentioned are all white. Let's look at Alcee Hastings, an African-American former judge and current Congressman. When he was a federal judge, he was impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, and removed from office, on charges of bribery and perjury. And yet there is not a single heading in his article (or anything in the lede) that suggests he ever had any legal problems, or any kind of controversy, whatsoever. (His legal problems are mentioned in the text of the article, but not in a heading.) So, how do we "count" all this? Maybe we need some kind of "points system." Neutron (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't count it. You can only ask is a person only noted for some criminal act more or less likely to be mention on WP based on ethnic bias than the statistics indicate? Or is the incident of a similar legal issue likely to be more or less detailed based on ethnicity. John lilburne (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can only really look for racial bias by comparing like with like.

I think there is inevitably going to be racial bias on Wikipedia just because it is written by people. But biographies doesn't seem to me to be the most obvious place to look. As Collect indicates above, criminal convictions in celebrity biography articles may be a candidate for the place on WP where you are least likely to find racial bias, because we tend to take a pretty non-discriminatory approach. If you have one, it's going in. Which means that if we tried to tackle racial bias there, we would only end up by creating it (if we had a policy to report fewer criminal convictions, we would disproportionately use this to favour white subjects).

What we should be talking about is WP articles related to sociology and politics, where I don't think you need a degree in statistics to see that we have a problem. Our article on racism, for example, is disgraceful. Overall, there are far too many articles which are pointy or slanty from a race point-of-view to name them all. But I don't think biographies should be on the to-do list. Formerip (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, which way do you think the Racism article is slanted? Neutron (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to ask? Formerip (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have not read our article Racism and won't likely have time this week, I do have to ask. Which way do you think it is slanted? --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is slanted in that the definition of Racism so narrow that racial slurs, racial profiling, white supremacy, white nationalism falls outside of its scope. (It says that racism is only ideologies that advocate discimination based on race). The body of the article does more justice to newer scholarship on racism as also including practices that systemically or unconsciously perpetuate racial stratification. There is a long tradition of POV pushing in articles related to race all across wikipedia in which viewpoints associated with white nationalism, white supremacy and racialism have been inflated in importance and critical scholarship has been left out. This has been partly addressed by the R&I arbitration case but most of the articles are still slanted. A year ago wikipedia had an article on the Nordic race that described it as if it were a contemporary category. We also had an article on Race and crime that at length considered the possibility, proposed by J. Philippe Rushton that the black over representation in American penal system was due to their having a different reproductive strategy than white and Asian groups. And yes, race bias is also a persistent problem across wikipedia - part of this is simply due to the systemic bias, and another part is due to editors with racial biases actively pushing specific racial agendas.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it gives a peculiar, narrow definition of racism which is unsourced and at odds with dictionary definitions, which will tend to focus on belief in racial hierarchy. As well as excluding obvious forms of racism, as noted by Maunus, it is worded so as to actually include most forms of anti-racism. What we would normally think of as racism is distinguished in an unsourced paragraph as something different call "racialism" - a fiction that also has its own article. The second sentence appears to dismiss racism as merely a "pejorative epithet" and a clumsy sentence starting the second paragraph appears to distinguish "racism" and "racial discrimination", with the former bizarrely characterised as non-pernicious. Formerip (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup: we have an article on racism which borders on being racist. Actually, no, it doesn't border on it, it is racist, in that the first sentence unequivocally asserts the existence of distinct "human racial groups", whereas almost all scholarly sources for the last 50 or so years have rejected such simplistic categorisation. Of course, some of those 'contributing' to the article like to pretend otherwise. (See also Talk:Human#Race/Ethnicity for similar POV-pushing...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is going to be complex. But it is important and several aspects are worth looking into.

1. The sample size is small - good enough to raise warning bells, good enough to say we may have a problem and need to look more deeply. But we need a larger sample size, as this would be statistically more robust and might enable us to analyze it and identify more complex patterns.
2. Including Keith Richards and other very famous people in this sort of comparison is unlikely to be helpful. Major celebrities will tend to have much more heavily watched and edited pages than our average biography. The question we should ponder is whether a comparison of like with like would show that we generally treat black murderers similarly to white murderers.
3. We need to also measure this from the opposite direction. I'm pretty sure that there is something in this, if only because in the UK, US and Australia the prison populations are less white than the general population. If we identify a random set of major crimes and check the Wikipedia coverage, then it would be good to know whether we are fairly representing what is happening in our courts or whether we are skewed in our coverage.
4. Are we reflecting the "reliable" sources, or are we going beyond them? If it transpires that we are more likely to cover black on white crime than white on white, but that we are doing so because some or all of our sources do so, then we need to carefully consider if some of our sources are truly reliable, or whether some should be deprecated as giving a slanted view of the world.

