Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 3 November 2013 (Archiving 2 discussions from User talk:Jimbo Wales. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jimbo Wales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Meanwhile...

In the meantime, WP:PAIDHELP has been working just fine. As has CREWE. A bit slow as of late on the former, but I attribute that more to the time of year, possibly, than anything else. It would be nice to get some other hands to help out around there though. There's not that much traffic flow through it, but it's still a bit much every once in a while for just me and the occasional other person or two to deal with. But, anyways, at least on this part of it, paid editing seems to be working just fine.

Personally, I think there should be more focus on the other end of things. If we get better response times on talk page requests by paid editors, companies, article subjects, and such, then it would lessen the mystique of them using the bad players out there to have editing done (though in the case of Wiki-PR, it seems more that the customers has no idea that Wiki-PR wasn't playing by the rules. They were being lied to. You should read the Wiki-PR guy's statements at the CREWE page, they're amazing obtuse. And the guy was rightfully trounced by a number of members because of it.) My two cents. Silverseren 03:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Working just fine" is, of couse, in the eye of the beholder. If "working just fine" is defined as "helping corporations to learn to spin subtly, learn the right hot buttons to push, and whatever else is required, as a tactical matter, to get toxic spin into the Misplaced Pages" then maybe you are working just fine.

I wish you all would pipe down about CREWE: I can't read CREWE's page because it's on Facebook, the Facebook TOS requires one to register under one's true name, and I don't trust Facebook's security, and I assume the same constraint applies to other prudent editors. (Names of page visitors have been harvested in the past by third-party apps; Facebook says they've closed off that possibility now, but I don't trust Facebook's competence, diligence, or intent on these matters.) The last thing I need is some guy from Bell Pottinger or whomever on my personal case, thank you very much.

The dichotomy between "those cruel, ruthless and clumsy PR flacks" and "our kind, loving, PR flacks who live only to serve humanity" is a false dichotomy. Give PR reps their due: they're here to serve their clients period, and if they're not they're defrauding their paymasters. The only difference is tactics, you know. Or I guess you don't, and I suppose that naiveté holds a certain artless charm, if one finds that sort of thing appealing. I don't. Herostratus (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I can read CREWE's page on Facebook, including this link. Full marks for the chutzpah of the timing. 94.197.165.191 (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I love the "Nodollarhandshake.jpg" image on the right. I just copied it and put it on my user page. Everybody should have one! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So you combined a number of personal attacks with insults with statements clearly showing that you are incredibly biased and should have nothing to do with WP:WPEW, does that about cover it? You've more or less shown that you have no place editing Misplaced Pages (or at least this topic area), because you are completely incapable of being a neutral editor within it. Silverseren 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

He spoke the truth. Your efforts at helping with the corruption of Misplaced Pages are well noted by many.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Really, Jimbo? That's surprising, coming from you, considering i've contributed to people actually following your Bright Line rule. I've actually organized a process that enables better interaction between Misplaced Pages and companies in a manner that lessen the capabilities of groups like Wiki-PR. I've actually made an effort to make a difference, to make our coverage of such subjects more neutral and more comprehensive. Rather than let them fall into a derogatory mess. Silverseren 22:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Or is it more that i'm the one that has pioneered the process? I'm the one that accomplished it, not you? That i've made you less involved and less important to Misplaced Pages overall because of it because you aren't necessary anymore as an intermediary between us and companies? Silverseren 22:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, sure. Knock yourself out.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, to be fair, the "useful idiot" doesn't always know they are a "useful idiot". That is, after all, generally why they are a "useful idiot". And before anyone gets all NPA on me - useful idiot - it's a well known term, not an attack... I'm actually defending Seren here, to the extent I don't think he actually understood what his "initiatives" entailed, and the use that would be made of them. I really think he thought he was trying to help everyone. Naivety happens. Begoon  18:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not really for or against anyone/thing in this topic, but I have to interject here; as one who had the term thrown in one's face many times during the early Bush Jr. and GWOT years, it is indeed a pejorative and derogatory term as it is a form of poisoning the well. The implication is that if someone's beliefs happen to be similar to those of a much-derided enemy, then the accuser just has to paint the association between the two, and that if your opinion carried the day, then the bad guys would win. Tarc (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really. It implies use of a person who believed they were doing "the right thing" to in fact do something else, that they may not have done had they realised the implications. At least that's how I used it. Sure it implies naivety, but I said that. I may be misjudging some motives somewhere, all things are possible, but I'm not attacking anyone. Begoon  18:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Let us take a look at an example of how Silverseren's work has "actually organized a process that enables better interaction between Misplaced Pages and companies in a manner that lessen the capabilities of groups like Wiki-PR". I'm going to paste something I wrote on the BP talk page a few months ago:

Silverseren wrote on Arturo's talk page: I would suggest you just focus on answering my questions and ignore them. I'll also make sure to get some outside editors to review the sections before implementation so there isn't a problem. SilverserenC 07:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC). So you see, this is what we have come to. When I think how many hours I have put into this article it is heartbreaking to think that editors that have not put anything at all into it can come and push through anything they want. In just a few years we shall have the very best Misplaced Pages that money can buy. Gandydancer (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

And true to his word, that's exactly what Silverseren did with the BP PR's suggested rewrite of the Prudhome Bay section. After a review by only one editor, he placed it, without change, into the BP article. After that experience I remain more concerned about editors that appear to be corporate friendly in general, than about paid advocates in general. Gandydancer (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As much as CREWE has helped to accomplish--a broader/fairer public discussion of Misplaced Pages's processes, an exploration of where companies and Wikipedians can interact to the mutually beneficial end of accurate/updated articles--the inch-high curb we keep running into is that people here conflate "public relations" with "paid editing." This is inaccurate. I suspect that people who thought Wiki-PR did "public relations" just based on their name also expect a jacuzzi and foot-rub when they check into the "Quality Inn."

All that I know is that there are a ton of PR folks who want to do right by their clients *and* Misplaced Pages. This can be done. I've seen it happen. More and more people recognize this.

Unfortunately, it's glibness like this that makes things awfully difficult. To the degree that Misplaced Pages writ-large relies on public shaming as its primary posture toward PR, it ought to take the approach of many Wikipedian CREWE members: use that energy in a positive way to help companies learn the right way to do things while addressing the very real accuracy/responsiveness issues that plague the encyclopedia. --Philgomes (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it could be useful to explore alternate models of "paid" Misplaced Pages editing, so that we're not just trying to veto one idea all the time. For example:

• Arrange with universities to formally acknowledge that a certain portion of the time updating Misplaced Pages is a valid work activity for salaried employees, not just a way of goofing off. Not just professors, either - grad students and even the people from Buildings & Grounds could do some really outstanding article work that is closely related to their normal activities.
• Convince states that have a work requirement for welfare that editing Misplaced Pages should count toward that.
• Work toward setting up a system of grants and peer review for offering funding to independent Misplaced Pages contributors that would work much like the usual NIH grant system, only with smaller dollar figures.

I think that if we're constantly having an argument of company money vs. no money, we'll remain at a disadvantage. If it's company money vs. respectable money, a stronger balance might be held. Wnt (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This might seem like a silly question, but why do the helpers at "paidhelp" help paid editors? I can never figure it out. The advertising companies, obviously get advertising out of it; the paid editors get paid; and the helper gets diddly-squat. Perhaps it's that nice warm feeling that you get from helping a charity. Except that the companies involved are not charities in any sense of the word. They are for-profit companies who can afford to pay for advertising in another space; they can call press-conferences and issue press-releases and get stories put into the mainstream press. What gives the paidhelpers that nice warm fuzzy feeling in doing this? Wouldn't it be better and more charitable to help, say, women, ethic minorities or other under-represented groups of Misplaced Pages editors. Or maybe just go and help your church or feed the homeless off-wiki? Any information on this would be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a silly question. I think the answer is they think they are helping to provide a legitimate way for COI editors to edit. The problem is, they also think that because they offer that help in good faith it will always be treated that way, and that the COI editor wants to "do the right thing". Sometimes that is the case, I have no doubt, but also sometimes the COI editor thinks "great, a willing unpaid ally who will argue my case", and takes advantage of that goodwill. I've been told off once for my evaluation above of what that results in, so I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on how often that results in good stuff for the pedia, good stuff for the intermediary, or good stuff for the PR guy (or perm any 1, 2 or 3 from 3). It's not hard maths, though, really. Do I have a solution? No. But I do know that any form of saying "you can edit in a COI way as long as one of our self-appointed monitors says that's ok and you've convinced them you're a nice guy" is never going to really fly, in any sort of "build a neutral encyclopedia" kind of way. That's just kidding ourselves. Begoon  22:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the PR industry's cynicism in its dealings with Misplaced Pages has been noteworthy, as is the wide-eyed naivete that they have encountered in their dealings with Misplaced Pages editors. Yes, we do indeed have people who are functioning, without pay, as "facilitators" for highly paid and ruthless public relations operatives. The depth of this problem, the sheer vacuousness at work here, is such that it's hard to conceive of a solution that the community can enact to deal with the situation. That's because the community, collectively, has its head firmly lodged in its rear on this subject, and said head does not show any sign of emerging any time soon. I would add that I have no doubt whatsoever that in their internal discussions, in contrast to the slick courtesy and oozing civility that one sees exhibited on- and off-wiki, PR people refer to WIkipedia editors in the most dismissive, vulgar kind of way, as easily manipulated individuals who are suckers and idiots. Can't say I blame them for feeling that way. They are doing their job and we, collectively, are not. Coretheapple (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

That's because the community, collectively, has its head firmly lodged in its rear on this subject, and said head does not show any sign of emerging any time soon.. ^ This. Begoon  23:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My guess is that it's complicated and there are various factors in play, but I always assumed that libertarian ideology plays some part. Libertarians strongly tend to valorize private entities and the profit motive in general. I'm not really an expert on this so I won't expound further, but you can see how this could lead down some tortuous paths.

