Hi Mr. Wales, I had made some comments in the Wikipedia talk pages. These are the talk pages I have commented in: Sasanian Empire, Parthian empire, Achaemenid empire. Now I want to correct those comments.
I had no intention to make the comments in the talk pages. I am not so good in English. I just wanted to include some maps in some of the articles. But then the other editors said I must have a consensus to include my edits. So I had to make those comments. But then I realized it was a mistake. There are many mistakes in my language. So I want to correct those comments.
Mr.Wales, I have made three accounts for this edit. This is the fourth one. It will probably not be possible for me to make a new one. The other editors are not allowing me to do this. So I have come to you Mr. Wales. You are the owner of Wikipedia. You have the power to let me edit the comments. So please let me do this a bit.
I don't have the capability to write any article in Wikipedia. I am not so good in English. I just want to correct my comments. I will only do some grammatical change. I have to correct the comments, I have to correct them at any cost. I am feeling very uncomfortable about the comments in the talk pages. This is the last thing I want to do in Wikipedia. After doing this I will quit Wikipedia. So please mr. Wales, let me do this a bit.Arman ad88 (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much Mr. Jimbo Wales for understanding it. I just want to correct my comments. I just want to do some grammatical change in my comments. I want to do this because this is an encyclopedia. The people of the world will watch this. If they see my incorrect comments there it will look very odd. This is why I want to correct the comments. If you want to block my account after this I am ready to accept it.Arman ad88 (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
No no it is not possible for me write any article in Wikipedia. I don't have the skills to write any article in Wikipedia. I just came in Wikipedia as a novice, then I saw some problems in the articles and then had to make those comments. The problem here is that, I don't think my incorrect comments should to be there. These are very important articles. Many people of the world will watch them. I don't want people to see my incorrect comments. That is why I want to correct the comments. That's it, nothing more than that. So please let me do this a bit.Arman ad88 (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
OK if I log out and correct my comments anonymously, will it be accepted? There is a problem. I had tried few times to correct my comments. Other editors have reverted my edits. And finally they even blocked my IP adress. I fear that this kind of thing can happen again. So please tell me what can I do about that.Arman ad88 (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
If I discuss about the edits in the talk pages they will be more messy. The other editors may be more angry with me. They may even block my account. So I don't think that is a right idea.Arman ad88 (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you don't trust me because I have made many mistakes in the earlier times. I admit that I have done many mistakes. But it is also true that the articles I was trying to improve were at very poor condition. So I wanted to improve them by any means. You can consider it as inexperience of a newcomer.
I just want to correct my comments. Mr. Wales, it is a very minor edit. It will only take few minutes. Then the problem will be solved. This is the last thing I want to do in Wikipedia. And then I will leave Wikipedia. So please let me do this a bit.Arman ad88 (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
OK I think we can solve the problem another way. I don't want to edit the comments myself. But can someone of you help me correct the comments in the talk pages? Then the problem will be solved. Can some one of you help me improve the English in my comments in the talk pages?Arman ad88 (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Howdy, I think you need to change the image policy, Im from the NIWA (Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance) they allow non-free images, but not Wikipedia, and I heard also on the Wikias, you allowed them to use non-free images also. Knowing you are one of the founders of Wikipedia, can you allow Non-free images? I wan't a non-free image as a Personal Image. And please only allow non-free images allowed for Personal Images if they are NOT intended for a article. Thanks! DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Once again we find that reports of WP's demise have been greatly exaggerated... April 2016 stats show a count of 3,309 Very Active Editors (100+ edits/mo.) at English Wikipedia, an increase of 5.1% over the figure for April 2015. This number surpasses the same-month figures for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. New Articles Per Day is up slightly, from 804 last year to 834 this year.
The count of Very Active Editors across all the language Wikipedias is flat at the 10,000 mark — basically 3 times more than the En-WP total. There were 15 language Wikipedias with 100 or more Very Active Editors in the month, with English, German, French, Russian, and Spanish being the top five in sequence. Some 59% of Very Active Wikipedians participate through these five projects. Carrite (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Will you let <your daughter> edit Wikipedia? If so, what would you say about child protection? Because harassment is rampant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Eron Quinn (talk • contribs) 08:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo, I suppose I could just check through the proper links but, have you ever uploaded any images and if so, do you still take pics and upload? If not....can you be talked into it. LOL! ;)--Mark Miller (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Great news re: encouraging the youth there to edit Wikipedia, join our community, and converse with Wikipedians world-wide. No luck yet via the teachers and a high school administrator whom I contacted by email; however, I added to my efforts by going to facebook to contact people who live in Attawapiskat, and that approach seems to be really taking off ! I have so far gained 2 facebook "friends" who live there as well as I joined a facebook group that is specific towards their suicide crisis. You can see what's happening and will happen there at Attawapiskat Suicide Awareness Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, when you opposed measuring whether mobile users offered the ordinary desktop interface edit or donate more, you did not seem to offer an actual reason against making the measurement although I think it's fair to say that you implied someone would have to be neo-luddite to think of doing away with the Foundation's custom mobile app content viewers and reassigning their engineering headcount to getting a unified mobile and desktop web experience. While I am vaguely inclined to agree that the Foundation should support diversity in content viewing applications, I just want to be sure that we are not doing so at the expense of editors and donations. And I think it's clear that the existing diversity of web browsers on the different desktop and mobile platforms causes custom content viewer applications to add needless and expensive complexity to an already very complicated software support task, for which there is no clear cost-benefit justification. I doubt dropping mobile apps, if doing so can increase editing contributions and financial donations, will cause anything like the state of mobile app development to return to horse-and-buggy days. Are there any reasons to oppose the measurement? EllenCT (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy,
Previously I expressed concerns about how the GMO articles appear to have the hand of the GM industry in them. There is discussion about the rules of a soon to be launched high stakes RfC regarding language of GMO safety that is in the lede of many GM articles.
