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 09:24, 4 November 2013 view sourceJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,282 edits →Time to start thinking: blanking, BLP enforcement to remove slander. Do not restore. Talk to me. .← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:33, 10 January 2025 view source Sita Bose (talk | contribs)12 edits →Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{NOINDEX}}
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{stb}}
{{usercomment}} {{noindex}}
{{Stb}}
{{notice|<center>'''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an ].'''<br/>
{{Usercomment}}
'''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s ].<br/>The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are ], ], and ].<br/>The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Liaison is ].'''</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}}
<!--{{User:MiszaBot/config
|imaxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 99
|minthreadsleft = 2
|algo = old(1d)
|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
}}-->
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}} {{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}}
{{annual readership}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
{{Press
|archiveprefix=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive
| subject = talkpage
|format= %%i
| author = Matthew Gault
|age=24
| title = Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit
|index=no
| org = ]
|minkeepthreads=2
| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit
|maxarchsize=250000
| date = 8 December 2021
|numberstart=99
| 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.
|header={{aan}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{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}}
| algo = old(10d)
{{archives|age=1|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=ClueBot III|archivelist=User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivelist_manual|collapsed=yes|search=yes}}
| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
{| align="right" style="clear:both"
| counter = 252
|]
| maxarchivesize = 350K
|}
| archiveheader = {{aan}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
{{Centralized discussion}}
__TOC__ __TOC__
{{-}}


== Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder! ==
== Thoughts on paid advocacy ==

Hi Jimbo, and whoever else may be interested,

First, I wanted to thank you, Jimbo, for your concerns with paid advocacy. I think you've taken a very helpful stance. I just wanted to follow with some thoughts; I'm sure others have written all this before, but anyway:

In academic publishing, if the author of a paper has received or will receive tangible benefits from someone who has a financial interest in the subject of the paper, this conflict of interest is supposed to be noted clearly within the paper. Not to do so is academic fraud. For encyclopedias this is not even an issue: Authors of entries are always supposed to be independent of conflict of interest for the subject of their entries. This is because encyclopedias are not supposed to be position or argumentative papers, but general, neutral accounts. Conflicts of interest have always been recognized in the academic world as undermining this neutrality to such an extent that it is rigorously avoided. For example, if it was discovered that Robert Duce accepted money from the aerosol industry in order to write the entry "Aerosols" in the Springer ''Encyclopedia of World Climatology'', he would be rightly scandalized, and his department at Texas A&M would try to remove him as best as they could. We should keep this encyclopedia at the same high standard.

Paid advocacy editors have responded that Misplaced Pages already has policies to keep things neutral and that their edits— or those of the responsible ones among them at least —are kept within these policies. This response is a non-starter. Every academic encyclopedia has neutrality as an editorial standard, but their editors still do not accept authors with a conflict of interest. We should not fail to learn from the best practices of the academic world.

Paid advocacy editors cannot produce even a single example where an effective paid editor has produced an overall negative impression for the firm or a client of the firm which pays this editor. Of course this is the case: If such a paid editor is going to produce a negative impression of the benefactor, then the benefactor has no interest in paying out money for such a service. Overall unbiased editing from such paid editors is a contradiction. A necessary condition for the continued practice of paying editors to produce content about oneself or one's clients is that there be a systemic bias in the production of content. Neutral editors have no effective mechanism for dealing with this biased production apart from banning it: Neutral editors are volunteers who can only act in their free time, the paid editors have as much time as their pay can afford them.

Claims that the community here is divided on whether to maintain the high standards of academic publishing are suspicious. The community is that body of neutral editors who are here to write an encyclopedia collaboratively. The editors who are paid to produce content concerning a benefactor, insofar as they take that role, are not part of this community. As such they are not here to work collaboratively, but are rather here to benefit themselves. What percentage of those who want to allow, and indeed expand the number of, encyclopedia articles written with a conflict of interest are actually part of the community, and what percentage are themselves paid editors? That is hard to answer. Instead of counting votes on what practices to take up, we should look to the academic world, which has soundly rejected conflict-of-interest writing. Thanks for reading. --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 18:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
:Thank you. This is all completely wonderful. The analogy is a very useful and helpful one.--] (]) 19:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
::No academic journal allows anonymous editors to vandalize articles after publication. We are not the same. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
:::It's an analogy, a very valid one. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that the solution to vandalism is to allow undisclosed paid advocacy editing by pr flacks. That doesn't even begin to make sense.--] (]) 19:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
:::: I did not assert that undisclosed paid advocacy editing should be allowed. It is manifest bad faith by you to falsely attribute things to me. Please let me speak for myself. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::I didn't falsely attribute anything to you.--] (]) 20:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
::::If Misplaced Pages has a page about me, but I am only semi-notable, and very few people watch my page, vandalism to my page might go unnoticed for a long time. If I see that somebody has inserted malicious content into my page, I can fix it in 10 seconds myself. Are you suggesting I should go through a time consuming bureaucracy instead? No, Jimmy, your assertion that Misplaced Pages is a site where anybody can post slander and the subject (and only the subject) cannot respond, is what makes no sense. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
:Your analogy is completely broken. Misplaced Pages is not an encyclopedia with a paid editorial staff that ensures accuracy and article quality. Britanica does not put out ] articles about people, businesses and organizations the way we do. If a person, business or organization is harmed by one of our half baked articles, they have every right to self-help, as long as they are transparent, respectful, and helpful. We need to define what steps they can take to help themselves. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
::I think you are missing the point of the analogy if you think he is arguing that we should not allow people the "right to self-help". Or that you think he is not saying that we should define what steps they can take to help themselves. The point is that we can and should define those steps in such a way that people aren't forced into very risky (for their reputations and ours) paid advocacy editing. As it turns out, this is quite easy - the cries that we have to allow this kind of nonsense because there is nothing else to be done about it flies in the face of the reality of how we work every day.--] (]) 19:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Three is nothing risky about reverting vandalism to one's own page. So, some editing is allowed. You are mixing up paid advocacy with paid editing. The two are not equivalent. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
::::I am not mixing up paid advocacy with paid editing. Indeed, for a while I have been leading the charge for people to stop talking about paid editing or using the term because it really really confuses the issue.--] (]) 19:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::Above you agreed that for an employee to change a description of the company from 80,000 employees to 87,000 employees should be prohibited. This might be considered paid editing, but to call it paid advocacy is to stretch the concept beyond all useful meaning. ] (]) 21:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::Not sure anybody will see this any more, but I think that you all miss an important point when comparing WP with academic journals or academic encyclopedias: those ''can'' prohibit paid advocacy editing very effectively. No anonymous users can edit their content (for better or for worse). We ''cannot'' effectively police this, if paid advocacy editors go underground. --] (]) 09:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::::The policy would largely be preventative in nature, not about policing. Several editors have pointed to extant laws and regulations governing advertising on the Internet and disclosure, which would pertain to Misplaced Pages, and WMF has issued a statement declaring that paid advocacy editing is already prohibited by the Terms of Use.
:::::::Promulgating a clearer policy statement at the community level would add force to the above and provide increased visibility as well as system-wide coherence to the deterrence measures.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 11:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
* Okay, I think we have each clarified our positions and understood each other. Why don't we have a "no paid editing of articles" policy? What about all the edge cases, such as scholarships? The lack of a page I can point to makes it very hard to educate interested parties about the proper way to do things. I can live with any policy, but what is difficult is trying to abide by an amorphous standard. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
::I feel like, and just said this in email, you're a bit behind on the discussions. Scholarships are not edge cases but perfectly acceptable. "Paid editing" is not the appropriate term to use because it mixes up too many different things. The preferred term is "paid advocacy editing"
::- "paid" to clarify that we are narrowing the discussion to a particular type of conflict of interest (there can be others, but that's not what we are talking about.
::-"advocacy" to clarify that we aren't talking about people who are being paid to improve articles in their field of expertise, etc.
::-"editing" to clarify that we aren't talking about engaging with us on talk pages, by OTRS, etc. but editing the articles directly
::By narrowing the conversation to this, we can make clear that we aren't at this time concerned with questions about scholarships, or questions about POV pushing partisans of other kinds, etc. We are talking about one particular problem only, a real one, and one which we have the opportunity to do something useful about.--] (]) 20:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
:::"Paid advocacy editing" is ''your'' preferred term, Jimmy, and while I think your preference for it is absolutely sensible, the complicated nuances that you're trying to capture by using it are exactly the problem. No offense, but it's hard not to get the impression that you're not entirely sure what you're campaigning against. --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>✌ 23:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
::::No, I am being very clear and precise about what I'm campaigning against. Precise language and clear definitions solve problems of ambiguity. I am asking people to stop using vague terms like "paid editing" that clump different kinds of things together and focus on a single, specific, and very precise problem: paid advocacy editing, as I have explained it up above. Does that clear things up for you?--] (]) 23:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::I didn't actually need anything cleared up for my own part. I just don't think your ever-more-specific neologisms are getting your message across very effectively. Someone smarter than me might come up with a good sound-bitish word that says "don't edit wikipedia to polish your image ("you" referring to either an actual person or the "corporate person" we talk about these days). --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>✌ 23:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

