Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:35, 13 December 2016

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats until Wikimania 2017 are Pundit and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation's Director of Support and Safety is Maggie Dennis.

Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here

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

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.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Systematic problems at US-Russia articles

My first post to this talk, after editing here for over five years.

A new article, Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election, is one of a number that addresses recent, apparent conflicts between the United States and Russia. The article begins,

"The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has concluded Russia influenced the United States 2016 election to help elect Donald Trump as President of the United States."

It is sourced to articles from the Washington Post and NPR , both of which state that anonymous U.S. officials have told the media that the CIA concluded as much. Here is the Washington Post quote, which is typical of media statements on this issue more broadly:

"The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter."

Again, these statements are attributed, anonymously, to U.S. officials who say they are familiar with the intelligence and can speak authoritatively, if not officially, on the CIA's behalf. In our article, there are no officials, attribution, anonymity: we write the CIA has concluded XYZ as a fact.

I've edited on a number of articles that involve recent deaths and BLP issues, that this kind of editing, where attributed statements become fact, doesn't fly in that editing crowd. In U.S.-Russia articles however, despite hard work any many good contributions from editors on all sides, it is far more common. This is especially problematic for anyone with even a modicum of historical knowledge about intelligence agencies: officials may speak on their behalf, they may produce reports, etc., but what an agency has actually concluded on a given incident may remain unknown even decades after it has occurred (if any comprehensive conclusion is reached). I think the stakes are high: the U.S. and Russia are two major nuclear armed powers, and we have a responsibility to write our articles on U.S-Russia issues with neutrality and caution. We need to get it right.

I'm making a post here because I think this deserves community discussion. I'm pinging a number of people: Mandruss and TheRedPenOfDoom who have often corrected me at BLP articles, TheTimesAreAChanging, The Four Deuces and Kingsindian who I've seen provide plenty of commentary on historical articles here, and Ocaasi and SlimVirgin, who have disagreed in the past, but who I think care about careful editing. If any of you think others might have insight, I would very much appreciate your asking them. -Darouet (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is not a good venue to have a content discussion. Our policies seem pretty clear on how we treat information from reliable sources. As to the anonymous sources used by reliable sources for assertions of fact, I refer you to Watergate scandal.- MrX 20:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MrX for your comment. I think this is larger than a content question, though content is what suffers in the end if we don't research and write these articles with the utmost caution. I'm bringing this here because I think it's been an issue for years, and I see it getting worse every month. -Darouet (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that articles should distinguish between facts and opinions and should be clear on whose opinions they are expressing and whether those opinions have been expressed publicly or are being filtered through anonymous sources. And when opinions are mentioned, we need to explain the degree of their acceptance. I think though the problem is wider than Darouet says. During the recent U.S. presidential election campaign, there has been a group of experienced editors who have been active among all the articles who have in my opinion injected a pro-Clinton bias into them to the detriment of all her opponents. Many of these editors have histories of involvement in controversies on GMOs, Eastern European issues, libertarian-related articles and the 2012 election. They even insisted on using a 2009 picture of her, which of course makes her look younger than she actually is. A group run by David Brock called "Correct the Record" has coordinated people to influence discussions at a number of websites, and I think it would be a good idea to see whether it has happened here. TFD (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

There's also been no shortage of very aggressive pro-Trump editors. In other words, there are editors on both sides promoting their views just like most other controversial topics. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: I've seen editors who are presumably coming from all perspectives edit productively (pro/anti-Clinton/Trump/US/Russia), and others edit disruptively. Ideally, everyone leaves their opinions behind and edits neutrally. But this is not working at US-Russia articles, and is the point of my post: many articles are overwhelmed by edits and editors that fail to distinguish between accusation, allegation, innuendo, and fact - and are even hostile to these distinctions. For me, who has zero allegiance to the geopolitical interests or political legitimacy of either the U.S. or Russian governments, it is practically impossible to edit on these articles unless I want to adopt a partisan approach. This hurts Misplaced Pages, and does a disservice to our readers. -Darouet (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