FYI, I made the following suggestion here to address concerns of possible influence from industry:
--David Tornheim (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
[E]ight review articles were mixed in their assessment of the health effects of GMOs.
{{cite journal}}
|1=
Mr. Wales, I think I have a new idea to solve the problem. I don't want to correct the comments myself. But can some one of you help me correct the comments in the talk pages. Then the problem will be solved. Can some one of you please help me improve the comments in the talk pages?Arman ad88 (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
OK I think I have found a new article here. The article is Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines. It is mentioned in the section Editing own comments, point 4, that I can correct the comments by inserting a message in square brackets after the end of the comment. I think it is a legal way to correct the comments. For example if I try to correct a particular comment it will turn to be like this:
Wikipedia is an Internet encyclopedia supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. It is a free-of-cost encyclopedia with its articles being free-content; those who use Wikipedia can edit almost any article accessible. Wikipedia is ranked among the ten most popular websites and constitutes the Internet's largest and most popular general reference work. [Corrected]
So can I correct the comments this way?Arman ad88 (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.
Well I will tell you to look at this section Editing comments in the talk page article. I think there are some conditions given there for editting the comments. Look at the 18th point. It is mentioned there that "If you have his permission". It means "you can correct the comments if you have his permission". I think this is the main point that allows you to correct the comments. I think this is the proof that you can correct the comments.
I am giving you the permission to correct the comments. I have no objection if someone of you can correct the comments. You don't have to correct the other editors' comments. There are no problems in that. Just my ones needed to be done. I want help from some one here to correct my comments in the talk pages.Arman ad88 (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
OK these are the talk pages I want to correct: Sasanian Empire, Parthian empire and Achaemenid empire.Arman ad88 (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Philbrick, I am not so good in English. I cannot express myself clearly in English. I think the message should be like this:
I think the map given in the infobox in the article is wrong. If you look at the map, it looks like Turkey and Egypt were parts of the Sasanian empire, which were not. It may confuse the readers. I wanted to place my map in the infobox. And place the current map in the later section Second golden era.
The next message should be like this:
I don't see any problem with the military routs of Ardashir and Shapur. Those two kings founded the Sasanian empire. So they are very much relevant with the map. The problem with the map is that, it gives the impression that, Turkey and Egypt were parts of the Sasanian empire, which were not. This is actually an exagarration of the original map. I think this is not the right place for the map to be placed, it should be placed in the later section Second golden era. Remember emperor Khosrau II coquered those territories but could not hold it on for so long.
This is how I want to correct the messages.Arman ad88 (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
First, a quick word thanking whomever at WMF is responsible for the newish change to the internal WP search engine that pops up a small list of pictures together with names and a short descriptions in a list when a person is trying to locate a page on WP. It is very helpful. However, a small weirdness popped up when I ran a quick search to get to the page I'm working on, Vera Figner. The search engine gives a portrait, a name, and the description "Russian writer." Now, the narodnovoletsa Vera Figner certainly is the author of a famous memoir, but calling her a "writer" as a fundamental description would be like calling Donald Trump a "writer" because he wrote The Art of the Deal. She was, first and foremost, a political activist. Second descriptive would be political prisoner. Third descriptive would be memoirist. But not a writer.
My question is this, and hopefully somebody can answer it: how do you change the quick description given by the search engine? Where does that information come from? The word "writer" is not used in the lead of the Figner article (although she is justifiably included in a few writer-related categories). It has to come from somewhere... Where? Carrite (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I will tell you to look at this section Editing comments in the talk page article. I think there are some conditions given there for editting the comments. Look at the 18th point. It is mentioned there that "If you have his permission". It means "you can correct the comments if you have his permission". I think this is the main point that allows you to correct the comments. I think this is the proof that you can actualy correct the comments.
OK, then, I am giving you the permission to correct the comments. I have no objection if someone of you can correct the comments. You don't have to correct the other editors' comments. There are all right. Just mine. I want help from some one here to correct my comments in the talk pages.Arman ad88 (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, I am mentioning here. These are the talk pages I want to correct: Sasanian Empire, Parthian empire and Achaemenid empire.
