Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:54, 13 February 2014

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is Maggie Dennis.

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.

Is Commons getting above itself

Hello Jimmy, it has been a while, and I'm glad to see you are still with us; none of us are getting any younger are we? - Seems we are doomed to grow old together - in the same city too I hear; never mind, there are worse things in life. Anyway, I'm digressing: I've recently had a run-in on my first attempt at editing at Commons (although I didn't actually realise I was editing at Commons). Whatever, to cut a long story short, you might like to take a look a this not everyone is quite as resiliant and tough as me.  Giano  19:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well the impressive thing is that the community there seems solidly on your side.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is impressive isn't it? - very humbling. Funnily enough, you and I were at nearby tables in the same restaurant once last year; I nearly wandered over to slap you on the back and say "Hi, c'est moi", but then I thought the sound of very expensive dental work crumbling on a fork is never attractive or welcome - so I restrained myself. Have a nice 2014 Jimmy.  Giano  21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If you think I have expensive dental work, you haven't looked at too many closeups. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

But your American, you all have beautiful teeth, it's only us poor, old Europeans that have characterful, but often startling black and gold grins.  Giano  08:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• This explains everything that is wrong with Commons. The nomination read, and I quote, "The resolution really sucks! This graphics editor is capable of far better work than this mediocre crap. Please overwrite with a version that shows your true skills" That isn't even a valid reason for deletion. Now, here on the en-wiki the discussion would have been speedily closed after a flurry of snow. But over there, the editors saw fit to derail the discussion and turn it into about whether the picture could ever be used on an article (a redundant question in and of itself, of course it wouldn't). The discussion was then closed as delete. Forget false consensus, there was an obvious no consensus, with 11 keep and 17 delete votes. Secondly, the nominator blatantly and obviously supervoted. I don't know what the hell is going on over there at Commons, but it's obviously not good. Note that this is not a commentary on the picture itself. The picture can be found on Wikipediocracy at http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/01/26/wikipedia-the-new-ministry-of-truth/ for those who haven't seen it. KonveyorBelt 01:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that when one uploads a photograph to Misplaced Pages, Commons can take it and delete it here. Yes, we have the 'keeplocal' template, but many uploaders are unaware of it, and Commons has in the past tried to have the template abolished, so it's a risky, vague science. At present, uploading to Misplaced Pages, is rather like giving a much loved friend a Christmas present only to find it's been given away to the neighbours who have trashed it and given you the finger at the same time. Of course, we all know that when we sign away all rights, we should cease to care, but human nature is not like that. The simplest solution is to have a definitive template that prevents an image being uploaded to Commons, until that happens, I won't be uploading any more images to Misplaced Pages.  Giano  09:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think you deserve an apology from Commons. At the same time, some issues are merely technical. It is not Common's decision that all possible media to be hosted in Commons. It was a decision by WMF for making available all of them for all projects. I don't like the way it (the image is hosted and managed by Commons and all related requests and discussions should carry out there) is hidden from laymen. See . Jee 11:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Given that photos have to be CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL'd to be usable on Misplaced Pages, it'd be impossible to prevent it from being uploaded to Commons (Well, we could delete everything and start over under a new licence, but I suspect that's a non-starter). If keeplocals aren't being respected, ask someone in Category:Misplaced Pages administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles to undelete it here. WilyD 11:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• It is possible to keep the same file here and in Commons, even under same name. So I didn't get what you mean. BTW, "keep local" is not a solution for the problem; it is the right attitude. Jee 11:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Uh, reading the whole conversation gives the context. If someone (Giano, say) wants an image kept locally so it can monitored/whatever here, but it's moved to Commons and deleted here, that's a problem with a solution. If someone wants to licence an image so it can't be uploaded to Commons, that's a problem with no solution. So one needs to distinguish what's meant. WilyD 13:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see more pictures "kept local" because they would not be used outside of here. For Commons to insist that they take charge of everything is silly when nobody else would use them anyway. The joke picture of Jimmy in 1984 would not be used on, say, the Chinese Misplaced Pages. KonveyorBelt 17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Keep Local template does not stop Commons taking the picture; it just stops them deleting it here after they've taken it. In the past there have been attempts to abolish the Keep Local.  Giano  17:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Konveyor Belt When you upload a picture, you are agreeing that "...that it is legally okay for anybody to use, in Misplaced Pages and elsewhere, for any purpose." Not sure why you're not getting this. --NeilN 17:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"Legally ok" does not equal to "ethically ok"; if it did we would not have or need the "keep local" template. --John (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but expecting people to adhere to the latter distinction is basically hopeless. Either an image is free for anyone to use for any purpose (subject to their own local laws) or it isn't. I don't think the WMF is about to introduce more narrowly-scoped licenses. --NeilN 17:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course it is legally okay for Commons to use it. That still doesn't mean that they need to. KonveyorBelt 17:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion of over the last several months about the Commons, their function and their policy and there seems to be a lot of valid arguments about the way they do things and their content. Which makes me wonder, why do we need to use commons. It should be easy enough to make a bot that pulls the images we want and need into Misplaced Pages and then we can just cut ties. We can do our thing and they can do theirs. As far as I know and am concerned, the usage of commons is not required and if this community decides we don't want to use it, for whatever reason, then we can implement that change locally as we did with the Visual Editor changes. There is just no reason to continue to fight with them about policy and content issues IMO. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Commons is this great monster that looms over us. We don't need it, and we don't have to have it. Without us, the uploaders, there is no Commons, no Foundation and no Misplaced Pages. Most of us are here to support Misplaced Pages and couldn't care less about this other project. If we want to upload images purely to Misplaced Pages, there is no legal reason why we can't - just that the Foundation says we can't - the Foundation should remember who exactly is keeping it in business - us.  Giano  20:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I share many of the concerns expressed here about Commons, but mostly it is about a relatively few admins over there and the inability for Commoners to govern themselves in a reasonable way. Somehow, I don't think the solution is just to cut ties with them, though it might be possible, it would be a major hassle (reclaiming all our pix!). There must be a more civilized way of just keeping them in business and re-organizing the governance. My only suggestion would be to have the Board do a study commission on all the problems, declare "reset" if required, and just reorganize the governance (admins, bureaucrats, rules, and other institutions, etc.) to start all over. "Reset" or "moral bankruptcy" probably aren't the right terms to use - neither is exigency, but there is a word for the effective bankruptcy of a non-profit. In any case, it would take some doing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a morale reset is practical any more than doing it here (because this project has a lot of the same problems). I also admit it wouldn't be a trivial thing and that it would be a shame to break ties. It was a shame that VE didn't work too, but we had to do what was right for the project, not what's right for Commons. We have enough of our own problems to deal with here (as do they there) we don't need to compound them by compuonding them together. Maybe we should do an RFC to see what the community thinks should be done. Maybe nothing, maybe something, but we can at least see where everyone stands. Misplaced Pages by far is Commons biggest customer so if this community puts a little pressure on them, they might straighten up....then we can focus on our own problems again. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• There doesn't need to be a great re-think or even anything retrospective. We just start uploading to Misplaced Pages and state that images must stay here. It's easy enough to do: I did a trial earlier today File:WBDiseased leaf.jpg. If the Foundation (and it is the Foundation, not Misplaced Pages making these rules) decide to throw our work back in our faces, then we know what they think of us - don't we?  Giano  21:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• While I'm generally sympathetic to people who have had trouble with difficult editors at commons, I don't think this approach is going to fly. A "license" that purports to be a free license, save for forbidding upload to commons, isn't really a free license. That isn't to say that we shouldn't look for solutions, but just that this particular one is not likely to succeed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well we won't know until we have tried to fly it. Most of us are here to build and enrich Misplaced Pages, that has to be the ultimate goal - anything that furthers that goal has to be tried. At the end of the day, this is the important place.  Giano  22:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you tagged it with a non-free license is itself a prohibition on a Commons transfer, since they only accept non-free media; the "don't send me to Commons" banner seems superfluous. I'd even say it's likely someone will send it to Files for Deletion on WP:NFCC #1 grounds. Tarc (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to say. The image deletionists will look at that and think "easily replaceable, doesn't pass NFCC". Resolute 23:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have tagged this for speedy deletion, as not having an acceptable license. DES 23:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A fairly obvious POINT violation, but the tag is valid enough. KonveyorBelt 23:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Intentionally uploading a file perfectly well knowing it to have a nonconforming / unacceptable license was at least arguably a violation of WP:POINT. What exactly am I disrupting by tagging such a file for the speedy deletion that current policy mandates? Especially when I notify the uploader, and those who were discussing it, promptly. Note I only tagged it, i didn't delete it. If anyone thinks this improper, remove the tag and decline the speedy, i won't replace it. DES 23:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the CSD is any more or less pointy than the upload itself was. Resolute 23:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The WP:Image use policy is pretty clear about deprecating non-free Creative Commons licenses. Clearly a license for "Misplaced Pages only" is more restrictive than CC-by-NC, and so far as I know, we're not accepting CC-by-NC except where Fair Use would apply - am I wrong? Basically, picture the following scenario: suppose a commercial company wanted to release a modified mirror of Misplaced Pages (say, a 'child-safe' Misplaced Pages where communication is strictly limited and supervised and certain content is censored, or a complete tourist-ad-sponsored translation of the en.wikipedia into Catalan). Would that company be able to copy the database and put it on the Web as is, with only such modifications as they want to do on their own initiative? Well, not if they have to track down and figure out every "no commons Misplaced Pages only" nonstandard license tag or be in violation. So I can kind of see the point about ruling this out right at the start. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The complaints above about how the "Whambo" deletion proves that Commons is badly run are ironic indeed. After all, aren't several of those who argued for that deletion among the crowd that was saying Commons is badly run here before? The bottom line is that Misplaced Pages, keeping so much content in one place with so little effective mirroring to other sites, has become a valuable resource. Complete with a resource curse, a continual squabble for dominion and deletion of opposing points of view or promotion of content when there is a potential for financial gain. The only meaningful solution to this is redundancy - more backups, so that it remains easy to find any deleted file off-site, making control of the resource less valuable. Wnt (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's confirmation bias at its finest, really. People who want to hate Commons will hate Commons just as the people who want to hate Misplaced Pages will hate it. Myself, I have uploaded hundreds of images to Commons that are used on thousands of articles in dozens of languages. Never had a problem. Rarely had an unacceptable wait time when I identified a copyvio, rarely had a conflict. Resolute 23:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course Misplaced Pages should have mirrors of content. It's just that we as people on Misplaced Pages should have at least some control over such mirrors, rather than a separate bureaucracy that is confusing to new users. KonveyorBelt 23:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Nay, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Commons gets a lot of its content from people who put up content on Flickr under a free license, which is verified by bot, even though later on they change the license to proprietary. I'd like to see someone do Commons the same favor. Wnt (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no sensible or valid reason why an editor cannot upload his/her own work and state that they wish it to remain only on Misplaced Pages. The WMF may wish it otherwise, but their whims do not necessarily have to take precedence over the wishes of those creating the work.  Giano  00:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the whims of Misplaced Pages to insist that any material that can be uploaded on a free license be done so to allow use by downstream re-users does take precedence over the the wishes of an individual editor. The options you are then presented with fall into three categories: 1. You can accept and upload on those terms. 2. You can choose not to donate images at all. 3. You can try and convince the community to change the image use policies. Resolute 01:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

