Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter Damian (talk | contribs) at 08:04, 25 April 2015 (→‎Stable Wikipedia?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Wikipedia explained on television

    The Wikimedia Foundation can produce a half-hour television segment in English, explaining to viewers (with screenshots) the most essential things that people should know about editing Wikipedia. That segment can be broadcast separately in many regions around the globe, and it can be followed by a half-hour segment during which viewers can submit their questions (by telephone or text or e-mail), and Wikipedians can provide answers on air in real time. Interpreters can be available for viewers with low levels of fluency in English. Because of anticipated high volumes of interest in various regions, the regions can be small enough to maximize opportunities for many viewers to submit their questions. The first segment and possibly various regional versions of the second segment can be posted on WikiCommons and on YouTube.
    —Wavelength (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a good idea. There's an idealab somewhere where it might be more formally presented, but I'm sure it will get good exposure here. @Victorgrigas: would likely be involved (see video at right) if the WMF did it, or of course you might do it yourself. For TV channels to present it, the video would likely need more than screenshots. TV stations might use this to fill in a slot at 2:30 am, or during a rain delay in a baseball game, so we couldn't assume that folks are watching just because of their love of Wikipedia. There would have to be general interest material. Perhaps editors can suggest topics that would be best for a 30 minute video. IMHO editing could take up to 10 minutes. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Bad format. Bad format because TV advertising is dying, might as well do talk radio or a newspaper ad, and I say this even though my wife did advertising sales for a radio station for years and would beat me for saying that. This would be no different than a paid advertisement programming, this wouldn't be an actual TV show event. No channel would order it as anything less than an infomercial, they just won't. Better format is what you mentioned at the end- youtube; and I would expand that to "social media" in general. Have a series of youtube (and please don't forget Vimeo, as that is quickly rising to challenge youtube), have a series of much shorter videos on Vine and Instagram, have them also posted to Facebook, Google+, and Twitter, and advertise them on Tumblr, Tsu, Bubblews, and Reddit. Set up blog posts on Blogger et al. Plaster these videos all over the web. And that's just what to do with American-oriented social media; there are lots more Chinese, Hindi, European, Russian, and Australian social media sites. I would not waste time with a TV infomercial that Smallbones is right about it being aired at 2:30am if at all and it is going to be expensive, and I doubt they would ever use it for a rain delay. No network will air it in a normal timeslot and expect advertisers to support it, they just won't find the revenue they can get airing a rerun of Will and Grace or Seinfeld.Camelbinky (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be broadcast on commercial-free television.—Wavelength (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has Category:Educational video websites.—Wavelength (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of "commercial-free" actually simply air commercials in-between programming instead of interrupting programming with commercial breaks.Camelbinky (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Grant Shapps and Chase me

    I'm assuming you've seen this [1]. Apparently the Wikimedia functionary who "outed" the alleged Shapps sockpuppet is a LibDem activist. Rather goes to the heart of neutrality of this project I'd say.--Scott Mac 15:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott, have you seen this? Perhaps not, since I see you're alerting Risker as well. Bishonen | talk 15:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    I guess he alerted Risker knowing that the RFAR was initiated? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. Now the arbitration case is getting media coverage too. [2] Everymorning talk 15:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, according to the story I linked to above, Wales was contacted by Chase Me after blocking Contribsx, so I imagine Jimbo does already know about all this. Everymorning talk 15:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Were you not expecting that the public would become aware that it is being investigated? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It may not be so wise to discuss this publicly. However, Andrew Gilligan's outing of Chase as a Libdem activist, is another twist. It worries me for two reasons. The story will now run and run, particularly in the silly season of a UK election finale that has had surprisingly little of this type of stuff (the media are bored). Second, Chase will now be personally in the media spotlight. Whatever he's done, that's got real life implications. On that note, I fall back into silence again. But everyone involved in this needs to be aware there will be intense and partisan media scrutiny in the UK.--Scott Mac 15:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott Mac, I trust you realise the implications of what you have asserted on this user talk page (and even at Risker's talk page) - particularly in light of the assertion made by Chase that he is not and has never been a Lib Dem activist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've done anything than record an assertion, made by Gilligan, that's clearly in the public domain. To be clear, I have no knowledge or opinion concerning its veracity.--Scott Mac 15:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For clarification: Richard Symonds/User:Chase me ladies I'm the Cavalry (self-identifies on-wiki with link HERE) is "Office and Development Manager" of Wikimedia UK (See: LINK). So this affair is probably going to have lasting implications for WMF no matter how this turns out... Carrite (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've spent a huge chunk of today looking into this and talking to people about it. We should all expect the press to jump on scraps of non-information to try to spin this story according to their agenda. The sad thing is that there is no easy or firm definition of what counts as being a "LibDem activist" - to most people it conjures up someone who goes to party meetings and volunteers to door to door campaigning, as opposed to someone who has said online that they support a particular party. But if you want to leave the impression that someone is an activist and is acting in an activist way it's a phrase you can use more or less with impunity. So, there you go. Hopefully Chase can get a correction out of the paper.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The big issue here isn't whether Mr. Symonds has political beliefs or engages in group politics, but whether or not a sock puppet investigation and subsequent "behavioural" block was leaked to the press with a view to damaging a political candidate. The timeline is unclear. We saw during the recently completed GamerGate ArbCom case how easy it was for an opinionated blogger to manipulate Guardian content — it is not a far-fetched question to ask as to whether this might have been done again here. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. See my comment below. Peter Damian (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This can also have political consequences. Count Iblis (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And some light relief at Wikipedia's expense... [3]--Scott Mac 17:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What the problem is