Hi anyone there? Can anyone help me with the correction of the comments. You have to just improve the Enlish in my comments. You have to just correct them in a way that, they don't look odd in the eyes of the other people. That's it. Just that will be enough.Arman ad88 (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, I want you to delete my comments. I don't want anyone to see my comments. I think this is the best way to solve the problem. So please help me deleting the comments.Arman ad88 (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
OK Mr. Wales, thank you very much. Thank you very much for correcting the comments. I think the problem has been solved.Arman ad88 (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, one last thing. I want you to please remove all the comments from my talk page. From my original talk page ( This talk page ). There are too many negative comments. It will be really very humiliating for me, if someone see them. So I want you to please help me remove the comments. Then all the problems will be solved.Arman ad88 (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
No, there is a problem. My original account is actually blocked. If I try to remove my comments from my talk page, there is a great possibility that the other editors may block my account. I just want to correct my comments and then I will leave Wikipedia.Arman ad88 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
OK thank you very much. Thank you very much all for helping me out with the corrections. All my problems have been solved. I am going to leave Wikipedia now. You can block my account now.Arman ad88 (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, do you or anyone else in WMF have any contacts within the United Nations? Per the discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-UN-map we need to update a decade-old OTRS authorization if we are not to delete close to 1,000 high quality maps from across the encyclopaedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The maps were Kept. It really did strike me as a bizarre deletion request, but my opinion of Commons administration is now improving. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The new bot-generated backlog list WP:POPULARLOWQUALITY is working. It shows the top 1000 articles by pageviews with Stub-, Start-, or C-class ORES article quality predictions. ORES is extremely cool; it's so much better than inscrutable neural networks because it can show the article revision's features on which it bases its prediction of an article's revision. I have no idea how that was set up, but it clearly didn't discover the features automatically because they have meaningful names (which neural networks never produce.) It uses Python's SciKit-Learn Random Forests classifier. EllenCT (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
(ec) I've been a bit fast in my above communications on this page, that leads to stern language:
@EpochFail: if you have time, could you please help us understand how ORES scores this revision of "Standard deviation" with a Good Article probability of 4%? EllenCT (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
<math>
Commenting on the POPULARLOWQUALITY's third bot update:
@EllenCT and EpochFail: I'm beginning to doubt whether the approach is useful. If the bot can't be taught to distinguish between average quality and low quality this is an approach with little net benefit afaics. Even "mediocre" quality or "questionable" quality wouldn't apply to most of the articles listed by the bot, and these are certainly not identical to "low quality". The name of the page should not accuse them all of being low quality (unless that is what the bot can deliver): "low quality" as it stands is insulting to the Wikipedians who put their efforts in it. As it is now the page should be renamed ASAP to "popular and potentially with quality issues".
I've extended my window in giving this a chance: as explained above I wouldn't have returned to it if it hadn't been so that theoretically I thought this may have been a promising approach (and if I wouldn't have started commenting here). For me, and in all clarity I only speak for myself, the window for returning to this maybe one or two times before my "first opinion" is formed is closing soon. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I would point out that the old pageviews API had a raw top-5000 and the new one only offers the top-1000, which is the epitome of reduced functionality. There are a lot of applications of a more substantial top list, so I certainly hope the top Foundation leadership is on board with not backsliding in functionality. Those interested in economics will appreciate that the public sector faces a similar problem when deciding on the cut-off points for transfer payment benefits. EllenCT (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe, we all love/hate it. At any rate, will this "monopoly", finally force experts to get on board. [31] Peter Thonemann gives an interesting take including:
An army of anonymous, tech-savvy people – mostly young, mostly men – have effortlessly assembled and organized a body of knowledge unparalleled in human history. “Effortlessly” in the literal sense of without significant effort: when you have 27,842,261 registered editors (not all of them active, it is true), plus an unknown number of anonymous contributors, the odd half-hour here and there soon adds up to a pretty big encyclopedia. . . Given the manner of its compilation, the accursed thing really is a whole lot more reliable than it has any right to be...No doubt this particular case does not matter all that much. But it does illustrate some of the benefits, and many of the perils, of the brave new world of crowd-sourced online reference. Wikipedia did, eventually, get to the right answer, but it took its time about it. One of the main worries about Wikipedia is not that its content does not improve over time (it clearly does), but that it gets better so much more slowly than anyone would have predicted back in 2006 or 2007. . . Instead of grumbling, perhaps we ought to spend a bit more time editing Wikipedia ourselves."
(Thonemann, Peter, THE TIMES LITERARY SUPPLEMENT, MAY 25 2016)
Hopefully, not "all" experts or else, who but the non-experts will write about Wikipedia from the outside? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
As we have discussed for years, the Wikipedia community tends to be "self-correcting" to quickly fix most problems in popular pages, except for technical issues (such as template errors) or content disputes (almost nitpicking or pettifogging over technicalities of the wording). Meanwhile, as seen by the pages in the list wp:POPULARLOWQUALITY (as pages with actually fairly high-quality content), each page when viewed many times, will attract enough editors to soon update the problems as quickly as general readers increase the pageviews. The real problem, where editors should focus extra attention, is to fix obscure template errors, technical details or calculations, or help resolve content disputes (often a case of nitpicking what to say in a page). For example, those 200,000 glaring red-error cite messages need to be fixed in popular pages (to remove "Check date values in: access-date") for wp:CS1 cite date-format errors, in the top pages among searching 28,000 various pages. The main goal is to find major technical problems in popular pages, rather than worry about general quality levels, which tend to be self-correcting by pageview level, as long as any technical or nitpicking content-dispute problems are fixed by special attention. I guess the general rule is: Nitpicking about issues, format or template data is the greatest source of glaring errors in articles. Long term, we need to reduce the nitpicking, to allow more viewpoints, and autofix template data, but the nitpickers tend to argue about the need to nitpick the issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The over-reach of tagging among the wp:BACKLOG categories varies by type, where the copy-edit category has typically been correct over 98% of the time (perhaps because so many details only get fixed when untagging), while other categories still list many pages already fixed, which should have been untagged. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
