User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

August edits rise as casual editors drop 5%

The current August 2012 active-editor data shows an increase in the highly active editors at 100, 250 or 1,000 edits per month, while a continued slight decline among the broad-base casual editors making 1, 5, 10 or 25 edits per month. Since the trend is old news, this month I analyzed the shift from light casual editing (down 5% over the past 12 months) towards higher edit activity by the busy editors, up 4-20%.
As noted in the past, Wikipedia is not written by "crowd-sourcing" among 100,000 editors, but rather by a core group of about 9,000 editors, with 3,500 dedicated editors (>100 edits) following policies, plus 1,546 people making >250, with 248 editing >1,000, then 52 editing >2,500, and 5 making >10,000 article-edits per month. See current enwiki data:
                 • http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm - now has August data
The above counts are for article-edits only, while talk-page edits are tabulated elsewhere in the data. The increased activity by the busy editors completely overshadows the modest decline in casual editors, such as 43 more people (248-205), since August 2011 (last year) now making >1,000 edits, as >43,000 more edits by them this month. The impact of the total multiplier effect, of editors × edit-count, means that the fewer total editors are getting more done, as more edits by each remaining person. It appears that over 70% of all edits are made by the small 3% core group, of 3,500 (3%) among the 112,739 editors, with many reverting what the casual editors had done. In fact, it might be said that "78% 80% of Wikipedia was written by 17% only 1% of the editors" (re 80/20 Rule) in 2012. See sub-thread: "#Few editors wrote most of WP edits". More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:18/17:24, 19 Sep., revised 14:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This data would be more useful if you controlled for AWB-meatbots. Gigs (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Many AWB edits are multiple improvements: It is difficult to discount any AWB-based edits as being unworthy of counting. I have seen numerous AWB-based edits which involved multiple changes to an article, with significant quality improvement. Likewise, I have seen many manual edits which changed only a minor word, and were a questionable use of an edit. As for controlling the influence on counts, I noticed that the automated bot-edits, always counted separately, have declined slightly during the past year. But, still, I am not convinced that removing, or separating, the AWB "meatbot" edits from the other user-edits would matter. Perhaps there should be data which counts 1-word or 2-word edits versus broader edits to articles. In cases such as this, cross-comparisons of typical editing patterns might help, such as analyzing AWB edits among several groups of 5,000 wp:Recent_changes to see if AWB-edit patterns are an unusual problem. Meanwhile, by whatever means people are editing, the total August-2012 edits have risen despite the 5% drop in casual editors during the past 12 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikid77 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Automated bot edits are often improvements as well. It is foolish to ignore the effect of semi-automated and automated edits when analyzing editor activity. Cluebot NG makes about 5-15 edits per minute. If Cluebot NG didn't exist, editors would have to manually revert this vandalism, and that would boost your "core contributor" count by a huge amount. The same is true of AWB-bots. When an AWB user corrects the spelling in 100 articles a day, that's 100 small edits that casual editors won't do. The effect of these processes on editing patterns is profound. Gigs (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • A couple of things to note. AWB can be used as a bot but mostly its used in semi manual mode. Although it does help to greatly increase the speed and efficiency of ones edits it also is just one of many tools, like twinkle, Hotcat and a variety of others whose edits are counted. I would also note that I question the data somewhat because Rich Farmbrough did a lot of edits himself prior to being banned from automation so I find it hard to believe that there was only a modest drop. I doubt that the remaining editors did enough edits to offset that loss and certainly counting bot edits we are missing out on a lot. With that said, the corps Wikipedia site seems to be operating progressively slower with each new release so that IMO is at least part of the reason for the decline. Also, the tabs tend to jump around a lot on slow connections so editors not familiar with the site get turned off rather quickly by have to play chase the wild button around. I have had multiple potential editors tell me that they got fed up when trying to make an edit because the buttons kept jumping and instead of hitting the talk or edit button they hit something else. A variety of other factors also impacts things but I'll leave it there for now. Kumioko (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I have been mulling over proposing the idea of changing the autoconfirm rules on a very temporary basis. The sorts of articles on common topics that often wind up semi-protected due to school vandalism are often the same kind of articles a new or casual editor may want to edit. If we dropped the edit number requirement for autoconfirm for non-tor newly registered accounts temporarily (maybe even just 24 hours), we could see what happens in terms of vandalism vs new constructive editors. Gigs (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Speaking of autoconfirm, I think we should end it. I wanted to pull together a coherent post , but since you brought it up, most of the legitimate requests are so someone can upload a logo, which we offer to do for them. Many of the rest are trying to upload something subject to copyright, and many of the others disappear when a simple question is asked. Too much work goes into the process relative to the gain. Better yet, leave it, just deep-six the request board, and on the rare occasion a legitimate need exists an admin can grant it. Oops, responded too quickly. I'm talking about Confirmed, not auto-confirmed. But if you get your proposal enacted, even more reason to eliminate Confirmed--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Few editors wrote most of WP edits

In re-analyzing the data for active-editors, I see that most article-edits were made by very few people during the past 11 years, where 310,813 people, as 8% of all editors have made 92% of edits, even though over 4.1 million people have made at least 1 edit. In comparison to the 80/20 Rule, about 80% of Wikipedia edits were made by only 1% of all editors. So, Jimbo, this supports your earlier viewpoint that a relatively tiny group has written English Wikipedia, much smaller than I had thought. Of course, we still value the contributions of all the editors combined, as the 4,129,008 Wikipedians have made 201,533,932 article-edits combined. The full table:

Distribution of article edits over registered editors, with bots

Only article edits are counted, not edits on discussion pages, etc

As an exception in this table editors with less than 10 edits overall are included

Edits >=	Wikipedians		Edits	Total
1	4,129,008	100.0%	201,533,932	100.0%
3	1,659,778	40.2%	197,567,645	98.0%
10	797,314	19.3%	192,623,547	95.6%
32	310,813	7.5%	184,436,736	91.5%
100	125,160	3.0%	174,410,495	86.5%
316	53,896	1.3%	162,195,273	80.5%
1000	24,034	0.6%	145,685,934	72.3%
3162	9,868	0.2%	120,888,868	60.0%
10000	3,102	0.1%	83,666,774	41.5%
31623	658	0.0%	42,903,101	21.3%
100000	73	0.0%	13,588,530	6.7%
316228	8	0.0%	4,230,061	2.1%

From the table, the common core of highly active editors (>=100 edits), which is currently about 3,500 monthly (for the past 3 years), has included a total of 125,160 editors, who during their stay have averaged nearly 1,400 article-edits each (174,410,495 / 125,160).

How to create an English Wikipedia: If anyone asks, "How many volunteers did it take to write today's English Wikipedia?" then the typical, every-day editors should be included among those. The typical active editors, about 9,000 monthly >32 edits, have included over 310,813 people+bots, who averaged 593 edits (184,436,736 / 310,813). Those are the people we see everyday, from time to time, who also update talk-pages, templates, categories, or project pages, where their monthly article-edits might number "59" rather than 100+. They have written 91.5% of all WP edits, as 7.5% of registered users. Then, the "80% group" who have written 80.5% of all edits, number 53,896 as 267,000 fewer than the typical editors we see day-to-day. That "80% group" (as 1.3% of all editors) has made over 316 article-edits each month, when contributing the 80.5% of all edits. However, the influence of all other editors includes the remark, "In article X, that should be this instead", and so, if some one asks, "How many volunteers did it take..." then the response should be:

"Start with 4,129,008 registered users who make at least one edit,

and then get 8% of them to average 600 edits each for the 11 years,

plus get 54,000 to average 3,000 edits, then 45% of them to make 6,000 edits,

and then 40% double again as 12,000 edits, and 30% of them make 27,000 edits each...".

Add to that the anonymous IP users:

All together 101,648,680 article edits were made by anonymous users,
out of a total of 334,414,859 article edits (30.4%).

Hence, the influence of the IP-address users is another 30% of all article-edits, while the active usernames have made 70% of the full total of 334.4 million edits. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:58, 21 Sep. revised 13:20, 22 Sep., 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• This was addressed some time ago in an essay by Aaron Swartz. Wnt (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, an excellent essay and still I suspect valid today. On Wikid77's methodology I would count as one of the two hundred most active editors here. The reality of course is that my eradication of the same typo across a hundred articles is no more valuable than someone who eradicates a hundred typos from one article, and there could be thousands of editors who have added more content than I have. ϢereSpielChequers 16:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • It would also be interesting to know how many were made using AWB and how many were made manually. I would suggest that 99% of any edits made using AWB would be minor. Although I do disagree somewhat with the argument above. Just because the edits are minor like typos doesn't mean they are any less important. Even these little edits lead to incremental improvements to the articles and to the overall credibility of the site. Without these improvements to typos and such we would have a lot of them and people would be less inclined to use the site because all the articles would look like crap. Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Rewrites can make articles night-and-day better: Also, the concept that "only new content matters" (not really) ignores those cases where text was jumbled, templates had wrong parameters, and off-topic text rambled. It only takes a few jumbled phrases, with some spam text or wrong templates, to make an article "too suspicious" to trust for reading. Hence, rewrites by busy editors should not be denigrated as "non-content" when they made the content acceptable to readers. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Imagine a world where articles are written by people who rarely edit: Not Wikipedia, of course, this is reality, but perhaps in "The Twilight Zone". I remember long ago having read that essay ("Who writes Wikipedia"), but I was not in the mood to analyze the implications. Let us consider now:

• What kind of person would write articles, but rarely edit them?
• Would 3,000 highly active Wikipedians really each make 27,000 edits for punctuation, or renaming categories, but have no interest in adding content or new articles?
• Would an IP editor add content during 40 edits over 2 days and never return?

