Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:25, 24 November 2012

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 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 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Economics graph removed from several articles

Jimbo, File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg has been removed from several articles recently by people who say it is biased politically. However, it is not clear whether the people who have been removing it are similarly biased against the conclusion which is suggests. Please see the discussions at Talk:Economics for more information. Jimbo, can you please have someone see whether and are factually accurate, to settle this? 70.59.27.75 (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and not for me to decide. But speaking as an ordinary editor, the graph is absolutely and totally biased to the point of absurdity. Such oversimplifications to make a political point are the very definition of bias. The data was taken from US historical data and so ends up being a comparison of an era when the top tax rate was 80-90% to various modern eras. But that 80-90% era coincided with the post-war boom, which was caused by a large number of factors, which may or may not have included tax rates on the highest earners.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an IP sock of Dualus (talk · contribs). See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dualus - Alison 19:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, I am certain that if our positions were reversed, I would want you to tell me about Art Okun's mistake in 1975 in which he used year-over-year correlations instead of run lengths which is why the IMF recently radically reversed their position on austerity and many commentators suggest they did not go far enough. The graph is historically accurate, and in complete agreement with the new IMF anti-austerity position which had been pro-austerity since Art Okun's 1975 math error was identified and corrected last year. What governs income inequality more than the top effective tax bracket rate? Again, there is no doubt in my mind that if our positions were reversed I would expect no less than complete (and persistent!) honesty on such topics, whether they concern the toxicity of heavy metals or the plain truth about the position of the peak of the Laffer curve. There is a correct mathematical answer which may not be politically comfortable, but is by definition free from bias. I suggest that those who insist against evidence that the peak of the Laffer curve is less than 0.5 are in fact more biased than the accurate historical information on the graph. I am sorry if this is uncomfortable, but it is the truth, it is verifiable, and it is easy for anyone to prove it by examining the veracity of and (which are summarized in this deleted section.) 199.16.130.122 (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Jimmy is right that the graph tendentiously implies causation between marginal tax rates and economic growth in different eras of 20th century American capitalism. Life is more complex. One could generate bar graphs of similar quality relating the average number of television channels on American televisions to economic growth (fewer channels = more growth). That's probably at least as high a correlation, I speculate — but it's a false relationship, there is no necessary causation there, rather declining growth rates are a function of time and the gradual disintegration of industrial manufacturing in the United States. I'm actually chiming in here to offer assistance to Dualus back into the WP fold if at some future date he wants to move past the POV axe-grinding, edit-warring, and sword-crossing with ideological opponents and to become a serious contributor of NPOV historical material. It's probably a six month or one year process getting back into good graces, I would guess, and will absolutely require a fundamental change in attitude as to what WP is about and one's place in it. But glancing at your edit history, there seems to be a good amount of energy, dedication, and commitment, albeit misdirected. Drop me an email if you want to talk. MutantPop@aol.com. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So do you believe, then, that the IMF was in error to reverse their position on austerity last month? In any case, thank you for your kind offer. I am sorry that you believe the use of mathematical proof techniques and adherence to their results is tendentious. My contributions stand on their own, and although I concentrate on controversial articles, I fully realize that these sorts of accusations come with such an interest. The vast bulk of my efforts stand unchallenged, and for those who question my commitment to improving the encyclopedia, I would point to my recent GA on Birth control ("before" version) as representative of the typical quality of my ordinary work here which does not get swept up in silly censorship games. 199.16.130.122 (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been involved through third opinion with a related content dispute on Trickle-down economics. My general advice then and now is that these primary source graphs are often being used in a way that constitutes synthesis. This sort of graph should not be used to draw conclusions or imply arguments about the validity of any particular economic policy. Even the combination of two series such as the above graph is original research. I see very little use for such an OR graph in any article. Gigs (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The synthesis argument is not convincing because this particular controversy is central to the current most prominent political debate in Washington, D.C. It is very easy to find prominent eminent authorities who agree with the proposition that raising taxes on the rich creates jobs. Similarly, I can find no sources saying that raising taxes on the rich slows the economy or job growth which are based on empirical data. There are plenty of op-eds and publications in WP:FRINGE "Austrian economics" journals, but nothing peer reviewed by mainstream academic journals. Do you know of any? 81.169.144.135 (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the graph represents either a biased or incorrect view. The only thing it says to me is that as tax rates go up, job growth is relatively unaffected. Are you folks saying the left scale is exaggerated? It is, but the size of the numbers themselves is sufficiently obvious to make that issue unimportant to me. Sure the variations in tax structure over the years make any comparison difficult and I would like to see more detail, but I doubt the higher granularity would make a difference. The argument is that top tax rate doesn't stifle growth. This may be because the top tax rate affects a tiny portion of the population that is more concerned with wealth management than income. I'm saying that as an old person who is more interested in managing wealth. Bob Calder 17:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B calder (talk • contribs)