I think we need to look into this and learn more before we act. ϢereSpielChequers 23:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. I'm a big fan of taking a cold, simple, thoughtful look at the facts, without emotion or defensiveness. After we understand, we can act (or not act) with more wisdom and legitimacy than if we just ranted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before that, even, I think we need a reason the think there's something to look into. As, indicated above, I think we have bigger, more obvious, fish to fry in terms of racial bias. Formerip (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that JN's quick study suggests that there could be a problem, so I think we've got a reason to look more closely. And while I don't disagree with you that there may be bigger and more obvious issues to look at, I don't think that should stop us from starting somewhere, and here seems to be a reasonable place. On the other hand, if you have an idea of a different way to look at the issue of racial bias that would be better, I'd love to hear your ideas!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it suggests much Jimbo. Take a look at the second page of results: [16]. I count 52 white subjects, 13 black subjects, 3 Hispanic, 3 Indian, 2 Filipino, 2 Arab. Formerip (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of starting somewhere, I can agree that we should do that. But it doesn't mean starting any-old-where. This looks to me not like a serious attempt to consider issues of racism and racial bias on WP, which undoubtedly do exist, but to marshal race politics for an unrelated agenda.

Where I think we should start looking is at the ways in which our policies and practices play out on articles that can be easily identified as having a problem. I think we may find that our concept of neutrality is not precise enough, that we are too tolerant of off-topic content and POV-forks and, perhaps, that we have too much of a tendency to assume good faith in each other. Formerip (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But specifically to this issue. We would also have to consider whether "Legal Issues" are a badge of distinction in some subcultures across races, as they have always been, standing against "respectable" society. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to the top and assume the initial methodology is sound: 60%. 60-40 is not bias or racism, that's within "chances are". If it was 95-5, I'd be concerned, but this is Shakespearean much-ado. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If our coverage was even across the planet then there would be something in that, as Nigeria alone has a far greater population than the UK. But it isn't even close - our coverage is massively skewed towards North America and the British Isles. When you factor in the racial makeup of the US and UK the 60-40 ratio is very far from what one should expect. Yes we need a more thorough study with a statistically valid sample, but if it comes out with a similar ratio it will be confirming a real problem, not showing a minor statistical fluke. ϢereSpielChequers 05:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WSC, as I noted above you get very different information from the second page of results, where just under 10% are black. That massive difference ought to tell us that looking at a single page of results from this particular search is meaningless in the first place. But, if we ignore that, we can say that about 38% or the first 200 biographies returned have black subjects. You're right that we should then compare that not to the world population but a population we can't be exact about that is heavily skewed towards the US and UK. However, we need to go further still, because the data is also skewed towards people who meet WPs notability standards and, in particular, it's skewed towards actors, sportspeople and musicians. Lastly, a qualification for the list is being known to have a criminal history of some kind (or, at least, arrests or court appearances or something). So the very rough question to ask isn't "are 38% of British and American people black", it's "are 38% of British and American sportspeople, actors and musicians with a criminal history black", which I think is something we can only guess at. Formerip (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Better links, with more precisely defined search parameters:
  • [17]
  • [18] JN466 02:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjusting the search parameters to "Legal issues" "Living people" births I think there are only about 200 biographies of living persons containing the exact phrase "legal issues" in a section title. That's a manageable number; most of them are here: [19]. So we can do a breakdown of those 200; but it is a rather small sample. Just one editor editing lots of rap articles could have a significant impact here. --JN466 05:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Crime rates are tied to low education levels: I know the key focus is about racial bias, with legal problems, but I want to emphasize that major crime rates are tied to low education, which is likely to show a racial "bias". In the U.S., where black students are more likely to drop out, or Asian students are more likely to graduate, than Caucasians, compare the related legal issues. Push this concept to the opposite extreme, and search for "honors students" involved in crimes, such as: Google search: "honors student" with "murder". Result: When "honors students" are involved with a murder (or killing), then they are more likely to be the victim (or accused by police in Italy). Anyway, back to the main focus, of racial bias and legal issues. How will bias for low education affect Wikipedia articles? I think notability will be tied to higher education, and hence, Wikipedia articles will show a "racial bias" that reflects racial trends in higher education. So that gives some other hypotheses to test, to compare notability with education levels, and compare a region's racial trends in education, and then compare legal issues of notable people. So, Wikipedia might appear to show a reverse bias, relative to the general population. That probably seems confusing, so think about it a while. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are talking about violent, drug-related, or street crime committed by blue-collar workers. However, there is strong data showing that white-collar and corporate crime is responsible for more deaths, disabilities, accidents, and loss of property in the U.S. Therefore, crime rates have little to nothing to do with education levels. Finally, most white-collar and corporate criminals are never prosecuted, and there are few resources allocated to addressing such social problems. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's mostly not prosecuted then it will have less coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search for "Legal Problems" rather than Legal Issues and re-run the analysis. Someone pointed this out to me before and with a little digging it is just differing terminology. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JN, I do not understand why you are placing such importance on the specific words "Legal issues" in a section heading. If we have an article about an African-American with a heading "Legal issues" and an article about a white person with a heading "Criminal and civil complaints and guilty plea", as in one of my examples above, what does that tell us, one way or the other, about whether racial bias is influencing our section headings? Doesn't the latter example reflect more poorly (though accurately) on the subject than the bland words, "Legal issues?" Maybe, at least in some cases, "Legal issues" is less likely to reflect bias than some of the other words that could be included in a title, i.e. "arrest", "conviction", "guilty", etc. Neutron (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was the particular claim the writer of the article made. Otherwise I agree; equivalent phrasings should "count" just the same. I wish there were an easy way of identifying biographies of living people that have this kind of section. So yes, we should make a search using "legal problems" and see whether the numbers change as a result (I suspect they won't, but it would need checking). By the way, I am not prepared to say at this time whether the writer's impression was well-founded, and whether it will be borne out by any data we collect, or not. Let's just collect the data first. --JN466 16:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can only go on the many BLP articles I have edited (via BLPN mostly), reviewed and read - pretty much all of them have a "legal issues" section of some sort. I've not noticed any particular prevalence for any race. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Norwegian article

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/rogaland/1.8045907

Anders Breivik was a contributor here, or at least to the Norwegian Wikipedia. He specifically mentioned Wikipedia in his manifesto as a vital propaganda tool, saying:

The European resistance movement must prioritize contributions to Wikipedia, as a general method to introduce our worldview, our political doctrines and our definition of history. Wikipedia should not be underestimated as the primary source to create "established truths". We must strive to present our views in the most favorable way, while we put our enemies into disrepute. It is a venue we have to focus on.