But there is an interesting side point that your three categories don't cover. We can allow people to upload under free licensing terms *and* we can not be jackasses to them if they change their minds. We can and should warn them that the original donation is legally irrevocable, but we can also be humane about not continuing to host something that someone regrets donating - for whatever reason, good or bad. The sometimes-seen stance of "fuck you, you signed a waiver" is just not in keeping with our values.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well funnily enough Resolute quite a lot of people want to change the polices. I just want people to be able to choose for themselves individually per image, but if you want a dictatorial blanket policy - then so be it - we can work towards one  Giano  01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You might as well try to change the policy allow yourself to retain full copyright over your individual text edits as well for all the good it will do. Call it "dictatorial" all you want, your proposal is the antithesis of Misplaced Pages's mission. Resolute 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's mission, at least in theory, is to build an encyclopedia. Creative Commons has a different mission. Plenty of © material (blog entries, etc.) incorporates CC images, so presumably a CC encyclopedia article could include "wikipedia only licensed" images. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 02:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's mission is to be an open source encyclopedia that is freely re-usable. That includes both text and images. We allow fair use images insofar as they are required to be a complete encyclopedia, but the goal is free. You are correct that Commons has a separate mission, but it remains one that is closely linked to Misplaced Pages's and Wikimedia's overall mandate. That is beside the point, however, as my argument was that it is unlikely that either the community or the WMF will favour moving to a more restrictive image license on Misplaced Pages that harms the reusability of our content because a couple of people are butthurt about Commons. The phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind. Resolute 03:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, the point of Fair Use claims is that they are the same no matter who you are. If Misplaced Pages hosts a file with a restrictive license or no license under Fair Use, with a Fair Use rationale, and another site copies that image, they copy the rationale, and they should have the same right to display that image (at least if based in the U.S.) as Misplaced Pages. But if Misplaced Pages says go ahead and host this file that is only accessible by Misplaced Pages, without a Fair Use rationale, and another site copies it, then they don't have the same right to display it. Wnt (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I can easily understand the difficulty that Giano faced here. He contributed a media here, believing he has enough rights to do so and later found that it is not his work. So he want it get deleted. Meanwhile it was moved to Commons, our centralized repository, and some people there refused to believe his words of claim. I am not supporting that unfortunate incident; but it will happen even if there is no Commons at all. See, that work was being transferred to de, fr, and many other wikis. Then Giano has to approach all of them and make requests for deletions. Chances that the image being used off-wiki too.

Limiting to an English Misplaced Pages only license will solve that issue. But then Misplaced Pages become less useful as many other projects where images can serve only to describe the article. No one (a student, researcher, etc.) can use those images for their assignments or research works.

Another limitation is the lack of supply of enough quality contents. I'm not talking about third party uploads from sites like Flickr. But we have many sister wikis and German and French wikis are roughly the second and third suppliers of media files. How we get connected to those contents? My contributions are negligible; but if no Commons, I had to upload all of my 514 works to Malayalam Misplaced Pages which is my home wiki and little chances that it will be available for other Misplaced Pages(s). Jee 02:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have had exposure to the culture at Commons, and had my share of bad experiences there too (as I have had here). Where I choose to participate is my affair and mine alone, and my activity level at Commons has dwindled since same. Whilst it's certainly against the spirit of cooperation that underlies the collaborative nature of the various WMF projects, it's regrettable and understandable that push has come to shove, and users on one project want "divorce" from another because of their collective bad experiences.

  Such problems are usually caused by people (often but not always admins) who are psychopaths sociopaths, or who do not possess or fail to properly use their diplomatic skills, or by people who choose overly-strict interpretations of rules and then carry them out officiously (and often brusquely) whilst refusing to back off or apologise even when they are manifestly wrong.

  We cannot force cooperation, nor can we legally stop Commons from usurping our content. However, there are practical and technical means I employ to "localise" the media. First, I add a {{do not move to commons}} and {{keeplocal}} tag; a {{nobots}} tag helps to slow the transfers from happening. Although it's not very productive use of watchlisting, it helps to watch the media and systematically to be aware of any transfer tags that any drive-by editor might have placed. -- Ohc  04:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  • But {{do not move to commons}} is intended only for legal reasons; not for author's interests. So others can neglect it (happened in my case too); if no legal reason prevent it being hosted in Commons. {{nobots}} also don't work as those bots don't edit the file page; they add the "eligible files" to a gallery so that a user can manually move them to Commons. You're right you can have on an eye on the "file usage" and remove it form those "maintenance galleries" whenever you found that your file being included. :) Jee 07:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Section break for Is Commons getting above itself

What many are failing to realise is that legally Commons is meaningless. Under international law, the publisher of copyright is responsible for it, and the law requires individuals to be responsible - in this case the members of the WMF. If they are ever sued, standing in any court in any country and saying "Well, User: Fred the Fox in LaLa Land said he owned the copyright" will not get them very far - in fact it will probably loose them any money they have, Far better for them and us, to keep things tidy on Misplaced Pages alone, where they can be easily yanked in and suppressed if there's a problem.  Giano  07:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

We are trying our best to improve the quality standards of Commons; but all our efforts went vain as they fall in to deaf ears:

Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Trabalhos.jpg

User_talk:Geoffbrigham#Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy.23Commons:Village_pump.2FCopyright.23File:Trabalhos.jpg

User_talk:LVilla_(WMF)#Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy.23Commons:Village_pump.2FCopyright.23File:Trabalhos.jpg

Template_talk:Personality_rights#Template_as_is_is_alienating_for_image_use

Template_talk:Consent#Full_consent.3F

It seems WMF prefer to wash their hands by hiding behind this disclaimer. :( Jee 08:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that saying "None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, sysops, or anyone else connected with Wikimedia Commons in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages." doesn't carry much weight in many legal systems - I'm not sure it does in any. A publisher (that's the members of WMF) is 100% responsible for what it chooses to publish. Commons is a very high risk Utopia.  Giano  08:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Then we have to delete tons of contents from Commons. But I prefer it than hosting useless unverifiable contents. (Unfortunately I will be away for 3 days; so can't participate in this discussion, any further.) Jee 08:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Giano I understand why you are angry and agree some folk on Commons lack the gene for common sense and social understanding. However, it is not a homogeneous community and "don't upload/transfer to Commons" is not an appropriate reaction. What you are writing about legal liability is complete rubbish. Both Misplaced Pages and Commons are "free content" projects. Many people are under the impression that Misplaced Pages is just a "Free to read" encyclopaedia, hence the "can I donate to just Misplaced Pages" question. The fact that our content is free means we have no control over who gets it and uses it. That's the point. And we would be grateful for that freedom should it ever become necessary to fork. -- Colin° 09:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• You are rather missing the point, and I can assure you that what I am writing on the legal side is far from complete rubbish. The members of the WMF are personally responsible for what is published on Commons. It's enshrined in all legal systems and constitutions that no man can set himself above and beyond the law - of if you like: national law does not have an in-or-out option for its citizens. Disclaimers are pretty worthless. Uploading to Misplaced Pages only would be a far safer option as it gives complete control when things go wrong. Were I a liable member of the WMF, I would certainly want that option - if only for my own pocket.  Giano  09:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Giano, you broke copyright by uploading a picture you didn't take and claiming it was yours and slapping a CC licence on it. Getting these things right in the first place is your responsibility, not the WMF and not the Commons admins. You were treated badly initially when you tried to fix your mistake, but it is your mistake. Now you seem to be trying to make WMF personally responsible for your cockup. And you are trying to tar the whole of Commons for the actions of one person, despite huge evidence that Commons agrees this one person was stupid. As for your comments on copyright law and liability, please desist from spouting this nonsense. Give citations for your extraordinary beliefs or stop spreading misinformation. -- Colin° 11:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Giano, I'm not familiar with the Internet laws of any single country; but at least in Germany where several suits against unlawful re-users of my photos are currently in progress, you cannot generally say "a publisher (...) is 100% responsible for what it chooses to publish". There is a certain law on telemedia (de:Telemediengesetz) and its § 10 clearly limits the responsibility of the owner of a website for anything contributed by users (other than by the owner themselves, or the redaction). That means, for example, that if I find a copyright violation of my photographic work in a webforum, I may prompt the owner to immediately remove the copyvio, but it will be pretty useless to sue them for a monetary compensation. --A.Savin (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The law is the same in the UK. Perhaps unsurprisingly as we're both members of the EU. As you say, the WMF only begins to become responsible if it fails to remove something a copyright owner objects to. Similar situation with libel as it happens. But suing the WMF for not removing copyrighted material would be an exercise in futility, as the claimant would have to demonstrate some pecuniary advantage accruing to the WMF as a result of a breach of copyright or financial penalty suffered by the copyright holder, neither of which is likely. Eric Corbett 20:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Giano, you say that if all Commons media were instead on en.wp it could be "yanked back in". Why would that be easier on enwp than on Commons? We on Commons have procedures for deleting things, just as enwp do, and WMF can office action on Commons, just as they can on enwp. There would be nothing gained by taking everything from Commons and putting it on enwp.