I think you touch on a key point Begoon. Wikipedians are mostly not professionals in this area, in fact a lot of us are high school and college kids or not much older. It's pretty easy to bowl some of us over with some kind words and implicit flattery and an air of patient reasonableness, and it's really no contest if doing just that is an important part of your practiced professional toolkit. So I think that "convince them you're a nice guy" is probably about 80% of the way to getting your work posted in Misplaced Pages. Humans are pretty strongly socialized to be helpful to nice guys, so I don't know what the answer to that is. Herostratus (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither do I, H, if I had an answer I'd have given it. I'm glad you understood the point I was making, though - it's hard to express exactly, but your elaboration helps a lot. Begoon  23:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the foregoing demographic and ideological factors noted above, please keep in mind that Misplaced Pages policies and principles, and anonymity, make Misplaced Pages an exceptionally soft target for exploitation by the PR industry. Hence there will be no resolution without intervention at the highest levels, as Misplaced Pages editors do not understand this issue and never will. Coretheapple (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually there is a way to strike back at the PR industry, hard. We can make use of the economic terrorism that is rooted in an understanding of the hypocrisy and deceit of our economic system, namely, that capitalism cannot abide a free market. Nobody wants to invest in an Econ 101 company that promises a return equal to the interest rate, if nothing goes wrong, when they can invest in some company like Boeing that has one competitor halfway around the world and any time one of their customers switches loyalties it's world news. Which means that as long as we make it possible for User:Tom, User:Dick, and User:Harry to get together and offer a company a Misplaced Pages PR service that is as effective as one of the established PR leaders, we can destroy their industry and see to it that nobody is investing in it. (Sort of like Linux PCs, no?) So leaving a "proper" path to PR can be the basis for a quite effective strategy for destroying it (as would work in the War On Drugs, for example). However, the counter to this is that one assumes the Few Entrenched Competitors that would emerge would work out such a network of contacts, revolving door hires, and campaign help with the admin corps that they would get enough of an advantage that companies wouldn't go to Tom Dick & Harry Inc. after all. Which means that the power of the admin corps also needs to be diluted and rationalized, and watched over very closely indeed on these issues. Wnt (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages image summaries are used to advertise things

I just reported and had removed an advertisement hidden in the image summary of the picture on the Misplaced Pages main page. I searched and found that many other such images do exist on Misplaced Pages. Everything from a picture of just a naked girl not used in any article with the edit summary of the uploader telling you where to buy a book that apparently has naked girls in it https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Girl_reading.jpg to pictures of famous people with a message on the image page asking people to pay a hundred dollars for pictures of her https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Nicole_Richie_%287270950706%29.jpg to something used in article which has a commercial for it in English and in Chinese even telling you the guy's cell phone number if you want to buy a copy. https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Captured_Republican_prisoners,_Hankou.png My first page of results when searching for the words buy this photo in a Misplaced Pages media search shows most results are commercials. Rather surprising. I guess an administrator will have to go through and search for websites that sell images and anything with the word "buy" in it at times, doing patrols to stop this from happening. I erased some ads on Wikimedia earlier, it a problem there too. Dream Focus 04:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Good luck getting commons to be interested in doing anything about this but I do agree that we should either remove or fix any images here. I'm too technically inept to find the images myself but if you want to show me how or give me a list feel free to ping my talk page. Ta. Spartaz 12:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Just a pedantic note: issue was with an information template entry on Commons and not with the caption on the English Misplaced Pages (or blurb on the MP). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Both of the examples given by Dream Focus appear to be the result of Commons users uncritically slurping images off Flickr without bothering to ensure appropriate image metadata afterwards. This is a known issue with Commons, unfortunately. — Scott • talk 14:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The pic of Nicole Richie says, "Any fans who wanted a photo with Australia loving Nicole had to part with about $100 to buy product, before a photo and meet and greet could happen," the photographer is not asking for $100, he apparently had to buy $100-worth of merch to take the pic . . . the girl reading a book is clever advertising but I doubt it has sold any books. Not sure what Scott Martin is saying about Metadata: many professional photographers on Flickr hide their metadata.Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The metadata of an image include its title and description. It sounds like you're talking about EXIF data. — Scott • talk 15:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that if you see something like this, fix it, don't just go to a different wiki to complain to someone who doesn't edit on the project you have issue with! Yes, occasionally there are images with bad descriptions, just as there are shoddy articles on wikipedias. Too much scope, too few eyes, it's the same problem we all have. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Too much scope..." - Can I quote you on that??? Carrite (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not quote it as "Too much Scope...""? That ought to be worth five bucks to somebody, and it adds up. Herostratus (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you not quote it if I said no? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I already did a couple paragraphs up. I did enjoy the irony... Carrite (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The issues here seem to be with the original image title, and url of where the image was uploaded from. If you remove or alter any of these they you are failing to comply with the terms of the license. Which clearly states that you must provide the URI from whence you got the image, and that you must give attribution as specified by the works author. License section 4c. Anyone removing such information creates a copyright violation and possibly falls foul of the CRI section of the DMCA which carries a $2500 - 25000 per work penalty. John lilburne (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding that is clarified on the new drafts Section 3 – License Conditions: a Attribution: 2: "You may satisfy the conditions in (1) above in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which the Licensed Material is Shared. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." So, we can ignore all the other attribution requirements as far as we provide a URI; no need to maintain those file descriptions. JKadavoor Jee 02:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You aren't using v4 licenses (which are still draft) you are using v3 licenses. In any case even if you were using v4.0 licenses removal of the data is problematic as you are already using a URI on the article pages to link to the the CMI on the image page (that is what the v4 license clarifies). What you are proposing is that attribution is fulfilled by a chain of URIs, any of which can break, which may eventually lead to the CMI data. That is not what the v4 license says it says that YOU must hold the attribution but that attribution need not be on the page itself but via a link. Think of it as a book where the photocredits are at the end of the book. John lilburne (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe lilburne has a valid point, but ... it does actually say the title should be preserved. There is enough mumble in the other parts of the license ("to the extent reasonably practicable") that I wouldn't be much concerned, but we shouldn't make a practice of intentionally breaking attribution, no matter how justifiable the motivation. To be sure, we can and do move files all the time, and it would be a lot late to claim that that is improper, but there might be a difference between doing so with a reasonable intent of making the name more applicable while preserving a traceable history (even if some admin help is needed) and doing so as a deliberate snub to the author. We might also keep in mind that at some point, someone setting up a mirror of Misplaced Pages may not have access to old revisions, and we should try to reduce the amount of material they are forced to purge. Wnt (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The simple solution is that if you don't like the attribution then don't use the image as Mattbuck did with image below. Delete and gone problem solved. What you can't do is say we'll keep this image but we don't like the name of the photog or the original title so we'll not do the attribute thing 'K. John lilburne (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the attribution requirements are a bit ambitious; that's why this discussion/proposal. :) JKadavoor Jee 16:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, saying we'll have a better license for some other files really doesn't prove much (though arguing that was CC's intent might conceivably help in some hypothetical case, I suppose). And deleting is no answer - for one thing, every time we delete we leave the people who copied the image and attributed to Misplaced Pages at least as high and dry as we would be doing the renaming. No, the thing is, we should put the delete button away and just move files, making sure it's as easy for people to look at the naming history as it is with any other sort of edit. We know full well that we can delegate attribution to the history - otherwise no page on here would be legal! - but for example, I think it is asking too much for people to manually type the filename into a Logs page in order to get the move history. I'm not going to say that's illegal (if it ever comes to it, I'd certainly shout otherwise) because the attribution can be obtained, but I don't think it's fair or in the spirit of how we should be doing things. We simply should accept that a certain amount of promotional naming is acceptable in the revision history, just as we often accept a certain amount of out and out copyright infringement in the histories of many of our articles. Wnt (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Downstream re-users shouldn't be attributing WP for images they use. WP is not the copyright holder, it is not the photog, it is just one of the place where the image happens to have been copied to. John lilburne (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Technically correct, but this is a lot of people to leave high and dry. Wnt (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As they aren't properly attributing all of them risk a copyright claim by the photog regardless of what WP does. John lilburne (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

For another example of image title and description being used for promotional purposes, see: File:Innovated and Invented Circular Chess Variant for 9 players invented by an Amazing special kid Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati from India that made him youngest patent holder of India and youngest disabled patent holder of the world..jpg. While on wikipedia we try to limit such self-promotion, AFAIK on commons there is no policy preventing it. Abecedare (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha, ha, i love that, it's more about his son than selling a chessboard.Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleted the lot on grounds of personal information. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the PR industry inevitably our enemy?

Conflicts involving professional promoters and advertisers is an everyday reality on WP. For some reason the PR industry simply refuses to understand that WP does not accept promotional content - they seem to believe that there is no real difference between Facebook and Misplaced Pages. Consequently there is a growing feeling among Wikipedians that "exterminate on sight" is the only way to deal with PR editors. I think its time we tried to reach out to the PR industry and attempt to teach them what we are really about. Could we ask that some of the clever marketing people at WMF write and submit articles explaining WP's Five Pillars to various prominent PR industry journals. Speak to them calmly and rationally, in their language, in their publications - instead of contantly waging (sometimes quite viscious) war against them here on WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Roger, but I have to say this is a very leading question. About the only way to answer it starts off with "Of course not, ..." So I'll just answer "Of course not, as long as they just leave Misplaced Pages alone and realize that they are not wanted or needed to write an encyclopedia." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It's constructive. A few reactions here:

• CREWE and WP:Cooperation have shown that there are people in the PR trade that want to do it right. Focus should be placed on elevating those efforts rather than leaning on the "Public Shame Button" (PSB) by default.
• "Exterminate on sight" is a just and proper way to deal with bad PR editors who engage in rampant subterfuge. Unfortunately, depending on the Wikipedian involved, the PSB is pressed for sometimes rather mundane reasons.
• And let's be honest: When the PSB has been used, it's been fairly ineffective at discouraging large-scale transgressions like Wiki(not)PR. What it does do, however, is rile up a mainstream and tech press that is very quick to run the bad-company-behaving-badly story. There are people within Misplaced Pages who know this; I'm pretty certain Jimbo does. On this topic, Misplaced Pages has benefited from an incredibly sympathetic press... that is, up until fairly recently.
• If there is a serious effort to do as you recommend, I will gladly help facilitate the conversation between Misplaced Pages volunteers and trade/business magazines and journals. --Philgomes (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Phil, Sorry, but I'm one of those people who wouldn't touch facebook with a 10-foot pole, so I don't know too much about what you do over there. I imagine that you all write yourselves little notes on how you can get stuff onto Misplaced Pages and still be able to say that you are acting ethically. Is there anything more to it than that? More questions:

• Are all the PR folks over there familiar with the Federal Trade Commission's guidelines on the law on undisclosed advertising, Endoresment Guidelines and Dot Com disclosures:How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising. Do you know of any situation where a PR person could edit a Misplaced Pages article without breaking those rules?
• What do you mean by "people in the PR trade that want to do it right"? What do you mean by "doing it right"?
• What alternatives do you see for a Misplaced Pages editor who wants to stop a particular instance of advertising than to hit the "Public shaming button"?
• What steps would you take to stop the problem of PR and advertising on Misplaced Pages?
• The PR industry does a terrible job of public relations in communicating about itself, at least most Americans can't think of a positive thing to say about PR off the top of their heads (see, e.g. ) What actions (not just words) can you think of that will prevent the PR industry from getting a black eye in its dealings with Misplaced Pages? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that as an SVP at Edelman that, Phil is, in fact, familiar with the FTC guidelines and other relevant regulations :P. I don't think that a paid communications/PR professional disclosing their affiliations in edit summaries, on their user page, and on talk pages who tries to edit in a neutral manner would be breaking the FTC guidelines, but IANAL. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• The disclosure has to be clear and conspicuous and close to the edit. Edit summaries, talk page and user page disclosures (even all combined) clearly wouldn't cut it. I'd be very surprised if anybody paid by a company could put anything even potentially controversial into an article and still follow Dot Com disclosures:How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising without ripping apart Misplaced Pages's basic formatting in a totally unacceptable way. Please read Dot Com disclosures and tell me how you think a clear and conspicuous disclosure would work. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Answering Smallbones:

Phil, Sorry, but I'm one of those people who wouldn't touch facebook

with a 10-foot pole, so I don't know too much about what you do over there.

I imagine that you all write yourselves little notes on how you can get

stuff onto Misplaced Pages and still be able to say that you are acting ethically.

Is there anything more to it than that?

Actually a lot more.

Are all the PR folks over there familiar with the Federal Trade Commission's

guidelines on the law on undisclosed advertising, Endoresment Guidelines and

Dot Com disclosures:How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising.

Do you know of any situation where a PR person could edit a Misplaced Pages article without breaking those rules?

I can't speak for "all PR folks," but I am quite aware of these guidelines, thanks. I don't endorse "direct editing" of a Misplaced Pages article save for the narrowly drawn instances described in this guideline. Most CREWE people would agree, I think. As to the rest, that is, items having to do with positioning/emphasis? The FTC recognizes that quality-of-user-experience is also important, and you'll see that the "dotcom Disclosures" document gives (non-Misplaced Pages) examples in the back. So given that disclosure in an article itself would crap up the user experience, I imagine that the FTC would look at the edit record. Since the very foundation of Misplaced Pages creates an audit trail (something that all regulatory groups value greatly) I think that they'd treat it like, say, financial regulators might treat business-event data in an investigation. If a case were to be brought up, I imagine they'd take a "we know bad stuff when we see it" posture.

What do you mean by "people in the PR trade that want

to do it right"? What do you mean by "doing it right"?

What I mean is that I believe CREWE's mission is to educate the PR community that there are ways to do right both by the Misplaced Pages community and the companies that PR represents.

What alternatives do you see for a Misplaced Pages editor who

wants to stop a particular instance of advertising than

to hit the "Public shaming button"?

If we're indeed talking about a "particular instance" rather than a widespread attempt at subterfuge (which does warrant the PSB), then I say revert the edit just as they would any other COI and take time to show the person how to work with Wikipedians the right way. You'll find that most will cooperate.

What steps would you take to stop the problem of PR and

advertising on Misplaced Pages?

Education, not only of the PR trade, but (they hate to hear this) Wikipedians as well. The former need to familiarize themselves with the community's mores and norms, just as they would/should with any other community they might engage with on behalf of a company. The latter need to realize that most PR folk don't look at "whitewashing" as "success," but would be perfectly satisfied with "accurate," "balanced" and "responsive." If, in the end, a more accurate article is produced, everyone wins. As I've said before, the PR industry will do well when it does good.

The PR industry does a terrible job of public relations in

communicating about itself, at least most Americans can't

think of a positive thing to say about PR off the top of their heads

(see, e.g. )

No one knows that more than me. I've long been critical of our trade organizations and practitioners for allowing this to happen.

What actions (not just words) can you think of

that will prevent the PR industry from getting a black

eye in its dealings with Misplaced Pages?

Recognizing based on your tone that 1) no answer besides "Tell clients to never address Misplaced Pages ever" is likely to satisfy you, and 2) the PR industry will get a "black eye in its dealings with Misplaced Pages" no matter what it does, there are some things we're already doing.

• First, there's CREWE which is the first serious convening of PR folks and Wikipedians. (We chose Facebook as a platform because it allows us to reach more of the folks we need to get in front of: PR people who want to do things right.) Thanks to the thoughtful and consistent participation of people like RKlawton, SilverSeren, John Broughton and Andrew Lih, the group is kept quite honest and it doesn't even come close to descending into a meeting of the International Media Svengali Society or whatever fever dream too often gets cooked up. I argue we are doing far more to improve the understanding and state of the relationship than the industry's trade orgs, educational bodies, etc.

• Given that I travel a lot to speak to universities and consortia, CREWE's message is delivered every chance I get. Universities, in my opinion, are exceedingly important in this regard, since they're graduating the young talent that is most likely to have a visceral understanding of communities like Misplaced Pages.

• Then there's a flowchart produced to help guide PR's Misplaced Pages interactions, the second version of which is available for editing by whoever cares to. I keep pushing the ship date of this back, time being what it is, but I'm now looking at end-of-year.

So, I'm curious: Do you similarly take the piss out of, say, activist groups who have a clear COI and yet appear to get a free pass? Or are they the "good" practitioners of "PR?"

I'll make you a deal: You stop judging "PR" based on the least of its practitioners, and I'll continue to refrain from judging Wikipedians based on the least of its volunteers. --Philgomes (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

CREWE is part of the serious effort to explain to the PR industry what Misplaced Pages is about, and through their efforts leading PR American PR societies have already made Jimbo's bright line rule there own policy. Does this help? Yes. It signals to the rest of the world that respectable PR people do not edit Misplaced Pages's article, thereby giving them a clear "red flag" that PR firms promising to edit articles on their behalf are operating outside the boundaries of accepted practice. Rklawton (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a succinctly put point. It is curious that the OP seems to be calling for AGF with respect to the chicanery spewing PR people attempting to transgress the various policies and 'guidelines' at issue and co-opt Misplaced Pages for their private commercial aims.

This group Chartered Institute of Public Relations already exists and has been referenced at the WP:No paid advocacy Talk page, as has this report Misplaced Pages Best Practice Guidance for Public Relations Professionals.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

How do you reach a conclusion that I approve of PR people violating our most fundamental principles? I'm asking whether we can't at least try to reach out to the PR industry and teach them that we are not a legitimate part of their "social media" campaigns and that they need to respect our standards. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No offense intended, but there has been a lot of discussion about this, with which I've tried to keep up with to the extent my time allows. In short, it appears that this is not a new issue, as shown by the material linked to above, which I learned about through the ongoing discussions elsewhere. Have you been following the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:No_paid_advocacy?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The proposal there appears informally to be favoured by only about a third of editors at most. AFAICT. Collect (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that is about right. The extreme anti-PR segment of the WP community is a minority of about 1/3. Unfortunately, that's a big enough minority to sink any normalization effort '"unless they come around to seeking a compromise. So we've got gridlock ahead, it would seem... Carrite (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Or... The PR industry comes around to the realisation that WP will never loosen the NOT, ADVERT, NPOV, RS, NOTABILITY, and other rules they routinely violate. Lowering WP's fundamental standards is impossible, so do you see any actual space for compronise? I can't see any room for movement by WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

To address the question posed at the top: Editors need to approach PR professionals on Misplaced Pages in a clear-eyed fashion, realizing that the rule of "assume good faith" does not apply (because their first loyalty is to their clients, not Misplaced Pages) and to take all representations made by the PR industry with a healthy dose of skepticism. I think that the question is posed in a way that turns logic on its head, and is reminiscent of the tactics I've seen employed by the PR industry and its supporters to put skeptics of their Misplaced Pages role on the defensive. If one has a healthy skepticism of the role of PR on Misplaced Pages, and especially if you feel that it should have no role, you are "demonizing" them and view them as the "enemy." I think that the way this question is phrased is yet another example of the widespread naivete on this subject, and how Misplaced Pages is a "soft-target" for PR professionals seeking to cynically exploit Misplaced Pages for their own selfish ends. Coretheapple (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

To focus on PR to the degree that many are simply serves to supply red meat (or a "soft target" if you will) in the form of a boogeyman. As stated earlier, people largely misunderstand 1) the role of PR, and 2) that there are good and bad practitioners, just like in any other field.

As long as the PR representative discloses his/her affiliations and reasons for showing up on Misplaced Pages, isn't AGF satisfied?

Shouldn't Wikipedians take any contribution (from PR or otherwise) with a "healthy dose of skepticism?" --Philgomes (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure by no means precludes the need for Wikipedians to apply the greatest scrutiny to PR contributions, and to realize that AGF should not apply, because all disclosure does is verify that the editor's loyalty is to the paymaster, not to Misplaced Pages. One can publish an advertorial or even an advertisement that is neutral in tone and factual, but it is still an advertorial/advertisement, and the people providing such copy are doing so in the service of their employers. If there is any fealty to Misplaced Pages policies, it is purely incidental.