::Atethnekos makes a comparison to academic journals and traditional encyclopedias, which usually have clearly identified editors (granted, some encyclopedias withheld author names from the public). Authors of Misplaced Pages are mostly anonymous, editing under pen names or as IPs. There are good reasons for Misplaced Pages editors to seek anonymity, such as to avoid harassment from those who disagree with their edits or their actions. The only way to sanction or limit the work of a paid editor is if the editor deliberately or inadvertently discloses his real identity, or if someone violates ] via off-wiki sleuthing, based on facts the editor let slip. A ban on paid editing may inspire a warm fuzzy feeling in the belief that it preserves the purity of the encyclopedia, but it seems inconsistent with allowing anonymous editing. It will hamper only the very honest or the very naive conflict-of-interest editor or paid editor. The only benefit I see of a "No paid editing" policy is that it would prevent anyone from advertising as a writer-for- hire his Misplaced Pages credentials, such as having a large number of featured articles and good articles, and thousands of edits, and positions of responsibility such as being an administrator. ] (]) 20:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
:::The main problem with the comparison to academic publishing is that in academic publishing there are checks and balances that keep the journal from just throwing in a couple of random falsehoods or misleading statements about someone. Mostly, the fact that the journal knows that it or the writers it publishes will be held responsible for them. In Misplaced Pages anyone can toss in a random fake fact on a page and have it sit there for months when the subject is of marginal interest and the page is not watched very heavily. Journals won't do that, even online ones, so there's no need for subjects to edit in order to fix it. ] (]) 21:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

::If we cannot prevent such conflict of interest editors from creating content on Misplaced Pages pages (as is done in other encyclopedias), then at least we can clearly disclose the conflict of interest in the article (as is done in other academic publications): Here's a template which can be placed on the top of such articles:
{{coi hatnote|entity=Relevant Corporation|pronoun=its}}
::Really, the inclusion of such a notice is the minimum we should do if the article is being created with a conflict of interest. Merely placing a disclosure on a user page which the average reader of an article will never see, is pointless. I do hope however that people will agree that including such a notice is worse than just not allowing such editing in the first place. --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 21:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


:I'm not a fan of templates - mostly they just sit there for years and uglify the page. I also don't think it would work as far as making the ads on article pages legal - e.g. in the "clear and conspicuous" part of the of the FTC, they go on about how scrolling the page to get to a disclosure is bad (if not outright banned),that the disclosure has to be in close proximity to the claim (edit) and that the disclosure has to be clear and conspicuous on all platforms used, e.g. on mobile phones. Pretty hard to do on Misplaced Pages.
:Somebody is bound to say here that Misplaced Pages doesn't allow ads, so this situation couldn't possibly come up. To the contrary - the FTC is very broad in its definition of ads, and there are thousands of Misplaced Pages articles that have ads in them by the FTC definition.
:It's also very unclear how a disclosure would work on a Misplaced Pages page. For example, say an endorser wrote "XXX corp's products all meet industry safety standards," (clearly an ad by FTC standards if the editor is paid) then a non-paid editor adds "applicable" after "meet," and then another editor writes "according to a November 2009 study." Is the disclosure still going to be accurate? How about after 3 years of additional edits - both pro and con?
:BTW, there is situation here that you might not expect. According to the way most editors here understand WP:NPOV, this sentence would be NPOV if there is a citation, say to a NY Times article, that discusses the study. Not so with the FTC, if the study was paid for by XXX corp, that must be disclosed "clearly and conspicuously" and in close proximity to the claim.
:FWIW, my reading of how the minimum disclosure according to FTC rules would read on Misplaced Pages would be something like this, (]), where the link goes to a page that lists the advertiser and the editor and explains that he's been paid. I don't think any true Wikipedian wants something like that in an article. Phil Gomes above, thinks that if the disclosure "craps up" the user experience, then the paid advocate can rely on edit summaries, talk page disclosures, etc. to be the proper disclosure. That clearly is not the case, the FTC says if proper disclosures can't be made, that the ad can't be included. In short, we'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to make Misplaced Pages safe for advertisers. I certainly don't want to do that. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 22:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
:I think I would agree with all of this. The legal issues are beyond me. --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 17:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
:::(ec reply to Atethnekos) The idea of paid editors staying to the talk page is that a neutral editor will then come along and review the work, making any necessary corrections ("Sure, updating the number of employees is fine; no, we can't say that Example Corp. is a great place to work and makes the best widgets in the world. We can give a more neutral presentation of those two awards you put in sources for though..."). At that point, it's that reviewing editor who's ultimately responsible for what goes in the article, and we don't need a ] on the article. The trouble comes when Example Corp. edits the article directly, and decides the mention of those two highly-publicized product liability lawsuits isn't really necessary, is it? That's where COI editing causes trouble. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Yes, I agree. I would only suggest using the notice when such a editor actually writes part of the article. --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 17:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::You're re-inventing the wheel a little, as there is already ].

:::::One of the interesting thing about that template is that it regularly has paid advocates running to multiple Misplaced Pages helpdesks to ask how to get it removed from "their" article. There's nothing that gets paid advocates' attention so quickly as something that might be perceived as bad publicity for their client/themselves (e.g. a huge orange COI template at the top of the article).