As expected, there were pro-Trump editors. But they did not show any evidence of sophistication or coordination and were mostly new editors who managed to get themselves blocked or banned. Although they provided disruption, they were not effective in influencing the articles. TFD (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware that we have a policy or guideline that turns a fact ("officials concluded...") into an opinion because the reliable source relied on information from anonymous sources. The Washington Post and The New York Times did not offer their opinion; they reported facts about what government officials have concluded. Whether the government officials' conclusions are actually true are outside of the scope of our role as encyclopedia editors.- MrX 23:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That "also" is much appreciated, Shock. :) I suppose it's frowned upon to post pictures on Jimbo's talk page, but I must say I made SageRad (or was it another sage?) cross trying to add a photo of artwork representing Putin from the Abode of Chaos on any of the "oh no, the Russians are coming!" pages. I don't think it's been deleted from the PropOrNot page in the end... but it did get booted from Fake news website, which, of course, has been another "lively" page. ^^ If you've never seen the Demeure du Chaos, Mr. Wales, I hope you'll take the time next time you're in SE France. SashiRolls (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I note that you had already started a discussion on this topic on the article Talk page . I think you made a mistake by opening up the same discussion here. You should go back there and respond to Neutrality's message, which I thought was well put. If you wanted more opinions, I think you should have posted only a short neutral request here for more editors to participate over there. Per WP:APPNOTE, "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief..." --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It is entirely appropriate to take talk page discussions to other fora in order to obtain a wider input. TFD (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Bob K31416: I think my note was polite, clear and brief. However I think this issue needs a larger conversation beyond Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election, one you should also participate in. That's why I brought it here. -Darouet (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

For a recent example of an appropriate notification here per WP:APPNOTE, see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 215#RfC about cartoon of Supreme Court Justice Thomas. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Deep Throat was anonymous. Any further questions? Guy (Help!) 00:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see the bearing of your comment on this discussion Guy. The Watergate scandal revealed that the US government itself illegally tried to influence an American election, "and attempts to cover it up, led deeply into the upper reaches of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and the White House." Darouet (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • How did our Misplaced Pages article cover the Deepthroat event while it was breaking? And yes, I have a lot of questions, but I certainly won't be wanting any of your input. Frankly User:JzG that's a very unhelpful comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Ernie (talk • contribs) 14:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me try to set out something that I think will be very close to something that everyone can agree upon. In many cases the provenance of some information is relevant to the readers understanding of the degree of trust that should be placed in that information. It is almost always good writing for Misplaced Pages to add things like "According to the New York Times, citing anonymous sources at the CIA..."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This works well but only when it's one source, maybe two, reporting on something. Once you have a dozen or so sources saying the same thing, it becomes impractical to list all the "According to's". In this case, the relevant "according to" is "the CIA".Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true at all. The statement, "The CIA has concluded that Russia..." is very different from saying "U.S. officials state that the CIA has concluded that Russia...", for two important reasons. First, because this is how almost all reliable sources report the news. Second, there's a reason those sources attribute the statement: pretending that anybody knows what "The CIA has concluded" is a hopeless exercise. -Darouet (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"because this is how almost all reliable sources report the news" - that's just not true. In fact, pretty much the opposite of what you claim: , etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Darouet. "The CIA" means you can read it at www.cia.gov , and that you can ask any CIA official what the position of the agency is, and they will tell you. See plausible deniability and also Iraqi WMDs. When anonymous sources are quoted, we need to specifically say either "according to anonymous CIA officials" or if it is only being sourced from a single media outlet then instead the phrase would be as Jimbo put it (i.e. mention NYT specifically as getting the scoop). When you have independently-confirmed reports from multiple major newsmedia talking to *different* and preferably multiple anonymous sources within the government, then you can drop back to "according to some officials within the CIA" or the like. When you have an official and officially-public opinion of some CIA bigwig at a press conference, which is VERY different from anonymous leaks (whether intentional leaks or the more usual sort), then and only then can wikipedia say in wikipedia's voice that "The CIA said X." Words have meaning, and wikipedia needs to have better control of ourselves than other organizations that begin with the letter W, methinks. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I agree that in almost all cases, and especially in contentious political articles, rigorously attributing and sourcing information can only help readers. I have learned things when other editors critiqued my writing by demanding attribution, and wish this were more common practice, above all at the U.S.-Russia articles I've referenced. -Darouet (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I went over there and started to implement some attribution to unnamed U.S. officials, but on reading this article cited there it may be that the reports, not necessarily the validity of their conclusions, are being confirmed by named officials and Trump. However, it's not clear whether the named officials and Trump are commenting on news reports or government reports. The news situation on this is a bit unclear for now as it is breaking news and will probably clarify as the story develops. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The reports are also contested in the US intelligence community. For instance this NYT piece, "C.I.A. Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence," reports not one piece of evidence but states, "The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome." -Darouet (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I also don't see the release of the report to government officials (e.g. leaders of the Senate and Congress) as being anonymous. These named leaders have confirmed that they've been told about the report and they've given a very short summary - the CIA believes that Russia hacked to interfere in the US election. The CIA officials who confirmed the existence of the report were anonymous, but I think we can trust the NY Times, WaPo, NPR, CNN, senators and congressmen etc. when they say that there was a report. As far as I know the details haven't been published. So the claims about this incomplete report/conclusion being anonymous strike me as being misleading. It's incomplete, nobody at the CIA has publicly put their name on it (what else is new?) but the existence of the report has been confirmed by the best sources we know of. Let's try not to muddy the waters. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You did not read my post carefully. My concern isn't just anonymous sources, it's sourcing on Misplaced Pages. If the NYT, WaPo, NPR and CNN say, "According to US officials, the CIA has drafted a report concluding that Russia," this attribution should not be dropped here on Misplaced Pages. Similarly, if newspapers write that the CIA has concluded Russia interfered in the US election, our article title should not be "Russian interference in the US election." @Smallbones: do you think that departure from allegation or attribution into declared fact, in either of these instances, is defensible scholarship? -Darouet (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree that an encyclopedic entry should meet the "There was" test. "There was a US Civil War", "There was an American Civil War". "There was PropOrNot." and should not be responding to crystallballing questions, such as the hypothetical "Is there PropOrNot?", or "Was there Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election?" SashiRolls (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

BLP violation at Serbo-Croation Misplaced Pages

Clean your mess at SH.Misplaced Pages.Едгар Алан По (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Edgar,

I have to guess that you are making a complaint about the Serbo-Croatian Misplaced Pages (SH =SerboHorvatsky?) I believe Jimmy has great difficulty reading and following all the goings on there, like most of us English speakers do. Could you politely and briefly list the articles of concern and what you think that Jimmy can do about them? Thanks in advance for your understanding. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. The original poster above is another sock of Operahome (talk · contribs), aka the "Igor Janev spammer", who will no doubt continue to swamp this page with more socking rants shortly. The problem is: in this particular matter, he has a point, and it would be good if Jimbo (or the Foundation) could deal with it. Background: Operahome's single-purpose activity on Misplaced Pages has been to push promotional articles about a guy called Igor Janev, a (just-below-notable) academic from Macedonia. We don't know if Operahome is Janev himself or somebody close to him (could be a family member or something; definitely somebody with close real-life contacts though). Somebody pissed off by Operahome's disruption on sh-wiki then wrote a satirical piece about Janev (in user space, but with a redirect from article space), presenting Macedonia as "Janevistan" (sh:Korisnik:Orijentolog/Janevistan. Operahome wants it deleted – rightly. It is quite clearly a serious BLP violation, and just because Wikipedians are rightly pissed off about Operahome's antics doesn't justify those. Since administrators on sh are apparently unwilling to delete the page, it would be good if the Foundation stepped in and deleted it as an office action.

‎Jimbo, Please Remove mentally sick dog and admin. editor Future Perfect at Sunrise! Remove that sick Dog!!95.213.193.59 (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

‎Jimbo, Please Remove mentally sick dog and admin. editor Future Perfect at Sunrise! Remove that sick Dog!!

‎Jimbo, Please Remove mentally sick dog and admin. editor Future Perfect at Sunrise! Remove that sick Dog!!