• The general issue here is whether "original research" should trump sources when removing material. If you have a reliable source that says that raising taxes creates jobs, or an herb is helpful against a disease, etc., does the naysaying editor's general belief and assumption that "that can't work", in the absence of any cited source that says it doesn't work, override your source because "it must be biased somehow"? This was also the issue in the great VnT debate. When there are sources to say that something works and it doesn't work, obviously the best solution is "these say yes(ref) and these say no(ref)"; but when an editor has no source obviously the only "neutral" solution available to him is to expunge all data that conflicts with his POV. Wnt (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor point, but the example here isn't suggesting that raising taxes creates jobs (the overall tax rate as a percent of GDP has been remarkably constant in the US over centuries), but whether shifting the tax burden to high income earners creates jobs. I think it is strictly helpful to the encyclopedia and its readers to support the theory prevalent in the peer reviewed academic journal reviews and the historical data when they are agreement, even when there is a huge amount of paid advocacy from the rich in opposition. I hope Jimbo recognizes this. 71.215.79.206 (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope that the above chart clears up any confusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand that those who are politically opposed to the proposition that raising taxes on the rich creates jobs would like to rebut the historical data and the theory of the academic hegemony reflected in the first graph above which has been removed from more than a dozen articles. I also understand that there is no substantial opposing data or theory in reliable sources since Dr. Okun's 1975 error was caught last year. The clumsy pirates-vs-temperature attempt at an implication that there is no causation or correlation is strictly false as explained in , in particular its Chart 4 shown to the right. I look forward to the day when Misplaced Pages economics content disputes are decided by those who do not hold ideology above accuracy. 207.224.47.134 (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the average net rate on total income does not appear to be linked to higher economic growth at all. During the 91% marginal rate years, the average net rate was reduced by the tremendous use of non-taxable income, deductions, and tax shelters. There was no "alternative minimum tax" in those days. Also the economic growth during WW II and Korea is included in that "graph" which makes reliance on it fatuous entirely. GDP growth rate (measured quarterly) in 1950 to 1951 was over 15%, and exceeded in 1978 (16.7%) If lower tax rates reduce growth, then why is the highest growth found in a year with lower tax rates? Three of the top 5 years were in WW II ... 1942, +18.5%, 1941, +17.1%, 1943, +16.4% -- which skew a graph which conveniently starts in 1940. One m might note that the top bracket in the US was raised to 63% in 1932. Yet the "growth rates" under what you state to provablby be good for the economy in that year before the graph was -13.1%. And 1946 (end of WW II) saw a 10.9% contraction with your higher tax rates. This is not "political opposition" it is statistical opposition to a grossly misleading "graph." Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Also the "job growth" figure is also substantially affected by the choice of 1940 -- guess what happens to employment during wars? Oh? Collect (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If you start at 1945, the last bar of File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg goes down slightly rather than up slightly on the right, more closely reflecting File:LafferCurve.svg with which it shares the same outputs (job wages growth, economic growth, and tax revenue) and similar inputs (top tax bracket rate instead of tax rate.) File:Federal Income Tax Rates in the US, 2009.jpg helps explain an aspect of the relation. 207.224.47.134 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point — why start at 1945? Why not 1919, at the end of WWI? Why not 1974, at the end of the Vietnam war? If one is showing a valid correlation between top end marginal tax rates and economic growth, it shouldn't matter where one "cuts the tape"... Why is 1945 sacred? Because that's the only date where a high correlation can be shown. The correlation is real for that brief interval of history, but ballyhooing this correlation implies a false causality. I'm not joking to have said a similar (albeit negative) correlation number could be generated comparing the number of television sets to economic growth rates, failed attempt a pirate graph above notwithstanding... Disclaimer: I'm a socialist and would like to see nothing better than a 70% marginal tax rate at about $1M of income, a shutting down of the massive "capital gains" loophole, etc. But I'd also sooner shove lima beans up my nose than try to make cheap, ephemeral political "points" by foisting dubious and tendentious graphs on the project to advance this personal set of values. Carrite (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to see a series of such graphs with different ending and beginning years? A high correlation can be shown for most such graphs. Do you know of any reasons that or may be factually inaccurate? 75.166.195.241 (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The links you cite are forums for political debate. I'm highly sympathetic to the cause of economic egalitarianism, but don't confuse the various "what should bes" of the world with Misplaced Pages's mission, which is to inform readers of what was and what is in a neutrally voiced and fairly delimited manner. Don't push agendas with tendentious graphs on WP; there is a time and a place for that, this isn't it. Carrite (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

