Jimbo Wales

Admin

Are you an administrator of Wikipedia? Couldn’t find you on the list. 48JCL TALK 21:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

No, see Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales#Founder flag for an explanation. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Plastic-eating fungus caused doomsday

Short fiction in the form of a WP talkpage discussion, from Nature. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I was looking around and came across your message. I think the story's format is cool. Necatorina (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The ADL is "generally unreliable"

Due to a new RSN discussion [1] (I just became aware of it), the Anti-Defamation League, one of the oldest and most prominent civil rights organizations, has been declared "generally unreliable" on Israel/Palestine issues. The ADL issued a statement saying this was the result of a ”campaign to delegitimize the ADL” and that editors opposing the ban “provided point by point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made, but apparently facts no longer matter.” This is being disseminated on the JTA, and is starting to be picked up by Israeli and Jewish newspapers. A pretty strong statement by the ADL, which tends to be fairly circumspect, and not exactly a ribbon in the hair of Wikipedia or the Foundation. Coretheapple (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• In that discussion - which I didn't take part in and am therefore reading for the first time - I certainly do not see "point by point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made". This is ironic because that suggests that they have responded to a survey that found their output to contain significant misleading claims, with a statement that is ... well, misleading at best. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Whatever. It would be interesting to see if the ADL uses its formidable resources (which I believe exceed the WMF's) into an effort to demonstrate that Wikipedia is the "generally unreliable" source. We shall see. What is the emoticon for "popcorn"? Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  not like people already think wikipedia isn't an unreliable source. ltbdl (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that's a possibility. But in the end, like every single other political hot-button issue, if people are told things that they want to believe, they will believe them, regardless of whether those things are factual. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  They can start with Wikipedia:General disclaimer, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source and WP:RSPWP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

CNN staff article: "Wikipedia now labels the top Jewish civil rights group as an unreliable source," so it has emerged from the "Jewish news" silo I mentioned earlier. However we all will be delighted to know that this is viewed as a slam on ADL's reputation, not Wikipedia's. Coretheapple (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

From that CNN article: “ADL’s leadership has taken a much more aggressive stance than most academic researchers in blurring the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism,” said James Loeffler, professor of modern Jewish history at John Hopkins University. “It’s clear from reading the Wikipedia editors’ conversation that they are heavily influenced by the ADL leadership’s comments.” starship.paint (RUN) 01:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I've read that article, also JTA, The Independent and The Forward. There seems to be some agreement among these that "The WP-hivemind may be on to something." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be more exposure, and of course the question will be whether one "likes" the ADL or "dislikes" it. If you are in the former camp you will not like what Wikipedia did. If you dislike the ADL you will be happy. That's where this stacks up. Coretheapple (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope that attitude, which I agree is inevitable in many parts of the media, stays far away from our discussions of the issue. Liking or not liking, agreeing or disagreeing, is really a terrible way for anyone to decide whether a source is reliable, and not the way that Wikipedians approach it.Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Jimbo, that's not my point exactly. Whatever we do in this area is read by the outside world, and this strikes me as a reputational self-goal. It may be fabulous, we may adore it, we may think it is the cat's pajamas, but that is what it is. Do we (as individual editors) care? We should not. But I think it is worthy of note. To me it's a bit reminiscent of how paid editing became an issue despite all Is being dotted and all Ts crossed. I recall engaging in quite a bit of argumentation over that, until I realized that I was dealing with a reputational self-goal. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe you are beginning to take this matter quite personally and are ignoring the fact that the consensus was reached with the aim of creating a better encyclopedia rather than pushing a specific point of view. Additionally, Wikipedia always faces challenges from many powerful entities like the Chinese and Russian governments. The criticism from the ADL doesn't make much difference in that regard. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I come to Jimbo's talk page every ten years or so. Please be good enough to let me do so this decade without personal remarks. Thanks in advance. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"Every ten years or so" is a bit of an exaggeration... you've edited it twice as much as any other page, a full five percent (!) of your edits. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I come to Jimbo's talk page far too frequently, twice as much as any other page, a full five percent of my edits. Please be good enough to let me do so without making personal remarks. Thanks in advance. Coretheapple (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The root cause is Wikipedia's over-generalization regarding sources. For wp:ver purposes, the standard needs to be context-specific: "expertise and objectivity with respect to the text which cited it" And a part of the over-generalization process is to pick a source that you don't like, find and highlight misstatements (which all sources make) which then opens them up to a political/"I don't like them" pseudo-vote and deprecation. The second issue is that the same standard/deprecation then excludes them from wp:weight considerations. With major sources excluded, this skews wp:weight-based content. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

In this instance, hostile, partisan sources that are recognized as reliable by the project were used to show unreliability. "Oh my goodness, The Nation thinks the ADL is unreliable!" What a shocker. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The systemic problem is that the system allows an overgeneralization (usable wiki-wide) to come out of such a politicized process. North8000 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The politicization of the process is the problem. Perhaps it is inevitable, but to simply circle the wagons and say "golly the community reached a consensus and all is right with the world" ignores reality. There is an outside world out there. The outside world doesn't see a "community." It sees the same few people on both sides, with the side having more numbers winning. That is the "community" that outsiders see and they are not imagining it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to politely ask you to walk peacefully away from this discussion, as you are effectively labeling the Wikimedia community as "detached from the outside world" in your latest message. I see this as a very counterproductive characterization. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for being polite. Courtesy is important in this hurly-burly world. Coretheapple (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see that in Coretheapple's post; those are your words. Including the context, IMO it was an assessment of how the community collectively operates on political matters. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You are reading into Coretheapple's words things that do not actually appear to be there, in a seemingly unproductive manner; and having already accused them of "taking the matter quite personally" I'd suggest perhaps considering taking your own advice about disengaging from the discussion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

There might be some issues regarding over-generalization, but I'm not sure this is one of them. The close specifically mentioned "unreliability on the topic". WP:RS/P differentiates reliability per topic, such as the Fox News concern being related to politics and science, a detail that has been specifically mentioned in some of the news pieces posted here. CMD (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Some more comments: The Hill, NewsMax. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Those types of human issues are inevitable, so that's like saying that gravity is a cause of most airplane crashes. Most issues arise from multiple causes and we need to focus on the causes that we can change. In this case the noted systemic problem, a system which is too easily co-opted, and follows and amplifies those human shortcomings. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

North8000, indeed during the COI and paid editing wars, which wasted massive amounts of my time some years back, co-opting is precisely what happened. Fortunately the Foundation stepped in on paid editing, though of course COI editing has continued and difficult to address. Ultimately I gave up on it because it was a hopeless situation and one that did not affect me personally, but was rather an issue of Wikipedia reputation and integrity. Coretheapple (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will have to call something out here: NewsMax is deprecated on Wikipedia for pushing quackery. So, maybe it's not a good idea to link to them here. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Since WP-readers will see and form opinions based on them and others, I think it's fair to mention them in this context too. WP articles will link NewsMax if the context is right, and I see no reason not linking them on this talkpage because quackery. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Er, WP articles will not link NewsMax, because it's deprecated for a good reason (i.e. its output couldn't be trusted to be true, and much of it was deliberately false). So I don't see any reason to link it here either. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The Newsmax article in question contains an interview of ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt by Greta Van Susteren, and it's interesting for a number of reasons, among them by being an example of how non-Wikipedians are often quite understandably flummoxed by how Wikipedia works. He shows little grasp of Wikipedia editorial processes, and he excudes confidence in the decision being overturned that is of course misplaced. He says that the ADL was trying to "understand" what was going on. Good luck with that. Coretheapple (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

One article that links newsmax is the article about newsmax. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Linking to Newsmax was perfectly OK and it's appreciated. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

All media outlets (with, perhaps, the partial exception of those with a legal duty for impartiality) display publication bias.Some of the commentary at the RSN, and here, seems to mix up this bias with unreliability. That is, tending to publish only content that supports one side or another of a position is a bias, but it doesn't mean that content is not reliable. However, I think it is pretty clear from reading the whole RSN discussion and checking linked evidence (and other unlinked material) that there needs to be caution in citing the ADL for the time being. It's a vain hope, but anyone working in the mainstream media who did the same thing - read and considered the whole discussion - would probably conclude this was a robust, thoughtful discussion with a supportable and correct conclusion. MarcGarver (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any community consensus about the value of ratings such as the bias estimates published by organisations like AllSides? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

[2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

My concern is on how media and outsiders misleadingly characterize our consensus process. The Hill cited a tweet in which the user claimed that the consensus was reached "democratically",[3] not much different from calling the process a "vote".[4] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

And now Greenblatt on MSNBC straight out labeling our consensus process a "blackbox".(Video on YouTube) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 12:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Dead link. "This video isn't available anymore" error msg. I'd like to see the full video but if he calls it a "black box," that of course is absurd (everything is public). What's interesting to me about this MSNBC and Newsmas exposure is that the ADL is gearing up for a PR offensive, as I think it's reasonable to expect that the ongoing discussion in RSN will be adverse to ADL as well. Coretheapple (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

YT link fixed. Greenblatt's "blackbox" remark at 1:16 -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

An even more interesting interview. Generally sympathetic comments by the MSNBC people, and in it, Greenblatt says he's going to "explain to the leaders of Wikipedia" why this decision is wrong. Greenblatt, I think, knows perfectly well that Wikipedia has no "leaders," that the "leaders" are the so-called "community," and what I assume he is doing here is beginning a PR offensive aimed not at Wikipedia but the general public, and unless I miss my guess the ADL's aim will be to discredit Wikipedia. Reliability is an existential issue for the ADL. Coretheapple (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, as pointed out by another editor in a parallel discussion to this, Greenblatt is the main part of the problem here. Prior to his statement in 2022 that any opposition to Israel was on the same antisemitic level as white supremacy, it was a pragmatic organisation. This is from January this year, but it's an interesting read. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. Greenblatt has a personal stake in discrediting Wikipedia. The alternative is to accept that he has discredited the ADL! Coretheapple (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion the entire notion of "saints" and "sinners" in sourcing is ahistorical and erroneous. The "worst" publication may contain useful, factual information. The "best" publication can be wrong. What we are seeing with the current ADL leadership is political gamesmanship, a fairly obvious attempt to equate anti-Zionism with anti-semitism — which worked swell with the slandering of the UK Labour left a few years back, so there you go. Those obsessed with tarring sources as "unreliable" will play their own little games. Most of us have other things to do, fortunately. Carrite (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)