    This gets it spot on. Early this month, a left-wing newspaper contacts with a Wikipedia administrator and checkuser, a function "only assigned to administrators in good standing and in whom the community has the utmost trust and confidence in their integrity, judgment and discretion". The administrator confirms on the record, for attribution, that the account was run by Shapps. Some have argued that the evidence was all in the public domain and perhaps no confidential checkuser information was used. This does not matter. The newspaper was investigating a prominent British politician from the other end of the spectrum in the run-up to a nation-wide general election. The newspaper's reason for contacting a Wikipedia administrator was to confirm the suspicion that the account was run by Shapps, and to get a statement on record. The article says "Wikipedia’s administrators told the Guardian they believed that Shapps has used alternative accounts that were not fully and openly disclosed ... the account is clearly controlled by Shapps". That's appalling. But not the first time this kind of thing has happened, of course. Peter Damian (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just noticed the Guardian story says:

    The site’s administrators, selected Wikipedia volunteers who patrol the site, told the Guardian that they “believe that the account Contribsx is a sockpuppet of Grant Shapps’ previous accounts on Wikipedia ... and based on the evidence the account is either run by Shapps directly or being run by someone else – an assistant or a PR agency – but under his clear direction.”
    When the Guardian first approached Shapps saying that Wikipedia would be closing down this user account because Wikipedia said it was linked to him, a spokesman for the Conservative party said: “This story is completely false and defamatory. It is nonsense from start to finish.”

    That suggests a longer and more complex timeline, namely (1) Wikipedia administrators tell the Guardian that they believe the account is operated by Shapps, then (2) Guardian approaches the Conservative Party with this then (3) Guardian publishes story. At what point were other Wikipedia administrators and checkusers given the information that the Guardian had already been told? What exactly was the sequence of events? Peter Damian (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not really, no. It should not matter who brings a problem to our attention or by what route. All that matters is: does the evidence stack up. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which statement is 'not really no' applying to? On whether it matters who brings a problem to your attention or by what route, no it probably doesn't, but that's not the point. It's not what goes in, but what comes out. Symonds appears to have told the Guardian the identity of the account. That's the problem. Peter Damian (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The immediate problem is a looming election. We should try to bring some clarity to this situation before election day by finding out (1) whether the evidence before Chase at the time of the block justified the block and (2), most importantly, whether in light of that evidence Chase exaggerated the likelihood of the account being controlled by Shapps. If ArbCom focusses initially only on the limited evidence related to these two questions they'll be able to answer them publicly in a couple of days - well before election day - and then they can examine the other issues raised in relation to this scandal at their leisure. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The corporate position of Wikipedia

