Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Could Wikipedia sue Neri Oxman?

As I ask in my post, does anyone know if Wikipedia/Wikimedia has ever sued someone for copyright infringement? Reagle (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Wikimedia cannot sue anyone for copyright infringement because it does not own the copyright for its content. Ruslik_Zero 19:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right unless the Vizio case changes things. Reagle (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

What would be the point? While it is technically possible, and not very uncommon, to CI WP-text, it is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0 anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Heh. Funny you should mention that. I was at a talk this past weekend when I saw one of my own photos pop up on the screen, unattributed. They had obviously downloaded it from commons. For a moment I thought about pointing out to them that by failing to honor the "BY" part of CC-BY-SA, that had violated my copyright, but I behaved myself. RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I strongly prefer to use CC images in my slide decks (as a professor) and always link to the original image or have a credits slide (if the image is a background and can't be clicked on). I've assumed that's "reasonable" but not sure if that has been adjudicated? Reagle (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The point would be akin to @RoySmith's case. Some people contribute to Wikipedia with the expectation that the license will be abided by. In any case, it doesn't sound like a copyright infringement ''of'' Wikipedia content has ever been litigated. Reagle (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That article seems very confused. In the first paragraph it says, "Neri Oxman plagiarized from and violated Wikipedia’s copyright", but later says, "users retain their copyright, rather than assigning or transferring it to the Wikimedia Foundation". The latter is correct, so individual users could potentially sue, but not "Wikipedia", by which I assume the article means the Wikimedia Foundation. Even so it would be very difficult to show any loss, so, if I was a lawyer, I would advise against suing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You could probably get the minimum statutory damages, which in the US is US$750 per infringed work,[1] as long as the work isn't online. If it's only online, you'd send a DMCA takedown message and get nothing. See Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter and Wikipedia:Standard CC BY-SA violation letter if you ever find yourself wanting to start that process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The only time I've noticed someone using content I added to Wikipedia without attribution, I notified the administrator of the Facebook group and it was taken down. Anything beyond that seemed to require more effort than it was worth. Donald Albury 14:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for those violation letters. From their existence, I presume they have been sent, but the cases were low visibility and little has gone before a court -- unlike some of the free software cases. Reagle (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

UK GDPR issue came up in AfD, unsure where to head next

Hello, the Article for Deletion (AfD) discussion for Lynn Murray [2] has mentioned that the subject of the article has asked that we delete her page under section 17 of the UK's GDPR law. What are the next steps to follow? I'm unsure where to ask this, the Village Pump seemed like the best place to start. I'm an editor involved in AfD, but not an admin if that helps. Feel free to respond here or in the AfD I've linked. Thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As someone has already pointed out, Wikimedia is a US entity operating under California/US law. To my knowledge, they don't appear to publicly talk much about GDPR. That said, the contact point is listed at meta:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department (you'll probably want legal@). A couple of other observations: IMDB gives a recent acting role in 2020, and there's some links on the talk page to her (presumably self-published and presumably recent) profiles, both of which give me certain doubts. That said, BLPREQUESTDELETE is generally honoured in marginal cases such as this, so you might want to see how that plays out before anything else. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

• Someone needs to read Right to be forgotten. As I understand it, "____ is a Scottish actor" is not generally considered private information by anyone.
• Have you heard of the Streisand effect? Page views are up.

(I'm not sure that we need an article about this person.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia is a US entity operating under California/US law According to the EU, the GDPR is extra-territorial in scope, and applies to any data processor who handles information on EU citizens. Despite Brexit, the data of UK citizens would still be in scope of GDPR compliance as it's not yet repealed it. The Foundation itself maintains a presence in Ireland and the UK for GDPR compliance, though whether that's only for the personal data of editors is unclear from the privacy policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Designing a new Wishlist: Meet Jack, the new Lead Community Tech Manager

Hello community, I want to introduce Jack Wheeler, who has recently joined the Wikimedia Foundation as the Lead Community Tech Manager and is responsible for the Future of the Wishlist.

Jack would like to have a conversation with the community, to get input for the design of the new Wishlist Survey, starting with how to define a "Wish."

Community Tech would appreciate you chatting with him; your input will be invaluable.

You can check out Jack's first message to the community, where you can find a link to proceed to book time to talk to him, or share your ideas.

Best regards,

On behalf of the Community Tech team, STei (WMF) (talk) 09:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Talking:2024 February 2024 Update from Maryana

Hey all,

I'm following up on the recent request for conversation in the virtual learning and sharing tour, Talking: 2024. Maryana has an update sharing some highlights so far. It has been shared on Diff, Meta-wiki, and wikimedia-l.

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

How to draftify an article that's already been draftified

• Miss USA 2024
• Draft:Miss USA 2024

I went to draftify Miss USA 2024, a new, un-patrolled article with a single press release as a source. I could not, as Draft:Miss USA 2024 already exists. I'm not sure what to do about this. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

In this case the mainspace article is an obvious copyright violation of the draft, so it should be tagged with WP:G12. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Does WP:G12 work on WP:CWWs? I think the way that's usually handled is a null edit adding attribution. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:DRAFTOBJECT suggests that we can't double draftify (Draft:Miss USA 2024 was also draftified), so maybe it should go to AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'm trying G12 first. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:G12 does not apply here as it says public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion - the correct thing to do would have been too request a history merge of the draft to the article and then list it at AfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The new article and the draft only share about a paragraph, and have significant other differences, perhaps making a history merge not a perfect solution here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that this was solved by a quick redirect, which I think is fine.

I do hope that the decision wasn't based on the sources already cited in the article, as WP:NEXIST is still technically the rule, and a quick search finds sources like this one (300 words directly about the pageant). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Heitor Villa-Lobos Suite Populaire Bresilienne

In addition to Kraft and Zigante, Julian Bream recorded four movements of the Suite in 1978. The recording is principally of the 12 Etudes. If possible this should be included in the article. 2A00:23C5:7F92:A801:E1AE:DFCC:23F4:D34E (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

These kinds of comments should be placed on the article talk page. Which article? When I figure out which article, I can help you find its talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's about Suite_populaire_brésilienne#Recordings. The IP is right about Bream. It's absence may be because the section currently only seems to include recordings of the complete 1948 suite (W020). Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2024: We are back!

Please help translate to other languages.

Hello, dear Wikipedians!

Wikimedia Ukraine, in cooperation with the MFA of Ukraine and Ukrainian Institute, has launched the forth edition of writing challenge "Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month", which lasts from 1st until 31st March 2024. The campaign is dedicated to famous Ukrainian artists of cinema, music, literature, architecture, design and cultural phenomena of Ukraine that are now part of world heritage. We accept contribution in every language! The most active contesters will receive prizes.

We invite you to take part and help us improve the coverage of Ukrainian culture on Wikipedia in your language! Also, we plan to set up a banner to notify users of the possibility to participate in such a challenge! ValentynNefedov (WMUA) (talk)

An admirable goal, to be sure, but I'm not sure I like the precedent set by the WMF cozying up to government ministries, no matter where they are. (in cooperation with the MFA of Ukraine) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra, Wikimedia Ukraine is not the same as Wikimedia Foundation. Chapters are independent corporations registered in their home country. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on Narendra Modi Talk page

{{rfc notice}}

Join the ongoing discussion on Talk:Narendra Modi#"Request for Comment" Thanks BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Getting a re-direct deleted

How do I go about getting 2024 District of Columbia Democratic primary deleted? As it's now (via a mistake I made) a re-direct to a re-direct. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Can’t you just edit it so it points to the appropriate article section? Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

A bot will be along soon to fix the redirect to point directly to its target's target 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Primaries and caucus calendar. There's no need to delete it. However, if you wish, you can fix it manually yourself or add a {{g7}} (or {{Db-error}}) tag requesting deletion. Certes (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added a {{Db-error}}, to make certain it gets deleted. Thanks for the help, folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Missing Redirects Project

I've made a tool at toolforge:missingredirectsproject for creating suggested redirects. I'd appreciate it if anyone's willing to try it out and give me some feedback. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Hello all,

I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 16:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright notice, appearance

Maybe I'm only noticing it now. But every time I edit a page, a copyright notice appears at the top. Is this something new, Wikipedia has added? GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm noticing this too, but did not see any discussion of the change. Certes (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

See discussion at MediaWiki talk:Editpage-head-copy-warn. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been there forever. It previously said this:

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources.

The primary change made was to put it in colored box, presumably in an effort to reduce banner blindness (which is obviously happening, since you didn't remember seeing it during your last ~400,000 edits). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada survey

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Reminder - Wikimedia Foundation South Africa banner fundraising community call tomorrow

Dear all,

As mentioned earlier, we will be hosting a community call tomorrow where you can bring your questions and comments around the upcoming Wikimedia Foundation banner fundraising campaign to.

The call details can be found on the community collaboration page.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

When is an RfC inappropriate?

I've been spectating (and occasionally commenting) on a disagreement between Peter Isotalo, the main author of Vasa (ship), and ThoughtIdRetired. The article doesn't separate explanatory footnotes from citations. ThoughtIdRetired thinks it would be better to do so; Peter disagrees. After posting in several places about the general issue (e.g. on CITE, on the Ships project, and on CITE again, ThoughtIdRetired has opened an RfC at Talk:Vasa (ship), asking if the explanatory footnotes should be separated.

I agree with ThoughtIdRetired that it would be better to separate them, but the RfC bothers me because of the conflict between the idea of bringing in outside views, and the goal of MOS:VAR, which (like the related WP:CITEVAR and MOS:RETAIN) have the goal of avoiding having these discussions in the first place. I won't paraphrase all of MOS:VAR, but the thrust is: don't make changes you can't get consensus for. However, what if the question is raised via RfC? That will always bring in some editors who are not involved in the article via the feedback service, and may bring more in if the usual practice of e.g. posting at related WikiProjects is followed. When a minority position that is supposed to be protected by VAR or RETAIN is exposed to enough other opinions, by virtue of being a minority position it is likely to be overridden. This seems like a bad outcome to me: it means that if an editor strongly dislikes a minority-preferred style in an article they work on, they may be able to override the local consensus by creating an RfC. And we know from experience that forcing a style change on the main editor of an article is a very emotive thing to do. That's why those VAR and RETAIN guidelines exist.