And he praised the content of the English Wikipedia, according to a tweet by Guardian reporter Helen Pidd, who is covering his trial. He apparently said that much of his "learning" comes from Wikipedia and that "The English articles there contain a lot of information".

This should be borne mind when judging Maunus' assertion above, that there are "editors with racial biases actively pushing specific racial agendas". --JN466 17:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the number of overtly racist editors, or those specifically intending to push a racially biased agenda, is extremely small. The much more dominant issue is the unconscious bias which derives from the utter lack of diversity among the editor corps (virtually a monoculture of white male libertarian-leaning technocrats). There's an extensive literature about this effect in medicine: vanishingly few physicians are overtly or even covertly racist, but racial disparities in medical treatment persist because of unconscious biases and a (decreasing) lack of diversity in the profession.

I don't think one needs to look any further than the archives of Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin to see these tendencies in action, and to see how readily the effort to cast Trayvon Martin as a thuggish menace moved from overtly racist websites to more respectable conservative media and thence to Wikipedia. It's frustrating, but I don't see it changing unless the editor corps changes, at least to the point where we can acknowledge this as an issue. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I was in fact confronted by sockpuppet editwarriors with clearly racial agendas on the article Norwegian people in the months before Breiviks massacre. This is another part of the background for my statement. I think that in the end non-anonymous editing is the only solution - then at least people will have to put their name behind their statements. Also note that the design of wikipedia is such that an extremely small group of editors can have a disproportionate impact. That is exactly what draws them here as Breiviks comments make clear.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-anonymous editing will never happen here. Jimbo and the WMF have made it clear that's completely against what they created Wikipedia for. Aside from that, it'd be horribly impractical to enforce (how do you vet everyone who wants to edit?). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could require a credit card deposit to start an account! - that way you can skew the editing base even farther to the western, white, well-off population base! -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great way to attack that of the three points I made that matters the least. Well done. So propose another solution to the problem of racist pov pushers using wikipedia as a propaganda machine?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so childish. Pointing out the flaw in your proposal does not require me to solve the whole problem myself. My 2 cents: systemic bias cannot be stopped entirely. It's human nature to try and persuade others to your point of view, even if that means bending the facts (or throwing them out the window). All we can do is ban the individuals who egregiously violate Wikpedia's neutrality, one at a time. There is no easy fix. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't making a proposal I was describing a problem and your mistake was exactly to read it as a proposal and therefore reject the solution without considering the problem. Regarding childishness I can only say this: MIRROR!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I think MastCell has hit the nail on the head there. POV pushing is infuriating to deal with, but we have policies in place to limit the damage. Systemic bias can be just as dangerous when it subtly influences within-page content, but it is more elusive and rather harder to address. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus' comments above, specifically here, bring up one of the issues at the root of racism and racial bias (a subtle form of the implicit variation; typically unconscious) : The word race carries a definition - explicit, implicit or unconscious - that the "races" are divided by substantial genetic (e.g. inherited) differences. This "common sense" definition is the subtle bias leveraged by scientific racists, etc. to infer and reinforce the idea that race divides humans by sub-species with innate capabilities and limitations. It was, and still is, the lever used to inject bias into Race and intelligence and related articles. As Maunus points out arbitration helps but does not address the damage already done. The process of undoing this damage is tedious, time consuming and easily hampered by civil POV pushers working against editors already exhausted by the forced march on the road to arbitration (Browsing the contributions and comments (for example) of the late User:Slrubenstein gives an indication of difficulties even the most competent editors face in this area). While giving ArbCom the power to rule on content is an obvious non-starter, would help if they could mandate some articles in the contested space be rewritten from scratch (via a sub-page or the like) with some structured behavioral oversight? Apologies if I have strayed from the topic. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would Pending Changes make it more difficult for racism to creep into articles? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think pending changes would help in this case. It would be far more useful for dealing with the hordes of drive by vandals who libel people or change minuses to pluses or suchlike stupidity.

I think what could help greatly with some of these more contentious articles is to have better style guide. The combatants seem unable to avoid getting into the "he said she said" style of writing. There's a load of editors who think they should sanitize and bowdlerize Wikipedia so the gullible masses are not perverted by wrong thinking, so they use that style as an excuse to delete everything. There are articles which describe silly things like 9/11 conspiracy theories or astrology which have been fought over but where people have not felt this driving need to delete everything or turn the articles into a mess. I believe a good first start would be to ensure that within sections separate paragraphs are normally used for the different sides rather than they be mixed up. Or else there only be a short criticism at most in a sections dealing with a topic and then there be a separate main criticisms section. Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Pending Changes will give a huge advantage to anyone who can make up his mind to reject an edit based solely on what it argues, without having to consider the facts. Racists will be one of the groups able to use the mechanism advantageously, though not the worst of them. Wnt (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm doing an interview series for The Signpost with paid editors and Wikipedians who work with them. The first one is with WikiProject Cooperation creator, User:Silver seren: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-04-16/Interview.