A new study was just released showing a link between cell phones and cancer Wall Street Journal 5/27/2016. It will be interesting to see if this is covered as NPOV. I have a feeling a bunch of "neutral" "pro-science" editors will make sure it gets buried, say it is too new, WP:OR, WP:Fringe, a "primary study", WP:UNDO and every excuse possible to keep the news from messing with cell phones sales. And any editor trying to insert it will be labelled an anti-cell phone activist, WP:SPA, disruptive, lacking competence or works for some industry that competes with cell phones... Well, let's go see... --David Tornheim (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia Editor Says Site’s Toxic Community Has Him Contemplating Suicide Thought this might be interesting, nay, disturbing, to regular readers of this page. The editor in question claims he became suicidal because "Nobody on Wikipedia seems to be kind," and "You [i.e. Wikipedia editors] are all so busy power tripping that you forget there is a real, live person on the other side." This he says resulted from "...an ongoing disagreement with other editors on the “talk” pages of an article about a local politician. The debate devolved into name-calling, the editor wrote, and eventually he was completely banned from editing the site he had devoted so much time to." This suggests that WP:BITE may be an even more serious problem than commonly believed. Everymorning (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I would not be surprised if Satan danced with joy to see admins and zealous editors ruthlessly condemning other editors in vicious tag-teams of hateful, self-righteous whatevers. In that Motherboard article, "Wikipedia Editor Says Site’s Toxic Community Has Him Contemplating Suicide" the phrase "power trip" seems to relate to powerful editors, such as admins, being blamed for the toxic Wikipedia environment. The Wisdom of the Ages has warned, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and I still think WP needs to implement term-limits for admins so if they anger enough people, then they will not get re-approved, and if they cannot live with that limitation, then they should not be admins on Wikipedia. There is no intelligence test for admins (zero, nada, nichts, none), there is no systematic review of their judgmental actions, and the longer admins remain in power, the stronger the tendency toward corruption in the use of their power. Forgetting people becomes very, very easy in such a system of endless power. It is a sad situation, paved with the suffering of many trampled editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Is this an improvement to [36]: "...the extent to which cultural diversity should be permitted to influence bioethical judgments in Africa, which at present is burdened with many diseases, should be of concern to researchers, ethicists and medical experts taking into considerations the constantly transforming global society"? EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Need help. User:David.moreno72 is interfering with new users creating articles for Wikipedia:Wikivillages of Cameroon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De Geescht vum Herer (talk • contribs) 22:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
~~~~
There is a very good blog post at Wikipediocracy by Mike Wood, who lost his job due to WMF or ArbCom retaliation over paid editing. Hopefully this will be cause for introspection about Check User abuse, outing, and the mentality that leads to this sort of disgusting behavior against one's wiki-opponents. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
As for me, I have made money from Wikipedia and will continue to do so as long as the community continues to create the environment for it. With each article that is deleted by the community, there is another client looking to pay me to get the article back up. For every article that is tagged, there is a marketing company contacting me to re-write the article and remove the tag. For every person who tries to find my account and block it, there are ten emails that I am responding to, giving quotes to write their article. No one can make money from Wikipedia?
Wood is absolutely disgusting. He knows what he is doing is against the rules (See e.g. WP:NOADS "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for .... Advertising, marketing or public relations," and his book "Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool"). What he is doing is selling products (or company reputations) under the guise of an objective report. That's fraud in my book. He is also extracting money from a non-profit with an educational mission by degrading the educational content. That's theft in my book. His only justification is that he can't be caught - and then when he does get caught he moans that somebody else must have broken the rules. Disgusting. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Continuing the discussion from above. I see that the reward board has survived two deletion discussions, the most recent was a bit over two years ago. There have been less than 200 offers made over the history of the board, they can be perused HERE. Most of the offers made have been of insignificant monetary value (barnstars and such), however the offer that triggered the last deletion discussion was for $150-$300. I'm not sure I see much point or value in this board if it can't offer reasonably attractive rewards. The way to keep underground crime syndicates from forming is to offer people a legitimate means for making some money. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Wood has raised an interesting point. The terms of use in effect on January 9, 2013 did not say anything about paid editing. I see no basis there for contacting the casino on January 10, 2013. While § 4. Refraining from Certain Activities says WMF can exercise their enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms, I'm at a loss as to which specific term he violated. Only on 16 June 2014 was Paid contributions without disclosure added to the TOU. Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment was created on 11 February 2014, and Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure was created on 6 May 2014. So it seems the only basis for contacting the casino was (perhaps) something in the local community policies or guidelines?
Now, with regard to his current business operations post June 2014... – wbm1058 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities.
Removed edit from the usual banned editor. Please use the unprotected page if you'd like. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Carrite, See WP:UP#OWN "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." ArbCom has made it clear several times that this applies to Jimbo's talk page.
Jimbo says at User:Jimbo Wales "Over 3,000 Wikipedians monitor my user and user talk page via a watchlist, and I trust them to edit and remove errors or attacks." i.e. that others should moderate his talk page.
I've moderated this page about 4-5 times and been dragged to ArbCom on it about 3 times. Each time they've upheld the right of Jimbo to have others moderate his talk page. And Jimbo has said there that he sees nothing wrong with my moderation. He has specifically said that others need to moderate because some folks are not there to engage in a discussion and that there are trolls who should be removed.
He has mentioned the usual banned editor specifically several times. Forcing that person's text onto this page via a quote just looks like a cheap trick trying to get around the rules.
Since Jimbo is involved in most discussions here, I think you can see why it is difficult for him to moderate this page directly himself, and why it is better to have others doing the moderation. For example you can probably imagine some trolls would love to say "Jimbo Wales kicked me off his talk page, rather than answer my questions." As a matter of fact, I've seen where the usual banned editor says that in a fourth rate online "newspaper." I don't take orders from Jimbo or anybody else on this - it is my judgement only. However, if Jimbo were to say - by any means available, public or private, that he thinks my judgement is wrong, either in general or in a specific case, then I would respect his views.