:::::Having said that, once the COI issues are resolved - which means an independent editor not just checking the language and structure and emphasis for neutrality, but also checking the sources provided do support the statements made, and ''also'' doing a bit of internet searching to look for encyclopedicly acceptable negative points of view that may have been omitted - then the COI template should be removed.

:::::That's why I suggested earlier that there should be a template making clearer, that a COI-infested article needs such an independent review, and suggesting places to look for it. Like I said, paid advocates move to talk pages very quickly when upset in this way. And once they do so, they can also be told, "and now that it's fixed, you should stay off the article itself."

:::::Just to add, mainly for ], the essay ] is one that I've always found a particularly powerful and relevant exposition of why people/organisations should think twice before COI editing. Although its title suggests that it's mainly about articles about people, there's also a <s>fair bit of focus</s> an entire section later in it that's on companies. --] (]) 20:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

*I agree complete with Atethnekos, and especially applaud his points concerning the need for disclosure within the body of an article that has been impacted by paid editing. While it's nice to read the rare sensible talk page post on this topic, I nevertheless am convinced that efforts to influence the community to see the light on this subject are fruitless, and that nothing will be done unless there is action by the WMF, making paid editing as verboten as NPOV is required in all projects. ] (]) 16:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages has legal counsel. I suggest that if there's a genuine question about whether FCC requirements for disclosure are incompatible with Misplaced Pages editing, Misplaced Pages needs to get a legal opinion from them. Otherwise we shouldn't be making policy decisions based on such legal claims. ] (]) 16:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
:I don't know anything about FTC (I think you mean that) disclosure rules. The purpose should be not only to make disclosure legal but to ''far exceed'' any such rules, to inform readers when articles in Misplaced Pages are influenced in a material way by corporate subjects. This would include creation of articles based upon text provided by the company, and the companies providing text that is adopted in the articles by other editors. ] (]) 16:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
:::As a minor point, the US rules really are at least primarily FCC, not FTC, rules. They have to do with the laws and regulations enacted by Congress after the ] and free-plugging scandals, involving undisclosed advertising on network TV and radio. ] (]) 16:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:My point is this. Misplaced Pages should be a ''leader'' in transparency. On this issue, Misplaced Pages is not just lagging behind, but has its priorities backwards. Its loyalty is not to the reader but to the contributor, no matter who that contributor is, and after that to the subject, with the reader a distant third. When it comes to COI, the contributor has only voluntary COI behavioral guidelines, the subject has the ability to influence the article about itself in ways that would be unheard of in academia or the real-world media, and there is ''zero'' disclosure of all of this to readers. ] (]) 16:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
:: @Atethnekos I like your analogy. You overstate slightly what happens in academia: an expert in a field may have a career built on their own school of thought; and may well be asked to write the overview article on their field, even though they have a clear COI. And sometimes the expert in a practical area is the lead scientist at an institution or company; that employment does not invalidate their research, though they are expected to note that affiliation. These are known weaknesses in the modern academic process; we should strive to eventually do better, but please note that some of these problems are unsolved in academia as well.
:: @Coretheapple I love your take on the issue. We should find ways to ''lead'' in transparency; until we have much better tools for helping readers and other editors see these facets of an article, we should limit predictable sources of bias and capture sources of COI. We already have casual ways to do this for unpaid advocacy and zeal: the # of advocates on either side of a popular issue often balance out. For paid advocacy, if we allow channels for payment to thrive, the side with money can easily drown out the other; which is why we should make special efforts to catch that bias, and create policy that gives its opponents extra leverage. <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 21:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:::Well thank you. I think that Atethnekos deserves major and massive props for raising the analogy of academic research. There are a considerable number of Misplaced Pages editors who are acquainted with that field of endeavor, and perhaps may be the nucleus of a counter-paid-editing insurgency. It is important for Misplaced Pages editors to know how totally out of step Misplaced Pages is with the rest of the world on COI, and how dreadful its COI standards, such as they are, would be if employed elsewhere in the real world. I have actually heard on several occasions the pro-paid-editing excuse-mongers condemn as "extremists" those of us who believe that standard practice in these issues be deployed at Misplaced Pages. On the contrary, it is Misplaced Pages and its welcome mat for paid editing that is the outlier and the extremist. Welcome as this breath of fresh air certainly is, my feelings on the subject, the need for initiative taken by the Foundation, remain the same. ] (]) 22:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
===PROPOSAL: Let's make lemonade out of paid advocacy editing lemons===

I oppose all rules against ''paid advocacy editing''. All editing is subject to the biases of the editor in question. I don't understand why we need to identify and treat ''paid advocacy'' differently from any other kind of bias. We already have policies, guidelines, practices and mechanisms for dealing with article content that is problematic due to editor bias. We revert. We balance. We fix. We find sources. We modify. Etc. Etc. Etc. Addressing ''paid advocacy editing'' as a distinct problem is quintessential ]. <p>As others have noted Atethnekos' analogy with academic paper and other encyclopedia standards and policies fails at the gate. Every WP article is written by a disorganized and usually unidentified panoply of mostly anonymous editors all with unknown biases and viewpoints. The ''essence'' of Misplaced Pages is that articles come out remarkably well despite this - precisely because we allow such a diverse group to edit each article. Democrats and Republicans edit US political articles. Theists and atheists edit religious articles. Socialists and anarchists edit government articles. People with inherent biases as well as pay-influenced biases edit all kinds of articles... so what? <p>Paid advocacy editing is GOOD for Misplaced Pages. We are always looking for help to increase and improve content. Paid advocacy editors are not the WHOLE solution, but they can be a healthy and productive important PART of the WHOLE solution. Let's ''harness'' that resource rather than try to defeat it in vain. <p>I propose we make lemonade out of paid advocacy editing lemons. Instead of banning paid advocacy editing, or trying to restrict it, or pretend requiring disclosure it going to work or even help, let's drop it all. Let's ''embrace'' paid advocacy editing. Let's ''encourage'' them to produce their content - and then all unpaid editors have to do, where needed, is put in the parts to balance it out, rather than do all of it. <p>Enough with the hand wringing. It's pointless, distracting, and ultimately harmful to WP. Let's focus on content, not on the editor (]). It's about the WHAT, not the WHO or WHY. --]2] 21:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


:I couldn't disagree more about Atethnekos' posting, as it would be considered self-evident and "stating the obvious" anywhere but in a discussion of paid editing on Misplaced Pages. That is not a reflection on the logic and good sense of his position, but on the blind spot that Misplaced Pages editors have on this very issue. I certainly agree that the point of view that you express is very much the general position taken by Misplaced Pages editors on this issue, which is precisely why the Foundation needs to deal with it as a matter of self-preservation. ] (]) 21:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

:No. It's not true that, "every WP article is written by a disorganized and usually unidentified panoply of mostly anonymous editors." Some have one, or a specific few who make any substantive edit. Moreover, editors are asked regularly to disclose why they want an edit. Many honestly say so. More editors do so in their edit summaries. So, it is untrue that we never care about why. In addition, it is common legal and ethical practice to disclose financial COI on and off the pedia for written work already. That is one reason why there are already examples of financial COI disclosure among Wikipedians. Wikipedians are honest people (I think) and asked to be honest with one another with respect to matters of content for our readers, and honest to our readers, to the best of their ability, and they are expected to be generally competent in that respect. It is generally helpful, as many of our policies do, to make expectations of how much information is enough and right, explicit, in a given situation.] (]) 21:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

:Your proposal reminds me rather of the claim that academic writers don't need to worry about conflicts of interest because the papers are peer reviewed. Authors with financial conflicts of interest (which they are required to declare, but sometimes don't) are shown, over and over, to reach conclusions which are favorable to their financial backer. This is not a small effect, meta-analyses have found the probability of a favorable finding is 3.5-4 times higher when the authors are being paid (Okike et al 2008. "Industry sponsored research" ''Injury'' 39:666-80). This is after editors check over the paper and after peers review the paper, this strong bias remains. Editors and academics who do peer review read papers thoroughly, are experts in the field, and still do not spot what might be going wrong. Pretending that we can spot bad research every time and weed it out, so the author's biases don't matter, is demonstrably contrary to reality.