I want to stress that I actually agree with ThoughtIdRetired on the style issue itself. I've !voted in that RfC for the option I would not use myself, because I think MOS:VAR and its cousins are more important. I don't see anything in our guidelines that implies ThoughtIdRetired was wrong to start the RfC, but it seems an illogical result. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The 'outside' editors can read the MOS just like the in-group. Trust in the consensus-forming process, I'd say. Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

In general, we frown upon editors opening multiple discussions about the same issue at multiple venues at the same time. It smacks of “forum shopping”. That said, sometimes a discussion does need more participation from a wider audience, and the RFC process is a great way to achieve that. Where you HOLD the RFC does not really matter (since they are all centrally listed, and LOTS of editors watch that list). The key is… if an RFC is opened, STOP discussing it elsewhere and focus on the RFC. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• It wouldn't help in this case, but personally I'd like some limit (time or # of edits, or both) on new editors starting RfCs. I saw one recently (it may come to me) of an editor launching one on I think day 4 of his editing. He was firmly sat on, but it wasted a good deal of time. The Vasa (ship) one should have been a general one on a policy page, not just at one article. ThoughtIdRetired is one of those editors who has been going round imposing his personal stylistic whims on various articles, in breach of various policies (WP:CITEVAR etc) that don't mandate a particular way of doing things. We should be firmer in stopping this. Many relatively new editors seem to think this is ok, or even useful. It isn't. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, RfCs are heavyweight processes not to be used lightly. I know @WhatamIdoing has been trying to raise awareness of this. Bon courage (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thing is… it doesn’t NEED to be a heavyweight process. The original point of RFC was simply to have a way to request comments and get input from outside editors. It wasn’t always limited to dispute resolution. We used to use the RFC process to generate ideas, and help us think “outside the box”. Questions were sometimes phrased in a more open ended and flexible way. Sadly, in more recent years, it has grown into a bureaucratic process, focused purely on dispute resolution… with questions too often phrased to obtain “judgement” between limited options: X vs Y (or worse: X vs Not X). Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Bon courage is correct that I oppose individuals running multiple RFCs at the same time. We added information (think "facts", not "rules") about this in a box at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page a while ago. Between providing that information and the community banning two editors who had been running large numbers of simultaneous RFCs at a time, we haven't really had any problems with it since then. (Brand-new editors almost never start RFCs, and we don't get many complaints about the RFCs that they do start.)

  The idea that people shouldn't use RFC for every little thing has been the subject of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment off and on. It usually appears in the form of someone recommending that WP:RFCBEFORE be a reason to summarily remove or invalidate an RFC. Upon investigation, one frequently finds that the objecting editors feel like they're "losing" the RFC (scare quotes, because it is my belief that everybody wins when a dispute gets resolved). One doesn't want RFCs when they add no value (e.g., if a quick note on the talk page would have quickly resulted in agreement with your idea), but one also doesn't want to avoid RFC out of the fear that a dispute hasn't gotten bad enough yet to warrant it.

  I agree with Blueboar that RFC doesn't need to be a heavyweight process. I think there are two practical things that individual editors can do that would reduce it seeming that way:

  • First, don't claim that the results are binding (WP:Consensus can change, even after an RFC) or otherwise elevate the importance of the RFC process. Most discussions at RFC are about quite ordinary disputes in ordinary articles, many of which are really requests for opinions rather than the next escalation of a fight between mortal enemies. RFC is an advertising mechanism for ordinary, consensus-oriented talk-page discussions. It is not an epic boss level in which disputants fight for the prize of eternal article content. Treat it like a noticeboard for a semi-random selection of ordinary discussions. All the ordinary rules apply.
  • Second, don't encourage voting behaviors. Don't set up separate sections for voting and discussion (almost no RFCs benefit from this), or if you do, put the ===Discussion=== first. Do reply to a couple of people, especially if you can ask any clarifying questions. Make it easy for them to have an actual discussion. Ask open-ended questions like "Are there any options we haven't considered?" or "Do you happen to remember a good example of that?" Say things like "I wonder if we could find a compromise that would both incorporate his suggestion and also her idea" or "That's an important point that I hadn't thought of before". The important point isn't the bolded support/oppose labels; the important point is engaging with people's thoughts.

  I think some of the feeling about RFCs being heavyweight are because, on average, we are more likely to participate in the biggest RFCs than in the many small ones. This tends to skew our perception (e.g., to believing that RFCs normally get responses from dozens of editors).

  Blueboar, I deserve at least some of the blame for the rise of binary questions, as my attempt years ago to discourage vague questions ("What do you think of this article?") was too extreme. We adjusted the examples a while ago, but WP:Nobody reads the directions, and the effects will persist for years to come. I feel like we are making a little bit of progress on that front, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  In the RFCs in a contentious topic area I edit in regularly if there is no separate discussion/survey section what often happens is the same people who had been in dispute continue the argument with great length and vehemence in the survey section. And what I have found is that when when an RFC that looks like sharks fighting with each other in the deep water outside perspectives end up being limited. So I get the idea of focusing more on discussion, but often times the dispute has been intractable and the discussions long-winded and so heated that uninvolved parties would rather avoid it then help solve the dispute. nableezy - 20:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  The approach occasionally used at AN for that problem is to have separate sub-sections for ===Previously involved=== and ===Previously uninvolved editors===. If you decide to try that out some time, I'd suggest putting the uninvolved editors first, and maybe naming the people who belong in the second category ('cause I'm not really involved; I've only posted a hundred comments about this). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mike, this RFC boils down to interpretation of policy, not the minutiae of a 17th century warship.

If this is a discussion that matters, the RFC belongs in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or something like it. There's no benefit to either the article or the community to have the discussion on an article talkpage. Peter ^Isotalo 20:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds as though I need to answer some of the points raised above.

• Firstly, the RfC was not my idea. It was suggested by the editor who provided a third opinion[3]. As you can see, the third opinion was not my idea either.
• I had some reluctance to get involved in the escalation of an RfC, but there seemed little alternative but to follow the advice of the third opinion. Rightly or wrongly, I listened to the advice of another editor on this[4]. Looking back at that link, I possibly was too polite and accommodating with the tone of my reply, because I did feel boxed into a corner with the whole thing.
• The primary original point raised at the article focused on the non-use of templates for referencing, so losing out on the functionality that is so useful in an article with short form referencing.[5] This met a lot of resistance from the major editor of the article, so I decided that idea was going nowhere. Then they stated that So you can apply templates and still respect WP:CITEVAR..[6] That seemed to be an OK to use sfn referencing templates (what else can that mean?). Strangely, after a while, that same editor has now installed templates on most, if not all of the article's references, changing the sfns to harvnbs.
• Before I started editing the article[7], it had three usages of {{efn}}, installed by different editors. Rightly or wrongly, I took this as a level of consensus that a separate notes section should exist in the article. I believe that what precipitated the removal of all {{efn}}s was my use of them.
• The whole purpose of seeking agreement to use a separate notes section is driven by the type (and quantity) of content with which the article should now be updated. This need did not exist before late 2023. It does now.
• I do get the feeling that WP:FAOWN is actually a barrier to improving this particular article – perhaps a touch of "not invented here" syndrome. I appreciate that FA enthusiasts will not like that idea. However all I can say is what I feel, which is that the major editor of the article simply does not want opinions that seek to improve the article. That is more than just the notes style – it includes the reaction to flagging of missing citations and failed verifications. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @ThoughtIdRetired: I apologize if I nudged you in a direction you didn't want to go. My goal was to offer assistance, not pressure.

  I'm seeing a recurring theme in this episode in which editors imply that WP:FAOWN says something very different than what it actually says. We should do one of two things: either follow the policy as written, or update the policy to align with our actual practice.

  @Mike Christie: MOS:VAR doesn't say an existing style shouldn't be changed: it says to seek consensus first (effectively, carving it out from WP:BOLD especially for widespread actions). The article talk page is the correct place to determine if there is consensus for a style change, and a RfC is a reasonable tool to use to develop that consensus. !Voting against your stylistic preference in the RfC because of MOS:VAR seems oddly circular to me. VQuakr (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't seem circular to me -- I think MOS:VAR is important, and I think the RfC is against the spirit (though perhaps not the letter, which is why I started this thread) of MOS:VAR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  We agree on the first part: MOS:VAR is important. We disagree on the second part: in my opinion, starting a RfC to determine if there is consensus for a style change is precisely within the spirit of MOS:VAR. What makes more sense than using a consensus-building tool to determine where consensus lies? VQuakr (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think we disagree on what community MOS:VAR implies should be reaching consensus. I think it should be the editors working on that article, without the need for an RfC (per the comments above about it being a heavyweight tool). You (and many others) think it's anyone who wishes to answer the RfC, which will reach many editors with no interest in the page itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @VQuakr: no need for apology. My failure to fully express what I was thinking at the time is entirely my responsibility. The key point is that this was an unstoppable train the moment it went to a third opinion. And however this ends, it is hard to see any other way of reaching a conclusion – presuming that is actually possible. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Mike Christie: In this case the mechanics of achieving a consensus in the article was limited by the numbers of editors in that article willing to express an opinion. (Unfortunately the other users of a separate notes section had fled the scene.) When you have only two people and two different viewpoints, in-article consensus is never going to work. The only recourse is to go outside the article. Perhaps there are other solutions, but I don't know what they are. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  MOS:VAR says If a discussion does not result in consensus for the change at the article, continue to use the already-established style there. That's what I feel should have happened. There's no requirement in any discussion to keep expanding the audience till a decision emerges; we all have to deal with "no consensus" every now and then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would say that a discussion between two editors can reach agreement, but never consensus. For a consensus you need a minimum of three (and even then, it would be a very weak consensus). Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Mike Christie: our policy at WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS specifically mentions RfCs as a way to achieve consensus. A little later in that policy it mentions When talk page discussions fail—generally because two editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue—Wikipedia has several established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions, then again specifically mentions RfCs. This makes me feel like policy is at odds with the opinion of I think it should be the editors working on that article. Universally on Wikipedia (and I am shifting to speaking from my experience here rather than quoting policy), consensus is formed from discussion amongst those present. VQuakr (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe @ThoughtIdRetired's summary of my part of the discussion is not entirely accurate. The diffs show a much fuller context that is left out and I don't understand why.

I'm not accusing anyone of bad faith, but I believe the RFC is at least in part due to an underlying personal conflict that's muddying the waters. Peter ^Isotalo 19:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Residence: is this a way around conflict of interest rules?