As an aside, I will say you were badly treated by Jcb, who can at times be a complete idiot. Just like some enwp admins, some wikisource admins, some zhwikicupcakes admins... any social group, which Wikimedia surely is, will have idiots. And sometimes people will get badly treated by them. It's not an excuse, but it is reality, and while we can try to ameliorate it, we can never entirely avoid it. The problem image has been deleted, but please understand that if the file has been there for years and years, someone coming along and trying to get it speedied is a bit curious. And if it has been there for years, the extra few days a DR takes is unlikely to be a problem. I encourage all sides to take a step back and breathe. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What you could do, of course, is detool the abuser of tools on Commons. Of course, that would probably start quite a chain of dominos falling, would it not. Best not risk that, eh? (By the way, Mattbuck, I've neither forgotten nor forgiven the abusive way you went after my Commons uploads, back in the day before I wised up and started using the { { keep local } } template...) Carrite (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• It would be easier to 'yank back in' because the image would only be permissive on Misplaced Pages, an image uploaded 'Misplaced Pages Only' would only be here. Once an image has been uploaded to Commons it belongs to the world and has flown the nest.  Giano  12:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  At the cost of undermining the whole "free encyclopaedia" thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• (EC)If you know this admin lacks the communication skills and judgement to handle a situation like this sensitively, why is he allowed to keep the tools on commons? Spartaz 12:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  People who do good work occasionally make mistakes. Hell, you blocked me once! -mattbuck (Talk) 13:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Similarly in the US there is a law saying that sites hosting user-supplied content are not considered publishers of that content, and are not liable for possible defamation included in such content, nor for any of several other grounds of action. Giano, I am confident that the WMF legal team was involved in writing or approving he disclaimer you find of such little value. In any case actions for copyright infringement or other legal issues would be no harder at Misplaced Pages than at commons or any other WMF project. I don't see what would be gained, in a legal sense, by limiting images to en-Misplaced Pages. DES 12:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• @DES while I am pointing the risks of Commons, if you can read through all the verbage above, you will see that what I am saying is that editors should have the choice of being able to upload to Misplaced Pages alone if they wish to. Those that want to play with Commons and its risks should be allowed to do so; I cannot see what is wrong with people being allowed a choice.  Giano  12:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that all the content we have on Misplaced Pages was licensed under the explicit promise we wouldn't do that. We'd have to delete everything and start over, which probably wouldn't go over well. WilyD 13:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Yes that was clear enough, Giano, but that wasn't the point you were making just above so it wasn't what I responded to. The answer is that Misplaced Pages and the WMF generally have made a policy choice to privilege the rights of reusers over those of uploaders. Insofar as possible, the goal is to allow any person at any time to reuse content from Misplaced Pages (and other WMF projects) in any way. One can argue that this is a poor choice, and it could be changed, although it is sufficiently long-standing and fundamental that I don't expect it to be changed. In order to allow reusers to fork or mirror all or part of Misplaced Pages easily, or to use its content freely, it is highly undesirable if not unworkable for images to be under a wide variety of licenses, some of which permit reuse and some of which do not. You received what I agree was quite improper treatment at commons, largely from a particular commons admin.That was unfortunate, and commons governance should quite possibly be changed to allow some sort of appeal in such cases, and to have enforced WP:AGF on the admin. But then such ill-advised actions have happened on en WP also. This incident is not, IMO a reason to change the whole free-licensing model. Users do have a choice: They can upload with a license acceptable to Misplaced Pages, or they can not upload. Or they can start a proposal to change the list of acceptable licenses. DES 13:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have put that absurd admin at Commons to the back of my mind; I shall be dealing with him later - it confirmes a log held belief, but if they wish to keep such admins that's something they need to address. However, it has highlighted problems and anomalies of which I was not really aware. We don't just have to accept something because it has always been so. Nothing I'm proposing needs to be retrospective. The oly difference is that uploaders have a choice or limiting their images to Misplaced Pages only; it would only apply to modern images that are still within copyright. We'd also get a lot more image donations, I've often contacted website owners who are happy to have an image used illustrating a page, but when told they have to sign away all rights, decline. How is that helping Misplaced Pages?  Giano  13:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  It's a question of whether we would prefer lots of images but to not be able to reuse them, or fewer but freer images. I go for the latter personally. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Is that really what is at issue here? I am having a difficult time understanding what Giano issue really is. I get that he stumbled and bumbled his way over on Commons and got met by an unfriendly admin for his efforts. However, the image was deleted and deleted for the right reason. The admin in question was verbally censured by numerous other users for the reception he gave. Whether further sanction is warranted should be addressed over there. How we go from obnoxious admin to a bizarre notion that things should be hosted exclusively on WP vice Commons is where I get lost. WP exclusive content is anathema to the entire ethos and goals of this and every related WMF project. Moreover it solves nothing Giano has raised an issue. The risks being discussed are inherent in any "free and open" project. Nevertheless, from what I can see on Commons there are efforts to mitigate that risk where possible and at least educate users to those risk in amore open and meaningful way. 131.137.245.208 (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well however you care to trivialise it there's an awful lot of people who seem very concerned and interested in my 'bumbling.' There are also a lot of people who do not wish to have their work uploaded to Commons, and there is no satisfactory reason given why they should. There is not one single valid reason why images cannot be uploaded purely to Misplaced Pages, other than some people at Commons wouldn't like it. Saying one would rather Misplaced Pages had fewer pictures illustrating its articles than permitting these proposed sole uploads, seems to me that certain people have lost sight of the greater good of the project in favour of the worship of Commons.  Giano  14:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You have a point, Giano. Some years ago I argued for a somewhat more limited image license, one that would not permit highly modified derivative images (as opposed to simple rescaling). Some photographers (particularly professionals) would be more willing to contribute images if they did not have to worry about the possibility of their images being used in collages or other drastic modifications, and some museums and educational institutions have as a license condition that charts and similar images may only be reused if they "do not distort or misrepresent the underlying data", which would be satisfied by a no-derivs clause, but not by any of our currently acceptable licenses. Those suggestion got no traction at all, and were shot down as "not fully free, and so out of the question". I think re-examining our policies on this might not be a bad idea, but I would oppose permitting "en Misplaced Pages only" to be a valid choice. Even our fair use images do not have that restriction. DES 14:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you have found that some people are just resistant to change in any form, which is odd for a project where one imagines most of the editors to be young. I would support any form of licensing which attracted more high quality images, but I do seriously think that limiting their re-use will have to be the ultimate bait. Giano  14:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Or perhaps people here believe in freely sharable content and are resistant to what they perceive as being negative change? Resolute 15:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• but hardly negative to the project which is deprived of thousands of images because commons is placed before Misplaced Pages.  Giano  15:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is deprived of thousands of images because it does not allow for fair use where free equivalents could be found. That has very little to do with the issue of one Commons admin vs. your ego. Resolute 15:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I always know that when Misplaced Pages admins start to get personal that I am making headway. Thank you Resolut; this must be very difficult for you. 15:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And I always know you are losing a debate when you start dodging the salient point. Once again, Misplaced Pages is deprived of thousands of images because it does not allow for fair use where free equivalents could be found. If you want to propose a change to our image use policies to allow for Misplaced Pages-only licenses to the detriment of all other reusers, the village pump is ready and waiting. Resolute 15:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh dear we are getting tetchy Resolute; I will endevour to find a cure for dyslexia just to sooth your fraying nerves. Now calm now down dear.  Giano  15:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Now you're getting personal. I must be making headway. Resolute 15:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the effort to be legal has been been polluted with the effort to get people to give away their IP for unlimited commercial use by everybody has de-focused any coherent effort in this area. A part of this has been to reject all of the normal forms of (limited) permission to use, and only accept permissions that grant permenent permission of all uses by anybody. The (rejected-by-wikipedia) normal type permissions would give an immense amount of protection while enabling uses but the WWF blunder (plus the go-too-far Barney Fifes enabled by their vague wording) has prevented the norm types of legally safe routes to be the norm. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that it would be perfectly legal to use content released under more restrictive licenses, and anyone who says that not doing so is required to avoid copyright problems is confused or being disingenuous. However Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is free content is a pillar and has been since a very early period of Misplaced Pages development. It says, in part: "Misplaced Pages is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute." What North8000 and Giano propose would require modifying or abolishing that core policy, as I see it. DES 16:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think you will find it will come eventually, with or without me, sooner or later, and from the WMF itself. This resistance to change is concerning because things that don't adapt and change usually expire. Misplaced Pages is no longer the small beast it was when these core policies were engraved in stone, and neither are those who engraved those policies the people bearing the ultimate responsibility today. Commons is now a wild beast with too many 'free' images to control and properly monitor, and a simple disclaimer will prove to be worthless; couple this with the fact that Misplaced Pages and its dedicated editors are divested of and no longer responsible for their own images, it's a problem in the making.  Giano  17:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(Added later) DESiege, actually, while tweaking the policy should be open to question, stopping overreaching from it would also help. Nowhere in there does it say that all permission short of infinite must be rejected. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't North8000 but it does say "Misplaced Pages is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute." and "anyone can...distribute" seems to me to preclude a "Misplaced Pages only" license, and "anyone can...modify" seems to argue strongly against a no-derivatives license. It also says Non-free content is allowed under fair use, but strive to find free alternatives... and ...all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. I think those would need to be altered a fair amount to allow the kind of changes that Giano is suggesting, or even something like a CC-by-ND-NC which sounds like what you have in mind, unless I misunderstand you. I have thought that allowing somewhat more license restrictions might be a good thing. At this point, however, it would require both a community acceptance of such a change, perhaps in a site-wide RFC, and a modification of the relevant WFM board resolution, as I understand it. Maybe Giano is correct and all this will happen, but I don't see it any time soon. In any case I don't really see any of the above being a sensible response to Giano's original issue, which was simply a very poor misinterpretation of already existing policies and practices. I could see a somewhat more restrictive license option as possibly being a plus in some cases -- I don't see a "Misplaced Pages only" option as being anything but a negative. DES 21:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, DESiegel how about this I had obtained permission to use an image of a celebrity/performer who is also sort of a social activist. I was explaining that the required licenses allow basically unlimited use (provided that there is attribution). She asked, as an example whether it permission for the American Nazi Party to use the photo as a cover of their magazine, or for people to put the image on coffee cups and T-shits and sell them. I asked the former question at the image talk page, and they said "yes". End of ability to use the image. So I think that some type of permission that doesn't go quite that far would be a better idea. North8000 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that isn't really true, because there is a whole nebulous layer of personality rights and even other vague conceptions which further muddy how free a free image really is. I haven't really heard evidence that the verdicts of such cases can be predicted, but an image of a celebrity would quite certainly carry the Commons:Template:personality rights warning on it, letting anyone unpopular with shallow pockets know that the free image could be quite expensive for them. Wnt (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, North8000 that kind of thing can be a problem, and is one of the costs of running an open-source project: anyone can make use of the work in any way. That said, quite aside from any issues -- that is an area I don't know much about -- such groups can be discouraged from using an image in a few ways. 1) the SA (share alike) aspect of a license means that a re-user must grant to others the same rights, which commercial reusers may be reluctant to do 2) the attribution requirement allows the licensor to specify HOW attribution is made -- in particular a link to a particular website can be required, which a group such as the American Nazis would be rather reluctant to do i would think (if the site contained views very different from theirs), and 3) if the image is under the GFDL but not CC (which i think is still allowed for images, a reuser must include the full text of the license, which is several pages long. On a website this isn't a real problem, but on a teeshirt or a mug would be a significant issue. Not a perfect solution, but it means that such risks are mostly more theoretical than real. DES 15:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of good information and insights there DESiegel. Even for me who is only a semi-dummy on this, I'm not sure where to start to utilize that to try to get releases/licenses. Can you tell me specifically what license that is? Long term it may be helpful to communicate those ideas/thoughts to others somewhere. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest that discussion of Commons policy would be more useful on Commons than on someone's talk page on a different wiki, even if that someone is the founder of WMF? Most of the relevant parties are unlikely to find the discussion here, whereas you could easily invite Jimmy Wales into a discussion there if his participation is needed. - Jmabel | Talk 17:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, Giano's arguments are pushing for a change in Misplaced Pages policy rather than Commons. Commons cannot control what licensing terms we allow here. It would still be better handled at a VP if there is an actual proposal to be made, of course. Resolute 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll share my "good" Commons story for what its worth. Recently, I guess out of boredom, I googled my user name for the first time, and was plain shocked (I literally had no idea that this is what would come up) at the number of places my poor amature images are used by bloggers, news organizations, web businesses, brochures, newsletters. etc. (obviously, these were the publications that honored the attribution license) but, I don't know, it seemed like a "nice" thing that people were actually communicating using my images. And "via Wikimedia" seems like a bonus, for Wikimedia any way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I have to say, this page on Commons makes me really happy. Might've happened anyways, I don't know, but I certainly feel vindicated for the effort I put into it. WilyD 08:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This whole complaint/proposal makes about as much sense as someone who, after being treated rudely by a bus driver for not having anything smaller than a £20 note for his fare, proposes the government should build a new train line past his house so he doesn't have to take the bus ever again. -- Colin° 19:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Start reading at the top Colin, you'll soon be able to grasp it - word of mouth/email can be so unreliable.  Giano  19:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have read from the top and I think Colin's analogy is quite applicable. You think because you were treated badly that the whole world must now change to deal with your hurt feelings. Problem is the things you want to change have nothing to do with why your feelings are hurt. The silly part is you are blaming Commons for the entirety of the Free Culture Movement and WMF policy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I also have read from the top, following the link here from the Village Pump on Commons. -- Colin° 07:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, your from Commons - I wondered where these people were coming from!  Giano  07:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Ah, your from Commons" That's really funny Gianno. That explains it. Them be weirdos there. I suggest you stop ranting like a fool and take a break. -- Colin° 11:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks. Also if you had properly explained the reason for speedy deletion instead of just "copyright and provacy issues" your image would have probably been speedy deleted. Jcb was insofar correct to deny a speedy deletion but he should have converted this into a regular DR instead. You also had the option to start a regular DR as requested by Jcb but you chose to editwar with him. So both of you were of equal fault. Please stop crying and learn from this experience (Jcb should review his behaviour as well).--Denniss (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems quite clear that Commons has now replaced IRC as Misplaced Pages's ruling body. it's quite hard to launch DRs when one is blocked without warning, and the Admins concerned lie - it all seems vaguely familiar from here in the early noughties. However, we seem to be going nowhere at present, but in the many years that I have survived on Misplaced Pages, I have learnt one thing - if there's a problem coming, Wikipedians will stand idly by and watch it, and I will be there to say: "I told you so."  Giano  10:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a hint, I would have converted the speedy into a regular DR but if you would have continued to add a speedy tag without proper explanation I would have blocked you as well. --Denniss (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh you are an Admin there? then yes, I expect you would have blocked me without warning or even being aware that I was editing Commons and then lied about it. Now I have better things to do than argue with people from Commons. For now, I'll leave you to carry on there in your own inimitable ways. .  Giano  10:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop whining, especially if you are not even acknowledging your own faults. You should have started a regular DR to de-escalate the situation but you chose confrontation instead. I have already stated Jcb was at fault as well as he could have started the DR himself to de-escalate the situation. BTW if a user is edit-warring and has been warned in the revert comments there's no need for a further block warning on the user talk page. --Denniss (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Is "please stop whining" the best you can offer to Giano? His account on Commons was 6 days old. He was warned in an edit summary and blocked with a block summary of "Abuse of tags after multiple warnings". Multiple??? And how was he supposed to know the difference between "Speedy" and "normal DR"? Is there something inherently obvious in those terms that a user registered for 6 days can be assumed to understand? If so, how? - by osmosis? Just who was best placed to open a DR at that point? Please have another think. --RexxS (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, sums up the mentality at Commons perfectly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Giano isn't a child. He knows about edit warring, and he knows that speedy tags, once removed, should not be replaced. He most certainly has a not-insignificant share of blame for his experience. Resolute 20:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Giano, take a break. You are ranting like a fool. I've been a Wikipedian nearly as long as you. This "us and them" mentality is not helpful.

