User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 62

Non-profit?

Jimbo,

I'll make this quick. It says here that "all contributions made to the Wikimedia Foundation are tax deductible". Is that only in terms of money? I ask because there are good, hard working people who spend the equivalent of a 40 hour work-week editing and maintaining Wikipedia alone. Doesn't that kind of contribution, that kind of dedication, count as "tax deductible" under the auspices of Wikimedia?

I'm sure this will be deleted off your talk page in a matter of minutes, but I had to ask if only in the interests of those editors who have made Wikipedia into what it is today. Thank you for your time sir. 68.71.52.18 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has no control over what is tax deductible - that's up to the various taxing authorities (governments) of the world. In general, in all jurisdictions that I'm aware of, it is not possible to get a break on your taxes for doing volunteer work for a charity. Whether that would be a good thing or not is of course a complex and interesting question, but not one that the Wikimedia Foundation can really do anything about! :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Bummer... I for one, would love some variation of earned income credit for my work! :D Thelmadatter (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sir.213.229.87.40 (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S., you cannot deduct the value of your time, but you can deduct out of pocket expenses. For example, if you pay by the minute (instead of a flat monthly rate) for Internet use and you have documentation showing how many minutes were spent doing things for Wikipedia... More commonly, if you pay for electricity, then you could try to calculate how much electricity you use doing stuff for Wikipedia and how much it costs you. Do not take this too far; if your home computer breaks and you have to go to the public library to work, and you say that you went there only to do stuff for Wikipedia there, and you try to claim the fuel used driving there, the IRS is not going to believe you... 71.109.145.81 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

categorization of living people

religious and non religious categorization of living people

Hi Jimmy, in January you were added by User:Metal termite to this list List_of_nontheists_(surnames_T_to_Z) using this supporting citation http://bigthink.com/ideas/4870. Would you help clear this up, are your comments in that link the type of comments that should be allowing us to categorize living people as affiliated with this or that philosophy or group. My position would be, no, in the quoted text, atheism and your self identification or affiliation to that group or philosophy is not mentioned in the dialog. You say you are a complete non believer but don't truly specify if this is aligned to an atheist doctrine. Off2riorob (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that, in general, such lists are problematic in a lot of ways. However, if we do have a list like this it should likely be limited to people who are notably non-theist. I'm doubt that I am notably so, as I do not engage in any activities around that, i.e. I don't make speeches about it, I am not the member of any organizations devoted to it, etc. The quote, in particular, is not a very good one because without context, someone might assume that I am a nihilist. I believe lots of things. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your comment. I agree that the question, is this actually noteworthy in the life of this person should be high on our list of inclusion criteria. Just to let you know, the question arose out of a little discussion at the BLPN. As per this discussion, removedOff2riorob (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

List like these always seem to be a little sloppy (perhaps someone has changed their mind, but nevermind we've got a quote so that'll do) and a bit campaigning (looks at all these atheists!). I agree that such should be confined to those notable for the ideology in question, or better use a category. Your religious views, if significant, belong on your biography.--Scott Mac 18:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a subtle difference between nihilist and nihilist but I am glad you are neither lol – Wikipedia would be more uncyclopedia than encyclopedia :¬)

The list being renamed from atheist to nontheist seems a little strange as atheist and nontheist are the same - atheism does not preclude religious beliefs - it would be possible to be a Hindu atheist and not believe in any god Chaosdruid (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Except nontheist is a made up word.--Scott Mac 17:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked out of curiosity and it seems to be used, instead: [1] ; [2]. --Cyclopia^talk 17:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is still a made-up word. That you can find a neologism on Google proves little. See also[3]--Scott Mac 14:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(just for the sake of geeky discussion) I don't get what your example should prove. If it's used in books and articles, it means it's not made-up, it means it's part of the lexicon of the language. --Cyclopia^talk 14:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• - After a discussion on the talkpage the article is moved back to the title List of atheists. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

sir

Thank you. Cwill151 (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Newsletter

GOCE July 2011 backlog elimination drive chart Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! We have now passed the halfway point, so here's an update. Progress Report - Progress toward the targets has been good. 751 articles out of the approximately 1,610 we would like to get completed by the end of the month were done by July 16, so we will be very close to meeting the target for volume. However, we would like to clear all of the 2008 articles from the backlog, and there are still 899 left to do. Please consider choosing one of these older articles when looking for something to copy edit. If we focus our firepower we can completely wipe out 2008 from the queue. Participation Report - 95 people signed up for the July drive. This is a great result compared to May, when we had 36. However, in May only one person that signed up didn't do any copy edits, and in July only 54 of the 91 have posted any copy edits on the big board. The task may seem insurmountable but please remember that if all 95 participants copy edit just one article a day from now until the end of the month, we will eliminate 1,323 more articles from the backlog. So please consider participating at whatever level you can! All contributions are appreciated. This newsletter was prepared for the GOCE by Diannaa (Talk), S Masters (talk), and The Raptor Lettuce talk.

(timestamp for auto-archiving) Fram (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mimi Macpherson

Hi Jimbo. I just wanted to follow up on our discussion about Mimi Macpherson from a little while back, and ascertain the status of your communications with her. Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm off to bed now, but I'll check on this tomorrow if I can. I'll be sending her an email, and since she's in Australia, it will probably be a couple of days for the cycle to complete.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Death anomalies

Hi Jimbo, further to our chat at Talk:Friedrich von Bömches, I was wondering if you would like to make a comment in this proposed signpost article? ϢereSpielChequers 16:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, how about something like this: "I'm excited to see this kind of machine-assisted editing. In the foreseeable future, it will not be possible for machines to actually make judgment calls about editorial matters, but it is entirely possible for this type of work, as well as more advanced semantic analysis, to provide useful assistance to human editors, particularly in finding contradictions and anomalies. Merlissimo is a rock star!"--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That's even more commas in one sentence that I usually manage! ;) --Tango (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, don't know if it will make today's signpost, but its submitted. Any suggestions as to how else I could promote this to other wikis - I'm afraid it all started just too late to Gdansk. ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Jimbo :D. Merlissimo 13:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Jimbo, following the comments from you and others on the BLP noticeboard about the coverage of Lord Monckton's relationship with the House of Lords, I've posted a proposed revised text at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley‎#Monckton and Parliament. Any views you might have would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Climategate name change debate

Jimbo, there is another debate on the proper name for the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, proposing that it be renamed to Climategate per Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality and article titles which states in part: True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.

Your prior comments on the issued are being argued by both sides to infer your support of their position, and I thought it might be easier just to ask you to comment on it, so there is no question. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 22:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, GregJackP Boomer! 23:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In keeping with my comment in that discussion, I would request that, rather than clarifying his past statements, Jimbo weigh-in on whether this is an issue worthy of ArbCom or not. I would even go so far as to ask that he refer the matter there himself, removing further delay in having to apply to hear the matter (however, if he feels arbitration would be warranted but does not wish to wield that sort of influence on the proceedings, I would be willing to put a few days into a proper application).

The amount of time being expended in further debating the matter passed into a state of unconstructive long ago and even if there existed some middle ground on which mediation could find purchase, I cannot fathom the results would be accepted by current (or future) parties for very long. Additionally, a final decision through arbitration would set important precedent in the project's convention for article titles.
--K10wnsta (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Other than some general carping on all sides, there does not appear to me to be a breakdown of constructive dialog on this particular topic. Yes, there are predictable partisans (on both sides) who are unfairly trying to paint others. Yes, there is a small amount of heat. But mostly this is a civilized attempt to find consensus. The previous compromise, which I still weakly support even though I think from a content perspective it is not the optimal solution yet, is being questioned: there is no harm in that.

The issue I see here is that all sides appear to accept Wikipedia's general conventions for article titles, but no one has yet hit upon the right answer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Existence of God.

Wikipedia appears to me like a movement of giving/spreading knowledge to everyone without any anticipation. A great (though not a perfect word) idea and action, I have ever seen.

My topic/questions is.. What do you say about the existence of God ?

Suresh, Hyderabad, India 210.210.13.126 (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Existence of God? - WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Afghan War Diary links

There is a current thread at Talk:The_War_Logs#Remove_easy_access_to_the_papers_from_wikipedia regarding linking to wikileaks. User:Bdell555 is stating that we cannot link to wikileaks because he the material may have been illegally obtained. Is a direct link to wikileaks allowed?Smallman12q (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I really have to say about it is that I wish people would stop citing WP:NOTCENSOR all the time. It almost never answers anyone's actual objections, and it may seriously mislead people who hear it for the first time. It sounds like an "in your face" kind of "we don't care about what happens" when in fact, we in general can, should, and do follow thoughtful, careful, respectful, serious linking policies that do involve - at times - declining to link to material that is in some way illegal or harmful.

That doesn't answer the question of whether we should link in this particular case - I think we should - but it does say that those arguing for linking can't simply say WP:NOTCENSOR and expect that to carry the day.

There are various factors that we should weigh thoughtfully, and one of them is the potential for a link to these documents to cause harm. That's actually a completely valid question that deserves an answer. And I think it can be answered quite well with two points: first, the documents are already all over the Internet and in global news headlines - anyone who wants to look at them can, no problem, and Wikipedia won't make a bit of difference in that regard. Second, President Obama himself said ""While I'm concerned about the disclosure of sensitive information from the battlefield, that could potentially jeopardise individuals or operations, the fact is these documents don't reveal any issues that haven't already informed our public debate on Afghanistan." [4]--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator Election

Just curious, how do arbitrators get elected/selected? AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 01:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ACE. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious

Dear Sir, I'm just curious as to whether you think it is alright for admins to call users "d*cks" (but with an i instead of a *)? EVula called me this repeatedly on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong, but I didn't realize it was okay to be sweared at by administrators in the process. Just wondering whether this was the future of being part of the WP community? Thanks for your contributions towards society. Sincerely, Njsustain (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DICK. It isn't good to call someone a dick, but it is even better not to be one.--Scott Mac 18:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up the acceptable etiquette here on WP, sad as it apparently is. Njsustain (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Context: I said "I honestly think Njsustain is being a bit of a dick here." The fact that you're commenting about this all over the place after saying you were done with the content debate (where you were insulting another editor, for the record) just makes me feel pretty damn sure of my initial reaction. (yes, I just used profanity; oh well) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you keep trying to defend your actions just makes me feel pretty dams sure that your actions were indeed inappropriate. Oh well. Njsustain (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think administrators should never call other users "dicks" under any circumstances whatsoever. It's not the worst thing in the world, of course, but neither does that make it ok.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be a largely semantic debate, but (personally) I think there's a difference between saying "you're a dick" and "you're acting like a dick". The latter is the correct context for the statement (direct link to the thread can be found at WP:ANI#Disruption by User Njsustain). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but notice the impact here. Instead of focusing on the content dispute, which is a perfectly legitimate one, the complainant has degenerated into anger over behavior. (Notice that in saying that the dispute is a legitimate one, I'm not taking sides on who is right in the dispute.) I still think it is best to avoid personal attacks and language which may tend to inflame a dispute rather than calming it. We all fail in this at times, of course, I'm not blaming you or attacking you for it. I'm just saying, it's best if we don't do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair stance. I honestly didn't think it would incense the situation as much as it did, but then again, I've got a considerably thicker skin than some. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm wondering if the article in question meets WP:GNG and if it does I'm wondering if the policy needs to be fixed. There are millions of restaurants that have similar coverage in local media because they are popular and successful to some degree at PR. I wonder what benefit it is to have articles on them in an encyclopedia. We're not Zagat's, Citisearch or Yelp the last time I checked. I would propose that a majority of articles in Category:Restaurants in the United States by state should not exist here at Wikipedia but maybe my opinion is not shared by others. It strikes me that the type of coverage they get in local media, in the "lifestyle section" type areas of newspapers and magazines, is not a result of the type of notability we are concerned with here but instead local popularity and good PR. Shouldn't there be something other than this type of coverage necessary for a consumer based commercial establishment? I'm curious about your opinion on this.Griswaldo (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CORP applies to any business that has an article on Wikipedia. If they fail to meet the notability guidelines, they shouldn't have an article. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this one meet that policy? If it does, once again I pose the broader question, should it meet that policy? Are restaurant reviews and lifestyle articles about popular eateries the types of coverage we want to use to write encyclopedia articles with?Griswaldo (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask a more specific question. Are restaurant reviews considered news, and given the answer to that how should they be considered when we talk about things like "significant coverage" and notability criteria?Griswaldo (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to me to decide policy at that level of scale, and so I offer only a general opinion. I think that having such articles is not within the scope of Wikipedia for a number of reasons, more or less along the lines that Griswaldo has outlined. It should be noted, since it accidentally and foolishly made headlines a few years ago, that I started the entry Mzoli's, but I did so on the premise that the restaurant is culturally interesting, as it has been popular with both whites and blacks in a South African township, and because of various complexities surrounding its impact on the community.

A quite nice local wine bar, unless it has some wider impact, isn't really the same thing.

There are a number of reasons we might not want such articles - the article we have now is a case in point - it reads like an advertisement for the restaurant, and having lots and lots of these would surely invite lots more local businesses to try to get an article in Wikipedia. This will lead to a lot of difficult maintenance issues, etc.

On the other hand, it can be argued, and surely will be argued, and there are valid points here, that as long as there is coverage in reliable sources, why not have it? If, as in this case, all the coverage is favorable, so that all one can really say about the restaurant is that it seems delightful, then so be it. (Note well: I don't think anyone is arguing that this is a restaurant like El Bulli which is famous for having a major impact on how people think about cuisine, etc.)

I think this is a discussion worth having.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Article is also in the queue to receive DYK hook, wiki front page publicity.Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I started a discussion here as well -Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Restaurant_notability. The first response has been that the article fails WP:CORP because the coverage is all local and regional. The fact that it is in line for Did You Know seems highly suspect to me. The fact that any restaurant would be in line for DYK as a general item of interest, and not in relation to a significant news item, seem completely ridiculous. How is that not simply PR being done on our part? This is exactly the kind of thing that is troubling me.Griswaldo (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. I just took a quick look to try to figure out where to object to it appearing in DYK until some issues are resolved, but I couldn't figure it out. (I've never had anything to do with the DYK process. Do you know where I should object?) My view is that this DYK listing should at a minimum be delayed by a couple of weeks - this isn't a "timely" issue and reflecting on it will be a good thing. I will ask Cirt on his talk page if he will support this delay.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hooks been removed Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Original point

Jimbo, I have to say that I'm still a little bit concerned about the reception that Njsustain received when s/he tried to take on this matter originally. I know you are not the enforcer of behavioral rules around here but I wanted to make this comment out loud because the original discussion was about that reception. Njsustain has probably learned something about better ways to handle these types of issues but it is very disheartening to see several admins on AN/I overlook the very clear issues with the entry to the benefit of a fellow admin. Njsustain clearly had a very relevant gripe here, and it would be good to know that admins hanging around AN/I will evaluate these things a bit more thoroughly before jumping to their buddy's defense. I hope they are also learning from this incident as I'm sure Nj is. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, people have different thresholds for what constitutes civility. I have a box on my userpage telling people they are free to swear and curse as much as they desire, because I understand that people sometimes need to vent. I don't mind profanity at all, but there are those who do, and it's sometimes hard to tell who'll be offended by what. If someone told me that my work on an article was a "pile of goddamned shit", I wouldn't have any problem with it as long as they could point to a reson why. I may disagree, but at least I know where they're coming from. Others don't take to that so kindly, so it's a bit confusing. As to calling someone a dick, I suppose if you have someone who hasn't read WP:DICK that it could be seen as offensive, but as someone who's only been around for 5 months, I quickly picked up on the fact that saying someone is a dick on Wikipedia isn't the same as saying that in real life. But that's just my take. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about the "dick" comment than the hostility minus any real attempt to look into the situation (the second part especially).Griswaldo (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• - I have sent the article to AFD for discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@EVula, According to WP:DICK, "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is usually a dick-move — especially if it's true. It upsets the other person and it reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say." So it makes yourself a DICK if you have called Njsustain a dick, according to the essay that you have used to call him a dick!

@Jimbo: What kind of essays or policies are these things? Are we going to have also WP:ANUS, WP:PUSSY and WP:TIT in the near future?--Policy writer (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:BEANS- now that you've said that, someone will do it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And now you're a dick for remarking that I'm a dick for saying that Njsustain was acting like a dick. (and now I'm a dick yet again for remarking on this fact) This is a fun game to play. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Internet used to be run by thick skinned elephants. Nowadays it's Eternal September: as more people come online , we have more PFY's throwing out much more profanity than they used to, and also much thinner skinned people coming online too. Ye Olde Elephants tend to flock to new innovations, and were the first to populate wikipedia, hence some of our older users and policies use more colorful language than the newer ones. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC) goshdangit!

These sweeping generalizations are preposterous. I've been on the net since '86. Just because I don't use middle school locker room language and expect others not do so either in polite conversation, doesn't mean I am thin skinner nor a "PFY" just a gentleman (or if were applicable, a lady). Being around WP or the net a while doesn't mean it becomes okay to use impolite language. It's still rude, whether you are used to it or not.Njsustain (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But that's the point; just because it's rude to you doesn't make it rude to everyone else. I don't consider profanity an issue, and use it quite freely at times; all it means is that you and I think differently. The problem with civility is that it's such a subjective term, and it's not possible to discuss certain things/behaviors without offending people. I do tone my language down around users I don't know; however, I wouldn't think twice about saying someone was acting like a dick if I thought so, because I can't imagine that it offends too many people (obviously it offends you, I just wouldn't have assumed that). Besides, WP:DICK is somewhat humorous (at least in my view), so I'd actually consider it a softer way of pointing it out to someone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not the point. WP is meant for everyone to read, and to edit. It is meant for the general public, and therefore you should act (i.e. use language) that is appropriate for when you are dealing with the general public, not language that is appropriate for when you are hanging out with your buddies, or are in the locker room, or are in your RL workplace where whatever standards of language have developed and are understood by everyone. When you are dealing with the general public, in order to be polite you must refrain from profanity, which is considered rude in that venue, whether you believe you were being rude or not. In any case, what is the point of using this language? Is "You're [acting like] a dick" really a helpful, rational conclusion, or is it just name calling? Would the manager of a restaurant tell a customer, "Well, I'm sorry you didn't you like your service, but you are being a dick"? No, he can say what is the case, "Well, I'm sorry you didn't like your service, but you changed your order four times and are being unreasonable in your expectations." Using profanity doesn't help the situation, and telling people they are "thin skinned" for not believing it is appropriate is immature and just fans the flames. If one believes there is as different etiquette which has developed in WP, one that is quite different from what is considered appropriate when dealing with the general public, and one that permits the leaders (administrators) to use profanity towards users as a way of dealing with issues, then, IMO, you don't "get" what WP is about or for, are unable to deal with people in a manner which leads to solving problems, and, frankly, Mr. Wales has clearly stated it's inappropriate. And, quite frankly, to me, it seems more like admins are backing up other admins for the sake of backing up admins/buddies rather than to solve problems and/or establish standards which lead to solving problems. The purpose of administrators is to allow editing to occur more smoothly and improve WP, not to create an aristocracy of editors who can say, write, and do whatever they want. Njsustain (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But, we don't bend ourselves to conform to your views on profanity. Walking into Wikipedia is to walk into a vast conglomeration of voices, personalities, and mannerisms. Just as you would expect in any other generalized social space. If you go in to such a space not expecting to be occasionally offended, then quite frankly you're gonna be in for a bit of a course correction. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

They're not my views (exclusively), they are society's views, and when it involves people in positions of authority, such as administrators here, the ante is upped. They are expected to behave more appropriately, not make excuses for behaving less so. Again, telling people they need a "course correction" is being rude and further fanning flames, not trying to solve problems.Njsustain (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not my society, it isn't. Just thicken your skin a bit and move on. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't deny that not all societies are the same, but why do you get to decide who needs to be more polite and who needs to have a thicker skin? It seems to me Mr. Wales has already drawn the line on the other side of calling people "dicks" (as does the "WP: DICK" standards). Maybe it's you who should think about using more appropriate language on WP. (For the record, my "society" is the United States, which has a rather uniform standard for what is appropriate language when dealing with the general public.) Njsustain (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I do use profanity in public, and I honestly don't give a fuck- I live in the US as well, and that's never stopped me. And I'm no admin here, I just joined in early March. Since when is "dick" profane? I'd JDI and move on. And by the way, you should read WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your profanity and pointing out a littany of "rules" in attempt to state your case speaks for itself. I don't (and no one else does) need WP rules to know what or who is flagrantly inappropriate and impolite. on WP or in public, but if you think it's appropriate, and only if you think it's appropriate for me to say, then please do STFU, MYOB, TCBY, etc. And frankly, "IDGAF" what you do in public, and what *you* do doesn't make something right or wrong. Some people go aroung robbing people, kicking punching people, or raping people. That doesn't make those practices appropriate. Your everyday language may not be illegal (actually, it is in some cases and places) but is inappropriate, and shouldn't be the standard for WP just because it doesn't bother you. Additionally, whether "dick" is considered profane or not, it is still rude and pointless in the discussions here at WP. Njsustain (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we just agree to disagree here? I think we've all got better things to do, like building the encyclopedia, than to keep beating this dead horse. No one's changing anyone's language patterns here, so lets just back off... and get back to the important parts of Wikipedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we disagree, but this isn't just about what is or isn't appropriate language (which we supposedly or hopefully learn in kindergarten or sooner). I wasn't just called a dick by a random person over a run of the mill editing matter, I was called a dick (or that I "acted like one"... whatever, as if that makes a difference) by an administrator/bureaucrat in response to another administrator who had a conflict of interest (not necessarily in the article, but in my suggestion that that article may have had a NPOV or COI) asking that another administrator look into my so-called "disruptive behavior." Is this the way that conflicts should be appropriately handled by the leaders of WP? No, it was a totally uncalled for response. A person admits he needs someone to see how a situation can be revolved, and profanity, or at least, less than "smooth" language is used in the attempt to do so? That's not how leaders should act. I admire Mr. Wales, not because he is the "owner" of WP, but because he handles this and other situations not as a polititian, but politely and equitably in a manner that is directed at solutions, not pointless accusations -- my original edit was an attempt towards a solution toward improvement, even if it wasn't originally perceived as such by all. I DON'T expect everyone on WP or in society in general to act and talk like we are at the Ladies' Wednesday Afternoon Garden Party, but I DO expect leaders to act appropriately and civilly, especially when they are trying to address a dispute, supposedly objectively. I didn't see that happening in this case, and in fact felt it flew in the face of the entire administrative system on WP. So, yes, I do think it is an issue that needs looking at, and no, I don't think I'm beating a dead horse.Njsustain (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll say this much; if I ever interact with you in the future, I'll make it a point to avoid profanity. It does say on my talkpage that I'll tone down my language on request. That much I can say; beyond that, I'm not committing to anything, and I don't think you'll get much more out of anyone else. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I'm guessing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above; I consider there to be a big difference between saying you are a dick and saying that you're acting like a dick (specifically, the former is a direct insult, while the latter is merely a personal opinion). Sorry if you're offended by the wording of my remark, but I stand by my assessment of your behavior; I'll see your WP:DICK (er, wait, what?) and counter with WP:SPADE. I could have had a bit more tact in what I said, but I didn't, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it now.
I also don't consider what I said to be particularly profane, though as it's been pointed out, profanity is sometimes in the ear of the beholder... er, behearer? Eh, whatever, you get the point. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for bringing up WP: SPADE. So, explain why was it okay for you to call me a d*ck because I was calling a spade a spade? Many people, including Mr. Wales have stated that the piece in question looks like (or just outright is) an ad, spam, puffery, etc., but for my big "crime" of attempting to point that out and request a discussion on the matter (even if this newbie regarding such procedures pulled some of the wrong levers when doing so), I am a "d*ck"? It seems to me my real crime for which I was accused was calling a spade a spade that happened to involve an editor who was also an administrator. For that I am [acting like] a "d*ck"???

Also, conveniently, the WP: SPADE states: "Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review." Forgive me for not having read all of these rules... they constitute an encylopedia unto themselves... but I don't need to read tomes of WP philosophy and become a virtual "WP Rules Lawyer" to see what is clearly inappropriate. However, this quote succinctly states what has happened here: someone was trying to cover his tracks by bringing up a bunch of rules and accusing me of utter incivility. One can admit it and let us move on to real issues, or stand behind one's buddies no matter what through rationalizations and namecalling.Njsustain (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Njsustain, you were acting like a dick upon reviewing the AN/I. Being told you're acting like a dick when you know you're acting like a dick must be annoying, sure, but don't act like a dick in the first place and you won't get told you're a dick. I wouldn't say that it was uncivil of EVula at all, just relax. Worse things have happened. -- Jack•?! 00:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Distortions and bias in scientific coverage

Everytime I come across articles on controversial science subjects I am astounded to see how distorted and disparaging Wikipedia's coverage is about minority viewpoints and the people who espouse them. One example is user:keepcalmandcarryon's ongoing campaign to disparage biographical subjects like Philip E. Johnson, who questioned the HIV-AIDS connection. He misrepresents sources, for example this 1995 letter shows that the subject signed onto the opinion that [5] "Other independent researchers should examine the validity of the so-called "AIDS tests," especially when these tests are used in Africa and Southern Asia, to see if they reliably record the presence of antibodies, let alone live and replicating virus." But it's being used to state that "HIV tests do not detect HIV". Where does it say that? Is questioning a connection the same as saying it does not exist? And why is the present tense being used for an opinion stated in the mid-90s? Here is the article before his disortions were added which I think is quite clear [6].

Of course anyone seeking to correct the subtle distortion and disparagement used to advance favored POVs is labeled as a fringe nutjob and attacked. Frankly, if Wikipedia can't do a better job of abiding by its own BLP policies I wonder if it should be shut down.

The problem of the William Connolleys and the Mastcells who use the encyclopedia to advance their personal beliefs and abuse their roles as admins and editors is widespread. Even dispute tags and citation needed tags from controversial content are removed, and the noticeboards are abused to go after those making an effort to make the accounts accurate.

In the Peter Duesberg article they've gone as far as reordering the chronology of his career so the article focuses almost exclusively on his controversial views on AIDS. I have no objection to being clear and straightforward about controversies and criticisms, they are certainly missing from much of our political coverage, but outright lying and distortions of this sort, misrepresentations of what is in sources, and maligning of unpopular subjects is beyond the pale. There should be zero tolerance for editors and especially admins who engage in these pursuits or aid them in any way. I have never had cause to doubt the HIV-AIDS connection and it certainly represents what I consider a fringe viewpoint, now more than ever, but we shouldn't lie about what kind of opinions those questioning consensus views held or seek to disparage and misrespresent the facts about their careers. I would appreciate your suggestions on how to address this serious problem on Wikipedia. The denialist article was a good example of how terms are being defined in a selective way and then used in other articles to disparage subjects, although I see now it has been improved a bit. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to report that after the posting of this comment Mastcell has made some needed improvements to Duesberg's article. But the difficulty of a good faith editor trying to get these widespread problems addressed remains, and the tacticcs of obstruction and collusion need to be exposed to the light of day. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I made those changes before you posted here, as the timestamps indicate. You've already opened two threads on WP:BLP/N (here and here), edit-warred aggressively and without justifciation on multiple articles, thrown around an increasingly aggressive series of attacks on everyone who disagrees with you (which, at present, is basically everyone you're interacting with), filled article talk pages with attacks on other editors in lieu of content discussion (here, here), berated me for a "BLP violation" on an article I don't think I've ever even edited ([7]), charged your fellow editors with "despicable lies and distortions", and now ended up here at the forum-shopper's final stop. And that's only in the past 6 hours or so. Please, for everyone's sake, chill out a little. MastCell ^Talk 21:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am raising these issues because they are widespread. You helped fix one small part of them finally, but continue to obstruct other improvements even in instances where you acknowledge the distortions taking place. That's not acceptable. Why is a view someone held in the 1990s being presented in the present tense? Why was a disputed tag removed despite an active debate on the accuracy of the article contents? Why are you standing by and questioning me for pointing out obvious mispresentations of what's in the sources? You're clearly part of the problem, and while I did indeed err in my statement about when your improvement came, I stand by my statement that you are one of the editors (and admins) actively obstructing NPOV coverage of controversial science subjects. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Earlier today, at MastCell's suggestion, I added a sentence stating that Phillip Johnson's present position on HIV/AIDS is unknown. Honestly, I consider this just a tad lawyerly (and also unsourced). It's like writing that Barack Obama supported health care reform, but we don't know his current position since he hasn't made a statement on it since Sunday. In fact, a 2009 news source cited in the article attributes the denialist position to Johnson. But I was willing to do it in an attempt to calm the situation at the article. It obviously didn't work. In any case, it seems to be a rather minor issue, and one that's been resolved to Freakshownerd's satisfaction. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example of damaging slander just added by Keepcalmandcarryoh: (Johnson) "has also lamented the presence of Muslims on US university campuses, ascribing to Muslims a chilling effect on free speech."

The actual statement from the source [8] (in response to a question about 9/11) is: "Now we're seeing how the country is almost cringing in fear of these Muslim terrorists from the Middle East. I see professors afraid to discuss the subject because they're afraid of what the Muslim students will do. They're afraid it won't keep the peace on campus. I never thought our country would descend to this level."

It's a clear and intentional distortion and misrespresentation that is absolutely slanderous. And if Keepcalmandcarryon isn't blocked for the pattern of the malicious misrespresentations he's adding to these article subjects, then my point is really made for me, is it not? And please don't accuse me of making legal threats. If he is allowed to distort article content then I hope someone does sue to shut down the propogation of these disgusting lies, but it won't be me files the claim, I can't be bothered. I'm just pointing out the problem in clear and accurate language. Wikipedia is being used to viciously disparage and attack subjects that aren't popular with a group of powerful admins and editors, and nothing is being done to stop them. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice that I included the entire quote in the citation precisely so Freakshownerd and other editors could confirm it. Johnson states that Muslim terrorists attacked the US and that free speech is chilled on campus because Muslim students are present and professors are afraid of them. Elsewhere in the interview, Johnson states that the US is in the described state of affairs because of the notion that different religions should be given different respect when, in his words, Christianity is the true religion. How is anything I've written a distortion of Johnson's views? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing that the editors of articles about religious or idealogical ideas, theories, or beliefs need to remember is that to help the article be more NPOV, the article first needs to describe, without taking a side, how the person, group, or idea views itself. Then, a "criticism" or "controversy" section can be included, but should not be any longer in length than the description section. Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of that approach, because it creates a he-said, she-said structure. I think it's always preferable to integrate reliable sources into a flowing, coherent narrative as opposed to presenting a sympathetic view first followed by a "criticism" section. Certainly, as a reader, I find that approach much more useful. WP:STRUCTURE and Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode are relevant - while the latter is an essay, I think its (facetious) example is on point. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

MastCell, I would agree with you under any other circumstances. This isn't 1954 and there is generally no need to follow the "Equal Time" guidelines when both commentary and criticism can be made into a coherent narrative and an NPOV BLP, and in which case the amount of both is determined by the amount of information one can reliably source (and not distort) . However, that tactic sometimes fails and I feel it might have here. This subject is a Law professor who in his later years began supporting alternative scientific theories. His biography/notability is not about his work in the field of Law, nor is it his publications or discoveries in the field of the Natural Sciences; His story is his controversial beliefs. Given that, I would in fact advocate a separation of support and criticism as it may or may not be impossible to integrate the two into a BLP that could be considered NPOV. Distortion of sources however, is another matter entirely. Cwill151 (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A minor clarification: this law professor hasn't been "supporting alternative scientific theories", he's been actively promoting theistic realism to replace natural science for the political ends set out in the wedge document. He's known for his politics as much as his beliefs. Wikipedia reports on minority viewpoints while giving due weight to majority views, including showing the majority views of the minority or fringe viewpoints. Particularly pseudoscience. Not always easy, and always likely to attract complaints of "bias" from true believers in the minority view or their sympathisers. . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk page of User vs. Article

I don't get it. - 24.228.98.108 (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The talk page of a user is used to discuss that user's contributions to Wikipedia, while the talk page of an article is used to discuss that particular article. I hope this helps. The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 14:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"I would personally like to medicate this idiot with a very large right fist..."

Perhaps you have an opinion to offer in this AN/I discussion involving the activities of an admin, WP:NPA, and civility in general? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why you specifically solicit the opinion of Jimbo in this discussion? Fram (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that it would have something to do with him being the founder of a website where admins are threatening violence to people. But thats just a guess.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has publicity expressed a personal interest in the general issue of civility on the internet. I don't expect his opinion, if he chooses to express one, will count for more than anyone else's in this particular instance. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Many people have expressed their interest in such things, e.g. by participating in discussions on the policy talk pages of NPA or of CIVIL. You are not contacting any of these. Any reason why you specifically solicit Jimbo's opinion? Fram (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me be absolutely clear on one thing: I think it is absolutely perfectly appropriate for people to come to me with information and concerns about admin misbehavior, and I think Delicious carbuncle for bringing this to my attention. I am concerned, Fram, that you would try to discourage people from contacting me - I can't think of any reasonable basis for doing that. It is important to me that I keep track of what is going on, and it is helpful to me to be pointed to interesting and important discussions of all kinds. Why shouldn't that happen?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, Delicious Carbuncle was:

a) trying to make a mountain out of an out-of-context molehill

b) "asking the other parent" when the consensus at ANI was that it was, indeed, a molehill

c) edit warring at WP:NPA to make a point[9][10][11]

--Enric Naval (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I still would like for people to never discourage others from speaking to me. Considering that I don't intervene at this level, it can't really be forum shopping. It does, however, inform my thinking about things in general to be kept aware of concerns that people have. That's important. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll continue to discourage people to come to you though when it is obvious that they are doing so for canvassing reasons, in the hope of getting an argument from authority. You could easily frequent WP:ANI, WP:AN, and other relevant noticeboards where admin behaviour is routinely discussedn if you want to stay informed. That you don't consider canvassing a "reasonable basis" for concern is in itself telling. You no longer intervene perhaps, but you comment, and people use such comments as having more weight than other people's comments. That may not be how you see it or want it, but it is a reality and the sole reason why some discussions are brought to your attention. Fram (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest that the basis of WP:NPA is respect for others; and perhaps someone who has given their time to improving the encyclopedia should be respected for their efforts, and their unusual lapse in voicing their frustration at a persistent vandal returning to disrupt the project in their accustomed manner, might be shown that respect by not having their intemperate remarks promoted as reason to question both their ability and dedication to the encyclopedia. That same respect should also be apparent that when a majority of commentators opine that there is no grounds for a review of the admin over the one instance, that an appeal to a apparent voice of authority - in the hope of a different opinion - is inappropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)**Addendum. I have blocked Delicious carbuncle for 24 hours - I have given my rationale at ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians are real people. They get stressed, annoyed, curse at people. It's obviously an empty threat. Some things shouldn't be taken so seriously. -- Jack•?! 01:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. A single out-of-character outburst should be noted and forgiven. A pattern of behavior suggests that a break from the project, or finding a new hobby, could be better for everyone. There's no reason to be super uptight about admins sometimes saying the wrong thing - but neither should we accept it as being perfectly ok and thereby empower and forgive behavior that is to the detriment of the encyclopedia. We can both insist on high standards generally, and recognize human frailty. Balance is the key.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jimbo. I'm sure you have heard of Bambifan before now as he is a particulary notorious troll and vandal. PM has been battling this particular vandal for years, and has tried every tool available to him to find some permanent resolution to the problem, including contacting ISPs with abuse reports, rangeblocking half of BellSouth, and even offering to mentor Bambifan. Nothing has made a bit of difference. I fully agree with PM that it is probably time some legal action was taken, but of course that would mean finding out who he really is. Dealing with obsessive people can be very frustrating, in the case of this particular user it can also get exceptionally personal. He will actually create socks to deliberately get the attention of users who have blocked or reported him in the past, like he misses you when your not around. PM is now on a break, and now DC is blocked for trying to edit-war his view of this matter into policy. What sucks is that this sort of chaos is exactly what BF101 wants to happen. If there is anything else that can be done about BF101 in the front office I urge you to do it. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Slander of biographical subjects

I am sorry to say that a day later individuals remain slandered by willfull distortions and misrepresentation of their comments and views in Wikipedia articles. It is distressing to see that you and admins like Mastcell are willing to stand by while the people who are article subjects are denigrated in this way.

I challenge you to find a reliable source that says Philip E. Johnson wrote that "HIV tests do not detect HIV". This is an utter fabrication. It is also false that he has written that "HIV does not cause AIDS". He questioned the relation between the two in the 1990s and called for further study. His article also includes innaccurate paraphrases of cherry picked quotes taken out of context. Nowhere does Johnson say "the US has lost its strength by relinquishing its faith in the 'true God'" Nowhere does he state a goal of trying to return "Christianity to pride of place in US society." And it's also misleading to say that he says "academics are afraid to discuss certain subjects because they fear Muslim students," when in fact he said that professors were afraid to discuss the subject of Muslim terrorism for fear of how Muslim students will react. In each case we see his words and writings being twisted and distorted, misrepresented, taken out of context, and used to denigrate him and his views.

If you take the BLP policy as well as our other editing policies seriously, I call on you to take swift action to empower good faith editors and administrators to take on this epidemic of attacks on biographical subjects and the misguided editors and admins who are carrying them out and encouraging them. There are many more examples of this kind of distortion and abuse and it needs to stop. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This tidbit in the Bradley Manning article is another example: "However, in light of Manning's micro viewpoint of the war, he instead decided he knew better than anyone else and endangered thousands of soldiers lives by leaking the classified information."

Maybe you'll be more responsive when someone subpeona's you? I'm going to keep making you aware of biased, improperly cited, and slanderous content until you respond. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit to Arrest of Bradley Manning was vandalism, made by an account named Goeatadick11 (talk · contribs) which I've blocked for an obvious username issue. Vandalism of BLPs is a real and ongoing concern, albeit separate from your accusations against good-faith editors. I've invoked pending changes protection on the Bradley Manning article since it is, in effect, a BLP and has been subject to inappropriate editing from new users and IPs. It seems like this is the kind of situation for which pending changes was designed. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why haven't you taken action to correct the pattern of slanderous misinformation and distortion being included in the Philip E. Johnson article? Do you think it's appropriate for the lie that Johnson wrote that "HIV test do note test for HIV" to stand? Here's a search for Philip E. Johnson and HIV tests don't test for HIV: [12]. Guess what website is the only one containing that information? And of course it's not in the cites added by user:keepcalmandcarryon to falsely suggest it's valid content. Are you suggesting that individuals repeatedly adding lies to articles with bogus citations are acting in good faith? Is that Wikipedia's official stand? Because my conclusion is that administrators who threaten good faith editors trying to clean up BLP violations are guilty of collusion and improper behavior themselves. You are culpable. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read this article, which is cited in Philip E. Johnson? Once you have, let's discuss this at Talk:Phillip E. Johnson. As an aside, if you're able to reign in the aggressive belligerence, it will be that much easier to discern valid points amidst the sound and fury of your posts. MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely you're not suggesting that this passage "The claimed correlation between HIV and AIDS is flawed at an even more fundamental level, however. Even if the "AIDS test" were administered in every case, the tests are unreliable. Authoritative papers in both Bio/Technology (June 1993) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (November 27, 1991) have shown that the tests are not standardized and give many "false positives" because they react to substances other than HIV antibodies. Even if that were not the case, the tests at best confirm the presence of antibodies and not the virus itself, much less the virus in an active, replicating state. Antibodies typically mean that the body has fought off a viral infection, and they may persist long after the virus itself has disappeared from the body. Since it is often difficult to find live virus even in the bodies of patients who are dying of AIDS, Gallo and others have to speculate that HIV can cause AIDS even when it is no longer present and only antibodies are left." can be paraphrased into HIV tests do not test for HIV"? And I see that the same editor has carried out his dishonest smeary attacks at the Kary Mullis page as well. Let's keep this discussion out in the open. Is that section what you're talking about in trying to claim that Johnson has stated that HIV tests don't test for HIV? Do you dispute that they test for HIV by detecting HIV antibodies, antigens, or RNA, rather than the virus itself, which was s omething he noted in questioning how accurate the tests were in detecting the virus itself? Do you support these distortions of what he's actually saying to try to make him look silly? Freakshownerd (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss AIDS-denialist talking points with you on Jimbo's talk page. (OK, just one: what do mean when you say HIV tests detect HIV antigens and RNA, not "the virus itself"? What do you think a virus consists of? How do you think viruses are generally detected in medical practice?) If you want to discuss this further, then I'll be happy to do so on the article talk page, which is the appropriate venue. MastCell ^Talk 04:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that this dispute is a routine editing dispute that ought to be easy to resolve. One of the best ways to improve things, when people are concerned that a summary of someone's view is not accurate, is to quote the person directly, or to propose an alternative summary to try to find agreement. On the specific content issue, I think it fairly clear that "HIV tests do not test for HIV" - as a standalone - is not an uncontroversial summary of Johnson's position. But surely there is a summary of his position that can be found readily which both captures the nuance of what he was saying, and yet would satisfy those who would be critical of him. I don't know enough about the history of this particular controversy (I remember reading about it 10 years ago or so) to be able to write a proper summary of his position myself, but I do know that it is very often that case that scientists who take minority positions, particularly when those positions turn out to be wrong in the end, are often caricatured in a way that's unfair.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Johnson writes that HIV tests detect, at the best, the absence of HIV, i.e., a past, vanquished infection instead of a present virus. He also states that the tests are unreliable. He repeats the point that HIV tests often detect something else. I'm at a loss to understand how the given summary is a caricature or in any way unfair. But I'm also willing to entertain, offer and discuss alternative formulations. Freakshownerd has proposed no such alternatives and appears to prefer accusing me of slander to discussing the sources.

I'm also at a loss to understand how "routine editing dispute" applies when an editor passes 3RR repeatedly; accuses others of lying, distortion, slander and all manner of nefarious intent; refuses to discuss controversial edits on the talk pages but readily forum shops; and issues a veiled threat about potential subpoenas. It's disturbing to me that nothing has been done to address this behaviour, not even the placement of a single template message on the user's talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Having not read more than the extended quote above, it seems that he does indeed not say HIV tests detect, at the best, the absence of HIV, i.e., a past, vanquished infection instead of a present virus but that he in fact says the tests at best confirm the presence of antibodies and not the virus itself - I am at a loss to explain how a person who otherwise exhibits above average reading comprehension would so easily be able to go from one to the other. I don't know when the extended quote was made, but I can see that around the time of the journal articles he cites there were issues with false positives noted by the CDC. Unomi (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the difference between false-positive ELISA results (as in the article you cite) and false-positive HIV test results, please stop by my talk page. It's a common error to conflate the two, although the (moderate) complexity of HIV testing has also been intentionally exploited by people with odd ideas about HIV/AIDS.

Re: Jimbo, I think we can reach a consensus representation that will be honest with the reader, fair to the subject, and satisfactory to involved editors (I agree we're not there yet). Personally, though, I'm not going to touch the article with a ten-foot pole until I see Freakshownerd calm down at least a little bit, because I don't think it's worth it until that happens. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Freakshownerd, are you feeling calmer today? :-) Perhaps we can move forward constructively. I would like to repeat that I've not studied the issue in depth, and so I'm not sure that any formulation from me will be all that helpful, but it doesn't seem on the surface to be that difficult. Would it be ok with everyone to say "Johnson argued that the tests at best confirm the presence of antibodies and not the virus itself" rather than saying "Johnson argued that HIV tests don't test for HIV"? (And this conversation should probably continue at the talk page of the article rather than here.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think wording along those lines, or drawn directly from the piece coauthored by Johnson, would be fine. I'll move over to the article talk page to go further. MastCell ^Talk 19:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as an individual's views are accurately represented I'm flexible. I don't know if it's notable that Duesberg said HIV tests looked for antibodies (it seems to be well established and not at all what's in dispute), but I certainly have no objection to it being noted. This seems to be only a piece of peripheral worth in explaining Duesberg's views and arguments, which should be summarized in his article and included along with the key refutations and rebuttals.

Picking out misleading snippets as Keepcarryon has done in a series of edits across a series of articles related to these subjects, as well as misrepresenting what is and isn't in sources, isn't okay. I'm not here to engage in snipe hunts. Keepcalmandcarryon also added a blatant and inflammatory falsehood stating that Philip E. Johnson said he lamented the presence of Muslim students on the Berkeley campus, which is absolutely untrue. That kind of grotesque and dishonest distortion is totally unacceptable and Keepcalmandcarryon needs to stop cherrypicking quotes from primary sources and paraphrasing them innaccurately, as he's been reminded by two independent admins whose assistance he sought out at noticeboards. That's not how articles should be written and it's not appropriate for editors to find statements we don't like and highlight them in articles based on our personal whims.

If people hold stupid views then include appropriate criticism and rebuttals (ie. secondary sources) that expose why they're wrong. There shouldn't be a place in an encyclopedia for dishonest smears and misrepresentations about living people, and an editor who engages in adding them repeatedly should be blocked. Instead of aiding me in making sure our BLP policies are upheld I've been threatened by MastCell, which I don't appreciate. Cleaning up BLPs is a dirty job and editors willing to go through the sources and to help in the effort need to be assisted in every way possible instead of being attacked and labeled fringe nutjobs. I'm more or less sane as far as I can tell and my views on the HIV - AIDs connection, which are none of anyone here's business, should be entirely irrelevant. For what it's worth, they just so happen to be very mainstream. Whether the contrarian arguments are interesting, intriguing, moronic or some combination, articles about the people who expressed them should be treated respectfully and intelligently according to common sense, basic ethics, and the editing rules we are supposed to share and uphold. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If you could specify where you believe I've threatened you, ideally with a diff, I will be happy to apologize. On the subject, you left a rather aggressive "warning" on my talk page a few days ago, accusing me of all manner of conduct unbecoming an administrator, and of defaming people. I asked for specifics, but I haven't seen a response. Do you think you could either take the time to flesh out your concerns for me to address them, or failing that, stop constantly making unsupported accusations? That's often a useful first step toward collaboration. MastCell ^Talk 23:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I take BLP violations very seriously MastCell. Please assist me in stopping the pattern of violations I've noted above and cease coming after editors trying to clean up and balance distorted portrayals of scientists and academics with unpopular viewpoints. That is all I ask, and I think it's quite reasonable. I have no objection to pointed criticisms of theories that have been debunked as long as they come from reliable sources. I do object to editors pushing their preferred POVs by distorting article content, violating editing policies, and smearing biographical subjects with falsehoods. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Government Propaganda Organizations and Wikipedia

What is Wikipedia's plan of action for dealing this sort of thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Propaganda_on_the_Internet

"It is believed that such government-sponsored Internet commentators have now become widespread and their numbers could be in the tens of thousands;[34] Bandurski suggests the number may be up to 280,000[32] while The Guardian puts the estimate as 300,000.[35] According to The Guardian, the growth in popularity of such astroturfing owes to the ease with which web 2.0 technologies such as Twitter, Wikipedia and YouTube can be employed to sway public opinion. The BBC reports that special centres have been set up to train China's 'army of internet spin doctors'.[34]"

I also noticed that a user editing an article that I am working on where whitewashing has been occurring editing this article about this other government organization that

"JIDF members also edit content on Wikipedia entries and monitor YouTube and Google Earth. JIDF's measures include reporting Wikipedia editors it claims are anti-Israel, and taking action against entries seen as including one-sided or false accounts of the history of Israel and the Mideast conflict. On Google Earth, it has taken steps to remove photos showing Palestinian villages listed as having been destroyed during the foundation of the State of Israel."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JIDF#Elsewhere_on_the_Web

I understand that there is an admin noticeboard, but if some admins are also paid full time government employees it becomes less potent. If a dispute comes about, it would be difficult to take the time for an average Wikipedia user to counteract a gang of full time government employees who continuously make misleading statements that might appear to an uninvolved admin passing through to be true solely because a group of users are making these statements.

I'm not sure if this is what is going on with the article I am currently editing. It's possible that the group is just a group of nationalists attempting to whitewash an article, but it is possible that some of the users are government employees as the wikipedia article relates to alleged international spying although its title has been changed and content about spying has been pushed to the bottom of the page in favor of an almost unnotable tourist trap in a different country. I understand that it important to combat racism, but government and sometimes corporate officials being paid to edit articles clearly fall under the category of propaganda.

Thus, I ask, What is Wikipedia's plan for dealing with government propaganda organizations?

Thank you for your time. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This, I believe, stands as one of the most pressing issues facing the project today.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this have something to do with the claim that WP is a front for the CIA :-) Preciseaccuracy, you just can't handle the heat or understand what collaboration means. Your infatuation with that article is incredible, it might seem that you are representing foreign interests as well. --Shuki (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not under government or corporate employment to edit articles on Wikipedia. However, it is possible that I or any other user is under government/corporate employment to edit Wikipedia articles. Does Wikipedia have a plan of action for dealing with this? Anyway, the user above Shuki is one of the editors causing trouble with the article I am working on. He claims along with other users that a tourist trap in China is somehow reasonably connected to Allegations of Israel spying on the United States and that the tourist trap in China should be the focus of an article originally about Suspected Spying . Side note: It's interesting that after months of the Chinese tourist trap section overshadowing the section about spying allegations, only about an hour or two after posting here, the section about the tourist trap has finally been allowed to move from the top to the bottom of the Wikipedia article.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

With all the strikeouts, it's not clear what I'm supposed to be looking into here. I think that our existing processes work reasonably well to enforce neutrality, although of course it can always be a struggle. Because we discourage voting, because we discourage article "ownership", because we have multiple ways for uninvolved editors to be alerted to a dispute and called into it, the system is already designed to be robust to POV-pushers, whether paid or unpaid. Is it perfect? No. Can there be improvements? I'm sure - and encourage conversation about what those improvements might be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific process to undertake for editing an article where there is likely involvement of a paid corporate or government editors?

I understand that there is an admin noticeboard, but if some admins are also paid full time government employees it becomes less potent. Some users that are government employees could build there way up by editing unrelated articles, but when a key dispute comes up they could enter pretending to be neutral. If a dispute comes about, it would be difficult to take the time for an average Wikipedia user to counteract a gang of full time government employees who continuously make misleading statements that might appear to another uninvolved admin passing through to be true solely because a group of users are making these statements. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I find this concept to be highly implausible. Yes, lots of things might seem plausible to an admin "passing through" but one of the great things about Wikipedia is that it is not hard to get serious people to take a hard look at almost anything, in incredible detail. If you have a specific example, I'm sure a lot of people would be eager to look into it.

About a year ago, a guy from a human rights organization claimed to me that we had a serious problem with paid operatives in support of Hugo Chavez working to make sure that nothing negative about him is posted in Wikipedia. I asked him for details, including diffs, but nothing ever came of it. I looked carefully at the articles in question, and they looked like just about any contentious area of Wikipedia - i.e. plenty of people on all sides engaged in a vigorous and healthy discussion, and where the use of reliable sources was agreed to by essentially all sides.

Regarding China, it's quite difficult to look at our articles on, for example, Censorship in the People's Republic of China and imagine that an army of hundreds of thousands of Chinese bureaucrats are in control of things.

I think organized advocacy groups of all kinds are certainly something we should think about, but I'm unaware of any very serious problems. You mention JIDF, but I think a cursory look at dozens of articles suggest that, if anything, we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias, not the other way around. (And of course strong advocates of both sides may argue that we're biased simply because we don't present their favored view of the world unrebutted.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that you realize that we "we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias, not the other way around." If one does not know whom to blame in everything, blame Israel, and get away with it. The article in question is full of unconfirmed and/or denied allegations. When it was written first time, it was speedy deleted. The second try hardly survived deletion request with "no consensus" only after it was fully re-written. For some time it was quite. Then User talk:Preciseaccuracy came about. So far the user has made 330 edits, with each and every one of them concerning the article in question. Looks like her only goal is to smear Israel with that article. She runs from one board to another, from one talk page to another, constantly canvasing, assuming bad faith, trying to introduce unreliable sources and so on, and so on. I stopped editing that article and that article's talk page because I felt as I was crashed by a bulldozer, when over and over again I was reported to AN/I by User talk:Preciseaccuracy, and because this article is becoming dirtier and dirtier at the moment. I've seen quite a lot of SPAs, but this is a single article account, and what an account it is! Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

For highly contentious political topics, if one posts the article on a community board those users with the strongest political views related to a topic are most likely to respond along with only a few neutral users. The politically motivated users will have more reason to stick with a topic so will stick with it longer than editors who aren't politically invested.

Is there a way that people completely politically uninvolved could be randomly chosen to edit an article. For example, in some situations, instead of having people choose the article they want to edit, some sort of random generator could choose a group people to look at that article. Although, then people might question if the generator is actually random. Anyway, I agree that if one shines more light on the article that could certainly help so I posted the dispute on the neutral point of view board.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

One article, go on, please

Hi Jimbo

(If you have already done some but not updated your stats then I apologise, in advance, for the next sentence lol)

It is the last day of the drive and even though I know you are a very busy person I was hoping you could edit an article for the backlogdrive. It would be really great if you could muscle some of the long list of things you have to do out of the way and find 30 minutes or so to do a few articles. It really would help to show that even those that have such small amounts of time can still manage to make a difference :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I absolutely need to do this and thank you for reminding me. I'll be around most of the day today, doing chores at home, packing for an upcoming trip, etc. Can you tell me where I should start?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I didnt see your reply till just now :¬(

If you go to the drive page you can see a summary of articles that need work in the top right corner Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2010

• Click one, add the {{GOCEinuse}} tag and save (to ensure no double editing)
• Do a word count (either install the .js {{subst:js|User:Dr pda/prosesize.js}} into your default page Instructions here, or click edit and copy and paste into a text editor like Word - review and total words etc)
• Copy edit and save
• Update your section in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Backlog_elimination_drives/July_2010#Totals !

Nice and simple lol :¬)

Sounds like RL has you busy though - there are some really small ones there, I just did one of 436 and one of 850 words. Hope all goes well for you with your packing - don't forget your socks !! I'm off to eat and watch a documentary so am off for an hour but good luck with the editing :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Done! I hope people will check my work, as I am not a very experienced copy editor!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a look and you did very well ! it was not an easy article to edit - ones like that take a lot of time due to the grammar, claims and links that need working on. It was a bloody good first copy edit. I particularly like the fact that you had to rename the page :¬)

Thanks for that Jimbo - we did very well overall I think but we should get the newsletter with the final conclusions later today. I fixed the redlinks also.

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

CK-12 Books

Seeing as you are on the advisory board of the CK-12 Foundation, I would appreciate it if you could forward my concern over the decision at some point in the past few months to change the licensing of the website and all the books produced by this organization to CC-BY-NC-SA from CC-BY-SA. While I had already downloaded the clearly marked, acceptably-licensed PDF versions of the books I am slowly working on transcribing to Wikibooks (CK-12 Books) and uploaded them to Commons, this unfortunate change in course will mean that no new books produced by them will be able to be made available for wider distribution via Wikimedia or purchase through PediaPress. Thank you. Adrignola (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will do what I can!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, CK-12's Murugan Pal gave a presentation at Wikimania 2008 ("Federating Wikipedia as Open Educational Resource"), where he also briefly discussed licensing policies and the problem of license incompatibility (e.g. in the parts starting around 12:00 and 15:30 in the video). Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hindi Wikipedia

Somebody care to build on what I've started? Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 22:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think many of us here know Hindu (I've read the user pages of most of the active participants) You might have better results going to one of the Hindi related articles and asking for assistance there.--*Kat* (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just realized that you are referring to the article, not the actual encyclopedia. I should have clicked the link before saying anything. Still, this probably isn't the best place to come for article assistance.--*Kat* (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The reaosn why I came here is that we've been in the news recently about collaborating with google. Google has started with helping translate on Hindi Wikipedia. I thought somebody here might give a damn about it, obviously not. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 13:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not that I don't care, its that I don't know a thing about it. Besides, I'm a better editor than writer.--*Kat* (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• There are no sources that discuss the Hindi Wikipedia that I can find, Blofeld. Even the source that you cited is about the Google translation effort and not about the Hindi Wikipedia per se. 217.42.53.166 (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Frankenstein, I presume?

Respecting suggestions by involved discussants to move this to a close
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you very much for commenting on the Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy page. I greatly appreciate not only your logic but your civility. My heading refers to my observation that Wikipedia has become a monster of sorts. It seems human nature needs checks and balances....and a police force. You are an admirable and rare example of following the rules you make for others, but I see Lord of the Flies playing out here. I'm requesting a stronger regulating authority at Wikipedia--a police force, if you will. The only other online site in which I participate is FunTrivia, a family-friendly quiz site ruled by a benevolent dictator with a loyal cadre of lieutenants who ensure we adhere to his rules, not least of which is civility. Can you not do the same? I believe we would see much more progress on the encyclopedia if you did. Here are some of my thoughts: To a fellow editor: Although not designed as such, WP is, among other things, a social experiment, whether Jimbo accepts that fact or not. I've long thought it was similar to the boys on that island [in Lord of the Flies]—a microcosm where human nature takes its inevitable course as the pecking order is established and justice lurches blindly. To another fellow editor: As you can't help but being aware, I think the article should be titled "Climategate." Nevertheless, we have to work within the framework that is actually present, not the ideal one laid out in the 5 Pillars and the many pages of policy. There are clearly controlling editors who will not even look at the sources we provide, who will not even consider or investigate the fact that "Climategate" is the most common term. Therefore, I think it's in everyone's best interest to lay this issue aside for months--or even years--until history makes this usage impossible to avoid. To a third fellow editor: I myself find it difficult to let outrageous statements pass, but it seems to be in the best interests of everyone and everything at present. They aren't listening, they don't want to listen, they are entrenched. Trying to convince them only makes them dig in deeper. They're in siege mode, and rightfully so, under an onslaught of evidence they don't want to consider. They are intelligent and, aside from blind spots, informed, so eventually they should wake up and smell the coffee. The article isn't changing right now whether we are silent or adamant, so we may as well try to foster some good feelings that could lead to cooperation later. Imo, editors such as those to whom I refer in my third comment impede progress, or "keep the article hostage," to use their own terminology. Those who keep arguing against something and who refuse to document their own assertions or investigate the documentation of other editors' assertions should not be allowed to take up time and space on WP pages, again, imo. Wrt to WP:CIVIL, many times I have seen rudeness such as you addressed regarding "bollocks" allowed to stand, the guilty editor continuing to insult with impunity, and then see that same editor cry "Personal attack!" or shut someone down with WP:CIVIL when the offense was much less or even, so far as I can tell, entirely imaginary. A police force, properly deployed, should be able to curb that kind of behavior. Thanks for your time, thanks for creating and maintaining Wikipedia, and best wishes, --Yopienso (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC) A couple days ago, I suggested that matter be put before ArbCom. In retrospect, I realize the request was largely motivated by my understanding of the stranglehold a few agenda-driven editors have managed to assume in all matters relating to global warming on wikipedia. As far as the Climategate title issue is concerned, at face value, the process is indeed playing out as it should. But beneath the surface, a cancer of manipulation has consumed its integrity the same way it does in all global warming-related matters. The problem is twofold: 1) Objective editors just don't have the patience to police material for objectivity the same way activists do for an agenda. 2) Many well-intentioned editors avoid the subject entirely for fear of being hung in a witchhunt. Thomas Jefferson summarized the problem best: 'All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.' Too bad he didn't offer any solutions. --K10wnsta (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC) @ K10wnsta, your "understanding of the stranglehold a few agenda-driven editors have managed to assume in all matters relating to global warming on wikipedia" looks rather like a conspiracy theory based on a presumption of bad faith, and possibly on a misunderstanding of the due weight to be given to clear majority views on aspects of global warming. There is indeed "a cancer of manipulation" of mass media information on the subject, driven in part by political ideology, commercial interests and by bloggers with a high opinion of their own rejection of majority expert views on the subject. The political and social aspects of this are not easy to cover objectively, if only because of a shortage of objective sources and a surfeit of polemical sources. Naturally, many editors come to the topic with perceptions based on the mass media and on their sympathies. Wikipedia can give good coverage to such social conflicts, provided editors act in good faith and show willingness to go along with core policies, which become of particular importance when dealing with fringe views and popular pseudoscience. . dave souza, talk 15:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC) The only problem with your argument is that there has been something of a hijacking of the NPOV policy and a considerable misuse of its UNDUE section, which is now used to exclude significant-minority views, not only tiny-minority ones. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC) My goodness, a hijacking! The evaluation of significant minority, tiny minority and fringe views on any given topic is of course a matter for evidence from reliable sources and editor discussion on the relevant talk pages. Suitable proposals for specific articles will of course be welcome. . dave souza, talk 17:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC) But as you know, a problem has developed whereby some editors are interpreting "reliable source" to mean experts they agree with, and the definition of "expert" is becoming more restrictive. One example was the attempt (the successful attempt when I last checked) to prevent The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford—a meticulously researched book on the global warming hockey stick controversy—not to be allowed as a source, even in the article devoted to that controversy. Cla68 describes his efforts to use the book as a source here. The argument by editors opposed to its use is that the writer is not a scientist and/or that the work was not peer-reviewed, and therefore it is not an RS. In this way, significant-minority views are being kept out of articles, and this is just one of many examples, and not only in the climate-change field, though it has happened there most aggressively. That is why I use the word "hijacked" of the NPOV policy. I use it advisedly, and I see what has been happening as a major threat to Wikipedia's neutrality. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC) A splendid example, if rather detailed for Jimbo's page. As has been stated on relevant article talk pages and at WP:RSN, the book is a reliable source for the fringe opinions of the blogger who wrote it to promote the opinions of another blogger and retired mining engineer who has published prominent papers attacking the work of scientists. Given that it's claimed to present a history of science, it should be noted that the author is neither a historian nor a scientist, and it is not a scholarly source. Both bloggers have been active proponents of views which have little traction within science, and as such it's a primary source for these views. To the extent that these opinions are strongly supported politically by a significant minority, primarily in the U.S., then these views are properly shown in relevant articles where they're significant, but it remains a questionable source for these views. So far Cla68 only seems to have proposed it as a source for uncontroversial statements readily supported by more reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 18:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Your post illustrates the problem exactly. Montford has a background in science publishing. He immersed himself in the Hockey stick controversy, and produced a book of investigative journalism—a detective story—detailing how the temperature reconstruction took place, and the efforts of two men, Steve MacIntyre and Ross McKitrick, to find the data that reconstruction was based on. For that research, he is dismissed on Wikipedia—by editors who disagree with him—as "a blogger" and a primary source, when he is clearly a secondary source, and the fact that he maintains a blog is not relevant to whether his book is well-researched. This is the only book (that I know of) dedicated to exploring the efforts to uncover the Hockey stick data, yet it's not allowed as a source in the Wikipedia article devoted precisely to that controversy. This is how the NPOV policy, specifically the UNDUE section, is being misused to keep out significant-minority views. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC) As does your post. What evidence do you have to support your contention that it's a reliable source, albeit by a non-expert? At the time one of the five brief "reviews" praising the book was by intelligent design proponent George Gilder who'd similarly praised Signature in the Cell, so by your argument we should be using that book in microbiology articles as a source to show that there's "designed information" in cells. All sources should be carefully evaluated, using third party sources, and not given a free pass because there's a manufactured "controversy". Our policies were agreed for good reason, even if you feel they're unfair to minority views of unproven significance. . . dave souza, talk 19:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC) The NPOV policy has not been agreed upon; the words you rely on have been pushed into the policy very aggressively by a small number of like-minded editors, then stretched even further on individual talk pages to exclude sources those editors don't like. People who disagree are attacked and threatened, to the point where most give up. Dave, the point is this: we're here as Wikipedians. Not as people with views about this or that. What that should mean is that we go the extra mile in each article to find reliable sources to represent all the majority and significant-minority views, including the ones we disagree with. That is the spirit of the NPOV policy, and the spirit will always matter more than the letter. Instead, we see a small but vociferous group always doing the opposite, and not only in climate-change articles. Misinterpreting NPOV, misinterpreting UNDUE, misinterpreting FRINGE—and rewriting those pages to suit the agenda, then edit-warring when anyone tries to fix them—all for the purpose of excluding certain kinds of material, material that questions mainstream POV. But the same editors are happy to use blogs as sources to denigrate living persons they don't like. So this is not a question of high standards of sourcing. This is a question of—and I use the word again—the hijacking of Wikipedia to suppress certain views, and the hijacking of its most important policy to facilitate that suppression. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC) It's hard for me to square these claims of hijacking and suppression with the reality on the ground. I can virtually guarantee that for any topic area of your choice, Wikipedia will give minoritarian views far more coverage than you'll find in any comparable reference work. And not just marginally more coverage; our coverage of alternative, fringe, non-mainstream, and heterodox viewpoints exceeds that of any other serious reference work by orders of magnitude. We can certainly improve our coverage, which tends to veer between excessively sympathetic and excessively debunking. But let's start by grounding ourselves in reality: despite the ostensible "hijacking" of policy to "suppress" minoritarian views, we have an encyclopedia where they are exponentially over-represented in comparison to our peers. MastCell Talk 21:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC) We don't really have peers, MastCell. Other projects don't have our space, our profile, our neutrality policy, our high number of contributors, so there isn't really anything we can be compared to. And anyway we're trailblazers, not followers, and the NPOV policy is what another editor has called our secret sauce. Yet it has been badly undermined over the last couple of years, both in terms of the way it's written and the way it's applied and explained to newbies. Speaking as a reader, there are whole sets of articles on WP I know I can't trust because they're the kinds of articles where significant-minority POVs are likely to have been removed. The advantage I have over other readers is that I know which accounts engage in that kind of thing, so I can look at the article history, look for their edits, and read the version before they reverted. But it's a shame that anyone has to do that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Of course we have peers. We aren't the first people to try to construct a general-purpose encyclopedia, and we'd be foolish not to examine the approaches that others have taken. I appreciate that our model is novel and substantially different from those that have come before, but I think we can still learn something from their efforts. You may feel that we're incomparable, unique Web 2.0 trailblazers - and maybe we are - but I can tell you that every day Wikipedia is compared to established reference works. In fact, most of the scholarly literature that has been generated about Wikipedia consists of such comparisons. I'm not saying that we should aspire to look exactly like Britannica, but let's not pretend that no one has ever approached the question of how to accurately summarize a controversy for a general audience before. We can learn something useful if we're open to learning, although that requires a certain humility. MastCell Talk 03:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I very much have to agree with you here, MastCell. It's a truely great thing to aspire to be better than those who have come before, but rarely can this be done without studying their triumphs and examining their failings. It's like trying to build a new and better laser without ever looking to see how current lasers are built, or even asking why they are constructed in such a way. Rarely does discounting the successes and failures of others yield any improvement. Zaereth (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC) @Dave souza, you states "the book is a reliable source for the fringe opinions of the blogger who wrote it to promote the opinions of another blogger and retired mining engineer who has published prominent papers attacking the work of scientists. […] talk 18:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)". For how long shall you repeat your private view that this book represent a WP:FRINGE view? I don't think a fine science journalist and editor (For eleven years in The Economist) as Matt Ridley whould have stated "a detailed and brilliant piece of science writing."[13] and "and deserves to win prizes"[14] as pointed out in the reception section in our article, if he thinks this is a book supporting a fringe position. Nsaa (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC) SlimVirgin is exactly right, as are Yopienso and K10wnsta. After trying to address POV and other issues on various CC/GW articles, as well BLP issues there, it is not worth it. There is a completely different set of rules enforced by what appears to be mob rule - anyone that does not tow the line established by the CC/GW activists can expect to receive comments like these: 1) "your recent POV pushing of birther-turned-climategater Ken Cuccinelli reveals that you are pushing a very, very fringe POV, so you should be more careful with your edits in the future if you want to continue editing these articles." in response to a suggestion for an addition to an article; 2) "Frankly I would prefer you not to, given your previous editing in this topic area." in response to an offer to help with an article (self-retracted by user after comment by admin); and 3) "Bollocks. He said nothing of the sort. Don't invent things," in response to an editor proposing a name change compromise. Today, three editors were making what I saw as possitve contributions to an article. The article creator, through a series of edits, deleted almost all of them. One editor reverted and suggested discussion on the talk page. The creator edited the changes out again. I made my first and only edit, to revert that and request discussion per WP:BRD and that was ignored. The creator edits the changes out again. I make no more edits, but get warned for edit-warring. It's not worth it to edit in the area, and I'm not going to risk getting blocked for one edit. Editors are belittled, told that they don't a good enough understanding of science, hit with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE if they try and post a minority view, and are consistently combative. And if you ask them to explain their position, they just ignore the question. My first negative experience in this area came after I posted something on Connolley that was well-sourced through multiple reliable sources - granted the article I wrote was for crap, but I was blocked and sent to an SPI immediately. That's how they manage to control the issue, no one else wants to edit there. It is the third rail of Wikipedia - touch it and die. It's just not worth it. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 19:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC) {edit conflict} Dave, Jimbo commented on the CRUec talk page that "Climategate" and "scandal" are part and parcel of this controversy. Some of us have compiled lists proving just that. The editors who have the "strangle-hold," however, refuse to accept them and typically refuse to even look at them. Just today I provided a list of articles that use the word "scandal," and the first response was from an editor who falsely claimed, "Most, if not all of those sources are either outdated or slanted opinion pieces." My complaint is precisely this refusal to admit evidence, and in itself is evidence of NPOV. At this point in its development, WP seems to need a police force to uphold its lofty ideals. --Yopienso (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Yopienso, imposing diktats in content disputes rather goes against the way of Wikipedia, and robust discussions can be expected. The manufactured scandal of the CRU emails is itself emerging as a scandalous misrepresentation of both the emails and the science, though it's by no means black and white. Editors naturally reflect the views and information around them, and getting an agreed position on the NPOV way to give due weight to various strongly opposed views in a live and developing debate is never going to be easy. The best way forward is editors of good will finding good quality sources and avoiding original research. . . dave souza, talk 19:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC) You missed the point. There is very little robust discussion on this specific point, but refusal to join a discussion. I'm an editor of good will, (See my contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Yopienso) I've found good quality sources (Did you look at them?), and have not submitted original research. (You know that in the past as I've been learning I have always willingly retracted it.) But the stone wall is there. The "diktats" I want "imposed" would quell disruption. An editor who refuses to consider information s/he has requested is disruptive. --Yopienso (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Ok, agree that evidence should be considered, which I think is happening now. As suggested by an Arb, have been avoiding getting much involved in this topic area, not entirely successfully, so didn't check all your links. . . dave souza, talk 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC) While I agree that a police force is a contradiction of the Wikipedia way, the comments on this page show that something does need to be done. Its not just climategate that is experiencing this problem (of over-enforcement of some rules, under enforcement of others). I tried to make some revisions to International recognition of Kosovo a couple of weeks ago. I was carefully paring down the article, splitting it up into new articles. But because I made one careless edit summary to the main article, I had two hours worth of work reverted as vandalism by an administrator. My edit summary was careless because I was only taking a break. You only had to look at the diffs to know that I wasn't vandalizing anything. Instead he said that the article (the fifth longest on Wikipedia) did not need to be broken down. I was also criticized by another editor for not following the procedure for splitting articles. I'd only just begun! --*Kat* (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Hi, sorry to hear about this hassle, one bright point is that work isn't lost as you can always use the edit history to retrieve your previous edits. Will advise on your talk page, thanks for sticking in at editing! . . dave souza, talk 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC) This approach is refreshing. It's the approach that's needed. But it's not the approach that's been in evidence on the actual pages, unfortunately. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Bad faith, Mr. Souza, can only be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary. Rest assured, I make no presumptions. Following 100+ hours of observation, analysis, and occassional interaction with the cadre of editors so closely guarding that hot button issue, I can say with absolute certainty that my opinion of them has moved beyond bad faith to sit squarely in the realm of no faith at all. If the matter ever went before arbitration, there would be little challenge in demonstrating a clear and prolonged pattern of bias, intimidation, and groupthink being employed to manipulate the content of those articles. Furthermore, it is not our task to assign motives to the media's coverage of a topic (unless those motives are the subject of the topic itself), nor is it to synthesize theories as to a 'political ideology' driving it. --K10wnsta (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC) You may not be aware, but the matter is before arbitration as we speak, with a proposed decision expected "any day now"... Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change. The perspective of those editors who have not been involved for a long time, such as yourself, is especially valuable, although the case no longer is accepting new evidence except in limited circumstances. Comments can be made on the proposed decision talk page, either now, or after the decision is posted. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Well, damn. I guess that snuck under my radar. Well, it didn't really have to sneak - I try and avoid global warming discussions because they really shake my faith in the processes used to resolve things here. Too bad. I'm sure I could have contributed some useful points to the arbitration. I'll refrain from reading it in its current state as any ommissions of fact or overlooked examples I might have been able to provide would simply foster regret at this point. My unwitting absence from the case does, however, chalk up a win for activists who so thoroughly poison a discussion's atmosphere as to repel those who might stand against them. I'll invest my full faith in whoever's taken up the shield there to do all they can to protect the integrity of wikipedia. --K10wnsta (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Agreement I gotta agree with the spirit of Yopienso's observations even though I have not had that specific problem. The problem I've noticed is that, in our (Wikipedians in general) zeal to enforce some rules, we are forgetting others. FAITH and BITE in particular that are being increasingly disregarded. I think this is partly because it has become so easy to tag articles (and the corresponding talk pages) and rollback revisions that we just do it automatically. We don't stop and think about whether or not the revision was really vandalism (as opposed to just incorrect) or if the editor was intentionally creating a irrelevant article. Tagging articles and rolling back revisions isn't intended to be a personal criticism, but for the person who has been tagged and rolled back, its gotta sting. Does that make sense? For example, a newbie editor started an article on a local club. But he didn't follow protocol. First he created a redirect, then he created the page, with just the title, then he started writing the article. Well, faster than you could say Wikipedia, the page with just the title had a SPEEDY tag on it. And while I agree that the article, as it stood, was deserving of a SPEEDY delete, the newbie editor, deserved the benefit of GOOD FAITH. But he wasn't going to get it because he was too busy writing his article to realize that it was already up for deletion.--*Kat* (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, we do need to not be too quick to shoot first, but an IP or unconfirmed user that has the intention of creating a wikipedia article, should be able to discuss on the talkpage where he would get all the help he required. Or he will find the Wikipedia:Help desk or start a discussion on his talkpage, and a wikipedia editor will assist him as he requests. I think there are plenty of avenues that new users can, and do, go down to get readily available assistance. Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with the Yopienso's view as well, but this is also occurring in the world outside of Wikipedia. WP struggles most and most visibly with controversial articles, making them the least valuable of the entries. Climategate wont be Climategate until it ceases to be controversial... i.e. the controversy about it in the non WP world is somehow settled.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Wow. So it's not just my imagination or overreacting. I agree with Yopienso's view and SlimVirgin's and GregJackP's and the rest. I, along with two other editors, made a few edits to Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation over the course of several hours and arrived at a rough consensus on sources and the wording of some edits -- only to awake the next morning to find that the article creator (ChrisO) had reverted all the changes and referred to me as a "disruptive editor." Before making edits, I was careful to discuss them on the talk page, but they were all reverted without discussion. One of the other editors expressed displeasure at the total disregard of what had been collaborative improvements to the article. I was then warned for edit warring. I gave up because it's not worth it to try to battle the activists who are so invested in the article that they will engage in revert wars and malicious invective while protecting their POV in articles. This has happened in three or four GW/CC articles that I have tried to edit lately. There is virtually no room for neutral edits, reliable sources are systematically disallowed unless they conform to the "scientific consensus," the activists maintain such oppressive ownership over the articles, they are willing to violate all the rules, including the probation restrictions, in order to keep the articles biased in favor of their POV. This area is the cesspool of wiki and reads like Greenpeace propaganda frankly. There is a very concerted (if not coordinated) effort to keep information out of this encyclopedia. Minor4th 06:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC) @ Minor4th, your revert removed a balance showing a majority viewpoint as well as minority views, which Chris had been discussing on the talk page, and showed only the minority claim that the various investigations indirectly related to the subject were a "whitewash".[15] Chris reverted your change, calling the reversion disruptive,[16][17] but as far as I've seen didn't call you a "disruptive editor." You may feel that the article should reflect the views of Fox News, the Daily Mail and the Cato Institute skeptic Pat Michaels, but please accept that it should also balance this with mainstream views to meet NPOV, and should focus on the article topic. . . dave souza, talk 07:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Dave's commentary above is correct. I think this incident actually illustrates a significant part of the problem - that some editors aren't aware of, or don't acquaint themselves with, or simply disagree with some of the basic principles of NPOV. The dispute I recently had with Minor4th - who has only been an editor for a few months - is a perfect illustration of this problem. Minor4th added unattributed allegations (that had in fact been investigated and repudiated) as proven fact, and it omitted one viewpoint entirely. Minor4th complained that my action in rewording the disputed passage to attribute the allegations and adding the other viewpoint was "POV". In fact, as anyone familiar with NPOV would know, WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements requires attribution and balance. For the record, the discussion and contrasting versions are at Talk:Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation#Versions. This kind of dispute would be easily avoided if only editors took the time to learn what NPOV requires and not to dismiss out of hand the advice that others give them about it. There is a constant problem in this topic area of new editors jumping in and getting into trouble because they don't understand basic content policies. I suspect there's not much we can do about that, though... -- ChrisO (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC) It would also be appropriate if you didn't try to explain such technical legal factors as copyright to an attorney. Or did you forget about the incivility you showed in that discussion, and the snarky comment above about how long Minor4th has been here? The perfect illustration of the problem was that, instead of trying to be helpful and direct him to policy, you pointed out that a) he didn't know what he was talking about (which was copyright law) and b) he should leave it to others to interpret what was, in effect, a legal issue, in addition to being a policy issue. As I pointed out at the time, maybe if one is not a lawyer, they should not comment on those issues at all - you know, leave it to the experts like many of us have been told in the CC/GW arena. GregJackP Boomer! 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, this is another good illustration of the problem of inexperience that I mentioned (and perhaps of the Dunning-Kruger effect in operation as well). I wouldn't presume to lecture an attorney on copyright law, since I'm not qualified to do so. However, I am qualified to tell him what Wikipedia's copyright policy requires, specifically in relation to the non-free content criteria. Things that are completely legal under copyright law are not permitted under Wikipedia's copyright policies. Thus, when an image is deleted for failing to meet the NFCC, it's pointless to say "but I know copyright law!" or "I'm a lawyer" as an argument for why an image should not be deleted. I don't blame Minor4th for this - it took me a long time (far more than the four months he's had) to fully understand the NFCC. It's also pointless to get angry and defensive when someone explains to you why you have to do things a certain way, or not do it at all. That is something that editors can do something about - unfortunately I've seen many editors flame out because they're not willing to learn how to work within Wikipedia's policies. Hopefully Minor4th won't go down this road. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC) We also have experienced editors who don't understand Wikipedia's basic content policies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Indeed we do. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC) The problem, Chris, is that the NPOV policy is so badly written—and in particular the much-misused UNDUE section—that it allows editors to make it say whatever they want it to say. Attempts to remove some of the wordiness (such as here), so there's less of a forest for POV pushers to hide behind, are resisted with threats and reverts. Attempts to explain on talk pages that it's being wrongly applied are ignored by swarms of editors who use it to exclude significant-minority POVs, rather than seeing it as something that's there to protect those POVs. The letter of the policy is being used as a weapon against the spirit of the policy. The result of this—apart from our having a lot of rotten articles—is that we're going to fail to attract a new generation of Wikipedians, because without strong institutional support for neutrality, the project is a significantly less attractive place to work. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Exactly so. Minor4th 15:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Exactly so indeed. Why exactly would anyone of good faith who didn't have some ax to grind or another want to edit in the CC area? That's the road to a world of frustration. Unfortunately the CC area isn't the only one where a powerful faction holds sway against all comers but it's one of the worst. The ends do not justify the means. Good articles do not justify atrocious behavior. ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC) in regards to climate change I don't think that any of the CC activists care what NPOV, BLP or reliable sources really are, so long as it fits their agenda. Or can you even begin to explain how these are not reliable: The New Yorker, National Post, The Daily Telegraph (Australia), The Times, Nature, Canada Free Press, and Fox News to name but a few. If it doesn't say what the activists want it to say, it's not a reliable source. Or fringe. Or undue. The above sources had what the CC activists claimed was negative BLP info on Connolley - can't use those, they are not reliable. It is different for sceptics however. For example, in CC/GW, Patrick Michaels is a prominent climate change sceptic (along with numerous others) - but the CC group uses anything they can to keep his views out of Wikipedia, even as a minority view. Dave is part of that group, as is Chris. Unless you agree with them, they don't want to hear it, and the group in general will not hesitate to run people off, ignore civility, and take admin action against them. That is why it is not worth it to edit that part of Wikipedia, and it is why many will not use Wiki for serious research. GregJackP Boomer! 13:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC) No encyclopedia is used for serious research. Encyclopedias, as a grou:p, are too broad for serious research. What sets Wikipedia apart from other Encyclopedias is that here sources are cited. That's enough to point a "serious researcher" in the right direction.--*Kat* (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC) This discussion is going nowhere here, please wait there is a major arbcom case addressing all of these issues right now. Polargeo (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I'd just like to pipe in here real quick to agree that this issue is too hot to handle for most admins. It's such as shitstorm of accusations, blocks, edit wars, etc that we practically need a second ArbCom just to oversee GW related articles. I know I'm not the only admin who passes by any report/unblock request/ANI thread or whatever else that has the taint of this never ending toxic dispute on it. (On a side note, if Wikipedia is Jimbo's Frankenstein monster, does that mean at some point it will turn on him and kill him? For safety's sake, nobody wave any flaming objects at Wikipedia...) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Re Greg: Fox News, in particular, has a history of failing to do summary background checks on political issues, which climate change is, unfortunately (I mean, seriously, "Mark Sanford (D)"!). Also, I'd be wary about using the Canada Free Press as a source because... well, it's called "the Free Press". In addition, newspapers, especially British ones, have terrible reputations regarding science reporting. However, I don't see how Nature wouldn't be a reliable source... Sceptre (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC) And beyond climate change (ec) The issue goes well beyond CC, although that's a good case in point, and in any case Arbcom decides behavior, not content policies. I think the frustration expressed here, on Jimbo's page, by many editors, conveys an implicit wish on their part. Years ago, when Wikipedia was in its diapers, Jimbo made some critical points about neutrality and verifiability, which have become the foundation of our current sourcing policies. I think now that Wikipedia is an almost grownup, it's time to right the ship again, or apply another needed course correction. As I see it, the problem is that many editors feel that it is their holy duty to educate the masses based on the mainstream views, and that any dissenting opinions are blasphemous heresy. It is important to understand that Wikipedia is not a teacher, but a librarian: we present the sources in our library to our customers, in a neutral fashion, without picking favorites and suppressing the views we don't like, except a tiny minority lunatic fringe. When we start suppressing all dissent, we lose the most important advantage of our product: openness. It's time for someone, perhaps Jimbo, to take this to heart and get us back on course, into adulthood. Crum375 (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you, Crum 375; well said: "Wikipedia is not a teacher, but a librarian." --Yopienso (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC) But that was always Jimbo's point: we include majority- and significant-minority POVS, and exclude tiny-minority ones, except perhaps in articles devoted to them. That is the spirit of NPOV right there. It is not being applied, because certain editors are interpreting "reliable sources" to mean sources who reflect the majority POV. So significant-minority voices end up being incorrectly labelled "fringe," simply because they disagree, and we end up with a tautology—"majority view" = "what most reliable sources say," but "reliable source" = "someone not bucking too much against the majority view." We need to get back to basics, and away from the idea that the minute a source dissents from the mainstream view, he becomes ipso facto unreliable and fringe. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I think you're overstating it. This is not about someone "dissenting from the mainstream view". The real question, it seems to me, is the disagreement among editors about exactly what counts as minority and fringe. Take creationism, for instance. In the United States and many other countries, a plurality - probably a majority - of the general public believes in creationism. However, only a tiny minority of scientists do so. Is creationism therefore a majority POV (going by public opinion) or a tiny-minority POV (going by scientific opinion)? Do we write articles on evolution to reflect pro-creationist public opinion or anti-creationist scientific opinion? Does this mean that creationist works are reliable sources for articles on evolution? There's an additional danger here, namely that of engaging in false equivalence. If 97% of scientists endorse a particular scientific theory or fact, should the views of the dissenting 3% receive the same amount of attention? If you have a consensus of scientists on the one hand and a large number of dissenting non-scientists on the other hand, should the views of the non-scientists be given equal weight? Ultimately I think this boils down to two key issues - (1) how you judge the proportion of dissenters and proponents and (2) whether the proponents are better qualified than the dissenters to give an expert opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Whereas I think SlimVirgin has it exactly right. This dispute, at the heart, is not about content. Nor is it "skeptics vs. science", as a certain faction wishes it to be painted so they can marginalize their opposition. It's about policy and the correct application of it. It's about what Wikipedia is all about. I'm not surprised that you disagree ChrisO, since you've been involved in actively suppressing minority views in a wide range of CC/GW related articles for some time now, as have others in a certain faction. CC/GW, the topic area, is not just about the science, and thus, if we are talking about the parts of it that aren't pure science (which is the majority of the content in the area), we should not be excluding all sources other than scientific ones. Or skewing RS to favor the majority scientific view while excluding or denigrating popular opinion. Note: Holding this view does not make me a "skeptic" (in my view AGW is real, and highly worrisome), a "biased" admin, nor does it make me an "involved" admin ... despite any attempts to paint me so by those who would find it more convenient to have me removed from the playing field. It merely makes me a wikipedian. Which I suggest some in a certain faction are not. At least, not any longer, not in this area. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC) (ec) In my own view, the best way to gauge the relative preponderance of views and gain diversity is to use high quality secondary sources who review and compare them. The best such sources are the ones more distant from the action, with no direct ax to grind, and the ones which are most reputable. Very often those are the mainstream newspapers, such as the New York Times. This is true for all topics, scientific or otherwise. For scientific articles, obviously the major publications like Nature would be a good source, but not necessarily for controversial issues, where the integrity of scientists is at stake, for example. The point is that we must remain open, and remember we are here to present the sources, not to teach the Truth. Crum375 (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Chris, no one has ever argued that we judge what's majority or significant-minority by what the global public thinks. We go by what reliable sources think. The problem is that the definition of that is becoming ever-more restrictive—in violation of the sourcing policy, which is not restrictive—in order to produce articles with POVs that the article's editors agree with. So there is a pushing of "scientific point of view," or "scholarly point of view," then it gets more restrictive still, to become only "peer-viewed scholarly point of view." When that doesn't produce the desired result, it becomes more specialist still, with an insistence that the sources be academic specialists in the tiny area under consideration. That leads to the absurdity, to give just one example, of a professor of philosophy who specializes in the philosophy of religion, not being allowed as a source for the theory that Jesus may not have existed. No, the sources have to be biblical scholars. And guess what they believe. That's exactly the attitude we've seen in the CC articles, where an article's reliable sources are defined in terms of which POV they'll deliver. You are right that it is difficult to judge the proportion of dissenters. I would go further and say that it is impossible. This is what is wrong with UNDUE. We have to use common sense and present readers with all reliably published POVs so that they can judge for themselves what's worth paying attention to. Our articles must be libraries in which our readers educate themselves, not where they're told what to think. One of the most horrible aspects of the CC articles has been watching a few editors who work in universities acting to suppress material that other writers have produced in good faith after a lot of careful research. That is not what academia is about, and it's not what Wikipedia is about either. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Hope this isn't an attempt to "level the playing field", so that tiny minority views in science (shown by a peer reviewed publication to be around 3%) are given "equal validity" with the clear scientific consensus? I strongly favour representation of significant minority, tiny minority and fringe sources in accordance with the policies as they stand, showing significant viewpoints where due weight makes that appropriate, and showing the majority views of minority views in articles dealing with the minority views. That's fairly clear in terms of the science in such topics, less easy to verify when dealing with social views which don't involve rejection of the science. As for "popular opinion", that rather suggests articles determined by opinion polls instead of expert opinion as required by current policies. Newspapers aren't academic sources, and they themselves have commented on the failings of their coverage of recent global warming controversies, so better sources are preferred. Agree fully with SV that academic doesn't necessarily mean scientists – recognised historians can be more appropriate for coverage of science. Of course in coverage of Christianity the sources have to be biblical scholars, we don't "guess what they believe", we carefully paraphrase what they say, giving due weight to varying views among these scholars. However, in coverage of Creationism where proponents reject science, we look to scientifically literate sources for the science and make sure that the pseudoscience is shown in relation to the relevant scientific consensus. Horses for courses. . . dave souza, talk 19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Correction to self, SV was saying we should include a prof of philosophy as well as biblical scholars regarding the "existence" of Jesus, quite right. Historians will also be appropriate. Reaffirms horses for courses. . . dave souza, talk 19:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) @SlimVirgin: But no honest librarian in his or her right mind simply hands over books indiscriminately in response to a query. If someone wants to learn about HIV/AIDS, a librarian wouldn't hand over the CDC lay summary along with a copy of Inventing the AIDS Virus and say: "Here, educate yourself - good luck." I think most librarians would point their customer toward reputable, scientific sources that present the widely accepted understanding of HIV/AIDS ("mainstream" sources, if you like). If you're into negative framing, you could claim that the librarian has "told the customer what to think" or "suppressed alternative viewpoints" on HIV/AIDS. Or, you could conclude that the librarian has done their job. MastCell Talk 19:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Stepping back a bit, I think there is a danger here of getting too caught up in the deficiencies of Wikipedia's processes while ignoring the outcomes. MastCell has pointed out in the past that Wikipedia's science articles are actually pretty well regarded by external sources. There are undoubtedly process problems, which should not be overlooked. But the most important issue from the project's perspective is the quality of what is produced. I'm reminded of Bismarck's saying that "Laws are like sausages — it is best not to see them being made." The same probably goes for Wikipedia articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC) This is precisely the problem -- the end justifies the means to you and a few others. In that pursuit, you're all too willing to abandon the pillars of Wikipedia. That's unacceptable. I think you've missed the boat on what is the most important issue from the project's perspective. Besides, the science articles are pretty well regarded by those who agree with your POV but not otherwise. There is a great deal of external criticism in fact. You're not listening, Chris. Minor4th 01:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC) If by "those who share your POV" you mean "experts in the topic area" then what's the problem? There was a recent study on the reliability of cancer information on Wikipedia (Rajagopalan et al (2010). "Accuracy of cancer information on the Internet: A comparison of a Wiki with a professionally maintained database." Journal of Clinical Oncology 28:7s, 2010) which gave a high rating to Wikipedia's articles on cancer. I don't doubt that proponents of fringe theories on cancer would disagree with that - but why would we want to meet the expectations of non-experts opposed to the overwhelming majority of expert opinion? Your complaint, I'm afraid, is entirely typical of fringe advocates who want their views to be given equal or greater prominence to that of the mainstream consensus. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Chris, your posts illustrate the problem. Experts who agree with the POV are, of course, going to say they like the articles. Specialists who advocate alternative treatments may not have a high opinion of Wikipedia's coverage, given that they're routinely dismissed as frauds and fringe advocates, if mentioned at all. You take the view that readers are too stupid to make up their own minds if presented with the information and the sources. But that is the premise that Wikipedia was founded on—that people are not too stupid to make up their own minds, and we don't want our information to be filtered down to us by a self-appointed set of high priests who decide what we're allowed to read. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Chris I think you should adjust your definition of "fringe theory". Flat Earth is a fringe theory. Holocaust denial is a fringe theory. The idea that Elvis is still alive somewhere is a fringe. Skepticism of the existence and/or the cause of global warming, is NOT fringe. Its not mainstream, but it definitely has a following of rational minded people. Which is something that true fringe theories do not have.--*Kat* (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Scepticism of evolution has a very large following - perhaps more so than support for evolution. According to recent opinion polls, 25% of Americans think Barack Obama wasn't born in the US and isn't eligible to be president. Yet creationism and birtherism are both commonly described as fringe theories. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of expert opinion (in those cases, among biologists and Obama biographers) rejects those viewpoints, just as the overwhelming majority of relevant expert opinion (in the order of 97%, according to surveys) rejects climate change denial. There are two fatal flaws in the approach you're advocating - it assumes that facts are subject to a popular vote, and it assumes that the views of non-experts as being at least as valuable as those of experts. Neither is the case. All viewpoints are not of equal value. The view of someone who believes a plane is held up by fairies is not as valuable as the view of a physicist who knows about aerodynamics. Arguing otherwise is just postmodernistic cant. You ought to read the Sokal affair article some time. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC) And you ought to read WP:FRINGE which says, "Fringe theory in a nutshell: To be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."--*Kat* (talk) Thank you, I'm well aware of WP:FRINGE. The notability of a fringe theory is a separate issue from how that fringe theory should be approached in an article about the mainstream theory to which it is opposed. For instance, we have a series of detailed articles about creationism (because it's notable), but we don't "balance" the article on evolution with "baraminology" and other creationist ideas (because they have negligible support within the relevant expert community). -- ChrisO (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Apples and Oranges and besides, that was not my point. You called climate change "denial" a fringe theory on par with the belief that Obama was not born in the United States. I pointed out that according to WP Policy it (climate change denial) most definitely is not fringe. --*Kat* (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Chris, you know that when we discuss majority- and significant-minority views, we mean the views of reliable sources, so please don't keep introducing red herrings about the public to make your point. Kat is right. When we've reached the point where The New Times is being rejected as a reliable source, and people are comparing not agreeing with global-warming scientists with thinking the earth is flat, then we know we've reached a reductio ad absurdum. Please take that point. Disagreeing with mainstream sources is allowed. Disagreeing with scientists and academics is allowed. Indeed, within academia, intelligent disagreement is encouraged. It doesn't make people fringe, and the whole point of having a neutrality policy is to ensure that alternative voices are not crowded out. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Do you think it is "crowding out" for us not to feature creationist ideas in articles about evolution? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I've never been involved with those articles, so I don't know what the arguments are. If reliable sources can be found, I would certainly want to see a section, summary-style, advancing arguments against it, and explaining that the teaching of it has been viewed as controversial in schools in certain countries. But if you define "reliable sources" in a way that means only evolutionary scientists may be used in articles about evolution, then NPOV is lost immediately, because people who cluster around a speciality tend to agree with one another about the broad structure of the issue. So all cancer doctors who recommend chemotherapy clearly think it's a good thing. All academics who specialize in animal rights think it's a good thing. Restricting articles to those specialists means you abandon neutrality at the outset. What possible harm can it do to include a summary-style section on intelligent design in the evolution article, and vice versa? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC) There already is a brief mention of ID in Evolution#Social and cultural responses, just as there is a brief mention of alternative views on global warming at Global warming#Views on global warming. Those alternative views are then discussed in detail in subsidiary articles. That's as it should be. Those views exist, but because they have negligible relevance to current scientific consensuses they only get a passing mention. But when it comes to, say common descent as a key principle of evolution, we don't "balance" it with the view of creationists that all species were created ex nihilo and are eternally static, separate and unchanging (i.e. baraminology) - we don't even mention the creationist viewpoint. Again, that's as it should be. You simply don't mix science and pseudoscience. Textbooks don't do it, other encyclopedias don't do it and if Wikipedia has any pretensions to being a serious academic project we shouldn't do it. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia doesn't have any pretensions to being a serious academic project that I'm aware of. That was Nupedia and Citizendium. I came here because it was something else, something new and refreshing, something with a neutrality policy and without the high priests. I don't appreciate that some people are trying to reintroduce the high priests, and I especially don't like it when the people doing it are themselves not academics. It has struck me powerfully that most of the Wikipedians who rely on the arguments from authority are themselves not working in universities. It feels as though we're trying to set up a parody of academia, when we should be concentrating on our own new thing, which is something quite different. It is, as Crum said, a library, not a classroom, and our job as librarians is only to draw a line in the sand to keep the truly ridiculous stuff out. But we should be doing that with regret, not joyously censoring whenever we see something we disagree with. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Chris, the way I see it, it's fine to focus on mainstream science in scientific articles, with perhaps a minor mention of significant minority dissenters. Where I see the problem is not there, but in the articles about the various controversies or dissent. In such articles, where the subject is the controversy itself, the mainstream view is not the key — the focus should be on the critics or dissenters and their views, and the mainstream response, presented as neutrally as possible. This also applies to non-CC issues: for example, I was involved recently in a GAR for the Christ myth theory article, which seems to be dominated by religious advocates who regard anyone who doubts the historicity of Jesus as a crank, and therefore unreliable. This is not the article about Jesus, where it's fine to mention what Christians believe about him, but about the question of his historic existence. In such cases, dissenting views must be heard, and not belittled or mocked, or labeled as "fringe". The bottom line is simple: we must let reliably sourced dissenting views be heard, and a view which conflicts with our own is no reason to decide a source is not reliable. Crum375 (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC) The Christ myth theory is a good case in point. The arguments being used there are exactly the arguments the "scientific point of view" editors use elsewhere, namely that we may only use specialists as reliable sources. The specialists, almost all biblical scholars, not only agree that Jesus existed as a real person, but that anyone arguing otherwise is a lunatic, comparable to a Holocaust denier. This despite the fact that there are no contemporaneous sources, no extant writings from Jesus, nothing from anyone who knew him, and precious little in the 1st century even after his death. It therefore makes perfect sense to wonder whether he's the product of a myth, similar to other gods. But no, that's fringe, according to Wikipedia's definition, and so we can only mention it in an article devoted to it, and even there it was openly ridiculed until recently. This is the problem with a small number of like-minded editors having developed the UNDUE section of the NPOV policy to give themselves control over science articles. It has given others control over other articles in ways that were not foreseen. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC) SlimVirgin's comment encapsulates the whole issue: the specialists say one thing, but we should include alternate opinions because she thinks otherwise for reasons X, Y and Z. Her argument isn't that there are reliable sources that argue X, Y and Z, but simply that she disagrees. So we need to decide what Wikipedia is all about. Is it a place where we report views attributable to reliable sources, in proportion to their prominence? Or is it a place where editors propound their own views, regardless of what scholars and others have found? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC) That isn't even close to a summary of my arguments. Please read what I actually wrote. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I have read it, many times, and see no other way to interpret it. "The specialists, almost all biblical scholars, not only agree that Jesus existed as a real person, but that anyone arguing otherwise is a lunatic, comparable to a Holocaust denier. This despite the fact that there are no contemporaneous sources, no extant writings from Jesus, nothing from anyone who knew him, and precious little in the 1st century even after his death." Perhaps what you wrote is not quite what you meant -- all of us do that sometimes. Perhaps you actually meant something like "Most specialists agree that Jesus existed as a real person, but other scholars point out that there are no contemporaneous sources, no extant writings from Jesus, nothing from anyone who knew him, and precious little in the 1st century even after his death." But that's just conjecture on my part, so any clarification you can offer would be welcome. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Par for the course with this faction. Why argue with what people say when you can respin it into something easier to argue against, and get away with it? ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC) SH, I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm presenting a reductio ad absurdum of the current application of UNDUE and FRINGE. Biblical scholars agree, with rare exceptions, not only that Jesus existed, but that it is equivalent to Holocaust denial or flat-earthism to say otherwise. That is, it is a fringe idea within the meaning of WP policy, because all specialists in the field say he existed. But that is because the range of sources we may use has been narrowed to exclude non-specialists (e.g. a professor of German who has written extensively that Jesus may not have existed, or a professor of philosophy who writes that the German professor's arguments are solid). But these academics are not specialists in the field, so their views are dismissed per the current version of UNDUE, and may only be used in an article devoted to the non-existence theory—and even in that article their views are not well-presented. We therefore have a situation where Wikipedia articles do not take seriously the idea that a figure from 2,000 years ago may not have existed—a figure about whom there is no contemporaneous evidence, from whom there are no extant writings, and who was not written about by anyone who knew him (and these facts are not in dispute: even the biblical scholars agree). We are not allowed to take his non-existence seriously because we have defined "reliable source" in a way that permits only biblical scholars who are ideologically disposed to dismissing all arguments against his existence. Now, he may indeed have existed; the biblical scholars may be right. But it certainly makes sense to question whether such a figure existed, just as it makes sense to question whether a tiny group of climatologists using computer models can really tell us what is going to happen to the world if we don't allow emissions-trading. Neither of these things is fringe, per common sense. Both are fringe, per Wikipedia's current definition. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your clarification. If I might paraphrase, you're saying something like "all biblical scholars believe Jesus existed, but a number of anthropologists have published critiques regarding the lack of contemporary documentary evidence" or similar arguments. That's what I didn't see in your first comment. The majority-minority conflicts are easiest to handle when there is a majority view and a coherent minority view. Bringing it back to climate, what we have is a majority view and around 5 to 10 (or more) small- to tiny-minority opposing views, many of which are mutually contradictory. Thus if we gave all views their full exposition without considering their degree of acceptance in the academic community the majority view would be swamped. It's a tough problem. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC) You guys are arguing science again. Well played, SBHB, but wrong argument. Why do skeptic BLPs get stuffed and AGW alarmist BLPs get puffed? Et cetera. ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC) SB, I didn't really say that either. Third time lucky, perhaps. Biblical scholars say to deny that Jesus existed is like saying the earth is flat. The same biblical scholars acknowledge there is no contemporaneous evidence (no evidence from within Jesus's lifetime) that he existed. They deduce his existence from other documents, in the way the existence of the quark might be deduced, or in the way future predictions about weather might be deduced from computer models. But because of the way UNDUE is written and interpreted, we are not allowed to use other sources (sources who are not biblical scholars) to say "hang on, this sounds a bit odd," just as we are not allowed to use A.W. Montford, who has studied some of the climate-change evidence and has written a book saying, "hang on, this sounds a bit odd." Pointing out that things sound a bit odd is not allowed unless it comes from one of the High Priests of Specialist Knowledge. But even there, if one of the High Priests dissents, he is knocked off his High Priest pedestal (e.g. Fred Singer, who is suddenly not really a physicist). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC) But because of the way UNDUE is written and interpreted, we are not allowed to use other sources (sources who are not Historians) to say "hang on, this sounds a bit odd," just as we are not allowed to use Arthur Butz, who has studied some of the holocaust evidence and has written a book saying, "hang on, this sounds a bit odd." Pointing out that things sound a bit odd is not allowed unless it comes from one of the High Priests of Specialist Knowledge. But even there, if one of the High Priests dissents, he is knocked off his High Priest pedestal (e.g. Harry Elmer Barnes, who is suddenly not really a historian). Hipocrite (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC) That's exactly right. Anyone who disagrees is compared to a Holocaust denier. The Wikipedians who see themselves as the Guardians of the High Priests take a surprisingly rigid, black-and-white view of the world. You're either mainstream or you're a nut. The concept of intelligent, nuanced dissent is lost on them. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, it's all clear now - when you agree with the fringe, the fringe should be treated on equal footing with the vast majority of informed opinion - when it's not, we need to treat it as the fringe. In otherwords, you support WP:MPOV. Got it. Hipocrite (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC) You guys are arguing science again. Well played, SBHB Hipocrite, but wrong argument. Guess what? Calling the CRU email topic "Climategate" rather than "white puffy clouds" isn't a fringe view... it's the mainstream view. In fact it's not even about the science. Spin control won't work forever, and the more you all resist admitting what you're all up to, the more obvious it becomes. Give it up, and get out of the way, and let good non factional wikipedians work in the area without your constant harassment. ++Lar: t/c 05:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Hipocrite, are you seriously arguing that the following are equivalent? (a) A figure from 2,000 years ago—for whom no documentary evidence of any kind exists that was written within his lifetime—may not have existed. (b) Computer models that tell us what will happen in future, if we don't reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we produce, might be wrong. (c) The story that a European government arranged the deaths of millions of people because of their ethnicity, sexual orientation, or political beliefs 65 years ago might be false. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Are you asking for my opinion, or for my evaluation of the sources? Who are we to discount esteemed Professor of Electrical Engineering Arthur Butz? The same people who discount esteemed accountant Andrew Monford. You appear to think that your personal opinion of who is right is relevant - I don't. I follow the reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Random break The way I see it, I am no librarian. I am a writer and a researcher. I get interested in a subject and then I go find all of the sources I can on that subject. I compare these sources to one another for consistancies and inconsistancies and present the information in my own words, summarizing it in an organized way. I do this so the reader will be able to walk away feeling they have not only gained a some useful knowledge of the subject, but also a decent introduction to the sources. It's not necessary to rewrite the entire source or clutter an article with so much trivia that no one can find what they're looking for, but it is necessary to get the information correct, because it's my own reputation that is on the line. Zaereth (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Well said, many thanks. . dave souza, talk 19:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, no original research is allowed at Wikipedia, and no editor's reputation is on the line in the same sense a published author's is--WP's reputation is. We "irrevocably agree to release [y]our contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." (That last bit is at the bottom of all "edit" pages.) We are librarians in the sense that we compile archives of information for the public, so perhaps more accurately, we're archivists. All our writing is merely summarizing someone else's. This is fundamental to WP. 'Nuther subject, @Minor4th, primarily--I appreciate you as a person and as an editor and would like to help you ease into the WP framework. It was confusing for me at first, too. Please reread and take to heart what Dave Souza and ChrisO have told you on this page. One misunderstanding you and GregJackP had was that WP rules are identical to the US Civil Code. Doubtlessly you've encountered editors who were not welcoming and did bite or at least snap at the newbie (you), and so failed to uphold the 4th Pillar. But understanding all the rules, or at least the most basic ones, requires 1. reading them, 2. watching them in action, 3. practicing them, 4. patience, and 5. an abundance of Assuming Good Faith. I had no inkling of understanding until I took an issue to mediation. There I learned there is a distinct liberal academic bias, but it was very helpful for me to learn that. If I were an editor at Conservapedia (which I never would be) I would have to function within their framework. And so, even though I'm not a liberal academician, I must function within this framework....or desist. Here was my final comment on the arbitration: Nothing personal here to any of you kind participants. Your time has not been utterly wasted since I've learned how Wiki operates. Dave wrote to me, “As for the issue of using primary sources, our aim here has to be to use secondary sources for any interpretation or selection to avoid introducing our own interpretation. This is the opposite of good scholarly practice for historians, but makes sense where editing is open to everyone and we can't check expert credentials.” You’ll be happy to know I actually follow and agree with that logic. And I’m being matter-of-fact here, not facetious or bitter: I’ve learned the rules of the game, which is useful to me and helpful to all in my future participation in the audacious undertaking called Wikipedia. (All I would change today would be to strike "of the game.") Back to the original subject of this section, which was the unpoliced behavior of some editors--please see today's refusals to accept verifiable facts from reliable sources at the CRUec talk page. Would that Crum375's post here of 19:00, 30 July 2010 could be enforced there!--Yopienso (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not seeing Minor4th in need of any remedial education on how to be an effective Wikipedia editor. Or any help "easing into the WP framework". Their edits are fine. Until they run into the buzz saw that is a certain faction... no one has infinite patience, after all. That's where the problem lies. This faction consistently drives away other editors, editors who know and understand the wikipedia way and wonder why it doesn't work in this area. Minor4th's edits are not the problem here. ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Yopienso -- thanks but did you notice that I have more edits than you? Also, it's weird that you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You praise the people who are doing exactly what you are complaining of. Hard to make sense of your posts. Minor4th 04:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC) At the CRUec page you seemed like a confused newbie, specially regarding the copyright of an image. If you know more than I, please accept my good will and disregard my advice. May I never be found attaching myself to any "camp" or picking up "weapons"! When Dave and ChrisO say or do something I see as helpful, I will stand with them. When I see them being obstructive, I may not always say so, but I will certainly not praise them. My participation here has all to do with WP principles and nothing with personalities or issues. Please feel free at any time to ask me to clarify my thoughts, either on an article talk page or on my own. Cheers! --Yopienso (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC) ChrisO, dave souza, et al., are missing the point, or making the wrong point. As per usual. They keep trying to make this a "skeptics vs. scientists" debate. It's not. Most of this topic area isn't purely about science. For example, why exactly is it they resist calling the CRU article "Climategate"???? Lots of material has been put forward to show that's how everyone else refers to it. But calling it that instead of "the controversy about the stealing of email, and oh by the way CRU and all the scientists are perfect" does not fit that faction's POV. For another example, why do skeptic bios get stuff stuffed in them to make the LP subject look bad and non skeptic bios get stuff stuffed in them to make the LP subject look good? This faction needs to be returned to the Wikipedia way. It's way overdue. We can hope that ArbCom, without changing policy, and without making content decisions, will nevertheless rein them in, because their behavior is problematic. No ifs ands or buts about it. I'm emphatically not a skeptic. I think skeptics are confused, badly. But I cannot stomach this factions tactics. ++Lar: t/c 03:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I've wondered about the resistance to calling the article Climategate, and why that's been allowed to stand, when it's what everyone else calls it. It has reached the stage where I have to write "(Climategate)" in brackets after I write out "the theft of emails from etc etc," so that readers know what I'm talking about. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Climategate is an accepted redirect. See? --*Kat* (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Yeah, but do you really want to create Great Northern Loon 2? Soxwon (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry, that didn't quite make sense, could you elaborate? ++Lar: t/c 04:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC) In North America it is known as the Common Loon, in the UK the Great Northern Kite. Only wikipedia really refers to it as the Great Northern Loon, everywhere else, the common usage is one of those two. The climategate naming seems to be similar compromise with similarly horrible results... Soxwon (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Also in this category: Fixed-wing aircraft. Soxwon (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Even that was a huge battle. And our naming policy is that articles should be named using the most prevalent name. But this faction introduces all sorts of reasons why that doesn't apply in this particular case. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Climatic Research Unit email controversy is about 100kbs...can't 2/3rds of it be trimmed...what a mess...all of this. I dealt with fringe views regarding the conspiracy theories about 9/11 for several years....this is getting worse than that mess WAS...I say WAS because all those that kept pushing the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 either got banned, or greatly restricted and now 9/11 related articles are generally calm...the conspiracy theories regarding issues surrounding that issue have been relegated to subarticles since they are fringe and generally lacking in support by a vast majority of investigators and engineers. "Climategate" is POV...it likens the "misdeeds" of climate researchers to the High Crimes and Misdemeanors of those involved in the Watergate scandal...and it is a media based (especially FOXNews, which I watch daily) term deliberately employed to provide a chilling effect to support a POV. However, recent comments by AGW advocates have likened AGW skepticism to Holocaust denial...a pretty big condemnation deliberately designed to be a chilling effect....about the same as calling someone an idiot. Few sciences are perfect and Wikipedia's goal has always been to report the information, maintaining NPOV and inforcing the due and undue weight clause of NPOV.--MONGO 17:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC) The media has added -gate onto many a political scandal. Its almost an accepted suffix in its own right.--*Kat* (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC) This is kind of off the subject, but the recently deceased veteran journalist Daniel Schorr (who as you may know was actually on Nixon's "enemies list") expressed that he felt it was a bad thing when the media tagged every scandal with the -gate suffix, because many if not all of the scandals it was attached to lacked the very serious repercussions to history that the Watergate scandal had. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC) MONGO: I work on the 9/11 conspiracy theories articles, too, so you know I'm no fringe theorist, but what's going on at the Climategate article is beyond the pale. The article title is one example where we are clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. The whole world calls it Climategate except Wikipedia. That's completely against what WP:NPOV is about. I compiled a very long list of reliable sources which call it Climategate yet editors are still refusing to change the name.[18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I hadn't seen that discussion regarding the Climategate titling issues...however, I have to stand where I am though that doesn't mean I like the current title either. To me, though not nearly as inappropriate as calling AGW skeptics "Holocaust Deniers" or "idiots", titling the article as "Climategate" places the scandal in parity with the Watergate Scandal....which is a gross exaggeration.--MONGO 18:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC) There's an interesting background to the -gate suffix. Basically it was the invention of the conservative columnist and former Richard Nixon speechwriter William Safire, who routinely coined -gate names to tar Nixon's successors (primarily the Democrats, of course) with the same brush. The purpose of the suffix is specifically to imply wrongdoing and a coverup along the lines of Watergate. It's extremely loaded language, used as a way of framing an issue in a particular way from the outset. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Regardless of that, it's the term that's now widely used for it, except on Wikipedia, so we're engaging in a form of original research by insisting on calling it something else. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Continuation of the ArbCom debate on Jimbo's talk page I see that the Climate change ArbCom case deliberations have moved here, without the editors being informed about that. As I argued at the ArbCom case, the dispute on Wikipedia is caused by indoctrination by conservative media. Lar does seem to have a point about BLPs. However, we have to note here that the biased media reporting leads to people with sceptical opinions that are totally wrong and insignificant to become notable precisely because the conservative media will pick up this "noise" and amplify it. Now, one can debate how Wikipedia should deal with this issue. But we can see that the way the climate change subjects have been covered, implies that there are mechanisms at work at Wikipedia that will lead to the bias in the conservative media being filtered out from Wikipedia. These mechanisms cannot be fully attributed to the Wiki-policies. That's why the editors who would like to see articles give more weight to the conservative POV are complaining; the rules seem to suggest that they should have their way to some extent, but they are not. They then argue that the other editors are to blame; if only they would stop editing the climate change articles, things would "improve". But I think the state of the climate change articles reflects quite accurately the opinion of the editors who are not editing the articles. The number of people who have the climate change articles on their wachlist is far greater than the number of regular editors. The bulk of the people watching the articles are satisfied with the way the climate change articles are written. Only if there is a perturbation away from the ideal state of an article and it is not corrected by one of the regulars for a while, then some of these non-regulars will step in. The regulars are self-selected members of the group of all editors. Over time an equilibrium state has been reached in which whatever the regulars are doing, has the support of the wider community. Count Iblis (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC) As one of the editors who has watchlisted some of these articles and followed their progress, and who is not editing them, I totally disagree with you. SlimVirgin and Lar are right. "Truth" is taking precedent over NPOV. The latter means the representation of significant viewpoints, whether "specialists" or not. The point of NPOV is to give the reader access to the range of viewpoints, so they can make up their own mind how to assess the matter. It is a violation of NPOV to edit with "the bias in the conservative media being filtered out from Wikipedia". NPOV demands that the "bias" is represented accurately. It is a violation of NPOV to even call it bias. The editor's job is not to evaluate it, but to represent it. If "biased media reporting leads to people with sceptical opinions that are totally wrong and insignificant to become notable", then by your own words they are notable and their "totally wrong" opinions need to be represented to present a full picture of the debate. Ty 17:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Ty, this is then your opinion of how Wikipedia should be editited and there is nothing wrong with that in principle. I have a different opinion, but my point here simply is that whatever position one takes, one can see that Wikipedia is actually editited in a way that leads to a result that the sceptics are not satisfied with and that violates their interpretation of the Wiki-rules. I think that it is important to understand how this happens. My opinion on that point is that when there is an objective truth out there that is visible to a clear majority of the Wiki-editors (say with a 2-1 majority or larger), the article on that subject will end presenting it from that "objective truth" POV. I think that this effect is largely independent of the rules we have here and the particular people who happen to edit the article on a regular basis. As long as the rules are liberal enough and you have a large enoug pool of potential editors, you'll get a similar result. The sceptical editors are trying to fight this inherent pressure that leads to this result. It maybe that the Wiki-rules do give them some good arguments to defend their position. But I think that the pressure is too strong to resist. The appearance of a contradiction between the actual result and what the Wiki-rules seem to be saying leads to the tensions on the pages. It is a bit like a big volcano that erupts violently. Had the Earth's crust been less thick at that point, the lava would have flowed out more gently. But the driving force behind the vocanic eruption cannot be overcome. That's why I argued on the ArbCom pages that it is better to remove the perception of the violation of the rules by adopting an appropriate version of WP:SPOV. Count Iblis (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I don't think the "silence equals assent" argument works here, Count. Most Wikipedians hesitate to get involved because it's so toxic. I actually voted for William for ArbCom based on his admin actions, because I was impressed by how even-handed and sensible he was at the 3RR noticeboard, which he almost single-handedly maintained for a long time. I knew there had been CC problems, but I had no idea of the extent of them. It was only recently when I took a position the CC editors didn't like, and I immediately got turned on, that I started to look at it seriously. I'm guessing my experience is typical of a lot of Wikipedians: head in the sand, ignorance is bliss. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC) My experience on these pages is not different from most other Wikipedia pages that are edited by many editors. If someone argues a point that is not going to be adopted by consensus then you can get some level of hostility if that person were to argue that point for to long. As I wrote to Ty, I believe that in case of CC there may well be good reasons to argue against the way the articles are edited based on what the Wiki-rules say. At least, the way some sceptics argue about NPOV is not that unreasonable, even if I don't happen to agree with them. But that perceived violation of NPOV that is then the source of the tension which should be cured by adopting WP:SPOV. Count Iblis (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Some of the most important principles generally adopted by Wikipedia in dealing with "fringe" or not mainstream issues is in regard to due and undue weight...Jimbo did an outstanding job summarizing this when he wrote (essentially)...posted at NPOV here... If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.... Are the AGW skeptics mainstream...NO...therefore, we should NOT give them equal time. Are they a significant minority...possibly...are they a vastly limited minority...possibly. Therefore, the issue is how much "weight" if any do we give AGW skepticism?--MONGO 17:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC) So if this were the time of Christopher Columbus and all mainstream sources said the world is flat, we would not be able to write about scientific evidence and theories concerning a world that is round? Don't forget, some great scientists weren't well respected during their times, but now their theorems are in scientific texts.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Not unless we wanted to get pulled up in front of the Inquisition.  :-D --*Kat* (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC) As someone who hesitated for a long time before editing any climate related articles, I'll agree that "silence equals consent" doesn't work here, and that there's a toxic atmosphere reflecting the political debate, fuelled by misreporting in mass media and blog campaigning. Tyrenius says "opinions need to be represented to present a full picture of the debate", the question is "which debate?" There's a strong scientific consensus on basic issues, with a few outliers, and debate about developments in the science. There's also a political debate which includes denial and misunderstandings of the science, promoting fringe views. Jim Inhofe and Ken Cuccinelli are significant players in the political debate, and we should report that in a way that doesn't give their views on the science undue weight. The current policies provide a way to achieve that, tedious as the arguments can become. Changing the policies to favour minority views or mass msdia coverage would misrepresent what's shown in the most reliable sources. . dave souza, talk 17:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC) But Mongo, you'll notice that in the quote you cite from Jimbo, he says nothing about equal time. It's this business of trying to work out what percentage of a page a certain POV needs to be given that is poisoning Wikipedia. It's impossible to work out whether global-warming skepticism should be given 49 percent or three percent. What would it even mean in real terms to give a source a certain percentage? The sensible thing to do is try to produce a page that both sides can accept as fair, even if grudgingly, but for that to work it presupposes that you're dealing with editors who are acting in good faith. It's the good faith that I'm sorry to say seems entirely absent from the CC editors. When you disagree with the CC editors, you face a solid brick wall of absolute, rigid, black-and-white POV that admits to no error, no weakness, no nuance. Negotiation to achieve neutrality is a non-starter. This is why people are saying this is not a content issue, but a behavioral one. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC) We must reference the experts and some of those experts that are AGW skeptics of varying degrees are listed in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming as you probably know...it is small list compared to the literally countless number of scientists who believe in varying degrees that AGW is fact. For the record, I stand more in line with the AGW skeptics than I do with the advocates...but I'm not a scientist nor am I a Holocaust Denier or uneducated on the issues. I fully agree that figuring out what measure if any of kbs should be dedicated to AGW skepticism is the problem. I also understand the entrenched issues and "ownership" that one might encounter should they try and increase weight of the non mainstream material...--MONGO 18:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Mongo, the problem lies with the UNDUE section of NPOV, both the way it's written and the way it's applied. People who regularly battle against nonsense, such as yourself in the 9/11 articles or editors on Holocaust denial pages, are used to support this section, for fear of reams of nonsense suddenly appearing, along the lines of "But if you weaken UNDUE, it'll mean Holocaust deniers will have to be added to the Holocaust article!" But it's scare tactics. The main use of UNDUE is increasingly to allow editors to exclude significant-minority POVs and have articles reflect entirely whatever the mainstream POV is of self-appointed specialists in the field—to the exclusion of alternative voices, including reasonable ones, even from within the field itself. The NPOV policy is literally being used as a weapon against neutrality. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC) MONGO: The problem I'm encountering is that editors won't allow (or try to remove) the AGW skeptic POV in articles about or directly related to AGW skepticism. It's absolutely insane. I've never seen such a thing before. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC) An appropriate strategy in such a circumstance is to follow the same approach that we have employed with great success in the lead of Creationism (or in other areas where the exists an scientific consensus on one hand, and a position of personal belief or faith on the other). We can, and should, strive to accurately present individuals' beliefs in their biographies, just as we should write articles specifically about those beliefs if they are held by a large number of people. What we also must do is strive to clearly and accurately indicate which points are matters of faith, versus points which are matters of science. Our article on Creationism acknowledges clearly and openly that it is at odds with accepted science, despite it being believed and supported by millions of people all over the world. Daniel Okrent coined what is sometimes called Okrent's Law, which I think aptly summarizes the problem: "The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Exactly. Imagine that there is an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, and editors decide that someone who wrote a notable and oft-cited book about the conspiracy is "unreliable" and prohibit use of his book as a source for that article. This is what's happening in different areas around the project, apparently because some editors are so insecure with the mainstream views that they vigorously disallow any opposition to be heard, and ridicule any dissenting voice, even in articles dedicated to the dissent. I think that, esp. in articles dedicated to the dissent, all voices should be heard, and all relevant sources should be used, as long as the various sides in the dispute are correctly labeled and neutrally presented. Crum375 (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Crum375: But editors aren't following WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE even as they are currently written! If our 9/11 conspiracy theories article was written the way editors are trying to write Climategate, it would only contain the refutations of 9/11 conspiracy theories and no explanation of what those theories actually are. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC) BTW, that's not to say that the AGW skeptic POV is anywhere near as outlandish as the 9/11 Truther POV. In fact, the allegations of Freedom of Information Act violations turned out to be valid and some parts of the Climategate scandal have to do unprofessional behavior, such one scientist practically celebrating the death of a critic.[19] Not to mention that some of the critics are legitimate scientists such as Judith Curry[20] and well-known environmentalists such as George Manbiot.[21] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC) The due and undue weight clause of NPOV has generally stood the test of time and did work well in minimizing obvious rubbish from 9/11 related articles...in effect, the 9/11 conspiracy theory information was not supported aside from a few easily discredited "scientists", so was generally deemed, as reflected in the mainstream press and in engineering literature, as not worthy of more than the briefest of mention...and in most cases, again as reflected in mainstream news and literature, no mention at all. Today, most 9/11 related articles adhere to this "reflection"...though there are articles dedicated solely to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and they too have filtered out the most preposterous of claims. I'm not convinced yet that there is a significant minority or an even larger number of scientists that have published evidence that contradicts evidence published by mainstream scientists regarding AGW. I know that contradictory evidence exists but the larger picture I have seen is that mostly what is being published is more along the lines of alterations to existing evidence, not a refutation of that evidence. We have many voices that are from prominent people that claim that they think the AGW evidence is bunk, but this is generally NOT found in published form along the lines of scientific journals and other peer reviewed papers which are properly vetted. In most cases, the data sets of information regarding findings about AGW is available to the scientific community as a whole. The refutations of these data sets does not appear significantly in scientific papers...so what I am gathering to a degree is that some here are possibly alluding that the suppression of the "significant minority" viewpoints in the mainstream science journals is also being done here on Wikipedia...keeping in mind of course, that viewpoints do not a science make...IF verifiable contradictory evidence regarding AGW is being deliberately suppressed by mainstream science and that is spilling over here, then we have a bigger problem than I anticipated.--MONGO 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Mongo, I disagree that UNDUE has stood the test of time. There have been multiple objections to it, but attempts to change it are met with reverts and even threats. It contradicts NOR and V, and is too often being interpreted to mean that only specialist sources are allowed as reliable sources, with everyone else rubbished as fringe. This has resulted in an increasingly specialization on Wikipedia, where ordinary voices—no matter how reasonable—are drowned out: a kind of creeping Nupedia or Citizendium. By restricting our definition of reliable source to peer-reviewed specialists in many cases, we determine in advance that the content will never reflect alternative voices, who by definition are peer-reviewed out of existence. We are bowing to the old authorities. The whole point of Wikipedia, and indeed of Web 2.0, is to bypass the High Priests and gatekeepers. We are supposed to offer a page for each topic that shines a light into corners that ordinary people may not have easy access to, where they get an overview of arguments from all directions, so long as the views are not lunatic, tiny-minority. We have no right to set up ourselves up as censors on behalf of the old guard. If we want censorship and suppression of information, there was enough of that before WP existed, so we may as well not bother. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC) In trying to respond adequately to your concerns, I'm somewhat at a loss. Perhaps my 9/11 comparative analogy doesn't work under these circumstances. Not the left or right wing press nor engineering literature provided conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 more than a passing mention, mostly the conspiracy theories were laughed off as preposterous. I recognize that there are reliable sources that contradict some of the research regarding climate change, the hockey stick graph...etc. and that these sources aren't available in mainstream science journals as a whole...what would be the motivating rationale for this...if the science is not correct, or at the least is greatly exaggerated, why wouldn't there be more evidence presented regarding this issue in the scientific literature? If the scientific community involved in this matter is trying to perpetrate a "hoax" as one U.S. Senator has openly stated, why isn't this showing up in peer reviewed areas? Science is at times inflexible...if the data shows one thing, then only that one thing is accepted until overwhelming contradictory evidence is presented that refutes or clearly demonstrates the flaws and or inaccuracies or the old data. So far, we don't have overwhelming contradictory evidence refuting it, only some evidence of malfeasence, some evidence of misrepresentation and some evidence of incorrectness...but it is not beyond the deviation found in most scientific disputes...and it isn't enough to supercede the existing evidence, merely enough to adjust it and or update it. I think some people want a simple answer to a complex issue...as far as climate science goes, it has a lot of variability....it has to due to the various unknowns that are independent of human activity...but they can still offer a prospective of what will likely happen if we don't do X. In an effort to be greater than the sources as far as accuracy and to provide a fair shake so to speak to the dissention that is being ignored or snubbed by the mainstream literature then that will be hard under the NPOV policy...we would have to violate the policy or change it so we wouldn't be violating it.--MONGO 05:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC) We have a sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, that makes clear non-academic sources are always permitted. People who interpret NPOV to say otherwise are violating the sourcing policy. Look, we have a situation here where people are comparing sources who say "the American government was involved in destroying the World Trade Center" with sources who say: "Climatologists using computer models might have made a mistake." Both sources are equally fringe, it seems. Both must be excluded from Wikipedia. Clearly, that's absurd, so the place to start to fix this is to ask: which part of which policy has lent itself to this absurdity? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC) The conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 aren't totally suppressed...they are represented according to weight...they get little to no mention since they aren't supported by the mainstream press or by the engineering literature except as what they are, conspiracy theories. However, the issue surrounding inaccuracies in climate modeling has been mentioned and reported in both the media and in mainstream scientific journals...so are you telling me that Wikipedia editors are suppressing this information?--MONGO 06:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Yes! :) And it's not only happening there. There is a tendency now in all science-related articles to insist on specialist sources, and to dismiss non-academic sources per UNDUE. The attitude is also spreading to non-science articles. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC) FOI Act A large part of the problem that is being experienced in this topic area is the willingness of editors to push half-truths and untruths, of which this is a perfect illustration. Allegations of FOI Act violations were not "found to be valid" - as one of the inquiries put it, there was "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever". This is not even arguable, since there was no finding by any inquiry that the FOI Act had been broken (all of this is documented at Climatic Research Unit email controversy#Reports). AQFK knows this perfectly well, since he has been involved with the article for some time, but evidently chooses not to be believe it. Much of the difficulty we are having here is that some editors persistently place their inaccurate personal opinions above the documented facts. That is not a productive approach. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC) ChrisO: Untrue. The Information Commissioner's Office, the agency responsible for administering the Freedom of Information Act, said that FOIA requests by David Holland "were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation" which makes it "an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information". But the ICO could not prosecute because that statute of limitations has expired. If you don't believe me, I believe that the ICO's full statement can be found here.[22] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Naughty, AQFK, that's not a full or official statement, it was an informal response by the deputy ICO to a journalist. The full statement makes it clear that no investigation has been carried out under Section 77 of the FOIA, which is whare the statute of limitations has expired, but the ICO has issued a decision under the less onerous regulation 19 of the EIR. Please check these things out more carefully, for info I've added further clarification to the article.[23] . dave souza, talk 23:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Oh, and Chris, your statement is also a bit inaccurate, nuances required as above. The point remains that many wild allegations of Freedom of Information Act violations turned out to be false, as the various inquiries noted the culture of reluctance to give out data, computer programs and private emails to non-scientists has to change, and such changes were already being implemented. . . dave souza, talk 23:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Dave souza: I said "statement", not "report", but I've struck out "full" to avoid any misunderstandings. Thanks for the link to the full report. I note that the full report contradicts what ChrisO said and confirms what I said above: The ICO ruled that the CRU breached the Freedom of Information Act but the six month statute of limitations has expired. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Still wrong, in that the 6 month issue only applies to Section 77 which allows a fine of the organisation or individual – not investigated. The decision relates to the lesser issue of Section 50 issuing a notice requiring an organisation to improve its procedures. Please study the FOIA with care, it's not as simple as you seem to think. . . dave souza, talk 06:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Here's what the sources say Primary source Case Ref: FER0238017 Date: 07/07/2010 Public Authority: University of East Anglia Summary: The complainant made a number of requests for information related to the involvement of some of the public authority’s staff in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Commissioner has found that the public authority breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a response to a request within 20 working days and breached regulation 5(2) by failing to provide a response to other requests. Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5(2) - Complaint Upheld , EIR 14(2) - Complaint Upheld. View PDF of Decision Notice FER0238017 http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resources/decision_notices/2010_07.aspx Secondary sources University in hacked climate change emails row broke FOI rules • Too late to take action, says deputy commissioner The University of East Anglia flouted Freedom of Information regulations in its handling of requests for data from climate sceptics, according to the government body that administers the act. In a statement, the deputy information commissioner Graham Smith said emails between scientists at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that were hacked and placed on the internet in November revealed that FOI requests were "not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation". http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/uea-hacked-climate-emails-foi The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny. The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times has learnt. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece Tertiary source Climate researchers at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom broke the law by withholding data from public scrutiny, say various reports today. http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/climate-researc.html I've bolded the essential phrases that show the FOI Act was broken. --Yopienso (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Yopienso, unfortunately your various secondary sources all relate to the informal press statement the deputy ICO issued without a basis in investigation, leading to him being chided by the HOC Select Committee for an unsupported statement which was exaggerated by the press. The decision at the top was issued in July, the other links are earlier and give false information. . dave souza, talk 06:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Actually you've just managed to illustrate the deficiencies of press reporting. If you read your primary source, it's a formal finding of breaches of the Environmental Information Regulations. Your secondary source, which as Dave says is much older, relates to an informal press statement that breaches of the FOI Act may have occurred. There was no subsequent formal determination of a breach of the FOI Act, only of the EIR. The EIR is not the FOI Act. No breach of the FOI Act was ever determined by the ICO, as it couldn't investigate this issue due to statutory limitations. In short, it's wrong to say that the ICO determined that the FOI Act had been breached since no determination was ever made. This illustrates why we have to be careful when using media sources and not simply act as stenographers - the media often makes mistakes, as I'm sure Jimbo could tell you! -- ChrisO (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Is this still being argued? Could everyone not just wait until the ArbCom issues its findings on whether the articles relating to CC/AGW have been edited in policy and practice complaint ways or not, and whether some editors (and admins, perhaps) have misunderstood or misrepresented policy in their desire to see certain viewpoints presented or removed from articles? Once ArbCom make their decision(s), then editors - those that are permitted to continue contributing - can argue whether the results were correct or not over differing pages. As it is, this issue is really starting to poison parts of WP outside of the specific article space - and none of the involved parties appear close to considering changing their stances. Why not just wait for the results to come in? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I find this debate quite constructive, LH, because it's not just about CC. The CC conflict only served to highlight the general problem, because what happened there has been happening less aggressively elsewhere too. The exclusion of significant-minority POVs is something that's been gathering pace for a couple of years or more, and we now even have a situation where the NPOV policy (which seems to encourage editors to insert their own views about how representative a view is) arguably violates the NOR policy (which doesn't allow editors to do that). But attempts to make clear in the NPOV policy that it must be consistent with the other polices are reverted. So this is a debate that does have to take place outside the hothouse of the CC conflict. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC) That aspect is quite interesting and important to the WP editing model, and may well be a suitable subject for a general RfC within the NPOV policy talkpage, but presently it is being largely argued over by parties involved in the CC/AGW articles/ArbCom case and using those issues as an example - and the issue has been presented as an area of concern within that ArbCom. While ArbCom famously does not make precedent, comments made regarding WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and its uses within this dispute will likely inform future discussion; therefore, especially arguing the specifics and examples is not productive and appears simply to be exporting the CC/AGW dispute to another venue (and one which even ArbCom is unlikely to try and restrict). Of course, this is pretty much a personal reaction to the matter - I recently suddenly found myself desperately tired of looking at the mess, and just wanting some sort of closure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC) For what it's worth, my main interest here is not the CC conflict; like you, I'm tired of it. But I think it inadvertently performed a service, in that it provided an extreme example of how the policies are being misapplied. I hope the next step will be to examine whether the wording of the policies lends itself to this kind of misuse. That's a debate that's entirely independent of the ArbCom case. Perhaps here on this page editors of good faith with different perspectives can try to find common ground. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Regrettably, SV, policy is being misused to suppress majority views in articles about marginally notable topics. The question has been put to the arbiters, we should see their considered views before going into more detail about your rather vague allegations. . . dave souza, talk 07:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC) The ArbCom case is about PEOPLE. This discussion is first and foremost about POLICY. Climate Change is merely the backdrop or, perhaps, the vehicle of this discussion. Since ArbCom cases do not set precedents which can be used in other cases, this discussion and that case are not mutually exclusive.--*Kat* (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I'd like to thank Jimbo for allowing the discussion to take place on his page. This is a good neutral place to hold it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Seconded. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Move to close? --*Kat* (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Agree fully with both motions. Abwarten und Tee trinken! . . . . dave souza, talk 18:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody! Stats If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the May 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, your word totals are cumulative for barnstars (not the leaderboard). Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars. GOCE backlog elimination drive chart up to 31 July Eight people will receive The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Barnstar (100,000+ words): Chaosdruid, Diannaa, Ericleb01, Lfstevens, Shimeru, S Masters, The Utahraptor, and Torchiest. Bullock and Slon02 will receive The Order of the Superior Scribe (80,000+). The Barnstar of Diligence (60,000+) goes to Derild4921, GaryColemanFan, kojozone, and Mlpearc. The Modern Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar (40,000+) goes to A. Parrot, AirplanePro, Auntieruth55, Bejinhan, David Rush, and mono. Nobody will receive The Old School League of Copy Editors award (30,000+). The Tireless Contributor Barnstar (20,000+) goes to Backtable, Cindamuse, dtgriffith, Duff, e. ripley, Laurinavicius, NerdyScienceDude, and TEK. The Cleanup Barnstar (12,000+) goes to Brickie, Casliber, cymru lass, December21st2012Freak, Nolelover, TheTito, Whoosit, and YellowMonkey. The Working Man's Barnstar (8,000+) goes to Bsherr, Duchess of Bathwick, HELLKNOWZ, Mabeenot, noraft, Pyfan, and Richard asr. The Modest Barnstar (4,000+) goes to Adrian J. Hunter, Airplaneman, Annalise, Camerafiend, Cricket02, Fetchcomms, Gosox5555, LeonidasSpartan, Paulmnguyen, Piotrus, SuperHamster, Taelus, and TPW. Gold Star Award Gold Star Award Leaderboard Articles Words 5k+ Articles 1. Diannaa (248) Shimeru (200,392) Shimeru/Ericleb01 (13) 2. Slon02 (157) Diannaa (164,960) Chaosdruid (8) 3. GaryColemanFan (101) Chaosdruid (130,630) Derild4921 (7) 4. Torchiest (100) The Utahraptor (117,347) GaryColemanFan/Slon02 (6) 5. Shimeru (80) Ericleb01 (114,893) Bejinhan/The Utahraptor (5) Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

Barnstar

The Founder's Barnstar

For support during the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, Jimbo Wales is presented with this exclusive Founder's Barnstar. --Diannaa (Talk) 17:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikijungle

Dear Jimbo, I've just seen your response posted a few months ago. You must have developed an interesting set of new skills over the pass ten years which I hope you've been able to gain further enjoyment from, but I also hope that you've not gotten lost for too long in a Wiki-jungle.

In 2001 I thought Wiki was an interesting experiment, and I still do. In fact it is currently virtually an indispensable reference tool for the planet. I also think the basic idea was in a grey area between wanting to be anonymous and being a publishing system like Ted Nelson's Xanadu was went to be. During these ten years a number of dispute and resolution 'systems' have been developed - these are kludges, they are not eloquent or intuitive like the base Wiki concept but they are essential.

I think Wiki needs a users guide/manual.

There is no intuitive guide, there are links to links which people can follow like a rabbit warren, you may find a 'solution' only to be told by a buck-rabbit that you didn't use the intended section of the warren 200 metres away. It's great for the bucks who live there, they have advantage to maintain their POV. Your responses about being "premature" and "not likely to feel as nice as I hope" are well intentioned but said from point of a person for whom the warren seems intuitive when it is not. I've been editing Wikipeia since 2001, I've spent the last three years caught in a series of ugly Supreme Court litigations, I've designed telecommunication networks and done a thousand other things; but I'm not willing or able to spend six months mapping the Wiki jungle which is still growing. I'm quite able to deal with jargon and game rules, but there should be a copy of those rules and the jargon in one place.

Hope that prospective helps, I know somebody somewhere has probably done this but if they have it's lost inside the warren somewhere.Daeron (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. You're right about "lost inside the warren somewhere" though! I knew this was here but it still took me nearly ten minutes to find it :) EyeSerene^talk 07:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a newbie editor's interface? --*Kat* (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Or better still, a newbie's toolbar. One that spells it out. Maybe done in a sidebar style, with links to policies in a nutshell, and menus for frequently used templates.--*Kat* (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The main page has a nice link to Wikipedia:Introduction which looks ok at first glance, cunningly hidden as the second line in the top bar, which says "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Suggestions: make the "anyone can edit" phrase bolder; and every article page has "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" as a subtitle, could we add the linked phrase "that anyone can edit" to that standard header? Wikipedia: The Missing Manual looks useful for more detailed guidance, I've suggested it be added to Wikipedia:Introduction 2 at the appropriate talk page, Template talk:Please don't change this page. . . dave souza, talk 09:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've started a project here meant to (a) encourage readers to edit and (b) explain the basics in simple terms. Your thoughts here or on the project talk page would be very welcome. Anthony (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of The Lazarus Effect (film)

I have nominated The Lazarus Effect (film), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lazarus Effect (film). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good article and an interesting documentary. The development of drug treatments that have stopped AIDS from being a death sentence and allow people to live with the disease is a pretty remarkable story. I wonder if the developments haven't gotten more play because of the fear of complacency? Freakshownerd (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Its always good to watchlist Jimbo's page to sniff out drama.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Whaa

A lot of the most prolific Wikipedians, or at least many of them, also seem to have a screw loose. But that doesn't mean their work is useless.

— Larry Sanger in Slate (link)

I'd wondered what was rattling. --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Darn it! I thought it was money! ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only Wikipedians, but also in all other endeavors throughout history and pre-history. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Im still waiting for my tax write offs! :D Thelmadatter (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Jason Leopold, COI, etc

I agree with your assessment of COI as I, roughly, understand it here. My view has always been if an editors edits are good for Wikipedia, then a COI doesnt matter, if they are bad for Wikipedia, then a COI doesnt help, either way, COI is mostly irrelevant. I am curious what you think of this edit, from a neutrality prospective. Despite what others may think, I do want to write a neutral, factual article, I just dont think that adding a bunch of positive, but inconsequential material is the way to do it. Bonewah (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Admins

Have you thought lately about appointing some new admins? Check out File:Active_admins_by_month,_December_2007_to_August_2010.png. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect if he did that, the community would be totally up in arms about it. Not a good idea. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

He reserved the right to do it a long time ago. Of course a few people would be up in arms about it, but people get up in arms about everything. I doubt very many people would really be upset about new admins being appointed. It's like complaining at someone for sweeping your sidewalk. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My mathematics teacher told me, beware of graphs that do not start at zero. Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, given how people reacted to his unilaterally removing images he didn't like from Commons and whatnot, I don't think it would be wise of him to make more unilateral moves. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you honestly think people aren't going to complain about the block button being handed to people without community RFA? If you honestly believe that I question your connection to the community.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait. Are we really talking about handing someone the admin tools without community consensus? I honestly don't think this is a good idea. Sure, we're a bit short on administrators, but that doesn't mean we have to hand the admin tools to somebody without reaching a consensus first. Even though it may sound like it, I'm not one of the people that's going to be up in arms about this. If it happens, it happens. I'm simply opposed to the idea. I won't make a big deal out of it if it happens. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 16:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, so long as I'm appointed as God Emperor of Dune. I must control all of the spice! GregJackP Boomer! 18:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just because there are fewer active admins right now doesn't automatically mean we need more, or that we need to resort to Admin-Draft-By-Jimbo to get more.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We just need to encourage people to apply for adminship, that's all. Silverseren^C 20:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that RFA, as it currently works, discourages people from applying for adminship. Deli nk (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Our expectations for people applying for adminship are much higher than expectations for actual admins. We need to decrease our expectations for people applying for adminship. I mean, we can't expect the perfect admin, can we? The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 20:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Greg, but I think that I would like to be God Emperor of Dune. Or at least, I want to be Supreme Bashar for the Bene Gesserit. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"The prophet is not diverted by illusions of past, present and future." If appointed God Emperor of Dune, you may be Supreme Bashar. On a side note, the entire Admin process needs to be evaluated. In addition to RfA being a joke and a popularity contest, there is no realistic oversight of admins and absolutely no realistic way to get rid of bad ones. GregJackP Boomer! 22:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you God Emperor of Dune, that's exactly what needs to be done! I keep pushing for this- something similar to the civilian review boards that exist in cities across the nation that "police the police". MANY admins DO consider themselves to be police and if they want to act like it then we need to act as the "tax-paying citizens" of this Community and tell them no more hiding behind each other. No admin wants to strip another admin because then it makes it easier for themselves to lose the title regardless of whether they think they will or not (its the same psychological concept for why US senators vote for each other's pork products, "I vote for their useless bridge that doesnt help my constituents and he votes for something that I want that DOES help my constituents and we both get reelected"). Admins state over and over again that "oh, then all admins will be vulnerable to grudges and discontented editors who dont like our tough decisions". I say- oh well, if you werent doing anything wrong then you shouldnt be scared. Non-admins on a review board to actually deliver REAL decisions to overrule bad admins or block or desysop would make it easier and eliminate the "us-versus-them" mentality that many (including me) have. Perhaps no one wants to be an admin because too many are concerned with "there's a conflict! let me step in without knowing anything, warn someone on each side for something and show my special powers and off I go to the next one! maybe i'll even block someone for incivility!" but takes no effort to actually SOLVE the dispute. Who wants to be an admin when all they do is go around and try to be a policeman/teacher and treat us like children? No one wants that job. Make them understand they ARE nothing more than janitors to HELP us and do whate WE need them to do then you will see some thinking that might be a cool thing to be. And we'll have admins that actually arent asses.Camelbinky (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Might Want to take a look

I don't think the following users have any business on here:

KnightsoftheWhiteCamelia KuKluxKicken KuKluxKleagle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.47.225 (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All blocked. You'll normally get a quicker response at WP:UAA. Rodhullandemu 01:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that reminds me, can someone check UAA right now? It's backlogging. Access Denied^(t|c|g|d|s) 01:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Register is a tabloid

I heard that somewhere, and I agree. Why then are we allowing articles like Gharlane of Eddore (pen name) to exist? It relies solely on Usenet posts, blog memoirs and a citation in The Register as its source of information. Interestingly enough, this is a WP:BLP article but refers to a person by their pen name. Is that excuse to skirt around our living person's policy these days? I'm quite curious. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that some kind of outing using non reliable sources? That article has multiple issues in need of attention from an experienced editor that understands the topic, although anyone can see the poor quality of the citations. It is a biography but he allegedly died in 2001. Very recently closed AFD didn't get a lot of attention. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's kinda hard to violate WP:OUTING for someone who isn't a Wikipedia editor. That said, JBsupreme should take this up on WP:RSN. I don't think Jimbo is going to give a definitive answer to him/her. Also, I do wish that AfD had been relisted, instead of closed. Ah well.— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Register is not a very strong citation, our article refers to it as, an opinion website that frequently uses sarcasm and satire in its articles, but for what it is supporting there it is just about ok. It is possible to out someone who wrote under a pen name but this doesn't seem to be the case here, I have cleaned the citations and he just seems to be a usenet person notable in that corner of the world, so it could use a couple of additional citations to support his wider notability and some of his personal details but I don't see any major issues. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Potter is long deceased now, and as someone who knew him (and many of my friends knew him much closely than I did) the article is as far as I remember things accurate and reasonable. BLP doesn't directly apply, though avoiding embarrassing people's families is still a reasonable philosophical guideline. The article is accurate, however.

The Register isn't the greatest of sources, but they have a history of properly editorially quality-checked factual news coverage of internet events interspersed with the activism and advocacy. This was by a news author and was a factual report. It's consistent with the other sources. It's consistent with my memory of Gharlane/David Potter and his activities and death.

Put the stick down, JB. You're going to hit yourself in the noggin if you keep waving it around this much. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to pick up the cluestick instead and hand it over to you, George. If this was a personal friend/acquaintance of yours, you have no business editing the article as there is a conflict of interest which should have been fully disclosed from the get go. I'm disappointed.  :( JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not edited the article contents. I reverted your deletion of sources, which a number of users have unanimously agreed was not helpful. No COI issue is relevant here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You reverted my removal of a tabloid "source" (The Register) from a biographical article and thought that was helpful? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion that the Register is uniformly an untrustable "tabloid source" has been uniformly rejected by others who have weighed in on the subject. Nobody agrees so far that it's never a valid source. If you want to challenge the particular article, or establish a precedent that it's truly never reliable even when it's covering news events with reasonable editorial control and fact-based news reporting, you should take this to RSN and get an opinion.

You've been told a bunch of times that RSN is the right thing to do. Instead, you went back to the article talk page and badmouthed it after the AFD went the other way, and then came here to Jimmy's page. Neither of these is helpful nor will either of them replace doing the right thing: Take it to RSN and discuss it there.

I suspect that what will happen is that the opinion that I and all the others have made, which is that the Register's reliability is contextual, and is valid for pure-play news coverage in their areas of expertise, will be supported. But that's the venue for you to go to find out. Jimmy can't help you on this, though he may have an opinion on it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it wouldn't hurt to remember what a tabloid is: it's a newspaper that is physically substantially smaller, in length and width of pages, than a broadsheet newspaper. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I was wondering if someone was going to pull that one out! :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are tabloids and tabloids. Red tops, although in tabloid format, are a different issue, because their POV tends to be populist, somewhat lurid and perhaps not sourced as well as we would prefer; of the remaining UK tabloids, the Daily Express and Daily Mail tend to maintain a particular political stance which perhaps would be interpreted by a cynic as "bias". But even The Times and The Guardian have reduced their format sizes in recent years, but are not tarred with the "tabloid" pejorative label. Bottom line is that it depends on the *general* quality of the journalism, separating fact from opinion, and if necessary, taking individual reports of their own merits (if any). However, if this is to go anywhere, it should go to the individual articles involved, or if wider principles are involved, to WP:RSN for discussion, although that could not result in a prescriptive decision, and nor should it. Rodhullandemu 23:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Along the same lines, "tabloid" is not a useful label. In the US it tends to indicate newspapers like the National Enquirer (which has broken some stories, but mostly trades in empty gossip) and News of the World, which simply makes up stories. In the UK it refers more to the format, and the newspapers using that format vary in quality. So I think that saying something is a "tabloid" doesn't convey any specific issue and can be confusing.   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, Rod, the Times is apparently "compact", though there have been questions about quality at times, and the Grauniad is Berliner (format) – a nice pic on that page shows the various sizes, presumably taken when the Graun was still a broadsheet. Ah, the pedantic fun of paper sizes – I was always fond of double elephant. . . dave souza, talk 23:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't labelling The Times as a tabloid as such, merely downsized, although I do resile from putting money into Rupert Murdoch's pocket unless I can avoid it- which I do. Rodhullandemu 23:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree, but always thought "tabloid" was used for the unreliable gossipy end of the market in the UK. To my mild surprise, Newspapers.co.uk | Newspaper Types and Formats says "In the UK, tabloid newspapers have such a poor journalistic reputation that broadsheet-quality newspapers which have decided to take on a tabloid size have instead called the format ‘compact’ in order to avoid the many negative connotations of tabloid newspapers – connotations that those same broadsheets likely helped to reinforce in the past." @ Will Beback, at first I thought you were suggesting that The News of the Screws was a U.S. title as well as a well known UK tabloid, but apparently not. One all of our own, at least until 1969 when Rupert Murdoch got hold of it and maintained its traditional standards of journalism. . dave souza, talk 16:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, when I use the term "tabloid" I mean unreliable source and am not making any reference to print size/format. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we move this to WP:RSN? --Cyclopia^talk 17:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, The Register is absolutely worthless as a source, full stop, in all circumstances. It should never be used to make or justify any kind of claim, controversial or otherwise, on any matter of any kind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, why? (I'm neutral on the issue, even if I read it from time to time; I'm just curious of what is behind such a strong statement). --Cyclopia^talk 20:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Long experience with their generally low standards. They should be regarded as a satire/humor site, not a news site. They write outrageous things to get attention. Their reporting on things that I have first hand knowledge of has been absolutely worthless. There is no good reason to trust them at all. Are Wikipedians "Khmer rouge in nappies"? Do we have black helicopters circling in Utah? This is a glorified blog that prints absolute nonsense on a regular basis. Any news that can be found there is generally regurgitated from actual reliable sources which should be used instead, or is likely to be satirical editorializing of no merit.

Let me give a random example pulled from their site right now, an example that has nothing to do with anything I have personal knowledge of: "Airline ejects passenger for being hungry" - Is the story true? Well, they link to a blog of someone who says it happened to him. But would this merit inclusion in our article on United Airlines? Absolutely not, it is typical tabloid tittle-tattle written and given the most outrageous headline possible. No one from United was asked for a comment. No actual newspaper picked up the story. It's pure and total crap, through and through, in terms of being a reliable source.

This is not a cherry-picked example. This is what they do. While it may be lovely good fun (not in my opinion, but some people enjoy outrageous headlines, no matter how misleading and dishonest they may be) but it is not a reliable source, and it is absolutely not acceptable for Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect - they do have and have had writers who are decent reporters and editors who are decent editors, by news organization standards, and they have repeatedly run news coverage on the internet that other organizations didn't bother with.

Anyone who uses them without looking closely at what they're saying and which writer wrote it is asking for trouble, but the Wikipedian general consensus disagrees with you here, Jimmy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my views firmly. Anything of value should be sourced to a real source. Anything sole-sourced to The Register should be removed immediately.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If something is worth including in Wikipedia then it will be possible to find (reliable) sources other than The Register and those sources should be used in preference to The Register. If The Register is the only source then the matter is very probably not worth including in the encyclopedia in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 6 August 2010

Wikileaks

Do you think that perhaps the recent publicity over wiki-leaks, first from their leaking large amounts of material regarding the Afghan war and now over their founder being accused of molestation in Sweden (or rape, I havent been following it too closely), will perhaps have some negative association for the Wikimedia Foundation? We know it isnt assocated with the Foundation but with so many different projects like Wikisources, Wikibooks, Wikitionary, Wikipedia, is not possible that the average person would assume that Wikileaks is assocated with the Foundation as well? Has anyone personally heard of any possible confusion by "lay-persons" outside the project?Camelbinky (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well, yes. Jimbo himself has said that people think that he (rather than the Wikimedia Foundation) is reponsible for Wikileaks. What can be done about it? Just keep explaining it's nothing to do with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation or Jimbo, I guess. 86.150.112.150 (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It could also be argued that some of the associations will be positive and beneficial. Both organizations have some overlap in efforts to provide public access to information and there are certainly some interesting similarities and differences between the work and approaches of both organizations. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have created essay "WP:Wikileaks.org is not part of Wikipedia or Wikia" (with shortcuts: WP:Wikileaks or WP:NOTLEAKS) which can be expanded to explain more. That WP essay links to The Daily Telegraph article above, as a source. For linking from other websites, that essay has URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Wikileaks for remote linking. Feel free to expand the text of the essay, as needed. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review has an interesting discussion of the issue - they claim there is a connection between Wikipedia and Jimbo; Jimbo and Wikia; Wikia and some sites named "Wikileaks" and so suggest that some degree of confusion might be self-inflicted. I don't care enough to verify their claims; but this does shed light on the question asked elsewhere on Jimbo's talk page ("does Wikipedia Review exist for the purposes of Wikipedia"). - WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, you would do well to remember that in some situations Jimbo is not always able to reveal the full extent of his involvement with certain activities. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what? I'm pretty sure Jimbo is in fact in no way associated with Wikileaks but um, ok... whatever you meant by that post I'm sure made sense to you.Camelbinky (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What part of my post doesn't make sense to you? I'd be happy to explain it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it had nothing to do with what the rest of us are talking about in this thread and the link you went to is neither a RS nor relevant, and I would say its bordering on an attack piece on Jimbo saying what he did was wrong. Personally I think he made the right decision in working with the Times and to say otherwise is ridiculous. Freedom of the press is just that, the press has the freedom to publish things without government interference, if the press itself wants to censor itself that is fine. The US Constitution in no way guarentees citizens the right to know ANYTHING, the press is only free from interference, that doesnt mean that everything (whether govt, public or private) info should be open and accessible to all. I personally think those that think things like Wikileaks is required for a democracy to be true and free are confusing representative democracy with something else like anarchy.Camelbinky (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So I guess you missed the point entirely, then? If Jimbo is personally or professionally involved with Wikileaks, he is unlikely to be able to reveal that without jeopardizing the whole exercise. The situation with David Rohde is analogous. (The Guardian article was arbitrarily chosen from the first few that came up in a Google news search, but the Guardian clearly is a reliable source despite what you may suggest.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, yea, I'm going to walk away now because frankly you have drawn some strange conclusions and your ideas are analogous to those who believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, that President Obama is a Muslim, that there really is a Sasquatch or Chubacabra, and that black helicopters from the UN will soon come and take over. Take your conspiracy theory about Jimbo's involvement in other activities somewhere else. It really had nothing to do with this thread. I personally dont think Jimbo would ever be the type to be afraid of showing involvement with something like Wikileaks, I'd like to think he has a backbone and would not hide something trivial like that. The Guardian, in particular that op-ed piece is not reliable unless of course you believe all of those same things I mentioned just above.Camelbinky (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

From past experience I know that you don't understand rudimentary logic, but none of what you suggest follows from what I have said here. I was simply trying to alert you to the danger of making assumptions. If you want to inflate that into a "conspiracy theory", I can't stop you, but I suggest that walking away is probably a good idea. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been pleased at how few have made the error. I haven't exactly done an exhaustive search, but I haven't seen any (no links needed, I assume there are some.) I'm slightly surprised none of the articles I've read felt the need to explain the lack of connection - I thought some reporter or blogger would assume a connection, and when finding out the facts, would choose to share it.--SPhilbrickT 19:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree Sphilbrick, I thought the same exact thing from reading some articles when the military leaks story came out. I even had to look up Wikileaks article here on Wikipedia to see if there was a link.Camelbinky (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)