One of the more prolific paid editors frankly addressed the AGF issue as follows: "There is no such thing as ABF/AGF when it comes to PR participation, because PR is agnostic to the success or failure of the independent websites it works with. Any benefit or damage is merely incidental. We should only assume they're trying to do their job and acknowledge that each PR rep has a different competency-level, corporate bureaucracy and overall approach. What would be more on-target is to discuss the strategies PR reps use to serve their clients that are generally unwelcome and how to discourage them." Coretheapple (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

From the above it seems to me that the short answer to my original question is "Yes". Misplaced Pages and the PR industry are unavoidably doomed to be in a permanent state of conflict. Efforts such as CREWE, noble as they may be, are merely small boys pissing upwind in a hurricane. We may as well stop discussing the whole issue and go back to the trenches and continue the battle because neither side is willing to give up any ground. Have I summed it up reasonably? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you have not. You have summed it up in a hard-headed, facile, impractical way. However, I suspect that your "back to the trenches" solution will ultimately be the lasting one. This is Misplaced Pages, after all. - 2001:558:1400:10:3461:A128:3088:D6A7 (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

So you start by saying No but then you do agree that the conflict is unavoidable. This is exactly why I asked the question in the first place - do we really have to be at each other's throats all the time? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not even close, Roger.

Where exactly have you found my views obstinate? If anything, I've been primarily advocating for changes within PR, not Misplaced Pages. The only thing I'm asking Wikipedians to understand is that not all/most PR interactions are or need to be adversarial. --Philgomes (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Philgomes

I was surprised that Phil Gomes and I agree on so much. It appears to me that he:

• He agrees that PR folks shouldn't edit the article page (except for noncontroversial edits), i.e. he support the Bright-line rule
• He seems to agree that the FTC's guidelines on Endorsements and DOT COM disclosures are basic reading that all PR folks should be aware of.
• Regarding an advertiser editing a Misplaced Pages article, he agrees "that disclosure in an article itself would crap up the user experience"

I'd even think that he agrees that the problem of undisclosed advertising on Misplaced Pages is long-term, that there is no single simple solution for it.

He and I do disagree on whether a combination of disclosures on talk pages, edit summaries, etc. would be compliant with the required Dot Com disclosures. I'll just quote DCD "If a disclosure is necessary to prevent an advertisement from being deceptive, unfair, or otherwise violative of a Commission rule, and it is not possible to make the disclosure clearly and conspicuously, then that ad should not be disseminated."

I've put a list of actions (a few sections above) that the community/WMF could potentially take to put a major dent in the problem. Could Phil recommend which of those actions he thinks the community/WMF should take to help solve the problem? I'll say that just talking to other PR folks and "educating" students, doesn't do it for me - it might just be a pile of slippery words - but please suggest some concrete solutions that the community/WMF might take, from the list of 8 above or ideas of your own. You can lead by example here and now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Feedback at the right level

To protect Misplaced Pages we use feedback mechanisms. If we see that an article is edited in a problematic way, we take an action so that the problem goes away. Usualy an action is taken at the level of editors. If the problem persists we take additional actions. In case of problems caused by PR industry, acting at the editor level is seen to be inappropriate for various reasons. But then we don't necessarily need to act at that level, we can also act directly against the involved companies by naming and shaming them. That amounts to negative PR which would undermine the work of the PR company. The pressure would actually be on the companies on whose behalf the PR companies are editing. They have to make sure they hire PR companies that won't abuse Misplaced Pages, or they will eventually end up with their Wiki articles being tagged by a notice that says that the company has put undue favorable information about their product/services in the article. Count Iblis (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Problem

Dear Mr Wales.

I have just started this whole Misplaced Pages-thing and I have a serious problem.

Why is it so important to use sources? I have a lot of infos about things and I cannot write about them, because - they hadn't been published before. I find it nonsence. My pages are being checked and if something is not correct, I delete it. If something is not important, they can delete it. But what if everything is all right? If our goal is to give people information, then it's not a good solution. At least that's my opinion.

Thannks for your answer in advance. --Kapeter77 (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, an encyclopedia is not an originator of material, it is a reference work for what already exists out in the world. What you want to write about has to exist in some form "out there" beforehand. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much what Tarc said - an encyclopaedia is not meant to be the be-all-and-end-all reference work, it's meant to summarise the contents of other works, and point readers to those works for more in-depth information. For instance, you wouldn't expect to see information on where the janitor's cupboard is on the 17th floor of the Empire State Building on Misplaced Pages - that's trivial information. It would however be in a detailed book dedicated to the Empire State Building. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you give some examples Kapeter77? Perhaps Wikimedia Commons or Wikisource may host some of them. emijrp (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

WebCite

WebCite has become an important tool of choice in sustainable citations for Misplaced Pages, but it seems to be underfunded, and threatening to shut down. Anyone know how their fundraising is really doing, and whether shutdown is truly being considered? If they are in danger of failing, might it be a good idea to absorb WebCite into WMF? Dovid (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The question has been much discussed here. I'm not the right person to ask, but I support the idea of WebCite asking the WMF for a grant to fund their ongoing operations. Perhaps a matching grant to encourage them to build a sustainable donor base. I do not know if they have been in contact with the Foundation about this, and if they have, I of course also don't know the outcome.

It doesn't seem very efficient to me for the WMF to absorb it - it's a completely different kind of service, different software, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I still think the best option is for an entity such as Google to do it right, not just create a haphazard list of entries that misses more than it hits. I wrote to Google and Jimbo about this, unfortunately got responses from neither (which, of course, could mean that it is such a bad idea it isn't worth a response.) I think it would be easy for Google to create a service that would allow you to look up in an internet for any given day. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I really like Jimbo's suggestion. The idea should be, not to absorb the entity, but help them to become self sustainable. Isn't there a discussion on how to spend WMF monies, or has that ended. Could it be suggested in that discussion?--Mark Miller (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a discussion about how to spend WMF Monies. It has five more days to run. It is too late to add new proposals, but there is still time to comment on existing proposals.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

To try and "build the web" of what's going on: m:Talk:WebCite#Proposal_superseded links to active work being done by Internet Archive that is superseding the focus on WebCite, in my opinion. User:Sj, also on the board, is mentioned in the blog post, and there is also a related thread here. Where this goes, I'm not sure. But preventing/fixing linkrot would be awesome. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be having a meeting with someone from the Internet Archive later this week to talk about our linkrot problem. I don't want to give away the ending in advance, but am expecting some rather exciting news. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Good luck! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, I worked with the Internet Archive on their linkrot vaccine. They've added new servers dedicated to preserving cited links, and are checking en:wp articles daily for new external links, and taking snapshots of them. Hopefully this will soon extend to all Wikimedia wikis. The Wayback Machine supports timestamped links to URLs, which fits smoothly with {{cite web}}'s notion of "archivedate" and "archiveurl". Legoktm is helping them figure out how bots could help fix deadlinks that fail.

    Kevin: Glad to hear it, do share an update (and crosspost to wm:Archived Pages). As for WebCite, their software and service is similar to IA's, so it may make sense for those to merge now that IA has focused on this work. Perhaps a WMF grant could help support such a migration. – SJ + 21:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Rand Paul plagarized Misplaced Pages

Thought you might find this interesting: "Rachel Maddow: Rand Paul ripped off Misplaced Pages". GabeMc 19:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, it's not the first time. "Rand Paul Has Given Speeches Plagarized From Misplaced Pages Before" GabeMc 20:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting story! It happens fairly regularly. remember this one? and this one? Pretty bad idea to plagiarize from Misplaced Pages since basically everybody reads Misplaced Pages and will notice. :-)

I was once in a breakfast meeting in which Shimon Peres was being introduced by Yossi Vardi (who is known to be a very funny guy!). In his introduction he said "I think I should just ask Jimmy Wales to speak instead, since anything the President says was written by his aides, and anything his aides write was looked up in Misplaced Pages." Ok, that sounds negative towards Peres if you don't know Yossi, but it was just good humor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting, but don't they have some sort of legal obligation to cite Misplaced Pages as a source, since I assume that the transcripts of those speeches end up getting attributed to them, and not us? GabeMc 20:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind it was just a joke. And presumably responsible speech writers might use Misplaced Pages for some background research, which would not require them to give us attribution. (And of course, to avoid risk of embarrassing errors, they should also have multiple sources for any factual claims, especially controversial ones!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I was referring to Rand Paul, not Yossi. If Paul is using prose written by Misplaced Pages editors, then shouldn't he attribute those text-strings to us in accordance with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0? GabeMc 21:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer but ideally, yes, people who reuse our work should attribute.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Copying a few lines, even a few paragraphs, without attribution is a huge academic faux pas, but it's no different legally from properly attributed Fair Use quotes of the same size from copyrighted sources. At least Rand Paul can say that he is speaking for the people... :) Wnt (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I remember a skit on SNL about the Greek Gods about a year or so ago that seemed to have entire passages lifted from our articles. I laughed until I was crying.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

First let's realize- Plagiarism itself is NOT illegal, copyright infringement is illegal, plagiarism CAN also be copyright infringement however, but not all plagiarism is. Plagiarizing Misplaced Pages would fall under civil, not criminal laws anyways, and IMO probably would be hard for the WMF to sue for as it might require getting all the relevant editors who worked on the plagiarized piece to agree, and they could derail the lawsuit if they didn't on grounds of who had proper standing. There is also the fact- Unless Rand Paul received compensation for what was plagiarized, and the WMF could prove it caused irreparable harm and/or monetary loss (both of which I don't see possible) WMF might not have standing for a civil lawsuit anyways.Camelbinky (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

See also here. Count Iblis (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It gets even more bizarre re: "Rand Paul Has Given Speeches Plagarized From Misplaced Pages Before" with text from our article on the movie Stand and Deliver underlined, right by the text of a Paul speech. Our article is plagiarized from IMDB. See this edit and IMDB synopsis Now if anybody can tell me who "The Numerators" is/are, I'll be able to tell you who can sue for copyright infringement. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, it seems IMDB's synopsis for Gattaca is copy-pasted from Misplaced Pages without attribution.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Some people pay to get in Misplaced Pages without getting credit for doing so, while other people take out of Misplaced Pages with similar failure to disclose. Sort of balances out. Coretheapple (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

In other words, when you plagiarize from somebody, you plagiarize from everybody they've plagiarized from, and everyone those people have plagiarized from... :) Wnt (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Rand Paul responded: "Rand Paul rips Maddow over Misplaced Pages questions: 'She's been spreading hate on me for three years now'" GabeMc 23:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • His response does not even acknowledge that Misplaced Pages exists, let alone that he ought to have credited our volunteers. In his view, his failings are all the fault of the person who pointed them out. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Obligatory Ayn Rand fanfic

Roarke strode past the members of the House Agriculture Committee, his aides shoving invitations to campaign breakfasts into the hands of anyone who looked like they might hint at objecting to his presence on the floor of the pursestring-holding chamber.