The whole concept of an encyclopedia-written-with-drive-by-content is really bizarre, when thinking about the real-world implications. Of course, reviewing the contributions of many editors will prove that highly active editors have added masses of content, and created thousands of complete articles, rather than waiting, on the sidelines, to reformat the next anonymous paragraph added by a "40-edit" user. Plus, the new content is much easier to add by regular editors who spot a pattern and add similar paragraphs to numerous articles in a set. Perhaps that essay did not cross-compare large enough samples, and imagined that 500 thousand articles could be understood by looking at a few dozen. Also, for people who do not use rotating IP addresses, it might seem like an IP user who made 15 edits never returned, rather than returned 180 times using related IP addresses in the range. The article "Édith Piaf" is the "La Vie en Rosetta Stone of the rotating-IP rosary" to decipher how an IP-address user (209.105.200.54) could create major articles (Piaf, Maria Callas, kings of France), then return multiple times using most of 200 IP addresses during 5 months to make over 2,000 edits (400 per month) as one of the top editors of late 2002. Yes, the evidence shows Wikipedia was written (and expanded) mostly by a small group of editors, but many were repeat, rotating-IP users. Once they changed IP addresses, it gave the impression of content added from a drive-by account, rather than a core editor returning 200 times. Perhaps consider the reverse experiment: only allow each user to edit 50 times to add/adjust content, and then see what a "drive-by" encyclopedia would really look like. How long would it take to cover all the symphonies of Mozart and Beethoven? How many towns in each region would have articles? Would the top 500 rock music albums have articles? Would there be over 1.5 million sports articles, with 71,000 footballers? -Wikid77 (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that a large proportion (over 50% I'd guess) of the higher-figure editors never or relatively rarely add basic text or image content (or rewrite it) or new articles, and would love to know how high that proportion is, and how it is moving over time (increasing, I'm pretty sure). This is especially the case in the very highest groups by edit count; once someone is doing over 3-4,000 edits per month you can be pretty sure they are not writing stuff, with the odd exception. On the other hand there are editors who write fairly long new articles off-wiki and only rack up a handful of edits each month as they add them and links to them, and are all but invisible to these statistics. A major constraint on the usefulness of our editing statistics is that it cannot analyse edits by types in this way. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Need new-content statistics from large samples: The relative proportion of new-content edits would be good to know, and I think samples could be taken of many articles. However, Jimbo has warned us to collect very large samples, and moderate-sized samples have shown severe misjudgment, plus Jimbo knows the size problems, due to having been in contact with so many editors' detailed issues over the past 11 years. That is why his opinions can be difficult to follow, because many of us have never talked with so many thousands of editors and their article sets. We look at 500 articles and think we know, but really have no idea, like someone in central Kansas imagining the world's oceans, or mountains. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Must we use a sample at all? The whole lot should be analysed, but just for recent periods. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Compare earlier editors to later years: I was also curious to see when Jimbo's view of "1-2 thousand core editors" from 2005 expanded into the 125,000 (or so) that are tallied in the edit-counts now. The reason I suggested large samples was to simplify the task of analyzing all 335 million edits, where one IP user has used 180 related IP-address numbers, or might be a logged-out frequent username. Logically, I cannot imagine full sets of articles were written with "drive-by" content, nor accept that 100 thousand users added mostly content in 15 edits over 2 days and never returned (unlikely). Instead, the most-likely situation was many editors returning for several months each, until burnout, but some used rotating-IP addresses to seem like 50, or 180, different IP users. Hence, if each 100 IP numbers and some usernames were the same person, then 100,000 of them was really 1,000 separate people, rather than 100,000 anonymous contributors who added content for 2 days and never returned. From my experience, if there are 255 rotating-IP numbers, then only rarely does a user access the same IP address, such as the "Maria Callas" author rotating in the range 200.*.*.2-197, but re-using IP addresses only 3 times each, to seem like 180 separate editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is interesting, the basic premise that there is a typology of editors (and there are academic papers discussing this) is a human classification reaction. Whether there is a bimodal or multimodal distribution is a basic question that is unanswered as far as I know, let alone the proportion, absolute number of different types of change in relation to total number of edits. As far as images are concerned the challenge would be great since images uploaded to WP often end up on commons with a different uploader. Also we have editors who have worked on items on Citizendium that have been ported back, so there's another confounding factor. Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC).
  

• Okay, WP is a network of editors, many working offline: Overall, it does seem like trying to oversimplify the full network of hundreds of thousands of editors, many of whom create whole articles, or whole paragraphs, offline or with many edit-preview sessions, to add major content with "1 edit". Hence, there would be a huge difference in edit-count for new content created by previewing whole sections, versus someone who added many phrases during 30 edits: 400 versus 12,000 edits. Plus when an article is rewritten, it might be difficult to trace the original work, because deleting 1,000 characters while adding 1,028 could look like a content change of +28 or only 4 words different, but could be 1,028 letters of either new text or rearranging the older text so that it appeared new. Meanwhile, people who remove awkward phrases or cut rambling text to reword an article in accurate, neutral tone, could be viewed as either -270 characters or a mere "reformatter" because the size was not "+270" after the edit. Also, because redirects can be expanded into articles, then someone could be credited with creating "2,000" articles, who just created thousands of tiny redirects which other editors expanded in 2,000 cases. However, I wanted to show the proof of how "180" IP editors, who make 15 edits each to "List of French people" (or ~Canadians or ~Russians) or kings of France, can be one person. The rest is a case of logical deduction, to show how every small town in a region, or article in a set, cannot be written with similar wording from random "drive-by" content. The 2,000 articles in the "List of asteroids" were not created by 10,000 editors adding 13 asteroids each, but rather by copying and splitting those 37 huge data files from Harvard. Then, compound that with images copied to Commons. Perhaps that should be enough proof, but I think more needs to be emphasized, and better explained in a new essay. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

WMF involvement with Gibraltarpedia

Jimmy, Roger Bamkin has posted a partial timeline of his involvement in Gibraltarpedia. In it, he states "11th July - Gov. of Gib and WMF sign MOU. WMUK and me/John are not involved or consulted.(I was surprised by this)". Are you aware of the nature of that MOU (memorandum of understanding) or who negotiated it? I believe that WMUK have been negotiating an MOU with the government of Gibraltar for some months now - has anyone from the WMF seen it or been consulted? It seems like it would be useful to have a properly vetted MOU that can serve as a model for future projects (i.e., Tangerpedia, Chepstowpedia).

On 12 July 2012, WMF staffer Tilman Bayer posted an item on the WMF blog entitled "Volunteer’s efforts win Gibraltar the right to be the first Wikipedia ‘city’". The item was authored by "Steve Virgin, Wikimedia UK". Steve Virgin is a former Trustee of WMUK but did not get re-elected at the WMUK AGM some moths earlier. Whether or not the byline misleads people into thinking that Virgin represents the WMUK, it is clear that this byline gives the impression to readers that WMUK is involved in the project. In reality, this was a for-profit project between the Tourism Ministry of Gibraltar and two individuals who had been involved in Monmouthpedia, promoted by the "PR wizard" of Monmouthpedia. According to Roger Bamkin's "declarations of interest" related to Gibraltarpedia on the WMUK site, "Roger has a business relationship with John Cummings and Steve Virgin". "Knowing what we know now, do you think it was appropriate for this to have appeared on the WMF blog? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, is this Gibraltar - WMF MOU secret? As the project is having quite an impact here, can we discover what it says? I have made a proposal at WP:VPR#Pre-approval of collaborations that, for joint projects between Wikipedia and commercial organizations like the Gibraltar Ministry of Tourism, some sort of pre-authorisation is desirable before we get committed. Your view would be welcome. JohnCD (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As I have not seen and had nothing to do with the negotiations of this MOU, I'm unable to comment on specifics. I can offer my own opinions on the general principles, and no one will be surprised by my views. I think chapter boards have a primary duty of loyalty to the charity, and that anything that even hints in any small way at a conflict of interest by a board member of a chapter should be dealt with in an extremely careful and proper way. I know that the WMF and WMUK are talking about the ramifications of this situation and expect and urge that all parties be extremely transparent about what happened here so that we, as a movement, can learn from it.

Paid advocacy is a scourge against which we must all be vigilant. For us in the editing community, one thing I think we should be examining very carefuly is how and why we had such an absurd number of Gibraltar-related DYKs. There's no editorial justification for it and so whatever process allowed it to happen is a broken process. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comments could equally well apply to the question of how and why we had such an absurd number of University of Michigan basketball related DYKs. There almost certainly wasn't any money changing hands there (although I'm sure the team and brand itself involves very large amounts of money), but the number of DYKs involved is way, way higher than the Gibraltar ones. Ten times more? Even more than that?

How many of the articles about Gibraltar do you imagine were on subjects that were not notable? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK has long been subject to having a strong skew to particular subjects, it is a direct consequence of this being a crowd sourced project where people choose their topics. I'm tempted to suggest some sort of throttle on it such that very active DYK writers are limited to a set number of DYK nominations per month. FAC only allows FA writers to have one live nomination at a time. As DYK needs far more nominations perhaps we could say that any editor who has written half a dozen DYKs is subsequently limited to writing one "first pick" DYK every week, and similarly with second, third, fourth picks and so forth. Then the DYK team would aim to use all the "first picks" and top up with others as needed. Of course this wouldn't affect Gibraltar as I believe their DYKs were written by many people including newbies, but then the Gibraltar themed DYKs seemed a more diverse bunch to me than some of our previous trending topics at DYK. ϢereSpielChequers 21:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that it is a high priority for the WMF blog team to keep the Wikimedia blog open and inviting to the entire movement. (To this end, earlier this year we moved the bulk of the blog's scheduling and drafting process into the public, on Meta, to facilitate participation.) My colleague Matthew Roth and I routinely publish guest posts by chapters or other volunteers. If anyone reading this knows of projects or activities by Wikimedians which may be of interest to the blog's audience, and wants to contribute such a post, feel free to contact us!

While we try to ensure that these guest posts are in scope, and we support guest authors in copyediting and formatting issues etc. (such as the technicalities of including translations in the Gibraltarpedia post), we approach these guest posts with a general attitude of trust and do not demand to vet or endorse the described activities, or that the authors provide us with evidence for every statement to enable fact-checking. As usual with guest blog posts, the signing author is responsible for opinions and statements expressed in them. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Was this statement made this broadly intentionally?

"Paid advocacy is a scourge against which we must all be vigilant."

I am not asking to be snarky. I believe I have made substantive and positive contributions as a paid advocate, but am still gauging how welcome I actually am here. I am open to leaving if I am really that unwanted. Corporate 22:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked your contributions, but given your openness about what you do, I can't see that there would be a consensus objecting to your presence. By the way, are you aware of Wikipedia:COI_certification? JN466 00:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I see my firm listed as a desired participant, but I previously decided to pass.

A look at my user page shows some works I have contributed to with a COI that I am proud of, but it is not within my authority to make a promise implied by COI+ to be neutral in every case and/or to exceptional standards.

In my opinion, it is our greatest misconception that we think PR COI only has to do with individuals who have the authority to put Wikipedia's objectives above their own, when in fact a PR person merely represents the corporate bureaucracy they support and has very little decision-making authority.

I would even go as far as saying that - in some cases - I will be in a position to provide content I know is bias on behalf of an organization who has ignored my consult. (most PR agencies - our advice is ignored all the time) However, if I follow the Bright Line, we will get feedback from an editor and improve it without doing any harm to Wikipedia and while providing good content that is valuable. Corporate 03:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No you won't. You can't. Not only that, but you can't even understand why you can't.

I get the "I am proud of [it]" part. Of course you are! Everyone wants to be proud of themselves! It's only natural, and healthy. That's why you can't understand that you can't "without doing any harm to Wikipedia... provid[e] good content that is valuable [to my client]."

I'm not proud of you, though. I'd like to be; I'd like to be proud of all my fellow-editors here at Wikipedia. But, you know, to some extent this has to be earned. I mean: "I will... provide content I know is bias[ed] on behalf of an organization...". I can't be proud of that, no.

And it's not just a matter of providing biased content. It's that your own mind is skewed by the position you are in.

I mean, I see that one of your clients is Honeywell Aerospace, for instance. I'm not interested in working on that article, but if I was, in the course of my research I'm sure statements like this would make my ears prick up: "Honeywell has long been regarded by many as a leading symbol of corporate immorality and irresponsibility... unwilling to take responsibility for clearing cluster bombs that remained in Vietnam after the war was over... attempted to open a testing range for weapons (including antitank shells with depleted uranium) on land in South Dakota sacred to the Sioux... bribery scandal involving two Navy officers..." yadda yadda yadda. (To be honest, without a lot more research I can't figure out the relationships between Honeywell Aerospace, Honeywell Defense Systems, Alliant TechSystems, AlliedSignal (of prolonged-dumping-of-Kepone-into-the-James-River fame), and various other players (by the time I finish this, they'll probably have spun off their KillTech division to merge with OmniCorrupt to form United DeathStar or something - it's hard to keep up), so maybe some of the above doesn't apply to Honeywell Aerospace specifically. But then again, who knows what else their busy busy fingers are into!)