The usual banned editor can edit at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Unprotected if he just wants to communicate with Jimbo. But if he is just trying to gain attention by posting his opinions (which always degrade into trolling) on this page, rather than on his own fifth-rate website that nobody takes seriously, then just forget it. Consider it automatic that he is reverted on this page, whether a direct edit, a quote, or in Morse code sent by the Dali Lama. Of course if Jimbo wanted to quote him, that's another matter.
So feel free to ask Jimbo if you can insert the banned editor's comments - but after 10+ years of being trolled and harassed by that editor, I doubt Jimbo will agree.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Carrite above seems to be referring to me when he writes "And the sanctimonious, thuggish, axe-grinding, edit-warrior behavior of some overwrought people is also readily evident to anyone who can read." Really? He's also writing in that section about the person I call "the usual banned editor", about Wikipediocracy in general, and about a banned editor who readily admits that he is a serial violator of our paid editing rules. The usual banned editor has been banned for over 10 years now, but has seldom gone more than a couple of weeks without harassing Jimbo on this page during that time. He claims to operate a paid editing service in violation of our rules. He has personally harassed me. Wikipediocracy - which he appears to own - is well known for harassing and outing editors. Jimbo has several times clearly and directly told the usual banned editor to stay off this page. He has approved moderation by myself and other editors that removes the usual banned editor's "contributions" to this page. In short, the usual banned editor is widely recognized as a serial troll, and both Jimmy and ArbCom have approved my removals of his edits. Carrite and the ube can't be bothered to take the simple step of either posting on the User talk:Jimbo Wales/Unprotected page (instead of this page) or asking Jimbo whether he can now post on this page.
Yet @Carrite: is accusing me of being a bully for removing the usual banned editor's edits. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, Carrite. I will not take this to ANI - I don't want to play his game. But if any admin reads this, I wouldn't mind them blocking Carrite for a day, or at least giving him a warning for the most bizarre personal attack of all time.
A pattern of bullies claiming to be bullied is widely reported. This appears to me to be a classic case. Just taking a few minutes to check the facts should make it clear who is the real bully.
My advice for dealing with Wikibullies:
1. Know the rules, follow them precisely and then stand up to the bullies.
2. Shaming the bullies when they make outrageous statements.
That is what I am doing now.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Smallbones
is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.
<snip> Taking ownership of the above comments, as I'm quite allowed to. — Scott • talk 23:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Here is a question for WMF Board member Jimmy Wales... We see from THIS META DOCUMENT that spending for the ED of WMF and her "advisor" went from $201,685 plus an amount too small to be reported in Fiscal Year 2013-14 to $609,490 in Fiscal Year 2014-15. What is the cause of this tripling in spending? Why was Sue Gardner given what effectively looks like a 50% raise to move from ED to "Advisor"? Carrite (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
doi:10.3102/00346543066001005: "Cameron and Pierce’s overly simplistic conclusion has little theoretical or practical value and is instead the direct consequence of their systematic and consistent misuse of meta-analytic procedure"
doi:10.3102/00346543066001033: "Cameron and Pierce’s (1994) conclusion ... is a misrepresentation of the literature based on a flawed meta-analysis. Their call to abandon cognitive evaluation theory is more an attempt to defend their behaviorist theoretical turf than a meaningful consideration of the relevant data and issues."
doi:10.3102/00346543066001001: "Cameron and Pierce’s meta-analysis ... is unpersuasive by virtue of its methodology, its tendency to ignore important distinctions, and its failure to include certain evidence"
Cameron and Pierce defended their work - doi:10.3102/00346543066001039 - concluding that "the results and conclusions of our meta-analysis are not altered by our critics’ protests and accusations"
doi:10.3102/00346543071001001: "(Cameron & Pierce, 1994) concluded that the undermining effect was minimal and largely inconsequential for educational policy. However, a more recent meta-analysis (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999) showed that the Cameron and Pierce meta-analysis was seriously flawed and that its conclusions were incorrect."
And, the 1996 Cameron response was also poorly received, doi:10.3102/00346543071001043: After having "pointed out flaws in Cameron and Pierce’s (1994) meta-analysis. Cameron’s (2001) commentary did not reveal any problems with our meta-analysis, nor did it defend the validity of Cameron and Pierce’s. Instead, Cameron referred to a fourth meta-analysis by her group; little detail was presented about the new meta-analysis, but it appears to have the same types of errors as the first three. Cameron also presented a new theoretical account of reward effects—the fourth by her group, which sequentially abandoned the previous ones as they were found wanting. Cameron concluded again that there is no reason to avoid using performance-contingent rewards in educational settings, yet her application of the research results to education lacks ecological validity."
This debate has gone back and forth for ages, but it is my understanding that Cameron's group's view is considered to be in the minority. EdChem (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with most of the anti-paid editing comments above, and the "let's have the WMF pay its current editors" seems quite naive. I think that might turn "The encyclopedia that anybody can edit," into "The encyclopedia that will pay anybody to edit" which would be an obvious black hole that would suck up a whole universe of money.
Folks may however be surprised that I am willing to support paid editing - just not commercial paid editing on Wikipedia. For example I would love to see all the PR folks get together, write all the CC-by-3.0 text that they'd like and put it all on their own pedia, call it Adopedia for now. I'm sure it would be very fun reading and several years after the fact, when it becomes totally ridiculous, we could show folks why we don't allow undeclared paid editing on WP.