:The problem on Misplaced Pages is compounded in that we don't have a large bank of experts eager to check over the work of others. We do not submit each article for peer review by three experts before it goes live. In the case of peer review, each of those experts also can recommend against publication, which the editor usually accepts. With those already-inadequate safeguards missing on Misplaced Pages, we can expect paid advocacy to bring an even heavier swing in the direction of the financiers. This is not theoretical, this is evidence. We know that allowing paid editing on Misplaced Pages will bring a NPOV in favor of the paid interests.

:We can talk about the likely effects of paid editing--disheartening the volunteer editors who are now asked to proofread, copyedit, and research to improve articles that people are being paid to maintain, for example--but your suggestion that NPOV can be spotted and easily removed is simply and demonstrably false. --] (]) 22:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

::I can't imagine a worse proposal than B2C's. Turn the encyclopedia over to corporations (but volunteers will still be allowed to edit) and everything will turn out ok. Pure and utter nonsense. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 01:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:::What is nonsense is the claim that my proposal will "turn the encyclopedia over to corporations". It's delusional to believe that rules governing COI in general or paid advocacy editing in particular can make any kind of significant difference. Therefore the influence of corporations is going to be about the same with or without those rules. <p>What my proposal will do is put the focus of the community where it should be, directed at encyclopedia content, instead of on pointless handwringing about turning over the encyclopedia to corporations and futile efforts to try to regulate that directly. In fact, I submit that corporate influence will be curbed much more effectively with my proposal, because we will have more time and resources available to enforcing and verifying important content-related policies like NPOV, Notability, Reliable Sources, BLP, etc., which is just as effective at curbing paid advocacy editing as editing under any other bias. --]2] 06:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
::::{{User|Born2cycle}}, lets imagine that any edit made is thoroughly checked by no fewer than four independent editors, all of whom spend hours checking the material, and all of whom have a strong background in the content. Only when they reach consensus that the edit should go live does it actually go live. And if the final decision is to not allow the edit, it does not see the light of day. No appeals, it is done. While I don't propose such a system (Wiki means quick), it would certainly address concerns people have about editors being paid, right?
::::This is the system that we have in academia, the system of peer review. Yet with all of these checks and all of this oversight, substantial bias still makes it in. Why is that? The editorial process is not one of cut and dry, obvious facts. It is full of careful examination, judgement calls, and fine balances. When someone is paid, their judgement on these matters is, consciously or unconsciously, flawed. We all do it, and anyone can objectively find these effects.
::::On Misplaced Pages, we do not operate with anything close to the safeguards found in peer review. We operate with non-experts, who may or may not check someone's work (and almost always ''after'' it has gone live). Even the minimal safeguards proposed--disclosure of COI, require the work be checked by at least one editor before the edit goes live--are still likely to allow money to dictate content on Misplaced Pages, it just limits the effect to cut out the most egregious examples. This is the experience of academic research: When people are paid, their editorial judgement is compromised, and with a monumental effort to minimize that bias, what slips through is still substantial.
::::Your solution, it seems to me, is to suggest that with ''more'' discussion, we can in fact have ''greater'' monitoring and safeguarding than academia. This is demonstrably not the case. We do not have enough volunteers to ask them to debate endlessly with people who are paid to not change their minds. Editors are the most important resource Misplaced Pages has, and it is foolish to ask them to pursue fruitless tasks, nor can we retain editors if we willingly and intentionally send them on snipe hunts.
::::I started by reply with a discussion of what Misplaced Pages can learn from the Academic experience of people with conflicts of interest. Let me close with a parallel system which operates like you suggest. In court, there are teams of advocates who argue and debate as you suggest. They are all paid, of course, so we don't have the worry that prosecutors are paid while defense counsel is unpaid. However there is another feature in which Misplaced Pages differs from a courtroom--Misplaced Pages does not have a judge or jury. If your vision of Misplaced Pages were taken to a courtroom, cases would only end when one lawyer convinced opposing counsel that their position was correct. This vision, I am sure you can well imagine, would make discussions endless if the counselors take their roles as advocates seriously. The only way for such a judgeless system to work is if both lawyers refuse to become advocates for their positions and hold the interest of justice to be paramount. That is how Misplaced Pages operates: we demand that everyone put writing the encyclopedia first, not their job, their political beliefs, their religion, or anything else. People do this very imperfectly, but we must hold it as an ideal. We can not operate as advocates because our system does not allow for such intransigence. We must all put the encyclopedia first, or the system stops working, we stop writing an encyclopedia, and we become a debating society. --] (]) 13:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::In Misplaced Pages, the reader is often an afterthought, and that is exemplified by the fact that there is no disclosure of article contributors' COI to readers. One has to hunt through talk pages, or talk page archives, or sometimes even user pages, sometimes finding admissions of COI and sometimes not. Article subjeccts can even create articles through the Articles for Creation process. Imagine DuPont hiring "objective" researchers for an academic paper, supplying the text and the sources, one of its contractors writing and submitting the article, and that fact not being reflected in the published paper. That is accepted practice at Misplaced Pages, and suggestions that the COI be disclosed to readers is invariably greeted with gasps of horror and expressions of derision by established editors. ] (]) 14:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::''"uggestions that the COI be disclosed to readers is invariably greeted with gasps of horror and expressions of derision by established editors."'' On Mr. Wales's page in early 2012, anti-disclosure users expressed unwillingness to discuss the suggestion in the context of articles about political campaigning, and Mr. Wales offered no response.. Good to see Wales and others engaging now. We surely have a duty of disclosure to readers. ] (]) 16:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::::The idea of encouraging paid advocacy editing in order to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages is a '''genuinely terrible''' idea. Responsible volunteer editors who value the quality of Misplaced Pages have a very hard job to do as it is, to deal not only with vandalism (often obvious) but also, more insidiously, with unpaid POV-pushing. Do we really think that we can also burden them with identifying and correcting for paid POV-pushing, and expect them to take up that burden? The idea that a core of volunteer editors will willingly correct not only for unpaid POV-pushing but for paid POV-pushing is absurdly idealistic and unrealistic. I understand that its proponent means well, because he probably thinks that he and others could deal with that burden. We have enough of an issue of editor retention without expecting a small core of volunteer editors to correct for a well-financed group of paid POV-pushers. Just because the proponent means well doesn't mean that the idea will work well. It is a terrible idea. ] (]) 16:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::And ''"Paid advocacy editing is GOOD for Misplaced Pages"'' is at best a spectacularly naive comment. ] (]) 18:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::What he or she meant, which, as you say, is spectacularly naive, is apparently that Misplaced Pages is largely edited by fools, and that welcoming paid advocacy editing would bring in a new class of educated, well-informed editors. He or she apparently thinks that the work required to correct for deliberate bias is less than the work required to compensate for unpaid POV pushing and for ignorance. That is a noble idealistic viewpoint that has extreme faith in the ability of a small core of volunteer editors to correct for deliberate as well as unintended bias. Sometimes it isn't enough to be noble and idealistic, when the effect of imposing that nobility and idealism on our volunteer editors would be to burn them out correcting deliberate bias. ] (]) 19:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{User|Robert McClenon}}, don't forget that the paid advocates some wish to discourage from editing are part of the correction process. Not every edit they make will be problematic due to their bias - the vast majority is likely not to be. Further, as any other editors, they will also be reading and correcting errors made by others. I believe, perhaps idealistically as you surmise, that the ''net'' contribution from each such paid advocate is likely to be positive, and probably by a substantial margin. In other words, we're much better off with paid advocacy editors than without them, just as we are much better off with editors who are biased in other ways than we are without them. --]2] 21:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Every edit from a paid advocacy editor will fall into one of two classes, those that come from declared paid advocacy editors, and those that come from undeclared paid advocacy editors. Those that come from declared paid advocacy editors are known to be problematic. That does not mean that they are known to be biased, but that they are known to be problematic. They therefore create additional work for the volunteer editors. Those that come from undeclared paid advocacy editors are not known to be questionable, and thus are more subtly corrupting. They may go unrecognized for months. Volunteer editors don't have the time and resources that paid advocacy editors do. Volunteer editors will be overwhelmed with work of undoing biased edits. Will volunteer editors really be willing to spend 40 hours a week undoing intentionally biased edits? Why shouldn't corporations have their paid advocacy editors spend 40 hours a week introducing bias? I am not sure that I agree that we are better off with unpaid POV-pushing editors. Those editors require a disproportionate amount of attention at the noticeboards, at the ArbCom, and at Arbitration Enforcement. I certainly do not think that we are better off with paid POV-pushing editors. Do you really think that volunteer editors will spring up out of nowhere to take up the additional work caused by removing bias that editors are paid to introduce? ] (]) 22:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::::{{User|Robert McClenon}}, I suggest you underestimate the amount of bias with which ALL editors edit.<p>I see no reason to believe that the bias and problems in a given amount of Misplaced Pages article editing by paid advocacy editors should create more work for other editors (those other editors also being paid as well as volunteer) than does the bias and problems in a comparable amount of typical Misplaced Pages article editing by volunteer editors. At least no reason for this has been presented here or in other discussions on this topic in which I've participated. <p>{{User|TeaDrinker}}, I think the courtroom analogy you drew above is quite apt. You say the difference is that we do not have a judge/jury, but we actually do have something comparable. It's called ''other editors'', and the various conflict resolution mechanisms we have.<p>Misplaced Pages will always be an imperfect work in progress. That is its nature. And part of that is because many edits are made unreviewed and unnoticed. But not every edit needs to be reviewed. Sooner or later the whole article is read and reviewed, and problems are caught or resolved. But yes, sometimes they aren't, and problematic content can remain, sometimes for years. This isn't the end of the world, as some seem to think. Most people know this, or should know this, about Misplaced Pages. This is why we require citations - so statements and claims can be easily verified, and dubious material without citation is subject to removal, immediately.<p>Misplaced Pages is not perfect, but we have many mechanisms that allow it to maintain a certain reasonable standard of reliability and balance, and there is no reason these mechanisms should be any less effective with content created by paid advocacy editing than any other content.<p>I'm so passionate about this issue because a lack of faith in our ability to reasonably manage paid advocacy editing with our existing content integrity maintenance mechanisms indicates a general lack of faith in those mechanisms. To see experienced editors express this lack of faith in something that reflects the very essence of Misplaced Pages is quite disappointing, to say the least. --]2] 22:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
{{od}} In the view of this "other editor" you have lost in your attempt to make Misplaced Pages a battleground. I'm calling it. It is over. It is done. You have lost. Do you accept my judgement? Of course, if I were really a judge, you would have to. On Misplaced Pages, you don't. You're welcome to continue discussing. No matter who comes along and tells you you're done, you can continue discussing.
That said, some things you say are rather disturbing. You assert as fact that Misplaced Pages already operates as a battleground, as a courtroom, not that you're asserting it ''should''. What should be the case is. of course, your opinion. It is, however, the fact that it currently does not. It would be wise to remember that Misplaced Pages policy currently prohibits what you are proposing. --] (]) 00:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::B2C says to me and to the other editors who strongly oppose permitting paid advocacy editors that we are showing a lack of faith in our existing content integrity maintenance mechanisms. I don't have "faith" in those mechanisms. I rely on what I see. What I see is that those mechanisms usually but not always work, and that they are often pushed to the limits of their ability to work. B2C appears to be asking us to have "faith" that those mechanisms can continue to work when further pushed beyond what some of us think are their limits. It is true that editors do have biases, but some editors, the best ones that we have, actually try to compensate for or minimize those biases. Even as it is, Misplaced Pages doesn't handle dispute resolution as well as we would like it to, and volunteer editors spend a lot of time and energy dealing with biases.
You say that there is no reason to think that paid advocacy editors will create more work for volunteer editors than typical volunteer editors by biased editors does, and that at least no reason has been presented to that effect. Here is a reason. The typical volunteer editor doesn't volunteer 40 hours a week to Misplaced Pages, and the typical volunteer editor who tries to maintain neutrality against unpaid POV-pushers isn't trying to deal with editors who spend 40 hours a week introducing POV and bias. Allowing professional paid POV-pushers would increase the amount of work for the volunteers beyond the burnout point. You may have "faith" that the "mechanisms", really, work by volunteers, can deal with full-time paid bias. I, indeed, don't have "faith" that those mechanisms will expand to take up the load imposed by paid advocacy editors. ] (]) 02:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

:It is impossible to make lemonade from rotten lemons - no amount of added sugar can fix it. ] (]) 21:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
::I agree. There is a label on products, such as anti-freeze, that contain methanol (wood alcohol). It says, among other things, "Cannot be made non-poisonous", to dispute myths that there are ways to make it into ethanol (grain alcohol). The warning says: "Cannot be made non-poisonous." Can deliberately biased editing be made non-corrupting? ] (]) 22:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

::{{User|Dodger67}} and {{User|Robert McClenon}}, the notion that the bias likely to be expressed in the contributions of a paid advocacy editors is "rotten" in a way that the bias likely to be expressed in the contributions of volunteer editors is not suggests a failure to realize the extent to which all people (and thus all editors) are subject to bias. There is simply no reason to believe that the bias of an editor paid to advocate for a given interest is likely to be more problematic than the bias of a partisan editing a political article, the bias of a theist or an atheist editing an article on the subject of religion, a resident of either of two countries that tend to have significantly different views on a topic editing an article about that topic, a fan of a sports team editing an article about that team, or one about its rival, a male or female, homosexual or heterosexual, editing an article that involves sexuality, etc., etc. Assuming people tend to follow their personal (and inherently biased) views and interests to decide what to edit, I'd venture to say that vast majority of edits on Misplaced Pages are made by people who are biased about that content to a degree comparable of that in a paid advocacy editor. If paid advocacy editing was anywhere near as a big a problem as the hand-wringers suggest, Misplaced Pages would be an utter failure. --]2] 23:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