I was alerted to the existence of this Wikipedia in residence page sponsored by a library at Brigham Young University. As far as I can tell, the only people who are eligible to participate in the programs sponsored here are those who are in good standing with the LDS Church. This seems to be somewhat in contradiction to long-standing Wikipedia policies against that sort of coordinated editing (see, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology for the long history of these sorts of problems). From what I can tell, many of the participants from the programs and edit-a-thons have been inserting pro-Mormon POV into the encyclopedia fairly efficiently and effectively without much in the way of concern over WP:NPOV and the like. Should such a WiR program exist? What should be done?

I thought of maybe bringing that page to WP:AfD, but likely that's not the right thing to do. This seems pretty concerning to me. Anyone else?

jps (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GLAM is not exactly the same as Wikipedia:Wikipedian in Residence, although there are some Wikipedians in Residence involved in that program. Do you see anything that says the students actually have to be "in good standing with the LDS Church", or are you just assuming that since most students at Brigham Young University do belong to the LDS church, that all of them do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is allowed to be active at that library who is not in good standing as such. See the academic freedom policy for BYU. In effect, anyone who would adopt a critical lens towards the LDS faith would not be allowed to work at the library. jps (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

They also have a policy against illegal discrimination in employment. Do you have something more directly relevant, like a job posting that says "By the way, if you're a student here but not actually in good standing with the church, then we won't hire you"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You'd be expelled if you left the church[8], presumably that would end any student employment. Note that as a private organization discriminating on the basis of religion is not illegal (at least not in the US). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

But, as that link says, they also have non-LDS students enrolled. Is there any reason to believe the non-LDS students are prohibited from getting this campus job? (One expects student jobs to be limited to students.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen anything which suggests that non-LDS students at BYU have any more academic freedom than LDS ones. That would be one difference between this program and almost every other related program... They are at institutions which respect basic academic freedoms. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Non-LDS students are subject to the same rules as LDS students and include maintaining Ecclesiastical Endorsement to maintain their standing. [9] It is true that one may obtain such an endorsement from a limited list of alternate ecclesiastical authorities, but an atheist, for example, is not allowed to attend BYU. Nor would a black tea drinker for that matter. jps (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

They also have a policy against illegal discrimination in employment. But it is perfectly legal for them, as a religious institution, to deny people roles in the institution due to failing religious tests, of course. jps (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

In the US, that is only true if the role has some sort of religious component to it. A religious organization can require (e.g.,) a teacher to belong to their religion because of the Ministerial exception, but it can't require the same from a janitor. The low-level staff only have to avoid subverting the employer's goals (e.g., no telling the students that the religion is wrong while you're mopping the floor, no sneaking prohibited food into the cafeteria, etc.). It is unlikely that a student hired to post information about what's in the library would be considered a religious minister. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Beast in 2015 ran a story that included the claim that if a student loses their ecclesiastical endorsement, they will lose their campus job. "Without [ecclesiastical endorsement], they would be expelled. The university would initiate proceedings to terminate their campus jobs." Looks like a religious test to me. jps (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK expelled students are not expected to keep holding their student jobs at any university.

From what I read on their website, students can and do get the ecclesiastical endorsement without belonging to the LDS church. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

They have to belong to some church that is recognized as legitimate by BYU, convince the local LDS bishop to give them an endorsement, or get the endorsement from the BYU chaplain. Those are the only other options. That's a religious test plain and simple. jps (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I am also concerned that the library as a resource intentionally censors sources that are not in line with the above policy at the discretion of an opaque process: [10] This looks like a book-banning form to me. jps (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I read "the Library must also make materials available that some may find trivial, challenging, or offensive" in exactly the opposite way: Here's a handy complaint form, but don't get your hopes up about us removing a book just because you find it unimportant, difficult, or offensive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you know of other examples of libraries with complaint forms of this sort? The plain text read is that they consider removing offensive material from circulation. An alternative would be to say, "We do not censor materials due to some finding them trivial, challenging, or offensive." That's what I would expect for a library committed to the free exchange of knowledge, for example. jps (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a very standard-looking US library complaint form. Such complaint forms are intended, as WhatamIdoing indicates, to channel complaints into a bureaucratic process that primarily exists as a paper trail for the librarians to justify to review boards their decisions to not withdraw an item, forcing complaints to make specific objections that can be refuted and dismissed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it true that standard-looking US library complaint forms include: "The Library intentionally collects materials that strengthen faith and promote spiritual development (D&C 88:118)" as the lead-in sentence to the form? jps (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd honestly glanced past that and assumed it was quoting the library's collection development policy, which would be a very normal thing to include in such a form irrespective of however weird the collection development policy is. But I do see now that it's actually alluding to scripture, and specifically scripture that says 18 Therefore, it must needs be sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory, which does indeed seem much more like a call for censorship rather than anything resembling a collection development policy. Concerning. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I read it as a standard complaint form with a bit of marketing at the top. A little sugar to make the medicine go down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that such "sugar" and marketing is antithetical to our mission of free knowledge dissemination and the promotion of open inquiry. We are actively collaborating with a group that promotes religious litmus tests as a means to decide a work's availability. Even if they say that apostate literature can sometimes be permitted to achieve certain faith-formation goals, this is still an uneven playing field necessarily skewed away from critical thinking. jps (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

All BYU students have to abide by the Honor Code and can be expelled (which obviously would lead to termination of any university employment and eviction from school housing) for violating it--like by swearing, failing to encourage others to follow the HC, having "extreme-colored" hair, not "participating regularly in Church services", etc., on or off campus. And unlike every other college where evaluating grounds for expulsion is up to university officials, HC violations (with the exception of having a romantic (even if non-sexual) same-sex relationship, which is still an expellable offense but goes through the HC Office rather than bishops) lead to expulsion via revocation/non-renewal of the student's ecclesiastical endorsement by their ward bishop (or other ecclesiastical leader or nondenominational BYU chaplain for the 1.5% of students who identify with other or no religions) based on his personal interpretation of their transgressions. Anyone can report HC violations through this form, so students experiencing any doubt in their faith must be sure to hide it extremely well from everyone if they want to continue getting their degree.

So yes I would say all students still have to be in "good standing" with the LDS Church even if they are not LDS. JoelleJay (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you can be "in good standing" without first being a member. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's an American thing, but why is Wikipedia/WMF associating itself with this irrational and unsavoury religious outfit in the first place? Bon courage (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• From what I can tell, many of the participants from the programs and edit-a-thons have been inserting pro-Mormon POV into the encyclopedia fairly efficiently and effectively without much in the way of concern over WP:NPOV and the like. Do you have diffs for this? I think that that would be central. Simply being of a particular religion is not inherently a WP:COI; the issue in the cases you linked was that there were coordinated and institutional efforts to influence Wikipedia in a non-neutral direction. The question is whether this is that. At a glance, though, this document (linked on the page you linked) is a bit concerning: How to look like a trustworthy Wikipedia editor. And especially the bit further down about If you are willing to have your edits tracked to measure how edits from Vineyard’s volunteers are doing, click on this link while logged into Wikipedia. --Aquillion (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  "How to look trustworthy" might sound a bit flippant, but the advice in there is sound: "always log in", "fill out the “edit summary” for every edit", "add a reference for every sentence", etc., and the tracking link is to our own https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not diffs per se, but this To-Do list appears to me to be not much better than an attempt at increasing the coverage of parochial LDS-approved topics. There is a subtle line between promotion of one's faith and documenting the beliefs, practices, and related stories of a medium-sized religion. Given that this is a systematic and sponsored project, I remain concerned. jps (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Simply being of a particular religion is not inherently a WP:COI" ← it certainly is for that religion, to some degree. And edits made about that religion are COI-tainted, to some degree ranging from the unimportant to the highly-problematic. Bon courage (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Reading this list, I'm not so concerned. I wouldn't consider the anti-Mormon film A Mormon Maid "LDS-approved" (and the to-do list is right that it needs improvement; for a film that was such a cultural touchstone about sex and sex panics, the article's very short), for instance. This assessment seems to imply that Mormonism is parochial, but you might be surprised how robustly Mormon subjects (persons, events, etc.) are covered in reliable, secondary sources. Speaking from the perspective of one who reads a lot in history and religious studies, academic presses and major periodicals publish a lot about Mormons. There's a lot to document about their demographic and social influence across history, and anthropologists, literary critics, and religious studies scholars seem to find Mormon culture and texts useful to study. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Is A Mormon Maid really anti-Mormon? It's certainly anti-polygamist. But anyway, Scientologists would certainly be interested in helping to form Wikipedia's discussion of Trapped in the Closet (South Park), for example, as I imagine Mormons might be interested in framing the discourse about the film you mention with similar motivations. jps (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  We have traditionally said that being a member of a religion is not a COI, though being on the marketing team is, and being a cleric might be. We say the same thing about being a citizen of a country while editing the articles about that country, being a physician editing articles about medicine, and so forth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that's right. COI says "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI" and for certain more propagandizing religions (scientology, Sahaja yoga, e.g.) COI has been a significant traditional problem on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, they can trigger a COI. Can≠does. Physicians are paid to provide medical services, which is a "financial" relationship. About 60% of American adults are registered members of political parties, which is a "political" relationship. But we don't tell physicians to stay out of the medical articles, and we don't leave WP:ARBAP2 work to the 40% who don't belong to a political party. If it were automatic, you'd find notes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity telling editors not to edit articles about Christianity if they're Christians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  The example of Scientology is illustrative. It seems to me that there is a coordinated effort to skew Wikipedia content towards the approach adopted by the Harold B. Lee Library which, as far as I can tell, is intended to promote Mormonism. The Church of Scientology was basically doing the same thing back in the day when it paid editors to promote Scientology while adhering to Wikipedia principles. You know, just add a lot of content to help people understand the "basic principles and beliefs". jps (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Being a physician is not an external relationship, though of course Wikipedia has had a problem with physician COIs of various sorts in relation to medical devices, practices, fields of work, institutions, etc. etc. I do worry sometimes that COI is seen as a big binary switch. If you're a Christian you have an 'automatic' COI to some degree with with Christian topics, depending on your fervour and the topic, and in some cases it won't matter. If you're a member of Reform UK you have an 'automatic' COI with that topic to some degree which may or may be a problem. As to leaving AP2 "to the 40% who don't belong to a political party" ... ! You can dream WAID, you can dream ... Bon courage (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  There's also the very definite, formalized financial relationships LDS members have with their church, and that BYU students have with BYU and the church. These relationships are not present between physicians and medicine or between most political party members and their party or politics.

  From what I have seen of the HBLL group's edits, the non-NPOV editing arises not so much through actively pushing LDS faith but through covering--often extensively--topics that are only discussed in publications by LDS members and thus exclusively reflect LDS-endorsed teaching on the topic. This predictably results in rather in-universe treatment of scriptural stories and amplifies the reach of fringe topics that have not received attention from mainstream scholars and thus should not have standalone notability. JoelleJay (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  See for example the push to create articles for almost all possible Book of Mormon topics and improve existing in support of a new Church wide Sunday school curriculum. Many of the topics do not have significant coverage outside of the LDS walled garden. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  One additional aspect of the financial relationship is that members of the LDS church get a not-insignificant discount on tuition at BYU. Just another way this particular role is being gatekept. Wikipedia is essentially promoting editing collaborations that are necessarily heavily skewed towards LDS members in good-standing. jps (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  And in-state/in-country students get a not-insignificant discount on tuition at most universities. Would a Wikipedian-in-residence at New York University be unreliable for the topic of New York? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I am amazed that you would think that this is close to being an equivalency. (Also, just FYI, NYU does not give discounts for New York residents, but CUNY/SUNY does! None of those institutions requires membership in a religious organization to receive such a benefit.) jps (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• There are certainly a number of concerns here, diffs wise I think its helpful to look at something smaller than systematically inserting pro-Mormon POV because that can only be judged at topic not page scale. On the page scale the program leader discloses a personal COI[11] with the Association for Mormon Letters (AMU), GLAM participant Cstickel(byu) has 69.4% of the authorship of AMU[12]. I think its fair to ask if thats an appropriate use of a paid student editor. Can you pay someone else to make edits which would be inappropriate for you to make? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  If we go down the AML page to "Presidents" we find the page James Goldberg. Now James Goldberg was created by... Salem(BYU) who like Cstickel(byu) does not disclose a COI related to the AML. Goldberg is not only an AML President and board member, they're a BYU alum and a former BYU professor. Rachel Helps (BYU) successfully nominated the page to DYK in April 2022, effectively promoting the subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• While a lot of students at BYU are Latter-day Saints, not all are, and as Aquillion points out, Simply being of a particular religion is not inherently a WP:COI (italics in original). My impression is that Wikipedia encourages edit—a-thons, and they sometimes have topical themes, and sometimes those topics are about coverage of religions. One about Jewish women artists happened just the other day. I noticed that Rachel Helps (BYU) (Wikipedian-in-residence at the BYU Library) is listed on the participants page. My interest in American history and articles about book topics has brought me into contact with her for a couple of years by now, and in my experience she and the editing that she encourages are amenable and good-faith, with an eye toward being on the right side of policy with the clear paid editing disclosure on her userpage and the transparent identification in her username. All this to say, while I certainly understand why someone might initially have a concern, I think there's a net positive happening with teaching people about Wikipedia and how to contribute to and further project. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any conflicts of interest with the BYU Library (such as past or current employment) you should be disclosing when participating in this conversation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't. Is there anything you should be disclosing in this conversation? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

So its a coincidence that you just (Redacted)... After being asked that question here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Horse, I notice that you have ignored the direct question to yourself, while pushing harder on her. (Also, maybe time to review WP:OUTING?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no COI with BYU, the LDS Church, or any related topic. I don't believe I have run afoul of our outing policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I was thinking more about how at this point you're still hounding Rachel Helps (BYU) despite this being discussed by @Awilley: and @Mackensen: and warned about by @Drmies: over a year ago. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that (Redacted) I don't think this is a violation of the outing policy. Further, I am more concerned by the fact that P-Makato appears to have lied about whether they answered the question Do you have any conflicts of interest with the BYU Library (such as past or current employment) you should be disclosing when participating in this conversation. P-Makoto, I think we need an honest answer to this question, including for the discrepency that Horse Eye's Back identified, before someone takes you to ANI or ARBCOM. BilledMammal (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: The fact that an editor has (Redacted), is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". It says so exactly in WP:OUTING. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree; because they have (Redacted), Horse Eye's Back comment identifying them isn't an WP:OUTING violation. Further, I am far more concerned about P-Makato lying, possibly under the mistaken belief that OUTING will protect them from being caught, than I am about an individual who has chosen to out themselves being identified. BilledMammal (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

So you disagree with WP:OUTING? Because my statement came verbatim from that policy (4th paragraph under Posting of personal information). Both things can be true - P-Makoto lied, and HEB violated OUTING. The proper venue for adjudicating that is not here but via Oversight, which is why this got redacted and HEB was warned by two admins. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You omit the second sentence of the 4th paragraph; Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be.

In other words, just as under the right circumstances it is permissible to bring up their past edits, under the right circumstances it is permissible to bring up off-site information. I would say that an editor lying about a COI is "the right circumstances" for both. BilledMammal (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

a.k.a. the "exceptions" section of WP:OUTING, Exception #2. Levivich (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Just because this keeps coming up in multiple locations: P-Makoto has not made any on-wiki declaration of their real-life identity, and thus connecting them to a real-world individual using social media and other similar "personal bio" sites is a violation of our harassment policies. Per a discussion on HEB's talk page they have emailed me regarding this COI (per our policies); if anyone else feels the need to do similar please feel free. Primefac (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think HEB even actually "identified" P-Makoto, as he didn't link to the social media profile in question or even suggest the profile and wiki username were the same. That said, mentioning the existence of a particular social media profile does go beyond what P-Makoto has declared on her userpage, so the better response would have been to state "I have seen evidence that contradicts your claim and I am emailing it to [admin active in this discussion]". JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• While a lot of students at BYU are Latter-day Saints, not all are Most estimates put the percentage of non-LDS at BYU to be 2% or less. jps (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• I think it would impossible to hold this Wikipedia-in-Residence position without gaining the imprimatur from BYU. A critic of the LDS church would not be allowed to have this position. Wikipedia is endorsing ideological discrimination by supporting these programs even if in so doing they are introducing Wikipedia principles to a wider audience than would otherwise be exposed to them. jps (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:COI says (emphasis mine):

There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums.

Brigham Young University's mission statement begins:

The mission of Brigham Young University — founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life.

It doesn't seem like a mission-aligned organization to me. Levivich (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Although to be fair, the editors with "(BYU)" in their usernames are disclosing with every edit, which is more than others do, and probably as much as Wikipedia can ask. Levivich (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Should we be aiding in organizing this sort of thing and providing institutional support? jps (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The part of BYU's mission statement that says "All students at BYU should be taught the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Any education is inadequate which does not emphasize that His is the only name given under heaven whereby mankind can be saved." seems to be in direct conflict with Wikipedia's mission, and its policies, which essentially prohibit emphasizing Christianity. But "aiding in organizing" and "institutional support" also increases scrutiny and communication, which is a good thing. More transparency and more eyes is good, and I feel like removing the WiR would mean less transparency and fewer eyes. Levivich (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't we promote transparency, scrutiny, and communication through something like the COI policy instead of through the WiR program which typically serves as an endorsement rather than a scrutinization of the activity that may be contrary to Wikipedia principles? I worry that the pages that seem to indicate that the organizing is being done with the knowledge and support of Wikipedia as an institution may mislead people into thinking that such activity is being actively supported by our community which, I guess, it seems to me that we have been doing in any case if perhaps unwittingly. jps (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the WiR program is an endorsement of anything except our desire to have free knowledge. Galleries, libraries, archives, and museums have knowledge in them. If they want to pay people to make that knowledge free, why should we object? If there are, to some editors' tastes, too many religious organizations and not enough anti-religious organizations that are willing to pay people to share their knowledge, that isn't really a good reason to hamper our free knowledge goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If they want to pay people to share their resources on Wikipedia, that's great. But if they want to pay people to advance their religious beliefs on Wikipedia, that's not great. Advancing Wikipedia's coverage of Mormon topics is not the same thing as sharing the resources of BYU. I'm not sure how much of each is being done, but I've seen enough of the former to wonder how much sharing-of-resources-not-related-to-Mormonism is being done. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that "advancing Wikipedia's coverage of Mormon topics" is importantly different from "advancing their religious beliefs".

(Also, if, and to the extent that, our articles might contain serious misrepresentations of their religious beliefs, then advancing their religious beliefs would be indistinguishable from improving Wikipedia. If your religion believes ____ and the Wikipedia article says something completely different, then nobody is served by preserving the error.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to believe that the employees of a proselytizing institution of a proselytizing church in a proselytizing religion who are paid to edit Wikipedia are doing so without proselytizing. Levivich (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Heck, an NPOV summary of anything having to do with any religion would include the mainstream scholarly view that the religion was false, that whatever the holy book said was not true, that the whole thing was invented by people and, basically, that there is no such thing as a "god." Writing such things in Wikivoice would be blasphemy in many, probably most, religions. How can somebody with serious religious commitment possibly write about their religion in an NPOV way? I don't see it, maybe I'm being close-minded or unimaginative, but it seems like an "obviously not" situation. Levivich (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You'd think... JoelleJay (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

And here I was under the impression that the mainstream scholarly view, among those who actually study this subject (e.g., not biologists) was "it depends on how you define god". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Except biologists (and other academics in a variety of discipline) absolutely do study this subject especially as "god" is conceived of by Mormons. Mormon declarations of faith almost without exception argue for the existence of an interventionist deity. Are there progressive Mormons who stray towards some of the accommodationist and modernist approaches? Absolutely. But the vast majority of their literature (read "sources") argues in favor of claims which are demonstrably false when it comes to the empirical evidence. jps (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Do they? Can you name several key biologists or their important publications in this alleged subspeciality? Not in the "Albert Einstein said he believed in Spinoza's god" kind of way, but the sort where you'd actually publish it in a biology journal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with Einstein believing in Spinoza's god as a reference? Why do any of these ideas need to be published in a biology journal? It's not as though the believers in god are publishing in those venues. Nevertheless, believers make definite empirical claims about biology as it pertains to their faith in god all the time in their own venues. To the extent that those claims are noticed by biological experts, we include them in Wikipedia. If no biologist has bothered to comment on the subject, we exclude it per WP:NFRINGE. Are we just talking past each other here? jps (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

How about all the archaeobiologists and population geneticists whose work directly contradicts Mormon claims like "American Indians are descendants of Hebrew BoM characters"? JoelleJay (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Jps asserts that biologists...absolutely do study the subject of whether god(s) exist. That's news to me, so I've asked for sources to support the assertion. I mean, it's entirely possible that a biologist also happens to be a theologian or philosopher, but I've never heard of one studying the biology of whether there is any such thing as a "god." That claim is at least {{citation needed}} in my books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No he didn't, he asserted that biologists study "the topic", which in this case is Coriantumr and broadly other claims of historicity of Mormon figures. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

How would the existence of a God(s) even begin to fall under the scope of biology?? (also this entire discussion is very interesting) vghfr, harbinger of chaos 02:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What does this have to do with biologists...? JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Jps asserts above that the mainstream view is that no gods exist. I suggest that the mainstream scholarly view from relevant disciplines (e.g., philosophy) is that the answer to the question about whether gods exist depend entirely on what you mean by the word god (or good or evil or beauty or truth or any number of other intangible concepts). Some definitions are unfalsifiable; some are self-disproving; some are real. Donald Trump exists, and this man worships him; for some definitions, that makes at least one god "real". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

AFAICT your comment about biologists is a reply to my comment of "you'd think", which is in turn a reply to Levivich's comment. You're the first one in the thread to say anything about biologists. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It is instead a reply to the comment by jps that includes (as my comment does) the phrase "the mainstream scholarly view". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I finally understand where the divergence between your and my interpretation of this discussion lies, but I think it is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I am happy to concede the point that any biology journal that published an article on "the existence of God" would almost certainly end up being cast aside by us as an unreliable source for good reason. jps (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

When looking at the source text, your comment appears directly after mine and is indented as such. The first time jps mentions academics studying the topic is at 17:12, in response to your comment at 17:04. Is Discussion Tools or whatever combining comments for you or something (it does that for me sometimes)? And still, no one at any point is claiming anything about "biologists" until you bring it up. JoelleJay (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused because these four pages say rather different things about what a WiR is and does: meta, outreach, glam, article, including whether or not a WiR should edit articles about their institution. But I don't see any of them characterizing WiR as an endorsement of the institution by Wikipedia; if anything, it's an endorsement of Wikipedia by the institution. Still, the missions of Wikipedia and BYU are so different, for example: the BYU honor code prohibits same-sex relationships and beards, whereas the Wikipedia UCOC prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or physical appearance. So any official-seeming affiliation does seem awkward, to say the least. Levivich (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

We can't do anything to stop anybody from organizing their own paid editing campaigns of Wikipedia if they do this with their own time and money. But we are under no obligation to host these campaigns on our project pages. I'm suggesting that by allowing such on-wiki organization, the appearance of our acceptance and toleration of this activity cannot help but be assumed. If nothing else, they are using Wikipedia's servers for that purpose, after all. That's as about a big as an endorsement as many of us volunteers ever get from Wikipedia as an institution. jps (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Joelle and jps broadly above. The reality is that even if people are disclosing their COI (and frankly I don't think most are, at least to the level of adhering to the spirit of our directives, which would strongly discourage most of this editing) it's still a problem. I encountered the issues with this kind of editing firsthand at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book of Mormon monetary system, where an article essentially treated an ahistorical topic as real until the AfD, and even then BYU editors managed to sway the deletion discussion to no consensus, and argued that content published by BYU or the LDS church counted as independent for the purposes of notability. This is simply fundamentally incompatible with building a neutral encyclopedia, and it's a distinctly different and bigger issue than museum editing (which, to be clear, can have issues with distorting our coverage as well.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

In part prompted by this discussion I have been taking a look at our Mormonism content and I have to say I am alarmed. There seems to be an undue reliance on "in universe" sources, and this results in an "in universe" POV which seems coy on certain topics and out-of-kilter with what independent sources are saying (nothing in Mormon on the role of women? really?). I am reminded of, a decade ago, when the Christian Scientists tried (and failed) to make Wikipedia a mirror of their "church line", fended off largely thanks to the efforts of the late great @SlimVirgin. I wonder if the LDS movement has succeeded where the Church of Christ Scientist didn't. Bon courage (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The only edit to Mormon I could find from a BYU-employed editor going back five years was Rachel Helps (BYU) reverting a probable Latter-day Saint's edit good-faith but misguided edit. If Mormon is in bad shape, it's probably because it seems like an unnecessary fork from pages like Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

A more instructive edit I think is this one, in which Rachel Helps (BYU) added cited content saying that Mormon apostle Dallin H. Oaks's interpretation of the Christian Fall has no textual basis in the Book of Mormon. That didn't seem particularly orthodox. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The word "women" does not even appear in the Mormonism article. Which is ... quite something. And Mormon gets 4,505/hits day, much more than the Mormonism and LDS articles. So it's not some kind of neglected fork – it's the daddy article.Bon courage (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The word "men" only appears three times. And the word "women" does not appear in the Atheism article. So I'm not sure what the point is? -- Colin°^Talk 16:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I had a weird sample, but browsing through academic books on mormonism in the WP:WL it seemed like the role of women was much discussed. I don't think the role of women in atheism has been a topic of much academic interest? Bon courage (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, here's a handful to get you started on improving that article:

• doi:10.1080/09589236.2018.1523053, "“Atheism is not the problem. The problem is being a woman”. Atheist women and reasonable feminism" (2019)
• doi:10.1163/18785417-01002002 " Feminist Women’s Attitudes towards Feminist Men in the Canadian" (2011)
• doi:10.1177/03616843221115338 “Breaking Free”: A Grounded Theory Study of Atheist Women in the United States (2022)
• JSTOR 24462263 "Black Women, Atheist Activism, and Human Rights: Why We Just Cannot Seem to Keep It to Ourselves!" (2013)
• JSTOR 24462265 "The Non-religious Patriarchy: Why Losing Religion Has Not Meant Losing White Male Dominance" (2013)

I don't know how it compares to men specifically, but it's easy to find journal articles about atheism and women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. I was looking only at books to try and get a higher-level view of the themes. In fairness, there are Mormonism and women and Mormon feminism articles. Bon courage (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

But no atheism and women. We do have Atheist feminism, though. One of the sources I link above says that both feminism and atheism are only considered desirable (i.e., by society at large) when men hold those views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a view; hard to test mind you. I suspect 'society at large' differs quite a bit between countries. Anyway, we have gone into the undergrowth. Bon courage (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, after more thought, I would support an ANI proposal for TBANs from from LDS, broadly construed, for Nihonjoe, Thmazing, P-Makoto, the (BYU) editors, anyone else associated with BYU/AML. We've spent enough editor time on this. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Some people have indeed spent a lot of time posting in this thread. And in all that time, we have seen them post no diffs evidencing a structural problem; no evidence of the need for escalating warnings and blocks; and no list of deleted articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a particularly big fan of diff culture, but I can say that I have been going through the contributions of the four student editors employed by Rachel Helps. As I've mentioned on her user talk page, the question for me is actually one closer to, "which of their edits are not problematic?" To give a few examples: here we have the addition of devotional interpretation to an obscure story from the Book of Mormon, here we have uncritical discourse added trying to claim an uncritical connection between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, here we have some anti-semitic canards added about "saving the Jews", here we have a section being added which looks like a discussion amongst Mormons about the implications of a story that mentions drinking animal blood -- unnoticed by anyone who isn't Mormon, I guess?, here we have some precious commentary that pretends an authorship for part of the Book of Mormon by someone other than Joseph Smith, here we have insertion of commentary by BYU professor Sharon Harris about how themes in this part of the Book of Mormon "preserves teaching of the prophets". Should I go on? This is systematic and widespread treatment of Wikipdia as a kind of devotional study group for the Book of Mormon. jps (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the first link. Instead of "devotional interpretation to an obscure story", I see "expanding a stub about a WP:Notable subject by adding information from a relevant (and notable) author and scholar".

This kind of framing is consistent with the fear I'm perceiving from some editors in this discussion. It's automatically suspicious because of who they are, rather than what they wrote. I wish we could have discussions about religious content without anti-religious discrimination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, this isn't anti-religious discrimination. This is concern over extremely specific beliefs about a text which are entirely religious in nature in the sense that the text itself was written in the nineteenth century by a person who claimed it the text was actually composed much earlier. Devotees of this person then attach interpretations to the text to add elaborate apologia and hermeneutics in support of a particular doctrine or dogma held by the devotees. Wikipedia could include such discussion if this was noticed by scholars of religion who believed that such commentary had larger implications for the religion, the social context, etc... but that is absolutely not what is going on here. Jana Riess is writing the primary-sourced devotional herself. She is not providing a scholarly contextualization to the text. She believes the text is as Joseph Smith claimed it to be and so can hardly provide disinterested or critical commentary. Nor should she: that's not her goal. But Wikipedia is not done any service by documenting what essentially amounts to a Sunday School lesson without any further context. We need to serve the dissemination of knowledge including knowledge about what people believe. We aren't here to promote those beliefs by stating them in plain text as fact. jps (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The first one begins with "The servant in the allegory is interpreted to represent the Savior, or Jesus Christ."

I have trouble imagining that this would be upsetting to anyone if the sentence were in an article about a Shakespearean sonnet and said something like "The servant in the poem is interpreted to represent the spirit of caring for others".

It is normal and encyclopedic to provide (all) common interpretations of stories, religious or otherwise. It doesn't matter what the author "believes". What matters is that this is (apparently) a common interpretation of the symbolism in the story. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Aside from the egregious use of the passive voice to indicate that this is an inarguable point, there is absolutely no context for this statement being made and sourced to the devotional written by Riess. It would be one thing if the text said, "Jane Riess believes that the servant in the allegory represents Jesus Christ." but it is entirely unclear to me whether this view of Riess is one that is widely held by Mormons or whether it is her own special interpretation. Did you see whether there was any scholarship done to confirm how widely accepted this interpretation is? jps (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I find that a lot of POV pushing happens in the form of "It's only this one cited author who says..." I wouldn't want to write that unless I had another source suggesting something different, or at least some rational basis for suspecting the existence of a different opinion.

In this particular conversation, it feels like we're talking out of both sides of our mouth: "Don't trust them, because they're just giving the official church view" on moment, and then "That needs to be given in-text attribution to a single human, because we can't trust that it's the official church view" the next. One of These Things (Is Not Like the Others), and not in a good way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it's pretty standard that religious belief is at once heavily controlled by authorities while also subject to wild in-house confusion about which detail beliefs are proper, widely held and licit, and which are not one or both of those things. A huge chunk of European philosophy in the Middle Ages was all about stressing over similar types of problems. The best scholarship identifies this tension and uses careful scholarship and data to make sense of it. I see little in the way of that in these contexts. It's all declarative sentences about what belief connects with what other belief without clear identification of provenance, evidence, or interfacing with critique. jps (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that articles on religious topics should be sourced (and sourceable) exclusively to publications by adherents and apologists? Because that is what I am seeing in a huge number of LDS articles. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't, but I think that the solution in such cases is to add independent content rather than removing the little bit that we've got. In other words:

• It is best to have both Mormon and non-Mormon interpretations (assuming they differ, which has not been demonstrated);
• It is acceptable to have a Mormon interpretation and hope that we will m:eventually improve the article to include any other significant viewpoints;
• It is worst to have no interpretation at all, because a bare plot summary is not an encyclopedia article.

In the case discussed above, one might consider some slight copyediting (e.g., expanding "it is interpreted" to "it is interpreted by Mormons" – though if nobody else interprets it any other way, then that would actually be non-neutral), but I don't see any problem with the existence of the content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Except in many cases there are no non-LDS interpretations, or at least not enough that the article doesn't rely heavily on adherents' views. If no one outside of adherents pays attention to a topic, that topic is not notable enough for a standalone. JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If you have a genuine concern that it's non-notable, then you know how to do a WP:BEFORE search and what to do with the results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

When we have no mainstream contextualization for fringe content, that content should be removed, not retained as-is in the hope that context does exist. If we don't have any coverage of that topic as a result, then that is better than having non-neutral coverage of it from adherents. JoelleJay (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I am very concerned at the way that this discussion has been going. As it has progressed, it has gone from some possibly legitimate concerns about specific edits to a collection of statements and accusations that can only be considered 1) examples of anti-Mormon religious bias; and 2) hostile to the conventions of scholarship. Here are a few observations that I think are essential to understanding some of the things that are actually at issue in this debate.

1. Accusations of biased editing have to be accompanied by actual examples of bad editing. A large number of people are saying, in effect, that certain editors are students at BYU; BYU is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a proselyting entity; therefore, anything that these students say on Wikipedia must be viewewed as proselyting. This is bad thinking and clear bias. It doesn't work to say, "what entries don't have problems." It doesn't work to simply assume that anyone who professes a belief is incapable of presenting elements of that belief in appropriately nuetral terms. The line of reasoning above is simply an ad hominem attack. It cannot be accepted as a valid argument. Let's look at some actual edits and have discussions about them
2. The Book of Mormon is a legitimate subject of scholarship, commentary, and Wikipedia articles. Like the Bible, the Qur'an, the Discourses of the Buddha, and hundreds of other religious topics, the Book of Mormon has millions of believers and has had a significant impact on history, culture, and religious practice in the United States and the world. The topic has been studied by thousands of serious scholars, some of whom professor membership in one of the dozen or so denominations of the Smith-Rigdon Restoration movement and some of whom do not. A great deal of very good scholarship published by major university presses (Oxford, Illinois, Harvard, North Carolina, etc.) has been writen and published by people afiliated with BYU and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To rule out this scholarship is to rule out scholarship on the Book of Mormon altogether and would not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
3. The question of the Book of Mormon's origens is an open question. This is not an evaluation, it is a fact. Around 20 million people believe it to have ancient origins. It does not matter if you agree with this. Lots of people don't. But to say that it MUST be treated only as a nineteenth-century text, and that this should be the official editorial policy of Wikipedia, is to require editors to take a side in an open controversey. That is not appropriate. I have read many of the pages that Rachel Helps and her students have written. All of them that I have seen have been agnostic on the question of the Book of Mormon's historical nature. They frequently talk about the way that certain passages support both an ancient and a 19th century origin. What I have seen here is an insistence that articles come down on the side of the nineteenth century. This is not an appropriate way to handle open questions, nor is it applied to other logically implausible beliefs of other religions (i.e.e the resurrection of Christ, the visions of Mohammad, the reincarnation of them Buddha). The insistence on including material critical of LDS claims is anti-scholarly, since actual scholars are trained not to criticize anybody's religious beliefs but only to analyze and explain them.
4. Explaining what people who believe the Book of Mormon believe is not the same as arguing that the Book of Mormon is historical or theologically true.What BYU Professor Sharon Harris believes about the Book of Mormon is relevant to anybody who wants to understand how the book is seen and used by adherents. Quoting Dr. Harris in the context is no less relevant than quoting what St. Augustine said about Genesis. Any good Wikipedia article on religion is going to explain how the text is used.
5. Treating the Book of Mormon differently than other religious texts is straight-up religious discrimination. Every religious text makes truth claims that cannot be supported outside of the faith community, and yet Wikipedia has thousands of pages on the Bible, the Qur'an, and other religious texts that explore these texts from a nuetral perspective with lots of citations to scholars who believe these texts that explain how they are used by the communities that believe in them. We do not demand that everything written about the Qur'an include anti-Islamic sources or that everything written about the Bible avoid anyone who works for Notre Dame or Baylor. We cannot treat the Book of Mormon differently because its implausible truth claims are a few thousand years more recent. I would not be surprised if there are a few edits on the Book of Mormon pages that do not meet schoalrly standards of neutrality. Let's talk about those and maybe recommend some suggestions. But these sweeping denunciations of anyone who works for BYU or participates in the LDS Church are discriminatory and bigoted and have no place in a genuiine community of knowledge.

BoyNamedTzu (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, do you need any further evidence than the post above? Do you want to join this editor in saying with a straight face that Wikipedia should say, in its own voice, that maybe the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith in the early 19th century, or maybe it was written by God? Do you still claim that there is no evidence of a "structural problem"? What we have here is a group of Mormon editors blatantly pushing Mormon theology in Wikivoice. Just look at Origin of the Book of Mormon and tell me you don't see a problem there. Look at this post above and tell me you don't see a problem here. Levivich (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't need any evidence at all. But the community should - and I trust will - demand far more evidence than than the thin claims you have posted above, before applying the kind of draconian bans you call for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

OK it's beyond me why you're defending this. Levivich (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That you take what I said as "defending this" makes your own biases clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am unapologetically biased (lol get it?) against anyone who wants Wikipedia to say that a book was written by God. Or "maybe" written by God. I hate to reference WP:YWAB but yes when it comes to Wikipedia editing, I am biased in favor of the claims of science and against the claims of religion, why aren't you? Levivich (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Now you're just flinging unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations. For shame. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The attempt to adopt the Wikipedia:Scientific point of view as policy failed years ago. The neutral point of view does not support having Wikipedia being against religion; it supports Wikipedia asserting facts, including facts about people's beliefs, opinions, and claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a fact that Joseph Smith, and not God, wrote the Book of Mormon. Levivich (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Where have I even made an allegation? There is an editor here who is saying Wikipedia should present, as an NPOV significant viewpoint, the viewpoint that the Book of Mormon was divinely written. Do you think that's OK? If your answer is "yes," you're "defending" it, and that's wrong. Your answer should be no, that's not OK. I am not making any allegations, I am just fucking shocked that your answer (which you're weirdly not giving) might be anything other than no. Do you think Wikipeida should say the Book of Mormon was written by God is a yes/no question. There are editors who are answering that question with "yes." That is why those editors should be TBANed. My viewpoint here is damn logical and based in ample evidence including on this page. Levivich (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What illustrates the problem is that you do not understand the difference between viewpoint neutrality (which I advocated) and taking a side nin an open debate (which you are advocating). No legitimate scholar, and nobody who should be quoted on Wikipedia, fails to understand this difference.And nobody who doesn't understand this difference should be editing Wikipedia. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I understand WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. The "viewpoint neutrality" is neutrality among the viewpoints of independent scholars, not the viewpoints of believers and non-believers. No historian thinks that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate. No scholar says the Book of Mormon -- or any bible -- was written by God, or by angels, divinely inspired, etc. The views of believers and non-believers are not the two views that Wikipedia should present neutrally. To argue that Wikipedia should treat faith as a "significant viewpoint" is patently nuts. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you do not understand how v iewpoint neutrality works in scholarship. Scholars are trained not to try to attack or defend religious truth claims. This does not mean that they say, "hey, maybe Jesus was resurrected after three days," They simply use language that explains what people who believe that Jesusn was resurrected believe and why they believe it. What you are advocating is a patent editorial rejection of truth claims. You will not find that in the independent scholarship of the Bible or the Book of Mormon or any other religious text. Schoalrs don't work that way. It is entirely possible to write about a religious texts without validating or rejecting its truth claims. All of the "independent scholars" you cite do exactly this., So should Wikipedia. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Scholars are not "trained not to try and attack or defend religious truth claims," I have no idea what you're talking about. Scholars debunk religious claims all the time, with, e.g. archaeological evidence. It's a huge industry of scholars specifically writing to debunk religious truth claims. When we accurately summarize scholarship, we will also say that, for example, the Bible was not written by God, and neither was the Book of Mormon, or the Qu'ran, or the Torah, and so forth. "Anti-religious" is just another word for "pro-truth" when it comes to summarizing sources for Wikipeida articles. Levivich (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Part of NPOV is a description of how we treat WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. The idea that the Book of Mormon was written by "ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from 600 BC to AD 421" is simply nonsense supported by no rational source. Wikipedia doesn't given credence to nonsense. Bon courage (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, but this particular example needs a somewhat more subtle approach than "It's all 19-century fakery, so get over it". Because millions of people have been told it has an ancient origin, it would be appropriate both to say that it has a 19th-century origin and also to point out whatever features appear to suggest a pre-19th-century origin (e.g., if a particular story is known to be derived from older material) or to report facts like "____ is commonly put forward by proponents to justify their claim of an ancient origin". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, nuance is good. But ultimately as far as summarizing knowledge goes, Wikipedia is not going to say there is an "open debate" on the matter of authorship where these ancient prophets are on the table. Bon courage (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

So is the idea that Jesus was resurrected after three days, or that Mohammad traveleld to Jerusalem in a night vision, or that Rama was the seventh incarnation of Vishnu. As a general rule, scholars of religion do not attack the truth claims of the religious texts that they are studying. Most Wikipedia articles about Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism do not attack the truth claims they are trying to explain. The idea that articles about the Book of Mormon should do so is plainly discriminatory. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If editors started asserting myth as truth without superb sourcing there would be pushback, yes. YOU are asserting there is an "open debate" about the reality of the ancient USA-dwelling prophets, which is textbook WP:PROFRINGEing. A comparison more apt would be Scientologists saying there is a "debate" over whether the E-meter measures emotions, or "debate" about whether Hubbard really did fly the Thetans to a volcano in a B-52 (or whatever). You're wanting to elevate nonsense claims about the real world onto the plain of rational academic discourse where they do not actually belong or exist. Bon courage (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That there is an open debate is not an assertion. It is a fact. When millions of people believe something, then you cannot say that nobody believes that thing. When hundreds of scholars publishing in peer-reviewed journals and presses believe something you cannot say that no scholars believe it. It is a viewpoint that has to be acknowledged.

And as far as "rational academic discourse" goes, all I am suggesting is that Wikipedia use the saqme standards that EVERY PEER REVIEWED ACADEMIC SOURCE uses in neither accepting nor rejecting the truth claims of the religious texts being discussed. In the canons of academic writing and scholarship (with which I am extremely well acquainted), this is not a controversial statement. It is simply how it is done. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You are asserting there is an open debate. In Wikipedia, that means in RS. Loads of people believe a lot of silly stuff: like that vaccines cause autism, black people are stupider than white people, or that the Holocaust didn't happen. It doesn't mean there's an open debate on these things; it means people are deluded and wrong. Wikipedia has rules on neutrality, and they are not negotiable. Bon courage (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Go take a look at Talk:Functional medicine#Source review and behold: peer-reviewed academic sources that Wikipedia rejects in accordance with WP:FRINGE guideline. Levivich (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You need to stop holding up "scholarship" as an example when you reject the viewpont neurtrality conventions of actual scholarship. Religious studies scholarship has adopted a very clear set of guidelines for how to discuss religious truth claims. They are always treated nuetrally. These scholars do not see it as their job to either defend or attack religious texts--simply to explain them. If that is not what Wikipedia wants to be, that's cool. But you are going to have to re-edit pretty miuch all of your articles on Christianity and Islam and stop saying that you are summarizing relevant scholarship. Because that is not what you are doing.^, BoyNamedTzu (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It'd be a lot easier to re-edit pretty much all of Wikipedia's articles on religion if churches would stop organizing efforts to edit pretty much all of Wikipedia's articles on their religion. Levivich (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Doubt it. In fact it seems its Mormonism which is getting special treatment right now. Compare the matter-of-fact Authorship of the Bible's lede with that of Origin of the Book of Mormon, which goes so far as to entertain the idea that, you know, God might have written it. The idea that it might have been written by humans is ascribed merely to "Non-Mormon theories of authorship". Bon courage (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The unfalsifiable, spiritual aspects of any faith are treated on WP as topics of religious belief, and as they do not necessarily assert themselves as historic or scientific, we do not necessarily need to debunk those aspects in their articles with the overwhelming scientific evidence against their plausibility. But while we don't need or want Wikipedia to say explicitly "the Mormon god does not exist", we are required to contextualize any claims regarding the historicity or scientific accuracy of religious topics with the mainstream consensus view, and when that consensus differs from religious dogma it is the latter that is regarded as FRINGE.

And unlike with Abrahamic, Vedic, and other ancient religions where there can be intersections between stories from scripture and real geography, people, and events (as validated by examination of contemporaneous narratives, anthropology, archaeology, geology, etc. by independent non-adherent scholarship), we actually have ample evidence that the characters and places novel to LDS scripture never existed. And thus the consensus (among those actually qualified to contribute to consensus) is that BoM is strictly a 19th-century creation of Joseph Smith and that concepts like Zarahemla and Nephites are purely literary. There is no "open question" because the views of adherents are not treated as equivalent to those of independent academics. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Just as one example, Andrew Tobolowsky is the Robert & Sarah Boyd Associate Professor of Religious Studies at College of William & Mary, and in his book The Myth of the Twelve Tribes of Israel: New Identities Across Time and Space (Cambridge 2022), he directly debunks Mormon truth claims (and other claims to Israeli descent), which he describes as "redescription posing as description" (p. 184). So, yes, religious studies scholars do debunk religious truth claims. Levivich (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's also maybe just a little odd that in the last four months this user has only shown up on WP to defend Rachel Helps and P-Makoto, with their comments here at VP and their Jan 2024 comment at ANI being literally their first edits to wikipedia-space... This kinda smacks of meatpuppetry/canvassing. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There should be no disparity of treatment between Mormon texts and (say) the Bible, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures or the works of L. Ron Hubbard. Simply follow the WP:BESTSOURCES. When a text (say the Bible) obtrudes into the real world Wikipedia tends to be robust, again following the best sources. Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the concerned editors have found any sources that are any better. I think their concern is about having articles that do use the best available sources, but those best available sources are not valued by them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The question of the Book of Mormon's origens is an open question. This is not an evaluation, it is a fact.

Holy shit. JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I would support that; I've also opened a discussion about the use of such sources. BilledMammal (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have alerted Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about this discussion. I have also asked two of her student workers to consider stepping away from editing Mormonism-related articles. jps (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Rwelean = User:Rachel Helps (BYU) (self-declared, both directions). Rwelean twice created The ARCH-HIVE, a Mormon art collective. They won an AML Award in 2019. Rachel Helps was a judge on the 2019 AML Awards, is a board member of the AML, and is or was a a contributor to the Arch-Hive blog, zines and podcast. I can find no indication that Rwelean or Rachel Helps has indicated her COI with the collective anywhere. Fram (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I've had no interaction with the LDS and have no particular feelings for or against it, but our coverage of that topic has often struck me as unusually partisan. I always assumed that they had some sort of blanket exemption from our usual policies on neutrality and that there was some consensus somewhere that we would refer to them using an in-universe style as we do with plot descriptions for works of fiction, etc. If there isn't then we do need to review our coverage. Certes (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Using the rules on works of fiction for discussion of the Book of Mormon seems to take a definitive view that the Book of Mormon is a fake created by Joseph Smith. While there *may* be a point that the Book of Omni should be covered differently from the Book of Samuel due to evidence that Jerusalem existed, treating it the same as the first half of Genesis doesn't seem unreasonable.Naraht (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• I look forward to the principled call to ban Catholic University students from writing about Catholic thought due to Ex corde Ecclesiae --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

[13], [14]: "Do you have to be Catholic to go to Catholic University? No, students of all faiths and backgrounds are welcome at Catholic University." Wanna try again? jps (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thats because, according to my TradCath friends, CUA is too worldly and corrupted by liberalism. I am on my phone, so I can't look it up, but I can think of several Catholic colleges that have at least a de facto policy of being nearly all Catholic. It may be enforced through informal social control, but it is part of the culture.

On the protestant side, which I know better from my college se several years agoarive protestant colleges tend to have a statement of faith one has to agree to for admittance and staying in good standing. It is oftentimes used as a selling point in their marketing. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, none of these tradcath/uber fundamentalist colleges have Wikipedians in Residence exclusively employing students to write articles about their faith for Wikipedia. How would you feel if they did? If Liberty University had a Wikipedian in Residence that started to write detailed exegetical treatises sourced entirely to Fundie journals, would we just be okay with that, you think? jps (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

These WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments get really tiring absent examples of similar organized edits by editors of other denominations and sects who have a conflict of interest regarding the subject. (And yeah, there's potentially the same issues with using, say, Jesuit publications uncritically on a subject close to the Catholic Church or related to Catholic teaching, depending on the context. But that's a digression from what's being discussed here.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Other ways in which this is a straw man:

• this is about employees, not students -- the aforementioned BYU "students" are student employees, paid to edit Wikipedia
• Catholic University doesn't have a WiR
• BYU's Mission Statement and CU's Mission Statement are really not comparable, except as examples of how religious-affiliated universities can have wildly differing academic policies and goals
• Ex corde Ecclesiae isn't at all comparable to a university's mission statement or code of conduct
• Authorship of the Bible isn't comparable to Origin of the Book of Mormon, except as examples of NPOV and non-NPOV articles

These are some of the reasons I won't be calling for a ban on CU students editing Catholic topics. Levivich (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

ජපසAs was pointed out above, you do *not* have to be LDS to go to BYU. You need to have the fact that you are a believer of a specific faith by a faith leader *and* you can not leave the LDS faith while at BYU and remain there. But a believing Jew with a sign off from their Rabbi that they are a believing Jew *can* attend BYU, same for a Catholic, a Muslim or a Protestant. I'm not quite sure how it work for a Quaker, but for the most part.Naraht (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You cannot be an atheist and attend BYU. I documented that above. You need an ecclesiastical endorsement. There is also no academic freedom per se. If you criticize the LDS Church in, let's say, your campus job writing for Wikipedia, you are running the risk of being expelled. That's just BYU's policy. jps (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow, there's a lot here. I'll respond to a couple of random points, make some suggestions, and then butt out.

• Technically you can be an athiest and attend BYU, though I don't know why you'd want to. Basically you'd have to live by their rather strict code of conduct (conservative dress code, curfews, no sex outside heterosexual marriage, no alcohol, and on and on) and submit to a yearly interview with a nondenominational chaplin to answer questions about how you're living up to the code of conduct. And you'd have to take several religion classes. It's odd, but their house, their rules.
• "The question of the Book of Mormon's origins is an open question." Well, technically that's true, but not in the way you're thinking. There is some scholarly debate about whether Joseph Smith composed the thing in real time, secretly wrote sections the night before and then "dictated" them while reading the notes out of his hat, or published a manuscript that was ghost-written by a colleague. And within Mormonism (broadly construed) there's some debate as to whether the golden plates actually existed.
• The concern about people getting excommunicated and losing their jobs for writing things critical of the LDS church is real. The September Six (6 Mormon scholars excommunicated in 1993) come to mind. I highly doubt that's a concern for us lowly Wikipedia editors, but it is something to think about. In the specific case of Rachel Helps (BYU), she has been in my opinion a model editor, and it bugs me to see her dragged through this every couple of months because she's doing the right thing and disclosing her COI. She's already said that there is zero oversight of her editing and no expectation to take positions that favor Mormonism. And I've seen her take positions that don't favor Mormonism but that are true to the reliable sources often enough to trust her objectivity.
• I reviewed jps's diffs of Rachel's student editors. I see newbies who need education, not wholesale AN/I bans. We all started out passionate about some niche topic and made some poor edits before we learned better. They need to learn that Wikipedia isn't like a Fandom Wiki where you can assume all the readers are "in world".
• As for editing articles about religion in general, I think many people here are missing the point. As much as we may want to reach out through articles and slap readers of religious articles with a dose of cold reality, it's beyond the mission of Wikipedia to point out each time a religious belief is scientifically false. In a way it boils down to WP:Reliable Sources. Wikipedia should reflect the best scholarly sources. And when sholars write about religion, they aren't bludgeoning readers with all the ways the religions they're writing about are wrong. When I was editing articles about Mormonism I picked up the habit of trying to find the best sources about the subject—the books that all the other books cited—and purchasing those. I still have a shelf full of them. The books are, for the most part, respectful and nuanced. Scholarly articles about religion are similar. They compare and contrast and analyze religious beliefs, but it would be an odd article that came right out and said "this belief is false, that belief is false, all the beliefs are false."
• I wonder if it is time to take another look at WP:Religion. The page needs some work, but there's a lot of good advice and guidance in there that could help newbies struggling to think outside their world to understand NPOV. It could also help senior editors trying to find the best way to write about some odd religious belief. We obviously can't write articles that are completely "in-universe" but it's also unnecessary to pepper our religious articles with the words "falsly claimed." There needs to be a balance.

Oh, and some final notes: @jps: I appreciate the careful and respectful way you're going about this. And Horse Eye's Back, you really should take a step back and stop wikihounding other editors. ~Awilley (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting all articles on LDS topics need to be "debunked"; what we (or at least I) mean when asking for non-religious sources is that such topics should be contextualized with their reception in the broader world rather than relying solely on adherents' interpretations of primary sources. However when it comes to faith-based assertions of historical or scientific plausibility (as with the claims about Native Americans, Egyptians, ancient coins, etc.) those must be disclaimed in wikivoice and cannot be presented as if they are valid scholarly perspectives. This becomes more of an issue the more detailed an article is on niche aspects of scripture; while there may be plentiful content from LDS authors theorizing on what the economic system looked like in the time of Nephi, if no scholars who don't believe in the historicity of BoM have given the topic enough attention to write about it--with a perspective that clearly treats it as ahistorical--then we shouldn't be including those details on WP. This should be the case even when opinions are attributed to specific LDS authors, since simply stating "FirstName.LastName of BYU considers [exegesis of BoM story]..." does not clarify to the reader that the entire topic is fictional and thus no in-universe perspectives on it are valid as historical analyses. JoelleJay (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

A personal analysis and proposal

Disclaimer: if not mentioned, any similarities between personal names in the below links and Wikipedia usernames should be taken as entirely coincidental. As a volunteer Wikipedian, I would expect paid Wikipedians in Residence (WiR) to adhere to WP:COI scrupulously. Rachel Helps has not done this, and neither have the cadre of editors with whom she collaborates. If anyone is unaware, Rachel Helps operates two accounts on Wikipedia: Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), her "work account", and Rwelean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), her "personal account". In practice, she often does not appear to know the difference. Let's take a look:

• In October 2023, Rachel Helps proudly stated that her first peer-reviewed article had been published. This article (available to read here) was co-written by a Michael Austin, who has an article on Wikipedia; it was created by Rachel Helps in September 2022, using her personal account. Rachel Helps has since edited the page a couple of times, including in September 2023. As the academic peer review process she was so proud of takes a number of months, it is certain that she had a professional COI with Austin by this date, if she did not before. This COI is not admitted on either of Rachel Helps' userpages, nor on Talk:Michael Austin (writer).
• Michael Austin (writer) has also been edited by User:Thmazing and User:BoyNamedTzu. User:BoyNamedTzu has contributed significantly in the discussion above; as noted by other editors, he has a curious predeliction for appearing on Wikipedia only for these types of discussions. He has previously self-identified as "a publication reviewer for various Mormon-themed journals"; I have asked him whether he has a professional relationship with any of the editors involved in the BYU WiR scheme. At Austin's page, he added Austin's wife's middle name's initial; as this is not in the cited source, one wonders if BoyNamedTzu knows Ms Austin personally.
• BoyNamedTzu's first edits were in September 2022, when he started to rewrite Corianton: A Story of Unholy Love; within a few days, it was noticed by Rachel Helps, who began editing it with both her personal and professional accounts. The same happened near-simultaneously with Julia McDonald, an article created in BoyNamedTzu's userspace and moved to mainspace by Rwelean two days later. As BoyNamedTzu did not edit anything other than these two pages, one wonders how Rachel Helps became aware of their desires. Over a year later, using her professional account, Helps again moves a BoyNamedTzu userpace draft to mainspace, presumably after being asked to do so offwiki—there is no such a request on Wikipedia. Incidentally, the Corianton page was also soon edited by User:Nihonjoe, which takes on an interesting light in the face of conversations such as this, the ongoing ArbCom case, and confidential information I am not at liberty to disclose.
• Thmazing self-identifies as Theric/Eric Jepson, a former president of the Association for Mormon Letters (AML) and the current editor of its magazine, Irreantum; we know this because he added himself to the respective pages, in addition to creating and maintaining the AML Awards page. Thmazing is currently incommunicado, having gone to "breathe" after this exercise in arrogance; this came after he mentioned reading about Fram on an unknown Discord server, presumably the one run by Rachel Helps. I wonder if it is being used to strategise responses to this thread as I type?
• While the AML article was created by Thmazing, the Irreantum article was created by User:Cstickel(byu), one of Rachel Helps' "student-employees", in June 2020. By this time, her employer Rachel Helps had been an AML board member for five months; she disclosed this COI only after a year and a half.
• As noted above by Fram, Rachel Helps has also twice created the The ARCH-HIVE, on an "artist collective" she has previously contributed to; after it was deleted, she worked on it with her personal account before moving it to mainspace. Rachel Helps has justified its existence with the reasoning that the "ARCH-HIVE" is partly notable for receiving an AML award she was on the judging panel for and presented by Thmazing. She, once again, has not disclosed her COI with the article on either account's talk page, or at Talk:The ARCH-HIVE.

I think it quite clear that Rachel Helps has been engaged in COI activities on Wikipedia for years, with her conduct far below what is expected from a normal editor, let alone a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence with a position of prominence. I therefore propose (EDIT: apparently not within en.wp's purview) to remove her from her position of Wikimedian-in-Residence, and to place on her a topic-ban from LDS Church and BYU subjects. I look forward to your thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that the GLAM organized out of the BYU library ought to also be reconsidered? It's a separate but related issue here. Also, there are right now apparently four students who are being employed to write Wikipedia articles at the direction of Rachel Helps. If she were to be topic banned, I assume that would mean we would treat her assignment of such topics to her students as a violation of WP:MEAT or something.

I think the issues you raise are important and need to be considered. Some of them are separate from the main issue I am concerned about which is that BYU seems to be paying editors through Rachel Helps to add content about Mormon religious issues, and I continue to find poor writing, sourcing, and editorial approaches on page after page dedicated. The cleanup that will be required to recover from this is tremendous and I expect there will be some pushback from other editors who may have gotten used to a pretty unusual approach to article writing when it comes to content about the Book of Mormon.

On a personal note, this is something of a perfect storm of problems for me. If any one of the ingredients weren't there (paid editing, Wikipedia "endorsement" through WIR/GLAM, the restrictive ideological rules of BYU, and the proliferation of really poor article writing), I don't know that I would have brought this up. But all put together it's just too much for me.

jps (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel like Wikipedia:GLAM/Harold B. Lee Library is an endorsement, but I'd like you to consider the fact that if we delete it here, it could be re-created at outreach: or other wikis. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" includes people who want to write about their religion based on the reliable sources they happen to have access to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Since sanctions are being proposed, should this be moved to WP:ANI? Also, do Wikipedians have the power to remove a "Wikimedian in Residence"? I was under the impression this is bestowed by an employer rather than under enwiki's control. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"bestowed by an employer" You a correct (even if you were not, the role is "Wikimedian in Residence", not "en-Wikipedian in Residence"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, having already been one twice (and beginning another) neither the en:wp, the WMF, a local chapter, or any language community need to give an approval; it is a personal relationship between a Wikipedian and an organization (unless money from the WMF or a chapter is involved of course). As a WMUK trustee, I expressed concerns about this informality over 10 years ago, but nobody else was very interested. As far as I'm aware, this case is the first to raise serious concerns. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't we just block the Wikipedian-in-Residence account and not the personal one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If no one has any objection to my opening an ANI section, I shall do so shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea.

I think that most of the complaints you make above could be leveled at most of the editors in this discussion. For example, you accuse one editor of helping a newbie, and you suggest that this indicates an inappropriate off-wiki connection (as opposed to the many totally appropriate ones, like teaching an edit-a-thon participant how to edit). I have helped many editors I don't know, because tools like User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult let us know about new articles in subject areas that we're interested in.

Similarly, you accuse an editor of personally knowing someone mentioned in an article on the grounds that he corrected the name based on some other source. You assume the other source is personal knowledge (how many of your friends' middle initials do you know?). I have made similar edits based on Google Scholar using middle initials, or otherwise with uncited sources. It's true that my preference is to remove family members' names, but I think that "A person with access to the internet figured out someone's middle initial" is poor proof of a conflict of interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Everyone else is playing invisible baseball with a ball you can't see. There is factual information behind those accusations/assumptions but they can't be shared on-wiki without violating outing restrictions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2024 Selection

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to other languages.

Dear all,

This year, the term of 4 (four) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.

The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Board Governance Committee created a Board Selection Working Group from Trustees who cannot be candidates in the 2024 community- and affiliate-selected trustee selection process composed of Dariusz Jemielniak, Nataliia Tymkiv, Esra'a Al Shafei, Kathy Collins, and Shani Evenstein Sigalov [3]. The group is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2024 trustee selection process, and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].

Here are the key planned dates:

• May 2024: Call for candidates and call for questions
• June 2024: Affiliates vote to shortlist 12 candidates (no shortlisting if 15 or less candidates apply) [5]
• June-August 2024: Campaign period
• End of August / beginning of September 2024: Two-week community voting period
• October–November 2024: Background check of selected candidates
• Board's Meeting in December 2024: New trustees seated

Learn more about the 2024 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page, and make your plan.

Election Volunteers

Another way to be involved with the 2024 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page.

Best regards,

Dariusz Jemielniak (Governance Committee Chair, Board Selection Working Group)

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results#Elected

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter

[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2023-08-15#Governance_Committee

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles

[5] Even though the ideal number is 12 candidates for 4 open seats, the shortlisting process will be triggered if there are more than 15 candidates because the 1-3 candidates that are removed might feel ostracized and it would be a lot of work for affiliates to carry out the shortlisting process to only eliminate 1-3 candidates from the candidate list.

MPossoupe_(WMF)19:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)