More seriously, I think "we" could bring in some academics to fill a few holes around here. Starting with - "what do we have enough of already?" Biographies, Popular Culture, and Geography (73.6% of all articles) see File:Size of English Wikipedia (1000 vol).svg. These 3 subject areas are not really academic areas (at least in the way we present them). That is not to say that we should remove them, they are perfectly good encyclopedic articles, but the hole is our coverage is pretty much everything else. Such as science, technology, philosophy - really anything technically difficult.
How to do that? I'll suggest a different foundation, formally independent but on speaking terms with the WMF. Let's say foundation 2 (F2) has $1 million to spend. They could request applications for 6 month or 1 year positions - something for folks on sabbaticals or a just retired prof who always wished he/she had the time to work on Wikipedia. Maybe pay the equivalent of $100,000 per annum. Not too many academic folks in SF, NY, or London would probably want to do this, but there are likely very, very many qualified academics who'd enjoy this for one year. I'd require something like the following to be done on Wikipedia: 1. light edits (e.g. inserting good sources and pix, copyediting) of at least 10 articles each week 2. substantial edits (re-ordering sections, adding sections, removing outdated material, integrating topics that aren't well linked) of 1 article per week. 3. Complete re-write of a major article (e.g. Physics or Biology) every 6 months
Of course as paid editors they must declare, work with regular editors, and can't claim any special privileges. On Wikipedia they'd just be another editor.
Substantial edits and complete re-writes should be archived on F2's website, cc-by-3.0 of course.
$1 million could get Wikipedia a lot of material where we need it.
$10 million per year for 10 years would be a revolution.
F2 would be formally independent of WMF, probably run by internet savvy academics.
Formally, I don't think it would even be necessary to ask the WMF's permission to do this. But of course it would be nice to let everybody know what's happening, and a chance to object. If anybody has a few spare $millions, please do let me know. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
For once I fully agree with you Jimbo, invest money into universities and colleges in the developing world in reutrn for students improving content in the developing world. Something where students are going to earn something and gain academic esteem and to really benefit them, and improve wikipedia at the same time. I was thinking about running a contest for Africa sometime, but wasn't sure if WM would support it or the idea of getting universities and schools involved. The prize for improving the most content in a month to whatever could be a grant to study or something. I do think it's something WM should really start to discuss and seriously consider, as our developing world content of course is generally very poor. Brazil given its size in particular the lack of good content on important subjects is severe. For Africa it could also involve Swahili, Afrikaans, Arabic etc wikis and the smaller language ones which have an extreme lack of basic content. Something like this I think would be a good incentive to start to get the smaller language wikis improved, or something which supports translation from English. And then on the charity side, something like $1 million funding annually into African education is going to be immensely productive and help a lot of people. If you're genuine about this Jimbo I'm pleasantly surprised as I didn't think it was something WM would ever be interested in.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
This conversation brought to mind the topic of digital labor and the essay "Thoughts on Wikipedia Editing and Digital Labor", which, as The Signpost reported, received some media attention. I have several work backlogs that I would like to hire someone to work on. One potential pitfall to avoid is having a system where vandals break things intentionally, to fill work queues so that they can get paid for fixing things they broke themselves. Perhaps @EllenCT: and @Hexatekin: can work together to give this topic more exposure. Regarding GLAMS, Wikipedians-in-residence, Wikipedia Visiting Scholars, and interns at university libraries, I'm not sure we're getting our money's worth. I haven't noticed much impact from these on content improvement, though maybe I haven't looked in the right places. What I have noticed of some of the initiatives that bring in new editors, is that generally they are more likely to increase my workload, rather than reduce it. wbm1058 (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad to see this thread has generated some interesting thoughts and discussion. I agree that
Many of our current programs have a limited, but meaningful effect, e.g.
These are the main reasons I suggest the large, technical, super-important science articles, e.g. physics and biology. I don't think most of our current part-time editors have the skills, knowledge, time, and patience to edit these type of articles. Current editors could apply of course, and editing skills should certainly be considered. Focusing on 2,000 such articles (about 0.04%) over 10 years probably wouldn't drive away many editors, but could have a revolutionary effect on the whole encyclopedia.
I do recommend that an outside foundation, not the WMF, do this. So if any potential donors (Bill, George, Warren - this means you!) are reading this and agree, please let me know! I do think this could be done by an outside foundation successfully given our current rules. But perhaps it is all just a pipe dream.