    Welywn Times "The Tory candidate said he had spoken to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales yesterday (Wednesday).Mr Shapps told the Welwyn Hatfield Times: “He said that the administrator who had posted (we now know he’s a Lib Dem activist) quote to the Guardian didn’t represent the ‘corporate position of Wikipedia’.” Mr Shapps said the Wikipedia boss told him the administrator should have escalated the matter to his bosses, rather than ban the specific account. The Conservative candidate added that the administrator had been “chastised”, and said an internal investigation had been launched." What on earth is the 'corporate position of Wikipedia’. You mean the WMF? Peter Damian (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimmy Wales Porn history

    I found this most disconcerting, and of course very disappointing, as I know Mike Adams doesn't lie: [4] This is a strong indictment and requires a response.--Pekay2 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You are a moron. Fuck off back to la-la land. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on your WP disallowed verbiage, your edit appears more suitable to the porn sites in question. Further, your name seems particularly appropriate for your writing style.--Pekay2 (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked for a response. I gave one. Feel free to go complain about it if you want to draw attention to your woeful ignorance and abject inadequacy even as a troll. Jimbo's history in soft-core porn is common knowledge (you can read about it in Wikipedia...), and nobody is going to take the ravings of conspiracy-dingbat Adams remotely seriously. Even the regular anti-Jimbo trolls here know better than to link to fuckwit websites if they want to attract attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Its such a secret that it only fills a paragraph of Jimmy Wales and has only one entire article, Bomis devoted to it. Monty845 02:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He's certainly a bit slow on the uptake. And it's not exactly quite like finding out that your church minister is Ron Jeremy now is it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm........ seems dubious to me. We might need to probe into a full scale investigation to find the playboy magazines hidden under Jimmy's bed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Wikipedia is not censored, I do not consider it surprising that Jimbo was once involved with a website that featured images of beautiful naked ladies. As a matter of fact, I think that I have known that for years. Who cares? And why? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lazy and sensationalist journalism by Mike Adams in the article mentioned by the OP. Bomis has never been a secret and nothing in this rant piece is new.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimbo has presumably qualified for this attack piece because of his criticism of alternative health practitioners, who he described as "lunatic charlatans" in March 2014. If the cap fits, wear it, as the saying goes. This story in today's news is worth a look. The mainstream media loves to criticise inaccurate information in Wikipedia articles, but it often gives an easy ride to people making alternative health claims, particularly if there is a heartwarming human interest story involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The NaturalNews article page is turning into quite a lunatic charlatan's convention - Jim Humble, archbishop or whatever of the 'church' created to promote his 'drink industrial bleach as a cure for HIV/malaria/etc, etc...' nonsense is amongst those commenting. Along with the usual pharmaceutical-conspiracy-mongers, someone claiming it is all a socialist plot, and someone who seems to think that Jimbo is "a closet homo". We clearly need to add more fluoride to the water supply and turn up the chemtrail dosage before this disparate bunch cottons on to the real truth behind Jimbo's reptilian charm... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wales has apparently gone to great lengths to try to bury what you're about to read here", er no he hasn't. What is in that article has been public knowledge for some time now and has even published on Larry Sanger's website.
    As for the claim that Wikipedia was structured by Jimmy to be an "online defamation engine to defame and slander people" that he doesn't like, well that claim is just laughable. If that was the case then we would not have policies such as WP:RS and WP:BLP would we?
    "When the truth about Wales' sleazy business activities surfaces from time to time, Wales seems to exploit his control over Wikipedia to delete the information from his own page". No he doesn't. A quick check on Wikipedia shows that.
    The whole article is absolutely laughable. It tells us nothing new and the fact that it's been published years later, it comes across as very POV pushing and an attack on Jimmy and Wikipedia. What a shame that no proper journalism appears to have been carried out.--5 albert square (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'all do know that NaturalNews is not an actual news site, and Mike Adams is not a journalist, right? Abecedare (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    From the NaturalNews article on Wikipedia: "It is dedicated to the sale of various dietary supplements, promotion of alternative medicine, controversial nutrition and health claims, and various conspiracy theories". Sounds a legit source to me (!). Prioryman (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, to be honest I'm not sure what the OP expects Jimmy to respond to!--5 albert square (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "...Jimmy Wales ran a porn network called Bomis, which sold membership access to pornography."
    But then WikiMedia isn't run by ISIS, so there is no reason why this is controversial, there are no motives to keep such information secret. Count Iblis (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I'm less curious about the Bomis stuff than the Rachel Marsden stuff with respect to the NaturalNews article. Everymorning talk 18:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    COI and fringe views