D. Thompson (Nov. 20, 2012) "Rich People Who Don't Understand Taxes Should Be Told So" The Atlantic relates to this issue, as does L. French (Nov. 20, 2012) "Tax loopholes alone can't solve fiscal cliff" Politico. 207.224.47.134 (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"Feed the poor. Eat the rich" ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

R. Bolling (November 21, 2012) "Bill O'Reilly's Nightmare" Tom The Dancing Bug. 207.224.47.134 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, over the years I have appealed to you on many subjects. Perhaps you are wondering why I have not made a more direct appeal. Are you aware of the extent to which your administrators use censorship to suppress points of view they find uncomfortable without regard to the truth, and the extent to which administrators coddle those who litter racial and sexist epithets, denigrating the project? 75.166.195.241 (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons admins asleep at the switch?

Jimbo, I started a thread on the Commons' admin noticeboard to alert them to a fairly easy to spot pattern of copyright violation. During that discussion, I posted several examples with evidence that they were copyright violations. Some of those were subsequently nominated for deletion and deleted, as expected. What seems concerning is that other examples I gave have not been deleted or even nominated for deletion. In one case, that involves a set of over 100 copyright violation images. If telling admins on the admin noticeboard that something on Commons is a copyright violation doesn't provoke any action, something is seriously wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You're of course welcome to hunt down copyright violations, and it looks like half of the files you've identified actually are. But the people who disagreed with you did so because they didn't think some files were copyvios, and figuring out if they are is complicated. Your "pattern" is something that you and other volunteers you recruit are free to use in looking for further infringing files - but if you're suggesting anything more, i.e. to abandon the assumption of good faith based on what a contributor's interests are, then that is a bad idea. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, once again you have managed to misunderstand what is being said. I am not suggesting that we abandon good faith based on someone's "area of interest". I am suggesting that uploads which follow a certain pattern are very likely to be copyright violations as I have demonstrated in that thread and elsewhere. The interests and intentions of the uploader are completely irrelevant. We are not talking about users who have misunderstood the copyrights involved - we are talking about deliberate and wilful copyright violation (including in some cases image manipulation to make sources harder to find and falsification of EXIF data). There is nothing complicated about the 100+ images uploaded by User:Freemont Solstice. Despite the filenames, the images have been available from many sources (here, for example) since 2010. That user is likely a sockpuppet of a repeat offender. Why are these images still on Commons? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you suspect this user of being a copyright violator and sockpuppet, why is the only message on his talk page a completely unjustified warning that "Commons has a specific scope". (That is some lovely artwork from a notable public event that is most definitely within scope) Since all of Fremont Solstice's uploads are photos of this one event, I have no idea how you decided he's a sockpuppet, but he certainly hasn't had a chance to defend himself. Wnt (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Users cannot delete their own uploads. I have told the Commons admins that the uploads are copyright violations and provided evidence for my claim. They have failed to act. This has nothing to do with Commons scope in any way - copyright violation is a legal issue, not a content issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The images you reported depict public nudity. In cases like this, Commons admins are likely to suspect prudery as the prime motivation and tend to be less rigorous in investigating. This is to be expected, and in cases of copyvio in situations like this you need to push harder. Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

User education is the first and most important line of defense against copyvio uploads. If you spot them and you don't contact the user involved, you're wasting most of your effort. Contacting the user is also the best way to get OTRS tickets or other evidence that files are actually not copyvios. Wnt (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, what part of this is confusing you? These are uploads of copyright violating material by throw-away accounts (some of which are very likely sockpuppets). On a different subject, how about instead of making nonsensical comments every time I post something here, you stick to the ridiculous troll bait reference desks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

DC, are you pointing to a generally cavalier attitude among Commons admins toward copyright law or is there a pattern to it; for example, is it uploader-related (they tolerate their own or their mates' violations) or topic-related as Herostratus suggests, or is it mainly breaches of a particular section of the law? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Its a combination of all of them. First - Herostratus is right that certain topics get less investigation due to their nature. Adult/nudity especially. Its certain if something x-rated gets nominated, bad faith & prude accusations will be thrown at the nominator very quickly. Second - as many of the admins on commons are heavily 'invested' in the adult/nudity area, you have to fight against that in order to get anyone to listen. And finally - even if you manage to negotiate those first two hurdles above, and provide a legitimate legal reason it should be removed, the apathy from the general admin corps is just depressing. There are a few people who take it seriously, but when you have other admins who work to get someone banned from nominating copyvios for deletion, despite the validity of their arguments, under the premise they shouldnt be 'harrassing' regular commons editors... Its a mess. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reliable estimate of the scale of the problem, the percentage of Commons files that breach copyright? Are we talking Napster, Youtube, less? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable? Not that I have seen. As a total amount of uploaded files, anecdotally its quite low. However once you start drilling down to subject level - within that subject copyvio incidences can be quite high. The adult/nudity area gets a lot of attention by its nature, so its always going to skew the numbers either way. What it really needs is a full audit by subject. So audit 2% of files in each area and work your way up to a site-wide score. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could pay someone to do that; and maybe get them to assess the percentage and characteristics of violating files nominated for deletion that are not deleted. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I would offer my services, but I dont think the WMF would be willing to pay my fees ;) It would be a solution however. Some sort of research grant maybe. In terms of auditing, it would be relatively simple to do once the list of files to be looked at is identified. Can probably knock up a script to pick X random files out of a catagory easily. (There is probably one already). I might try doing a very small-scale test on the weekend. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

While I would be very (positively) surprised if the WMF were prepared to fund an impartial study looking into this point, there's no harm in asking. Andreas JN466 01:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? Well, I'll ask anyway. Do you know who the contact would be? Do they have a research department? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Not offhand. You could ask Jimbo. :) Andreas JN466 08:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Not going to happen. The kind of people qualified to do reasonable assessments of copyright infringement are bloody expensive. In truth the heavy copyvio sources are already well known. Adult content (although the actual percentage isn't that high due to all the penis photos, PD stuff and the suicide girl stuff), current even imagery and public figures where we don't realdy have a pic (for example File:Тед Кинг.jpg is probably a copyvio).©Geni 10:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The 'it will be too expensive' line wont fly given the WMF's public financials. They clearly have the money, its getting them to use it thats the problem. They could employ one person for a year at $100,000 to do a decent audit, and it would be a drop in the ocean of their available funds. (But they would be able to get someone to do it for much cheaper than that anyway) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

$100K is a pretty significant chunk of money and wouldn't cover the cost of a year's work of a serious copyright lawyer (rather than the copyrights nerds relying on a mix of instinct and bitter experience while hastily googling for a copy of belizean copyright law that we use on a day to day basis). incidentally I know some people consider this impolite but I've long since grown tied of certian types of game playing. Who's sock are you?©Geni 23:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be in the public's interest to know the percentage and estimated number of files that are offered as free by Wikimedia Commons, but are in actual fact copyrighted and hosted improperly. It would also be in the long-term interest of the Foundation, as reliable data on this point might lead to preventative efforts and related changes in policies. Andreas JN466 13:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I was not trying to suggest anything about Commons admins in general, but I agree with what others have said here. Perhaps Commons admins are not in the habit of reading their noticeboard, but it seems odd that after my identification of a string of copyright violations which have been deleted, some admin wouldn't take the five minutes required to look at the evidence I have provided and delete the files. Mattbuck did helpfully suggest that I file a deletion request, though. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Would take a while. Files are too old for special:nuke and in any case its kinda questionable if commons admins have the power to deletion on that kind of scale without going through a request for deletion.©Geni 10:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I kind of keep asking this at every discussion about commons and porn, but why, again, do we allow porn images of identifiable people to be uploaded by brand new accounts who merely add a {{pd}} tag to it and nothing more? It's blatantly obvious that a great deal of these images are taken from random sites on the internet and uploaded to commons. It's so irritating that nothing's being done about this on commons. --Conti|✉ 12:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could ask our researcher to measure the percentage of nudity/porn images that fit that category. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that allowing anyone to upload images and have them immediately available for reuse will inevitably lead to copyright issues. Admins and/or trusted users should be vetting the files for quality, scope, and copyright status before they are available off-site. Short of that, Commons admins should be aware of clues to copyright violation, which was the purpose of the original discussion on Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

True. But the potential damage is far greater when it comes to nude/pornographic pictures of identifiable people, and as such we should not treat those exactly the same as the others. --Conti|✉ 14:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons admin Rd232 has been trying to make the same point on Commons. While I agree, conflating copyright violation issues (legal) with other concerns (moral) is problematic, especially on Commons where there is a knee-jerk reaction to any attempt to delete anything relating to nudity or sexuality. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you ever actually nominate those Fremont images for deletion? Your thesis here is that Commons is full of copyvios, which you base on an argument about the dates these files were posted to other free photo sites and that an editor (who you have not contacted on his talk page either) added a page with the name "userpage" to the uploader's userpage. Someone has to actually evaluate evidence like this, not just delete because you said so. Commons admins have to actually consider the real possibility that this user is the one who took the photo series and posted it in various free places around the web, and give him a chance to respond. Everyone knows that people upload a lot of copyvio material to Commons, and volunteers are needed to root it out, but if you don't propose it for deletion then it's no surprise if it doesn't get deleted. Wnt (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, anyone familiar with my history of identifying copyright violations (and sockpuppets) should act "just because I said so". :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the moral issues could very quickly become a legal issue. I get your point, though, we should treat these problems separately. I think we can do more with the moral issue, though. Commons assumes good faith both in terms of copyright issues (if they add a CC-tag, it's assumed they have the rights) and in terms of moral issues (commons assumes the models gave consent and know which license the pictures would have, and what that actually means). I'm fine with assuming good faith about copyright issues (how else would commons be able to work?), but I'd rather not assume good faith that any porn image uploaded by a brand new user has no problems whatsoever. --Conti|✉ 19:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to differentiate here between people photographed in private and people who choose in advance to go nude at a public event. The risk of former lovers and others posting intimate snaps that were never intended to be published is real and we need to be hyper cautious about things which could be such images. But as far as nude photographs go, the least risky are surely those such as Delicious Carbuncle's examples of people who go to a public event clad only in body paint. There is a separate issue about copyvio, but my experience is that if you tag a copyvio for deletion and give a clear reason why it is a copyvio then it gets deleted. I've just checked through my deletion tags on Commons and the Commons Admins are not "asleep at the switch". ϢereSpielChequers 22:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To repeat, I'm not talking about content - this is a copyright issue. My examples are examples of copyright violation, not examples of anything else. I've identified over 100 images that are obvious copyright violations. I did so on the Commons admin noticeboard. With evidence. And they are still on Commons. Feel free to tell me how I need submit a deletion request for those even though I've pointed them out and discussed their particulars on the admin noticeboard. And now I've discussed it here. I'm beginning to wonder if "wilfully negligent" isn't a better descriptor than "asleep". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Your evidence is some site that seems to indicate the photos were uploaded sooner ... unless the site allows people to edit posts after the fact, or is otherwise inaccurate in dating? A site which has a policy "please do NOT upload any copyrighted images ... The images uploaded here become public images for which PicsCrazy cannot guarantee any privacy." In other words, it is something that would need to be discussed. Your evidence apparently hasn't convinced anyone to decide to file the AfD for you. It's not like it's that hard to file one yourself. Wnt (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you'll get a chance to make your arguments at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fremont Solstice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

@Delicious Carbuncle, you may not have been talking about content, but I was replying to Conti who was talking about the moral issues of people photographed in the nude who might or might not have agreed to that. As for whether Commons admins are negligent about Copyright, they have processes for dealing with Copyvio, you raised the issue of copyvio on their admin noticeboard and various people have referred you to the Commons process for deleting copyvios. I've attested that I've recently used that procedure to get some copyvios deleted from Commons and my experience was that the process worked fine. So Commons has a procedure for dealing with Copvio, you've been directed to that procedure and you've been told that it works. So in what way could the Commons admins possibly be described as negligent? Also it now seems that someone else has spotted a copyvio problem with those files and has nominated them for deletion, but not only are they following the process they have also made the telling observation that there are so many different cameras involved that it is unlikely to be the work of one photographer. ϢereSpielChequers 15:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That argument is unworthy of you, Were. If here in Misplaced Pages I go to AN and say that I've spotted 100 articles that are straight copies off someone else's website, admins would take action of their own accord. They would not mill about in some Monty Pythonesque manner, looking at their fingernails and stating that it's nothing to do with them, because they are just volunteers, and anyway, nothing can be done until a report has been filed at WP:CP. Andreas JN466 17:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a case of "nothing can be done until a report has been filed at", as in this case what usually happens is that if someone goes to the wrong board people will direct them to the right place. That happens on Misplaced Pages and it happens on Commons. If the person who raises the issue is a newbie then hopefully they'll get a message such as "Thanks for that, next time can you raise them at..." with a link to the correct board. As for the point about these being straight copies off someone's website, as WNT and others have pointed out that can be complex, you need to check whether the licenses are compatible and which website is a copy of which, Commons has millions of images that were copied from other Websites - nearly two million just from the Geograph, and it is not unheard of for people to copy from Commons to other sites. So simply asserting that 100 pages are straight copies of something else isn't sufficient reason for their deletion. In this case someone else has spotted that they were taken by multiple cameras and therefore unlikely to be as per the uploaders assertion, and they have filed a deletion request and notified the uploader. ϢereSpielChequers 18:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It was obvious that these were very likely to be copyright violations because they exactly followed the pattern which I had described at the beginning of the discussion. The link I provided was enough to confirm that. Had I started a deletion discussion, I would not have bothered to provide any more evidence than that and the images would have been deleted on that basis. Let's not pretend this is a complicated case - it isn't. Any Commons admin could have looked at the link I provided and deleted the images without discussion. There is no need to "vote" on copyright violation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

- Yes, I do agree with the concerns, but there are good admins working diligently at Commons - it seems specifically that in the sex area at commons there are problems and there are clearly currently involved and conflicted admins that need removing from any authority there - I have recently been nominating a few obvious copyright violations (not in the sex categories though) and users/admins have been actioning them in a decent manner and many thanks for their efforts and work . Youreallycan 19:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh here we go down the rabbit hole again...

Prove it. You say that admins who comment on sexuality DRs are involved and conflicted? Offer some evidence. I am one such admin, in that I comment on and watch sexuality files. I even now have a bot tell me when new sexuality images are uploaded so I can put them on my watchlist, and (at the same time,) check for copyvios. I don't have a problem with sexuality images being deleted if they are copyright violations, I simply ask that there be some proof of it.

Consider commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Othertree - the rationale here was "too many cameras". But once we removed from consideration all the images which were derivatives of other, uncontested, Commons images, we were left with two cameras, which were taking photos in different years. No issue there - the original nominator didn't look closely enough, and so got a false positive. DC, you say your record should mean people trust you implicitly. Disregarding the fact that you only ever seem to appear on Commons in order to argue and ignore people telling you to use the processes we have set up, any admin who deleted images just because you said so would be negligent. If any other user said your photo was "a copyright violation from X", and an admin just deleted it without checking, you'd be shouting at us over that. Any deleting admin must check the evidence when making their decision.

To return to the original point - we have a process for dealing with copyright violations, please use it. Furthermore, AGF is an important principle on Wikimedia, and we try to apply it. We will not ban people instantly for uploading copyright violations. Copyright is difficult, and most people don't understand it. We AGF, delete the copyvios and tell the user what they did wrong. Then, if they persist, we ban them. But we give them the chance to change their behaviour. Many users don't take this chance, but it is important that we offer it nonetheless.

To summarise: YRC, put up or shut up. DC, we will not change our policy on new users, please use deletion requests or {{copyvio}} for obvious cases. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Mattbuck, you should consider getting into the public relations industry. You have a natural habit of not addressing the issues that people bring up but instead talking about similar issues which are more easily defended. YRC is not talking about "sexuality images being deleted if they are copyright violations" and I did not suggest that anything uploaded by Othertree was a copyright violation. I believe YRC is referring to the reluctance of certain admins (including yourself) to delete any image depicting nudity or sexuality, but I will let them answer you. I did not and would not suggest that a new user would uploads copyrighted material be blocked. What I did suggest was that in instances which fit the pattern of copyright violation that I have described, the user be hard blocked. These are generally hot-and-run accounts which will never be used again. The intent is to reduce the number of sock puppets uploading still more copyvio. Copyright violation is not a matter which needs to be voted on. I am aware of several out-of-process deletions on Commons, but they do not relate to copyright violations. If an admin examines the evidence and mistakenly deletes an image, the user is free to contest that deletion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes DC you're right - I was referring to the reluctance of certain admins to delete any image depicting nudity or sexuality (including User:Mattbuck) - who is actually one of the main admin players in the commons sex area, as he says, he has a bot that is specifically focused on sex uploads - he must have a massive watchlist - To be a bit clearer - I am basically boycotting wiki commons because of the issues relating to sexual pictures and repeated admins there continuing to free speech the project in a sex sex sex direction - anuses with ginger hair around them - keep keep keep User:Cirt User:Mattbuck User:Russavia - these are three main commons admins that are involved in this issue - the pedobear one was finally globally indeffed blocked from all wiki projects after multiple complaints, the others are still active in the sexual deletion requests and uploads and have ongoing authority at Wiki Commons - - Youreallycan 20:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You claimed "Wnt, anyone familiar with my history of identifying copyright violations (and sockpuppets) should act "just because I said so". :)"this makes it pretty clear you don't know copyright that well.©Geni 23:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Geni. I make no claim to expertise in copyright and that discussion is not so much about copyright but about Commons policy. The situation described is at odds with both policy and guidelines as they are now written. I don't think it is helpful for Commons to accept images that are not freely licensed on Flickr, even from the copyright holder/Flickr account owner. Incidentally, User:Othertree has been blocked on Commons for sockpuppetry. Then unblocked. Then blocked again (although their main account remains unblocked). So I guess I'm right some of the time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Your claim was ""Wnt, anyone familiar with my history of identifying copyright violations (and sockpuppets) should act "just because I said so"" " right some of the time" or frankly even most of the time isn't good enough if you want to make that claim. Reason being is that because if you aren't the kind of copyright nerd who spends their time memorising all the weird corner cases you will end up doing a lot of damage because well have wikimedians who are that obsessive.©Geni 01:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Geni, I think I have a pretty good idea of what I meant by my own words. I am not a copyright nerd, have never claimed to be, and have no desire to be one (or to represent myself as one). Frankly, the pattern I have shown is one that could be identified by a bot (but not an edit filter, because it relies on categorization). I was not suggesting that anything should be deleted simply on my say-so, just that admins should investigate my claims. I will not always be right, but no "damage" will be done by taking a look at what I say. I'm not quite sure why we are talking at cross-purposes here, but I stand by my statement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Cyberbullying and WIkipedia's role

Some time ago you expressed an interest in this topic when I raised it here and expressed thoughts towards our doing better in this regard. With that encouragement and the encouragement of others, including Maggie Dennis who spoke to the WMF legal team to ensure they are aware of the matter, I have moved the discussion forward to a current Village Pump discussion. I hope the topic is still on your radar. If so a brief note of encouragement to the other editors there might be appropriate. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is good work you are doing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

With a good following wind we may make a difference. While sites like Facebook are much easier to use for bullying I'm sure that kids use our pages to bully other kids. We are used to seeing this as vandalism, not bullying. I hope to help people understand that some vandalism is cyberbullying. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naser al-Din Shah slide 1.jpg

Hi Jimbo, I've fallen down the rabbit hole of this discussion commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Naser al-Din Shah slide 1.jpg re: the expectations of the Commons image repository, and whether there are indeed criteria for acceptability, and, if so, who makes such decisions. At question is a poorly drawn image, which some deem as having an educational value. Feel free to pass on this if it's too trivial, but I'm curious as to the larger intent of the Commons, its criteria for inclusion, and whether anyone minds the store. Thanks and cheers, 99.0.80.70 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Of course it's amateurish nonsense with very close to zero aesthetic, historical, educational, or literary value. It looks like the doodle of an oversexed teenage boy with no talent. That's not a personal attack; I know nothing of the author of the work, who I am sure is a fine, upstanding citizen. It's an aesthetic judgment of a really stupid drawing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That this has entailed a lengthy discussion amazes me. 99.0.80.70 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Before you go off telling your friends "what's amiss with Misplaced Pages", try to remember that Wikimedia Commons isn't Misplaced Pages, and that Tomwsulcer no more represents Wikimedia Commons than you do. No one single person represents Wikimedia Commons. Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• The overall image is now being discussed at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naser al-Din Shah slide.jpg. Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Points taken, Uncle G. This was the first, and perhaps last time I'll have waded into a discussion at Commons. But such discussions--where the parsing of policy and a sort of myopia trump a rather obvious decision-- crop up on Misplaced Pages as well, and don't particularly help the projects, unless they lead to a honing of policy. My guess is that Jimbo is well aware of such issues, and is, perhaps, frustrated by them from time to time as well. This is, of course, common to discourse outside Misplaced Pages, too. But I make no apologies for sharing such discussions with friends; what we do here is transparent, even if we choose opacity re: our personal identities. 99.0.80.70 (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Naser al-Din Shah slide 1.jpg is not a legally controversial or disturbing image, it is just not very good and Commons will easily live without it. The real problem is the use of procedure on Commons to block the deletion of images that most reputable image libraries would not touch with a ten foot pole.--♦IanMacM♦ 05:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Another graph question

Is the fundraising goal not "as much as possible" this year? 75.166.195.241 (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking. In any event, the day-to-day strategy about which banners are run where, etc., is not something that I'm involved with at all, so if you are asking about particular per-day goals, etc. - I don't know.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The shape of the curve is just different than most years, that's all. It's good that you are so successful that you don't need to try hard anymore, but imagine how good it would feel to make as much as you can and then distribute it to the almost one in five long time contributors who are living below the poverty line. 75.166.195.241 (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The Hairless Cat of ArbCom

	The Hairless Cat of ArbCom
	This hairless cat is standing on your computer, looking at a site a spam link here on WP got you to. Help ArbCom stop spam links! .:YellowPegasus:. (talk • contribs) 16:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)