Jimbo's suggestion of graduate fellowships for Africans wouldn't require an outside foundation, shouldn't be controversial, and would have a significant effect on some of the small language editions.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, should the Foundation fund development of a chatbot designed to use the Socratic method to cause epiphanies?[50][51] EllenCT (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The random forest approach seems better. BTW: I see WP (up to May 2016) has had almost nothing about Standford PhD and AI researcher Chuck Rieger, University of Maryland. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
[59] says, "... objectivist tradition ('Objective stimuli are important')...." Which is the least dystopian of the objectivist traditions? EllenCT (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Frequently conflicting authorities include those involving the age of the universe. [60] says it is, "... helpful to bridge the false dichotomy ... between atheistic evolution versus religious creationism." How would a question-answering system best respond to situations where our NPOV policy would likely result in presentation of mainstream and fringe points of view? EllenCT (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Time Inc. evaluates the work of its journalists on the basis of its benefit to advertisers.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
* Well, fortunately, as the one person who painstakingly worked through the sub-pages intended to be the seeds of proxy-starts listed on RAN's user page and who meticulously eliminated all the extended quotations from the citation templates that he was using so that the wolves wouldn't have anything to howl about, I can state with authority that Only in death is constructing a diversionary strawman with all this hoo-haw about Find-a-Grave. Norton's stubby pseudo-starts derive almost exclusively from the New York Times (as copyright compliant rewrites) and generally have little, if anything, to do with Find-a-Grave. ArbCom, in all their short-sighted genius, has subsequently shut down RAN's ability to even do these start-seeds. He has been a bullying victim since day one. He's far from the greatest content writer, but he's a dedicated creator of notable starting stubs and start-quality pieces, or at least he was before the attack dogs tore one of his arms off... Carrite (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, there seems to be something much broader and not indigenous specific going on, in Canada at least, so I will close this discussion here because I do not see how you can help with this. Regarding the Attawapiskat situation, our federal and provincial government are pouring 500 million dollars into 1st. nations initiatives...especially mental health..so maybe that will help. I established contact with 2 teachers in Attawapiskat as well as about 7 "friends" on Facebook including a specific "Attawapiskat Suicide Awareness" group but did not find any interest at all in editing Wikipedia, even though their own articles.... e.g.Cree...have lots of room for expansion. As you can see, there are lots of resources being applied to the issue...its downright horrible that many young people are so messed up. I've been to Woodstock, Ontario and its a gorgeous smaller town...all I can say is I have no idea wtf is going on. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
For further discussion about improving search-in-Wikipedia to pinpoint answers, I have checked the problems caused by unusual page names, or when omitting synonym phrases inside a page. In particular, the renaming of page "Area of a circle" as pagename "Area of a disk" has limited the search listing for "Area of a circle" (as noted in May 2016 RfC: "Talk:Area of a disk#RfC article title: "Area of a circle" or "Area of a disk""). The circle-area problem is a complex case, where extreme use of the term "disk" seems to deter the common search for "area...circle" and hence Google Search lowers WP to pagerank #15 (2nd page of results "area of a circle"), although Bing.com lists Wikipedia on the first page of results. By comparison, a search for "area of a disk" shows WP as result#1, but also lists "Area of an annulus - Math Open Reference" where people think disk area can exclude the hub of the disk (see: Annulus (mathematics)).
Similarly, to broaden a search for related words, then WP pages must contain synonym phrases, either blended into the text or within footnotes, because the current wp:wikisearch does not match as many various synonyms as either Google Search or Bing.com have indexed. For example, if a song contains a famous phrase, then the WP page about the song must be modified to discuss the words mentioned in the phrase; otherwise, wikisearch cannot find the song unless those specific words are noted within the WP song page. WP is severely hindered when people demand a "circle has area zero" because the interior of a circle is a so-called "disk" while ignoring the common-sense tradition of "area of a circle" just like "area of a square" is the area inside the square. The confusion stems from the mathematical view, because a disk (mathematics) is the area inside a circle and the "area" is the "size of the disk".
As discussed for years, some people's unusual warping of terminology really hinders access to information, but with wikisearch, the peculiar phrasing almost totally derails the search function. So we find "one-bad-apple wording" can totally throw the whole bunch of wikisearch into the far reaches of the twilight zone. Hence, bizarre article names (and unusual contents) can almost completely destroy the reader's access in searching. Instead, WP needs more articles targeted to specific common topics (such as "area of a circle" or similar topics), where the internal wording includes popular related phrases, and the page title should not be a purist's demand for unusual wording. Fortunately, most page titles tend to be move-renamed into the wp:COMMONNAME phrases, and the search can be rescued. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, if one wishes to find other articles than just Earth, one need not go to the route of using gibberish to get to the general search page when all one needs to do is add "a" (or "q" or whatever) to the regular search. And, yes, "middle earth" will always show up. Really. Collect (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, when you opposed measuring whether mobile users offered the ordinary desktop interface edit or donate more, you did not seem to offer an actual reason against making the measurement although I think it's fair to say that you implied someone would have to be neo-luddite to think of doing away with the Foundation's custom mobile app content viewers and reassigning their engineering headcount to getting a unified mobile and desktop web experience. While I am vaguely inclined to agree that the Foundation should support diversity in content viewing applications, I just want to be sure that we are not doing so at the expense of editors and donations. And I think it's clear that the existing diversity of web browsers on the different desktop and mobile platforms causes custom content viewer applications to add needless and expensive complexity to an already very complicated software support task, for which there is no clear cost-benefit justification. I doubt dropping mobile apps, if doing so can increase editing contributions and financial donations, will cause anything like the state of mobile app development to return to horse-and-buggy days. Are there any reasons to oppose the measurement? Shameless Hoompa (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I asked that question May 21st. The subsequent discussion is at meta:Talk:Fundraising#Please measure effect of providing desktop interface to mobile users. EllenCT (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Jimmy, I am originally from New Jersey, but now for some years in England. For business, I frequently travel to Nigeria and to Kenya, and the mobile phone situation is maddening to me. I have an Android on Airtel for my Nigeria trips, and also a different SIM chip that I plug in to get Econet in Kenya. When in the UK, I just use my Windows Phone on Lebara's network. It's crazy that I have to have three different mobile numbers for people to reach me, though I'm considering using Google Voice to try to solve for that problem. I am wondering if you could give some advice, as a world traveler, how do you handle your cell phone situation, and what carrier(s) do you use? Don't call me shorely (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Please see WT:RFA#Research-based RFA reform proposal from a 2013 ACM conference. EllenCT (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, please imagine that you wanted to hire professionals to do exactly half as much work of generally the same quality and quantity as volunteers do, but at a competitive wage. How much do you estimate that would cost? EllenCT (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