"Mr. Paul, I presume?" Roarke looked harried and proud, as a man who labors rightly in the towers of industry must when dealing with the hippies who had infiltrated the establishment.

"Howard Roarke? What an unexpected pleasure, sir!" Paul was filled with the delight of knowing that his reelection was almost guaranteed with the hoped-for favor of the world's first fully licensed asteroid miner. Prospecting had been arduous, but both the press and the congressman's aides had made it clear that Roarke's ability to corner the world's platinum markets had insured his ability to finally deal the needed political death blow to Pelosi and her conspirators.

"Dispense with the pleasantries, Paul, I don't want to hear any more of that Christian claptrap. Do you know what your Science Committee chair has been doing to the human resources department of my vaccine division? If we were in a less civilized time...."

Paul was stunned. He stood straight up, his tiny ego suspended in time awaiting his benefactor's next words.

"You know me, Paul, I get to the point. I don't mince words. You listen up and you listen well. If you don't one, re-instate Eisenhower's top tax bracket two, get your cronies in the Senate to stop filibustering Paul Krugman and three, let RoarkePharma sell the 100-hour morning after pill over the counter, then by the very values of reason, purpose, and self esteem, I swear to you Paul, I promise you I will personally see Reid take you back to Kentucky on his shoulders. Do you hear me? On his shoulders!"

EllenCT (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't Ayn Rand have asserted that our Misplaced Pages editors have the right to blow up the building to protest the terrible injustice of the misuse of their creative prose? :) Wnt (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Taipei Times article regarding the Chinese Misplaced Pages

Today, Taipei Times released this editorial:

• 2013-10-30, Grace Tsoi, Misplaced Pages China: frontline for regional tolerance, Taipei Times

It discusses a few recent issues regarding the Chinese Misplaced Pages (which it erroneously refers to as "Misplaced Pages China"). What does the one and only Jimbo think about the political faultlines on the Chinese language Misplaced Pages, and how that particular Misplaced Pages project is moving forward in general? Do you have any concerns regarding how the Chinese Misplaced Pages has turned out? --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is great. Of course like any language version they've got their issues and problems. But what is great is how by keeping the community together, people have to confront people of different viewpoints and find a way to reach NPOV together. One of my big regrets is that we have a separate Croatian and Serbian Misplaced Pages, because it allows bias on issues where the two groups tend to disagree to fester for longer than it should.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you still say that it's too late for a Serbian/Croatian merger? After all, the Chinese Misplaced Pages began as two separate projects, zh-hans and zh-hant, each with their own completely different local content, before they were merged and the automatic script converter was adopted. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. You ask a very good question. Of course it is not up to me. And it's politically (not in the sense of governments, but in the sense of the internal politics of the two communities) quite difficult. I would like to see as a first step continued and increased cooperation between the communities, including as much face-to-face visiting as possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

YGM!

Please, check in your spam folder, just in case. Thank you. Miss Bono 19:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask...are we overthinking this?

Paid advocacy has been a topic of conversation in many places on Misplaced Pages. Many proposals, suggestions and ideas have been bounced around to combat the issue.

Is it possible that we are over thinking how to handle this? Is it possible that a simple WikiProject could be the very way to begin? We would gather all of our current policies, guidelines and procedures together and allow these editors to join willingly and see what happens. Or am I am under thinking here? --Mark Miller (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean the Wikiproject that I already created? Silverseren 06:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think Silver seren's initiative or something similar is the way forward. The ovewhelming consensus so far in the discussions has been that while (paid) advocacy is a bad thing, you can't keep people with a COI out because editors are given the right to be anonymous and any attempts to find out their identity against their will and use that information on Misplaced Pages amounts to harrassment.

An analogy. Money is to Misplaced Pages what oxygen is to life. It is potentially destructive; if we don't deal with this properly, we'll be doomed. The best way to deal with this is to allow it to be used properly, instead of trying to create an environment that is totally isolated from it. The latter would be similar to being anaerobic archea, the former would be like becoming modern animals. Count Iblis (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Count Iblis, you're actually raising a point I hadn't considered, but it is such an important an obvious one that I feel like a dunderhead that it hadn't dawned on me: the affect on donors of PR influence on Misplaced Pages. I assure you that that influence is emphatically not positive, unless the donors are themselves corporations with a PR presence on Misplaced Pages. I know of no evidence that they are. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

So, how is the project going? Could you link to it please? What effects, if any, has it had on the current situations of PR firms etc.?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark, the project is here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cooperation. WikiProject Cooperation advises that a company seeking a new article on Misplaced Pages should make the request at Articles for creation or Requested articles. One of the problems with this is that only about one in four "Articles for creation" ever becomes an article, and the Requested articles about Companies is probably not much more successful, considering that the line-wrapping on the page isn't even formatted correctly (when it was screwed up by this edit over a year ago). - 2001:558:1400:10:D4F8:5823:CB76:A438 (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's true. I really wish more editors would help out in those areas. I would push more for them to use WP:PAIDHELP instead, but that still has the same issue of not enough people helping out with the requests. I'm not sure what the best method is to deal with this. Silverseren 21:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Uhm...why was my post deleted?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what was wrong with that post for it to have been removed. If this was just a mistake, of course I'm fine with it, but if there was a reason, I would like to avoid it in the future.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark, judging by the time stamp on your post followed very quickly by Jimmy's post (in the next minute on the clock), I would suspect that there was an edit conflict. Most editors who encounter an edit conflict notice take the time to ensure that their post will not erase the previous editor's post, but apparently Jimmy wasn't doing that yesterday. (It happened to another editor, too.) - 2001:558:1400:10:A49C:C990:CD35:6D1 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That actually was no edit conflict (that's a difference of ten minutes). The post went up and Jimbo deleted it (Edit: It appears the timing was within a minute, but I saw the post after I hit "save page" Then Jimbo posted and deleted at the same time). I don't care that he deleted it, just that he usually says why and admits mistakes when he makes them. Since there was no such disclaimer I assumed I did something he did not appreciate. Still no word from him...so I guess I will have to now assume he didn't know what he was doing when he made that deletion. Everyone makes mistakes, even our founder.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo deleted my post by accident, of that I am sure now. But, I was never assuming "bad faith" on his part. Just that either it was a mistaken deletion or he didn't approve of the edit (for whatever reason) and that if it was for the latter, he is always good enough to explain why. generaly he will hat, not delete. Also, considering I just did the exact same thing on AN, it is even clearer what happened.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark. I, personally, forgive you, even despite your aggressive behaviour here and elsewhere. I feel sure that everyone else will forgive you too. Please try to relax more. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

We can do without the additional drama here, don'tcha think? I don't need your forgiveness, but thanks anyway. I wasn't aggressive here at all and if you want to begin discussing me, please be prepared to be discussed as well. Because I do not feel you should be removing any posts on any other editor's talk page that is not clear vandalism. If I am aggressive, I can tell you this much, it is never with Jimbo, as I see him as an editor that I hold in high regard. Mr. Wales has been very generous with his time and helpful to me and when he has had words for me, I have taken them to heart. Please do not attempt to write your version of events here after deleting a post against Misplaced Pages policy. Perhaps you should relax as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Accenture breaking Bright Line Rule

Jimbo, you'll see here that just a couple of months ago, an Accenture IP address (170.251.91.70) directly modified the Misplaced Pages article about Accenture, to change the headcount of Indian employees from 80,000 to 87,000. The reliable source was not updated, so Misplaced Pages now says "87,000", while the source says 80,000. This is an example of how Misplaced Pages is degraded by those who would directly edit articles about their employer, without following our rules for reliable sourcing. This should have been handled on the Talk page, according to the Bright Line Rule! Accenture is a "Diamond sponsor" of the upcoming Alfresco summit, where you will be delivering a keynote speech. Will you maybe mention in your talk that Accenture should strive to adhere to your Bright Line Rule, rather than directly editing the Misplaced Pages article about their company? - 2001:558:1400:10:3461:A128:3088:D6A7 (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the IP is being sarcastic. Which number is accurate? Right is right and wrong is wrong, which is the number one most important thing always. By the way, there is no such thing as a "Bright Line Rule" — it is a rejected idea. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is such a thing as the "Bright Line Rule" and it is in no way a "rejected idea". What it is, is a best practice. It is what companies should do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeing that this is from a Comcast account in New Jersey, I'm guessing this is a trolling attempt... Carrite (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Comcast Cable serves more than 1.37 million customers in New Jersey", so it's a trolling attempt? - 2001:558:1400:10:3461:A128:3088:D6A7 (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's a trolling attempt because it is a trolling attempt. That it comes from that location just gives a reasonable indication as to who it is. My advocacy of the bright line rule is well known. As my speech at the Alfresco Summit is not about public relations, and as the audience will be IT professionals rather than corporate comms people, beating up on a particular company with 275,000 employees worldwide would be rather odd. Let's just confront what our troll repeatedly comes here to imply: I speak strongly against conflict of interest editing but (in his view, albeit with no evidence of any kind - it's just a smear) I am hypocritical about it. It's stupid and not gaining any traction so keep it up. My favorite thing is to let you waste your time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. If the bright line rule prohibits any editing on a subject where your company is involved, it would seem to prohibit even "innocuous" edits such as changing a number. After all, it's a bright line--you don't get to argue that you can violate it as long as your violation is innocuous. If so, doesn't this violate the rule, and therefore, if you support the bright line rule you must be against it? Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm strongly against it. The discussion about trolling has to do with the tone and the rather silly suggestion that if I think someone has done something wrong in Misplaced Pages, I should shame them in a speech at a conference they are sponsoring. This is a pattern for our ip friend.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's quite a contrast how Jimmy was able to take "Accenture should strive to adhere" and twist it into "shame them in a speech". Nothing was suggested about "shaming" until Jimmy characterized it that way. Whatever the case, the facts shall remain: (1) money will be accepted by Jimmy in exchange for talking about Misplaced Pages; (2) the money will have come from companies that have not followed his Bright Line Rule on Misplaced Pages; and (3) during his paid speech, Jimmy will not mention the fact that the companies have not followed his Bright Line Rule on Misplaced Pages. If everyone is comfortable with that, then there's nothing to worry about! - 2001:558:1400:10:D4F8:5823:CB76:A438 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment from editor previously working with Accenture

I'd like to weigh in here, since I previously worked on behalf of Accenture to make some updates to their article. I'd like to make it clear, first and foremost, that I followed the "bright line" rule in my work with them. You can see the changes that I proposed on Talk:Accenture (in several rounds: 1, 2, 3, 4) along with detailed discussions about said changes with editors lasting more than two months. (You'll also note, for what it's worth, that not all of the changes that Accenture hoped to make were implemented, due to consensus among other editors.)