Nice signature! Very concise and to the point... Carrite (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Would people please stop responding to these Commons people on my behalf - appreciated as it is. They know very well that this is not about me being blocked there, but about the serious problems I discovered on my short stay there. Responding to them is rather like blowing a smoke screen around; they are obviously very rattled and worried - as I would be in there shoes. I think we should let Jimmmy's page regain it's customary tranquility now.  Giano  20:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Would you please stop referring to "these Commons people". I'm the first to admit there is a problem culture at Commons and there are a number of people who are, shall we say, disagreeable and who are either admins or highly vocal, active and influential. (And the same complaint could be said about parts of Misplaced Pages, not least the inhabitants of Jimbo's talk page.) But, there are lots of good people on Commons too. And plenty people at Commons would also call themselves Wikipedians. Anyone who knows anything about psychology knows that forming an "us and them" attitude is a disaster when it comes to understanding and resolution. And nobody ever solved problems by ranting. There's nothing intrinsic about Commons that causes the issues Giano faced. Quite the opposite. In Giano's preferred world, he'd end up with his photo copied to all the dozens of Wikipedias independently and have to request deletion separately on them all and in foreign languages. How daft is that? Giano hasn't "discovered" a serious problem any more than the rude bus driver in my comment above indicates that all bus travel is broken and should be replaced by trains. Commons is not "rattled and worried" by Giano, far from it, and all that discussions like this do is confirm prejudices and polarise opinions. How does that help anyone? -- Colin° 18:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• Once you get past the single abusive admin and the drubbing that admin took from the Commons Community, is there any substance to Giano's diatribe? What exactly are the issues he found at Commons? Is there a reason that Commoners should be afraid of him? Is this a case that thar be dragons and he is St George? 131.137.245.208 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there's nothing to worry about, everything at Commons is lovely and beautiful and coloured butterflies are fluttering around all the pretty pictures. You just all stay nice, relaxed and chilled and I won't be nasty to you any more.  Giano  10:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you name one person who has this view of Commons, Giano? One person who thinks Commons is some Garden of Eden? Can you name one person who supports your view that Commons, as a group, treated you badly? Right from the start, from Jimbo in fact, your who complaint has been found baseless. You've just discovered what "free content" is. You give your images away to anyone for any purpose. And that is wonderful in many ways, but also a huge loss of control. And it does make things a little difficult if you discover that what you gave away wasn't actually yours to give away. But guess what.. your image got deleted. And you didn't have to request its deletion in Esperanto. Or Spanish. Or Russian. Commons, as a site and as a group of users, worked. Move along now. -- Colin° 11:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Problems with Commons, TW, licensing templates

Currently our licensing templates don't indicate what jurisdiction for which they are "free" in, and many users just assume that all the general templates function as defined for the US. But these files will then be transferred (TW) to Commons, where they are found to not be "free" in their home jurisdictions and then deleted. Shouldn't our general free licensing templates explicitly state they only apply to US jurisdiction, unless they are supplied with an additional parameter indicating it is free in the home jurisdiction? The problem can be seen also in the inconsistency of some of our PD-licensing templates. {{PD-signature}} takes a home jurisdiction to indicate it is free at home but {{PD-ineligible}} does not. PD-ineligible is frequently tagged onto files that are considered free in the US, when used on English Misplaced Pages, but this is not necessarily the case in the home jurisdiction, and when these get moved to commons, they will end up deleted. There's no way to indicate the home jurisdiction on {{PD-ineligible}}, ti doesn't support such an option, but {{PD-signature}} requires the home jurisdiction be indicated. (it would make life simpler if when the home jurisdiction isn't indicated, it should apply as US-only for all these PD-ineligible type templates, and all support supplying home jurisdictions). -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Flow

Hello. Please consider to ask the flow team to enable flow on you talk page. It could be nice to see the extension on a heavly used talk page. Christian75 (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:Flow problems related to browsers or LiquidThreads features: At this early stage of "prototyping" for the wp:Flow features, some browsers might not be able to edit a talk-page, and people who often reply to 2 or 3 threads at once are likely to be hindered in their limited time to debug a "son-of-VE" product, with a whole new set of problems. Already, at WT:Flow, some comparisons have been made to wp:LiquidThreads, and it will be easier instead for hundreds of people to discuss issues on this page without hindrance from questionable new "user-interfere" (user-interface) changes. I was shocked to see the "add-thread box" at the top half of an edit-section operation, rather than see the current text displayed for editing, as normal people have done for decades. Perhaps we need another essay, "WP:No original freak-jerk" to remind people how WYSIWTF interfaces are still What-The-F**k distractions from trying to write the 'pedia. Sorry, but someone had to say it. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Status of bugfixes in wp:Flow: There are numerous design changes being discussed at WT:Flow, to handle many major problems:

• Replying to 1 comment might generate empty replies to all comments on a page.
• The format is another "scatter-talk" layout, with large double-spaced text, where 12 short replies will span 5 pages, as 5 Page-Down to scroll and see every reply. Consider setting TextSize as zoomed 3 times smaller to use Flow.
• The history log of replies has seemed to omit, or conceal, some updates.
• The wp:Notifications interface, to inform other users of new replies, is being reworked.

To test the entry (or re-edit) of messages, see: "WT:Flow/Developer test page" to try adding messages into a Flow talk-page. -Wikid77 23:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is an awesome idea. If you liked Visual Editor, you'll simply adore Flow. It has a cooler logo, after all. Carrite (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not impossible to get things right. For example, the code editor for Lua modules was, for a long time, something I tried to avoid whenever possible, but it has gradually improved until, in this most recent version, it really is a pleasure to use with top-of-the-line find and replace utilities. The developers of things like this just have to avoid being hasty and provoking a backlash from users who don't want to change. Wnt (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I think the Flow experiment is best suited to where it is right now, i.e. not heavily trafficked and politically sensitive pages like this one. If there were a way to stop Flow appearing in my watchlist so much, I'd be happier. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at the test page, I'm seeing a significant problem: it looks like Flow makes it easy to hide or delete individual subsections from talk pages. While it is possible to revdelete serious BLP violations now, I would be very concerned that having such a convenient "line item veto" will mean that Misplaced Pages will have talk pages full of omissions every time some admin decides that a source or incident shouldn't be talked about. Wnt (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Can somebody remind me why talk pages have to be "fixed"??? They work fine. Of course there are people here that use WP as a form of social media, debating opponents and such on scores of talk pages, and I'm sure they'd like WP talk pages to look more like the comments sections at newspaper sites, or Facebook. But we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to muck about on Facebook. I emphasize: there is no objective reason for this lousy piece of software making its way down the pike to even exist. Unless, of course, one's career depends upon it... Carrite (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:Flow could be expanded to have schedule/milestone features. However, some people have imagined we need wp:Flow to prevent edits to other user messages, and that notion was quickly refuted by real examples of redacting outrageous insults (or threats) before admins have a chance to debate whether the insults are bad (or as bad as their threats?). Then there was the fantasy of preventing wp:edit-conflicts by wp:Flow, but people noted the reality of edit-conflicts when updating busy articles, not just talk-pages. Overall, if Flow makes talk-pages more tedious to read, then long-lasting insults could be tolerated longer awaiting admin removal, but it is pretty sad to defend protected insults by noting how Flow dialogues will be tiresome for most users to read.... -Wikid77 14:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Maryana Pinchuk, the product manager for Flow, is the person to talk to about this. That said, Maryana has told me that the current pages that are Flow enabled (WikiProject Breakfast and WikiProject Hampshire) were chosen specifically because they were pages with relatively low traffic by English Misplaced Pages standards. Jimmy's talk page obviously doesn't satisfy that, so it's unlikely that this page would be Flow enabled until the product is more developed, as the product isn't ready for such large-scale deployments yet. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, what Dan said :) We're at very early stages with the software right now, and while it's working okay for two low-traffic WikiProject talk pages, it needs a few more cycles of users hammering on it to catch bugs and our dev team building out more features & functionality before it can thrive on a talk page as busy as this one. That said, our stretch goal for this quarter (Jan-March) is to package Flow as a beta feature that anyone can opt into on their user talk page, try out a Flow experience, and opt back out if it's not working. So hopefully soon... Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• • Does this mean that it will not be available as an option for User talk pages in Q1? I hope so as it isn't ready for that. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WMF's new lobbying firm, Thompson Coburn

I see that the Wikimedia Foundation's old lobbying firm Dow Lohnes has merged with the Wikimedia Foundation's ace law firm and cease-and-desist shoppe, Cooley LLP. I also see that the WMF is following Burger and Salomon over to the lobbying firm of Thompson Coburn, to "monitor copyright legislation". Woo wee, that sounds like good work, if you can get it! Anyway, I went to check out what Misplaced Pages had to say about this newest recipient of WMF donors' money, and lo and behold (!) the article says that it "appears to be written like an advertisement" and that "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". Jimbo, why does the WMF have such a difficult time finding competent professional vendors who obey the Bright Line Rule? Here are the users to which you might write a sternly-worded note: User:TEdit597, User:38.114.66.232 (really close to the Belleville, IL office), User:63.77.47.130 (that's a Thompson Coburn-assigned IP address), and the granddaddy of them all, User:ThompsonCoburnmktg. That last user is already blocked, but they haven't received that hand-wringing scolding from the Founder of Misplaced Pages that we all yearn for. Let 'em have it, Jimbo! Please let us know when you contact the folks at Thompson Coburn to inform them of your Bright Line Rule and how simple and ethical it is for them to follow. - Checking the checkers (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, a few interesting diffs in there. Is this firm the replacement for Michael Godwin, or is that something else? Wnt (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

(For further reading perhaps is of interest. Anyone up to do a BLP of Michael Lazaroff?) Wnt (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, will you please post a copy here of the cease and desist letter that the WMF sends to Thompson Coburn? Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, come on now, trolling checker-mater, you know it's only the productive editors who are hired by WMF who get the sack for COI editing, not the "information professionals." It's only the little people that get squished by multimillion dollar corporations... Carrite (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I count at least two self-declared paid editors engaged in this parody of a conversation. Neither has made, as best as I can determine, any disclosure that is visible to any reader of their pages as to what articles they have edited for pay and how much they have gotten. Be that as it may, I applaud their little hypocritical exercise, and I hope that it continues until or unless the WMF decides to ban paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That's weird -- I never knew that User:Wnt was a self-declared paid editor! - Checking the checkers (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not. He means User:Carrite and User:Cla68. (Carrite says he has offered on oDesk to write three judiciously chosen articles for benefit something having to do with animals, I think it was, which marginally qualifies; Cla68 has some less specific notice visible on his user page) Wnt (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Wnt. I thought you were "pure", so I'm glad to see that there is no tarnish on your edit history! I'd like to respond to what seemed to be the main point of Coretheapple's, though. He seems to say that because Thompson Coburn didn't disclose their COI editing, anyone who criticizes that should disclose any and all of their own COI editing. Here's the difference, though. The Wikimedia Foundation is using tax-exempt donation dollars to fund the business of Thompson Coburn, which has been doing COI editing on the project that funds them. As far as we know, Carrite and Cla68 haven't been paid with WMF-donor dollars to spruce up articles about vendors to the WMF. So, the conversation here really isn't a "parody". The core hypocrisy of the WMF purchasing the services of a firm that itself violates the sole founder of Misplaced Pages's clear and simple ethical rule against self-interested editing stands on its own, regardless of who wishes to comment further on that hypocrisy. - Checking the checkers (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to tell you that the idea that WMF paid someone in "donor dollars" as you put it doesn't exactly push my "horror" button, as a threshold issue, unless the WMF has violated its tax exempt purpose. Do you think it has? I don't see it. If it has, you should feel free to notify the IRS and it will yank the WMF's 501C3 exemption in a New York minute. But I don't see that happening. Now, having paid somebody in "donor dollars," you now have found that this firm has done some nasty self-editing. Well, as you know, I think that's pretty bad. But honestly, getting back to my point, here we have two self-declared COi editors, meaning you and Cla68, taking up this issue. I have to say, having no allegiance to the WMF whatever (and finding its attitude on this subject rather chickens--t) that I have no problem with you two gents raising the issue here. More power to you. But is it hypocritical? Yes. I mean, you do agree that it is, don't you? As for hypocrisy on the part of the WMF, I don't really see it. Now if they hired you or some other paid editor, then yes I think it would be a hypocritical act on their part. I tend to doubt that they have their vendors under such scrutiny that they hare aware of this kind of thing, though I guess it's always possible. Again, I don't feel so cozy with them that I feel the need to defend them. I am happy to see them excoriated, as a matter of fact. I think it keeps alive the issue of paid editing, so thank you for that. Coretheapple (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Was he really talking about me? Jesh, I didn't take it that way. As I say on my page, quite clearly and in English, "I've never accepted money for editing at Misplaced Pages, but I do have an ad up now on oDesk and I will eventually do a total of three (3) "paid" jobs..." I'll let you know when that changes. I don't think my friend Core was actually talking about me though. Were you? Carrite (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I was actually talking about Cla68, who has a big fat notice on his user page (and nothing else that I can see by way of notice) and our old friend Mr. 2001 a/k/a checking the checkers, who had a heart-to-heart with me on the subject a day or so ago. Checking the checkers knows this; he's a mischievous "old soul" as it were. But I like him. Coretheapple (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've also come to like Mr. 2001 after a protracted adversarial relationship. It's really pretty unfortunate that he was banned in the first place. I suppose he provides the classic object lesson that banning things doesn't make them go away, it just makes them harder to identify. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And more tenacious, one might argue! - Checking the checkers (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Frankly, having worked on the benches of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business a fair bit, I can posit that something like 80 to 90% of the small company wiki pages are probably written by someone with an obvious COI or by a SPA who can be assumed to have one. So by random chance alone, any small firm's page, whether they do business with the WMF or not, is probably going to have that kind of problem. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimmie, our community hopes for your response on this matter. - 50.146.187.80 (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that the community gives a hoot about this totally specious issue. Coretheapple (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem here, Coretheapple, is that Jimmy Wales and WMF say that they don't support paid editing, but then they keep declining to back up that stance when one of their business associates gets caught doing it. Cla68 (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh yeah. I get that. Duh. It is as subtle as a forest fire. But it begs the question of why there isn't wider interest. I think that there are two reasons. One is that posts like the one at the top of this section, and the ones previously offered by Mr. 2001 before he was blocked, tend to be routine examples of COI editing, nothing really shocking like BP effectively dictating the content of its article for months at a time. The other is what I pointed out earlier about paid editors monotonously raising these issues, so it just really stinks of hypocrisy and cynicism, and people are put off by that. Just my opinion, but that's the sense that I get.

Just one thing I wanted to point out: you call this "paid editing," but it isn't. It is COI editing, and a very banal example, not a really flamboyant example of the kind that...well, you yourself engage in. There is a "paid editor notice" on your talk page, but you don't disclose either the articles that you are paid to edit or how much you are paid, either per article or in the aggregate. I can't find any such disclosure anywhere on your user page (please correct me if I am wrong), so your "paid editor notice" really functions as an advertisement of your services, replete with a link to your email. I wouldn't call it a "disclosure" if I were you because you really don't disclose anything to other Misplaced Pages editors other than that you engage in paid editing in certain unspecified, unknown articles. And of course, you don't disclose anything to readers of the articles that you are paid to edit. Now I'm not saying you're doing anything against Misplaced Pages rules, but it's really ironic that you describe this as an "ethical disclosure" because a) it doesn't "disclose" much of anything, as I said, and b) it is about as far removed from anything ethical as one can imagine. It's really almost comical that you call it that, that you feel that your "disclosure" is "ethical," and then come here and make a fuss about someone else's COI editing. Coretheapple (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Attacking the messenger, Coretheapple? Believe me, after seven years of participation in this mess, I'm used to it. A big problem with the WMF acting so hypocritically is that their leadership example, or lack thereof, filters down to WP's administration. How is WP's administration ever going to get its act together when their leaders are sending such mixed messages? Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian

Jimbo, that's a lovely interview you had with Carole Cadwalladr at The Guardian. I notice, though, that something you knew from here on your Talk page some weeks ago, , but she had the actual evidence to back herself up. Here's the exchange:

CC: But there are problems, aren't there, with commerce entering Misplaced Pages? One example of this was mentioned in the comments beneath an article about the People's Operator which claimed the Misplaced Pages entry for the People's Operator was written by its marketing consultant.

Jimbo: No, it wasn't. I'd rather not talk about him.

CC: But, when I looked at the Misplaced Pages entry for the People's Operator and looked at the history of the article, and then Googled the name of the person who had written the initial entry and looked him up on LinkedIn, it stated he was a marketing consultant for the People's Operator.

Jimbo: I'll have to look that up. That's very interesting...

Two questions for you here, Jimbo.

1. When you said, "I'd rather not talk about him", who did you mean? The guy who commented beneath an article about The People's Operator, or the content executive Dale Marshall?
2. Why would you deny that The People's Operator was written by a marketing consultant, when on January 21, User:50.153.112.1 clearly notified you here on your Talk page about this very situation -- that a UK-based marketing consultant created the article, and then how Dale Marshall enhanced it while being paid by The People's Operator? You had all of the facts spoon-fed to you, but when talking to Ms. Cadwalladr, you decided to say, "No, it wasn't", then when caught in your misstatement, you said, "I'll have to look that up", as if it were the first time you'd heard about it. Clearly you saw the evidence that User:50.153.112.1 presented, because you responded to it on the very same day.

It seems to me that you're regularly caught telling about various things. Shouldn't the sole founder of a great encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages be more honest?

I'll close on a high note: it doesn't appear that Carole Cadwalladr was authored by any single-purpose or conflict-of-interest accounts. Yay! - Checking the checkers (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimmie, our community hopes for your response on this matter. - 50.146.187.80 (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Kindness, fairness and understanding: unfinished business

While I appreciate the sentiment behind archiving the previous thread, some the OP's original concerns--the issues of the template, and of "stemming others' aggression"--have gone unaddressed. While the tragedy of the user's suicide cannot be undone, it has been pointed out that the user would have wanted his Misplaced Pages experience to help others. Perhaps those who have been personally affected by the situation would be able to bear with a few more comments, in the hope that someone else might benefit.