As a computer scientist, I must emphasize that the most-effective AI systems would be hybrid cooperations, of humans working with computerized AI assistants, rather than computers working alone. In fact, consider how the Watson computer won Jeopardy!, by having humans provide the category data in text form (Watson was not "hearing" the spoken words but rather processing the written text) plus a human gave Watson the "beep" to indicate when the spoken words were finished, as when to respond each time after the host spoke. The human contestants noted that Watson's game advantage came mainly by responding first at the buzzer, to lock out the other contestants from responding to earn the points, which compensated for the wrong (or totally bizarre) answers which Watson gave at times. Imagine if human contestants could each run an AI quick Google search when responding. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not necessary to fork Wikipedia to get a paid editor system going, just the fundraising system. Wikipedia editors could establish a Wikipedia Editor's Union (WEU) with an elected Editorial Board of Directors (elected in similar fashion as the Arbitration Committee). The elected board would be responsible for organizing and supervising compensation systems. Editors not on the elected board could be appointed to help with this. Requests for Comment would likely be used to determine tasks which would be compensated, and the details of how editors would be compensated. WEU would hold annual fundraisers each June, as a bookend to the WMF's December fundraisers. Is this feasible? We would just be asking for donors to give the hardcore editors some cups of coffee and enough money to buy "Lloyd's of London" liability insurance to cover lawsuits over content. Would the WMF use "superprotect" to prevent such June fundraising banners from going online? Comparing this place to a bowling alley is pretty lame. We're not looking for money to pay the bowlers – the vandals, self-promoters and POV-pushers are quite happy to work for free (or get compensated under-the-table from elsewhere). We're looking for money to pay the volunteers who are working the shoe-rental and refreshment stands, and to pay people to clean the grafitti off the bathroom walls. The bowlers are quite disgusted that they have to take a shit in bathrooms that haven't been cleaned in months, for lack of volunteers willing to clean them. Don't tell us to go to the other bowling alley across town; nobody goes there, and who wants to bowl in a place where there are no spectators to appreciate your work? wbm1058 (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see that any of these have been mentioned here yet (sorry if I missed any such discussion):
--David Tornheim (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
More of DeDeo's research on Wikipedia found here:
--David Tornheim (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
"Article Quality" is the most undescriptive and nebulous category I've ever seen. It contains both gnome edits and major content-work, and as such is not representative of anything. Pinguinn 🐧 22:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Rodhullandemu and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, --George Ho (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
–– مجتبیٰ (Talk!) 04:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
So Jimbo is a "new editor" now? Well, I suppose that I'll have to welcome him to Wikipedia! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
While National Security Letters have been cast far and wide as an intelligence dragnet, it appears that the legal authority to demand many types of information, such as browsing history, did not actually exist when the FBI made the demands. Because of gag orders the victims have been greatly hindered from explaining this fact, but some of them were turning over only names and length of service. [65][66][67] The censorship itself, however, was actually upheld -- [68] Now that the limitation on NSLs is finally known the public, of course, the response has been to try to actually give the FBI the power to demand records of browsing history with two separate bills - a provision in S-3017 [69] and (AFAICT) a planned amendment to the "Email Privacy Act" by Senator John Cornyn (OLL16601) on which markup has been delayed [70].
Before we get into what extreme measures history usually has required to roll back such measures, there is no reason for Wikipedia not to take basic measures to head off NSLs before they happen, if it is indeed not too late. The cult of A/B testing or minor interface features are not sufficient excuses to generate records of which IP read what article when that data invites seizure. The data should simply not be generated; if generated anyway it must be immediately disposed; and a firm guarantee needs to be made of this in the privacy policy. As the world saw in the Apple case, there is still some judicial resistance to making programmers add spying features to a system, that does not exist when the information is already being collected. So don't have these features in the system! And fire any moles who try to tell you there's no possible way to do without them. Wnt (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
“Here’s the deal! Our good friend Wikipedia is having selfdoubts and wants you to help improve its links. You are given a Wikipedia article (referred to as the target) and a list of other Wikipedia articles (referred to as source articles). You have to tell Wikipedia if the source article should contain a link to the target. And of course, if you are unsure of what the source or target article means, you can always click on the article name to open it in a new tab.
But remember that Wikipedia is a sensitive fellow and will be mad if you don’t play by the rules: There should be a link from the source to the target if and only if (1) the target article has some relevant information about the source article and could help readers understand the source more fully, or (2) the target article describes a proper name which is likely to be unfamiliar to readers.”
Jimbo, (1) should the Foundation adopt an explicit policy of not sending reader-identifying logs to any destination where the Foundation is not certain to be informed of law enforcement requests for them? (2) Even if that means not storing them at all? (3) Should the reader-identifying log research program used to enhance the see also sections of articles continue? (4) Should Research team members and affiliates who have been working on the reader-identifying logs be offered a choice between working on Communications' reader-understanding projects by enhancing them with recent advances in learner-centered pedagogical techniques and/or working on the dormant program to classify article importance, using measures derived from opinion scores of judges and topic attribute features? EllenCT (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@EpochFail: and @Jbarbara (WMF): I am also very interested in your opinions on question (4). EllenCT (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)