Although Accenture's communications department is on board with addressing Misplaced Pages properly, and following the bright line rule, they are a very large international company with employees in many offices around the world. They can't ensure that no employee will ever make an edit to their article.

I think it is pretty clear, given that the IP edits on Accenture's page are one-offs—not to mention that they hired me as a declared COI editor, as clearly indicated at Talk:Accenture—that these edits don't represent Accenture attempting to circumvent Misplaced Pages's policies and procedures; they're simply an employee who saw something inaccurate, who doesn't fully understand how Misplaced Pages works, and who went ahead and changed it to what they think is correct.

I'm going to reply about the specific edit in question over at Talk:Accenture, but briefly—if the change is made by an IP editor, who would seem to have a COI, and the material isn't properly supported by the source, it seems to me that it should be undone. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 22:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't investigated this in any detail, but if things are as you say, then this is the way things should be done.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to complicate matters, the sentence in question was copied directly from the source in this edit. It really should read what the source says, but we should not be in the habit of retaining plagiarism. As such, I have re-written the sentence and stuck in the number from the source. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Major modern organisations order staff to follow bright line rule

I can't speak for Accenture (I have never worked there and know little about them), but some modern organisations of a similar size actually specifically forbid their staff from correcting incorrect information about the organisation that they may find on Misplaced Pages. They have mandatory training telling staff so, which includes an amusing "should I edit Misplaced Pages to correct the mistake?" case study question, to which one has to click the correct answer ("no") to proceed.

To me, this may indicate two things. First, it means large organisations are capable of understanding the bright line rule and why it might be a good idea for them. (Even if their motivations for that, are, naturally, fairly narrow-minded.)

Second, it indicates that the Accenture edit above may well be the random edit of an employee who either had not taken the training, had not remembered the training, or just was a little off base after an unhappy lunchtime or somesuch. Or that Accenture doesn't have such policy/training yet, but might have in the future.

I don't think we should declare that an entire company "has not followed the bright line rule" just because one of 275,000 people happened to be inadequate in such a way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:WORKINPROGRESS and anti-engineering graphic in Sustainable development

Hi Jimbo, I thought about asking about this at the teahouse or noticeboards, but after trying my best to assume good faith, the extent to which bad actors may be at play convinced me to try to err on the side of an abundance of caution. Would you please comment on Talk:Sustainability#Engineering emerging technologies with reference to ? I am particularly bothered by the diagram at right, which while attractive and certainly filled with informative words and lists, omits engineering. I am told not to attribute to malice what can be explained by insufficiently advanced editing, so I will spare you my theories about how this diagram was produced by fossil and nuclear fuel interests to exclude their more recent competition. I understand that there is some way to create a request for comments, by adding some template, and I hope you or one of your readers might do that if they know how, so that these questions might see a greater breadth of opinion on whether short WP:WORKINPROGRESS sections are correct on high-visibility articles pertinent to their subject matter. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Tim AFS (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we don't even need to reach that determination. It's a bad graphic anyway. It appears to be original research, for one thing. (One may argue that it was published elsewhere as well, but I'm not persuaded that the original publication was really third party.) The axes are not labelled so we have no way of knowing what is being measured nor how. I think it could be used in the Circles of Sustainability article itself, because it is an illustration of how the method is used, but it is not clear to me (but I am not an expert in this area) that Circles of Sustainability is really something that should be featured as prominently as we feature it, anyway. I have no opinion about bias for or against engineering, etc. I'm just responding to the graph in and of itself - it is not a very good illustration.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There's something really strange about that: according to the image, it looks like Melbourne has "satisfactory" labor and welfare and wealth and distribution, but "critical" waste and emissions and "bad" water and air. (Assuming it's top to bottom and not clockwise or something) Is Melbourne that city in China with the smog index of 1000? Otherwise, I suspect if you went there and talked to the locals they might express different priorities. According to the image description, it is "based on a template that I developed for the UN Global Compact Cities Programme, I did an assessment of the city of Melbourne, and then designed and constructed the diagram to best show Melbourne's sustainability." I'm not clear on whether this is sourced or just WP:OR in fine clothing. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's where I came down. It's just not very good, and that's reason enough to get rid of it in my view.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest, what headings would you put in the "Engineering" tab that aren't already in the "ecology" section? Materials & Energy, Constructions & Settlements, and Emission & Waste would seem to cover most of the points (and I hardly think a person with a non-renewable fuel COI would rate all the factors that changing to renewables would affect as "highly unsatisfactory" or lower). MChesterMC (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

For me, I don't think it's really right that we should, as Wikipedians, discuss what the "Circles of Sustainability" methodology should really be like. The question is whether or not this particular methodology is important enough to be prominently featured in the main articles (I have no opinion, but the sources will tell the story) and whether or not this particular example/chart approach is original research.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. The diagram was done around the same time and in the same style as this one which describes the allocation of government subsidy to fossil and renewable fuels in the U.S. which in turn understates the annual ~$600 billion fossil subsidy when oil shipping defense costs are included. Tim AFS (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Bridgespan Group has an interesting origin

Jimmy, are you familiar with the Bridgespan Group? Apparently, they have done a lot of strategy work with the Wikimedia Foundation. Indeed, the WMF's Senior Manager of Global Learning & Evaluation, Jessie Wild, came to the WMF from Bridgespan. Wondering what you think of the provenance of Misplaced Pages's article about Bridgespan Group. It would appear to have been created by a user with a highly-focused agenda on Misplaced Pages. Then, the article got some follow-up editing by User:Linqink, who is "an employee of The Bridgespan Group". Do you think that you or the WMF leadership might discuss with Bridgespan Group your Bright Line Rule, so that in the future they might strive to adhere to it? Or, would that be shaming the Bridgespan Group? - 2001:558:1400:10:D4F8:5823:CB76:A438 (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anyone at Bridgespan. You'd best speak to Jessie WIld if you'd like to know who to speak to at Bridgespan. You could also leave a note for Linqink.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This claim seemed odd to me, because I could have sworn I remembered Bridgespan Group being pretty closely tied in (to the tune of $720,000) with the Wikimedia Foundation board. So, I looked up "Bridgespan" and "Jimmy Wales" on Google. Are you sure you don't know anyone at Bridgespan? Laura Lanzerotti is a manager with Bridgespan, and you and she attended the same WMF board meeting in Argentina in August 2009. Maybe you stepped out when she was introduced. You were together again at another meeting in February 2010. Maybe you forgot, since that was more than three years ago. But then there is Libbie Landles-Dowling, a case leader at Bridgespan, who attended a board meeting with you as recently as March 2012. Three board meetings with multiple personnel from Bridgespan present, but you don't know anyone at Bridgespan? That's kind of weird, Jimbo. Memory loss? - I'm not that crazy (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing inconsistent between the links presented and the statement "I don't know anyone at Bridgespan". Johnuniq (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having met people from dodgy companies. Come to think of it, why is "I'm not that crazy" so involved with people from dodgy companies? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"not about living persons or scandals"

I have been "invited" to assist in presenting a glossy version of my country, i.e. "not about living persons or scandals". In such a version there is no room for unathorized proliferation of nucler technology to other nations; transnational investigations involving FBI agents presenting themselves during interrogation in a non-US embassy in Brussel; investigations by parliamentary oversight committee. (The above are links to diffs before the last round of apparent revisionism sets in.) Does the request sit well with you? --Boreumo (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you linking to your little gem of an edit summary “introducing positives about him helping his billionaire buddy and later beating parliament's charges about partiality”. One thing that might interest Wales and should concern him is that after reverting several edits to the article made by this user, as well as removing undue negative stuff introduced by another now indeffed user, I stopped reverting for fear of being blocked for edit warring. Instead I brought the article to the BLP Noticeboard and voiced my concern there. However, despite the article being an obvious BLP violation of a leading Norwegian politician, nobody reacted, even though I insisted on something being done. Only when I filed a successful sockpuppet report was the case resolved. I can say generally that there have been and partly still are significant BLP problems with several politic-related Norway article; maybe in particular Labour politicans. This has not gone unnoticed in political circles in Norway. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

And I appreciate your gem, which follows this edit , where you remove the entire section about the parliamentary hearing, in your words justified by "Cleaning up article to remove undue weight to criticism, per WP:BLP, see talk page". Now that there is no mention about the parliamentary hearing about that politician's actions—has that "gone unnoticed in political circles in Norway" where you are privy, according to your hint? I intend to revert your "balancing" act in that article. --Boreumo (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Boreumo, you should improve the tone of your edit summaries. The third one about the "billionaire buddies" seemed to have little to do with the edit, which seemed more modest. However, any large deletion of sourced material like the one you list should indeed come with an explanation of either (a) why the sources are not valid reliable sources, or (b) listing a more relevant place where the section is going (and it should arrive there). Wnt (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Belgian analogue wikipedia

Hi Mr Wales,

this is the Belgian "paper wikipedia" from 1920 that I was talking about during our interview at the Brussels University last week:

Mundaneum

The dream of the founder: "that one day, somehow, all the information he collected could be accessed by people from the comfort of their own homes." must sound quite familiar to you :-)

The building and the collection still exist here in Belgium and can be visited. If you were to visit Belgium again some day, and would like to visit the mundaneum, just let me know and I'll make the arrangements.

Greets, and thanks again for the interview, Mushlack (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC) aka Lieven Scheire

Commercial editing

Jimmy, I have thought about this some more, and the main problem is one of terminology. Paid advocacy editing is the wrong neologism because there is lots of opposition in the form of, "This policy is unnecessary because all advocacy is forbidden on Misplaced Pages."

What we really mean to ban is Commercial editing. This nicely distinguishes from scholarly editing, which also might be paid, but is allowed. Commercial editing also encompasses situations where the editing is not being paid, but instead is intending to profit from their edits. If you look at the definition of commercial, lines 3 and 4 really hit the nail on the head.

What do you think of this Misplaced Pages:Paid editing policy proposal/2nd draft? Jehochman 13:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

My own preferred term is "Paid COI Editing." This describes the situation and the relationship of the writer to the subject without impugning the result, which may be either good or bad. A Paid COI Editor monitoring and fixing vandalism is not the same thing as a Paid COI Editor inserting unsourced and dubious content to fluff up a piece, if you follow me... Carrite (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Every day, I have to patiently tell clients not to use their internal nomenclature for marketing. While they understand it, the public does not. Think, would the common man or woman on the street understand what you mean by Paid COI Editing? That's internal Misplaced Pages jargon. It is far better to use ordinary words according to their plain meaning. "Commercial editing" matches it's dictionary definition: editing for profit. We could use "Editing for profit" if you prefer. Jehochman 02:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween Jimbo Wales! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween! —  dainomite   15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks.

	Hello Jimbo Wales, Mark Miller has given you an lovely bat, to wish you a Happy Halloween! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a lovely bat! Enjoy!
	Spread the goodness of a lovely bat by adding {{subst:User:Miss Bono/Halloween}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Halloween Jimbo

	Hello Jimbo Wales, Miss Bono has given you an lovely bat, to wish you a Happy Halloween! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a lovely bat! Enjoy!
	Spread the goodness of a lovely bat by adding {{subst:User:Miss Bono/Halloween}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Fixing up BLP article in exchange for a charitable donation?

Jimbo, do you believe it's OK to fix up a BLP article in exchange for a charitable donation by the subject? Under "charitable donation" I mean donation to any charitable organization, not necessarily the WMF. 24.4.37.209 (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My bet is he does not believe that. Really not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Especially not to the WMF.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, your senior administrator user:Jehochman who himself works in the areas of Internet Marketing, SEO, PPC, Web Development, and ho started his Misplaced Pages career with writing an advertisement believes that such activities are perfectly alright. "Once in a while I might introduce them to an editor who is willing to fix up their article in exchange for a charitable donation. My feeling is that if Misplaced Pages gets a better article, the business receives value and pays for it, and the editor is happy that some charity benefited, then it is ethical." He doesn't even exclude the WMF, he's simply talking about "some charity". 24.4.37.209 (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you'd be better off asking him than me, then. In any event, I think this sort of thing is not ideal. But I particularly think it extremely unwise to solicit or accept donations for the Wikimedia Foundation that appear in any way to be tied to donations. It has the feel of a protection racket or something, it's just not right. If I were approached with something like this, I would decline saying "I'm happy to help improve Misplaced Pages, and if you'd like to donate to charity then please know that it is unnecessary in terms of Misplaced Pages. If you want to donate, donate for your own reasons, not as an exchange for editing favors."

But let's be clear that while I think this is not ideal, I don't think it is nearly as bad as being paid to engage in undisclosed paid advocacy editing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Just like to mention that asking Jehochman is useless. In the best case scenario you'd get something like that: "Violations of WP:AGF and dull posts are removed" 24.4.37.209 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

IP, could you please login and use your real account? Perhaps you can't because it's blocked. Jehochman 17:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman, I could have used your language to respond to you, something like "Violations of WP:AGF and dull posts are not allowed", but instead I'd like to quote another person, a person who quit Misplaced Pages because he has seen too many admins become "Self-righteous, arrogant, self-centered, conceited... jerks" just as yourself, Jehochman. So here's the quote "I've seen the way accusations of "sockpuppet" have become a way of life in content disputes, and I've see how the admins on wikipedia do absolutely nothing about it. Too many despicable pov warriors spend their time accusing anyone they disagree with on one article or another of being a "sockpuppet", and never does a CheckUser come back innocent." 24.4.37.209 (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Jimmy, it is really unfair for you to jump to assumptions. No donation was solicited for WMF. That's not on the table. Who is the IP that posted here, trashed my name, and didn't even bother to notify me? I am a named person. I don't like being forced to respond to trolls by what could be a banned user. Finally, Jimmy, would you please point to the paid editing policy? Oh wait, we don't have one. The community is extremely divided on the issue. It's not ideal to hold people to a non-existent standard.

• There is a broader issued called The Right to Respond. Misplaced Pages is a user-generated content site. We don't have professional writers or editors. There is no assurance that an article about a subject includes that subjects explanations, unlike any professional newspaper, magazine or encyclopedia article. It is very unfair to talk about somebody, such as an article subject, without giving them a chance to respond. Until we have a clear policy on how this works, we need to be careful not to trample on The Right to Respond while chasing off obnoxious, unhelpful paid editors. Jehochman 17:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've been thinking about this for a long time. If there is a poor-quality Misplaced Pages article about a business, that can damage the business's reputation, they have every right to take steps to improve that article. If making suggestions on the article talk page is not sufficient to get the job done, why can't a business transparently edit their article or offer compensation for somebody else to do so? In my view offering a donation to an unrelated third party (such as EFF or Rotary's polio eradication campaign) to compensate the value received, is better than corrupting the editor with payment. This may not be ideal, but it is also not ideal to damage a business' reputation by presenting them in a false light, due to an incomplete or outdated article. Sometimes we have to choose among the lesser evils. This is a very interesting topic worth discussion. Though I dislike the non-neutral presentation above, but I am happy to discuss the issue if framed fairly. Jehochman 17:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It is virtually impossible to find a case where a business has tried to do things correctly and failed to get good results. There is no need to directly edit the article, and it is a very poor approach to the issue and something that should never be suggested. Instead businesses who have a concern should be told where and how to escalate beyond the talk page - up to and including coming to me directly with their concerns (I'm here every day answering questions and there is plenty of capacity for concerned volunteers.) You see, this idea that businesses should be able to edit Misplaced Pages directly because they have no choice if they want to correct an error is simply false - and a fig leaf for very bad behavior.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't know what you don't know. There is lots of discontent in the business community, and very little guidance for them on how to get help from Misplaced Pages. Please point me to the page that provides a clear list of steps that a business can take to get help. Jehochman 19:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Contact_us - Subjects. If you are asking if this page can be improved and expanded, then I will agree with you. But it's pretty darn good and it is easy to find.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a client who is very unhappy with their Misplaced Pages presence and has had a horrible experience trying to get it corrected. I'm helping them with other things and have thus far done nothing to their article. I will refer them to that page and we'll test how it works. I'll get you feedback. Okay? In addition to what's on the page, there should be a statement to the effect: "If your article has been damaged by obvious vandalism or slander, please feel free to fix it yourself without delay and then (notify us | post a note at WP:COIN to request review of your actions)." Last I looked, WP:COI includes an exception allowing COI editors to fix obvious vandalism and BLP violations. Jehochman 19:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you at liberty to discuss the example in more detail? We can do it by email if that's helpful. I want to explore solutions to any problems that people are having - solutions which don't involve destroying the integrity of our model.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll email when I get a chance. Jehochman 20:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've often compared paid editing to BLP editing. In this case it's even more appropriate because the article is a BLP anyway.

Yes, of course it's perfectly true that someone who is paid has a conflict of interest and there are all sorts of bad things he might do, and which people like him really have done.

But it's also true that someone who is the subject rather than being paid by the subject, would do exactly the same bad things. He has as bad a conflict of interest, is unlikely to respond to anything contrary to his interest, is as likely to insert something promotional, etc.

And yet we permit the subject to edit his own article. It's discouraged, and is often bad, but we don't categorically prohibit it, because we know that Misplaced Pages's system often breaks down and the only person with a motive to fix it may be the subject.

If we can permit subjects to edit their own articles, despite of the weight of all the horrors of COI being against it, shouldn't we allow similar types of paid editing? Jimbo just claimed "It is virtually impossible to find a case where a business has tried to do things correctly and failed to get good results." Would we ever tell a BLP subject trying to edit his own article "It is virtually impossible to find a case where a BLP subject has tried to get Misplaced Pages to fix his article and failed to get good resilts"? Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The IP made a good point. If you're driving across the great state of Joebobia, and a cop pulls you over and says you were speeding, and you ask is there anything you can do, and he says, you can give a donation to the Fraternal Order of Porkers, a lot of people are going to take that as a request for a bribe that's not a request for a bribe, since there are a lot of officials in the world who make a business of getting paid and not all that many who say they take bribes. So it is indeed best to avoid any confusion in this regard, even if your intent isn't to request a bribe. And asking who the IP is is not a useful thing to do; it's just an ad hominem attack frustrated by the lack of a hominem. Wnt (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Somebody emailed me the identity the IP. They are banned, and even had talk page and email access removed by an ArbCom member. As for the charity for edits, it's a thought. If people don't like it, then it won't happen. Jehochman 23:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Some people have active imaginations, but they don't know me and they're wrong if they think they do. 24.4.37.209 (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with saying "well, it turned out to be an abuser" is, again, that that reasoning is not accepted for normal BLPs. If someone tried to edit their biography, and it turned out to be a banned user and they were editing their own biography to whitewash something they did or some other nefarious reason, you might say "good riddance" to that one person, but you would never say that that is a reason to prohibit all cases where someone edits their own BLP.

Just like "that BLP editor is an abuser" is not a good reason to ban all cases of editing your own BLP, "that paid editor is an abuser" is not a good reason to ban all paid editors. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Re "If we can permit subjects to edit their own articles, despite of the weight of all the horrors of COI being against it, shouldn't we allow similar types of paid editing?" No. No, we shouldn't. Does that answer your question?

Re "I have a client who is very unhappy with their Misplaced Pages presence and has had a horrible experience trying to get it corrected". Hmmm. Maybe I have a client who is very unhappy with the article about them in the Economist. Image the trouble I have when I ask the Economist for permission to edit the article source! You have it easy! It's already so much easier to fix things in the Misplaced Pages. It's a wiki! All you have to do is convince the other editors.

Re "If there is a Misplaced Pages article about a business, that can damage the business's reputation, they have every right to take steps to change that article." No they don't. Of course they don't. "If making suggestions on the article talk page is not sufficient to get the job done" shows a profound misunderstanding of what we're about here and what kinds of "jobs" we're trying to get "done". Didn't you have to pass some kind of test or something to become an administrator? I thought there was a test. We don't make suggestions on talk pages and then, when the other editors say "that's a bad idea", go ahead and do it anyway. Was this not explained to you at some point?

Now if there's unsourced and untrue info in your client's articles, that's different of course. But you're not saying that. You're not saying that because you know that everyone knows that it's easy to remove unsourced passages from any Misplaced Pages article. You're saying "can damage the business's reputation". That's a different thing. You're saying "my client thinks that the whole deal with the price-fixing and the waste-dumping and the politician-bribing and so on should be downplayed and replaced with more info about their products, but I can't get the other Misplaced Pages editors to agree." That's a different thing.

Sometimes corporations do things that damage their reputation. Here's a tip you could pass on to them: "Let's not do those things" might be a better strategy than "Let's edit these things out of our Misplaced Pages article". I'm just saying.

I'll tell you what Jehochman. When Britannica adopts the policy "corporate subjects of our articles are welcome to come in and change them", then we'll consider doing that too. Deal? Herostratus (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Does that answer your question?"

Of course it doesn't. In a discussion, it's implicit that people will provide reasoning; just saying "no" is non-responsive. Exactly why is it that

• all these problems can happen with people editing their own BLPs
• yet, that is not a reason to prevent people from editing their own BLPs
• yet, basically the same thing is considered a reason to prevent paid editing?

(And about Britannica: Britannica doesn't have a policy of "anyone can come in and make a random malicious change to a company's article", so it doesn't need a policy that lets someone from the company come in and fix them.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there needs to be a better solution to people vandalizing articles and adding malicious content than "Just let the subject edit the article directly or pay someone else to do it for them." You're essentially proposing giving the subject a veto over anything they don't want in their article. There cannot and should not be any sort of assumption that such edits will be neutral and NPOV (Which isn't to say they can't be). As Mr. Wales says, there is a process for subjects with concerns about things in articles about them and I must assume both Misplaced Pages as a whole and the WMF would be open to suggestions on how to improve it. Simple Sarah (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're confused over what I'm arguing. I didn't propose anything for the BLP case--what I describe is already existing policy. Allowing editing means giving the subject a veto? Existing policy allows the subject to edit and it doesn't amount to giving the subject a veto. Edits by subjects are non-neutral and POV? Well, existing policy allows edits by BLP subjects and we seem to be able to handle non-neutral and POV edits.

All the things you describe are not problems when it comes to BLPs--at least not such big problems that we categorically prohibit BLP subjects from editing their own articles, ever. Why do we need to categorically prohibit paid editing in order to solve the exact same problems that are solved without a categorical prohibition for BLP editing? Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's clear that there are things that are important enough that they trump ordinary enforcement. If somebody edits Jimbo's article to say he's an ax-murderer, and the worst banned user of the lot uses an IP to fix it, we're not going to revert the edit just because he's banned. And if he goes on to tell ANI that somebody just posted kiddie porn to our article on SpongeBob, we're not going to cite WP:DENY and ignore him. I'm perfectly happy to let him "get away with it" both times, and not even have any process afterward by which somebody adds half a year to his lifetime ban. The same should be true for paid editors: if they fix something that was clearly intolerable, we should just forget about it. Do we expect them to get out of control and start "fixing" the facts to please them? Of course! But I'd prefer we wait until they're in the wrong before we slap them down. Wnt (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:COS makes it clear that there is an exception to the general guideline of not editing your own article for extreme cases of problematic content, but it also makes clear that you must then bring it up either with WP:OTRS or on WP:BLPN. In other words, any such edit is supposed to be specifically brought forward for special and specific scrutiny. This is vastly different from saying they can edit the articles to remove major issues without any additional special oversight. And anything that doesn't actually require immediate action should go through established channels. Simple Sarah (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

All this is true, and the basic reason is that we've decided as a community that living individual people are different from other things. Which is proper I think. Herostratus (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - it's been a while since I looked at WP:COI, I guess. Wnt (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BIOSELF also says that people can edit their own article to fix very obvious errors--and that version doesn't contain a requirement that you bring it up on OTRS or BLPN. WP:AUTO#IFEXIST also says that you can edit articles about yourself to "remove obviously mistaken facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on." It requires mentioning it on the talk page--but not on OTRS or BLPN. I would also argue that those cases don't cause immediate harm like saying you're an ax murderer, so they aren't "extreme cases of problematic content". So it appears that Misplaced Pages has contradictory policies, and some of them do let people edit their own article without informing OTRS.

I think it's clear that there are things that are important enough that they trump ordinary enforcement.

That seems to contradict the concept of a bright line. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Bright line" is a bad concept because many of these situations have nuances and require common sense to deal with them justly. I think a better concept to discuss is slippery slope. We don't allow commercial editing (editing for profit) even for small edits because it's hard to define what's inconsequential and what's significant. The best way to avoid falling is not to step on the slippery slope. If a user is fixing facts in their bio, that's not really editing for profit. It's just setting the record straight. We should apply common sense and not sanction or harass them for that type of edit. We don't want some dense, immature admin (we have more than a few) slapping a ban on an editor because they correct their own age or marital status. Jehochman 15:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that someone changing the number of employees at their company from 80,000 to 87,000 should count as setting the record straight as well. It's not editing for profit in any meaningful sense, even if it was done by an employee of the company. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

An editor is restating "Exactly why is it that 1) all these problems can happen with people editing their own BLPs yet 2) yet, that is not a reason to prevent people from editing their own BLPs yet, 3) basically the same thing is considered a reason to prevent paid editing?" The editor is needing an explanation beyond "No" (which is short for "Well, that's self-evidently a false analogy and logical fallacy") so let's drill down on this.

It's not the same because human beings are different from other things in significant ways. I thought that this was generally understood, but I guess you learn something every day. It's important to grasp this, because it's the reason why that controlling rule in question is called Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons and not Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, and also articles about everything else.

So let's look at the article Human in Misplaced Pages, the 💕, where it describes humans as "the only extant species of the genus Homo". This is important, because "Humans are uniquely adept at utilizing systems of symbolic communication" and "Humans are variously said to possess consciousness, self-awareness, and a mind... self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment", and then we have "Happiness, or the state of being happy, is a human emotional condition" and "Emotional experiences perceived as pleasant, such as love, admiration, or joy, contrast with those perceived as unpleasant, like hate, envy, or sorrow" and so on. Read the whole article -- it's quite enlightening.

Contrast to, for instance, Tree which is "a perennial plant with an elongated stem, or trunk, supporting leaves or branches" or Corporation which is a "separate legal entity that has been incorporated through a legislative or registration process". See the difference? See also Consciousness, Career, Family, and Emotion, which are all things that humans have, and trees and corporations don't.

But: Reputation. A reputation is something which humans, trees, and corporations do have -- along with the Byzantine Empire under the Angelos dynasty and the spork and most anything that humans are able to perceive, think about, and talk about.

Therefore it certainly is possible to damage the reputation of a tree. There are lots of things I could insert into the article Hundred Horse Chestnut that would damage its reputation. I could write write "The Hundred Horse Chestnut was listed in the article '100 Most Boring Tourist Attractions' in Jaded Traveler magazine" and I could write "Scientists at the Institute of Botanical Science have traced the origin of chestnut blight to a genetic mutation in this exact tree" and I could write "A recent study in Dendrochronology Today revealed that the Hundred Horse Chestnut is actually probably only 500 years old and therefore not the oldest living chestnut tree" and so on.

All of these things could damage the reputation of the Hundred Horse Chestnut, but guess what? It doesn't know or care what people think of it -- it's a tree. See what I'm saying? If and when "willful infliction of emotional distress on tree" becomes recognized as a tort or felony we can revisit this question.

So instead, whether these examples are good edits or not are mainly determined by a simple test: is there sufficient reliable sourcing for the material? (See WP:RS etc.) There are very many secondary considerations that come into play if we've determined it is reliably source, such as "is it trivial?" and "is it too much detail?" and so on, and reasonable people discuss and argue about this all the time, here.

Of course, corporations are different from trees because they are, essentially, made of humans. So are towns, countries, sports teams (and their fans), religions, political movmenents, armies, clubs, royal families, professions, cutural movements, drug gangs, musical groups, rampaging hordes, the class of people who tend or care about or sell souvenirs depicting the Hundred Horse Chestnut, and many other communities of interest.

But I dunno. If you want to make the case that all these things, being made of people, should fall under a BLP-type rubric, you can make that case I guess, and maybe you'd have a point. The case you can't make is "some of these should fall under a BLP-type rubric and some not, depending on whether it's worth a chicken dinner to somebody". Herostratus (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to make those fall under BLP-type rules allowing editing your own article because the restrictions on them are already looser, so you can edit them anyway. If you come from a town, are a member of a religious or political movement, etc. you are perfectly free to edit articles about those things. We don't need an exception to the general prohibition on editing them because there is no general prohibition on editing them. Only companies and editing your own BLP have such restrictions.

The reason that we allow some editing of your own BLP is that in practice, the person affected by the article may be the only person with the motivation to fix it. Misplaced Pages is notoriously full of poorly-maintained articles about marginally notable subjects. And this applies to companies too. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Translating

Santtu37 from Finland here hello! I saw that you don't have a user page translated to Finnish Misplaced Pages, so I want to ask do you want that I will translate for you a user page there? I don't know are you able to understand Finnish language, but if you are not, I can help you with my translating skills. :) Santtu37 (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds wonderful, thank you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That was very nice. Cool.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I can translate Finnish version from your English user page tomorrow, because I don't have enough time to do It today. But anyway, I'm doing It for you of course. ;) Santtu37 (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And that Finnish user page for you is finally ready. You can check Its present situation from there. Santtu37 (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Now waiting for the first troll to show up on Jimbo's Finnish talk page...--ukexpat (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections - Can you help between 7 Nov and 9 Nov?

Hello Jimbo. Per the 2013 ArbCom Election RfC, you have been selected to appoint the Electoral Commission overseeing the ArbCom elections. The selection of the commission is currently happening at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Electoral Commission. Will you have time in your schedule between November 7 and November 9 to appoint the Electoral Commission? 64.40.54.186 (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, no problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"Happy Diwali!"