:::I think the most useful way to address your argument is to put it in a real-world perspective. Misplaced Pages does not operate in isolation; it is part of the a vast network of information-dispensing operations, ranging from medical journals to the New York Times. It may not be the most prestigious information-dispensing mechanism but it is certainly the one with the highest visibility, in the sense that Misplaced Pages articles automatically rise to the top or near top of Google results. Viewed from that perspective, what you are saying is completely nonsensical. ''Of course'' having a financial conflict of interest is inherently problematic. ''Of course'' it has to be disclosed to readers. ''Of course'' it has to be curbed or prohibited. It cannot be overemphasized or repeated too often that Misplaced Pages is the only information outlet of any significance on the Internet that openly sanctions, and even welcomes, contributors with conflicts of interest ''and does not disclose those conflicts to readers''. ] (]) 23:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:::I'd even go so far as to make this analogy: I think that paid editing is a cancer, a malignancy that has the potential to destroy Misplaced Pages's credibility. All that Misplaced Pages or any publishing outlet has is its credibility. If readers come to believe that Misplaced Pages articles are frequently sponsored or drafted by the subjects of those articles, its credibility will be destroyed. The reason is that the ethos that you are reflecting in your proposal is a unique one, certainly common here, very "Misplaced Pages-ish," but totally an outlier from a real-world perspective. The ethos that paid editing is to be welcomed, that conflicts of interest are minor and manageable, that corporate p.r. representatives and corporate officials are valued contributors whose work needs to be judged without regard to who they are-- that attitude would not pass the laugh test anywhere but on this website. ] (]) 00:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
====="Faith in Mechanisms" Comment=====
I will reply to B2C's criticism stating that those of us who oppose paid advocacy editing show a disappointing lack of faith in the integrity maintenance mechanisms of Misplaced Pages. I am not aware of a Misplaced Pages policy that states that we should have faith in those mechanisms. What we should do is to ] on the part of other editors, in particular, to assume that other editors are here to build an encyclopedia by a collaborative editing process. When we conclude that editors are ] that satisfies the ], those editors are blocked or banned. The assumption of good faith is rebuttable, disprovable. Experience has shown that some editors do not contribute positively to the collaborative building of the encyclopedia, and in dealing with them, the integrity maintenance mechanisms include blocks and bans, so as not to burn out the volunteer editors who try to maintain quality. We know in advance that paid advocacy editors, while here to build an encyclopedia, are not here to build the encyclopedia that Misplaced Pages mostly is, and that we want it to be. Faith in the integrity maintenance mechanisms is based, to a very large part, on the assumption that our editors are acting in the good faith that we assume that they are. Indeed, I do not have faith that our volunteer editors have the time and commitment to clean up bias introduced by paid advocacy editors. ] (]) 00:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
====Question About Topic Bans====
I have a question for B2C. B2C says that paid advocacy editing is actually good for Misplaced Pages because it is knowledgeable editing and its errors can be corrected. I have already disagreed. However, I have a question to put the issue in perspective. Editors who are chronic POV-pushers or otherwise complicate editing in a particular area are often topic-banned from the area, either by the ArbCom or by "community consensus" at the noticeboards. Do you think that the practice of topic-banning POV-pushers is counter-productive, and that these editors are also good for Misplaced Pages because their edits can be corrected? Alternatively, is there a special reason why volunteer POV-pushers on hobbyhorses are bad for Misplaced Pages but paid POV-pushers will be good for Misplaced Pages?
I am prepared to reply, but I first would like to know whether you think that volunteer POV-pushers are also good for Misplaced Pages and are underappreciated, or whether there is something special about the benefit of paid POV-pushers. ] (]) 01:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

:You are purposefully misrepresenting B2C's position. The whole point of what they stated is that we have those banning processes in place where necessary. However, we only do the bans when the editor's editing is directly shown to be problematic. I see numerous claims that paid editors editing will always be non-neutral in content, yet I have yet to ever see that be substantiated. In fact, all I see is that the main editors involved in being against paid editors are themselves extremely biased anti-company editors that negatively slant our articles about companies. They do far more damage to our articles than open paid editors ever have or likely ever will. (And that is one point I disagree with B2C on. I think declarations of COI are appropriate. That at least allows paid editors to be far more truthful than any other editor, because they acknowledge their COIs, while almost all editors do not. It makes the open paid editors far better editors and, in my opinion, people than everyone else on here). <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 03:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
::I am sure that B2C will be along shortly to clarify his point of view, so it seems unnecessary to debate what he does and does not believe. However I will note that there is good evidence that being paid alters judgement. The evidence I presented above, in a metastudy of studies on the effect of declared COI on academic publication, found the probability of coming to a conclusion in favor of the funding agency went up by a factor of 3.5-4 when a conflict of interest was present and declared. That is with an extensive peer review process, and that is with a journal editor who can rule decisively if he or she thinks the paper is flawed, and that is with the work being focused on an objective, factual question. On Misplaced Pages, we deal in editorial judgement calls, we have no ultimate authority, most of us volunteers are not experts in the subjects we review, and most edits are very minimally checked. All of this leads to the inevitable conclusion that paid advocates will introduce a slant in favor of those who pay. It is demonstrated. --] (]) 04:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
:::Yes, being paid alters judgement. So does joining Scientology, believing in Astrology, being against gun control, being for gun control, or any number of other reasons for advocacy editing. I could make a case for Misplaced Pages being harmed more by religious or political advocacy editing than by paid advocacy editing (but see below for why I think this might change).
:::There are however, a couple of things that are special about paid advocacy editing which IMO require extra care.
:::First, Scientology cannot do anything to suddenly have ten times more followers. They are already doing the best they can and the pool of potential converts is resistant.
:::Paid advocacy editing, on the other hand, can easily gain as many paid advocacy editors as desired by simply paying more. Think of the difference between getting emails advocating politics or religion vs. emails about online pharmacies. The first is annoying, but self limiting; the second gets bigger and bigger as long as it remains profitable. Our article on ] gives numbers like 200 billion spam messages sent per day and 97% of all emails being unwanted. I think Jimbo is right to be especially concerned over something that could grow exponentially.
:::Second, we really cannot do anything to convince most religion or politics advocates to change their ways other than blocking or banning them, but we can make big changes in how paid advocacy editors operate. If it becomes well known that the advocacy editors who don't edit articles directly but instead make talk page requests get better results and that the sneaky kind of paid advocacy editor usually gets reverted, the customers will naturally go with the service that gets the best results. We can make that happen, but again it takes special care. --] (]) 06:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

::::That's what i've been working on for more than a year now. And it gets rather difficult to show that being open and discussing things is the better way to go when you get people being rude and nasty to them because of it. I mean, if you look at some of the now archived discussions heres, you can see things being said that, in any other situation, would be something brought to the incident board because of a violation of civility. Not that the community ever does anything about that anymore as it is anyways. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 08:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::Did any of these cases involve a paid advocate who doesn't create or edit articles? If a paid advocate follows ] (which as far as I can tell lines up nicely with ) and someone is abusive towards him, we can and should defend the paid advocate, just as we should with anyone who stays within the rules. (note that I used the term "paid advocate", not "paid advocacy editor. The difference is important. See the link to Jimbo's position above). --] (]) 15:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::::An example of a responsible paid advocate is ], for instance, who posts to talk pages, and does result in improvement of the encyclopedia. I have not known editors to be abusive to him. ] (]) 00:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::All the editors I deal with don't edit articles. Some of them may do minor edit changes here and there, but I try to get them to stay away from even that. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 19:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
=====Follow-Up to Question=====
I asked about topic-banning of POV pushers because I wanted to know whether B2C, who thinks that paid advocacy editing is good for Misplaced Pages, also thinks that unpaid biased editing is good for Misplaced Pages. If he or she thinks that both are good for Misplaced Pages, because both are subject to the correction process in which we should have so much "faith", that is consistent, and can then say that POV-pushers should not be topic-banned. If B2C thinks that unpaid POV pushers should continue to be topic-banned, but that paid advocacy editors should be encouraged, then I would like to know what the difference is. That is why I asked the question. ] (]) 00:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I object strongly to the allegation of bad faith, in being accused of deliberately misrepresenting another editor's position. I am waiting for an apology for the allegation. ] (]) 00:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

:Isn't the assumption that a paid editor wants to bias an article, rather than make it neutral and properly represent the company or organization in question, an allegation of bad faith? <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 06:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

===An interesting blog===
There's an interesting blog on the subject of payed editing. Jimbo, could you please respond to that blog and comment on the ultimate fate of Misplaced Pages in regards to payed (or commercial) editing? Thanks. ] (]) 19:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
:Ah, look, a comment by a banned editor. I've taken the liberty of striking out your comment. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 19:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

:If one of Wikipediocracy's meatpuppet editors that aren't banned want to post a link here, then that would be fine. But you should know better than letting one of the banned people do it. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 19:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
::I don't see the value in encouraging their spam, myself. ]] 19:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

:::Misplaced Pages would be much better off, if Wikipedians stop seeing in each and every IP a banned editor, and an enemy of the state. Also remember your famous "Comment on the contributions, not the contributor"?
:::Spam? it's not a spam at all. That blog is read no matter what, and my post provides Jimbo with an opportunity to respond to it.
:::I guess Jimbo could menage his talk himself. Thanks.] (]) 19:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

== Just another curiousity, non-controversial fun question for Jimbo ==

I like to give these questions for Jimbo as it gives us all a break from the drama and the policy discussions, so I hope he in particular does not mind. So here's my question- Jimbo, given the success of ] (a movie about Zuckerman's ]] founding of Facebook), has anyone ever approached you regarding a movie based on you and Misplaced Pages's founding? If so, any word that this could be in someone's pipeline?] (]) 00:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

:A movie about that would be great. <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> ]</sup></small></span>]]</span> 12:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

::] was apparently not keen on '']''. The big question is, who would play Jimbo?--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 13:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
:::], no question. ] (]) 13:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
::::I was going to say the same. <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> ]</sup></small></span>]]</span> 13:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::Out of interest, is Jimbo mentioned in ''The Fifth Estate'' at all? --] (]) 20:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


:See ].—] (]) 16:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I believe you're looking for ]. <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 21:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


==]==
* '''Combine intrigue as art film with other-language wikipedias:''' Indeed the story behind Misplaced Pages is so broad and multi-faceted, with the tension between ]'s slow 7-step approval versus rapid wiki-collaboration of open articles, the growth of the user base, expansion into hundreds of languages and typesetting glitches, the rise and fall of ]s, fundraising milestones, the Wikimania conferences, the verifiability-not-truth debate, the spamming of navboxes, million-article counts, the Lua-speed revolution, the VisualEditor shootout, site-banning of editors, etc. It could become a fascinating film, balancing the intellectual challenges (re copyvios, BLP rules, Bot mania, ]/templates, or ''Britannica'') with the drama of vandalism, topic-bans, blocks, Islamic images, nude photos, German Misplaced Pages mandates, and the Italian and SOPA blackouts. I would offset the slow period of Nupedia with an overview of wiki technology and background of Jimbo leading to approval of 22 Nupedia articles, before Jimbo created the wiki website, then show a rapid progress of events afterward. A clever director could make it all blend together, for multiple audiences, to cover 15 progressive years. -] (]) 18:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
]
]
Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.


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.
::And directed by Christopher Nolan or Spielberg. <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> ]</sup></small></span>]]</span> 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Spielberg...not Nolan please, but then I am biased so...--] (]) 02:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:::<small>No objection, since they are not ]<span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.3em 0.2em">···]&nbsp;(]/])</span> 07:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)</small>
:::Thank you ], that was interesting and led me to read about Nupedia and Bomis. Amazing that one could argue that porn actually paid the way for Misplaced Pages to be born (much like Bayer's profits from heroin paid for the development of Aspirin after the govt decided heroin should be illegal). So, I do have some questions though perhaps you or Jimbo or someone could answer- the article on Bomis says the server hardware was not transferred to the WMF... does the WMF own the servers today, if so when/how did that happen? Also- who currently owns the nupedia.com and bomis.com domains?] (]) 19:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
:::: All I know is what I read in sources, being an IP editor in 2001, and then ] happened and I stopped reading WP awhile. Seems nupedia.com was registered in Jacksonville, FL (styled "NuPedia.com"), and bomis.com was registered in Drum, PA. -] 01:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]]
* Somewhere in the dim and dusty parts of my memory, I think there was also a very short film (or perhaps it was a photo-montage style cartoon? see how dim my memory is?) made by, and starring, Jimbo and some other notable people at some get-together somewhere. Apologies to Jimbo and ] if this memory is incorrect. The brief exercise in question was also, of course, not a film about Misplaced Pages. In other Jimbo/films crossover trivia, Jimbo has served on the jury of the ], according to Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 20:38, 31 October 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)
:It'd have to be Wiki-scripted, Wiki-produced and Wiki-edited, a bit like this! http://maxitmagazine.com/index.php/articles/news/948-mytweeturefilm ] (]) 08:03, 1 November 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)
::] is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? ] (]) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::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)
]
::::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)
*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)
*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)


== Just wanted to say ==
:I've never heard of there being any interest in a fiction/dramatization of Misplaced Pages's early days. Despite the accidentally exciting moment here and there, my life is actually much too dull for a documentary film. There was of course the documentary film Truth in Numbers. I still dream wistfully that there could be a director's cut of that by Nic Hill someday. He was doing great work on showing and explaining the community, before he lost creative control and the new guy turned it into a pretty weak talking head piece.--] (]) 15:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
:::That's '']'', for anyone curious.]] 16:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


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.
So, to play along (just for fun) who would you cast in a movie to play Jimbo and Larry?--] (]) 03:29, 3 November 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)
:] and ]. ] (]) 17:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
:: Well then it could be ''Misplaced Pages: The Musical''... I'll write the music for "Verifiability Not Truth" (song), as a ], where the two could never be separated. ;-) -] 20:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


== ==
== Indian and Pakistani village cleanup ==


For the interested. ] (]) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Anybody reading this might be interested in the discussion at ].♦ ] 18:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
* '''Some background about Indo-Pak cleanup:''' For years, the general cleanup of Indo-Pak articles has been a major effort, but soon afterward, numerous various editors have been blogging in the village/town articles, to list trivia or promoting the local pharmacy, stores, or townspeople. At times, it seems only a matter of mere weeks before a major article goes from near "good article" level to become, yet again, a blog page full of trivia or repeated details, written in Awkward, MixED-Case repeated TEXT repeated with "some,unusual.punctuation" in sections. Consequently, there have been serious proposals to limit coverage of small villages as members of a list-page, either in a table, or list of small paragraphs, where the whole page is limited to control or deter the typical blogging. See recent proposals:
::* Topic: "]"
: An example of a blogged-style village article:
::* Former blogged village article:
: Instead of blog-prone targets, the page "]" would be merged/redirected into a list-style page, to clamp down on blog-style updates. Anyone who says Misplaced Pages is full of only techno-speak articles, films or TV shows, is completely out-of-touch with the thousands of village or local townspeople pages. Any questions? -] (]) 14:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
:::I'd hate to see articles, that otherwise could stand on their own, being lumped as lists or thrown away for the fact of what is happening. Treat this as it is- vandalism. Punish the editor, not the article. Zero tolerance for this type of abuse of wp:NOT. We're not a blog, not a advertisement for local businesses, not a travel guide. An editor, whether autoconfirmed or IP or admin, you block them for this spamming and you clean up the vandalism. Give me a list of every single article you're worried about and an admin who will block anyone I report for these violations and I'll watch list them all and report every single violation to that admin. Find me that admin whose willing to do it, and I'll make sure these articles are safe.] (]) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
:::: @], if you want to submit an RfA, perhaps we could get a group to support your nomination, beginning early on a Monday of your choice when more people are active. (Plus also get several admins to work with you.) There are thousands of these IndoPak articles, and cleanup of the large pages often needs 500-800 changes of phrases, spelling, format, or removal of duplicate text. I rewrote "]" one time, but it drifted again. Is ] Pending Changes ready (or capable) of detering the blog-style updates to so many pages? I wrote ] to re-typeset whole paragraphs into lowercase text, but unless the blogging is reduced, I suspect many of the cleanup editors think it is a lost cause. -] (]) 19:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Punishing an editor for adding content which he thought he was adding in good faith (even if diabolical) isn't going to change the fact that similar other native people of these countries are going to come along and readd unsourced crap to the articles. The sheer number of articles on Indian villages which are not being monitored or cared for makes it a massive magnet for rubbish which will mostly be off the radar. There are millions of people with Internet access who having thousands upon thousands of empty/unsourced articles who will continue to add things, i know this having cleaned up a lot of the Karnataka towns and villages and unless I really monitor changes a lot of them have since badly degraded again with long lists of schools and businesses and frequent use of "famous", glorifying the locals and local landmarks and often writing in capital letters and leaving email address/contacts. We have thousands of articles like Naya Lahore which instantly need blasting free and are damaging to the encyclopedia. Redirecting to sourced lists would help monitor the situation and put off ips from adding long lists and I think it is the best solution until somebody can come along and write a proper sourced article. Most other countries don't have this problem because they edit their own language wikipedias or have low Internet access but Indian and Pakistan, and to a lesser extent Bangladesh and Sri Lanka really form the bulk of the problem on here and the articles are generally the worst on wikipedia. Leaving the sort of content that Naha had in thousands of articles is lazy and naive that anything is going to change. ''Nobody'' is going to edit thousands of articles and fully expand and source however notable. The sensible thing is to blast away the garbage, redirect to lists by district which have a column for a summary of villages until a fluent well-meaning editor can come along and write a proper article and put it on their watchlist. No encyclopedia which states that it is trying to be of the highest quality would accept thousands of entries like . We need to take more responsibility for this area of the project which is by far the worst I've seen across the website.♦ ] 22:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


: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)
:So a long blathery rambling article in broken English was replaced by a one sentence stub, with no mention of schools, industry, demographics or climate. I doubt that would have happened had it been a crummy article about a town of 15,000 in the US or the UK. Even the long list of local schools, based on someone's original research and local knowledge (most with no articles and with common names) would be hard to research and reference, especially with non-English sources and transliteration. Ideally the millions of English-speaking bilingual natives of the countries would join a project to improve the articles, since they could access and comprehend local government databases and news sources. Merging articles to lists when there is a possibility of improving them seems harsh, since some good info is lost along with the blather, chit-chat, signed statements and fractured English. If a great many articles created by good-faith editors with limited English and little concern for referencing were reduced to entries in a list, awaiting capable writers with good English skills, there is no assurance that the writers who re-created the article would be any better than the original article creators and expanders. Would we have different standards for articles about entities in different parts of the world? Butneither ] nor ] is not satisfied by stubs such as ] which just states that some numbered and apparently unnamed sub-village populated place is in some geographic district. The block I live on might be more deserving of a stand-alone article. Dr. Blofeld's proposal has some appeal. ] (]) 23:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


== Happy new year ==
* '''Get numerous editors to help cleanup:''' {{edit conflict}} Perhaps if we make a plan, with ] reliable sources to expand stubs, then more editors might help. For "]" then I have found sources for "]" but are they considered reliable(?):
::* NewsTrackIndia.com: has Latitude: 31.3167, Longitude: 72.7333
::* CARE.edu.pk: Child Care School (CCS) has history from mid-20th century
: Part of the problem, for this specific town is the name "]" being the big capital city of ], so even with 15,000 population, Nawan Lahore gets confused in search-engine or data-scraping results. Perhaps other towns, with more-unique names, would be easier to find sources. Anyway, the idea is to find some typical sources, for these Pakistan towns, then get more people to help, and they could deter blogging of the local pharmacy, various hardware shops, and list of "famous" uncles in town. Otherwise, "]" was trimmed last year, 27 November 2012, but a one-edit registered user restored the blog text on 1 March 2013 (, only edit of User:Shan668, ]), and so the lists of schools, stores, and famous uncles had survived for most of the year. Overall, we might use a hybrid plan, to redirect villages of 500 people into a list, but watchlist the larger town pages to deter blogging. Let's find some good Pakistan sources. -] (]) 01:11, 4 November 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)
== Expert review project ==


== ==
Hi. I was wondering if you could tell me what you think of this idea.


That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Presently, even our best peer-review process, ], offers no guarantee of completeness, veracity or pertinence. It usually ensures the article is well-presented, and that the sources comply with ], but only a genuine scholar or someone who has taken the trouble to read deeply into the topic can judge completeness, veracity and pertinence. Our FA process doesn't mandate that reviewers have any expertise.


:Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm thinking of starting a project: paying experts to review featured medical articles for completeness, pertinence and veracity and, once it's passed the review, putting a clickable badge at the top of each article inviting readers to view the version that has passed scholarly review.
::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}}?
It would be expensive, I know, but I hope we could get funding from the relevant disease-related and other charities for a lot of it. The project's procedures and its criteria for selection of reviewers will need to be sound of course, but what do you think, in principle, of having experts review our medical content and linking to the reviewed version at the top of the article? --] (] · ] · ]) 09:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
:... 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.
: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)

Latest revision as of 05:33, 10 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.

    Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder!

    Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! Gooners Fan in North London (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    Category: