User talk:Jimbo Wales

Wisdom from Andrew Lih

Andrew Lih, longtime Wikipedian and journalist professor, has written some words of wisdom about the Wikipedia community and the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. All I could think of while reading that was "what can I do to help?". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for Andrew Lih, but I disagree with his claim that "it’s simply too hard to manipulate complex code on a tiny screen" since the vast majority of my editing in recent years has been on an Android smart phone, using the desktop site. I have had no problem making tens of thousands of edits that way, including this edit, so I am not sure why Andrew makes that claim. It seems the WMF assumes, incorrectly, that editors using smart phones also use the mobile site, and do not even bother to study the experience of editors like me who routinely use mobile devices to edit through the desktop site.

The indisputable truth is that the vast majority of our readers over the years never edit, or have made a only handful of edits. Only a small percentage of people want to commit to editing this encyclopedia though most literate people use it happily. I favor every practical measure to recruit, welcome, train and retain new editors. Certainly that effort should incorporate a realistic assessment of how productive current editors actually use mobile devices in the real world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Noted. I may start giving this a try myself. One thing that I'm personally not happy about with the mobile site is that it makes using the site the way an editor uses the site very difficult. It's hard to get to talk pages, to history, to edit. The links are either hidden somehow where I don't see them, or not there at all. I don't know why these product decisions have been made, but I have not gotten involved in complaining about it because, well, there's too much else going on. Inspired by your remarks, it's something I want to learn more about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Andrew's estimated number of core volunteers across all projects is drastically too high and his assertion that there have been seven consecutive years of decline in editor count too pessimistic. In actual fact "three years of decline, followed by a two year plateau, followed by a dip in 2014 and a substantial recovery in 2015" is a more accurate description of the past seven years. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you show me a simple chart where I can draw the same conclusion that you have, from the data? Which numbers are you using. It strikes me as possible (or even likely) that the results vary to some extent if you look at En-only, Global, various other large languages, small languages, etc. I don't have all the various results memorized.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The raw data set is HERE. The first two columns need to be normalized to 30 day months to eliminate the fluctuation of "extra" editors topping the 100 edit mark in the 31st day (or failing to get there in the missing last days or day in the short month of February) and then graphed with time on the X axis and number of editors on the Y. Obviously 100 edits per month is doubtlessly not a sufficient count of true "Wikipedians," but even if that understates the size of the true core volunteer community by half, that's far fewer than Mr. Lih contends. I personally think the 100 edits per month count is not too far off, maybe a 50% understatement. Your mileage may vary. A similar data series for 5 edits per month is HERE, which shows a similar general editing trend over the last 7 or 8 years. A data set for 50 edits per month would be illuminating, I think, as would one for a larger number of edits per month, such as 250. In no case can it legitimately be contended that the count of editors has fallen for 7 straight years. Carrite (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Take a month of edits to articles from the "good old days". Analyze each one. Were they plucking low-hanging fruit by filling in popular articles or creating articles that the editor had a personal interest in (e.g., local hometown, species of animal, sports team)? Would the edits be accepted today? Yes, the study would be expensive but at least then you could talk intelligently about the causes of editor decline and find potential solutions. For example, you're likely not going to get the editors who were only here to fill in their favorite sports team's history to stick around and edit an article on Vladimir Bodiansky. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is very likely at least part of the cause for editor decline, and it's the one cause that we should not worry about very much. In the glorious year of 2005, Wikipedia was already very famous, but also (relative to today) quite empty. So it was easy to jump in and help. However, while I think this point is valid, I don't think it should give us too much comfort because in "similar" languages (with large numbers of speakers and very active Wikipedias) we see similar stagnation in numbers.

It occurs to me that although it's far beyond my personal capacity right now, it should be possible with a bit of work to tease out an approximate answer to this question: to what extent is editor count related to the size of a wikipedia, after controlling for factors such as population. If someone could prove that, consistently, things get harder at 500,000 articles or 1,000,000 articles, that might be comforting.

The danger of being complacent around the "low hanging fruit" effect is that it may cause us to overlook some very important factors that almost certainly matter as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, I remember reading that the Dutch Wikipedia had the highest ratio of editors to language speakers, but I have not found the place where I read it, although I have searched in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Years.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

See "Editors per million speakers" at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm, where the data disagree with my memory. Dutch has a high ratio, but less high than Czech, Swedish, Catalan, Finnish, Armenian, Hebrew, Norwegian, Slovene, Latvian, Estonian, Basque, Esperanto, and others.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I retrospect, I suppose that the chart possibly does agree with Dutch having the highest number of articles in relation to the number of speakers, which is closer to the topic of your question.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for my hurried, careless thinking on this occasion.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

My comments at [1] remain valid. One major problem on Wikipedia is grossly apparent animus held by some editors anent other editors, and the resulting harassment which never gets dealt with properly. By the way "number of edits" is not a valid measure of whether any article is growing or improving, and certainly is not reflective of whether Wikipedia is growing or improving. Collect (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Funny, when Mike Godwin started talking about the decline in new editors, the only thing I could think of that coincided with the date of the start of the decline, was the release of the iPhone. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that the growth in the use of smart phones itself is not the issue. I am a bit behind the curve but I use my smart phone more than I did a few years ago. That said, I almost never use it to edit. Despite the observations above, I prefer adding to and from a desktop with three screens. I suppose I should try the experiment but I do not even like editing from a laptop with a single screen so I’m not optimistic that I will be comfortable editing from a smart phone. The insightful event for me was a casual remark by a nephew that he almost never used his desktop computer anymore solely relied on the smart phone. So my possibly obvious, but not yet made above, is not the use of smart phones per se, but the number of individuals who no longer use a desktop. I suspect that is growing, and I suspect there are numbers out there but I suggest that’s a relevant piece of information.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'm a speed reader, so reading on a smartphone is frustrating, I need a larger block of text. And I can type a lot faster on a keyboard than I can on a smartphone. I doubt I'll give up my desktop soon. But I can understand the trend. As for editing on a smartphone, I find references a lot easier to do when I can copy and paste from other screens. And searching for references on a smartphone? Reading a JSTOR pdf? Not easy at all, too time consuming. Doug Weller (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A few points from the article I think are worth highlighting:

• The need to make contributing to Wikipedia less technical to improve editor diversity and recruitment
• The resistance to change that makes it difficult for Wikipedia to evolve + other excessive in-fighting
• The need for better mobile editing features for the young generation (not our generation), who prefer it.

I like Guy Macon's attitude, because so many people come to Jimbo's Talk page to complain, without any productive suggestions. How do we fix it/ make it better? CorporateM (Talk) 17:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• There remains a crying need for databasing and polling of core Wikipedia volunteers. Proposals for fixing problems need to first identify the problem. Who are the core 15,000 or 20,000 volunteers? How old are they? Are they urban or rural? Do they have kids at home or no kids? What makes them tick? Why are they here? — And who are the people that have left, exactly? The size of the editorial and quality control and site administrative corps can't be "fixed" until it is understood what the factors are that cause people to stay. We lament the obvious gender gap without even understanding its magnitude. We don't even talk about an even more dramatic ethnic gap at English WP. Nor do we have the slightest understanding of the nature of the 2/3 or so of core Wikipedians who do their thing outside of English WP. Unfortunately, WMF hasn't even taken baby steps towards filling in this picture.

If Corporate M wants a positive solution, here it is: a simple easy thing WMF could do is to produce a ranked list of the top 10,000 editors at En-WP every single month, including IP addressed, akin to Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits. A new page with 10,000 names every month. That's simple data to generate and community-generated interpretation would follow. Carrite (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Databasing core volunteers? - and what of not wanting to be databased - the Foundation as Big Brother? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Request to get help - religious fanaticism in English Wikipedia

Hello Jimbo! In 21 century Inquisition returned, now - Orthodox Inquisition which does not implement crimes on the practice (but theory). Their famous representative urges burn people alive even (Russian Wikipedia gives more info about this priest and actor, he has relation to the ROC and now). The ROC means corruption also. The concept of The ROC acts against human rights on highest level (freedom of conscience - evil by their opinion). Their main Holy was a pervert and the Church does not hide it on their website. But on English Wikipedia governs religious fanatic: Evensteven. He provoked the war of edits to remove the shameful information from the article (my friend was blocked because of him). Religious fanatic destroyed useful contribution after this action. I ask you punish the provoker. And admins must restore the contribution (only truth is there because). Admins have no blame (they acted in accordance with the rules, but these rules were directed not against the provoker). This looks solooks so and number of interesting facts can become more (info above):

Interesting facts

• The Basis of the Social Concept of the ROC contain norms which condemn the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like and constitutions of most states, because these documents give for people right to have the freedom of conscience. The ROC supposes that such right - is evil. But the Constitution of Russia also permits the freedom of conscience.

• Vladimir the Great who baptized Kievan Rus', had a large number concubines (if to trust to early sources).

Thank you! https://translate.google.com (to understand better). I hope on your help to restore justice and contribution of my friend. - LORT44125 (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC).

Your "friend"'s edits were rejected as poorly formed and amounting to a novel synthesis from published sources. You would need to cite reliable independent secondary sources that make the point being advanced. That is, scholarly books and journal articles drawing the link between the documents cited, and the "interesting facts" alleged. It would also need to be in rather better English - try asking one of the Russian speakers on English Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. But if sources belong to a subject of an article, they can be used. The Basis of the Social Concept of the ROC are located on the website of the ROC (official resource). Easy delete: "is evil" (to be neutral totally). Info about Vladimir the Great - content from different sources (can be used only Karamzin, for example). About corruption (telegraph). About priest and actor (huffingtonpost). These two facts were not published yet in the section for interesting facts. All of this can make short to be free of grammatical mistakes (all facts). - LORT44125 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC).

Not the way your "friend" used them. In any case, this is a content dispute and belongs on the talk page of the article. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is the history of the ROC, and are used authoritative sources. This is encyclopedic information without any conjectures. Can even create section: Crimes of the ROC (corruption and so on). Even ped.philia is their deal. But why make such damage vs the Church .. Interesting fact does not mean crime. Many crimes were during more than 1000 years (burning alive - including). For example, I dont wish write about executions. But if will created new section with relevant name - everyone will write about executions. In the same time - this is truth and encyclopedic information without any violations. I think that Wikipedia does not wish depend of any fanatics. War of edits must be stoped immediately. When fanatic begins "take action". Religious fanatics can not be tolerant (example very near). Here you can understand - why the vandal became change text (argumentation for the good of the ROC in accordance with the the Concept). Be against human rights can not be something useful (axiom). And he was not against of interesting facts in that time!!!!! He began change configuration of actions when he saw possibility to destroy all via war of edits. My friend simply ignored him. Because discussion with fanatic - empty action (without meaning). Such discussion can be continued during "million years". And else: fanatic collected many of new edits for the own good. He changed original text via many stages + rollbacks and templates. - LORT44125 (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC).

References

Yibin

Yibin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One thing I enjoy doing is thinking about large places in the world that I've never heard of. It's a sort of hobby of mine to try to reduce the number of those. One great way to play this game is to go to List of cities in China by population and scan down until you find a city you've never heard of. Another way to play is to think of a city that is famous (to you) and scan down and find one of similar size and read about it.

San Francisco has a population of 850,000 for the city proper and a metropolitan area of just over 4 and a half million. Yibin has a population of 836,000 in the "built up area" and just under 4 and a half million in the wider area. So, that's interesting, a city about the size of San Francisco - and I'd never heard of it.

So I read the entry and ai yi yi, what a mess. We confidently explain that the economy there is declining because of anti-corruption policies: "Nevertheless, the economy of Yibin has been crashing since 2013, due to the anti-corruption policy issued by CCP. It leads the local economy to suffer a devastating blow. What's more, the consequence of failing to alter its economic structure and develop new industries leaves public to deem that there is little sign to show the recovery of local economy. Some experts consider that the increasing number of corruption existing in China once made huge contributions to the prosperity of local economy. With the anti-corruption keeping going, it has the potential that the local economy will keep declining."

1. Now - I happen to do this kind of idle activity when I'm stuck in a line, or waiting for a plane to take off, or on a bus. On mobile. I found it quite difficult to try to edit it and gave up. That's a different story, but one that I hope will provoke some thinking. Shouldn't editing from mobile devices be easier?

2. Even here, on my computer, a simple thing that any Wikipedian will want to ask themselves is "Ok, who put that in there?" Figuring that out is a tedious process of looking through revision history. Surely it can't be that hard to automate (with imperfection, of course) the process of figuring out who first insert a phrase - and including that capability as a default and easy to use feature of the software.

--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Update, the user was User:Doudoumo and he's never been warned or really even spoken to, apart from being greeted in automated ways.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting concept for finding articles, its worth noting that San Francisco has been a featured article since 2006 while Yibin has been sitting at an auto-assessed stub class since it was created. Also, there is an external tool for searching revision history, WikiBlame created by Flominator on the German Wikipedia. Though it isn't exactly perfect, it is much better than looking through the history trying to find an edit without a summery. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think User:Doudoumo was not trying to vandalize the article. Maybe he was trying to say that the liquor industry is associated with corruption and that anti-corruption policies hurt the economy because the city is largely dependent on the liquor industry? What do you think of that theory? Brian Everlasting (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's possible. But with the apparent absence of sources it was correct to remove it. Quite how the anti-corruption caused problems is not described in the edit, again making it less likely to be correct. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

And to be clear, I wasn't saying this was vandalism. It was not a good edit, but it wasn't vandalism. And looking at (some of) his other contributions, he seems to be good-faith. I just long for people like this to come and meet friends and talk with us and learn our values and objectives in a friendly way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "who put that in there" - this sounds quite feasible. I picked a phrase sort of at random "Yibin is located in the southeast portion of Sichuan". As most editors know, I can go to the revision history search, enter the phrase, and after a little churning, I will learn that Mathpianist93 added the phrase on 22 June 2010. However, why couldn't we make it so that a reader can highlight the phrase right-click and have an option to find out who edited it and when? Most of the tools are already built we may simply have to link them together.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly right. I'm aware of "WikiBlame" - it's been around for years. But it isn't integrated with anything and not many people know about it. Everyone should be able to use it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The history tab of every page contains a link to it in the External tools section. "Revision history search". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It used to be that one had to know about the tool and know where it was—it is a step in the right direction that it is listed on the top of the history page now, but it still isn't well integrated. As a crude next step, (as I suggested above) it would be nice if you could just highlight a phrase, right-click, and invoke Wikiblame. A more comprehensive follow-on might generate a document identifying all editors who edited that phrase. It might be one, but it might be several, and Wikiblame only finds the first. An even more ambitious approach would allow you to highlight a word, say "Yibin" and find out when that was added or removed. At the moment, Wikiblame will track down any addition of removal of that word, rather than a specific placement of the word in a specific sentence. I use Wikiblame a lot, but I still find the need to slog through diffs, especially if the issue is a single word used multiple times. We could make it easier.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you there. The software needs to make finding phrases through article revisions a lot more easier (faster wouldn't hurt either). Would also like to be able to search through an editor's contribs for a particular phrase. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

'Sinister' - Harassment on Wikipedia News Piece

@Jimbo Wales: Hi there. Please see a link to a news video I have made about sinister goings on here on Wikipedia. Episode 4 - Sinister

I am a journalist and blogger. I run my own website and I have also, from time to time, sourced stories for papers such as the Daily Mail. I am studying a Master's Degree in law combined with a solicitor's certificate. I have spent a lot of time representing vulnerable people and their families in Court pro-bono. In fact I was praised in the British Parliament by then Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming for my legal skills representing a vulnerable woman - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140113/petntext/140113p0001.htm

My coverage of the recent ArbCom case on Grant Shapps and Richard Symonds was the source of articles in almost every UK national publication - http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=1634 . My work was also directly cited by Breitbart - http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/06/10/shapps-case-raises-questions-for-wikipedia-and-the-guardian/

There is likely to be ongoing coverage of Mark Bernstein's conduct on the English language Wikipedia. If MarkBernstein's conduct and that of his supporters goes unchecked it is likely to seriously damage the project's reputation.

I recognize that Mr Bernstein believes that he is the victim of anonymous GamerGate misogynist harassers. Fairly obviously I am no such thing, being open about my identity (which is on my user page) and also having been praised for my equalities work.

Is there anything you can do to help? Vordrak (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have rarely seen someone worthy of the appellation "journalist" [2] attempt to incite the parties of a story they are covering to resume a dispute the parties have considered settled]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There is likely to be ongoing coverage of Mark Bernstein's conduct on the English language Wikipedia Odd, using the passive voice. Why don't you say you are going to be writing about Mark Bernstein on your blog? Own the harassment you are eliciting.

You came to Wikipedia to examine the Chase Me arbitration case and now you are moving on to Gamergate now that the sockpuppet case is basically over. If you want to cover Wikipedia "controversies", go to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars where you will find an endless source of articles that are the source of disputes. One of my favorites was the blood, sweat and tears spent on debating Danish pastry. It's riveting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Vordrak contacted me and asked me to comment for his piece before he published it, but I refused. He was quite polite and professional about it, but his requests to me and other editors were coupled with statements that certain actions he disapproved of should be changed. I and other administrators attempting to police this topic area are concerned that such comments may have a chilling effect on editors working on these articles, that such requests may be seen as an attempt to intimidate editors into taking or not taking certain actions at the risk of facing negative media scrutiny. I should also note that his video concluded with a call for users of a particular pro-gamergate online forum, a forum that has been the source of harassment and outing directed at Wikipedia editors, to edit Wikipedia. While anyone can edit Wikipedia, calling only for users on one forum that is on one side of the issue is inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I have never in fact attempted to edit the topic area you are policing. I did suggest you reconsider a comment that a conflict of interest concern raised by an editor was 'fraudulent' as I thought it might be uncivil and WP:Wikibullying. Given the prolific number of articles by Mr Bernstein, in one case accusing the entire Arbitration Committee of 'purging' 'feminists' 'en-bloc' from the encyclopaedia, I hardly think you or he can complain of some media attention raising the opposite view. Vordrak (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with you bringing up your viewpoints in your videos. I do have a problem with your problematic interactions with other editors and your calls for only one side of the issue to edit the article to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as I noted above.Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Some errors in your article which I've noticed: Right great wrongs and No editor is indispensible are not policies, they are essays. Chase me being a Lib Dem supporter wasn't mentioned at all in Arbcom's decision.

PS:Love how you put "ethics in journalism" second to fighting SJWs, when describing what GG is.

PPS:Look up WP:Meatpuppet Bosstopher (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: hi there! I am flattered that you have watched the video. I believe findings 6 and 7 of the Arbitration Committee refer to his political leanings albeit obliquely so I disagree that is an error - worth looking at the PD talk page for that case to see how people were thinking.

Thank you for the correction on RGW and Indispensibility - because they are regularly cited and widely accepted essays I believe that describing them as policies is an acceptable simplification for a wide audience that is unfamiliar with Wikipedia nuance.

Regarding meat-puppets, fairly obviously no such question arises. I am not a single-purpose editor having arrived on the wiki for a completely different purpose and having a history both with this account and before of editing in a different topic area as my primary interest. Indeed I have not edited in GamerGate at all, ever.

As many GamerGater supporters seek to edit here, it seems to me that suggesting they genuinely support the encyclopaedia, learn policy and etiquette is eminently sensible. I note in particular that Mr Wales invited them to engage constructively. I did read the policy as you requested and note that raising the issue of 'meatpuppetry' inappropriately can be considered WP:UNCIVIL. Vordrak (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, although Arbcom never explicitly state what you state I guess it's a fair enough conclusion to reach. I'm not accusing you of being a meatpuppet, just noting that encouraging people of a single viewpoint to edit Wikipedia in the hundreds pretty much matches the description at WP:MEATPUPPET word for word. What you're suggesting would definitely count as a manipulation of consensus.Bosstopher (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Would like to add that the whole giving eachother barnstars to look like experienced users thing, is pretty dodgy and will come across pretty dodgy to most people who see it. Also the thing about pushing admins through RfA that support your faction is a dreadful idea. Wikipedia editors should act as individuals and greater factionalism is the last thing Wikipedia needs. Bosstopher (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: I did not suggest giving barnstars to 'look like experienced users' I suggested engaging with the encyclopaedia as a whole and learning its etiquette, which includes giving barnstars. Bear in mind Jimbo Wales already suggested GamerGate members join so getting them to do it constructively seems to me a good idea.

In any case, there will be a follow up article in the next few days. [redacted] I am sure Jimmy Wales is sick of this controversy but I invite him to comment or at least acknowledge. Vordrak (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I was referring more to what the other moderator of the subreddit you advertised is saying[3] Bosstopher (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: I feel you may have misunderstood them. However as you are referring to what you say is an off-wiki post by someone else I am not sure I can add anything. You are of course welcome to join the subreddit and provide guidance on Wikipedia policy. I am afraid it is nearly midnight here in the UK so I am going to bed now. I also do not wish to become involved in a drawn-out thread. Please do not be offended when I do not reply further. I will post here again when / if the follow-up article is ready. Vordrak (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for you to use this space to make vague unsubstantiated accusations against living individuals per WP:BLP. Please use the appropriate noticeboard if you have a specific complaint. Gamaliel (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel:My concern about MarkBernstein is that his entire Wikipedia activity at the moment is in fact WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and it has fostered an ongoing conflict. Vordrak (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct, but a similar case could be made against any number of editors currently working on these articles. I doubt we are going to ban a whole bunch of editors on these grounds unless there's another arbcom case, and singling out one editor who disagrees with you while ignoring similar behavior or mindsets from others is not appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Not that I want to disagree with you -- the use of Wikipedia as a weapon to drive women out of computing is wrong, and it is a wrong you ought to help me in righting (if it has been done) and preventing (if people seek to do it). However, some of the other Wikipedia pages I have watched -- often for years -- range from Dave Winer and Dame Wendy Hall to Aaron Swartz and Doug Engelbart, Kathryn Cramer, Cathy Marshall, Frank Westheimer, Russell Meiggs, Ted Nelson, and George P. Landow. I've edited many of these recently, and in others I've silently researched confirmation of other people's edits. Perhaps all these fit together in the sinister conspiracy you apparently think I lead; I'm eager to learn how these people connect! MarkBernstein (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

But of of course, it hasn't. Bonnie Ross (notablr red link considering all the posturing) being a featured speaker at E3, Microsoft exec and head of HALO with a decade at least as a game developer simply ignores the pet Social Justice crusade. There are at least a dozen more. Posing the personal SJ crusade as defending women in gaming ignores the voluminous number that are actual impacting AAA games instead of tropey indie houses. --DHeyward (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

With the number of times you have brought up the redlink Bonnie Ross you yourself could have created the article and brought it up to GA standards if it is that important of a topic to you/the gaming world. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You've mentioned this a lot and I think it's an interesting point. People (myself included) seem to stick to more controversial topics, which leads less controversial things to be neglected. For instance despite all the edit warring and discussions over Gamergate and the role of online harassment within it, online harassment itself is just a redirect. I tried to see if I could get a few people editing the GG article involved in writing a quality article on online harassment, but ended up getting distracted by the opportunity for some prime Gamergate related Wikipedia shitposting. Would you be interested in organizing some sort of online edit-thon equivalent, or a Gamergate version of Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, to encourage those editing in the GG topic area to try and write these articles on women in game industry? Or perhaps a more lightweight solution would just be a list of redlinked game developers who you think have enough coverage to meet GNG.Bosstopher (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

We're seriously discussing Youtube "journalism"?--Jorm (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Right up there with make believe universities, eh? Mroj (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, look! My very own stalker! --Jorm (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you quit like you said you would if anyone told you what to do or were you forced out for incompetence with Flow aka liquid threads 3? :kiss: Mroj (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh! He's helpfully created a new subreddit called "The Great Work" to help train new Gamergaters how to game the system! Highly ethical and neutral! Quelle suprise!--Jorm (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not "journalism", it's not a "news video"; it's just one more video blogger advocating for his personal point of view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Ironically your actions have led to the AE request against Mark being closed with no action.[4] Gamergate really is its own biggest enemy.Bosstopher (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: thanks. I read the AE request, which I am not involved in. The 'no action' decision had clearly reached community consensus before I posted. Also the video does not actually demand any sanctions. I actually admire Zad68 for resisting the appearance of appeasement and will post on his talk page for reassurance. Vordrak (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• There are a whole bunch of Wikipedians defending the still-slanted, still-polemic Gamergate controversy piece that are utter failures at embracing NPOV, who are indeed there to "Right Great Wrongs" (which in actual fact are biased misrepresentations of the Gamergaters' political movement). They know who they are, or should, and they need to stand aside. But they'd rather have a little political fight with their "enemies" because both sides are ultimately playing a political "game" against one another. It's absolutely sterile, it reminds me of the wackadoodle sectarian politics of 1980s American Maoism. This dispute could be solved with a neutral rewriting of the article that doesn't equate Gamergate with misogynist terrorism — which the obsessive white knight horsemen believe it to be. And so on it on it goes, producing nothing positive other than the fact that half a dozen of the most tendentious and abusive Wikipedians are tied up and occupied. Carrite (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This from the editor who thought an anonymous Gamergate propaganda piece was suitable "evidence" for the ArbCom case. How exactly does assisting a bunch of Channer trolls to recruit for their cyberbullying mob -- whose plainly stated intent was to drive someone to commit suicide via non-stop Internet harassment -- on Wikipedia benefit this project in any way? How is that suitable material for an encyclopedia? And why does this community persist in treating these cyberbullies with kid gloves (Assume Good Faith!) when they continue to come here and use Wikipedia as a platform to perpetuate their harassment? Any editor on this project who supports or tolerates this behavior -- and it's very clear who they are -- should be deeply and thoroughly ashamed and should take themselves off to Encyclopedia Dramatica where they belong instead, post haste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.3.157 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Carrite, as an experienced Wikipedian, you might be well-placed to try to do that rewrite, probably starting in your own userspace. I, for one, would be very interested to read and compare the two versions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As a note on this, because GG involves one specific, disproven allegation against a living person (one that is well sourced), and the potential to include more, we (the community) have been hesistent to create drafts for the GG article outside of one specific page that is also watched by admins and interested parties. And yes, people have tried to use this draft page to write a more neutral version, and have been shot down by the group of editors that Carrite refers to, using policy as a tool to shut down discussions that don't fit their take. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry @Vordrak: it appears I've arrived too late. I reviewed your video, and the wealth of information you've collected was very enlightening. I was able to read a completed article as well and really enjoyed the report. You were asking if there were anyway to assist you(?) I believe you are in the middle of publishing another article? I can point out a few things that my be all too obvious or not for you; I noticed you sourced BreitBart in a citation of one of your articles. As I was informed Breitbart.com is not a "reliable source", although a simple search result will clearly show you that Breitbart has been used over 300 times in Wikipedia pages and some 2,000 different occasions in [[5]] of Wikipedia. But for whatever reasoning, when it revolves around the #gamergate hashtag ... it gets removed.

ALSO - Involving the same #gamergate topics (even in this very thread) you will notice the same group of Editors responding to whatever you have to say. It doesn't matter if you're a newcomer or someone whose been here for that past 10 years; These same people appear and make comments: There's User:MarkBernstein, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Bosstopher, User:Jorm, User:NNeil, User:Liz ... Where's Peter? Oh there's User:PeterTheFourth below this thread accusing you of WP:Canvassing. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like there's some irony in that. Quite frankly, I'm surprised Cullen328 haven't stopped by to lend their CONSENSUS.

Lastly; You may see this thread closed, deleted, collapsed or purposely knocked off-topic all in the name of controversy. I'm not psychic, but I do recognize patterns. It has become quite close to WP:Forum discussion. You may want to volunteer your questions to Wikipedia:Village_pump which is used to discuss the technical issues, policies, and operations of Wikipedia. I hope it helps. Please feel free to ask me anything on my TALK page --j0eg0d (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with replying to people who have questions about a topic on Wikipedia which you enjoy editing? Bosstopher (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing by Vordrak

Hey. Thought it was relevant that Vordrak is inviting several editors to comment here who've in the past been critical of Mark Bernstein. Specifically, here, here, and here. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 06:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Rather ironic observation coming from a WP:DUCK SPA that began editing WP at ARBCOM with a wealth of WP knowledge. --DHeyward (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

How many Troll points does this guy get? -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 16:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I would subtract at least 10 points for being yet another gamergater. There's no creativity in that. Resolute 19:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth You can't define a journalist, seeking information to complete an article, in the same category as canvasing because you're suggesting @Vordrak: has some ulterior motive. He's obviously not optioning for AE requests or changing a WIKI page. If anything we should encourage more journalists to write articles about Wikipedia. This uncritical enthusiasm would hint at (maybe) you take a break from this *White Knighting*. --j0eg0d (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Blogger <> journalist. Let's not give Vordrak some kind of halo here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This man is well respected by the British Parliament [User:NeilN|NeilN]], that's quite an honor, in the very least have some WP:Civility.--j0eg0d (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

j0eg0d, did you watch his video? Have you read his blog? He came to Wikipedia to cover one controversy (the sockpuppet arbitration case) and now he's moved on to the next controversy.

And "white knighting" is dismissive of anyone whose opinion you don't agree with, implying that they are criticizing Gamergate out of a misguided effort to be heroic instead of using their own reason and intelligence to come to their own conclusions about it. That could be seen as a personal attack. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz I finished watching the video and I read one of his articles. He's quite the proficient author. I stopped by to simply respond to a Vordrak's question. The "White Knighting" comment isn't meant to dismiss what PeterTheFourth's claims. It was suggesting he calm down for a minute to review this person's question. It's a more neutral alternative than finding suspicion with anyone posting the word gamergate.

j0eg0d, have a sense of proportion and cut down on the hyperbole. If Vordrak is Sam Smith then "Sam Smith assisted her in successfully retaining her capacity to instruct a solicitor" hardly equates to "This man is well respected by the British Parliament... that's quite an honor." And you might want to look at his user page. [6] "I write Conservative blog" = blogger, no? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I don’t know what “optioning for AE requests” might be -- does that mean PeterTheFourth gets a player to be named later? As for "uncritical enthusiasm," I’d have thought Peter was being quite critical and far from enthusiastic -- in either sense of the word. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In general as this page is for philosophical discussion of interesting questions, and not a formal noticeboard where actions are taken, canvassing doesn't really apply. Anyone should feel free to invite anyone they like to a discussion here. Notice that by the same token, that Mr. PeterTheFourth has few other edits besides this topic is also pretty much irrelevant. I'd rather us focus discussion on ideas rather than who is putting forward those ideas.

And to take it one step further - I'm not that interested in discussing the conduct of individual wikipedians here. That can sometimes be relevant, but primarily it will be relevant in the context of a good-faith discussion of the principles at issue and how Wikipedia structures and policies might be improved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo Wales, I respect your comments w.r.t the purpose of this page. The "interesting question" that I see lurking in the corner is that sections of the community appear to have lost faith in the Administration and Arbitration Enforcement as it applies to this topic (broadly construed). There is an appearance that the administrative actions under the community & discretionary sanctions have been unevenly & inconsistently applied; and have been done so in a manner which biases the content of mainspace Articles within the topic area.

While it would be unreasonable to expect absolute consistency in administrative decisions - a sort of "mandatory sentencing" - and some allowance for the sanctions to reflect individual administrator preferences must, of course, be made; it is not reasonable to expect that administrative decisions, either individually or as a whole, should influence the neutrality of content.

What changes would you see as being possible to restore any lost community faith in these processes, and how would such changes be best proposed and agreed?

I also note that "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" is actually part of the editors signature, not at Template:Spa tag.

Regards, - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You realize that "sections of the community appear to have lost faith in the Administration and Arbitration Enforcement as it applies to this topic" can be trotted out for every single topic under AE, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales these are the same words/ideas I've been trying to get across to several of the Editors in this room. I dislike this childish bickering more than any of the vandalism, but it's rampant within every content that invites the word gamergate. I also want to applaud Ryk72's humble comment. He's referring to a consensus of our thoughts, that continues without response. I've suggested deleting the entire Gamergate_controversy page, because it not only gets vandalized, but Admins & Editors are inviting the arguments. I don't believe it's in Wikipedia's best interest to harass newcomers that want to contribute to Wikipedia, even if that page is gamergate related; We can not take the position that every individual coming to Wikipedia is here to "troll". Can we please just delete Gamergate_controversy? --j0eg0d (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

For someone who claims not to be here to troll or cause problems, you sure are quick to open reddit threads targeting editors and ping them at every opportunity. Very ethical. Very neutral. --Jorm (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: This is the very definition of what I was referring to. It's common for Jorm and yet completely unnecessary. Thank you for linking to that by the way. I hope Jimbo has the time to read it. --j0eg0d (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

'Improper' - Article Exposé on Mark Bernstein's 8 Year Wikipedia Campaign of Editing Articles Related to His Own Business and Products

This is my promised followup article about MarkBernstein, based on information provided by Wikipedia whistleblowers and carefully checked by myself over the last 24 hours. The article is called Improper, and follows on from my video, Sinister previously posted.

Whilst I know media intervention can be annoying, in this case I feel I have exposed some pretty serious WP:COI rule breaches. I imagine DHeyward, Carrite, j0eg0d, Ryk72, Rhoark and Masem might enjoy.

I thank Jimmy Wales for his comments about canvassing and his suggestion about Carrite attempting a new GamerGate article in her userspace - I would certainly be willing to offer some uninvolved thoughts and support to Carrite in trying to produce something more encyclopaedic to try to pour cool waters on this dispute. Vordrak (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have too much free time. What a waste of time. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

WHAT? If this is true, then why isn't this being relayed to ARBCOM? I knew that User:MarkBernstein was advertising his own website on Wikipedia, but this claim is a whole other perspective. I'm shocked ... Quite frankly shocked, to learn this. --j0eg0d (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The additional diffs you've produced seem like WP:TROUT level mis-steps. Unfortunately, your unprofessionalism in this matter apparently killed any momentum to take action at AE - momentum which had seemed to be building after MB's attempt to exploit the Charleston shooting. Coordinating editing from off-wiki is also extremely counter-productive, given that is precisely the scapegoat that has been used for assuming bad faith. Rhoark (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

While obviously undisclosed COI editing is a bad thing to do, you should keep in mind that COI policy is wikipedia's equivalent to internet piracy laws. Literally everyone has done it despite it being against the rules, right down from the fly-by editor who creates an article on their company and then never edits again, up to the Wikimedia Foundation itself.[7] Nobody will do anything about this because almost everyone is guilty of worse. It's also a tad bit hypocritical coming from a guy who's been using their investigation as an opportunity to give their website a lot of publicity. You could always have just messaged people privately asking for information. Altogether a rather meh article, bigger fish in the sea, bigger issues than this. Bosstopher (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering about “undisclosed”, "Hypertext researcher Mark Bernstein is chief scientist of Eastgate Systems, Inc." has been the lede on my Wikipedia user page since September 2006 -- literally my first Wikipedia edit. For future aspiring journalists, "Eastgate" has an initial capital, it’s customary to use the full corporate name (including “Inc.”) on first appearance, if your publication uses courtesy titles like "Mr." it behooves you to use the correct title, and "typoes" are usually "typos." MarkBernstein (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I was curious, but I'm looking at Eastgate Systems, Inc on google map and it appears to be a Law Firm. --j0eg0d (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

What a load of bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

So Mr Bernstein is making COI edits? How terrible, you'll be accusing him of using one of Wikipedia's most high traffic pages to spam his own blog next. Oh, wait... Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what page you're thinking of here, but for those who might actually be interested, I don't believe Wikipedia has ever been a significant referrerr to “Infamous”. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I was rather ironically referring to the fact that Vordrak is using this page for such purposes. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry. My irony detector had a bad battery. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)