• The Public Relations Society of America just published a study on the state of paid editing and COI policy after conducting a survey of PR editors. The report found that sixty percent of Wikipedia articles about companies contain factual errors, and used that as motivation to push for broader editing privileges. It also noted a high level of misunderstanding and ambiguity regarding what actual policy for COI editors is. Summary: [20] Full report: [21].

• The Institute for Public Relations published a paper based on the above study called "Exploring the Problems with Wikipedia’s Editing Rule for Public Relations". Link: [22]

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you are perceived as an advocate for paid/COI editors, mightn't it be better to have someone with a more NPOV do these interviews? I would be a bad choice, for example, because I am perceived (correctly) to be a strong opponent of almost all COI/paid editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for paid/COI editors following our policies and best practices as well as engaging in constructive dialogue with unpaid, unbiased editors. I'm fairly familiar with the various debates and discussions that have happened in the last few months, and have connections to a variety of people through WikiProject Cooperation and CREWE, which makes it easy to gain access to subjects. So, I think I'm a reasonably good person to do the interviews, but you'll have to read them and let me know if you think I'm doing a fair job. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. The study reports 60% of company reps who answered either yes or no reported finding errors in their articles (in fact, only 32% of those surveyed reported finding errors). It is a self-reporting from an online survey, and should be read as such. The errors were not specified and are not verifiable. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was relying on the phys.org summary. The actual report states: "When asked if there are currently factual errors on their company or client’s Wikipedia articles, 32% said that there were (n=406), 25% said that they don’t know (n=310), 22% said no (n=273), and 22% said that their company or client does not have a Wikipedia article (n=271). In other words, 60% of the Wikipedia articles for respondents who were familiar with their company or recent client’s article contained factual errors." I'm not endorsing either interpretation as valid, reliable, or rigorous. I just thought it was worth reading to know what PR folks are thinking. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be incorrect as well. The 32% was for "their company or client’s Wikipedia articles". You could answer yes to this question if only one of your current clients had an article on Wikipedia which contained errors. Therefore this doesn't equate to 60% of articles, especially if they have more than one current client, or if their article doesn't have an error, but their client's does. - Bilby (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's really not much point to this... the guy whose talk page you're posting on has (unintentionally, I'm sure) alienated the "paid editors" who tried to engage with "the system". We can expect the smart ones to continue staying under the radar, and we can expect witch hunting for the less smart ones to continue. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I wish you were wrong, I fear you are not. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theres three types of lies: Lies. Damned Lies. And statistics. 87% of the people know you can find fake statistic to support any claim you want to make. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens, that is an attitude I really don't understand. Is there any reason if we meet a PR flack half way, they won't take it and then create another account and take the rest? If someone is unwilling to abide by a bright line "no paid editing" rule, why would they agree to abide by the consensus of independent editors?

The tradeoffs are thus: allow PR flacks to edit and expect volunteers to argue, day in, day out, with people paid to be intransigent. And if they don't get their way, PR flacks still have the ability to go rogue and edit under another account. Or ban PR flacks (save, perhaps, for a centralized forum to request changes), and ban editors who are caught violating the prohibition. We don't catch every sneaky vandal, and we won't ever catch every PR flack. But PR folks are relentless. If they don't get their way, they can sponsor dubious studies (such as the study which spawned this discussion) to support their case. They can hire a rep to spend all day, every day on the talk page. This is not done in good faith--they are paid (and ethically obligated) to represent their client's interests. Volunteers can't keep up.

If we agree that, ceteris paribus, we would all prefer not to allow PR flacks on the project, we can discuss the best measures for controlling their damage. Can we at least agree on this point? --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you are insinuating that everyone who has a specific job is a "flack" and an unethical person and this is a horrible position to be taking, along with one that is entirely and utterly wrong.

And there is no "bright line rule". If we had such a rule, we would also have to apply it to everyone else that has a COI, including article subjects. Then it would have to be extended to people who have a significant COI in other areas and then people who have even a small amount of COI and, since everyone has a COI or they wouldn't have decided to improve an article subject anyways, no one would allowed to edit.

The point is that COI is largely irrelevant. What matters is whether the user in question is following the policies and guidelines we have set out for neutral editing. If someone who has a COI can do that, which they can and have before, then them having a COI has little to nothing to do with their editing. I'm starting to understand the people who want to get rid of the COI guideline completely, since it essentially ostracizes a section of our editors, even though they have done nothing wrong. It all comes down to editing neutrally and nothing more than that. Silverseren^C 07:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excactly - content matters, not the source. If companies have the pull to get stuff published elsewhere our policies force us to follow suit. Personally I would like to go into paid editing - preferably by some tourism federation in some beautyful spot. That would allow me to visit the area, research, take pictures, ensure complete coverage in wikipedia and make a living. Any takers? Agathoclea (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverSeren, regarding your first point, I think you're confusing the subject and object of my statement. I said we should agree that edits by PR flacks should be prohibited, not that we should prohibit paid editing because they are PR flacks. But you are right to bring up the definition of a PR flack. Once we're on a firm footing with regard to the clear-cut cases, then we can turn to the grey areas.

