Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:15, 21 March 2013 view sourceMark Miller (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,993 edits →Did you realize that ...: tone is too harsh← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:03, 11 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,661 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 252) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{NOINDEX}}
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{stb}}
{{usercomment}} {{noindex}}
{{Stb}}
{{same page other wikis|Commons|Meta|message=Please choose the most relevant.}}
{{Usercomment}}
{{notice|<center>'''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an ].'''</center>}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an ].'''<br />
'''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s .<br />The current ] occupying "community-selected" seats are ], ], ] and ].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is ].'''}}}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''This page is ] and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, <br> ] '''}}}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}}
<!--{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{annual readership}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
{{Press
|counter = 99
| subject = talkpage
|minthreadsleft = 2
| author = Matthew Gault
|algo = old(1d)
| title = Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit
|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
| org = ]
}}-->
| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| date = 8 December 2021
|archiveprefix=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive
| quote = The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.
|format= %%i
|age=24
|index=no
|minkeepthreads=2
|maxarchsize=250000
|numberstart=99
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}}
| algo = old(10d)
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>|indexhere=no|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}}
| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
{{archives|age=1|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=ClueBot III|archivelist=User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivelist_manual|collapsed=yes|search=yes}}
| counter = 252
{| align="right" style="clear:both"
| maxarchivesize = 350K
|]
| archiveheader = {{aan}}
|}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
{{Centralized discussion}}
__TOC__ __TOC__
{{-}}


==]==
== violating copyright laws by linking to archived sites when original site is still live ==
]

]
Some editors believe you should have archive links in references even when the main article its archiving is still there. I believe this violates copyright law, plus makes no sense at all. If someone takes their copyrighted material and puts it elsewhere, depriving them of ad banner revenue, then I assume its illegal. They might not mind someone archiving stuff they no longer have on their site, but they certainly don't want people ignoring their active content, and getting it elsewhere. ] 15:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.
: Surely it is the content that is copyright, not an url pointing to it?&nbsp;] 16:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

::This may be an interesting issue if WMF takes over . It could raise copyright issues if WMF servers archive and offer copyrighted material from other websites.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 16:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

::Pablo, Misplaced Pages would not allow a link to a site that hosted an entire book on it in violation of copyright laws. Same thing here. No way this is justified under fair use laws. ] 17:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

:::The laws are not very clear. To use a dead tree analogy, libraries are allowed to archive and make available books that are still available for purchase. Presumably that also deprives authors of income, and yet those library collections are undoubtedly valid. Recent cases have argued that the nature of the internet is such that users have an implied license to copy and archive the publicly available material unless the copyright holder takes active measures to prevent it (such as excluding bots with ] or asking for archived pages to be removed). It's not really a settled issue though. Internet archives would also argue that proving a site contained XYZ as of a specific date is a valuable service even if the site still contains XYZ as of today. Such evidence of website histories have been introduced in court cases to establish things like precedence for trademark claims. That said, its still a gray area, and many copyright holders get upset about archiving services for many of the reasons you mentioned. At present, Misplaced Pages operates on the presumption that such sites are legally valid and generally encourages linking to them to help avoid future ]. In particular, many people use the on-demand archiving service, ] (e.g. ]) to establish an archive link around the same time the reference is added. ] (]) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Definitely I agree with Dragons flight; however, the notion of Misplaced Pages taking over Webcite has worried me because I don't know what happens when WMF is ''both'' the reuser ''and'' the archivist. Besides, I hope that WebCite will find a way to stay afloat in the hands of people who are more determined to hold onto their content. ] (]) 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

IANAL, but I think there are zero legal implications for linking to an archiving service rather than the original article. That does NOT mean that we should do it, it just means that the argument that we must not because it is illegal is one that I don't find persuasive. I think there are many good reasons to link to the original whenever it is available. I can think of no good arguments for not linking to the original. (I can understand an argument that perhaps we should link to the original '''and''' an archive, particularly if the original source is likely to go away, although I'd need to be persuaded with more facts.

I'd be interested in a bot which constantly crawls Misplaced Pages archiving every source and gathering metadata about when it crawled Misplaced Pages and what the source said at that time, automatically and repeatedly. In the event that a page goes 404 (and some other situations, like a human deciding that the page no longer accurately represents the original in some way), it could semi-automatically (i.e. with human oversight) edit the page to link to the archive, leaving a note on the talk page about what it did and way. If such a bot/service did not publish the page to the public until the original page vanished, we'd minimize the ethical questions.--] (]) 19:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

{{ec}}
::::This is a very grey area, definitely - and one worth considering. The apparent current idea, that we like linking to these archives, may conflict with ]. I know that these archival sites try very hard to do the ethical thing. Webcite's website says, {{xt| the WebCite® initiative is advocacy and research in the area of copyright. We aim to develop a system which balances the legitimate rights of the copyright-holders (e.g. cited authors and publishers) against the "fair use" rights of society to archive and access important material. We also advocate and lobby for a non-restrictive interpretation of copyright which does not impede digital preservation of our cultural heritage, or free and open flow of ideas. This should not be seen as a threat by copyright-holders - we aim to keep material which is currently openly accessible online accessible for future generations without creating economic harm to the copyright holder.}} , and Wayback says {{xt|informed by the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights http://www.ala.org/work/freedom/lbr.html, the Society of American Archivists Code of Ethics http://www.archivists.org/governance/handbook/app_ethics.asp, the International Federation of Library Association's Internet Manifesto http://www.unesco.org/webworld/news/2002/ifla_manifesto.rtf, as well as applicable law}} . Honourable goals, but that's talking about 'fair use' in the American way; there is considerable debate over whether such ideas are permitted in other countries. For examples of legal problems, see ].
::::I'm not sure of the answer - but if we're not sure, perhaps we ''shouldn't'' be linking to them at all. ] (]) 20:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

@Jimbo, whether something is or is not published elsewhere makes no difference to whether it is legal to publish it. I'm sure you don't think we can publish a photograph from BBC News just because the article has gone away; why is the content of the article any different? ] (]) 20:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:I thought it was closer to automatic than that, but I confess I haven't been an active user of the archive option. I thought the goal was to include in the cite template both the live and the archived url, and a reader clicking on it would automatically get the original url if still live, and would only get the archive if the original is dead. If it isn't the process, it should be. Then no live link would ever be deprived of any meaningful amounts of traffic. The only traffic to the archive would be the original copy,and occasional tests to ensure it still exists.But it would ensure that copyright holders would still get traffic to their site as long as the site exists, and only if dead, would traffic be diverted to the archive. Am I misunderstanding how it works?--]] 20:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::Phil yes, sorry, you are misunderstanding. Have a look at refs on for example; it has both the orig and the archive, as in...
::<small><span class="citation web"
>G.,&#32;Robert&#32;(June 2011).&#32;.&#32;Blistered Thumbs.&#32;&#32;from the original&#32;on August 20, 2011<span class="printonly">.&#32;http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2011/06/cwc-garrett/</span>.</span></small>
::] (]) 20:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
We wouldn't ''link'' to a photo that we thought contravened copyright either - or the text from an old news article. {{xt| if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link}} - ]. ] (]) 20:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::: Thanks for that correction. I'll note that given a link to a title, and a second to an archived, I would suspect that most traffic would go to the first, but that doesn't mean there aren't issues worth pursuing.--]] 22:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