I mean to me, as a Wikipedia editor my inclination is to ask questions like: is this true? Is it sourced? Is it important? Is it fair to point this out? What's the real deal here? And so on. But if I was a corrupt flack, my questions would be different! Right? Probably like: if I leave this out, will anybody notice? If it's already there, can I get away with removing it? If not, how can I best weasel-word it to take away the sting? Where can I get a blizzard of cites for my side of the story? How do I best deal with recalcitrant editor X... flattery? Push the NPOV-NPOV-NPOV-let's be fair-every-story-has-two-sides button over and over? Wear him down? Recruit him? Get some of my Wikibuddies on his case? Or what? And so on. (And of course you will! It's your job! Chicken dinners don't buy themselves, you know!)

See the difference? Different questions! Over here... Wikipedia editor. Over there... corrupt flack. Different!

(And if you're not asking questions like that, then you suck at your job, are betraying your clients, and need to be in a different business, you know.)

However... in your case, you've noted "...greatest misconception [is] that we think PR COI only has to do with individuals who have the authority to put Wikipedia's objectives above their own, when in fact a PR person merely represents the corporate bureaucracy they support and has very little decision-making authority." Assuming that by "individuals" and "a PR person" and so forth you mean "me" (which I think is a fair assumption) then you really are in a tough position. I don't know, maybe there's some sorrow behind that passage, or resentment, or uncertainty, or quiet desperation. Or maybe not; I shouldn't presume, I guess.

It's complicated. Life's complicated. Moral choices are hard! And I get that. I've done plenty of Ministry of Peace Defense Department work myself (they've got the money!) and I know how how to sell myself on that ("Better US than the REDS!") and so on.

But some things one doesn't do. Messing with the Wikipedia is one of them, in my book. So yeah I do it take kind of to heart, yes.

But I don't blame you, really. If it's not you it really will just be someone else. So I don't have the heart to answer your question "I am really that unwanted" in the affirmative. Better you than Greg Kohs I guess! It's not you, it's structural. Money will always find its level, you're just the conduit of that. If anyone's to blame it's Jimmy Wales (Hi Jimmy, sorry!) or whomever else is responsible for setting up the structure -- or non-structure -- such that there's really no mechanism available or even possible (I fear) to prevent you and you kind from despoiling the Wikipedia in this manner. I'm not even mad about it; I understand the utopian drive in people and honor it to some extent although these things don't usually end well. It's just sad, more than anything, really. A lot of work has gone into the Wikipedia and I'm fond of it.

I'm sorry about the crack about the chicken dinners. Maybe it's braces for the kids, or your mom's cancer meds, or just sufficient income to attract a suitable partner to make a family with, or something. Christ knows I haven't walked your path so I'm not fit to judge you, really.

But from the crooked timber of mankind no straight thing was ever made, Kant said, and I suppose he was probably right. Herostratus (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering the amount of discussion of GibraltarpediA on this talk page, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA may be of interest. Fram (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Jimbo? Come on

You should know our rules better than anyone, at least in a broad sense. And you should certainly know how original research works. Can you please explain what this and this are? I don't care if you heard it directly from the horse's mouth, which you apparently did, it's OR regardless. Seriously, if you were anyone else, this probably would have been at ANI already. Silverseren^C 20:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong about the rules of Wikipedia. Everyone who thinks it is better to have an error in Wikipedia rather than correct information is always wrong at all times. There is nothing more important than getting it right. I'm glad that we're finally rid of the "verifiability, not truth" nonsense - but it's going to take a while before people really fully grasp what that means.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that life will end on 21 December 2012. Articles claiming that this is a fringe tehory are "wrong" and hding this is an error? We should get it right! After all, even though it may be verifiable that mainstream sources don't believe this, it is the truth that it will happen. Will you please change all relevant articles? What you are claiming here is the justification for every POV warrior, fringe advocate, and PR company. Everyone claims to present the truth. We don't accept that at face value, not from you, not from me, not from anyone else. Fram (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not a very compelling argument. We can and must use thoughtful editorial judgment. A random bonkers claim like "life will end on 21 December 2012" is something that thoughtful and trustworthy editors will consider and dismiss as... well, random and bonkers. If you have a serious reason for thinking that I am lying (or randomly bonkers in some way, or... what?) or that she is lying (or randomly bonkers in some way, or... what?) then let's have a thoughtful discussion. Perhaps there is a very standard and widely accepted method for transliteration from Arabic to English, and her preferred version violates the rules in some obvious way, and is therefore unlikely to become standard. (That's false, by the way, but it is at least the sort of objection that we might thoughtfully consider.) But simply chanting the long-discredited mantra that we must continue in error when we know something to be wrong, due to some rules of Wikipedia, is wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

But you were not defending this instance, you were making very categorical and broad statements. Any reason why your broad statements suddenly only apply to your actions, but not to other situations? Fram (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I stand by the categorical and broad statements. I don't really know what you are asking me, exactly, but I wrote more at the talk page of the Will.i.am article and perhaps that will be helpful? I think that we absolutely do (must, really) have a thoughtful community of trusted editors who make editorial judgment calls up to and including in some cases acknowledging that reliable sources have something wrong. That's not an invitation to crackpots or cranks. We are not transcription monkeys, merely writing down what the sources say - we are editors. We use our editorial judgment all the time, and when we get to an interesting edge case, we discuss the details. Let's pick a different widely respected editor, because it's not about me. There are many editors who might be contacted by the subject of an article with a correction, and there are better and worse ways of dealing with it. One of the bad ways of dealing with it would be to say "I don't care how you spell your name unless you blog about it." Or "I don't care if it hurts your mother's feeling, a random blog says that's your name." A good way of dealing with it is to adjust the article and have a thoughtful discussion to see if there are any reasonable objections. So far, for both of these changes, there have been none.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There is one now at Talk:will.i.am. Fram (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and please don't claim that I am inserting "falsehoods into biographies.", that is a personal attack and a WP:BLP violation.[1] I am reporting what reliable sources state, you are replacing it with unverifiable comments. That the name in the sources is a "falsehood" is your belief, not an established fact. Something that is disputed or in doubt is not necessarily a falsehood. Please be more considerate in your edit summaries. Fram (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a falsehood. Please do not insert it again. There is nothing inconsiderate about my saying so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not the first time that your opinion trumps policies or even basic civility. Fram (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What if you had misunderstood the conversation or made a mistake? Then you are overriding what the sources say with something other wikipedians can't check, we have to take it on faith that it is true and that you have not made a mistake. Why not perhaps change it on the spot and then ask him to send a quick email to X ask some form of validation for a permanent record? Say it is required to make sure the change sticks. It gives everyone else piece of mind, and ensures that no mistakes were made; it also gives the individuals who notice mistakes a way to correct them in the future when you aren't around. Something like the spelling of a name should be fine from a primary source from the individual. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

We are indeed, and we do indeed. Contradictory sources are a fact of life, especially for older subjects, obviously we weigh a number of issues and decide which reliable source to go with. If I'm questioned, I'm happy to explain my reasoning. That being said, it's best to have a reliable source available to the public to point to, and those of us who do not rub elbows with the elite cannot count on having CNBC write up what someone told us and we're just repeating.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not an invitation to cranks and crackpots, but that is the way it will be perceived by cranks and crackpots. They may even quote you, saying original research is fine if they know it to be true; they saw a flying anti-gravity machine, or homoeopathy worked, or they saw reptoids in charge of the government. Undermining WP:V gives these POV pushers a greater ability to push unverifiable nonsense they believe to be true into articles. Ideally, in most articles, people will not add information they know to be false. If people add information they know to be false but the source says it, then they are an idiot. The problem is with being sure it is the exceptional case. If people who are the subject of articles have corrections, they should have a process to submit it in some way so that there is a verifiable albeit primary source which can be used (something like this may exist already through OTRS or similar). If I met a notable physicist and changed his article according to what he told me, I would expect it to be reverted even though it's true, because no one else has any way of knowing whether I actually met the individual or whether I misheard, or he misspoke or a bit of both (related Eyewitness identification). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're joking, Silver. This is the Roth question all over again. Yopienso (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes and, as with the Roth question, we need something to reference. Referencing that "this person told me so" is not a reliable source. Have the person put the information on their personal website or something, then we have a source we can reference. Silverseren^C 21:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Silver? Come on. Before posting on Jimbo's page, you should have run a simple Google search of "Tawakkol Karman." Yopienso (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

These edits by Jimbo seem reasonable to me. If we have a policy that a living person isn't a reliable source as to the spelling of his or her own name, then either that policy needs to be changed, or that policy needs to be overridden by WP:IAR in situations like these. To take a contrary position, by interpreting a policy such as WP:OR in an extreme fashion, is the sort of thing that leads outsiders to think that sometimes Wikipedia is ridiculous.

To be sure, the living person's word might not be an irrebuttable source as to the spelling of her or her name. If someone marshaled evidence that the vast majority of the written sources use a different spelling, we would certainly need to discuss the situation. Howver, I don't see that either you or anyone else has located any such evidence.

I don't agree that if any other editor than Jimbo were involved, this matter would be at ANI. I think that if any other editor than Jimmy were involved, either this issue would be discussed calmly on the relevant talkpages, or no one would bring it up at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't that the living person isn't a reliable source, of course they're a reliable source, however, per WP:V, we need something to physically reference, so the living person needs to make the information available in some form or fashion on the internet or in a printed, published work that we can then reference. "He said, she said" information is not a reference and never will be a reference, no matter how reliable the "he" and "she" are. Silverseren^C 21:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I initially wrote the same thing as Brad, but in much less polite terms. My original comment was lost in a slew of edit conflicts, which is fortunate; that's one less diff that will show up in the eventual ArbCom case against me. :P So I'll just say: SilverSeren, it would probably be worthwhile to rethink your approach to minor content disputes. There are actually other options besides a) go to AN/I or b) condescendingly dress down an experienced editor. For example, secret option c) entails using the article talkpage... MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally, you go to someone's talk page to discuss something like this. And I wasn't meaning to be condescending, just extremely disappointed, because Jimbo should know better. Silverseren^C 21:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)News report less than 3 hours ago. Yopienso (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Silver seren, you are degenerating into self-parody. Silver seren, while your point might have merit in other contexts, I think it would be taking things too far to implement it in this instance. Imagine yourself, or any other good-faith editor, in Jimbo's position. "You know, Jimmy, the title of the Wikipedia article about me spells my name wrong." "I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to take your word for it." "What the ... ? " Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The proper response to such a question would be, "Alright, all you have to do is explain the proper version of your name on your website or blog and let me know, then I can go ahead and change it." And, presumably, both of the people had internet access right then too (because who doesn't these days?) and could have added the info to their website or blog and then Jimbo could have changed it right then as well, referencing that website or blog. Silverseren^C 21:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So, if I'm told some information directly by an article subject, my posting of it should be accepted...I think not. Are there any other editors whose testimony about directly obtained information from the subject constitutes WP:RS, or is it reserved only for Jimbo? If there are others, who are they and how did they get that status? DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Silverseren^C 22:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about the person's name, not some denial of a controversial incident. See also further discussion on the article talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the significance. It's a very simple point. Is Jimbo the only editor whose word on what a subject says is a reliable source, or are there others in your view? DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're on national TV with the subject at the time, DeCausa, we'll give you a pass. I think any editor who reveals their real name and is known as a reliable source would also be considered one. You and SilverSeren and Resolute are providing examples of the descent of Wikipedia into nonsense. Yopienso (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Then show me where Jimbo used this national TV show as a reference for the change. Otherwise, it is a direct failure of WP:V. Silverseren^C 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, there has to be some common sense and common respect here or we have lost our humanity and become wiki-lawyering cyberbots. Do you have to see them on TV to believe Jimbo when he says, "I met her at Clinton Global Initiative in New York. I have moved the article to her preferred spelling"? You want policy to trump common sense. If we follow that to its end, WP will relegate itself to a prim and lonely little corner in Absurdland.

But, wait! We do have a policy for that--it's called the Fifth Pillar:

Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be corrected.

Jimbo got it exactly right. Yopienso (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo himself has talked about multiple times before how we shouldn't be making changes before sources write about them, that we are supposed to reflect the news as it is reported and not make the news ourselves, that there is no problem in waiting for a news source to actually be published before making a change, because there is no deadline. Things don't need to be immediate. Silverseren^C 22:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Could something like this not be done through OTRS then? The subject themselves may be a RS, but the editor is not, so I'm going to have to agree with SilverSeren here. There isn't another editor on this project who could get away with "because I was told different" to justify such a change. Resolute 22:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're on national TV with the subject at the time, SilverSeren, we'll give you a pass.

Please see my post above of 21:57 that I should have put at the bottom. Too many edits since then to move it now. Yopienso (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• The news article Yopienso linked up above is actually pretty hilarious and also sad. The author, John Carney, clearly gets how Wikipedia works and what our rules are and thank goodness someone in the press has finally figured that out. And he discusses our rules on sourcing and everything and states that Jimbo should probably have his two changes reverted, but then also acknowledges, in self sarcasm, that by writing this article, he's providing a secondary source to use for the changes, even though, in my opinion, he doesn't sound like he wants to. Silverseren^C 22:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

JW, you WP:JERK! WP:POINT! Chrisrus (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Will.i.am, I do not see where the article (pre-Jimbo's edit) had a source for the "Jr." in the man's birth name, so what Jimbo did was basically to remove an unsourced fact in a BLP. Generally that is viewed as a good thing. The fact that he did it because Will.i.am told him that was the case does not turn a good thing into a bad thing. If Will.i.am had told Jimbo that at the age of five he wrote seven novels, and Jimbo put that in the article, we would be having a different discussion. For a much closer call, if the article originally did not have the "Jr." and Jimbo put it in because that is what Will.i.am told him, without finding a written source... well, I'm not sure. That might not be so good. But that's not what happened. As for Tawakkol Karman, in skimming quickly through the refs, I spotted at least two sources for that spelling (including the New York Times), and other sources for several other spellings. I actually did not see a source for Tawakel, which is where the article had been, but assuming there was such a source, what Jimbo did was replace one sourced fact with another, conflicting, sourced fact (from a high-quality source, the New York Times), and he did so because the subject told him which one of the sourced facts was correct. That seems okay too. Neutron (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And the removal of Will.I.am's middle name from the article? A middle name which, if you do a search, is used in a ton of news articles? Silverseren^C 23:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

• Need essays to explain WP:IAR and common sense: This is a good example of the need to write essays that explain wp:IAR and how an expert (or the person) can alert someone to a fact, and then the sources can be quickly be re-analyzed to see that the fact fits within the overall article. She said the preferred spelling of her name is "Tawakkol Karman" which Google gives 378,000 hits, versus "Tawakel Karman" which Google gives just 90,000 hits, so then look within the wp:RS reliable sources to confirm the major usage. There is also the matter of wp:Civility when speaking with a notable person, and trying to quibble over something like the spelling of their name, and so that prompts the use of editorial judgment, as to whether to debate such a trivial issue. Of course, these cases must be balanced to beware someone punking Wikipedia, but such events would be very rare. We had related problems with "Hurricane Katrina" where people not from the eastern area kept rejecting the notion that waves were 20–30 feet (6.1–9.1 m) high in Mississippi or Alabama, because the French Quarter, Garden District, and downtown New Orleans did not even flood, and few people in their lives have seen continual waves at the shore over 20 feet (6.1 m) high, pushing 5–9 miles (8.0–14.5 km) inland. It seemed impossible. Meanwhile, all the media hype was imagining "Katrina came to New Orleans and parked", whereas the reality was that Hurricane Katrina travelled up the entire U.S. state of Mississippi, flooding coastal areas through 3-storey levels, but never going closer to New Orleans. It took a long time before some people would even believe the documented sources, because they considered everyone else wrong, even though that disregarded common sense. They did not really understand what a major hurricane does, and that downtown New Orleans was not in the heart of the hurricane zone, unlike with Hurricane Isaac or others. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

We've been commenting on the Tawakkol Karman talk page, which is normally where these discussions are carried out. In the article, the most used transliterations of her name have been cited at the very beginning of the article for some time now, including the one now used (see the anglicized as section). It should be noted that the article was created before she had won the Nobel Peace Price and at a time when writers used different forms of her name transliterated to a greater extent than they do now. A year after the award, it much easier to see that this is in fact the common name found in most sources. Furthermore, she has been using this version in her signed editorials, which also appears in a list at the bottom of the article. It only a matter of when her spelling was changed. Crtew (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

See, you guys keep focusing on the Karman edit while ignoring the Will.i.am edit. Is that because Karman is an easier explanation, while there is little to no explanation for the Will.i.am one? It's quite interesting to watch. I mean I would think sources like this would be fairly decisive:

"the 37-year-old -- real name William James Adams -- told a student audience." - News.com.au

"At the JPL event, the artist, born William James Adams Jr., also announced..." - Billboard

"When it comes to making hit records, few are as consistent as William James Adams Jr., or Will.I.Am." - NPR

"William James Adams Jr., better known as Will.i.am of the popular music group Black Eyed Peas, was named Intel's new director of creative innovation" - PC World

How exactly do you explain this one away? Silverseren^C 00:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the same Roth/Karman question: the actual subject of a BLP told a real live WP editor who is known by his real name to him and to us that there was a minor error in the BLP. It would be rude (and silly) of Jimbo to say, "Sorry, you'll have to have your birth certificate published and then I might change it." His edit summary was:

Revision as of 16:14, 24 September 2012 (edit) (undo)

Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs)

(He told me just now that this is his name - not "Jr" and no middle name. Will explain further on talk when I get time in a few hours.)

The Fifth Pillar is the basis for this leeway. Now please give Jimbo a chance to explain when he has a minute. Yopienso (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Except, unlike the Roth situation that was about a book character, it seems quite unlikely that Will.i.am doesn't have a middle name. And since his father is named William Adams Sr, the Jr. would make sense in his name. It might be the sort of situation where he doesn't want that to be associated with his name, but unfortunately, like the Toure situation, that's not how a biography works. We have to mention it at least once in the article. Silverseren^C 01:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to comply with the request of the subject of the BLP. If later investigation turns up conclusive evidence that the subject was wrong or suppressing the truth, the article can be fixed. (The beauty of wiki! No?) Meanwhile, no substantial harm has been done, and a courtesy has been extended to the subject.

You don't say what your basis is for thinking "it seems quite unlikely that Will.i.am doesn't have a middle name." My husband doesn't, even though every one of his five brothers and five sisters do.

You don't say how you know will.i.am's father's full name. The article says the two never met. My father was a junior, but since his father died when Dad was a toddler, he never used the Jr. Official documents do not include it.

Or maybe you just know a whole lot about will.i.am's personal life. I don't. Yopienso (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And that's why, at the very least, we should have a published statement by Will.i.am in order to make the change, at minimum. At this point, the change wasn't made based on anything other than what one heard. Silverseren^C 02:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• IGNOREALLRULES: Use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Accuracy trumps a mindless doctrinaire approach. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Accuracy is a very imprecise term. We've had to deal with a lot of different situations where, if we just believed what the subject said, we would be actually making the articles inaccurate. Blind rote faith in BLP subjects is not the way to go. Silverseren^C 02:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, accuracy is a very precise term, as is precision. Anyway, I'd like to point out that this is absurd. You are essentially demanding that 1.) a public figure put out a press release to satisfy Wikipedia's content policies so that we may fix something that is not true, and 2.) we demand this in all cases, including their name. Anyway, the people have spoken, and they are very gently trying to tell you that you're completely and totally wrong. You can continue to argue the point, but why? Even if you're not willing to bow to the collective wisdom of others, how about just picking your battles?--Tznkai (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Accuracy is imprecise in this context. And I am not asking them to put out a press release, all they have to do is make a statement on their website, their blog, their facebook, or their twitter. Anywhere where we can actually cite them and provide a link as a reference, per the policy requirements of WP:V. And there are several people in this discussion that agree with me, that Wikipedia needs to have proper referencing, because without it, everything is just original research. Silverseren^C 02:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see no difference in principle between what Jimbo did, and say some kid adding what he heard the drummer from his favorite band say about his middle name in conversation at a meet n greet. Now, there is, perhaps, a difference between an emo kid and Jimbo, but that means that we are allowing matter to remain based on the credibility of the contributor, and I find that rather dicey.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think its dicey. Do you think he might be lying? If you don't, what's the problem? He's the founder, can we cut him a little slack? (Also, don't know about the middle name, but FWIW "Junior" is not part of a name but just used to differentiate people, in the same way that "II" is not actually part of Queen Elizabeth's name. Often people drop the "Jr." when their father dies (since differentiation is no longer needed) or for any other reason. So as far as that part goes, personal preference would tend to rule, unless his father also is famous and/or has an article and the Wikipedia needs some method of differentiation.). Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Except that who the editor is is irrelevant. Are you going to accuse other editors of lying if they made such a change? The point is that the same standards have to be held for everyone and, no, he gets no less slack than anyone else. Furthermore, what about the middle name? Silverseren^C 03:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I do not think Jimbo would lie about such a thing. My point is that we don't want to rely on editor credibility because that is not transparent to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Of course, Jimbo doesn't have to lie. He could always just be wrong or the other person could be lying for some reason. You know, like, maybe will.i.am doesn't like being called Junior or something so he bullshits about how it isn't part of his legal name when it is part of his legal name. We really shouldn't ever accept an "I heard it from the man himself, therefore it is the truth" argument no matter who makes it or why. Ignore all rules doesn't mean we should just let random anecdotes from a brief conversation, to which we are not privy, determine content. What if some famous person wants to punk Wikipedia and tells Jimbo about some "error" in his or her bio that is actually not an error at all, just to see if he or she can get Jimbo to change it to something false?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think this line of thought works very well. I have spoken to literally hundreds of reporters and I don't recall even one ever asking to see my legal documents to confirm my middle name. You can tell them anything about little details like that, and they just write it down. It makes little sense that he would just randomly pick yesterday to lie to me about it. Of course, maybe he wants to "punk" Wikipedia. Maybe lots of implausible things, like maybe he's secretly Silver seren and has been editing Wikipedia for a long time, just waiting to spring this on me. But I think we can all agree that this is all highly unlikely. His story made sense, it is consistent with his biography, and he's not know for being someone who "punks" others. He expressed genuine admiration for Wikipedia and called himself a "geek" when I met him. He was excited to learn about Wikimania and today someone from his staff emailed me to inquire about when it will be held. (I doubt if he can come to Hong Kong, but if he does, I'll try to get him to give a speech about his middle name!) The evidence points strongly enough to suit me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• "can we cut him a little slack?" Better question: should we? Why should there be different rules for God and for mere mortal editors? Resolute 05:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There are many editors whom I would personally trust in a similar situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You may, that is your prerogative, but there is no reason for anyone else to, without being able to verify, who they are and what they know and do. So, if the Wiki wants to turn some editors into reporters fine, but that means they are known to the public, and the public can decide whether to trust them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is now a moot point; WP actually worked as designed this time!

Wrt Karman, an editor (in this case, Jimbo) ignored all rules, was courteous, and boldly made a change. Verification by multiple RSs are now in hand. Jimbo's correction stands.

Wrt will.i.am, Jimbo did the same. We do not at present have sourcing for the change, and--Abracadabra Wikipedia Sesame!--the "correction" has been reverted, awaiting decisive documentation. Yopienso (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia worked, yes, I never had any doubts that it would. But the point of this section discussion is that the Will.i.am change was highly improper and it shouldn't happen again. Silverseren^C 03:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It could have waited a few hours for Jimbo to set a good example by getting a source (or having one manufactured) and source material.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"I beg your pardon, Ms. Karman and Mr. Williams. Please wait a few hours while we manufacture a source for your claims that you know your own names." Yopienso (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"I beg your pardon, Ms. Karman and Mr. Williams, could you make a tweet or a facebook post that I can use as a reference for the change?" It's not like we're asking people to move the Earth here. Silverseren^C 04:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If they objected, he could have blamed it on us little people, who toil and spin while Jimbo hobnobs with Madeline Albright.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

See also Ipse dixit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason why a [note 1] cannot be added to the will.i.am article referencing the source(s) and the Jimbo talk page comment explaining the discrepancy. This is the service wiki readers' need: 'this is what this source writes and this is what that source says.' In that way, it's at least clear, whose word we have taken, and why, and from what source. Without a note, the reader is left with 'but I read somewhere that his name is ____ this says ____, what do they base that on?' Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That can be done, but I would suggest, that as there is an ongoing conversation at the article talk, to discuss that there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is basically what I suggested here at the end of my comment: "Perhaps the article can be somewhat rewritten to incorporate his claims/complaint (genre "X is his name in reliable sources (cite 1, cite 2), but will.i.am states that his name actually is Y (cite ?)")." Fram (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Be bold. The reader is better off with all the truth. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, don't be bold. The article is fully protected. Get consensus first, then the change can be made. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's think about this for a sec. Why would somebody need a verified source? Hmmm, very interesting. Here's the way I see it. Guy puts a fancy verified tag on a source 'cause he wants you to feel all warm and toasty inside. Ya figure you put that little verified source under your pillow at night, the Verified Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right? The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy; well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. The next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser, and your daughter's knocked up. I seen it a hundred times. They know all they got ya to insert a verified piece of shit. That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it verified, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your reader's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about taking Jimbo's word for it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Doris Speed: an actress who lied about her age for years, until her birth certificate was unearthed (see Age fabrication for more examples). Not claiming that something similar is happening here, but just that such things happen, and that believing a celebrity about some personal detail is not always the best course of action. He may be telling the truth, or he may be wantin to remove something he doesn't like from his article. We don't know, but blindly believing him is not the neutral position we are supposed to take. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Then go and get his birth certificate, and if it says something else, submit it to OTRS, or get the New York Times to publish it. Until then take his word for it, and that of dozens of sources agreeing with him. Otherwise you're just being insufferably rude, and for no good reason. What skin is it off your nose? What do you know about his family? Nothing. How is it your place to tell the man what his name is? To any normal person, it's sheer arrogance. JN466 16:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is a valid edit for Jimbo Wales, but it does not disprove "verifiability, not truth". Reason --- we know User:Jimbo Wales is Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. But if some "User:Will.i.am" shows up tomorrow, do we know who he is? Do we have any standard way to certify who he is? If I posted the edit to that same article that I was sitting with him, would you believe me? So the general rule is and remains that we should get the subject in such an instance to post to his web site and say what his name is to clarify things, and then we should cite that reliable source indirectly. The exception here is that Jimbo is a reliable source even though he's on a Wikipedia account. I would further add that if the edit is allowed to stand, then we should cite his diff as a formal reference - because otherwise, how does the next naive editor know that's not an unsourced error? Wnt (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Bravo! Common sense arises from the dead. Exactly, Wnt. The Fifth Pillar ("Ignore all rules") allows for reasonable exceptions. Yopienso (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wnt is correct. It's a simple matter of sourcing, all we have to do is cite the source(s). It not even an IAR, all that need to be done is decide which source to follow based on weight, and explain the discrepancy in the sources. Is Jimmy Wales a reliable source for this information? If he is, he is cited. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You do not need to cite Jimbo at all. There are so many sources saying that Will.i.am was born "William Adams", far more than say he was born "William James Adams Jr." – even with Wikipedia's ability to propagate entirely false information worldwide. This sort of thing happens all the time: a subset of sources get something right, another subset gets it wrong. Sometimes the number of sources that are wrong is greater than those which get it right, because the poorly researched sources simply copied. JN466 14:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No. First, If there is a mistake in the sourcsing, it's often better to mention the mistake and correct it, especially in such a brief manner as this would take. Then it is set, until some better source comes along, and no one has to be confused about it or where the information came from. Second, as far as I can tell, no other source exists that says 'no this, this is wrong.' So, there are not other sources.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• I seriously don't have time to read the above, but in conversations with OTRS members, it has been made clear that they will fix factually incorrect non-controversial information if the identity of the subject should be confirmed. In this case, the identity of the subject was clearly confirmed to Jimbo and he fixed it. We really need a policy for how to not be assholes to the subjects of BLP's when they show us how uncontroversial information on their page is wrong. Ryan Vesey 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Jimbo, so, this is an OFFICE and/or IAR issue then?--MONGO 23:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• For general users, it is WP:IAR: Whenever there seems to be no policy phrase which supports updating an article to match reality, then any user should feel free to wp:IAR ignore rules and question a person's middle name or note "Hurricane Katrina hit Mississippi and Alabama with waves 20–30 feet (6–9 m) deep". In the case of Katrina, then finally the sources noted how, in all 3 coastal counties of Mississippi, each emergency command center flooded at 30 feet (9 metres) above sea level. So, the water does not say, "Knock, Knock, I'm at the doorstep 9 metres deep, let me flood the interior", but instead, waves drove the water beyond the mere 30-foot (9 m) level to flood the interior of those command centers. Later, the official hurricane-security procedures were changed to raise emergency centers to higher than 30 feet (9 m) in coastal areas. Perhaps people near New Orleans watched water slowly rise to 7 feet deep (2 m), and just could not believe 100 miles (160 km) east, an entire sea of water came rushing ashore up to 30 feet deep (9 m) with waves pushing higher. But sources can confirm the issues raised during an wp:IAR update. Any user, not just Jimbo, can change an article to reflect the real situation, and sort through the sources to support the conclusion. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like the sort of point I'd want to see sourced - even someone standing in the midst of that hurricane might not know for sure if the water flowing into the command center is truly an ocean wave, or (for example) a wave of brackish water that built up in some oxbow or basin 25 feet above sea level that was then whipped up by hurricane winds. Wnt (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Strong source for the long version unearthed

On Talk:will.i.am#Strong source for his long name, I have unearthed a rather strong source for the claim that the long name is the actual name on his birth certificate. The article clearly is not simply based on our Wikipedia article, and has a rather detailed description of his name and how he and his mom reacted to this. It may be a fabrication or a mistake, but it seems doubtful to me. Fram (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Now we are getting somewhere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the more this gets discussed the more apparent it becomes that will.i.am only meant "wrong" in the sense that he doesn't want people to know certain facts about him, even though they are widely reported in the media. A tweet from the beginning of the year was just shown at the talk page where he also claims that Wikipedia got his aliases wrong, but the only one he denies from what I can tell is Zuper Blahq, which is obviously him from listening to one of the songs and it has been widely reported just like his name. I am thinking Wikipedia got all the names and nick names right, but will.i.am just doesn't want his article to include this information. On the name it may be that, given the fact he never knew his father, will.i.am just doesn't particularly like to be associated with his full name.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere indeed, but in the meantime your remark in the edit summary and your reply here that "It's a falsehood. Please do not insert it again. There is nothing inconsiderate about my saying so." are standing. Perhaps "verifiability, not truth", and WP:AGF aren't things that should be adhered to, and you shouldn't be so quick to assume that what you know or have been told is necessarily the truth and anything that disagrees with this is a falsehood. Perhaps next time try to edit without making such accusations. Fram (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, if you know or hear about wrong content, do not promote original research by changing that and stating:"I know" or "I heard"... Instead, try to look what reliable sources are stating. In one case, you would have quickly found something supporting a move, you could have used that as rationale in the edit summary. In the second case, you would have seen that it would be not that sure... and you could have asked for discussion at the talk page. If you would have followed that, this big discussion about your behaviour would not exist. Please, do it like that next time.--Müdigkeit (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I will do in the future precisely what I am doing in this case. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What you know vs. who you know

Jimmy, the only problem I see with your approach to this is that it seems like you're implying that someone like Philip Roth should have just gone to a wiki-conference somewhere and explained the situation to you or another "high-power Wikipedian". The rules for BLP subjects who don't go to wikimeetups are insanely complicated, but those who do get to go around them. Is that really the rule you want to stand behind? Do you realize that this fits perfectly into the "it's all about making Jimmy look good so he can buy the castle" theory? Please surprise me: I really would feel much better about the time and effort I gave if you would surprise me on this issue. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Buy a castle? What the hell are you talking about?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

For the first time in Wikipedia's history, there will be no administrators chosen in a month

This is the first time in Wikipedia's history, that no administrators will be chosen in a month.27.251.75.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the period from 19 Feb 2012 to 29 March 2012 is a longer period without a promotion. Monty₈₄₅ 21:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The longest I can find was 18 October 2011 to 29 Nov 2011, 42 days. Monty₈₄₅ 21:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Promotion?!? - Slip of the tongue, I hope. You mean election or approval. Carrite (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

How much funding has the WMF dedicated to admin retention and studying the problem of administrator overload in WMF projects? Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm pretty much pissing into the wind here, given my past efforts at making Wikipedia better for its users, but here goes. I'm an admin who does a huge amount of work in high-tension, vicious places on Wikipedia; Pending changes (where I'm the one closing the round of RfCs myself), I/P, ARBMAC, castes (a recent blowup is now in the latest ANI archive, if you'd like to see how fun if is to deal with), so I see a lot of the worst. My ways of dealing with it are laid out here, so I'm the last admin you need to worry about, but I'm not typical (neuro and otherwise); most people get fed up with the undying shit stream that is those areas and NPP. Our slavish attitude towards speedy deletion creates tons of problems for everyone, but especially when people go for adminship and get slammed for not engaging in utter pedantry (how DARE you tag an article about a game someone made up yesterday for speedy deletion, there's no criterion for that!!!! opposes). Similarly, anyone editing in controversial articles is likely to come under the gun for accidentally reverting twice in 23:54 hours, and if I do or don't impose sanctions I catch a ton of flak from whichever side feels aggrieved. I have no love for getting the wool pulled over my eyes, and a lot of people are still stinging from that.
Instead of pompously declaring the Grand Solution, I'll instead suggest that 1. NPPers and admins should be treated like humans instead of allowing people to treat them like shit with impunity (I've been told to fuck myself with a knife for blocking someone and had my intelligence questioned for closing RfCs certain ways; I'll live, but most people would never put themselves in that position) 2. pursuant to that, actually acknowledge we do a good job (more for NPPers, but admins run into this as well) and 3. let us crack down on obvious bullshit if we see it without being hounded to death about process (I only got away unscathed from the caste example above because the area is under discretionary sanctions, and editors disagreeing with me would have to go through ArbCom or the community). It won't solve everything, but it'd sure help those of us who aren't busy chasing our tails trying to recruit women or bickering over Gibraltarpedia crap because we're willing to stand up to the real problems here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a whole lot to argue with there. Though I'll add that the issue of admin retention/promotion is likely also directly related to editor retention. We constantly are driving editors away. The post-BLP Wikipedia has been steadily becoming the surprising hybrid of police state ("I revert all your foolish attempts to edit, and treat anything I don't want or like as vandalism") and anarchy ("Now that more and more clueful editors have been driven away due to constant reversion, let's vandalise!" and/or "We don't care about the project except to further our own ends. And (again) since more and more of those supposedly clueful editors have gone, we are more and more often in the majority, and we can scream when anyone closes consensual discussions in anyway except counting votes")

Really makes one want to be a Wikipedian, much less an admin, huh? : )

BLPs are obviously an issue, but it's killing the open-ness of the project.

There was a proposal awhile back to split BLPs to their own Wikimedia Wiki. Every day, I more and more support that idea. - jc37 02:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: Once upon a time, this was a truly collaborative project, when one person could literally start a page with a single sentence (typically un-sourced) and others would pick up the ball and help. Now everyone seems to expect articles to be crafted from whole cloth, complete with sourcing, else... reversion/deletion. The fear that caused this being the BLP crisis and unsourced edits concerning BLPS. Which has now bled to all information on all pages. And of course automated tools allowing some editors (though not all, obviously) to play Wikipedia the game. ("Look at me, I just reverted vandalism. Let me adjust my score, I mean my reversion count on my user page." and/or "Look at me, I can nominate information for deletion, tag it, and notify the first editor, all with a single click. And I can do this en masse, in a fait accompli. I don't allow such things on my wiki. I'm winning Wikipedia the game") And such editors have groups of gaming friends, and so on. So the tone and mindset is reinforced.

If this continues, the project will die. I registered to help with Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.. I'm looking around and wondering where that project went. - jc37 02:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and I just ran across the "source issue" today. To get a quick view of how impossible it's become to stick a toe in, see Special:Contributions/Mmcampbell, and then look at how he or she was reverted by bots, accused of vandalism, and reverted because something didn't have a reliable source (and it didn't, but we used to use the fact tag for that, didn't we?). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 08:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I guessed who the long post was coming from long before I even saw Blade's signature at the bottom. I couldn't agree more. See my comments in the current (after a 3 week hiatus). As admins who stick their neck out to resolve contentious issues, it makes us wonder why we ever accepted the bit in the first place. But someone has to do it, and when the shit hits the fan, it invariably lands in the face of an admin - like a riot cop who gets hurt by vandals for simply doing his job. It's a pathetic environment that seeks to constantly put the blame for all the evils on Wikipedia at the feet of the admins - we're not all a power mad bunch of viscous boot camp sergeant majors and super-voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

But since Three men make a tiger, we all must be... Sigh. - jc37 02:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor retention link is accurate, as over the last couple of years we have lots a fair amount of talent due to simple frustration. At the same time we are raising the standard for admin, we are losing people before they get to that very standard, or discouraging them to make a run for RfA. The abuse that admins get from vandals and trolls themselves are easy to ignore. It is the apologists and contrarians that I find troublesome, the editors who feel their job is to protect the poor user from the abusive system, regardless of how appropriate the administrative response is. They are enablers that aren't really adding anything to the encyclopedia, and while their numbers aren't that great, they make up for it by their persistence and wikilawyering. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been accused of that, Dennis, but I think the problem at AN/I is that people need to simply stay on target. You have a group that will pull any tangent into a debate at the drop of a hat, and while blocking someone for "trolling", will act in a very uncivil way to do that. If there were a overall expectation an AN/I that the discussion be about whatever the complaintant brought and allow little else to enter the discussion, many of those threads would be a lot shorter. I don't consider myself an apologist for bad actions of editors, yet I get accused of that because I press for people to be treated with respect at AN/I. It usually works quietly and quickly, but when it doesn't, it's an awful mess. -- Avanu (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you've noticed that the problem with ANI is there are often people who think it is an appropriate place to be sarcastic, cracks jokes and poke fun at people. Those activities only make the place more miserable for those being dragged there, or work there, as it causes more off topic discussion and drama. ANI is not a general message board or a place to chit chat. We need to deal with problems, then archive the discussion. We don't need stalkers who think they are entertaining, because they aren't. I suppose we need to be more blunt about this. ANI is not supposed to be an amateur hour showcase. You are usually pretty good about researching before protesting and actually ask questions instead of assuming, but not everyone does that. I rarely have an issue with you Avanu, and you never try to be "cute". Other editors forget that admins do have access to deleted contribs and other info and will jump to conclusions without even researching the available histories. It isn't as bad as it used to be, but it is still disruptive when it happens as it causes unnecessary dramah. A rare few are simply contrarians and are going to take exception to everything every admin does. That is actually a form of trolling, btw, and should be dealt with as such. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope that the post by The Blade... above is read and acknowledged by Jimbo and anyone else with some kind of "over arching" place on Wikipedia. It should remind us all that being an Admin or similar position here is neither pretty nor peaceful. I've done my fair share of being a bit short with admins recently, for which I apologise, but that's nothing compared to some of the ways in which editors through absolute vitriol and undiluted hate towards admins on an hourly basis across the project. Editing Wikipedia is difficult enough, nobody is going to make the step-up to adminhood if all they see is through their laptop the kind of work-based stress and strain they get during the 9-5. doktorb _words^deeds 08:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Two months ago, Jimbo declared this wasn't a problem. It, therefore, isn't a problem. Nevermind that admin promotions for this year are tracking down 50% compared to last year (which was itself a record low year). Nevermind the % pass rate has dropped from 37% to 29% (a >20% drop, relative). Nevermind that the number of active admins is now below 700. Nevermind that the promotion rate (replacement rate) is 32% below the loss rate of admins. There is no problem because...there is no problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The number of active editors is down too - the foundation sees that as a problem (and if we fixed that, the number of admins would probably begin to rise again). Being an admin was already a thankless job when I stood for the position, yet the ranks were growing quickly. Solve the editor problem, solve the admin problem. WilyD 14:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• You're not going to solve the editor problem. The Foundation made fixing the declining editing base a top priority in April of 2011. In the year before that, the drop off in active editors on Wikipedia was 4.2%. In the year following their resolution, the drop off more than doubled to 8.5%. Fixing the decline in editorship is impossible, but the Foundation lacks the organizational expertise to understand this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Starting from the premise that quality content isn't created by random participants crowdsourcing, but by a corps of "very frequent editors" who build or improve articles individually or in very small teams, there is no ongoing decline of editors. See and bookmark on your browser THIS LINK. The long and short of it is for a year or 18 months the Very Active Editor count has essentially stabilized. Someday, eventually, maybe in our lifetimes the foundation will give us intuitive, WYSIWYG editing software and a period of growth will no doubt follow. Bottom line is that the cadre of content creators and copy editors appears to be stable and holding.

As for the Administrative corps, that number is falling fairly dramatically. A huge influx happened back in the years when the operative slogan was "Adminship is No Big Deal." This group of generally very young administrators have aged, moved on, dropped out. The current approval process, which I have likened to 100 proctologists, some of whom seek to inflict grievous bodily harm during the examination, is simply not replacing administrators as fast as they retire. The answer, of course, would be to change the process if it is really a problem. I'm not myself convinced that it is. Carrite (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the RFA process is getting a little better than in recent years but its still unnecessarily difficult to promote admins and too hard to take the tools away. Too many admins are getting promoted based on their popularity rather than their ability to perform the tasks. Active edits are down and active editors are down, this is do to the prevailing determination of some users to block, ban or otherwise punish the users who do the most. If you do ten edits, you won't make a mistake, if you do 10, 000 you are going to make a few mistakes. The zero defect mentality and block first and ask questions later mentality are a big part of whats driving the place down. I have seen numerous new editors get blocked or banned because of simple misunderstandings. I could go on here forever so I'm just going to leave it at that but anyone who is surprised or doesn't see this isn't paying attention. Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

One thing that I've observed in the discussions at Wikipediocracy and its predecessor is that biting complaints about the abuse of administrative tools — long one of the biggest fundamental objections levied by the "anti-Wikipedia jihadist" elements — has really pretty much evaporated over time. Bad actors have left the scene or in some cases been weeded out by the community and it does not seem that the tightly examined new administrators are committing similar use-of-tools transgressions. As much as I hate the current process (the Kool Kids Klub-meets-Lord of the Flies aspect), I think that there is an unremarked upon case to be made that the process works. Administrative buttons are essentially anti-vandalism and extreme dispute resolution tools. We don't need 5,000 or 3,000 or even 1,000 people with those capabilities. A small, tight, carefully vetted circle of Administrators may well be beneficial to the project rather than detrimental. Regardless of whether one buys that argument or not, the Administrator count seems to be independent of and largely unrelated to the question of the Serious Content Contributor count. Carrite (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes the process works, but it doesn't work well! You give a couple good examples but, I would argue that there are a lot of us that shouldn't have to take a knee and kiss the ring of the local administrator just to have an edit done to a protected article or template. It often takes a week or more and then I have on several occassions had to explain to the admin how to make the change. Another good example is the limit to how many articles I can pull into AWB because I am not an admin, I have basically given up trying to do anything about vandals, I just revert and keep going. I can't do anything and when I do it sits there for 3 days by which time more often than not the vandal has moved on. Its even more frsutrating when I see a new editor make a mistake because they weren't born with the knowledge to edit, and get indefinately blocked by one of overzealous admins. We say we are trying to fix it but we don't. We just have this attitude of oh they're an admin, they know whats what and people are too mean to them already so we'll just look the other way. If there were more admins then the existing ones wouldn't be overworked and wouldn't make as many bad decisions that anger other editors. Kumioko (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem I'm most concerned about isn't one of recruiting or attrition, it's of basic decency. I'm sick of the many threads blaming administrator abuse for the downfall of Wikipedia (if said downfall is occurring, I certainly haven't noticed it), none of which bother to back up accusations with evidence, and I'm equally sick of being told I'm part of some backroom cabal if I try to point out the absurdity of the position (for the record, I've been a member of exactly 2; 1 when I was trying to get ACTRIAL together, and 1 when I was one of the admins closing the PC RfC). The paradox here is that so many people claim we're treated like exalted members of the community, but I've had a lot more general viciousness directed my way since becoming an admin. Finally, I have to admit I'm extremely frustrated that when the WMF wants to make a fundamental change in openness, they force it through as hard as possible (as I've said in many places, I personally don't care about if/how PC is used, which is why I'm closing the RfC, I'm only using it as an example everyone recognizes), but if we the community, who know better than them what we need, want to make a change of similar magnitude, we're patronized, told we're incompetent, and have a few people's personal opinions foisted onto us. Just treat us like humans (no better, no worse) and our interactions with everyone are a lot better; just because I can calmly handle someone telling me I'm a colonialist-minded Western asshole intent on the destruction of someone's people doesn't mean I want to or should have to deal with it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it amusing the assumptions people make about admins based on afd or move request closures. In the three years since I have become an admin I have been accused of being a racist, a communist, a fascist, a colonialist, a robot, and egocentric maniac, a tool of global corporations.... I'm sure there's more but the point is that a lot of people just fly off the handle and blame the admin who volunteered to close a discussion for the fact that the community rejected their idea. They assume the closure is based on support of the consensus position, when in fact most of the time when closing such discussions the admin doesn't care one way or the other and is just trying to do what the community has said it wants them to do. As has been said elsewhere, when one sees the cry of "admin abuse" it is usually the admin absorbing the abuse, not doling it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, you say that recently admins have been promoted due to their popularity rather than their skills or ability. Give us examples. You say admins are blocking new editors that are simply making mistakes, please give examples. Those are two areas I focus on intensely and I would be happy to examine the diffs for such. Generalizing (stereotyping) isn't helpful, providing diffs is, and I will be happy to unblock anyone wrongly blocked for a simple mistake and take the blocking admin to task. Now if you are just venting and can't substantiate these claims, then I would suggest withdrawing the claim. I see lots of empty claims around here, and I certainly hope you aren't participating in this way as I would expect more from you. So assuming you do have the diffs, please provide them. Or email them to me if you would rather. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Jagged 85 and Wikipedia accuracy

I see that Jagged_85 has been banned after years of havoc wrought on the project [2]. In connection with this, there is an article today in the Baltimore Sun [3] about a recent study by Oxford University which failed to spot some significant flaws in one of the articles in the sample (Anselm_of_Canterbury). One of the flaws was the result of Jagged's contributions. See the bit that says "this type of proof had been produced by Avicenna some time before" which was not part of the plagiarised EB1911 article, but sourced (by another editor, not Jagged) from an article that Jagged had written.

I would change it myself but I know experts are not welcome here. Perhaps someone from Wikipedia could check it out. 109.148.143.196 (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed phrase as debated tangent: As an editor who has studied Anselm in college, I removed that phrase, as suggested (see edit: dif-5131). -Wikid77 04:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, experts are perfectly welcome so long as they understand that they need to bring reliable sources to back their contributions just like everybody else. Whenever I see articles like this I don't see them as bad for the project. They are an opportunity for us to show how responsive we can be to legitimate criticisms. I've seen such problems get rectified within minutes or even seconds of being publicly pointed out. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well it's half an hour later and no one has corrected the error. There are also another eight errors mentioned in the Baltimore Sun article, most of which have been there for a number of years. Hestiaea (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it mentions nine errors. It doesn't actually say what they are. I don't personally know much of anything about medieval philosophy in England myself so I am at a bit of a loss... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a half hour...blah, blah, blah. Fix it yourself. Stop counting the time and do it if you know what needs to be fixed. Whining about it here does no good...unless your goal is to count the minutes it takes for random commentary on Jimbo's page to make it to where it actually belongs. --Onorem♠Dil 20:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, you must realise that your argument, which runs something like "If there are errors in Wikipedia, and a critic points them out, and we then fix them, that proves that Wikipedia works" – and could be stated in shortened form as "If there are errors in Wikipedia ... that proves that Wikipedia works" – can be (and is by some) perceived as insufferably smug and narcissistic, if not driven by an evangelical conviction that Wikipedia "must" be good. It would be better to say, "Yeah, well. Wikipedia screwed up having that error in that article for so long. Thanks for helping us, finally, to fix it." Because many critics who repeatedly have been told that Wikipedia "works" when they have pointed out a longstanding error or hoax have resolved to no longer point them out (I am credibly assured e.g. that Wikipedia contains articles on a great many cities that only exist in Wikipedia, but not on earth). Something to think about. JN466 09:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed Anselm now: As someone who has studied Anselm, I have removed the debatable phrase now, after a few minutes of analysis, having noticed Islamic philosopher Avicenna (Ibn Sina) mentioned here, on Jimbo's talk-page aka that page "than which nothing greater can be conceived" (sorry for pun, or not). -Wikid77 04:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Beeblebrox, I just looked at a few stubs you created. It looks like you don't personally know much of anything. It's okay. Not everybody is an academic. What isn't okay is do not let experts to improve Wikipedia . Do you believe that by preventing Peter Damian from editing Wikipedia you are preventing a disruption by a banned editor? No, you are preventing Dr.Edward Buckner from sharing his knowledge with Wikipedia's readers. Unblock Dr. Edward Buckner. Wikipedia will survive, and Dr. Edward Buckner will fix the article mentioned in the Baltimore Sun.--109.123.115.221 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Who says Beeblebrox doesn't personally know much of anything. He knows at least something about sizes of weiners [sic] but I do not think this knowledge will be helpful in improving Anselm_of_Canterbury.--216.119.153.205 (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Like everyone else here, I don't know anything about the subject so I can't fix it; however, I'm curious how Dr. Buckner claims we plagiarized from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica text. It is public domain and we clearly gave attribution. In edition, Dr. Buckner claims that this just shows we use obsolete sources. I can understand stating a 1996 source on the internet is obsolete, but how is a 1911 source on someone who died 1000 years prior obsolete? Ryan Vesey 21:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't understand how a 1911 source on someone who died 1000 years prior can be obsolete, then please stay out of history discussions. Suffice it to say that historical scholarship has moved on a little over the past 100 years; some of the views considered sound then have since been discredited, and so on. --JN466 17:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree and accept that scholarship has moved on in the last century and newer sources are usually better. However, it's rather a can of worms if Dr Bruckner is correct in asserting that the article was plagiarised from the older source. Perhaps the good doctor did not see the notice "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Anselm". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press." From my understanding, such declared use of a public domain source is not plagiarism, but if Dr. B is correct in stating that it is, then a lot of articles will have to lose such content. Anyone got informed opinions on this? . . dave souza, talk 17:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not copyright violation, as I am sure you know. Incorporation of text without proper attribution is plagiarism. I think your user:DGG agrees with this, but I can't find the link. Simply plundering long paragraphs or sections without footnotes, or putting in quotation marks, is plagiarism. 86.184.160.59 (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

In the case of the Anselm article, the attribution is minimal, after the list of references, and probably missed by most readers. According to the American Historical Association, "Plagiarism includes more subtle and perhaps more pernicious abuses than simply expropriating the exact wording of another author without attribution. Plagiarism also includes the limited borrowing, without attribution, of another person's distinctive and significant research findings, hypotheses, theories, rhetorical strategies, or interpretations, or an extended borrowing even with attribution." --JN466 19:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it's not ideal but not unlawful. Wikipedia:Plagiarism does give useful guidance, a clean up of any articles with the Britannica (11th ed.) tag is a Good Idea. Though less of a priority than cleaning up the lies and misinformation added by Jagged 85. . . dave souza, talk 19:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not a crime, so it can never be unlawful; it is a failure to uphold academic standards. Let's just note here that Dr Buckner's use of the word "plagiarised" is fully in line with the use of that word by the American Historical Association. JN466 20:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is normally best to not unduly discuss an editor, but in the case of Jagged 85 (talk · contribs), some navel-gazing is warranted. An overview is at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup, and discussions are here. Extraordinary efforts to remove Jagged's damage have occurred (I spent six hours doing nothing more than updating the cleanup pages a few days ago), but many distortions are still in numerous articles. Apart from the issue raised by 109.148.143.196, it has been pointed out (on the discussion page) that several of Jagged's bad articles have been copied to other projects (the French Wikipedia, at least), so removing the junk from enwiki is not sufficient—it will live forever. At first I thought Jagged was just another person unduly promoting their favorite topic, but the problem might be deeper: it seems the user has a need to add "interesting" details to articles, so it is not enough to say that "X did Y"—it has to be "X was the first to do Y", or "X is known as the father of Y". Wikipedia wants references—no problem, just lookup some books in an online catalog and copy in a plausible reference (no need to read the book). Johnuniq (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia was a much friendlier, welcoming and forgiving environment over many years for "Jagged 85," (a fraud, a liar, and a serial vandal who filled the website with lies masquerading as fact), than it was to Dr. Edward Buckner. That is the essence of this story. Well, you get what you pay for.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There is in fact a part two to this story (I just looked closely). I knew that Jagged 85 had filled Wikipedia with fake information about cultural history, going back centuries, almost completely unchecked, for years. But there's something particularly delicious about the fact that, even though his serial lies were pointed out repeatedly (to be met by "AGF! AGF!! He can still be assimilated into the host! etc...), he only ended up permanently banned when he started mucking about with the video game articles. Someone oughta write a book, or something. No one will believe it.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hardly delicious, a common factor when dealing with civil pov pushing, hope you too helped out with removing Jagged's misinformation. . dave souza, talk 19:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

God no. There are hundreds of jaggeds. There are dozens of enabling senior editors (administrators). The structure of Wikipedia is such that it tends to drive off Buckners (and people like me, though I'm not in his class) and retain people like Jagged 85. Until this gaping structural flaw is addressed, using my ten fingers to briefly plug one of thousands of holes does not appeal.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about Jagged 85's case, but I can tell you why Peter Damian/Buckner remains banned: he won't stop evading the ban. For someone who claims to not like this project much he certainly is obsessed with posting to it. If he could just act like a grown up with some self control and stop sockpuppet ing for a few months I have no doubt he could get unbanned and be welcomed back, but he apparently can't do that, the most recent evidence being that it is fairly obvious he is the IP who opened this thread and then proceeded to personally attack me, citing my opposition to unbanning him in the most recent discussion, thereby proving my point about his apparent inability to just go away for a while, which he has been told again and again is something he needs to do to get unbanned. He would have us believe that he is so important that WP:SOCK should not apply to him. The community has repeatedly rejected that notion, so he remains banned. Simple as that. he was not banned because he is an expert but in spite of it. His behavior was found to be causing more problems than his contributions were solving. Since that time he has dedicated an absurd amount of time and energy into trying to publicly embarrass Wikipedia instead of following the fairly simple requirements of the standard offer. Apparently the view from his ivory tower does not permit him to see the possibility that he might have behaved poorly and has nobody but himself to blame for the fact that he remains banned. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't know anything about the "jagged 85 case" and are too lazy to get informed, you probably should keep your ill-informed comments to yourself. Buckner refused to "play nice," but never harmed articles (in fact greatly improved them). Jagged 85 spent seven years filling this website (and by extension many of its mirrors) with disinformation. He was allowed to do so because he "played nice," which is more important to the culture here than honest, quality work. Think on it.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh, take another look. I said I did not know about Jagged 85, and so I didn't comment on that case. I restricted my remarks to the case I am familiar with, so maybe you should finish reading beyond the first sentence of a remark before making such a nasty reply to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You do not live in the binary world of your imagination. The treatment of a Phd philosopher contrasted against the treatment of a serial liar named "Jagged 85" is the point. You are part of a culture that coddles the "jagged 85s" of the world because they are outwardly meek (to hell with the articles) and rejects the Dr. Buckners of the world because they don't suffer fools (while dramatically improving articles). Again, I invite you to introspect on your contributions to this deeply unhealthy and perverse culture.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so Dr. Bruckner (whom god preserve) is a nom-de-plume of Peter Damain, and John E. McIntyre of The Baltimore Sun blog has been conned into publicising the "Critique of the Epic/Oxford University pilot study into the comparative accuracy and quality of Wikipedia" which for mysterious reasons google only shows in that newsblog and in Wikipedia Revue. The plot thickens. . . dave souza, talk 18:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. This was never really about content, it is just another transparent ploy by Peter Damian to game his way around his ban instead of just not socking for a while and then asking politely for it to be lifted. This is no more than we expect from any banned user, but Peter is using his status as an ivory tower academic to pull this reporter into his obsessive feud with Wikipedia. And now we see Greg Kohs in the comment section of said article, right on cue... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

With a bit more googling, it appears that the good doctor does indeed exist, but has caused problems on Wiki as Peter Damian (talk · contribs). A name I recall, but am unaware of the details. Unlike Jagged 85, who was a known pest. So we can look forward to the doctor's paper being properly published, perhaps. Until then it looks like blog speculation, but good to have a focus on improving the article. Still think Bruckner is wrong about public domain, do others agree? . . dave souza, talk 18:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong in what sense? Obviously lifting whole paragraphs from a public domain work even with attribution is plagiarism. Is that your question? It's not illegal, but it's still plagiarism. How is that hard to understand?192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahem, proper attribution, i.e. which indicates the precise part of the text which is copied, is not plagiarism. Simply putting a notice that the article 'incorporates' text is not sufficient. 86.184.160.59 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point. This seems to be what Dave souza doesn't understand. Proper attribution is necessary to avoid plagiarism. The little notice at the bottom of the page is not proper attribution.192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be rather a grey area, but improved attribution is certainly a good idea, as I've stated above. If indeed there is any of the old text left in the article. . dave souza, talk 19:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

See drainpipe ... scurry. John lilburne (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Curry, perhaps? Your remark is obscure and appears unhelpful. .dave souza, talk 18:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hold white cane ... tap.192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, do you really not see that it doesn't matter if Peter Damian is behind it, if Kohs is behind it, or if a triumvirate of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Satan himself are behind it. The fact is that jagged85 stuck around here destroying the encyclopedia and everyone letting him do it because he kissed up to the community while Bruckner, who won't kiss up, is banned. This is not an argument for unbanning Bruckner, about which I have no opinion. It's an argument that the culture of Wikipedia encourages this kind of problem. Your blindness to what Bali ultimate is saying is a symptom of Wikipedia's problem. As long as an editor plays nice, he can fuck shit up indefinitely.192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

IP, you're conflating two problems. I've no knowledge of why Bruckner was banned, expert editors can run into difficulties here but socking is not an acceptable response to such difficulties. Jagged was undoubtedly wrong, I've been involved in a bit of clean-up of J's work and am glad to seem J banned. Yes, J caused considerable damage, but that doesn't excuse socking by others. . dave souza, talk 19:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Things are getting confused here. Bruckner was a 19th century Roman Catholic organist and composer. He has never contrinuted to Wikipedia. Peter Damian was an 11th century Roman Catholic monk and cardinal who was at times an embarassment to the church as he complained about sexual degeneracy and cover-ups in the Catholic heirarchy. He never contributed to Wikipedia. Edward Buckner is a 21st century academic philosopher and Wikipedia editor. He is at times an embarassment because he complains about sexual degeneracy and cover ups in Wikimedia. This may or may not explain why he has contributed to Wikipedia as User:Peter Damian. I hope everything is now clearer.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you see how I was careful to make it clear that I agree with you? No one is saying let Peter Damien sock. The point is that the contrast is ironic. Irony is a valid and powerful rhetorical device. The rule-following counterproductive guy stays around and does harm. The rule-breaking productive guy gets banned. This is a problem with the culture of Wikipedia, even if the rule-breaking guy should be banned. See?192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record, PD was banned (ironically) for calling attention to socking by a sitting arbitrator. The committee never forgave him for that. Also to note that the so-called 6 month 'offer' is a complete fiction, believe me. 86.184.160.59 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well said. And actually, Ed Buckner is much more useful to Wikipedia as a critic than as an editor. I would not want to see him bogged down in talk page arguments with the jagged85s of this world. I'd rather see him write and talk to the McIntyres of this world, and find publishers for his work. In either role I consider him a better friend to Wikipedia than a jagged85. JN466 19:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The bureaucratic will is strong in this one (I finally figured out how to change my sig; this one much nicer).Dan Murphy (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The obsession with Wikipedia bureaucracy certainly seems to engender an actual inability to care about Wikipedia content. Truly kafkaesque. --JN466 19:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You should both probably stop trying to make this about me. Anyone who knows me well knows that I am very certainly not the type who coddles problematic users. If the community made a mistake in waiting too long to address the issues with Jagged then hopefully those who were coddling this person have learned something about the value of sugar coating their remarks and pretending a problem is not as severe as it really is. But, as Dave points put, that has nothing to do with Peter Damian, the two issues do not seem comparable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure you want to use coddle around here? The real issue here is, as 192.160.216.52 intimates, just because the the Unholy One is shouting FIRE doesn't mean that one should disconnect the fire alarms. John lilburne (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

See wikt:coddle. Dr Buckner has usefully pointed out an instance of Jagged misinformation, rather sad that his forthcoming paper apparently takes the form of an attack on WP, according to the cited blog. . . dave souza, talk 20:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you read the blog carefully [4] you would see it is not an 'attack' on Wikipedia. It is a critique of the Oxford study on Wikipedia accuracy. One of the samples in the study was the Anselm article. The criticism is that the study failed to pick on the plagiarism (or 'copying' if you like), even though it should have been obvious when they prepared the study for blind review by the Oxford specialists. Furthermore, the specialists failed to pick up some rather obvious mangling of the EB1911 text. So this is not a criticism of Wikipedia, but of a study of its accuracy. The errors really are quite obvious and were about an hour's work to pick up. There are 8 more of them - why not start correcting them rather than mount these personal attacks on Buckner, who is after all contributing to bringing the sum of human knowledge to Wikipedia by pointing out that there are obvious errors. He cannot correct them, for he is banned, but surely there must be others here who can do the job? 86.184.160.59 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want this to be about you, why don't you just step away? Ed Buckner has an existence beyond that of a banned Wikipedia editor, to which you seem to want to reduce him, and he is certainly academically qualified to comment on the study, and the article selection discussed in it. You can't forbid him to write things just because he is banned here, you know, or forbid journalists and Wikipedians from discussing his views. There is a world outside Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is part of that world; not vice versa. --JN466 19:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please note, it's Buckner, not Bruckner. For those who weren't around, if you happen to be familiar with the Lord of the Rings, it may help you get the picture if I say that Peter Damian is our version of Saruman -- intelligent and erudite, but not to be listened to at peril of your soul. Looie496 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Aargh, my typing error. Shame if Dr. Buckner is a potentially useful editor, but evidently others know more about the PD issues than I do. . dave souza, talk 19:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• • What, so Ed is the devil incarnate? Wow. JN466 19:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Does sound rather dramatic. . . dave souza, talk 19:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	you are making wikipedia better and away from harm! Triggercon (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Lovely. A barnstar from an editor who has just been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstaria non olet. MastCell ^Talk 18:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Updating articles re Oxford study

(tangent to earlier thread "#Jagged 85 and Wikipedia accuracy").

Now, with a focus on correcting problems noted in the Oxford study (and Baltimore Sun article), there are 4 main articles which were questioned: "Anselm of Canterbury", "William of Ockham", "Thomas Acquinas", and "John Duns Scotus". The articles were criticized, variously, as "being a mess" or "still containing (subtle) vandalism" or having some "incoherent" passages. Of course, as live articles, other editors might already be fixing these issues at any time, but typical improvements to articles tend to be minor. My first concern is to improve readability of text for the general public, because errors can slip into articles at any point, within minutes of "rewriting to perfection" so the article should be readable for the remainder which has not been hacked. Also, if the text remains too obtuse, then editors might not realize when additional arcane wording was a hack edit to warp the text. A tactic to spot conceptual vandalism is to repeat concepts, in a redundant manner, so when any later text repetitions contradict earlier text, then vandalism might be the cause of the mismatch contradictions. Also, too many tangents about other people could lure a hack edit, so avoiding incidental talk about later people might be a good method to reduce confusion. So, list most cultural influences as a separate section, then if someone adds nonsense or off-topic connections, it might be easier to spot. Now, specifically, for each article:

• "Anselm of Canterbury" - I removed the debated phrase about Islamic philosopher Avicenna (Ibn Sina) having written the proof years earlier, which was a controversial and off-topic tangent to Anselm.
• "William of Ockham" - The article revision of 25 September 2012 seems too terse, and perhaps pedantic in tone, and so general readers might be unable to read and recall Ockham's viewpoints. Again, many formal obtuse phrases should be expanded, to be accompanied with simplified explanations.
• "Thomas Aquinas" - Because he was perhaps the most famous of these, there should be many simple sources to back the text.
• "John Duns Scotus" - Any problems in that article were noted as "not detected" during earlier studies for accuracy, but the 21 September revision needs work for punctuation and italics for titles. For comparison, the Plato.Stanford.edu article is linked: On Plato: "Duns Scotus".

That is the initial status so far. —— Regarding possible vandalism, perhaps some could be called "scholastic vandalism" making debatable claims which many readers would not realize, but those articles are open to IP-address users, so anyone could hack the text, especially someone with wp:POINT intentions to ruin articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:36/04:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Victor Gollancz and Franz Kafka

Dear Mr. Wales, I was at dinner with publicher Victor Gollancz when he told me he was the publisher of the major writer Franz Kafka. I think if your company confirmed this with his duaghter who seems to be alive still, this if a fact would be a good addition to the information on Mr. Gollancz. He lived off Hampstead Heath and that is where he and his wife had myself and my then-husbannd to dinner about 30 years ago. My name is Goldie Kossow, the same as it was then. I do not remember dining with the daughter. Kafka is not listed with all the writers that Mr. Gollancz brought to life. Sincerely, Goldie Kossow email redacted 65.8.203.148 (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Those claims would need some backing. For one thing, our article on Victor Gollancz says that he died 45 years ago. For another, it says that he began publishing in 1927, when Kafka was already dead. Looie496 (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Cordial invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Jimbo,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, a new editor group that I've just begun, intended to allow editors to informally celebrate having a decade of participation in this project. (A milestone that I'll hit in two months' time.)

Naturally, it only seemed right that you should be the first person that I invited to join.

Best wishes, -- Hex [^t/_c] 10:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC).