Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:15, 21 March 2013

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

violating copyright laws by linking to archived sites when original site is still live

Some editors believe you should have archive links in references even when the main article its archiving is still there. I believe this violates copyright law, plus makes no sense at all. If someone takes their copyrighted material and puts it elsewhere, depriving them of ad banner revenue, then I assume its illegal. They might not mind someone archiving stuff they no longer have on their site, but they certainly don't want people ignoring their active content, and getting it elsewhere. Dream Focus 15:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely it is the content that is copyright, not an url pointing to it? pablo 16:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This may be an interesting issue if WMF takes over WebCite. It could raise copyright issues if WMF servers archive and offer copyrighted material from other websites.--♦IanMacM♦ 16:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Pablo, Misplaced Pages would not allow a link to a site that hosted an entire book on it in violation of copyright laws. Same thing here. No way this is justified under fair use laws. Dream Focus 17:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The laws are not very clear. To use a dead tree analogy, libraries are allowed to archive and make available books that are still available for purchase. Presumably that also deprives authors of income, and yet those library collections are undoubtedly valid. Recent cases have argued that the nature of the internet is such that users have an implied license to copy and archive the publicly available material unless the copyright holder takes active measures to prevent it (such as excluding bots with robots.txt or asking for archived pages to be removed). It's not really a settled issue though. Internet archives would also argue that proving a site contained XYZ as of a specific date is a valuable service even if the site still contains XYZ as of today. Such evidence of website histories have been introduced in court cases to establish things like precedence for trademark claims. That said, its still a gray area, and many copyright holders get upset about archiving services for many of the reasons you mentioned. At present, Misplaced Pages operates on the presumption that such sites are legally valid and generally encourages linking to them to help avoid future linkrot. In particular, many people use the on-demand archiving service, WebCitation (e.g. WP:Using WebCite) to establish an archive link around the same time the reference is added. Dragons flight (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitely I agree with Dragons flight; however, the notion of Misplaced Pages taking over Webcite has worried me because I don't know what happens when WMF is both the reuser and the archivist. Besides, I hope that WebCite will find a way to stay afloat in the hands of people who are more determined to hold onto their content. Wnt (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

IANAL, but I think there are zero legal implications for linking to an archiving service rather than the original article. That does NOT mean that we should do it, it just means that the argument that we must not because it is illegal is one that I don't find persuasive. I think there are many good reasons to link to the original whenever it is available. I can think of no good arguments for not linking to the original. (I can understand an argument that perhaps we should link to the original and an archive, particularly if the original source is likely to go away, although I'd need to be persuaded with more facts.

I'd be interested in a bot which constantly crawls Misplaced Pages archiving every source and gathering metadata about when it crawled Misplaced Pages and what the source said at that time, automatically and repeatedly. In the event that a page goes 404 (and some other situations, like a human deciding that the page no longer accurately represents the original in some way), it could semi-automatically (i.e. with human oversight) edit the page to link to the archive, leaving a note on the talk page about what it did and way. If such a bot/service did not publish the page to the public until the original page vanished, we'd minimize the ethical questions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This is a very grey area, definitely - and one worth considering. The apparent current idea, that we like linking to these archives, may conflict with WP:COPYLINK. I know that these archival sites try very hard to do the ethical thing. Webcite's website says, the WebCite® initiative is advocacy and research in the area of copyright. We aim to develop a system which balances the legitimate rights of the copyright-holders (e.g. cited authors and publishers) against the "fair use" rights of society to archive and access important material. We also advocate and lobby for a non-restrictive interpretation of copyright which does not impede digital preservation of our cultural heritage, or free and open flow of ideas. This should not be seen as a threat by copyright-holders - we aim to keep material which is currently openly accessible online accessible for future generations without creating economic harm to the copyright holder. , and Wayback says informed by the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights http://www.ala.org/work/freedom/lbr.html, the Society of American Archivists Code of Ethics http://www.archivists.org/governance/handbook/app_ethics.asp, the International Federation of Library Association's Internet Manifesto http://www.unesco.org/webworld/news/2002/ifla_manifesto.rtf, as well as applicable law . Honourable goals, but that's talking about 'fair use' in the American way; there is considerable debate over whether such ideas are permitted in other countries. For examples of legal problems, see Internet Archive#Controversies and legal disputes.

I'm not sure of the answer - but if we're not sure, perhaps we shouldn't be linking to them at all. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

@Jimbo, whether something is or is not published elsewhere makes no difference to whether it is legal to publish it. I'm sure you don't think we can publish a photograph from BBC News just because the article has gone away; why is the content of the article any different? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was closer to automatic than that, but I confess I haven't been an active user of the archive option. I thought the goal was to include in the cite template both the live and the archived url, and a reader clicking on it would automatically get the original url if still live, and would only get the archive if the original is dead. If it isn't the process, it should be. Then no live link would ever be deprived of any meaningful amounts of traffic. The only traffic to the archive would be the original copy,and occasional tests to ensure it still exists.But it would ensure that copyright holders would still get traffic to their site as long as the site exists, and only if dead, would traffic be diverted to the archive. Am I misunderstanding how it works?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Phil yes, sorry, you are misunderstanding. Have a look at refs on for example; it has both the orig and the archive, as in...

G., Robert (June 2011). "Characters with Character: Garrett". Blistered Thumbs. Archived from the original on August 20, 2011. http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2011/06/cwc-garrett/.

88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

We wouldn't link to a photo that we thought contravened copyright either - or the text from an old news article. if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link - WP:COPYLINK. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that correction. I'll note that given a link to a title, and a second to an archived, I would suspect that most traffic would go to the first, but that doesn't mean there aren't issues worth pursuing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• It says at Misplaced Pages:Link_rot#Web_archive_services you should do this to avoid pay walls, so people can read copyrighted material without having to pay for it, which the owners certainly don't want. Dream Focus 20:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • There are a number of aspects to consider, but the suggestion that archives can be used to circumvent pay walls is very troubling. I don't believe this can be justified. What is the rationale for allowing this?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I maybe wrong about the actual expectation, but I have been told that Featured Article Criteria requires such archive links, which would be a significant driver for doing so (if truly the case). The Copyvio issue, itself, does sound "unclear." Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Although IANAL, the copyright issue is not unclear. If an image, piece of text etc is still within copyright under US law, the copyright holder would be within their rights to object to having it in a web archive; this has happened in the past. It would make no difference whether the web page hosting it was still available or not.--♦IanMacM♦ 21:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You maybe right, which is why it's unclear, see the links put forth above by 88.104.27.2. If it were clear one would think a prosecution or lawsuit against these Archive Sites would have shut them down (or otherwise altered their practice) long ago. But my main point was if the Pedia incentivizes this in say FAC, then that would have to be addressed, if the goal was elimination of such links. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It depends what country they're in though. USA has this whole mess of "fair use", which helps justify them. I doubt a web 'archive' that provided copies of UK websites that was hosted in the UK would last very long. It's worth reading WP:VEGAN 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Even so, a British trade group can sue in San Francisco federal court, if someone is violating their copyrights with apparent impunity. They might even be subject to suit in Britain (depending on British law and treaty rights)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The main reason the DMCA safe harbor and take-down provisions are what they are is because of the Internet Archive testimony explaining that anything else would have outlawed them. Congressional floor debate during consideration of the Act discussed this in detail, so there is absolutely no doubt that linking to archived versions of copyrighted works is entirely legitimate and should be encouraged as much as possible (use it or lose it.) Congress is quite clear that it is the rights-holder's responsibility to ask that their archived content be removed if they no longer want it available for free on the internet. 70.59.27.8 (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In USA, yeah. What about respecting the law of other countries? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As a site policy matter, isn't that covered by "legal under US law." Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

While we consider ourselves bound by Florida law, by and large, we also make (what might be best described as) reasonable efforts to comply with other countries' copyright laws. Rich Farmbrough, 15:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

To be clearer, what I worry about is something like this:

1. Alice scans in the latest Harry Black novel and posts it to her MySpace page.

2. Bob archives the page at archive.org.

3. Cindy posts it as a reference at the Misplaced Pages article.

4. Duane, an admin, is appalled and removes it, citing "copyright violation" in the edit summary. Maybe he even blocks Cindy and says at an AN/I or on the talk page the link is inappropriate. But he doesn't contact the organizationally separate archive site.

5. Five weeks later, the author's attorneys notice the archived reference and go ballistic. They say that 3,041 people downloaded this book and that uncounted millions probably got copies from them and Misplaced Pages, if it owns archive.org, knew about the violation the whole time and should be made to pay.

I think such things would be avoided if archive.org is set up as a separate non-profit organization that is merely receiving some support from, but not actually controlled by, WMF. But IANAL either. Wnt (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This is all nonsense.
The DMCA says that someone like the Internet Archive has no liability if they delete the material when they get a complaint. Having no liability doesn't mean that the material wasn't a copyright violation; it just means that they can't get sued for the copyright violation. It still is a copyright violation, and so our rules don't let us link to it.
Furthermore, Youtube is in the same position as the Internet Archive: if they delete infringing material on request, they aren't liable, just like if the Internet Archive deletes the material on request, they aren't liable. By the reasoning above which lets us link to Internet Archive material, we should be able to link to anything on Youtube directly. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No, WP:COPYLINK has always allowed linking to verbatim archives such as the Internet Archive and WebCite (but not derivative works unless fair use is claimed.) If the law explicitly permits an exception, that means it's not a violation of the more general prohibition. Under your theory, the copy that your web browser receives over the internet of copyrighted web pages from their servers would all be copyright violations, too. 71.215.91.87 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be, if you published it. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. By the way, YouTube is not a verbatim archive because it doesn't include the source address and title of the original like the Wayback Machine and WebCitation always do. 70.56.35.100 (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

YouTube doesn't include source addresses because it is not a web archive. It's a "verbatim" archive of videos people have uploaded, surely? I think Ken has raised a very good point. There does seem to be an inconsistency between us frowning on YouTube sourcing on the one hand and talking about investing in web archiving on the other. Formerip (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

About non english letters

Hello ! I just happened to discover an old discussion about non-English letters, and You made an example remark like "Should we use (signs I cannot read -or spell) instead of Japan ?". A good point. But just one little remark from me - there is a distinct difference between latin based alphabets and f.i. Japanse signs, Arabic and Tamil. (However Vietnamese seems a bit difficult, despite it's latin based alphabet, I have to agree) Best reguards Boeing720 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference but I think the principle remains the same. There are letters in Polish (for example) that look very much like English letters but which aren't English letters at all, are not pronounced even remotely the same way, and using them blindly is a very bad idea. And it isn't bigotry to note that Munich is spelled Munich in English, London is spelled Londres in French, etc. Each Misplaced Pages should be written in its own language. I'm not opposed to all non-English letters in all cases, but note that we very much over use them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This topic is much more complicated than some editors would have it. Here is some food for thought for everyone who wants to participate in this debate.

Hans Adler 11:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd just note that a considerable amount of the above is highly contentious, some of it to the point of being bafflingly and obviously wrong. For example "The letter þ (see thorn (letter)) as in "þe þing requires some þouȝt" is not non-English." is just a ludicrous claim. The letter þ is not a letter in contemporary English. And English Misplaced Pages is not written with spelling conventions that died out hundreds of years ago. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You missed the last line of that (rather convoluted and unreadable) section Jimmy. "For English texts using these letters, it is general editorial practice to " —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, Hans Adler is right that it is an English letter (as in, a letter that was used in English for hundreds of years), only not a contemporary or modern one. And for that reason, he is not advocating using it, or in his own words "For English texts using these letters, it is general editorial practice to make this change" (i.e. change "þ" to "th" or another equivalent). There is nothing "baffingly and obviously wrong" or "ludicrous" in what he actually wrote. Fram (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to TheDJ's and Fram's explanations: The general context of this discussion is a campaign by a handful of editors, many of whom appear to have a xenophobic agenda. Their thinking seems to be, roughly: If speakers of other languages are stupid enough to add silly adornments to the perfectly adequate Latin (well, they call it English) alphabet, then that is no reason for us, the speakers of a reasonable language, to humour them.

Now I felt it appropriate to tell them that English once had exactly the same problem. The printing presses imported from Germany could do ä, ö and ü, but they could not do þ. Nowadays there is only one solution: always using th rather than þ. At the time, there were two approaches. The other was to replace þ by y, which in some hand writings looked very similar. This is where things like "Ye Olde Tea Shoppe" come from. People forgot about this, and nowadays "ye" in such a context is generally pronounced as written, though it's really just an antiquated spelling for "the".

And this kind of chaos with translations and transcriptions occurs with other languages as well. I gave the example of German and Danish. Librarians have extensive literature on how to handle German authors in Danish libraries and vice versa. It's a can of worms. By needlessly manipulating names from major European languages, which make up a considerable fraction of the project, we would import this chaos.

If you think my statements about the approaches of Britannica, Webster's Geographical Dictionary and the Chicago Manual of Style are wrong, check them. They are verifiable. If you think I have made a poor choice of reference works, find more reliable ones and check them instead.

If you think I have misrepresented the situation with déjà vu, exposé, garçon, risqué etc., look them up in various dictionaries. You will find that most have them in both spellings, with sometimes the accented variant primary and sometimes the other, following no easily recognisable rule. If you doubt they are English words, ask a linguist. As I had to learn these words when I learned English as a foreign language, I am pretty sure what a linguist will tell you. Oh, and don't forget to read what style guides have to say about them. Most give detailed advice on which optional accents on English words to print and which not to print.

In my personal opinion we should use all applicable diacritics even on most Pinyin and Vietnamese names because we can and because it seems the right thing to do. There is a lot of resistance against that position, so I am not even trying to defend it. I am only defending what is common and entirely unremarkable practice among the English reference sources of highest quality and so far also of Misplaced Pages.

The art of encyclopedia writing appears to consist mostly of practices that are not codified, or at least not publicly. Maybe the Misplaced Pages Foundation should hire a professional encyclopedia editor who previously worked with Britannica, Encarta or similar to advise you and the project on such matters.

You clearly have an opinion on this matter. So far you haven't made much of an effort to justify your opinion. Which is what people normally need to do here when you want to win an argument. And if you can't justify your position, maybe you will learn something and change your opinion. This is generally considered a very good and honourable thing to do. (Except by certain manager types, constitutionally incompatible with wikis, who don't understand the concept of changing course on new information and imagine it involves loss of face.) I believe it is by publicly changing my opinion when I find out I was wrong about something that I have accumulated a large number of editors who respect me and are prepared to consider what I have to say even when it's not what they want to hear.

You may not have time to do your own research on this topic. But it would be very helpful if you were careful not to feed the frenzy of certain editors opposed to the status quo until you have done it and can properly explain your position. Or until you have found someone with the same position who can do so. Shouldn't be so hard if you are right, no? Hans Adler 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The encyclopedia anyone can edit

I believe the system might be Flawed.— Maile (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

RFCU is the process you were looking for, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. — Maile (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Your interview

Hi Jimmie, I enjoyed reading your interview, and wonder, if you could address some comments on it? Thanks. 71.198.215.65 (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, fire away.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think he meant the comments on the Wired website page. You won't like them. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 10:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Those comments don't make any sense to me actually. I don't say anything that is inconsistent with the things they are complaining about. This is well-worn territory. Look at who is complaining there, and their track record speaks for itself!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think he would approve of the Britannica's comment, which denied that Misplaced Pages was responsible for discontinuation of its printed volumes, citing bit.ly/XnZEBH (sorry, WP blacklisted the site). I don't think Misplaced Pages has ever been, nor wanted to be, in the business of putting other publications out of business. I think that the ideal outcome of the Misplaced Pages Movement is not the destruction of writing and research as occupations, but rather, the understanding by society that copyright is an intolerable economic model and its subsequent replacement by a system that pays people for writing encyclopedias (by any name) without metering who is allowed to read them. Wnt (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

isn't blacklisted, bit.ly is. The Encyclopedia Britannica sales graph is at the top of page 5. 75.166.222.120 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"The ideal outcome of the Misplaced Pages Movement": your position, or some official goal of Misplaced Pages (the Foundation)? If it is your personal opinion only, perhaps better to make such things clearer when posting here, before people get the impression that this is an official, Jimbo Wales endorsed position. I don't think you or I are qualified to speak on behalf of the "Misplaced Pages Movement", whatever that may be. Fram (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall ever using that phrase, actually. What does it say I said?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Fram is quoting Wnt's comment immediately above. (The "before people get the impression..." clause is perhaps badly worded - something doesn't become "endorsed by Jimbo" just by being posted to this page by someone else.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No, but how many non-regulars (like, presumably, the IP who started this section) know that? But indeed, I was quoting Wnt, who gave (probably inadvertently) the impression of presenting some official or common goal of "the Misplaced Pages Movement". Fram (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think this was controversial, or that anyone would think I was speaking for Jimbo! I've added "I think that" above to be clear. Let's put it behind us? Wnt (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Jimmie, you say: "Look at who is complaining there, and their track record speaks for itself!" So I googled for Edvard Buckner and Misplaced Pages, to find his "track record", and I found this article for example. Looks like Edvard Buckner is actually "Dr. Buckner" and "a medievalist, who shared with me a paper he has written about deficiencies in an Oxford University study of the reliability of Misplaced Pages." I do not understand what's wrong with Dr. Buckner's "track record"? 71.198.215.65 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

He's a banned editor. You can look up the details.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

To address the point's Buckner makes in the Baltimore Sun: (1) He's looking at a very small number of articles on one topic - medieval theologians. He's only looking at what he terms the three most important theologians. This may be a domain of knowledge that lends itself particularly well to top-down professional efforts, perhaps because there is a limited group of people who know about this subject and they don't necessarily spend a lot of time on the Internet. I don't see this very specific topic as representative of Misplaced Pages as a whole. (2) It may very well be the case that an expert is going to write a better article on the most important medieval theologians than Misplaced Pages can produce. However, I think we've proven conclusively that top-down, professional efforts cannot match Misplaced Pages's breadth of coverage. I'm quite certain that we have more articles on medieval theologians than Britannica does. (3) I wouldn't describe Misplaced Pages's incorporation of 1911 Britannica or the Catholic Encyclopedia as plagiarism. We almost always provide citations and, of course, the material is in the public domain. The reader knows what they are getting and the author's rights are not violated. (4) Buckner is looking at these articles as static text. He doesn't address the possibility that these articles can get better over time. For instance, efforts like our collaboration with universities and galleries, libraries, archives and museums may very well lead to scholars and others from academia improving these articles. In that sense, Buckner's criticism is a good motivator for us to focus on improving existing articles, but I don't see it as damning because we aren't a static, printed text that can't improve. GabrielF (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

GabrielF, actually I looked up news on Misplaced Pages after a conversation I had with my friend (the world known expert in some areas of science). We were talking about an error I found in one of Misplaced Pages's articles. I told my friend:"This error will be reproduced in many, many sites, and maybe in some books." He responded: "I guess so. Well, it's like a lot of things: it looks OK when you look up a subject you know nothing about; but when you read what they have on a topic you're familiar with, you cringe. It certainly makes you respect real libraries more." Expect I am not sure libraries will be safe. Who knows how many Misplaced Pages's errors ended up in books, which later were bought by libraries. 71.198.215.65 (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

But that's not a problem specific to Misplaced Pages. In the area of science that I have studied, I routinely find glaring errors in media that have reputations for accuracy including news articles, scientific journals, text books, "reputable" websites, etc. Those glaring errors end up in the "real libraries" that your friend respects. Deli nk (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Long story short: Buckner (editing as User:Peter Damian) was given a community ban in 2009 for sockpuppeting, harassment, wikihounding, violating ArbCom rulings and general disruption. Even before that, he had a record of bad behaviour going back years, leading to an extensive block log, and was a regular source of unwanted drama. Since then he's dedicated himself to the sad and futile pursuit of campaigning against Misplaced Pages. Anything he posts should be read in the light of him being an embittered individual with a history of abusive conduct on Misplaced Pages and a persistent grudge since he was kicked out. Prioryman (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your closing sentence there is quite applicable to the IP editor that initiated this time-wasting exercise as well; the ever-returning-and-never-quite-departing Mbz1. Tarc (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like people here are quite paranoid about banned users. Besides it so decent to accuse people who have no ability to even respond, and accuse them without presenting any evidences. By the way I cannot understand what "banned user" means anyway. If somebody is banned, it means he's no longer a Wikipedian, which means he's no longer a user, and if he's no longer a user how he could be "banned user", right? Ah whatever, let's improve Misplaced Pages by banning as many experts and content creators as you could, and please do not worry I will not fix that error I found in the lead of a popular article because, if I do, I'd probably would be accused in being Carl Hewitt and who knows what else. Misplaced Pages will be safe. Have fun.71.198.215.65 (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Long story short, Dr. Buckner was blocked for making allegations that another editor was a sockpuppeteer and then for not adhering to an interaction ban by aggressively repeating these same allegations around a block. He expressed fundamental disbelief in the Misplaced Pages project off site and was consequently rode out of town on a rail by his wikienemies. Drama was maximized and bitterness accentuated — and a lifelong enemy of the project created. His case was a great failing of Misplaced Pages's ability to mediate interpersonal conflict. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say that Jimbo's portrait photograph by Christopher Morris (VII Photo Agency) is fantastic! Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That is an excellent portrait. By the way, thanks to Jimbo Wales for taking the time to reply to this thread. I found the article and responses here very interesting and a good read.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Good use of traditional portrait lighting. Nicely composed. A bit Karsh-ish. Needs more fill on the jacket and a little on the background, though, imo. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Prior editors can be right about scholarly quality but wrong on priorities: When it comes to improving the articles, I would prefer to have "58" clerical errors fixed in mega-article "Jennifer Lopez" rather than revise article "John Duns Scotus" to better describe his major works. We have to continually re-prioritize, as to how many readers (or editors) will benefit from improvements to which articles. Eventually, editors can improve the explanations about medieval theologians, and if those changes can be maintained for another 3 years, then that could offset prior years when not so many readers were viewing those articles. BTW: Article "Thomas Aquinas" was already improved, long ago, so not all scholarly criticisms were a lasting issue. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you realize that ...

What I'd like to see us do now is analyze his suggested edits, i.e. the actual content, to see if they warrant characterization as POV pushing or biased about their environmental record, and to see whether the incorporations by Wikipedians of his suggestions were inappropriate. I know that in many cases this might be a judgment call of the usual sort that we make in the content record, and I'm not likely to get an easy answer. But a thoughtful discussion is worthwhile here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is some of what we have established so far (but please check my facts):

1. Arturo openly identified as an employee of BP.
2. He never made any edits to articles relating to BP, nor indeed, to any articles whatsoever.
3. Concerns have been raised whether Wikipedians were too quick to incorporate his suggestions in the article, and whether those suggestions biased the article.
4. Evidence has been offered that the article covers in a quite direct and clear way the oil spill situation. It's difficult to say in light of that, that any whitewashing actually took place.

More discussion, particularly of this last point, is warranted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Essentially all correct, although you may want to add they have also been active on the article's talkpage and engaging with editors. Which is exactly what we want COI's to do. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, my real concern is that some editors, with a particularly obvious hostility to the company, have made an effort in the opposite direction and are generally proving successful, removing all but a sentence about BP's positive environmental record in the lede in favor of an intense focus on environmental disasters such as Deepwater Horizon. See the following examples: . As far as what has been inserted from Arturo, here is a diff of Arturo's material regarding the Prudhoe Bay spill being inserted by another editor. There has also been material added regarding the company's stock and the company's American operations. Here are some of the discussions of the content proposals: Talk:BP/Archive 4#US operations Talk:BP/Archive 6#Stock history.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor in question here for the Prudhoe Bay section. Yeah, if you look at the diff supplied by TDA, you can see that Arturo's draft actually made the section, if anything, more negative, because he properly filled out the details on the incident that were missing. And, sure, he added in some things that one could call positive information, like when BP finished their cleanup efforts, but that certainly seems like relevant information to have. In fact, the most positive added line I can find in that section is, "The spill was cleaned up and there was no impact upon wildlife", but that's directly from the government report and is wholly accurate.

I find it hard to see how anyone could think whitewashing was happening here. Silverseren 20:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Jimbo, what do you think of our current COI policies? I think that reactive policy-making is worse than exploitable policy-making; and sadly, we at Misplaced Pages prefer to do the former. It is time we also insert important paragraphs in our COI policy which make it clear that any COI editor, paid or not, do not enjoy any less standing than any normal editor, provided that they follow the rules in place, and are non POV-pushing on the topic under question.

I also further would like if some sort of penal action (warning followed by short term blocking) could be used against the editors whose actions go brazenly against any such view. While such editors on Wiki do not directly break any rules , their actions on the whole poison the entire atmosphere on this delicate issue, forcing those with COI to turn to anonymous third-party paid-editing. If we as an encyclopedia were more forthcoming to actually work alongside the article subjects than shoo them away (at least in practise), then we would be saving a lot of time policing and hunting those with a COI. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be a drastic change to Misplaced Pages policy. We do not punish editors. We discourage them and try to guide them. That way of thinking is to controlling. One thing we could...and should do is clarify what an actual conflict of interest is. Right now people are making accusations of COI editing when none exist and it is creating more issues than the editor themselves. This is a good example of that. Someone starts screaming their head off about another editor and then when you look there appears to be nothing.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That tends to happen with a lot of issues, and not just COI. Some editors simply link an irrelevant policy/essay than post an argument, and try to defend their original posting of the link. It is really sad to see how many times such policies are mis-interpreted and mis-quoted to try and defend the arguments. Regardless, it is indeed imperative to have a much more clear cut stand towards COI editing, and the relative status of the COI editors with respect to any ordinary editor. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I should also reply to Jimbo's point, that I really don't think a white washing has happened. I don't have a lot of edits at the articles, but someone did ask for my input a while back and I felt that there were enough articles to create a series template to let editors know about all of the articles within that subject. It appears to have grown a bit sine it was conceived and I have gone ahead and added the BP article, although I am not sure about adding the template to the BP article. I will leave that to the more involved editors. But here is the template:

This article is part of a series about the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill
BP Deepwater Horizon Explosion Oil spill Timeline Volume and extent Closure Response Environmental impact Health consequences Economic effects Reactions Investigation Litigation Compensation
v t e

--Amadscientist (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

We do actually have a Deepwater navbox already, which is on the BP article:

.

Rangoon11 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the Navbox is for the bottom of the article and doesn't have all the articles in the Series template, which is meant as "at a glance" information under the infobox.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let's start by acknowledging the obvious: no serious, reputable reference work on Earth would allow a member of a corporation's PR team to play a substantial role in drafting coverage of that corporation. That would be out of the question. The fact that this role is undisclosed to the casual reader makes the situation even worse. It's not a question of specific diffs or navboxes - it's a question of credibility, which is the lone currency of any value to a serious reference work. We can't ask our readers to invest us with credibility if we have such a cavalier attitude toward conflicts of interest. MastCell  22:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Nor would such a work allow anyone to edit it, especially random people. Nor would such a work allow anti-company activists to edit it, which is clearly what must have happened to the BP article, considering the state it was in previously. So I fail to see your point. Silverseren 22:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wrong. Reputable outlets such as the Financial Times, Reuters, Bloomberg, Whitakers Almanack and many others use company sources for coverage on the same companies. Companies are very often the most knowledgable experts on themselves. Read the FT and you will constantly see "Source: company". 92.24.131.19 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• What's missing here, of course, is that we don't inform the casual reader that a particular piece of information came directly from the company's PR department. Which is the key point. MastCell  23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• It is certainly true that major corporations have plenty of hooks in the media to get their message out. At least here we let the people weigh in on the matter as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• My point is that every serious, reputable reference work takes conflicts of interest seriously. We don't. Insofar as we aspire to create a serious, respectable reference work (a goal which, admittedly, seems increasingly irrelevant to the community), that's a problem. I get that our editorial process is different from that of every other reference work, but I don't see how that frees us from worrying about conflicts of interest. On the contrary, I think it makes the problem even more pressing and relevant. MastCell  23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh...so you belive the editor of being a part of the PR team Mastercell? I disagree with you strongly that our credibility is in question over this. That is just not taking into account the efforts of all those editors that have been overseeing these articles and working for neutrality. So, you are in favor of adding specific attribution for other editors adding material that they felt was relevant because someone you don't trust proposed it. That doesn't seem logical. How would this work exactly? How would you determine who the attribution belongs to? How would it be added to the actual article space? Would that violate any current policies and guidelines and what happens if the editor objects? Is this a privacy issue? Is this even credible itself?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Do I trust a handful of pseudonymous Wikipedians to be able to filter the efforts of a billion-dollar corporation's PR department? No, not really - especially when they seem totally oblivious to the problem presented by these sorts of conflicts of interest. I get that you're offended, but pride is a handicap to dealing with these things effectively. As to dealing with the problem, I don't have a handy solution, but we haven't even reached The First Step - admitting that there's a problem. MastCell  23:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)