*It says at ] you should do this to avoid pay walls, so people can read copyrighted material without having to pay for it, which the owners certainly don't want. ] 20:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
**There are a number of aspects to consider, but the suggestion that archives can be used to circumvent pay walls is very troubling. I don't believe this can be justified. What is the rationale for allowing this?--]] 22:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

*I maybe wrong about the actual expectation, but I have been told that Featured Article Criteria requires such archive links, which would be a significant driver for doing so (if truly the case). The Copyvio issue, itself, does sound "unclear." ] (]) 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

::Although IANAL, the copyright issue is not unclear. If an image, piece of text etc is still within copyright under US law, the copyright holder would be within their rights to object to having it in a web archive; this has happened in the past. It would make no difference whether the web page hosting it was still available or not.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 21:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::You maybe right, which is why it's unclear, see the links put forth above by 88.104.27.2. If it were clear one would think a prosecution or lawsuit against these Archive Sites would have shut them down (or otherwise altered their practice) long ago. But my main point was if the Pedia incentivizes this in say FAC, then that would have to be addressed, if the goal was elimination of such links. ] (]) 22:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
{{ec}}
::::It depends what country they're in though. USA has this whole mess of "fair use", which helps justify them. I doubt a web 'archive' that provided copies of UK websites ''that was hosted in the UK'' would last very long. It's worth reading ] ] (]) 22:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Even so, a British trade group can sue in San Francisco federal court, if someone is violating their copyrights with apparent impunity. They might even be subject to suit in Britain (depending on British law and treaty rights)-- ] (]) 22:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The main reason the ] safe harbor and take-down provisions are what they are is ''because'' of the ] testimony explaining that anything else would have outlawed them. Congressional floor debate during consideration of the Act discussed this in detail, so '''there is absolutely no doubt that linking to archived versions of copyrighted works is entirely legitimate and should be encouraged as much as possible''' (use it or lose it.) Congress is quite clear that it is the rights-holder's responsibility to ask that their archived content be removed if they no longer want it available for free on the internet. ] (]) 22:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:In USA, yeah. What about respecting the law of other countries? ] (]) 22:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::As a site policy matter, isn't that covered by "legal under US law." ] (]) 22:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::While we consider ourselves bound by Florida law, by and large, we also make (what might be best described as) reasonable efforts to comply with other countries' copyright laws. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>15:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC).</small><br />
::::To be clearer, what I worry about is something like this:
:::::1. Alice scans in the latest ''Harry Black'' novel and posts it to her MySpace page.
:::::2. Bob archives the page at archive.org.
:::::3. Cindy posts it as a reference at the Misplaced Pages article.
:::::4. Duane, an admin, is appalled and removes it, citing "copyright violation" in the edit summary. Maybe he even blocks Cindy and says at an AN/I or on the talk page the link is inappropriate. But he doesn't contact the organizationally separate archive site.
:::::5. Five weeks later, the author's attorneys notice the archived reference and go ballistic. They say that 3,041 people downloaded this book and that uncounted millions probably got copies from them and ''Misplaced Pages'', if it owns archive.org, knew about the violation the whole time and should be made to pay.
:::: I think such things would be avoided if archive.org is set up as a separate non-profit organization that is merely receiving some support from, but not actually controlled by, WMF. But IANAL either. ] (]) 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
This is all nonsense.<br>
The DMCA says that someone like the Internet Archive has no liability if they delete the material when they get a complaint. Having no liability doesn't mean that the material wasn't a copyright violation; it just means that they can't get sued for the copyright violation. It still <b>is</b> a copyright violation, and so our rules don't let us link to it.<br>
Furthermore, Youtube is in the same position as the Internet Archive: if they delete infringing material on request, they aren't liable, just like if the Internet Archive deletes the material on request, they aren't liable. By the reasoning above which lets us link to Internet Archive material, we should be able to link to anything on Youtube directly. ] (]) 21:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:No, ] has always allowed linking to verbatim archives such as the Internet Archive and WebCite (but not derivative works unless fair use is claimed.) If the law explicitly permits an exception, that means it's not a violation of the more general prohibition. Under your theory, the copy that your web browser receives over the internet of copyrighted web pages from their servers would all be copyright violations, too. ] (]) 23:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::It would be, if you published it. ] (]) 16:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::. By the way, YouTube is not a verbatim archive because it doesn't include the source address and title of the original like the Wayback Machine and WebCitation always do. ] (]) 20:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::::YouTube doesn't include source addresses because it is not a web archive. It's a "verbatim" archive of videos people have uploaded, surely? I think Ken has raised a very good point. There does seem to be an inconsistency between us frowning on YouTube sourcing on the one hand and talking about investing in web archiving on the other. ] (]) 22:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