• The template needs to be deprecated immediately. Someone who is experiencing mental health issues, to the point of considering suicide, does not need this template. They need medical care and privacy, and the template documentation should inform them of that. Some mental health conditions are temporary, and many others are treatable. For many many people who experience difficulties, things WILL get better, and the documentation of this template should say so unequivocally. If any user page template is to be used at all, there is a generic medical template somewhere that would be more appropriate. If anyone has not already seen the template (where I have now opened a new discussion), this is what it looks like:

Example of "mental health issues" template

This user is currently experiencing mental health issues, which may affect their Misplaced Pages editing in various ways. They may have difficulty with: altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Misplaced Pages discussions addressed to them; reduced availability on Misplaced Pages during times when they experience issues; limited capacity to respond to other Wikipedians via talk page messages or e-mails in a timely fashion, to participate in conflict, or to complete their usual workload of Misplaced Pages tasks. Thank you for your assistance and understanding.

• Bullying. The problem of wiki-bullying is more complex, but in spite of a rash of policies on civility and personal attacks, I am not aware of any dialogue that has taken place about it. Unfortunately it's all too easy for someone to use WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, or the perennial ArbCom favorite, WP:ASPERSIONS as a bludgeon in a content dispute. But there is increasing awareness of the bullycide problem elsewhere (see "Bullying: The 34 we lost in 2010 to Bullycide") and schools and government agencies are beginning to develop programs to combat it. Why can't Misplaced Pages be in the lead here?

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the sentiment that Wikibullying in any form must be stop, and any steps to counter it would be much appreciated. Just a little kindness and friendliness would go a long way to make everyone's Wiki-experience better. Any steps which help achieve that will serve good to John's memory.TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• The gender gap appears to apply to wikibullying as well, this user choosing to vanish after being targeted. —Neotarf (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the most important response to bullying is to give the target some leeway and not have the administration become part of the problem. I spoke a lot about this here during the Fae ArbCom case a couple of years ago, in which one of Misplaced Pages's best admins and editors was being dragged through the mud with outrageous (that is too weak a term) false allegations and cherry-picked mockery of all his personal activities coordinated offsite. Administrators were, and still are, infinitely more focused on the impropriety of him speaking perhaps a little broadly on why so many were putting so much effort into causing him trouble, and on technical formalities, than on denying bullies the opportunity to drive out their opponents and potentially take over Misplaced Pages. We need to be able to take a step back and say look, there are people coordinating an attack on someone, so we need to be much more cautious about acting on allegations against them. This is the social counterpart of the multiple comparisons problem in scientific statistics.

That said, it is hard for me or anyone to react to a specific case when I don't know anything about it. I looked up some of the people who said they'd interacted with this person, found their references to a deceased Wikipedian, looked over the page history carefully ... saw the last vandalism, but no references to suicide or the mental health template. It's only due to subsequent conversation about the last posting by those who knew him that I was able to see acknowledgement this was the person. I am tempted to Wikilove the vandal with a rotten kitten... But when all trace of goings-on is carefully removed by People Who Know Better Than Us, what can we do to identify and fix the social phenomena specifically involved in things like this? Wnt (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This person ("John") was much kinder, much nicer, much more mature, and much more sane than many Wikipedians who have never used the template on their talk pages. Misplaced Pages is full of psychotic, sadistic bullies who like to torture human beings absolutely needlessly. One of the recent cases is described here, and there are many others of the same. Eric Corbett believes that using such templates turns Misplaced Pages to "a psychiatric hospice." I disagree. If something turns Misplaced Pages to a psychiatric hospice, it is its psychotic, sadistic bullies who experience a physical pleasure of bullying. 69.181.40.211 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Administrators do you mean? Eric Corbett 16:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No, Eric, not only administrators. There are some Wikipedians who enjoy absolutely needless bullying. I could provide you with many examples of such behavior. 69.181.40.211 (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• You are all getting off point. The point is that Jimbo's tal page is not a book of remembrance or shrine for late Wikipedians, and neither is it a place for unqualified autopsies, unfounded allegations and inferences which seem to be growing more and more outrageous. That unfortunate boy did not kill himself because of Misplaced Pages or because he was failed by friends virtual or physical; he died because he had a deep rooted illness, which involved struggling with "depression and anxiety for years." Secondly, Misplaced Pages is not a place to be putting up templates regarding one's mental health, or any health - if you have a problem, see a doctor and obtain professional help. Its common knowledge that people really planning to kill themselves seldom advertise the fact, and I, personally, would regard such templates with a great deal of scepticism and cynicism. WMF has a moral obligation to advise any editor 'crying for help' to cease editing and see a doctor. Misplaced Pages is not therapy and attempting to provide it would be very wrong and possibly dangerous and we should not be encouraging it in any form.  Giano  18:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• While it pains me to go down eight levels of indentation, I find myself agreeing completely with you, Giano. This is not "about", and should not be "about", the overall conduct patterns of anyone on Misplaced Pages, sysop or not. This is about someone whose family is entitled to respect, and about how Misplaced Pages can best help those who still may be helped: refer them to professionals. I'm not aware of all the history of disputes involving Eric (who will I hope forgive me for saying there've been a few), but I think on this note, this particular debate can end. Pakaran 18:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  If you're intent on continuing to personalise this issue by further demonising me let me point out one simple fact, from which you may draw the obvious conclusion that someone who hardly edits here at all is less likely to find themself in disputes. You've made a little more than 11,000 edits in the last 11 years, less than half of them to article space, whereas I've made well over 160,000 in the last eight years. Eric Corbett 19:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  That's a fair point, and you'll see that, in the past few days, when I've been participating at a small fraction of your pace, I've had a few concerns raised about my own actions. I hope those continue to be relatively mild, and that I continue to learn from them, but indeed, my commentary was rather personal in nature and I acknowledge that. Pakaran 19:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Eric was treated too harshly in the last thread. What he said was not gentle, but he told us this had to do with his own father. The sympathy we would give to the one, we should give to the other, and if we're not willing to excuse an occasional teapot tempest on the basis of that sympathy, it doesn't mean much. Wnt (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I don't expect a WP day of "kindness, fairness and understanding" just because my father – who was never a Wikipedian – committed suicide. But neither do I expect one for anyone else who commits suicide. And the knee-jerk schmaltz surrounding this episode nauseates me. The subject of suicide came up in a lecture during my psychology course, many course ago. I still vividly recall the jolt of realisation I felt when the professor suggested that suicide can sometimes be a rational choice. Who are we to make judgements? If Kevin Gorman or anyone else is in possession of evidence that this specific suicide was triggered by something that happened on WP they should take it to the police, not collude on IRC and write secret reports. Eric Corbett 20:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The OP and you both seem to be saying is that the right time for our kindness and understanding is before, not after. I suppose the eagerness with which people give their sympathies after something like this only underscores how senseless it is that we would have denied them when it mattered most. Wnt (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Saying that "Misplaced Pages is not therapy" is literally true, and a tempting out, but it is not actually correct. Look at List of countries by suicide rate. The rate of suicide depends on culture - depends more than 100-fold on culture. It is not strictly dependent on economics; in fact, many of the poorest countries listed have the lowest rate, but then again, the highest rates are not in the most affluent countries either. Now the thing is, no doctor can cure a culture. As we spend time together, in some sense, on Misplaced Pages, it becomes our country, with its own culture, and its own rate, and it is fair to ask whether that rate is high or low, and why. Wnt (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Except that viewing it as a country where a User lives seems probably unhealthy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I was being rhetorical - if anybody took it literally, next thing you know they'd be hitting you up for 3% of your income! The point is, though, that as a fraction of overall time, it has a potential effect. Wnt (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If a person gives it power over them, it could have a potential effect, but they should not be giving that power to this website. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

• You all are missing the point. It is not about the template, it is not even about suicide, and most definitely it is not about turning Jimbo's talk into remembrance or shrine for dead Wikipedians. As I said above Misplaced Pages is full of psychotic, sadistic bullies who like to torture human beings absolutely needlessly. They don't add templates to their talks. They don't cry for help,and they don't go to see a doctor, but they are the ones who are really sick because only very sick users could experience a physical pleasure of bullying. That's why Misplaced Pages needs a day of kindness, fairness and understanding. Let's start with a day, turn it to a week, to a month and then to a year. 69.181.40.211 (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  Bullying and other forms of incivility should never occur on Misplaced Pages, ans should be rooted out when they do occur, regardless of any risks of suicide or other harm. But I suspect that what some think of as the actions of "psychotic, sadistic bullies who like to torture human beings" may seem to others as "upholding Misplaced Pages policies". Without knowing the specific cases you have in mind, 211, I can't have an informed opinion, but things often look different from different points of view, and it is well to consider what things might look like to other editors. DES 20:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages should simply be a safe and welcoming place. If it isn't that has to do with its people not its policies. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not designed to be safe and welcoming. Those qualities are treated as bugs, not features. The site would have to be redesigned to serve users not administrators to promote a safe and welcoming atmosphere. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Regarding User:Giano's "Its common knowledge that people really planning to kill themselves seldom advertise the fact": Seventy to eighty percent of people do disclose to someone prior to acting on suicidal thoughts. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Whether they do or they don't, Misplaced Pages is not the place to be crying for help, even the suggestion that it's OK's to threaten and talk of suicide on Misplaced Pages is opening a minefield, there should be an extremely strict procedure for dealing with those that do - and it should not involve therapy or anything beyond the minimum understanding here. We are not the Samaritans, and should not pretend to be so - who knows what incompetents could be handing out 'advice' to people in the most distressed of minds.  Giano  18:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Giano, nobody asks Wikipedians to be the Samaritans. Wikipedians should simply be humans, or at least not to be psychotic, sadistic bullies. If a person, especially a kid (I know such a case from 2 years ago) was bullied to the extend he threatened suicide, it is the fault of the bullies and not the fault of the person who was bullied.Period. That 16-years old kid did not commit suicide, but he has sustained irreversible emotional damage, and it is the fault of the arbcom that was notified about the situation, and did nothing to stop the bully. It is also the fault of the WMF that goes above and beyond to attract children to edit Misplaced Pages, but does nothing to protect them from bullies.69.181.40.211 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• The great majority of Wikipedians are not psychotic, sadistic bullies and it's a to be deplored if 16-year-olds find such people here; however, perhaps the guardians of those 16-year-olds should be taking better care of them. This is a community of largely adult anonymous editors, it's inevitable that their will be the odd crank and pervert. It's as wrong and impossible to expect other editors to provide protection and care for passing adolescents as it is to expect other editors to care for those wtth mental health problems. This is not Utopia, it is not even La La Land, it's an online encyclopedia. Nothing more.  Giano  20:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• "The great majority of Wikipedians are not psychotic, sadistic bullies". True, but also true that The great majority of Wikipedians are keeping silent, when they see a person being bullied, but probably most Wikipedians don't even see it. They are busy with content creations, and not watching drama boards and user talk pages where bullying is taking place.
• "This is a community of largely adult anonymous editors". "Adult"? Please correct me, if I am wrong but weren't you the one (Maybe it was Eric) who wrote about Misplaced Pages admins that Misplaced Pages is the only place where teachers are younger than students. It is not an exact quote, but something like that.
• "It's as wrong and impossible to expect other editors to provide protection and care for passing adolescents" Disagree. Every editor who sees a kid being bullied should do something to help the kid, and most definitely the arbcom should have done something.
• I am not suggesting Wikipedians should take care for those with mental health problems. I am suggesting the WMF should take care of Misplaced Pages bullies.69.181.40.211 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• You are forgetting that one doesn't "see a kid" they are anonymous. This is supposedly not a playground, people are assumed (often with difficulty) to be adult. We are editors of an encyclopedia, not childminders, carers or nurses. To even intimate to people with problems that that is otherwise would be foolhardy in the extreme. Now, I'm sure that Jimbo is quite sick of this thread, so lets conclude it.  Giano  21:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• The kid identified himself as a kid, and everybody who looked at his contributions would have no doubts that he was a kid. The WMF was in contact with him, but it was after the fact.
• Honestly I cannot care less what Jimbo is sick of. Jimbo is talking about the day you (Wikipedians) fight back, not about the day of kindness, fairness and understanding. Of course it his talk, and he could collapse the thread. 69.181.40.211 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh for Pete's sake, no one is proposing turning WP into a 911, I'm sure there are proper procedures in place for reporting medical emergencies. What we are talking about is a toxic editing environment. And while we're at it, how about a little compassion for the "psychotic, sadistic bullies"? The research shows they are at an increased risk of suicide as well. —Neotarf (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Solutions

Hm, a new cyberbullying law in Canada: "Judge orders end to Facebook cyberbullying under new law". —Neotarf (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

See, Facebook is a different animal. Facebook users could complain about being bullied to the administration. Here on Misplaced Pages a person bullied by a few anonymous sickos who call themselves "the community" is refereed to the very same sickos to be bullied again.69.181.40.211 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I nominated the template for deleteion so a more formal discussion can be had

See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Template_talk:User_warning-mentalhealth. I was not sure whether it belonged at MFD or TFD, please move it if it is in the wrong place. KonveyorBelt 23:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

What another community is doing

The Wikians have voted 7773 to 380 (! more than 95% for some very very diverse editing communities) for Wikia to join the Day We Fight Back protests.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy you might want to tweak that URL to http://community.wikia.com/User_blog:Semanticdrifter/Digital_Protest_Against_the_FISA_Improvements_Act as the rest provide tracking information. Werieth (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

We'll never know what would have happened here because supporters of this never brought it to the community.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hm, it just let me vote there, and I've never edited Wikia in my life. Are you sure it is a valid vote of community members?--Scott Mac 22:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Auto franchised! The new democracy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Vote early and often! --SB_Johnny | ✌ 11:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm, looks like 95% have clicked a yes button asking "Will You Fight Back?" as opposed to 5% clicking a no button, implying "Do You Love Big Brother and Killing Kittens?" Not a lot of intellectual depth on that page, is there? A poll of whom for what? Here's a better idea: how about Jimmy Wales starts an international campaign for a Snowden pardon and a pledge that he won't be killed by the CIA. Carrite (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't decide if you are being snarky or serious. Perhaps both. It's unbecoming, whatever it is you are doing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Snarky regarding the loaded pseudopoll from a non-germane website that is being touted as somehow instructive for Wikipedians; quite serious in my suggestion about what you should be doing instead of stirring up a divisive and ineffectual symbolic gesture at WP. And I will give it a break, at you suggestion, having said my piece. Carrite (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Jimbo, is there any concern that official Misplaced Pages/Foundation endorsement of the Day We Fight Back might cause issues for your tax exempt status? I notice that there are legislative goals, and nonprofits aren't supposed to advocate for or against specific legislation. Coretheapple (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no concern about that. We went through this in great detail during the SOPA/PIPA protest. The lawyers are comfortable that it isn't a problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

While you wait, read . WMF should avoid supporting/opposing specific candidates in upcoming elections. Wishing Feinstein and Harvey Milk had been standing in opposite places, on the other hand... Wnt (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally think this is a worthy cause, but I was interested to know if this base was covered. I noticed that the wiki article on this referred to specific legislation. Coretheapple (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the legal question, it's plainly inappropriate for our project to take a position on a political issue. We are here simply to report the facts. Everyking (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. We are a passionate community devoted to several principles which make our work possible. We should not stray into general political activism, but on issues that matter to us, we have a moral obligation to use our voice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That's an issue for the WMF, not for us volunteers. I think sometimes we volunteers lose sight of the fact that our role in governance is really nonexistent. This is true not just on this issue but on others. Coretheapple (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Who writes the content? Everyking (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The community. That's why this is not about the Foundation. Indeed, I think there are good reasons for the Foundation to stay out of these kinds of issues other than to seek to understand what the community wants. And I think we should demand that they support us when we want to make a statement.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Volunteers perform a vital role, but I'm not aware of any role in governance. Maybe there is one; I just don't see it. the WMF is run by its board, and I'm not aware of any direct method by which the volunteers impact on board composition or decisions. Coretheapple (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You should look a bit closer. Six of the ten seats are community seats, or 5 of the ten if you don't want to count me. Three are directly elected by the editing community, and two are elected by the chapters, which all have boards of directors who are directly elected by their respective communities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. Coretheapple (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Since the Internet was never designed as a secure communications medium, and since privacy for Internet users should not, therefore, be assumed, wouldn't it be better for all of us to "fight back" by just not using the Internet at all? That's the ironic stance that is sounds like Misplaced Pages is taking. By the way, what does Wikia have to do with anything that is taking place here? Are the two organizations connected in some way? Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop wasting our time please. Wikia is a separate community, but they also use wiki technology and so have some interesting similarities to us. Your claim that Misplaced Pages is taking the ironic stance that no one should use the Internet at all is just... literally a waste of typing. Stop please.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that there is a legitimate question as to whether Misplaced Pages should be involved in a political controversy, but as I said earlier, that's really a governance issue (one in which, as was just pointed out, volunteers do have both direct and indirect input). If it was up to me, I guess my answer would be "yes." Even though Misplaced Pages is neutral, it has an interest in the outside world when it comes to Internet surveillance and also, I think more importantly, net neutrality. I'm surprised there isn't more concern on this issue than there appears to be. Coretheapple (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion (of sorts) about this at the Village Pump. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Open_letter_from_EFF.2C_Demand_Progress_on_re-opening_Wikipedia:Surveillance_awareness_day —Neotarf (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Several communities here were sort-of encouraged to take part in this "day of protest" but the ones I'm closely aware of (WP:FLC and WP:ITN) considered the whole thing to be something of a damp squib. Quite why you've decided to tell us about the contributors to a Wikia poll, and quite why that's relevant to Misplaced Pages, I know not. Were you hoping for some kind of reaction? Perhaps you should have put a banner with your face on it saying "Think about it kids, the Day We Fight Back!!!!!!". Not really sure anyone fought back really, a bit like the threat that feminists would over-run Misplaced Pages with their edits. All amounted to nothing, or next-to nothing. Anyway, Wikipedians who were interested were aware of this "protest", and that's that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No surprise. The impression I've gotten is that Wikipedians on the whole have the social conscience of a grasshopper. Coretheapple (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well perhaps Misplaced Pages isn't the place for you. In any case, that's not the nub of the question I've asked. But thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The impression I get is that it's a generational thing. I had the same impression in other discussions on this page concerning COI and paid editing: Wikipedians seem to lack a real-world aprpeciation of issues like that. Same situation here. NSA surveillance is greeted with a shrug, no real outrage. It doesn't impact on how Misplaced Pages does it's job in compiling articles on Nintendo games and mid-20th Century choreographers, but it seems to impact on stuff like this. Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for your response, and yes, all the Big Brother surveillance is fascinating, and you can get all upset about it etc, but this is an encyclopaedia. It has an active core of contributors who have their own opinions, but ultimately the purpose of the project is to provide free information about general and specific topics to the universe. I suppose if you want militant uber-excitement about the fact that we're all being spied on, and have been since the dawn of spies, Misplaced Pages isn't the place for you, and from what Jimbo's suggesting, Wikia's communities probably should be where you further your cause. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not upset about it in any extreme sense, but I don't see the harm of Misplaced Pages taking a stance. Even the Encyclopedia Brittanica's publisher would take a stance when warranted. But I agree, the majority opinion does not seem interested. Coretheapple (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages taking a stance"? You mean a disparate group of hundreds of thousands of contributors trying to agree with each other for a socio-political cause? Maybe you don't even know what Misplaced Pages is! If there's no agreement over which version of cricket should be the first page you find when you search the term, what hope is there for some kind of militant uprising against the foul Big Brother and his ugly sister? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Of that disparate group, I wouldn't be surprised if fewer than 500 paid any attention to this kind of thing. When there are discussions of paid editing (which is the main reason I monitor this page), there never seem to be more than a dozen or so editors participating. Or, in the alternative, the large, cacophonous and often clueless volunteers could be sidelined and the WMF itself could take a stance. Either way I don't think it is such an immense and mind-boggling undertaking. Coretheapple (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

userboxes

Do you have userboxes? I want more for my collection of 140. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J73364 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You may want to refer to Misplaced Pages:Userboxes. A category which contains most (if not all) the userbox templates currently used is Category:Userboxes. Hope this helps, --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Themed days on the Main Page

Closing thread due to Godwin's law. Feel free to start another thread in a different new subsection with a more polite and constructive tone. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The Day We Fight HTTPS

Ironically, on this day, 11 February 2014, discussion at wp:PUMPTECH has explained how the severe problems during editing, of large pages, have been caused by https/secure (HTTP Secure) protocol often triggering "wp:504 Gateway Time-out" while the prior http-mode edit-previews will work fine (although still slow 75-95 seconds). See:

• "wp:VPT#Forced "https" on wikis"
• "wp:VPT#Confirmed http works when https gets 504 Gateway Time-out"

Hence, to avoid the numerous https/secure Gateway errors, the users can edit-preview as http-mode instead, then redo as https/secure and SAVE to set the username in the history log. For many Wikipedians, the https/secure mode was much worse than risks of mass surveillance. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure this isn't a one-time/user specific thing? Because I just tried previewing that page (Nash equilibrium) twice, and both times, after 92-95 seconds (despite only 2.7 seconds processor time, not sure why), got https: pages that looked right. I haven't examined why that page is so slow to preview, but it has a whole lot of math in it, and VPT is lit up with threads about math troubles ever since a rollback of some code to wmf11 broke things on February 6. Wnt (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of the MediaWiki developers are actively seeking solutions, and so the performance might improve within a few days. There is talk of bypassing excessive security features in the math-tag processing, and also, they might increase the timeout limit for "504 Gateway Time-out" to allow https to edit-preview with longer delays, similar to http-mode edits. More later. -Wikid77 00:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If we're going https, can we please use OCSP stapling? I don't like that every https request currently (well, it's been a while since I checked) also tells a third party OCSP server that the person is reading Misplaced Pages. Https is drastically overrated for protecting reader privacy anyway (it's only good for protecting passwords). If someone is monitoring a user's net connection, the traffic metadata such as packet sizes is enough to tell what articles a person is reading, even if the traffic is encrypted. This metadata is probably collected by PRISM or whatever they're calling it now, against basically everyone. We need a much more serious fix than https, that takes us back to our roots, but everyone is terrified of it, shrug. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

While it is true that - in theory - traffic metadata such as the size of a page could be used to determine (albeit with a significant level of imprecision) what someone is reading at Misplaced Pages - my view is that we should force the NSA/GCHQ to at least do that work. And for other attackers (your employer snooping on what you are reading at work, the nosy IT guy at your school, etc.) it is unlikely that they would have the time/resources to bother, given the relatively low (in most cases) value of knowing what someone is reading in Misplaced Pages. So against those weaker snoops, it's a pretty significant step forward. In terms of OCSP stapling, after reading about it, I'm intrigued and agree with you that we should probably try it. Separately, what is the "more serious fix" that "takes us back to our roots" that you have in mind? Often when people say such things, they imagine moving Misplaced Pages into a tor-like cloud or something, without acknowledging that with 540 million or more monthly users, any radical departure from a standard web architecture is pretty hard to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Should WMF join the American Library Association?

I've been working out a draft RFC about whether Misplaced Pages should ask the WMF to join the American Library Association on its behalf. The ALA has been one of the organizations consistently supporting advocacy efforts for intellectual freedom and privacy, and I think that membership would allow Misplaced Pages to develop a more effective and professional way of approaching things like The Day We Fight Back. I'm hoping to make the RFC "live" later today, after getting some good feedback at the VP/Idea lab, but I'm curious if people have any more feedback to offer so that it can come to a clear (and hopefully successful!) result. Wnt (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The ALA is certainly a fine organization and its principles are compatible with the WMF, but I am not sure how it would benefit the English Misplaced Pages (or the WMF, for that matter) to join the ALA. I think your RfC needs to be clearer about that than it is currently. I also am not sure how "membership would allow Misplaced Pages to develop a more effective and professional way of approaching things like The Day We Fight Back." The ALA and the English Misplaced Pages have two completely different decision-making structures. The ALA (like the WMF) has a board of directors/trustees/whatevers and a paid staff, and presumably someone within that structure comes up with an idea to support something or do something, and the "highest" person or group that needs to approve a particular decision gives its approval, and they do it. On Misplaced Pages we have RfC's, which in my opinion are not a great way to try to make decisions, especially if time is a factor. But that is what we have. I don't see how joining an organization that has a more conventional decision-making structure will change the way decisions are made here (and in fact, Misplaced Pages and all the other projects are already owned by an organization that has a more conventional decision-making structure, but that structure has not been adopted by the projects themselves. And I am not suggesting it should be, though it would be nice to have a better decision-making system than we do now.) Neutron (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, my feeling is that if Misplaced Pages has a membership, we can send a volunteer delegation to ALA meetings and get them more familiar with the issues, we could invite their leadership to set up a page here where they lay out ideas for us to join in on, we can have editors in the meanwhile receiving some of the training they offer, and we are in a better position to ask them to look at controversies that come in and give their opinion about them as a trustworthy third party -- for example, the big controversy about Creative Commons licenses giving away higher resolutions than those released under the license. But I'm just the idea person here - certainly I can't make any promises about what we or they would do, Perhaps I shouldn't have written that much when I'm not a crystal ball. I just feel like if we get enough people thinking about it, the intrinsic compatibility of our visions will find a way. Wnt (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

What are "the issues" that ALA is not aware of? WP (or WMF, can't remember which) had a booth at ALA a few years ago and speakers on WP-related topics are at various of their conferences on a regular basis. Heck, Sue Gardner gave a keynote address at their annual meeting a few years ago too. DMacks (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Admittedly, the biggest risk to this proposal is that Misplaced Pages is already a member and I just don't know it. :) But if you look at a library site like archive.org they proudly announce their membership. While I'm sure that the ALA is closely conversant with most of the issues, there are things that seem to come up for us quite suddenly (like the CC image resolution issue I mentioned above, the prosecution of Barrett Brown for linking a source from his Mediawiki wiki, or the featuring of the Misplaced Pages logo in one of Snowden's leaked NSA presentations) that it would be nice to have the most timely expert guidance about. Wnt (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

What is Misplaced Pages? Or better, what is Misplaced Pages's real-life equivalent? A library or a book? KonveyorBelt 00:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's one question I suggest in the RFC. We call Misplaced Pages an 'encyclopedia', but in truth, it lacks certain characteristics of one, such as a single publisher in charge with a level quality standard. If someone gets sued over an external link or libel, it isn't Misplaced Pages who faces the music, but that author. So Misplaced Pages is many articles, many separate works, and in that regard, it is like a library with many books. And in terms of sheer size, of course, it is vastly larger than any encyclopedia. I'm not sure how big it would be when printed out (actually, that would be a cute factoid for the RFC) but I'm thinking it would be the size of a library. And as I say in the RFC, Misplaced Pages has a reference desk, has a resource exchange much like interlibrary loan, has multimedia collections ... more reasons to answer 'library'. And if Misplaced Pages is a library, and those of us operating it are, by and large, not trained in library work, then it makes sense to me to get more involved with those who are. Wnt (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

When WP (all languages) had 20 million articles, I carefully calculated the text was the size of 365 copies of typical Encyclopedia Britannica (one for each day of year), but double that to include thumbnail images (from Commons if page not illustrated). So, 14,600 illustrated volumes for 20M pages, or 21,900 volumes for 30 million. -Wikid77 15:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There may be reasons for the WMF to consider joining the ALA, but the very strained analogy between Misplaced Pages and a library is not one of them. Neutron (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright. It seemed like a great analogy to me, but admittedly, I tend to see everything as analogous to everything else. :) I've demoted my maunderings on "implications" to a talk page thread - it's not really material needing a vote anyway (or as you say, perhaps not even relevant) Wnt (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggest further discussion take place at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Should Misplaced Pages ask WMF to join the American Library Association on its behalf?. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I can see that part of the motivation of this application is to give you higher stance to oppose the implementation of on-wiki personal content filter. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It is true that the ALA, like Misplaced Pages, has opposed content filters because it places a higher priority on people's right to read than on controlling what they read. However, membership in the ALA wouldn't mean that they can override Misplaced Pages policy: in fact, many of their members, unfortunately, have such policies forced on them under CIPA. Joining the ALA does indeed mean taking a careful position in favor of intellectual freedom, but relatively speaking, unfortunately, we are still in the front of the pack on this particular issue. Wnt (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hence I oppose ALA membership. Providing personal content filter is not equal to interfering (other) people's right to read. The belief held by ALA of intellectual freedom is fallacious. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You're still conflating decisions on two very different levels. The court battle the ALA was involved in was United States v. American Library Association, in which the ALA opposed an initiative to force libraries receiving public funds to install filters. That doesn't mean that they are telling all libraries not to use filters in any circumstance - see for their actual position. Based on what they were able to win in 2003, they are telling sympathetic libraries they can inform adult patrons of their right to request that filters be turned off. The ALA's perspective is one of legal advocacy that would protect Misplaced Pages's right to have the policy it does. Wnt (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Then tell me, back in the discussion of WM opt-in image filter, people who quoted ALA's position on content filter to illustrate their opposition were all wrong. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The ALA has put out a lot of material on the topic, but to me it looks like they're trying to accommodate two positions: the self-evident right of the patron to be free of censorship, and the right of those operating libraries to do as they wish or as they must. Accordingly, the document I linked above provides guidance that varies according to state and local law, and includes a section with suggestions for what libraries should do if they decide to use censorware. Wnt (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting idea, though the ALA is wimpier than Misplaced Pages on some important issues, so they might make us softer in areas where I think we should be toughening up. My immediate reaction is mixed. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, there's something I don't like about joining the ALA. If they try and change us too much, then there's a definite problem, but if they don't change anything...? I'm not sure there's really much benefit to joining either way. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that we could make a lot out of this, or not very much, depending on whether people get involved. At the bare minimum end of things (always the more likely outcome) we would help improve public awareness of a group representing a substantial fraction of U.S. libraries on issues that help preserve and expand Misplaced Pages's freedom to operate. At the maximum and most improbable extreme, I picture a world where you can drop by your local library and it's like visiting "Misplaced Pages", because we would have gotten experts together to hook from our articles into the catalogs of local libraries and vice versa, and arranged effective interlibrary loan from libraries to Misplaced Pages home users and vice versa, and trained Wikipedians to serve as library volunteers and vice versa. Wnt (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages (at least the English version thereof) is already struggling with an extreme systemic bias in favour of all things American, joining the American Library Association will only make it even worse. Thus as a counter proposal, I would like to suggest that we rather join the library associations of Samoa, Rwanda, Paraguay, Tajikistan, Nepal, Jamaica, Malta, Angola, Jordan and Iceland. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The situation isn't really symmetrical though. Misplaced Pages is constantly dealing with legal issues such as Fair Use based on U.S. law, not Rwandan law. However, one reason why I made the suggestion of having WMF join on behalf of en.wikipedia in particular is the thought that yes, projects in various languages might eventually join counterpart organizations worldwide. I doubt you'll find much of a library organization anywhere in the world that celebrates Book Burning Day, though. :) Wnt (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

IFLA would be more appropriate. A chapter based in the US could join the ALA if they wish. – SJ + 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but it's not an either-or decision. The IFLA is has just 1500 members compared to the ALA's 59,000, and wouldn't be in the same position to focus on the American legal issues that affect what we can do on Wikimedia projects directly, but it should have its own beneficial aspects. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wired: ‎In the Middle East, Arabic Misplaced Pages Is a Flashpoint — And a Beacon

Recent article in wired:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/02/arabic-wikipedia/ 149.171.92.185 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I see at lot of issues on the Farsi Misplaced Pages (where I edit under a proxied-IP every once an while...(1) to spread Western culture and (2) to improve my grasp of the language. There are some interesting arguments between pro-Western and Islamic editors, some bullying of Christian editors by some users I have my suspicions about. There is a lot of interest in the world outside Iran, and I see it reflected in Farsi-language twitter and facebook postings. The Iranian government makes an active effort to block access to certain articles (two that I've written I've been told) on western topics because of their ability to influence youth. I wish the WMF would sponsor a few efforts to improve the Farsi project. In the next few years, I think it could make an impact politically and culturally.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It gives me a warm little glow to know that a thoughtful contributor translated my quality improvement efforts at the WP:FA page Freedom for the Thought That We Hate so that it is now available in the Arabic Misplaced Pages. :) — Cirt (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I've crossed paths with User:Rahma Elkady before. Great editor.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)