    Seeing this thread, and its source, pop up here, makes me reflect on a question I've had for a while. COI gets discussed here a lot, in a vein of "fierce moral urgency". However, I think most everyone who's been paying attention to that discussion in wider venues (e.g., Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks) has noticed that there's an active group of editors that are enthusiastic about new mechanisms to prosecute and enforce real or suspected COI here. They seem to be united by a desire to promote alternative medicine, non-genetically-modified foods, and the like, to denigrate the safety and efficacy of conventional medical treatments, and in general, to advance similar minority POVs. I have no reason to believe any of them have a COI as we define it; they're simply acting as what WP:COI calls "biased editors". I don't recall seeing that discussed here.

    The principle of "it's not the editor, it's the edits" has been decried as a cop-out; a way to wash our hands of responsibility, so that when a Keasbey & Mattison IP posts that asbestos is harmless and a useful source of dietary fiber, we can shrug and say, "well, we can't watch every article". That's a pretty compelling argument for doing something more. But I think it's also clear that any new COI enforcement policy is going to be used to bludgeon any editor who makes an extended effort to enforce WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in cases where mainstream opinion and evidence support the position of a large, moneyed interest.

    I think people putting forth new ideas for the control of COI really ought to address this point. It sort of takes the moral luster off our self-congratulation for saving future Indian students from educational scams if within a year we're telling people with psychiatric disorders that smoking cannabis and taking coffee enemas are great alternatives to pharmaceuticals. Choess (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    COI and fringe views, indeed. It's a bizarre conflation to say anyone interested in COI disclosure is interested in fringe medicine or science. Certainly, it is the right thing to do to disclose COI or not edit (and Wikipedia should insist on that over and over again) but it is a nonsequitor to equate that position with anything fringe ('disclose or don't write' - is a sourced standard, mainstream take on COI). That you run into someone pushing fringe, or someone who does not understand COI is just another error to correct in discussion - tell them they don't understand COI, or they don't understand fringe. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a bizarre conflation, but as you're the first one to introduce it to this thread, I'll let you bear the burden of defending it. If I thought the whole project for special mechanisms to detect and remove COI editing was a stalking horse for fringe views, I wouldn't bother posting about it. I think the people posting here advocating a corps of Auditors or whatever the proposal of the week is are responding in good faith to a real problem with the encyclopedia. I am raising this because I see it as a fairly concrete example of how a poorly devised policy for detecting and neutralizing COI editing could be used, by good-faith editors with a strong POV, in ways that damage the encyclopedia by driving off productive editors. My perception (perhaps incorrect) of discussion of COI on this page is that it tends to focus on the urgency of shutting down problems like the Wifione debacle, but does not adequately consider the adverse consequences of making it easy to make accusations of COI and forcing the accused to defend themselves in extenso. Choess (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not anymore difficult to defend a COI claim than it is to defend a POV claim or most other behavioral claims. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how closely you've been following the threads, Choess, but from what I have been witnessing, your take on the situation is far from accurate. I invite you to take a gander at the editors most interested in COI according to most edits at COI talk. None of those editors are actively promoting alternative medicine. In fact, a look at the most edits to Monsanto shows that there is a conflagration between defenders of GM foods and pharmaceuticals/ProjectMedicine and COI conversations. petrarchan47คุก 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    so FUNNY, P. the initial post was not about the mainstream WP:COI guideline but the fringe-y and FRINGE-attracting Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks not to mention its current version User_talk:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_ducks.
    Choess at play here is the pharma shill gambit, glommed onto the recent concern about Wifione. i believe the thread tying those two things together is a belief that I (jytdog) am a Corrupt Abomination Destroying Wikipedia From Within (of whom Petrarchan is one of the chief prophets) - and I met each of them at articles about GMO or fringe health topics, where i hold down the mainstream view.... and have earned some juicy hate for doing so. I also find the conglomeration of sloppy concern with COI and belief in FRINGE disturbing - but c'est la wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect, Jdog as I've told you before - it's not all about you. The above is pure conjecture, and really does sound paranoid. It's also false. At March Against Monsanto you argued against the wording used by the vast majority of sources (regarding the number of march participants), and later agreed that the one source you glommed on to was not a proper estimate and never claimed to be. Your retelling does not adhere to the facts. petrarchan47คุก 05:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    oh right when you talk about GM articles, you are talking about someone else. In light of this and this followed by this, and especially this.... sure, that is about someone else... . Please tell me who you view as the "head of the GMO articles here, who is known on the web as a Monsanto shill going back many years, is also very active in the Pharma (or "health") articles.." and who are you talking about, when wrote to me "Further, the editing that has held sway over the GMO articles since you have been in control of them is being called into question,... The best encyclopedia articles are written in a dispassionate voice, showing all sides of the story with due weight, and not by industry insiders" (emphasis added). Who are you talking about? (real question) You cannot understand why it is clear as day you are talking about me? (real question) (this is copy paste from April 5 here which you still haven't responded to)Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's correct. I am No. 3 on the list and have no interest in alternative medicine and personally am averse to it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jytdog, you are mistaken as is Choess. Claims that even hint at the possibility the Advocacy ducks essay was designed to attract fringe or promote snake oil remedies sounds pretty paranoid to me and even more far-fetched than the fringe that has big pharma advocates wheeling. The lady doth protest too much. The essay addresses behavioral issues and doesn't discriminate against any particular topic. An essay doesn't trump or change our PAGs - it's an essay. If there's noncompliance of PAGs in an article, it isn't the fault of the essay. The same applies if fringe is being pushed and it's noncompliant with PAGs, or if MEDRS is being abused to keep information out of an article, or if paid editors are whitewashing corporate articles, or if paid political advocates are pushing a liberal or conservative agenda in an article. Jiminy Cricket, the unwarranted criticisms are tiresome. Atsme☯Consult 04:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Choess's point is true, as was pointed out to you here, where DGG wrote: "But frankly, I consider the present attempt contaminated by the origins of it in an anti-establishment medicine POV. " These origins and the ongoing efforts by the group around it to push FRINGE views about health and conspiracy theories about editing in WP, are not helpful in the broader effort to address COI and advocacy in WP. Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The deleted essays are bygones. The current essay is nothing like the preceding two. The criticisms being made now are just plain silly...which reminds me, BDD, who deleted the first essay, stated rather succinctly: Atsme, let me say more simply what I was getting at: if you leave "big pharma" out of the essay, any critics railing about that are going to look silly. [5]. And then of course there's your comment about the current essay, Jytdog: i gotta say that the essay has come a long way; much of the stuff that got this deleted is gone. i made some edits just now, you can of course take them or leave them. [6] Nuff said. Atsme☯Consult 04:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    An organizational idea that may reduce controversy and encourage recruitment...

    Jimmy, I'm not sure if my similar ideas have been presented to you before but it the following idea actually came to me recently when I authored an essay that focuses on the behavioral aspects of paid advocacy editing, User:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_ducks. My stance on paid editing is neutral as long as WP allows it and the editing/articles are compliant with PAGs. I believe Wikipedia:COI declaration has good intentions and reads well but I also believe it can be further refined to eliminate much of the disruption. I think it all pretty much boils down to whether or not the paid editing aspect actually encourages articles that are encyclopedic or promotional, and therein lies some of the problem. Perhaps a more efficient, organized format would prove beneficial to organizational growth and recruitment, and I think it's doable with a few modifications. My idea is to incorporate separate divisions within the encyclopedia. When I say separate, I mean each division would have its own set of administrators, and a more specialized outlay of PAGs, categories and the like. For example, WP Science and Medicine, WP Health, WP Business, WP Sports, WP Politics and Wikipedia the Encyclopedia, the latter being more closely held to an encyclopedic format. I think it may resolve many of the problems facing editors today and may even be the catalyst for recruiting more qualified editors or experts in a given field. I will be happy to further explain the concept if there's any interest. Atsme☯Consult 14:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Which division would be responsible for this article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Science and Medicine seems appropriate. Atsme☯Consult 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. There is next to no debate within the scientific and medical communities regarding the 'controversies' discussed in the article - the argument comes from people who generally reject the scientific method and/or the medical consensus, making it a social/political issue more than a scientific one. I brought up this particular example because it illustrates an obvious problem with your proposal - many legitimate encyclopaedic subjects can't be neatly pigeon-holed into categories. I could no doubt fill this page with further examples, but frankly I can't see the point, since you haven't really provided any evidence to suggest why this proposed division would be beneficial. It is already open to contributors to specialise in subject matter they are interested in and/or have particular knowledge of - and I suspect that most probably do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Andy. To take an even more problematic example, what about climate change? This topic would intersect "science", "health", "business", and of course "politics", at a minimum. MastCell Talk 18:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a declining number of admins, we can't afford a proposal to use them less efficiently by balkanising the pedia. Also any reduction in controversy would likely be more than outweighed by turf wars as to which group of admins were responsible for particular articles. Worse we would risk a citizendium style meltdown as the alternative health lobby would be lobbying for a "healing arts" section for a group of articles that the medical community would be loathe to legitimise by officially classifying as medical. There's also the problem that we need uninvolved admins to take decisions, and compartmentalising doesn't help this. ϢereSpielChequers 21:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree which probably stems from the vast differences in our background experience regarding organizational structure, experience as directors/founders of nonprofit entities, recruitment of volunteers, publishing experience, and the like. Not that the experience of those commenting here is better or more advanced than mine, but the fact that there are stark differences between them. What I am proposing may be a hard concept for some to follow. Let's see what Jimmy has to say about it. Thank you for your input. Atsme☯Consult 21:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You may know some or all of my background including directorships of non profits etc, but I don't know your background, nor should either of our backgrounds count here other than as evidenced by the clarity and quality of our submissions. So thanks for the flattery, but if you disagree with my points I'd have preferred a response that explained why you disagree. ϢereSpielChequers 20:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, WereSpielChequers, I was actually responding to Andy and should have stated so, but I incorrectly believed the indent would be adequate. Atsme☯Consult 20:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some mixed feelings here on this idea myself. I can and do think that there are a number of articles or topics which logically fall within the scope of several topics. Maybe even most of them, to some degree, will fall within multiple project's scopes. This includes even most of the kinds of animals, which have been, to some degree, given attention in religious systems, occasionally philosophical systems, popular culture, literature, and the lists go on. As a personal ideal, I would like to see all of what we would today consider reasonable encyclopedic content of any sort included somewhere in wikipedia, even if that means the creation of a lot more spinout articles than we even have today. And I could see something like the existing Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles expanded to include other topics, so that it would be easier to quickly determine just how many significant spinout and potential spinout topics are already covered in other encyclopedic sources. And having something like more of those pages would also make it a lot easier for major topics which don't get a lot of specific attention or interest here better coverage. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    John, having multiple project scopes doesn't affect the division. Think organization of the projects in their respective divisions. What we have now looks more like a hoarder's spare room. Atsme☯Consult 04:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is always possible to imagine ways to 'organise things better'. What we need is evidence that it would actually work, in the face of topics that can't conveniently be categorised. An encyclopaedia needs to accurately reflect the messy realities of human complexity, not impose a bogus order on it for administrative convenience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you not see the exampled division Wikipedia the Encyclopedia which will contain all the general encyclopedic content that doesn't fit in the other divisions? Atsme☯Consult 05:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What I see is a vague proposal, with no supporting evidence that it would actually achieve anything beyond giving us all something else to argue about. We have enough problems deciding whether a subject deserves coverage at all, and if it does, what such coverage should actually consist of. Adding another layer of complexity doesn't look like a way to "reduce controversy and encourage recruitment" to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure I understand the exact proposal; it would not be useful to attempt to force editors to focus on specific subject categories or assign them to divisions. However, I could see people accepting nominated positions as experts within a specific area of the encyclopedia and then being a point-person, when editors need help or advice within that area of expertise. CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This idea sounds more easily workable to me. I'm not sure we would want to call them by the term "expert", because that might not be particularly accurate, but something like "[topical] factchecker" or "[topical] researcher" or something like that might work. If, and it is obviously a very big if, I can ever finish the bloody Bibliography of encyclopedias set of pages, that might make it easier for all sorts of people to in general do some sort of fact checking. Maybe with a bit of material included in one of the project banners on the talk page to the effect of "this [specified] version of the article has been checked against "reference source x" and found to contain no particular deviations" might also be something which could be useful. For a lot of really broad topics, it might also be one of the ways to most easily ensure that all the major subtopics are discussed or at least referenced somewhere in the main article or its main spinout articles as well. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So what happens when a "business" admin, a "science/health" admin, and a "politics" admin disagree about the factual quality and weighting of our articles on climate change? MastCell Talk 18:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But sometimes the reference sources disagree, so it wouldn't be enough to check against one source, even if that was the generally well-regarded Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or the Encyclopedia Brittanica. I'm working on an article now that has exposed several errors in otherwise reliable sources, including the ODNB. Eric Corbett 18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer the questions, the first would probably deal more with the matter of spinout articles and matters of WEIGHT, which could be referenced I suppose in the banner template in some way. Regarding errors in reference sources, even the best make mistakes, sometimes clearly intentionally, as indicators of possible copyvio or something. Errors in reference works and similar would be worth including in articles on the reference works themselves, I would think, and I wish we had more of those sorts of articles. I'm kind of in the early stages of making that easier myself. These are valid points, though, and clearly no source is perfect, but, having said that, making it easier for people to know what others say, and at least mention them, might in some cases be better than the alternative. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to example it a little better. Let's say the topic is about climate change as MastCell suggested. It would be included in the Science division under the category Oceanic and Atmospheric. Science would also have a Biography category, among many other categories relative to that division. Science will have its own pod of admins. Admins will be limited to their respective divisions rather than across the board, the latter of which should encourage recruitment of admins to specific areas (specialty fields) because we are now targeting volunteers based on their interest in a particular topic area. ARBCOM would comprise selections from the different pods.
    Analogy - one pod of admins oversees the Atlantic Ocean and land masses within its territory. Another pod oversees the Caribbean and its land masses, another pod the Pacific Ocean and its land masses and so forth. Admins in the Caribbean do not have jurisdiction over the Pacific and so on. What that does is create pods of admins who are well versed in their respective areas of interest rather than lump summing all admins to cover the entire world. Expertise in a particular area also allows for a broader conceptualization of behavioral problems because now some degree of focus can be on content which provides for a better understanding of where the problems arise. More active/populated topic divisions get more admins while the less active areas get the minimum. Atsme☯Consult 20:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The major problem I could see here, unfortunately, is whether there would be sufficient departmentalized admins to adequately maintain each department. Also, it would seem to me that it would increase the risk of burnout, because it would have a tendency to make specific admins think they were in some way obligated to specific content areas. Dealing with the same wearisome discussions over and over would burn out anyone, and I know from experience there are a lot of seemingly endless arguments in various places. If admins were actually employees of the foundation, then this might work, but otherwise I can and do see that there would be a tendency to either force admins to remain "on topic", even if they get exhausted by it, or relinquish the admin bit, or retire.
    And I tend to think that it might also, to some degree, lead to a form of involuntary POV pushing by these pods. Theoretically, depending on the degree of balkanization we're talking about here, we might have a bunch of religion admins arguing that certain completely non-scientific religious beliefs are scientific or something like that.
    Lastly, it would likely make it that much harder for cross-pod vandals to be caught. As is, someone who has tracked a problem editor or puppeteer in one area would have to hand off the baton to another pod if the vandal attacks a related area, and the amount of time that would have to be expended in preparing and transmitting the damning evidence against the problem editor would be a real drain of time, particularly when there is no guarantee, depending on unknown circumstances, whether an admin in the other "pod" would get to the complaint any time soon.
    Those are at least a few of the problems. Personally, I wouldn't at all mind having some sort of content committees created, and this effectively looks like something along those lines, but it also maybe looks like it might create a potentially unworkable degree of bureaucracy, particularly for content areas that don't have many particular experts in them. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I find the notion that only admins are capable of judging the accuracy of content to be quite revealing, as the requirement for admins to be able to do so has been repeatedly rejected at RfA. Eric Corbett 21:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was indicated in the first post to this thread that the groups would be admin only. To a degree, I could support that, provided we opened up the admin corps a bit more than we have. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it's always possible that Hell will one day become exothermic, but I wouldn't be holding my breath. How long ago was it that Jimbo declared his intention to sort out RfA? Eric Corbett 21:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your well thought out input, John Carter. I have also mentioned (in other discussions) task forces or what you termed as content committees because I think they would be quite valuable to the project. The disruption stems from content disputes and elevates into behavioral disputes. It makes sense to nip it in the bud and will save our admins a lot of burdensome work. I would support such a plan. Atsme☯Consult 21:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesus wept. Atsme, the original version of your essay was deleted because it actively invited people to assume the "pharma shill gambit". The new version does so less explicitly. A load of people wioth vastly more experience in managing COI and advocacy have told you that your approach is wrong, and the entire motivation for it appears to be that you consistently fail to gain consensus for your edits at Talk:G. Edward Griffin, where you seem to want us to pretend that laetrile is not quackery, the New World Order conspiracy theory is a valid approach to understanding the Federal Reserve, and that a mainly self-published truther, chemtrailer, AIDS denialist and so on, is somehow not a conspiracy theorist. It's become very boring. 22:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

    Very disturbing post, Guy. FYI - the essay is coming along beautifully with a great team of collaborators. I am truly concerned over your behavior right now. I've seen you out of sorts before, but right now it appears you are losing it. You do realize you just spewed a toilet full of unsupported assertions don't you? What exactly is your purpose for this unwarranted PA and your relentless attempts to discredit me? I'm actually embarrassed for you at this moment. ●°.°● Atsme☯Consult 00:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes, Guy - that's not at all what's happening. petrarchan47คุก 01:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Atsme's point above that content disputes escalate into behavioral disputes, because we do not have a means to resolve them when the focus is still on the content. Regarding the assumption that any new sub-set of editors would be admins; on the contrary, I would think creating a new user-level would be a good work-around to the inability to reform RFA; it could reduce the level of administrative items by fixing issues at the content level, instead of the conduct level. CorporateM (Talk) 01:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This idea would create thousands of POV forks, such that the science division version would host the science-friendly version, the politics division would host the tit-for-tat debating style where everyone gets an equal say no matter how wrong they are, and the business division would host the capitalist-friendly version which dismisses science as an annoyance. If we want to give up on WP:POVFORK as well as NPOV then by all means, implement this idea. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm...are there any librarians in the house? Atsme☯Consult 04:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 22 April 2015

    Stable Wikipedia?

    I recently returned as an editor, as practically everyone knows, and I have started looking at the suite of philosophy articles. They are all in need of attention, and it is beyond any single persons’s abilities to put them all right. It’s partly because there aren’t enough editors with even an elementary education in philosophy. I think it’s also because philosophy, more than any other subject, is considered as a subject that anyone can edit on. The reality is that competence is required here just as in mathematics or astrophysics, but no one has been told this. If you look at the talk page of the article on Free will, you will get a headache. See also the complaint here about the article Socrates. No professional philosophers (who have deadlines on papers and whose contributions to Wikipedia have no CV value) will want to build any sandcastles on the shore here. Astonishingly, it was an early featured article in 2004 so, contrary to the theory of Wikipedia, entropy is increasing.

    I am not the first person to suggest this, but why not have a system where specialist writers can develop an article in a the traditional way, i.e. not everyone can edit, the product will to be a defined format and with a defined target readership, no forest of citations but with proper peer review, and in a separate area. Then 'release' the stable article using a link at the top of the current article. That way it does not interfere with the current editorial system of 'anyone can edit', and it gives Wikipedia readers the choice of the stable peer reviewed version versus the current version. By default, the current version would be the one the reader would see, although the link to the stable version would be prominent. Perhaps you could get readers to vote on which version they preferred.

    Before anyone objects that 'Nupedia tried this and it didn't work', I will point them to the excellent Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy, which is a rough contemporary of Wikipedia, and which has successfully grown into more than 2,000 excellent articles. I am not saying that Wikipedia articles should look like that, because SEP target readership is not the general public, I am merely saying a traditional approach is viable. Also, Nupedia and Wikipedia never properly merged as a two-track system, even though this approach has been successfully used in traditional encyclopedias for centuries. I.e. be broad in many places, be deep where it matters. Commonly this is done by 'flagship articles', namely which cover a single vital subject in some depth. Free will is a level 3 article, and it should not be in the mess that it clearly is.

    Could the WMF support such an initiative? Who could I approach? Peter Damian (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=659106876"