The refrain that we should just focus on edits is popular but misguided. The evidence suggests that journalists with conflicts of interest can not write neutrally, so they have a recusal rule. Scientists with conflicts of interest, publishing heavily reviewed work, are still four times more likely to find results in favor of their paymaster than independent scientists. Most journals now have a disclosure rule, and we train students to pay attention to those conflicts of interest. Even PR professionals are ethically obligated to disclose/avoid conflicts of interest to clients, so as to let them walk and find someone else. It has even been demonstrated on Wikipedia itself. The evidence is quite clear: conflicts of interest create non-neutral decisions. Ignoring this is not pragmatic and it is not wise. Moreover, once we do spot the problematic edits, the PR flack is ethically obligated to either continue arguing indefinitely, or get another PR rep to step in and edit against consensus/start the argument all over again.

To bring us back to this study, the question is why do people go to Wikipedia rather than the corporate website? Do readers expect we're more up-to-date with our numbers than the corporate homepage? No. Readers expect that we're independent. I fail to see the margin in abandoning this independence and with it, the trust of our readers.

If you really can't see a problem with a PR flack (however extreme you would like to imagine) editing, I suspect we're at an impasse. However I can't believe anyone would buy that line. The COI RFC was set up to fail: people were asked to endorse the finding of no consensus rather than trying to reach consensus. However if we're ever going to reach a consensus on this issue we need to start from common ground. And surely, from the ArbCom decision to the RFC, there's consensus to stop "extreme cases." Let's start by defining at least some PR flacks, hired to edit, to be within that category. If not, tell me what is. --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TeaDrinker, you have given a very wise case against COI editing. The only thing I would really disagree with in your analysis is that I think you underestimate the degree of consensus support for cracking down on paid editing. There are a few vocal supporters of paid editing - some of them, paid editors - who post in every forum about this issue that they can with the same tired re-hash of nonsensical arguments. And a few who are bamboozled by them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Wikipedia is still not Paypedia" as I once opined. The issue has gotten to "anyone who has information which comes directly from a 'person, company, group, religion, place etc.', and thus can be 'accused' of a COI, should be barred from even mentioning the correct material on an article talk page, and if they do so, should be publicaly tarred" which is far beyond any reasonable position IMHO. Wikipedia needs information - from any reliable source, and then allows independent editors to weigh it. Thus while I oppose "Paypedia" I also oppose "COI Witchhunts" as well. Collect (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick couple of points on that report, as the more I look at it the more concerned I am about giving it any particular weight. Other than the issue raised by TeaDrinker about being a self-selected online survey, which is always questionable, it is worth noting that the survey was refined with the assistance of CREWE, who then helped get people to complete the survey. CREWE have a clear bias, in that it is in their interest to show a need for PR editing of the articles. So I'm very uncomfortable with their involvement in developing and completing the survey. Then it is worth noting that the survey figure of "60% of articles about companies on Wikipedia contain errors" is incorrect, as the finding was much less impressive - the best you can say is that 60% of respondents who are aware of articles about them or their current clients felt that at least one of their clients or their own article contained errors, which doesn't equate to 60% of articles in total. And, or course, those errors were being judged by PR personnel about their own clients, rather than neutral bodies, which raises concerns. Finally, the extent of those errors is unsaid - there is discussion about the types of errors, but whether or not those errors were significant, and whether or not they biased the articles, is not explored, although given that the error categories included spelling and dates, it seems likely that a significant number were not major.

The other details are interesting, as they concern the actions of respondents and their perceptions, so are accurate as far as that goes. But while these are only initial thoughts, the conclusions about error rates and any claims about the need for PR editors seem to be pretty much meaningless. I'd like to see a more neutral survey conducted before I read too much into that side of this one. - Bilby (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the erroneous claim that six out of ten of articles about companies on Wikipedia contain errors has already gained uncritical media resonance in the UK [23][24]. The original paper, which seems to be an uneasy mix of personal essay and study report (a PR style presentation?), fails to address sources of bias and other study limitations. It is somewhat unclear even where the claim comes from: When asked if there are currently factual errors on their company or client’s Wikipedia articles, 32% said that there were (n=406), 25% said that they don’t know (n=310), 22% said no (n=273), and 22% said that their company or client does not have a Wikipedia article (n=271). In other words, 60% [ie 406/(406 + 273)] of the Wikipedia articles for respondents who were familiar with their company or recent client’s article contained factual errors. I'm sorry, I missed that... —MistyMorn (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UK media coverage of this self-commissioned "research" is exactly the sort of information spoonfeeding that the PR companies want.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PR professionals want to spotlight Wikipedia not being happy with PR professionals editing articles that would be a conflict of interest. Society of PR professionals, assisted by group of PR professionals wanting to relax COI editing issues on Wikipedia, produce questionable survey of clients to produce evidence that Wikipedia needs more COI editing to correct errors. Report by PR professionals gets picked up by media - which is, of course, what PR professionals are paid to do. Sounds about right! Tony Fox (arf!) 17:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. "[P]eople who are acting as paid advocates do not make good editors. They insert puffery and spin. That's what they do because that it is what paid advocates do." - Mr. Wales at blog.philgomes.com, January 2012 Writegeist (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose that a Wikipedia article about a company says that it was founded in 1962, and it was founded in 1961. Anyone can correct this error and is welcome to do so. The problem with "ethical engagement" (a PR jargon phrase if ever there was one) is that it is a euphemism for the right of PR companies to insert their puffery and spin.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is on the ABC News website today, with the headline "Wikipedia: Survey Shows 60 Percent of Entries Have Errors, and Public Relations People Can’t Correct Them". In the spirit of instant rebuttal, it should be pointed out that:

1. The 60% figure applies only to corporate articles, and excluded the "don't know" answers in order to arrive at the 60% figure.
2. Exactly what the errors were and the articles involved are not stated in the survey.
3. Anyone is permitted to edit an article to remove unambiguous errors of fact, vandalism and libel. This is true even if an edit request is needed while the page is semi or fully protected.

Without more specifics, this survey needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. It has achieved its desired result - plenty of spin in the media about Wikipedia articles being inaccurate - but does not address the broader issue of paid advocates wanting to insert their own brand of POV into articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, it's not clear whether you saw the replies to your questions about this request for your permission to use Brian Mingus's transcription of your February 9, 2005 talk at Howard Rheingold's "Literacy of Cooperation" Stanford class before they were archived. I've compared the transcription to the video and it seems generally accurate but there are some minor and incidental errors; for example "big theme of this course" is transcribed as "big thing of course" -- if you would like someone to go through and double check to correct all such errors as a precondition of your permission, just say so and I will be happy to give it a thorough first pass. 75.166.210.164 (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very much not worth the effort.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you declining permission out of modesty? 71.212.237.94 (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those of use who lurk here have often seen people misunderstand Jimbo. Just read his previous replies, along with this reply. An adequate answer has been provided and there is no need for any more comment. Johnuniq (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is very easy to misunderstand when a yes or no question does not have a yes or no answer. 71.212.237.94 (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	thnx Myrtle Milka (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make sure you were aware of the recreation of an article you previously commented on. Dreadstar ☥ 19:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see from the DRV that you are already aware of the recreation. It's being discussed in this AFD now. Dreadstar ☥ 19:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dreadstar, are you going to notify all voters, to be fair? And Jimbo, before you involve yourself, still waiting. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hold your breath. It is unfortunate that you do not see why it is inappropriate to do what you did. An apology from you would go a long way toward restoring your reputation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I'd say the same to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, Thanks for that hostile reply, as I always suspected your actions have been even more wp:Disruptive than Jimbo had previously thought. When questioning a request for apology, the normal reaction would be to ask for specifics, not respond, "Funny, I'd say the same to you". That response is over-the-top hostile, and I think you should consider if you also have a wp:OWNership attitude for article "Mimi Macpherson". Please consider Jimbo's comments, and others here, as friendly advice. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calm yourself. That comment, while harsh, was certainly no more hostile than what it was responding to, and "friendly advice" generally excludes rants like "I always suspected your actions have been even more wp:Disruptive than Jimbo had previously thought". I have no need to ask for specifics, as the context of the comment makes its intentions quite clear. I'm not sure where in this conversation you think to see evidence of WP:OWN, but the tenor of your comment perhaps explains its content. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Nikkimaria's reputation? Those words, aimed at one of Wikipedia's finest and most hard working, and coming from you, Jimbo, are ... astounding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what's this about then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria un-wp:SALTed a redirect (diff-668) to unilaterally re-create article "Mimi Macpherson" ("expand" diff191) after it had been carefully deleted 4 September 2010 (redirect-890) 1 year 7 months earlier, and while that article was being discussed as an example of problem BLP deleted at subject's request, and then became hostile about complaints of those actions. It looks like unburying a wp:DEADHORSE after 19 months, and then beating it for another month, regardless of any current fears of the BLP living person. See other editor's comments below. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy, are you actually saying that an editor with a different view from you regarding the notability of an individual should "apologise"? For what, for not agreeing with you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to put in a personal request that we let Nikki and Jimmy work this out rather than cheering the fight. (I promise I wasn't canvassed here, I wander by this page every so often and rarely say anything, but this needs a response.) Jimmy, Nikki is so grounded and so competent that she almost never gets bothered or asks for an apology for anything, and I'm a little concerned that she seems to be upset ... hopefully the two of you can figure out a way to see eye-to-eye. I note that Jimmy has acknowledged that he's a BLP hardliner, which is completely understandable, and it seems to me that what Jimmy said initially was consistent with that role. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dan. To clarify, I don't have a problem with Jimmy's position on BLPs or his beliefs on notability, though I do think they're mistaken at times. People can disagree civilly about issues, and subsequent discussions can be beneficial in clarifying the issues or working towards compromise. What I do have a problem with is that his comment at DRV made a bad-faith assumption about my motives in creating the article, wholly independent of whether he believes the subject merits an article or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have already accepted you shouldn't have unprotected it yourself and then recreated it - you only created if after a discussion on this talkpage made it clear the recreation would be contentious/controversial and yet you did that using your tools without a single attempt to discuss with anyone - or to join in the discussion that was ongoing on Jimmy's talkpage . I think these actions.decisions you took are upsetting to some although I can't speak for Jimmy. Your actions resulted in a situation where users with concerns about specific articles have asserted they will no longer mention the subjects name on this page so as to avoid a repeat of what happened in this case. Youreallycan 15:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo describes Nikkimaria's behaviour as POINTy and Nikki replies, "In order for an action to be considered a WP:POINT violation, it must be intended to disrupt for the purpose of making a point, which I can assure you was not the case. I ask that you strike your accusation immediately." Nikkimaria may have been making a point, or may have simply decided the article deserves a run. Or both. Only she knows. I know that being a Wikipedian means never having to say you're sorry, but I think it would be a fine gesture for Jimbo to acknowledge he's assumed bad faith here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the Admins failure to discuss, are you suggesting they didn't see the ongoing discussion? Youreallycan 16:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria doesn't need to ask permission to create an article about a businesswoman who has been covered in ongoing media about her career. A career which Mimi chose, which she has promoted, and at which she is quite good! We have an article that doesn't have anything that could even remotely reasonably be considered painful or sensitive. Indeed, there's not even anything negative in this quite routine biography. What kind of person would be distressed by such a thing? No, there is nothing wikiwrong with us hosting this article, and the AfD has just confirmed the wikimoral rectitude of this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well as we speak there has been a discussion on the minor charges of the subject being included in the article. The old name and shame position - in which User:Nikkimaria supports adding the dates of all the minor convictions - diff - how long before the sex tape allegation is back in the article? and the article is returned to the state for which it was recreate protected ... etc. - Youreallycan 17:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. But, well, you know, she's notable. So that makes it wikigood that there is an article about her. It's a pity that it will hurt her, cause her distress. But {shrug} it's so important that we have this article, you see. She's notable. We have to have the article. Sorry. How it affects her is of only minor concern to us. We only take that into account if the subject is borderline notable. Clearly she's more than borderline notable, because the AfD said so. Sorry. Can't be helped. It's for the greater wikigood. You know, the immense good that this article renders humankind. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your clearly sincere in this comment , at first I thought you were being sarcastic, so , wow, just wow is all I can say in reply. - Youreallycan 18:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria has every right, by Wikimedia's norms, to create an article about Mimi and fill it with every smutty embarrassing shameful thing she's ever done, giving them due weight. As the discussion above about "Legal troubles" sections reveals, that's just normal for Wikipedia biographies. So, her resurrecting of the article, and her intention to list the subject's brushes with the law are non-controversial, everyday actions here, and endorsed by precedent, policy and, in this case, AfD.

But I was being ironical when I referred to the immense value of the article outweighing the hurt it will cause the subject. Of course this bag of gossip is worthless compared to the cost to the subject. But, we don't care, remember? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Anthony (16:00, 19 April 2012), but I also agree with DanK, so maybe Wikid77 will bow out (don't need the history, already know it, got the ANI t-shirt); I've already added my feedback about Youreallycan to the earlier ANI. There's a whole lot of busted AGF-o-meters in here, and it's unbecoming for such to be aimed at one of our most productive and knowledgeable volunteers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Afd has been closed with a consensus to keep the article--so it appears that the community has taken Nikkimaria's side on this one. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD was scraping for notability, not re-creation: The AfD was addressing whether the marginal notability was enough to keep the article, without addressing the privacy concerns of the living person. Meanwhile, the un-wp:SALTing of the redirect and recreation of the deleted article is another issue, and there was no decision as to whether the whale-watching company was the notable topic, not the person, so that, in effect, the person remains as one of marginal notability and all the tabloid issues have not been addressed in this reiteration of the article. It is like re-importing a hornet's nest, then noting there was rough consensus to keep it here, and saying, "Now everyone have a nice day". The restored hornet's nest is still there, and some wonder why Jimbo is not overjoyed. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:39/18:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this conversation over and over again around here. But as I've said from the beginning, there was no discussion in the deletion process about "salting", and the policy for "salting" doesn't call for it to be done when an article isn't recreated over and over again repeatedly. Undoing this inappropriate protection is well within this administrator's rights, though as I said somewhere in one of those many other discussions, to be absolutely technically perfect Nikkimaria should have userfied the undeleted draft (as an admin can do for any user), worked on it, then transferred it back when it was sufficiently well revised. But AFAIK the revisions were done before the complaints began anyway, so that's irrelevant. By comparison the salting was just plain wrong, as was the speedy deletion of a substantially revised article. Wnt (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Prior article deleted June 2010, redirected/salted Sept. 2010: There is some confusion in thinking the article "Mimi Macpherson" was AfD-deleted by an instant redirect and wp:SALT when the 1st AfD concluded; however, the 1st AfD-delete was decided on 23 June 2010 (almost 2 years ago):

• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mimi_Macpherson - decided "delete" 23 June 2010

Then 3 months after that decision, the full article was redirected (redir-890) to supermodel/actress "Elle Macpherson" and also immediately salted on 4 September 2010 (prot632). Hence, the salting enforced a later redirection for a prior deleted article, from 3 months earlier. I think the closing admins should have been consulted about those decisions, considering that the deletion included the request of the person. -Wikid77 21:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Text removed which clarified non-injury DUI events: As feared, already the article is being continually adjusted to remove text which had tried to balance non-injury details of negative events in the person's life. If a person has been convicted of 3 DUIs, at least mention that those DUI convictions were not after multi-car pile-ups with 6 injuries and 2 deaths. I wonder if all people realize the stigmas attached to "DUI conviction" and I think it is important to clarify the person was caught driving without headlights on a major highway (or wrong way on a one-way street), rather than omit that in favor of wondering how many people were injured in "the car crashes" which Wikipedia will not admit. Once a BLP is kept, it is important to add more encyclopedic ("all-encompassing") text to the point where obvious speculation is minimized. -Wikid77 21:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that Wikipedia does not allow its own site to be one's home page? Uhlan ^talk 21:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's something you set in your browser. It's not something Wikipedia can fix. You might want to ask on the Computing reference desk. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or are you talking about making your Wikipedia user page your personal web page? If you are talking about that, the foundation is here to support an encyclopedia and not to fund a free personal web-hosting service. You can get that at Facebook or a million other spots.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Thanks for that. Uhlan ^talk 22:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some months ago the italian wiki has been obscured some days, striking for a mooted law, the dubbed "blog killer". The Berlusconi government postponed the law after the wiki strike, but in the past days the Monti government reintroduced it. It should be discussed in the italian parliament in the next future (I don't know if days or weeks).

It's just to inform you about this, in case someone ask you something about. You can find a short better explanation in this article (english language).

Bye Jimbo. Jalo 07:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstances have changed. My own guess is that this particular attempt won't get that far. Worth watching though... (cited article in La Repubblica here) 2c, —MistyMorn (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was just for information Jalo 08:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment here is being taken as support for this. Accurate? Hipocrite (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all; Question posed more in view of future problems, can't believe this has never come up.

Problem; User (Cirt) is banned from religious and Political posting on Wikipedia

Notice very biased POV postings on a political page

Try to edit, postings are in fact the descriptions and commentary on a media file ( .ogv ) posted in the commons by the (Wikipedia) banned editor; my editing (which now has to be on Commons) to get the descriptions and commentary to NPOV elicits edit war.

Seems logical that posting on a Wikipedia page using a media file falls under what the user's edit ban includes, but in fact, Administrator (probably correctly) points out that the editing is in fact being done on Commons, and outside the jurisdiction. On Commons, the Wikipedia edit ban doesn't exist. Has this banned editor actually found a legit way of circumventing (albeit in a limited way - ie the text associated with the file on Commons, which instantly then appears on Wikipedia) an edit ban?

Just FYI, not greatly urgent, as files are now down (another problem - Wikipedia editors would need Admin tools on Commons to investigate), but plain understanding would lead me to believe there SHOULD be a rule, but neither I nor Admin can find an ACTUAL rule.

[[26]]--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an odd situation. Editors can be banned or blocked on one WMF project for certain activities, yet they are free to carry on doing the same thing even on other projects. Activities on other projects are generally not considered as evidence of wrongdoing in dispute resolution or arbitration request here on the English-language Wikipedia. At the same time, there are those here and on Commons who would like to use comments made on completed unrelated sites as evidence here. So if you (or someone with the same username as you) said something critical on Slashdot, for example, about an editor here, you might find yourself blocked or sanctioned. Isn't that kooky? I wish you the best of luck with your problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Cirt is free to do whatever he wants on Commons, but it is greatly concerning to me that even though he is arbcom banned from political BLP's on ENWP, he uploaded dozens of trolling images related to Santorum on Commons. Unfortunately with crossproject dynamics being what they are, I doubt a fix for this loophole is possible. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, I have a question related to the case of this image. The image falls under non-free content but the copyright holder (ina.fr) has allowed the use for educational purpose only on Afghanistan-related wikipedia articles. The image is meaningful because, used on wikipedia (where many people come to read), it promotes peace between the two largest ethnic groups of Afghanistan. It shows a popular Pashtun leader Abdul Qadir (Afghan leader) and the most important Tajik leader Ahmad Shah Massoud shaking hands, coming and working together. There exists no other known image of the two leaders displaying that same gesture of peace.

As fears exist that after the 2014 withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan, Afghanistan might again witness civil war which partly also may run along ethnic lines, that image is of great importance for the promotion of peace. The Taliban are largely Pashtun and the anti-Taliban groups are Tajik-led (although there exist many anti-Taliban Pashtuns also). Therefore, the image's significance is similar to one of i. e. a high ranking Israeli and Iranian leader shaking hands to work together peacefully.

Unfortunately, when used in articles it does no necessarily satisfy WP:NFCC#8 and therefore might be deleted. Now the question: In cases in which a non-free content image (whose limited use has been allowed for the purpose by the copyright-holder) contributes to the promotion of peace and understanding, should it be allowed for that reason then? Shouldn't there be added such a rationale as the promotion of peace seems to be of greater value than WP:NFCC#8? Regards, JCAla (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I wouldn't frame the issue the way you have, it strikes me that the photo easily meets WP:NFCC#8. The factors you mention, particularly that "There exists no other image of the two leaders displaying that same gesture of peace."

It is my view that NPOV promotes peace more than anything else. So while I think that Wikipedia should promote peace, what I mean by that is that we should promote NPOV thinking, i.e. calm, rational, thoughtful, fact-seeking as our primary mission. In a case like this, we should realize the educational value and learning impact of actually seeing the two leaders shaking hands - it brings home the reality of the peace process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]