== About non english letters ==

Hello ! I just happened to discover an old discussion about non-English letters, and You made an example remark like "Should we use (signs I cannot read -or spell) instead of ''Japan'' ?". A good point. But just one little remark from me - there is a distinct difference between ''latin based'' alphabets and f.i. Japanse signs, Arabic and Tamil. (However Vietnamese seems a bit difficult, despite it's latin based alphabet, I have to agree) Best reguards ] (]) 23:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:There is a difference but I think the principle remains the same. There are letters in Polish (for example) that look very much like English letters but which aren't English letters at all, are not pronounced even remotely the same way, and using them blindly is a very bad idea. And it isn't bigotry to note that Munich is spelled Munich in English, London is spelled Londres in French, etc. Each Misplaced Pages should be written in its own language. I'm not opposed to all non-English letters in all cases, but note that we very much over use them.--] (]) 15:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This topic is much more complicated than some editors would have it. Here is some food for thought for everyone who wants to participate in this debate.
{{hat|reason=On the term non-English letters}}
The concept of 'English letters' is a simplification for elementary school use. A more correct way to refer to them is as the modern ], but that would hardly appeal to elementary school learners. Most native English speakers get exposure to some of the modern uses of accents in English later in life without noticing how this contradicts the simplification they learned earlier.
* The letter þ (see ]) as in "þe þing requires some þouȝt" is not non-English. It is Germanic and survived in English longer than in German. Icelandic still has it. Þ was replaced by th, and ȝ by gh, when England imported printing presses from Germany. For English texts using these letters, it is general editorial practice to make this change just like ſ (see ]) is changed to s.
* Putting two dots on a vowel does not result in a non-English letter but in something that some authors use as in "coöperation" or "coïncidence". See ]. The function of the trema/diaeresis in other languages is similar: Like in English, it changes the vowel qualities to something related to what you would otherwise expect.
* Putting a downward stroke on a vowel does not result in a non-English letter but is a construction used in English to indicate stress when documenting or preparing speech where non-obvious stress occurs and matters. See ]. The function of the grave in other languages is similar: It changes the vowel qualities and often also indicates stress as in English (of which changed vowel qualities are a side effect).
* Letters with French accents are not non-English letters due to (Norman) French once being the native language of the upper class, followed by many centuries of very close cultural contact with France. As a result, English has many ]s from French that are still very frequently spelled with the original accents, where applicable. (When an American tourist insults a waiter in Paris by calling him garçon, I may have a feeling of déjà vu. Anyway, it's quite risqué to do this.) Also, even today entire sentences of French appear in British literature, are typeset according to French orthographic norms, and are expected to be understood by every half-educated reader.
* Most other diacritics are technically not non-English, either, because they appear as the lemmas (titles) of main entries for various foreign places in Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary.
{{hab}}
{{hat|reason=Why doesn't my favourite newspaper use diacritics in foreign names?}}
The odds are, if it's a quality paper it actually does this to the very limited extent that it can. The style guides of several high-quality newspapers are available online, and from them I learned the following.
* The main problem is that most news reports come in via the news agencies' antediluvial system, which does not even support the full printable section of ASCII. Everybody can replace "per cent" by % (one of the symbols not technically possible), but only qualified staff knows whether or where to put an accent in names such as "Gérard Depardieu".
* Nevertheless, the newspapers try to fix the agency reports by putting in the accents to the extent possible. Many have positive lists of languages that are supposed to be sufficiently familiar to their staff to make this effort. If such a list exists, then for British newspapers it always contains French and German, and for American newspapers it always contains Spanish.
* In practice, agency reports often appear in their raw state and even the accents on languages that are on the positive list are not restored.
{{hab}}
{{hat|reason=How do other reference works deal with the problem?}}
English reference sources of the highest editorial standards (Britannica 1911, today's Britannica, Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary) generally ''do'' use all applicable diacritics for the major European languages, even Polish. (Yes, this includes the 1911 Britannica, which had ''significant'' typesetting difficulties with Polish but still found workarounds.) They don't do this for some other languages with diacritics, such as Vietnamese or the Pinyin system for Chinese.
{{hab}}
{{hat|reason=What does the Chicago Manual of Style say?}}
* It gives advice on how to get diacritics in foreign names right. It does not advise to omit them.
* For geographical names it advises to use the primary spelling in Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary. In the vast majority of cases that's the original spelling with diacritics.
{{hab}}
{{hat|reason=How about practical concerns?}}
* From the point of view of Misplaced Pages's editing processes, we have a huge, silent majority of editors from all over the world who move articles to their proper original spelling including diacritics. Nobody needs to actively use diacritics, as there will always be other people around to make the necessary changes. We also have a small, vocal minority of editors on an anti-diacritics crusade who argue that as soon as a foreign name starts to appear in English publications that don't use diacritics, they have an "English name" and the article must be moved. The majority of established editors has a position somewhere in between the extremes. '''If we decided that we usually don't want diacritics in foreign names, roughly 5% of Misplaced Pages articles would have to be renamed and move protected to prevent massive disruption.'''
*Also from the point of view of editing processes, it's not as simple as dropping diacritics, even when we ignore special letters such as þ or ß for this discussion. It is ''totally unacceptable and absolutely unusual'' to simply drop the two dots from German umlauts, and it is ''equally unacceptable and absolutely unusual'' to treat Danish umlauts the same way as German umlauts. For subjects related to both countries, this creates unnecessary POV problems. In general, there can be several relevant methods of ] and ] even for a single language. For languages with non-Latin-based scripts this has already caused countless POV disputes.
*In addition, if we got rid of diacritics, we would have to update ] to the effect that normal but optional accents in English words are not allowed. Otherwise we might get an article about "]" using French accents in English words, but not where they would make much more sense. (But then it will be hard to distinguish exposé from expose.)
* From the point of view of the readers, it all depends on the reader's background and motivation. Readers who are using Misplaced Pages because they want the best/standard spelling according to major style guides will be misled if we drop the accents. We are currently a good, free substitute for Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary. '''If we suddenly change course, this may affect the English language overall, so this should not be decided on a whim.'''
* Native English-speakers familiar with the other language are a major target audience of articles relevant to this discussion. We can easily confuse them about the other language: There is at least one acute on ], but where does it belong? Are the original spellings of two German towns ] and ] or ] and ]?
* Readers who don't understand the diacritics on a name have to strip them off in mind and may feel overwhelmed in certain cases. In an article not using diacritics, readers who do understand them have to add them in mind, leading to irritation.
* For readers who can't input the special letters, searching ''inside the page'' can be harder. This is not an unusual problem. Variant spellings of English words or punctuation (quotation marks, dashes) can have similar effects.
{{hab}}
{{hat|reason=Doesn't policy require us to use English names?}}
Almost, though not quite: "the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources)". Calling this the 'English name' of the subject can be misleading when there are two versions, one unchanged from the original language and one not, which both satisfy the definition.

The most common version of the name must be proved with reliable sources. An otherwise reliable source that is not concerned with the correct appearance or cannot print a name correctly due to technical or organisational issues is not reliable for the claim that a subject has a common English spelling that results from straightforward accent dropping. We are not transcription monkeys that copy such style decisions from sources without regard for their differing style guides and similar constraints.

Past experience has shown that for foreign sports people we have the following three stages of notability: (1) Only local coverage in the local language. (2) Coverage in English sports sources that drop all accents. (3) Coverage in high quality English sources up to Britannica, which use accents. It makes no sense to remove diacritics as a person gets better known in the Anglosphere and starts to appear in low-quality sources and specialised low-culture sources, and then add them back in again as they make it into the New York Times and Britannica.

Some subjects are so common in English that it is obviously justified to speak of an English name. But this English name can be identical with the original non-English name, Paris and Berlin being obvious examples. When there are two English names, we need to find out which one is more common, not which one 'is more English'. See ] for the ideology that would be behind such a decision.

The vast majority of non-English names does not come with a corresponding English name. By pressing "Random article" repeatedly I am consistently getting 5% of articles that are about foreign topics with diacritics, but have never found even one that actually had a different English name or was titled by diacritic-dropping.

Some people ''choose'' English names after moving to an English-speaking country. The press obviously respects this, and so do we.

Some people and places have traditional English names. Especially for places there is a general tendency in English to move towards the use of the local name instead. This seems to be the natural result of increased mobility: Once more native English-speakers know a place from traveling there than from reading about it in English, the older English name can become unstable. Sometimes editors disagree on whether a name has already tipped or not. (See ] for an example.)

Examples of genuine English names are ] not Napoléon, ] not Lisboa, Marseilles (quickly falling out of use) as the older English spelling for ], ] not Warszawa, ] not Zürich.
{{hab}}
] 11:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:I'd just note that a considerable amount of the above is highly contentious, some of it to the point of being bafflingly and obviously wrong. For example "The letter þ (see thorn (letter)) as in "þe þing requires some þouȝt" is not non-English." is just a ludicrous claim. The letter þ is not a letter in contemporary English. And English Misplaced Pages is not written with spelling conventions that died out hundreds of years ago. --] (]) 15:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::You missed the last line of that (rather convoluted and unreadable) section Jimmy. "For English texts using these letters, it is general editorial practice to " —] (] • ]) 15:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::(edit conflict)Actually, Hans Adler is right that it ''is'' an English letter (as in, a letter that was used in English for hundreds of years), only not a contemporary or modern one. And for that reason, he is not advocating using it, or in his own words "For English texts using these letters, it is general editorial practice to make this change" (i.e. change "þ" to "th" or another equivalent). There is nothing "baffingly and obviously wrong" or "ludicrous" in what he actually wrote. ] (]) 15:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::In addition to TheDJ's and Fram's explanations: The general context of this discussion is a campaign by a handful of editors, many of whom appear to have a xenophobic agenda. Their thinking seems to be, roughly: If speakers of other languages are stupid enough to add silly adornments to the perfectly adequate Latin (well, they call it English) alphabet, then that is no reason for us, the speakers of a reasonable language, to humour them.
::Now I felt it appropriate to tell them that English once had exactly the same problem. The printing presses imported from Germany could do ä, ö and ü, but they could not do þ. Nowadays there is only one solution: always using th rather than þ. At the time, there were two approaches. The other was to replace þ by y, which in some hand writings looked very similar. This is where things like "Ye Olde Tea Shoppe" come from. People forgot about this, and nowadays "ye" in such a context is generally pronounced as written, though it's really just an antiquated spelling for "the".
::And this kind of chaos with translations and transcriptions occurs with other languages as well. I gave the example of German and Danish. Librarians have extensive literature on how to handle German authors in Danish libraries and vice versa. It's a can of worms. By needlessly manipulating names from major European languages, which make up a considerable fraction of the project, we would import this chaos.
::If you think my statements about the approaches of Britannica, Webster's Geographical Dictionary and the Chicago Manual of Style are wrong, check them. They are verifiable. If you think I have made a poor choice of reference works, find more reliable ones and check them instead.
::If you think I have misrepresented the situation with déjà vu, exposé, garçon, risqué etc., look them up in various dictionaries. You will find that most have them in both spellings, with sometimes the accented variant primary and sometimes the other, following no easily recognisable rule. If you doubt they are English words, ask a linguist. As I had to learn these words when I learned English as a foreign language, I am pretty sure what a linguist will tell you. Oh, and don't forget to read what style guides have to say about them. Most give detailed advice on which optional accents on English words to print and which not to print.
::In my personal opinion we should use all applicable diacritics even on most Pinyin and Vietnamese names ''because we can'' and because it seems the right thing to do. There is a lot of resistance against that position, so I am not even trying to defend it. I am only defending what is common and entirely unremarkable practice among the English reference sources of highest quality and ''so far'' also of Misplaced Pages.
::The art of encyclopedia writing appears to consist mostly of practices that are not codified, or at least not publicly. Maybe the Misplaced Pages Foundation should hire a professional encyclopedia editor who previously worked with Britannica, Encarta or similar to advise you and the project on such matters.
::You clearly have an opinion on this matter. So far you haven't made much of an effort to ''justify'' your opinion. Which is what people normally need to do here when you want to win an argument. And if you can't justify your position, maybe you will learn something and change your opinion. This is generally considered a very good and honourable thing to do. (Except by certain manager types, constitutionally incompatible with wikis, who don't understand the concept of changing course on new information and imagine it involves loss of face.) I believe it is by publicly changing my opinion when I find out I was wrong about something that I have accumulated a large number of editors who respect me and are prepared to consider what I have to say even when it's not what they want to hear.
::You may not have time to do your own research on this topic. But it would be very helpful if you were careful not to feed the frenzy of certain editors opposed to the status quo until you have done it and can properly explain your position. Or until you have found someone with the same position who can do so. Shouldn't be so hard if you are right, no? ] 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

== The encyclopedia anyone can edit ==

I believe the system might be ].] (]) 00:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:RFCU is the process you were looking for, ] (]) 22:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::Thank you for the advice. ] (]) 12:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

== Your interview ==

Hi Jimmie,
I enjoyed reading , and wonder, if you could address some comments on it? Thanks. ] (]) 01:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:Sure, fire away.--] (]) 09:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::I think he meant the comments on the Wired website page. You won't like them. --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>✌ 10:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Those comments don't make any sense to me actually. I don't say anything that is inconsistent with the things they are complaining about. This is well-worn territory. Look at who is complaining there, and their track record speaks for itself!--] (]) 15:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I think he would approve of the Britannica's comment, which denied that Misplaced Pages was responsible for discontinuation of its printed volumes, citing bit.ly/XnZEBH (sorry, WP blacklisted the site). I don't think Misplaced Pages has ever been, nor wanted to be, in the business of putting other publications out of business. I think that the ideal outcome of the Misplaced Pages Movement is not the destruction of writing and research as occupations, but rather, the understanding by society that copyright is an intolerable economic model and its subsequent replacement by a system that pays people for writing encyclopedias (by any name) without metering who is allowed to read them. ] (]) 14:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::::: isn't blacklisted, bit.ly is. The ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' sales graph is at the top of page 5. ] (]) 16:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::::"The ideal outcome of the Misplaced Pages Movement": your position, or some official goal of Misplaced Pages (the Foundation)? If it is your personal opinion only, perhaps better to make such things clearer when posting here, before people get the impression that this is an official, Jimbo Wales endorsed position. I don't think you or I are qualified to speak on behalf of the "Misplaced Pages Movement", whatever that may be. ] (]) 14:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::I don't recall ever using that phrase, actually. What does it say I said?--] (]) 15:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::Fram is quoting Wnt's comment immediately above. (The "before people get the impression..." clause is perhaps badly worded - something doesn't become "endorsed by Jimbo" just by being posted to this page by someone else.) --] (]) 15:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::No, but how many non-regulars (like, presumably, the IP who started this section) know that? But indeed, I was quoting Wnt, who gave (probably inadvertently) the impression of presenting some official or common goal of "the Misplaced Pages Movement". ] (]) 15:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Sorry, I didn't think this was controversial, or that anyone would think I was speaking for Jimbo! I've added "I think that" above to be clear. Let's put it behind us? ] (]) 15:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Jimmie, you say: "Look at who is complaining there, and their track record speaks for itself!" So I googled for Edvard Buckner and Misplaced Pages, to find his "track record", and I found for example. Looks like Edvard Buckner is actually "Dr. Buckner" and "a medievalist, who shared with me a paper he has written about deficiencies in an Oxford University study of the reliability of Misplaced Pages." I do not understand what's wrong with Dr. Buckner's "track record"? ] (]) 15:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::::He's a banned editor. You can look up the details.--] (]) 16:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::To address the point's Buckner makes in the Baltimore Sun: (1) He's looking at a very small number of articles on one topic - medieval theologians. He's only looking at what he terms the three most important theologians. This may be a domain of knowledge that lends itself particularly well to top-down professional efforts, perhaps because there is a limited group of people who know about this subject and they don't necessarily spend a lot of time on the Internet. I don't see this very specific topic as representative of Misplaced Pages as a whole. (2) It may very well be the case that an expert is going to write a better article on the most important medieval theologians than Misplaced Pages can produce. However, I think we've proven conclusively that top-down, professional efforts cannot match Misplaced Pages's breadth of coverage. I'm quite certain that we have more articles on medieval theologians than Britannica does. (3) I wouldn't describe Misplaced Pages's incorporation of 1911 Britannica or the Catholic Encyclopedia as plagiarism. We almost always provide citations and, of course, the material is in the public domain. The reader knows what they are getting and the author's rights are not violated. (4) Buckner is looking at these articles as static text. He doesn't address the possibility that these articles can get better over time. For instance, efforts like our collaboration with ] and ] may very well lead to scholars and others from academia improving these articles. In that sense, Buckner's criticism is a good motivator for us to focus on improving existing articles, but I don't see it as damning because we aren't a static, printed text that can't improve. ] (]) 16:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::GabrielF, actually I looked up news on Misplaced Pages after a conversation I had with my friend (the world known expert in some areas of science). We were talking about an error I found in one of Misplaced Pages's articles. I told my friend:"This error will be reproduced in many, many sites, and maybe in some books." He responded: "I guess so. Well, it's like a lot of things: it looks OK when you look up a subject you know nothing about; but when you read what they have on a topic you're familiar with, you cringe. It certainly makes you respect real libraries more." Expect I am not sure libraries will be safe. Who knows how many Misplaced Pages's errors ended up in books, which later were bought by libraries. ] (]) 18:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::But that's not a problem specific to Misplaced Pages. In the area of science that I have studied, I routinely find glaring errors in media that have reputations for accuracy including news articles, scientific journals, text books, "reputable" websites, etc. Those glaring errors end up in the "real libraries" that your friend respects. ] (]) 19:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Long story short: Buckner (editing as ]) was given a community ban in 2009 for sockpuppeting, harassment, wikihounding, violating ArbCom rulings and general disruption. Even before that, he had a record of bad behaviour going back years, leading to an extensive block log, and was a regular source of unwanted drama. Since then he's dedicated himself to the sad and futile pursuit of campaigning against Misplaced Pages. Anything he posts should be read in the light of him being an embittered individual with a history of abusive conduct on Misplaced Pages and a persistent grudge since he was kicked out. ] (]) 18:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Your closing sentence there is quite applicable to the IP editor that initiated this time-wasting exercise as well; the ever-returning-and-never-quite-departing {{u|Mbz1}}. ] (]) 22:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::Looks like people here are quite paranoid about banned users. Besides it so decent to accuse people who have no ability to even respond, and accuse them without presenting any evidences. By the way I cannot understand what "banned user" means anyway. If somebody is banned, it means he's no longer a Wikipedian, which means he's no longer a user, and if he's no longer a user how he could be "banned user", right? Ah whatever, let's improve Misplaced Pages by banning as many experts and content creators as you could, and please do not worry I will not fix that error I found in the lead of a popular article because, if I do, I'd probably would be accused in being Carl Hewitt and who knows what else. Misplaced Pages will be safe. Have fun.] (]) 00:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Long story short, Dr. Buckner was blocked for making allegations that another editor was a sockpuppeteer and then for not adhering to an interaction ban by aggressively repeating these same allegations around a block. He expressed fundamental disbelief in the Misplaced Pages project off site and was consequently rode out of town on a rail by his wikienemies. Drama was maximized and bitterness accentuated — and a lifelong enemy of the project created. His case was a great failing of Misplaced Pages's ability to mediate interpersonal conflict. My opinion. ] (]) 17:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:I just want to say that Jimbo's portrait photograph by ] (]) is fantastic! ] (]) 22:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::That is an excellent portrait. By the way, thanks to Jimbo Wales for taking the time to reply to this thread. I found the article and responses here very interesting and a good read.--] (]) 22:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::Agree. Good use of traditional portrait lighting. Nicely composed. A bit ]-ish. Needs more fill on the jacket and a little on the background, though, imo. --] (] · ] · ]) 14:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
* '''Prior editors can be right about scholarly quality but wrong on priorities:''' When it comes to improving the articles, I would prefer to have "58" clerical errors fixed in mega-article "]" rather than revise article "]" to better describe his major works. We have to continually re-prioritize, as to how many readers (or editors) will benefit from improvements to which articles. Eventually, editors can improve the explanations about ] ]s, and if those changes can be maintained for another 3 years, then that could offset prior years when not so many readers were viewing those articles. BTW: Article "]" was already improved, long ago, so not all scholarly criticisms were a lasting issue. -] (]) 22:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

==Did you realize that ...==
{{hat|All this is worth reading, but I'm hatting it to refocus the discussion, i.e. to cut down on some extraneous threads. What I want to do here is keep focussed on a factual look at what has happened here, so that I'm prepared to talk about this intelligently. Your help is much appreciated.--] (]) 11:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)}}
About 40% of Misplaced Pages's article on ] (British Petroleum) was written by a BP employee, and the the source of this text is not disclosed to our readers? BP was also the source of the horrific ]. It recently pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and to lying to its own investors, but those facts are not included in the article, nor is there anything in the article about BP misleading our readers.


Could you or your page watchers help me with ]? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.
If you'd like to know why independent editors are leaving Misplaced Pages, please read ]


], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]]
]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 02:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. ] (]) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:How do you know this as fact and how is that an issue? Are you claiming a conflict of interest? Is there an attempt to remove well sourced information or to add false claims etc?--] (]) 02:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:If Godber is not ], which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*44% was an estimate calculated by ] based on the amount of text in ]'s user files that was added to the article.
::] is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? ] (]) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*Check the ] page - there's no footnote or similar stating that the material was written by a BP employee
:::I dunno, but ] wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. ] (]) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*BP pleaded guilty and paid a $4 billion fine for lying to Congress and for causing the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and $525 million for lying to its investors see, e.g. NYTimes Nov. 15, 2012
]
*Check the BP page - nothing on lying to Congress or pleading guilty.
::::And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". ] (]) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*I think anybody should realize that BP writing 40% of our article without disclosing it to readers, when they are involved in billion dollar lawsuits on the oil spill, and are convicted liars - anybody should realize that this is a problem for Misplaced Pages's credibility.
*Godber's photographs include "views of the ] including large numbers of cars traveling to ], and the ]. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the ] Homestead in ] with scenes of farm life, including ], ] sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the ], ], ], the ], and the Hillside Railway Workshops); ] (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, ], ], ], ] and ]. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the ], and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the ], ], ] area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori ] and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." ] (]) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*User:Arturo at BP admits the conflict of interest.
*It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. ] (]) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*There has been a certain amount of bullying - see the talk page entry above. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 03:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:: If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. ] (]) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::We don't add a footnote just because someone works for a person or has in the past and is an editor here contributing to an article. Where is that in policy or guidelines? That alone is not a concern. Again, is there an attempt to compromise the article in some manner or are you just trying to discuss the editor in a public forum? --] (]) 03:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


== Just wanted to say ==
Arturo at BP works for BP now and has written about 40% of the text of our BP article and that is not disclosed to our readers. Are you saying that that is not a problem for Misplaced Pages's credibility? Surely you must realize that many people will question Misplaced Pages's credibility over this. Remember that 5 months ago - while this material was being added to the article - BP pleaded guilty to 2 counts of lying (to Congress and their investors).


You have created something valuable to everyone on the Internet. I'm sure you get this a lot, but thank you. <br>It may sound weird, but Misplaced Pages has helped me through some tough times. We can never thank you enough for this sometimes infighting, sometimes peaceful, sometimes divided, but always united community You are the backbone of the <s>cabal of editors</s> <b>thriving community</b> that is Misplaced Pages.
I actually have no complaint about Arturo at BP. He is just doing what his bosses have told him to do and his livelihood depends on it. He is very upfront about it. I do have a complaint about folks who don't see this as a problem - they are ruining the credibility of Misplaced Pages. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 04:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I wish I could give you a BarnMilkyWay but no one's come up with that, apparently. (]) &#124; (PS: Have a good day) 00:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ==
:I think you need to make some retractions and apologies. You are claiming that Arturo at BP is responsible for, between 40 and 44% of the ] article and that is just an outright falsehood. Further more Arturo has not admitted to a conflict of interest. He has disclosed his relationship in his username to policy and, even though he may still edit the actual article, has stipulated on their user page, that they will not write in the article space but just the talk page. This is a reasonable manner to edit under the circumstances (even though, as I said, they can still edit the article as long as they stick to our guidelines and policies). This really is just a lot of drama for absolutely no reason. You do not strike me as a disinterested editor yourself by the way. You seem quite outraged by the lack of information you feel should be in the article. OK...source it and add it.--] (]) 04:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::And the accusation that the editor is doing something because his bosses told him so is pretty outrageous with no actual proof of such.--] (]) 04:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Pshaw! Check your facts. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 04:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::::I did, now you check yours. I think this is outrageous and melodramatic.--] (]) 04:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Cue piano music...
]--] (]) 04:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


For the interested. ] (]) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, I just read the article and found this text:


:Summary: {{tq|This document intends to show the problematic situation in Hebrew Misplaced Pages (hewiki), and provide evidence that it has been overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors, who prevent others from achieving higher permissions while promoting their own allies.}} –] <small>(])</small> 22:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::"On 14 November 2012, BP and the Department of Justice reached a $4.5 billion settlement, the largest of its kind in U.S. history. BP also agreed to plead guilty to 11 felony counts related to the deaths of the 11 workers. Beyond the 11 counts of manslaughter, the government charged several individuals as well. David Rainey, who worked for BP during the spill response, was indicted on charges of obstruction of Congress and false statements. He alledegedly cherry-picked pages from some documents and withheld others "to make the spill appear less catastrophic than it was.” Two other BP supervisors on board the rig when it exploded were charged with manslaughter and other counts The settlement has not resolved the fines under the Clean Water Act, which could be as much as $21 billion. Speaking at a news conference, a U.S. federal official said, “The explosion of the rig was a disaster that resulted from BP’s culture of privileging profit over prudence.” The total amount paid out by BP by November 2012 was $42 billion. In November 2012, the U.S. Government temporarily banned BP from bidding any new federal contracts. Estimates of the total amount of penalties that BP may be required to pay have reached as high as $90 billion."


== Happy new year ==
:::So, I am not sure what Smallbones is saying is lacking in the article. It also links to four additional articles about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including the one Smallbones linked. ] ] 05:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::::I am just guessing but it seems to me the OP didn't do a lot of reading.--] (]) 05:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Well, I did. ] ] 05:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::{{like}}--] (]) 05:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


Good days, Jimbo. I'd like to say that Chinese Misplaced Pages is introducing ARBCOM System currently, since Arbcom on this project, and in fact all the project is originated from the idea of yours, do you have any opinion for that? Any hints, advice or suggestions? ] 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it's very problematic (if true, although note that it is disputed and hard to define/measure) if 40% of any article about a company is written by someone representing that company. Let's note very well: it's as problematic for the company as it is for us, as they are at very strong risk of getting negative headlines about it. I'm happy to hear that the editor in this case has resolved to follow my "bright line" advice and not to edit in article space directly, and I invite the editor (and anyone else in a similar situation) to post here for advice in case it's hard getting heard elsewhere.--] (]) 09:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:'''Addendum''': I hadn't noticed but the negative headline I predicted above has already appeared: .--] (]) 09:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::'''Second Addendum''': Can someone confirm for me that the account in question did not directly edit the article but instead only interacted on the talk page? If that's right, then I intend to contact CNET and ask them to retract the article.--] (]) 09:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::On what grounds? The article makes it very clear that the account did indeed not directly edit the article, but provided "BP-approved" texts on the talk page, which some editors apparently then copied willingly into the article. I have not checked whether any of this is correct or not, but I don't see any grounds for a retraction on ''this'' basis (if there are actual clear errors in the article, you may have an argument, but retracting it because it is correctly reporting the situation seems bizarre). ] (]) 10:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::::I think it will be up to CNET's editors as to whether this kind of article is up to their standards. I think that accusing Arturo of "skirting" Misplaced Pages's rules in this case is fairly ludicrous - unless "skirting" means "going above and beyond what is required in order to be very clearly in compliance with best practice". So, I would consider that a blatant factual misrepresentation.--] (]) 10:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::I get the impression that the article author considers this "best practice" a quite dubious approach, and that in this case it has failed to achieve the intended result. Having COI editors note errors on a talk page is hardly the same as having COI editors completely rewriting major parts of the article, certainly on such rather controversial subjects. To me, assuming that the story has any basis in facts, the main problem is not so much a COI editor declaring his COI and posting "BP-approved" versions at the talk page, as it is the other editors then posting these versions wholesale into the article. Our rules and policies only work as long as editors are actively following or enforcing them. ] (]) 10:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::{{EC}}Honestly, in my experience, POV editors are far more damaging to Misplaced Pages than COI editors. ] (]) 10:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
{{OD}}Terrible reporting from CNET. They don't give a single instance of biased editing by the alleged BP employee, let alone a careful examination of the totality of these edits to determine if there are any POV issues. Instead, they rely on ''assumption'' that simply because the editor is a BP employee, they must have had ulterior motives. Shame on CNET. But hey, they got people to click on their article and generate more ad revenue. ] (]) 10:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


== ==
:It gets even worse. I took a quick skim at this editor's last 500 contributions, and all of them related to BP are to the ''talk'' page. I don't see any edits to the actual article. ] (]) 10:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Can someone please double check that I did this correctly? According to this, this editor has never edited a single Misplaced Pages article, let alone the BP article. ] (]) 11:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::...which is both what is clearly stated in the CNet article, and was already discussed right above your post (see the posts from Jimbo Wales and me). ] (]) 11:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::The CNet article says the account did not edit the article directly. ] (]) 11:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Then there's nothing to see here other than CNET's lousy reporting. ] (]) 11:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
{{hab}}
What I'd like to see us do now is analyze his suggested edits, i.e. the actual content, to see if they warrant characterization as POV pushing or biased about their environmental record, and to see whether the incorporations by Wikipedians of his suggestions were inappropriate. I know that in many cases this might be a judgment call of the usual sort that we make in the content record, and I'm not likely to get an easy answer. But a thoughtful discussion is worthwhile here.--] (]) 11:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:Here is some of what we have established so far (but please check my facts):
:#Arturo openly identified as an employee of BP.
:#He never made any edits to articles relating to BP, nor indeed, to any articles whatsoever.
:#Concerns have been raised whether Wikipedians were too quick to incorporate his suggestions in the article, and whether those suggestions biased the article.
:#Evidence has been offered that the article covers in a quite direct and clear way the oil spill situation. It's difficult to say in light of that, that any whitewashing actually took place.
:More discussion, particularly of this last point, is warranted.--] (]) 11:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::Essentially all correct, although you may want to add they have also been active on the article's talkpage and engaging with editors. Which is exactly what we want COI's to do. ] (]) 16:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Jimbo, my real concern is that some editors, with a particularly obvious hostility to the company, have made an effort in the opposite direction and are generally proving successful, removing all but a sentence about BP's positive environmental record in the lede in favor of an intense focus on environmental disasters such as Deepwater Horizon. See the following examples: . As far as what has been inserted from Arturo, of Arturo's material regarding the Prudhoe Bay spill being inserted by another editor. There has also been material added and the . Here are some of the discussions of the content proposals: ] ].--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Editor in question here for the Prudhoe Bay section. Yeah, if you look at the diff supplied by TDA, you can see that Arturo's draft actually made the section, if anything, more negative, because he properly filled out the details on the incident that were missing. And, sure, he added in some things that one could call positive information, like when BP finished their cleanup efforts, but that certainly seems like relevant information to have. In fact, the most positive added line I can find in that section is, "The spill was cleaned up and there was no impact upon wildlife", but that's directly from the and is wholly accurate.


:Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I find it hard to see how anyone could think whitewashing was happening here. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to from {{u|Tryptofish}}?
* Jimbo, what do you think of our current COI policies? I think that reactive policy-making is worse than exploitable policy-making; and sadly, we at Misplaced Pages prefer to do the former. It is time we also insert important paragraphs in our COI policy which make it clear that any COI editor, paid or not, do not enjoy any less standing than any normal editor, provided that they follow the rules in place, and are non POV-pushing on the topic under question.
:... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, {{u|Jimbo Wales}} will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than ] was.
: I also further would like if some sort of penal action (warning followed by short term blocking) could be used against the editors whose actions go brazenly against any such view. While such editors on Wiki do not directly break any rules , their actions on the whole poison the entire atmosphere on this delicate issue, forcing those with COI to turn to anonymous third-party paid-editing. If we as an encyclopedia were more forthcoming to actually work alongside the article subjects than shoo them away (at least in practise), then we would be saving a lot of time policing and hunting those with a COI. ] (]) 19:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::That would be a drastic change to Misplaced Pages policy. We do not punish editors. We discourage them and try to guide them. That way of thinking is to controlling. One thing we could...and should do is clarify what an actual conflict of interest is. Right now people are making accusations of COI editing when none exist and it is creating more issues than the editor themselves. This is a good example of that. Someone starts screaming their head off about another editor and then when you look there appears to be nothing.--] (]) 20:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC) :Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage ''et al.'' is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --] (]) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That tends to happen with a lot of issues, and not just COI. Some editors simply link an irrelevant policy/essay than post an argument, and try to defend their original posting of the link. It is really sad to see how many times such policies are mis-interpreted and mis-quoted to try and defend the arguments. Regardless, it is indeed imperative to have a much more clear cut stand towards COI editing, and the relative status of the COI editors with respect to any ordinary editor. ] (]) 21:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::::I should also reply to Jimbo's point, that I really don't think a white washing has happened. I don't have a lot of edits at the articles, but someone did ask for my input a while back and I felt that there were enough articles to create a series template to let editors know about all of the articles within that subject. It appears to have grown a bit sine it was conceived and I have gone ahead and added the BP article, although I am not sure about adding the template to the BP article. I will leave that to the more involved editors. But here is the template:
{{Deepwater Horizon oil spill series}}{{clear}}
--] (]) 21:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


:Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
::::: We do actually have a Deepwater navbox already, which is on the BP article:
:As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Deepwater}}.
::Suddenly ] going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. ] (]) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 22:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::{{tq|That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.}} Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. ] (]) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes, but the Navbox is for the bottom of the article and doesn't have all the articles in the Series template, which is meant as "at a glance" information under the infobox.--] (]) 23:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
* Let's start by acknowledging the obvious: no serious, reputable reference work on Earth would allow a member of a corporation's PR team to play a substantial role in drafting coverage of that corporation. That would be out of the question. The fact that this role is undisclosed to the casual reader makes the situation even worse. It's not a question of specific diffs or navboxes - it's a question of ''credibility'', which is the lone currency of any value to a serious reference work. We can't ask our readers to invest us with credibility if we have such a cavalier attitude toward conflicts of interest. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:* Nor would such a work allow anyone to edit it, especially random people. Nor would such a work allow anti-company activists to edit it, which is clearly what must have happened to the BP article, considering the state it was in previously. So I fail to see your point. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::* Wrong. Reputable outlets such as the Financial Times, Reuters, Bloomberg, Whitakers Almanack and many others use company sources for coverage on the same companies. Companies are very often the most knowledgable experts on themselves. Read the FT and you will constantly see "Source: company". ] (]) 22:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::* What's missing here, of course, is that we don't inform the casual reader that a particular piece of information came directly from the company's PR department. Which is the key point. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::*It is certainly true that major corporations have plenty of hooks in the media to get their message out. At least here we let the people weigh in on the matter as well.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::::* My point is that every serious, reputable reference work takes conflicts of interest seriously. We don't. Insofar as we aspire to create a serious, respectable reference work (a goal which, admittedly, seems increasingly irrelevant to the community), that's a problem. I get that our editorial process is different from that of every other reference work, but I don't see how that frees us from worrying about conflicts of interest. On the contrary, I think it makes the problem even more pressing and relevant. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::Sigh...so you belive the editor of being a part of the PR team Mastercell? I disagree with you strongly that our credibility is in question over this. That is just not taking into account the efforts of all those editors that have been overseeing these articles and working for neutrality. So, you are in favor of adding specific attribution for other editors adding material that they felt was relevant because someone you don't trust proposed it. That doesn't seem logical. How would this work exactly? How would you determine who the attribution belongs to? How would it be added to the actual article space? Would that violate any current policies and guidelines and what happens if the editor objects? Is this a privacy issue? Is this even credible itself?--] (]) 23:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Do I trust a handful of pseudonymous Wikipedians to be able to filter the efforts of a billion-dollar corporation's PR department? No, not really - especially when they seem totally oblivious to the problem presented by these sorts of conflicts of interest. I get that you're offended, but pride is a handicap to dealing with these things effectively. As to dealing with the problem, I don't have a handy solution, but we haven't even reached The First Step - admitting that there's a problem. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:03, 11 January 2025

    Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
    Start a new talk topic.
    Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy.
    He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees.
    The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit.
    The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.
    This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead,
    you can leave a message here
    This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
    Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 10 days 
    This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
    Media mentionThis talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:

    Centralized discussion
    Village pumps
    policy
    tech
    proposals
    idea lab
    WMF
    misc
    For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

    Albert Percy Godber

    Albert Percy Godber at his brass finishing lathe in the Petone railway workshops. A sign before him reads: `This is my busy day'
    "Looking down over a settlement with houses set amongst trees. The arm of a lake or harbour lies beyond, with a mountainous range on the far side. Photograph taken by Albert Percy Godber. Probably taken at Queenstown, Godber having visited Lake Wakatipu and Queenstown in 1926"

    Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.

    Could you or your page watchers help me with Draft:Albert Percy Godber? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.

    "Phyllis Mary Godber wearing a Maori cloak, holding a taiaha, standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber

    I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    If Godber is not WP:NOTABLE, which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. Polygnotus (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I dunno, but User:Sulfurboy wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. Polygnotus (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Godber family outside their house 'Railway Whare' at 23 Bay Street, Petone, circa 1906. From left to right: Albert Percy Godber, Mary Ann Godber, Laura Godber, Phyllis and William. Photograph taken by Albert Percy Godber"
    And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". FloridaArmy (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Godber's photographs include "views of the Hutt Valley including large numbers of cars traveling to Trentham Racecourse, and the Hutt River. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the Mendip Hills Homestead in Canterbury, New Zealand with scenes of farm life, including haymaking, merino sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the Ross Reservoir, Otago Boys' High School, Seacliff Mental Hospital, the 1926 Dunedin Exhibition, and the Hillside Railway Workshops); Invercargill (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, Moeraki, Tuatapere, Waiau River, Oamaru and Port Chalmers. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the Burnside Iron Mills, and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the Piha, Karekare, Anawhata area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori marae and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." FloridaArmy (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. Here's a link to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Just wanted to say

    You have created something valuable to everyone on the Internet. I'm sure you get this a lot, but thank you.
    It may sound weird, but Misplaced Pages has helped me through some tough times. We can never thank you enough for this sometimes infighting, sometimes peaceful, sometimes divided, but always united community You are the backbone of the cabal of editors thriving community that is Misplaced Pages. I wish I could give you a BarnMilkyWay but no one's come up with that, apparently. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 00:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Requests for comment/Severe Problems in hewiki

    For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Summary: This document intends to show the problematic situation in Hebrew Misplaced Pages (hewiki), and provide evidence that it has been overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors, who prevent others from achieving higher permissions while promoting their own allies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Happy new year

    Good days, Jimbo. I'd like to say that Chinese Misplaced Pages is introducing ARBCOM System currently, since Arbcom on this project, and in fact all the project is originated from the idea of yours, do you have any opinion for that? Any hints, advice or suggestions? -Lemonaka 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors

    That doesn't sound good. From The Forward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. CMD (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Edit_request and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Heritage_Foundation_planning_to_dox_Wikipedia_editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to these concerns from Tryptofish?

    ... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, Jimbo Wales will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than Claudine Gay was.
    Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage et al. is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sita Bose (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
    As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Suddenly ANI going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face. Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Category: