Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:14, 13 March 2017

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats until Wikimania 2017 are Pundit and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation's Director of Support and Safety is Maggie Dennis.

Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here

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.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Another unflattering news article

Out this morning but I cannot link to it (a) as the outlet in question is now an 'unreliable source' and (b) it outs one of our editors. Notwithstanding, it raises many points that I have been concerned about over the years. For example

• the supposed exercise in democracy took place in virtual secrecy, and was supported by a mere 53 of WP editors, or 0.00018 per cent of the site’s 30 million total, plus five administrators.
• Yet WP remains happy to use the state propaganda outlets of many of the world’s most repressive and autocratic Left-wing dictatorships as a source for information. 'Misplaced Pages has not, for example, banned the Chinese government’s Xinhua news agency, Iran’s Press TV or the Kremlin mouthpiece Russia Today'. (They didn't mention the Kazakhstan affair, though).
• the ban raises troubling questions about free speech and censorship in the online era.
• 90 per cent of editors are men, and most are white. Only a tiny proportion come from outside the developed world.
• WMF refused to answer questions.
• WMF has huge cash reserves, average salary of employees estimated at £90k, yet WP calls itself a 'small nonprofit'.

Peter Damian (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It is always good to take concerns over Misplaced Pages seriously. That is important for our public image and to prevent discreditation.

was supported by a mere 53 of WP editors, or 0.00018 per cent of the site’s 30 million total, plus five administrators.

Well, that's the fault of users who prefer passivity over participation. And note that this passivity can be a good thing if you are mostly neutral on a topic or aren't knowledgeable in that area. But it's not a fault of Misplaced Pages.

the supposed exercise in democracy took place in virtual secrecy

Didn't it take place at the very visible reliable sources noticeboard? But if that's what some got from it we should now think about how to make such discussions known to editors to whom it matters. For instance should or was a note added to the DailyMail article? What more could we do here?

Yet WP remains happy to use the state propaganda outlets of many of the world’s most repressive and autocratic Left-wing dictatorships as a source for information. 'Misplaced Pages has not, for example, banned the Chinese government’s Xinhua news agency, Iran’s Press TV or the Kremlin mouthpiece Russia Today'. (They didn't mention the Kazakhstan affair, though).

Well if they're reliable they should be allowed to be used. If they continuously make false claims and the like we should have the same discussions about them. They don't necessarily need to be "banned" - discouraging their use or establishing ways to and groups that track their usages would be other, potentially more constructive, ways to deal with them.

the ban raises troubling questions about free speech and censorship in the online era.

Let them cry. If that puts pressure on journalists and news agencies to actually do their job that is good. It's not censorship but simply the recognition of the state of unreliability of a specific source.

90 per cent of editors are men, and most are white. Only a tiny proportion come from outside the developed world.

Well that's largely not Misplaced Pages's fault but of female and non-white people as well as those not coming from the developed world. Of course the social structures around them need to be considered (such as education systems) and hence we can't really say that it's (at least mostly) their fault. But that indeed means potential bias. Here we should probably continue making Misplaced Pages easier to contribute to.

WMF refused to answer questions.

We, the community, need ways to answer these questions. They shouldn't be reaching out to WMF but Misplaced Pages which is us editors (and admins & WMF people). I already suggested pages and ways for said here.

WMF has huge cash reserves, average salary of employees estimated at £90k, yet WP calls itself a 'small nonprofit'.

Good point. Relevant to this is this Signpost Op-ed: "Misplaced Pages has cancer". Per m:Wikimedia Foundation salaries Sue Gardner and Lila Tretikov are getting ~$300.000 per year. What the heck? One could say that executive directors should probably earn more and that they could work in other positions where they could earn much more. However this is far too much considering that it's donated money that could be used for improvements of Misplaced Pages. It's not enough to make salaries transparent if they're too high (and the last ones are from 2014). If I would work for WMF if I'd totally suffice with under $20.000 to leave all the rest to Misplaced Pages so that development projects can be funded. I don't think that the job of executive directors can't be carried out properly by other people who are also taking up less financial resources. I think we need ways for the community to dismiss WMF workers and decide on new ones.

--Fixuture (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider how you are thinking about salaries. The average php developer salary in San Francisco, California, is nearly $120,000. The idea that the WMF should pay a maximum of $20,000 is basically saying that in exchange for the privilege of working at WMF, people should give up 5/6th of their earning potential. Instead, I think that the WMF should pay fair market salaries taking into account the fact that we are a nonprofit and can never really fully compete with the kind of earnings people can get with stock options, etc. at other organizations. The Daily Mail acts like our salaries are out of line - but they are absolutely clearly not out of line at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

As a volunteer php developer supporting two important editor workflows (WP:RM and WP:PMG) I earn zero dollars. Until a WMF developer leaves and actually takes a paying job elsewhere and is willing to reveal what they earn there (or takes a pay cut to join WMF), it's only speculation to give a figure for what "earning potential" WMF programmers are sacrificing. I don't know what my "earning potential" is these days but I'd be content to make $10,000 for my part-time work. I feel I'm being taken advantage of a bit when I'm not paid anything. I don't envy the younger guys who have student loans and mortgages to pay off. wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

wbm1058, thank you for your work. You are correct about salary speculation and I feel you should be paid an honorarium of at least $10,000. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I'd also like to thank you! Please know that your work is valued by the community even if you don't get any feedback or returns.

What I would suggest to Jimbo and the WMF would be to realize that a non-profit running on donated money is not the same as an ordinary company and that there are probably many capable people who would love to work for Misplaced Pages with a way underaverage pay so that more money can be used to improve Misplaced Pages. That would also mean that the most passionate would work for Misplaced Pages. I don't mean to in any way offend anyone working for the WMF but I do think that while they may be doing a good job and are passionate there are many people who are more passionate. It's not a bad thing if salaries are way below average (as long as they're not unreasonable and enough for living of course). Actually most donators wouldn't expect and probably oppose such high salaries to be paid. Misplaced Pages should try to be as cost-efficient as possible.

Instead of hiring one developer with an (apparently bizarrely high) average income hire 5 more passionate ones. Such could be hired from the volunteer developers, such as Wbm1058, who already contribute without reward. Also I have no sympathy for giving that much money to executive directors: they are running on donated money and this money was not for luxury life but rather improvements to Misplaced Pages with employees having an average lifestyle of the average donator. If you don't do that you unnecessarily waste money, risk disturbing donators and miss opportunities to critically improve Misplaced Pages.

--Fixuture (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I appreciate the support. Just noting that this edit, which included a {{ping|Wbm1058}} to me, did not trigger an entry to my notifications list. Seems like a bug; I've noticed this before, so wonder how many pings I miss. Perhaps your refactoring of previous comments in the same edit is why this wasn't picked up by the notification system. But, as I know that notifications are somewhat unreliable, I make a mental note to check back in on recent discussions. wbm1058 (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's the fault of users who prefer passivity over participation. And note that this passivity can be a good thing if you are mostly neutral on a topic or aren't knowledgeable in that area. But it's not a fault of Misplaced Pages.

The time period before the RFC is closed should be a very long time period when it is about doing whatever was done re: DM. At least 6 months.

Didn't it take place at the very visible reliable sources noticeboard? But if that's what some got from it we should now think about how to make such discussions known to editors to whom it matters. For instance should or was a note added to the DailyMail article? What more could we do here?

Maybe we should put a small notice in the publication in question when such a RFC is underway, if it looks as if the result of the RFC will be the same result as the DM RFC.

Let them cry. If that puts pressure on journalists and news agencies to actually do their job that is good. It's not censorship but simply the recognition of the state of unreliability of a specific source.

Its hard to disagree with any assertion worded like this "raises troubling questions" as that assertion, imo, only says the event is something worth talking about and thinking about, which is something that most of us are willing to do ( talk about and think about what happened in the DM RFC )

Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well if they're reliable they should be allowed to be used. If they continuously make false claims and the like we should have the same discussions about them. They don't necessarily need to be "banned" - discouraging their use or establishing ways to and groups that track their usages would be other, potentially more constructive, ways to deal with them.

I don't recall a single RSN discussion where RT was decided to be a reliable source. The consensus in respect of RT is, as far as I know, similar to that re the Daily Mail: use only in exceptional circumstances. In any case, this is WP:OTHERSTUFF. We should not use any of those crappy propaganda outlets either! Guy (Help!) 09:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

CNN is just as much of a crappy propaganda outlet, except their propaganda brainwashes people not on behalf of a political/national entity, but rather on behalf of the global political, economic, and especially cultural, establishment....with their "anonymous" sources and their "my sources (often unnamed) tell me that", and nowadays even holding round table discussions among their own employees giving the misleading appearance of being a discussion which represents all viewpoints of an issue. I mean, their propaganda perpetuating and repetitive dribble is actually much worse today than any other propaganda vehicle I've ever seen...perhaps on par with Pravda in the 1960s. Its utterly amazing to me that any critical thinking news junkie can not see that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

30 million users is wrong. That's the number of registered accounts. According to Special:Statistics, only 141k of those have been active in the past month, and many of them will be vandals and sockpuppets. Moreover, from sampling Special:ListUsers, many if not the majority of accounts never edit. BethNaught (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• That's a funny article and probably quite accurate - I will not link to it as it seems to name a wikipedia editor - anyways, you edit here and you take your chances - don't think you are incognito and free to spout whatever you want without any comeback or retaliation, the mail has a lot more resources to defend itself than you have as a not for profit volunteer wikipedia editor. The Daily Mail is a decent enough source for simple basic details as are hundreds of others that we use - the new york post for example - stronger multiple sources are better for controversial details. I disagree with the total rejection of the Daily Mail- that was unnecessary - it is no worse than many other sources that are regularly used here. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Btw the policy is WP:OUTING - the url can't be added here due to that.

I disagree with the total rejection of the Daily Mail- that was unnecessary - it is no worse than many other sources that are regularly used here.

But it wasn't "totally rejected". The ban said that it's "generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist" which means that it under some circumstances, and when exercising common sense it could still be used if no other sources exist and other editors of the article are okay with it. Potentially the {{Better source}} template could be used in these rare cases. --Fixuture (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Funny" is indeed for me too the first thing that came to mind when I read it. With some indignation they declare "The Mail is the only major news outlet on the face of the Earth to be so censored" – Well, they forget of course that Misplaced Pages has declared itself even more unreliable than the Mail (I don't even know whether we needed a vote for that). By the time I came to the paragraph that reads "It should be noted here that, ironically enough, the Mail wrote to all its writers and reporters three years ago instructing them never to rely on Misplaced Pages as a single source, such were the concerns about its accuracy" I was of course LOL. Sorry to see their gutter-journalism approach to the topic (which prevents us to link to it for the obvious and at least intentionally offensive OUTing). Otherwise I can't imagine a comedian that could have done a better job at producing something for people to laugh with. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, seems a lot like a comedian promising to shoot in their own foot in their next show – and does so, with a real gun. Since the show was such a huge box-office success, they do the same with their other foot in the next show. Should one not rather take pity than laugh? So I end up feeling morally conflicted whether it isn't a bit too perverse to laugh with it. Let them shoot in their own foot as much as they like. If they think that is a decent way to make a living, who are we to comment on it? Deny recognition seems a more reasonable approach, maybe they would, in the end, stop maiming their own limbs? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Organizations that are non-profit and built upon pursuing a good cause are the ones that can have the most intractable problems because they tend to lack needed structures and checks-and balances. This is because, for those types of organizations it seemed like such "weren't needed". A few of the common issues for these are too much power in ivory towers, making ivory towers hard to penetrate and too removed from scrutiny, overpayment of the top 1 or 2 persons, defacto control of the board by the top 1-2 persons, bad binding decisions coming from places that are too isolated and less expert at making them, and using the imprimatur and instruments of the organization to pursue the political or other off-mission ends of certain groups. Getting more of these instruments in place would do much good. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the biggest point here is the danger of outing. If you upset a major corporation, especially a news outlet, they will come after you if they so wish. And proceed to libel you. Anybody with an online profile that is in any way recognizable is at risk. Editors who are in any way recognizable should steer clear of these sort of debates. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

In my post I had Misplaced Pages in mind. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry North8000 I wasn't really replying to your post, just making a general statement.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Cool. It was indented under mine but fixing that clarified that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it is ironic that the Daily Mail objects to Misplaced Pages calling the Daily Mail, only a little more reliable than Misplaced Pages calls itself (which is, not at all). I previously noted that the Daily Mail's having to tell it's reporters not to use Misplaced Pages as a source (as late as 2014!), shows just how unreliable the Daily Mail would have to be, with such foolish reporters that they have to be told that. I cross-posted some of this this at AN: In addition to the Daily Mail's false name calling, that Slatersteven notes, Five closed the discussion, but no they were not all administrators, and it's probable that more than five administrators participated in the discussion. Another falsehood in the Daily Mail article is the suggestion that the month long discussion was secret, and that only those who "haunt" the Reliable Source Noticeboard (that's decidedly not secret) participated -- all false. I don't even watch the page, and I found out about it in public, while it was on-going. Now, of course, its not an absolute "ban" anyway, see, The Daily Mail does not run Misplaced Pages. Further, it looks like the Daily Mail is the only one who is anti-free speech and anti-free thought - sorry, in a free world, people are more than allowed to determine the Daily Mail is "generally unreliable", but perhaps the Daily Mail does not like free speech. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Where does the article say that the discussion was 'secret'? Of course it is hard to tell which article we are talking about because Misplaced Pages does not allow us to link to it. user:Peter Damian —Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    • On what basis did you conclude that Misplaced Pages does not allow us to link to The Daily Mail? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Well let's test that hypothesis. Peter Damian (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Peter Damien, you're the one who called it "secrecy" and you specifically based that on the false suggestion made by the Daily Mail article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • the exact words of the article were 'this supposed exercise in democracy took place in virtual secrecy'. Peter Damian (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Unless, you and the Daily Mail also falsely claim people including the Daily Mail, itself, puts stuff on the public internet in secrecy, there is nothing "in virtual secrecy" about it (at, get this, a page called, "WIKIPEDIA:Reliable Sources Noticeboard" -- posted for a month -- it's hard to get more not secret) - just bad reporting by the Daily Mail. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• The Daily Heil responds to criticism by doxxing. But it's not alt-right, absolutely, definitely not, even though that's what the alt-right do. On the plus side, it is always good to have a Misplaced Pages decision confirmed by the subject. And that's basically what the Heil have done here: printed an article perfectly exemplifying the reasons why they are not reliable. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And it appears that User:JzG ("Guy") responds to criticism by completely deleting what I say here without so much as mentioning there is something missing after he's done. The difference between the two is that the Daily Mail operates far beyond the reach of Misplaced Pages policy, where not even England's nasty libel laws actually prevent them from writing the articles they do, and where they have an audience of over a million people a day. Wnt (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully its ok with Guy and Wnt if I reinsert Wnt's comment without the link as I find his thoughts important to Misplaced Pages processes: "This is ridiculous. Let's start by............ linking the news story], because it makes some significant points that we would do well to consider. If it also incidentally names a Misplaced Pages editor, I am not convinced this is a relevant policy issue. The Mail claims this was already public on a Facebook profile, and they've sure as hell made it so. The relevant issue, as is nearly always the case, is not "WP:OUTING" (coming up with some kind of secret personal information) but actually "WP:Opposition research" (we may not have a link but the issue is described somewhat sanely in the policy) - I don't care who ............ is or if he's ever posted something some narrow-minded person might look at askance; this debate should be about the issues, not the person. We can do that - but we only do that if we are willing to read the article. Pulling down the windowshade does not actually stop the oncoming train. And making a holy fetish, complete with chicken bones and muttered spells, out of the act of "linking" a page rather than typing daily mail wikipedia into Google and taking the first hit (as I did, and hopefully everyone else weighing in) is an affront to the internet, to html, and to all things sane and good that died during the money-grubber takeover of the internet in the early 2000s. When I think of all the grave sins and blasphemies committed by Tim Berners-Lee when he first suggested putting references in angle brackets with strategic "a"s, I wonder if burning his entire country at the stake would be sufficient to propitiate Huitzlopochtli for his wicked thoughts. And in fact, I'm not reinventing the wheel here - what Misplaced Pages:Linking to external harassment actually says is Web sites that do not routinely harass have in the past become engaged in an isolated or specific dispute with a Misplaced Pages editor. It is not normally necessary to remove such links. Removing links to the official website of an article subject due to side-effects of a single dispute is rarely necessary and may be unwise.

  +

Now the Daily Mail deserves proper ridicule for resorting to ad hominem about the person who proposed a vote when fifty-odd misguided people did thoroughly win the discussion. They also go wrong in suggesting PressTV has no such "black mark" when in fact it simply was so derided that nobody bothered to hold a vote. (Amazing how much easier it is to refute a story if you read it) But that doesn't change the core issue that Daily Mail has a point when they say that they are being condemned for a small number of remarkable articles, by a very small proportion of the Misplaced Pages community." Previous in quotes written by Wnt and removed by Guy.Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: I'm feeling a combination of disgusted and scientifically curious. A link to a history link is apparently OK with you, though the direct link isn't; the search is OK; and the link (not mine) to the relevant editor's talk page is OK but maybe not the editor's name (though I realize that wasn't your doing above) ... you do realize this doesn't make any sense? It reminds me of the US government response to Wikileaks, the art of trying to keep a secret when everyone knows it.

Anyway, let's try an offline style cite to check an earlier hypothesis: Guy Adams (2017-03-03). "The making of a Wiki-Lie: Chilling story of one twisted oddball and a handful of anonymous activists who appointed themselves as censors to promote their own warped agenda on a website that's a byword for inaccuracy". Daily Mail.

I should add, in response to edit summary/talk page comments, that I regarded the voters as "misguided" in the sense that this debate guided them to the wrong conclusion... another equivalence, as far as I'm concerned, which seems to disturb you. It's not that Daily Mail is such a great paper, but to single it out for near-total rejection when it has, by all appearances, an editorial process structurally similar to many others seems out of line to me. And it's not that I approve of their foolhardy ad hominem logic, which only angers the Misplaced Pages editors they would have liked to see demand a revote, but not citing sources out of pique isn't a valid response to that. A free discussion is necessary for us to devise an appropriate response. Wnt (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Free discussion does not mean linking to articles that doxx people for doing things you don't like. Doxxing is a dick move, a signature tactic of the alt-right. Your post included a link to the doxxing, followed by a characterisation of everyone who disagreed with you as "misguided". You stated that as fact not opinion. Did you think either of those things was actually helpful? Guy (Help!) 09:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is very helpful for a discussion about a news article to link to that news article, because it makes it easier for the moderate and neutral readers in the room to casually weigh in with their opinions. Those of us who already have an opinion on the matter followed it, but they might have provided useful perspectives and some sense of consensus. And we did need to discuss the article because it affects Misplaced Pages, not just now but in the sense that we can expect further shenanigans from Daily Mail going forward. As for the word "misguided", you put a lot more emphasis on it than I do. Wnt (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Some kids living in a glass house, living in childish ignorance of its structural fragility, decided to throw stones at a neighbouring house. They are then are surprised and shocked when their own house gets damaged by the inhabitants of that other house in retaliation. Personally, I blame the adults, not the 53 kids. Lack of adult supervision! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The childishness appears to come from a very few minority of even the opposes. What happened was the relatively weak and numerically small oppose argument in general lost on the merits of the discussion because apparently, they did not read the proposal, which was never for an absolute ban, and no absolute ban was in the close.

Also, the foolish, recklessness and unreliability of the Daily Mail is evident in its ad hominem, and again its many falsehoods, and its admission against interest that until 2014, its apparently stupid or venal reporters thought Misplaced Pages a good journalist's source. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm reasonably acquainted with WP:OUTING but this is the first time I've encountered that policy used as a reason not to post a link to a news article outing an editor. The closest I could find was "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis." Am I missing something? I had a hell of a time finding that Mail article since no link was posted. Coretheapple (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

WMF response?

This should be something that the WMF takes very high interest in, and it is imperative they do something about it. Here we have a major news agency doxxing editors, send reporters to harass family members of editors, and damaging Misplaced Pages's reputation. We cannot allow chilling effects by angry third parties, because, as someone points out at AN, the DM now has an email address for people to report that they've been "wronged" by Misplaced Pages, and there's a lot of people with vendettas out there. The WMF issued a statement clarifying what it means to "ban" a source, but what now about the fallout from the incident? If I had no reservations about editing Daily Mail articles or articles on other subjects that would stoop so low as to dox people, I certainly do now, and many people likely feel the same, so I think it is important the WMF take some action or make a statement of some sort. Pinguinn 🐧 22:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not clear that a WMF response would be in any way productive on this particular point. I can say personally: yes, they are horrible and bullies and what they said to attack a charity volunteer is appalling. But even me saying this much risks further attacks from them, or picking up the specific insults by other media outlets. (Though I hope that any journalists reading this will have the good sense to realize that the most dignified thing to do is not further the damage to a private individual by repeating the attacks.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors are fair game for doxing. Editors here think they add all sorts of attacking personal content to the www with total impunity, well, great, they get feedback - If that fear of personal retribution helps them stop adding undue and attacking content about living people - good. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And of course, it's totally fair when accurate, balanced, correctly weighted information that's also highly embarrassing or unpopular with the subject gets them harrassed. Yup! Of course! Editors here should only add positive and subject approved information. Ravensfire (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with Govindaharihari's opinion that Misplaced Pages editors are fair game for dox'ing. The idea that a large group of people deserves something so invasive, due to the transgressions of a few is despicable.... Now i do agree that in the current climate, dox'ing is something that every editor has to take into account, due to the very real possibility of it. But that an editor so openly argues for harassment towards any of our contributors has me very concerned. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

User:TheDJ - Users that deliberately come here to violate wikipedia policy and guidelines and add non neutral content are the ones I was talking about not the large group of policy compliant well meaning neutral wikipedia editors. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinguinn is correct that some bad PR may be on the horizon. Especially re: "DM now has an email address for people to report that they've been "wronged" by Misplaced Pages and there's a lot of people with vendetas out there." I must add that there are people who feel they have been wronged by Misplaced Pages who do not have a vendetta; I know this because I am one of them. Obviously I will not be complaining to anybody outside of Misplaced Pages, but the single biggest infraction of my freedom of speech ever, imo, occurred when EdJohnston wrote this in the results section of the process that banned me from all editing re: Americanpolitics post 1932: "A review of contributions suggests that Nocturnalnow has wide-ranging ideas for correcting articles on American politics," and his assertion was linked to this comment of mine on User:Muboshgu's talk page where I said simply this:"I do not have an anti-Clinton agenda. I just think there is a tendency among editors to give high level U.S. politicians a non NPOV positive slant on their BLPs. Its obvious I think. Just look at the difference between Nixon's lede and Putin's. Putin's BLP is much more NPOV I think, whereas Nixon, both Bushes and both Clintons' ledes are over-weighted on the positive and puffy. If I am correct, its likely a natural result from a majority of editors who look up to the office of President of the United States and the people who occupy it; I don't have that predisposition." The original request was only for a ban on Huma Abedin Blp, but Ed took my comment on Muboshgu's talk page as an important indicator of "wide-ranging ideas for correcting articles" and used that indicator to suggest expanding the ban to include all American politics.

Can you imagine someone using your defensive self explanatory comments on a person's talk page to dramatically expand a requested ban from being on 1 article to covering all post 1932 USA politics???

• Its not the fact that I was banned from US politics, its that fact that such benign wording on a contributor's talk page was used to justify the dramatic widening of the ban. Not to mention that there should have been, with any attention at all to fairness, a separate request made for such a wide ban because there may have been some editors who would have joined the discussion and objected to such a wide ban. Ed did give me a heads up when he suggested the dramatic widening of the ban, but that still would not have had the broader interest of a separate bigger request.

So, I add my own feelings of being wronged, not by an individual really but by the process, which unfolded the way it did in my case, to support this proposal that WMF give more attention to its PR and also, I think, to the processes here which contribute to so-called "wronged" individuals. In my own case, it still burns my ass that some honest and well meaning words I used on Muboshgi's talk page were hunted down and used against me by an Admin, even though the ban is obviously considered a good thing by even Jimbo. But, I do think WMF should do some sort of examination and grading of all aspects of our, Misplaced Pages's, operations. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Heil is setting out to do what all axe-grinders do: find other people who also have an axe to grind, in order to manage the cognitive dissonance caused by the fact that they didn't get what they want. And the usual suspects will gleefully feed them the usual crap, and it will all blow over, just as it always does.

However, I think we should run a sweepstake. I want Sheldrake. Also on the list: Kohs, Chopra, the EFT cranks, acupuncturists, homeopaths, chiropractors, and a few wildcards including Friedwardt Winterberg and the woman who runs fisheaters.com. In fact, blacklisted spammers are likely to be the Mail's most fertile source of grudge-bearers. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I doubt the chiropractors will want to raise their head above the parapet at the moment, but some of the Homeopaths are probably bonkers lack sufficient self-awareness enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Open offer

I make the following open offer to the Mail: I will personally open the RfC to reverse the consensus re. the unreliability of the Mail if they do any two of the following:

1. Tackle the problem of churnalism, by making it easy to report PR stories planted in the Mail (especially Mail Online) and withdrawing those which are clearly just recycled press releases. Michael Marshall has a loooooong list of examples, many of which are repeat offenders.
2. Make corrections and clarifications substantially more prominent, both in print and online.
3. Remove the "sidebar of shame", the clickbaity pictures of half-naked slebs, mostly female, mostly with headlines that could have been written by an adolescent boy.
4. Fix their obvious hypocrisy in simultaneously running "BAN THIS FILTH" and "HANG THE PAEDOPHILES" alongside "all grown up" features detailing which celebrities daughters have recently acquired breasts.

Ideally they should fix all four, but baby steps, eh? Guy (Help!) 09:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a great idea, Guy. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: The last two demands on your list are things that have absolutely no bearing on their reliability as a source (those women actually have breasts, I've done some spot checking), and for you to cite them as things they could do to change your vote conveys the strong suggestion that you voted against them at least in part based on personal bias against their point of view. Wnt (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong, but in an interesting way. They actively participate in the paparazzi culture, covert and illicit (if not illegal) surveillance and other tactics that allow them to obtain prurient content that violates privacy and objectifies women. Their determination to pursue such content has led to their place at the top of the list of offenders under the Editors' Code of Practice: . It's not a stretch at all to assert that this seriously undermines their credibility and their reliability. And the direct cause of this goes directly to the question of reliability. Paul Dacre has transformed the Daily Mail from a mid-market Nazi apologist arsewipe to a click farm. His legendary abusive style and the aggressive targets he gives the inexperienced journos who make up the majority of his reporting force, combine to create a culture where clicks matter more than accuracy. The sidebar of shame and the "all grown up" soft core paedo porn are two of the most visible signs of this. If they vanished, you would know that there had been a substantial cultural shift away from clicks and, by implication, back towards actual journalism. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Godwin's Law? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Not in this case. The Mail literally supported the Nazis. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, dear. A full 47 breaches of the Editors' Code of Practice. To the libel-courts, the chain gangs, the gulags of Kolyma with them! Seriously ... when did it become Misplaced Pages's responsibility to punish ethical lapses? By censoring what sources our readers are exposed to??? This comment reinforces what I've feared from the start -- the people voting against the Mail are not really angry about what they get wrong, since there are a lot of newspapers that print too many falsehoods. No, the real fear may indeed be what they get right, that they might push the line and send out reporters to get some facts that Somebody Better Than Us doesn't want us to know about or share with one another.

The Daily Mail has never knowingly "sent out reporters to get facts that Somebody Better Than Us doesn't want us to know about", they are one of the most fawning press outlets with a middle class aristocratic snobbery that would out do a 1000 Hyacinth Buckets. Mostly they deal in salacious details regarding gay celebs and the extra-marital affairs of village vicars. Otherwise they aren't above making shit up:

http://www.thefrisky.com/2014-11-06/the-daily-mail-fabricated-a-controversy-over-t-shirts-to-sully-a-womens-rights-organization-and-it-worked/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/04/daily-mail-controversy/2923271/ 91.231.145.250 (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not that I'm such a big fan of the Mail - I just don't want their point of view excluded, and the argument above is not about unreliability but about going the extra mile. Also, I should add that your first source calls out the Mail for fabricating news that shirts were being made by sweatshop labor. It says the workers are paid $40 a week, twice the minimum wage for Mauritius ... which makes the Mail a liar. Hmmmm. I mean, I don't know what would happen if the Fawcett society ear-marked 1% of the $85 retail value of those shirts ($0.85) to go to the worker each time he made one. Probably war, famine, apocalypse, the end of the global economic system and worse. I just gotta kinda like a newspaper with poor enough quality control that it doesn't immediately shitcan an author for asking why that couldn't happen because it is so obviously unthinkable. Wnt (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The Mail does not have a POV that is in any way interesting to an encyclopedia. Its view point can be described as xenophic "Little England" it chooses to highlight disapproved behavior by people that are not White, Male, Christian, UK born, and Middle Class. The actual facts can be obtained elsewhere without the vicious nastiness of its editorializing. When you can't find the facts elsewhere then 100 to 1 you are dealing with made up shite. 91.231.145.250 (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've had this kind of debate here before, for example on whether to use the Wikileaks cables as sources. In the past people have generally made the right decision, saying ethics be damned, we don't care how we got the cables, we just want to keep track of the reliably obtained facts we now know to have the most correct article. And that's how it should be. I have a president who got in office by promising to torture people - what the hell patience am I supposed to have for evaluating the "ethics" of whether it is OK to cite a paper with 47 scandalous abuses of long lenses and objectification of women?? We should be here to collect and analyze the data, not to punish and censor according to the ever-changing standards of what is 'ethically' appropriate. Wnt (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Including or excluding the data/information based upon the source is a form of Ad hominem reasoning which is the laziest and craziest form of non-reasoning. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail and the Blackshirts

The Guardian December 2011 'Don't damn the Daily Mail for its fascist flirtation 80 years ago'. Mentions the 'knee-jerk stupidity of saying that the Daily Mail used to support fascism'. Notes that 'the Mail was not the only paper to carry articles supporting Oswald Mosley's blackshirts. The Daily Mirror did too'. The article that Guy links to above is about the English Blackshirts, not about the Nazis (the German National Socialist Party), was written by Rothermere in January 1934 under his own byline, and the same article also appeared in the Mirror. Moreover 'Harold's son, Esmond (Rothermere the Second) assumed control of the Mail before Harold died in 1940. Its coverage from the outbreak of war the year before reveals not a scintilla of support for Hitler.' Peter Damian (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

We should consider the problems with the media of today. Goebbels could never have imagined that in a future science-fiction like world where not only the mass media would be totally out of State control but also citizens would be able to make news via electronic media, that a democratically elected US government could get away with making propaganda. Count Iblis (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• I thought the "Nazi" thing got mentioned, here, only because the 2017 Daily Mail article that you brought here a few days ago was the first to refer to "Nazis" in a very bizarrely reasoned, as well as mistaken way. I thought the following comments on AN, were apropos on that (and sorta funny):

". . . Still, never too late to try to be more reliable. A shame that they introduce a claim that "Blacklisting is a term which in its modern context was popularised by the Nazis, who drew up a ‘Black Book’ of 2,820 Britons". The Nazis didn't use the term or even publicise their list: it was only after the war that the list "became known in tabloid-speak as the ’Black Book’.” Can we expect the Daily Mail to salvage its reputation by publishing a correction to their claim? . . dave souza, talk 23:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I notice in passing the Daily Mail itself routinely uses the word "blacklist" in its articles. Recent examples here and here. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The Nazi connection is also (you'll be shocked to hear) something the Daily Mail has just made up; "blacklist" in this sense has been standard English usage for centuries. (His memory was stored with a blacklist of enemies and rivals, Gibbon, Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, 1788, if you want a high-profile concrete example.) ‑ Iridescent 19:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)"

(oops, links did not get transferred but I can get them if anyone wants)

-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it was Guy's comment that the Mail literally supported the Nazis. It's a common criticism, because of that article 80 years ago. I'm not saying that other criticisms may not be valid, of course. Peter Damian (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Rothermere may have written an op-ed article 80 years ago but the paper continues in the same dishonerable tradition. Not so long ago they published photos giving the impression that it was foreign truck driver that were using mobile phones:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/gary-lineker-daily-mail_uk_58199439e4b0e43b59aca3c1

Earlier in the year just before the EU vote I had the misfortune to see a copy of the Daily Mail where almost every page featured some court case involving someone from Eastern Europe. The impression being that only foreigners were responsible for crime. Maybe not quite the same as depicting Eastern European Jews as vermin but close enough. 91.231.145.250 (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, post-Brexit the Mail has mostly lost interest in vilifying East Europeans; the villain-of-choice has gone back to being "asylum seekers" (, , , all from the last couple of days), although the old standby of "The Blacks" gets the occasional run-out. ‑ Iridescent 11:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This is why they are called the Daily 'Hate' Mail in addition to the Dail Heil. When not singling out foreigners they have fallback hate feminist figures, and leftwingers. Michael Foot always referred to them as the Forger's Gazette. 91.231.145.250 (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I agree with what I assume is a nearly universal consensus that the behavior of the Daily Mail 80 years ago should have no bearing on how we evaluate it today. Their behavior this week in terms of a propensity for printing false stories, on the other hand, is conclusive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Surely no bearing on how we evaluate current issues? One of the complexities of our position is that we don't just use current sources. If someone is writing about the coronation of George V then they might well be citing a very old copy of the Daily Mail. I would hope that at some stage we could come up with a more nuanced rule that includes any eras where the Daily Mail has sufficient journalistic standards to be treated as a generally reliable source, and any subjects that kept standards of fact checking and neutrality such as say sports coverage re results and matches if not "gossip". ϢereSpielChequers 11:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If someone is writing about the Coronation of George V, the Daily Mail could only have limited and restricted use to begin with, because for that it would be at best a primary source, and one of the reasons primary sources are not the basis for Misplaced Pages history article's material is because they are often a) unreliable in detail, being caught up in the rush of the moment, and b) unreliably interpreted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree, Jimmy. The Mail is unreliable because of its current practices, not anything in the past. And this subthread exists because some people subscribe to the common but fallacious notion that if you can undermine a small part of any comment, then the entire argument falls :-) Guy (Help!) 11:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"some people subscribe to the common but fallacious notion that if you can undermine a small part of any comment, then the entire argument falls". Well said, Guy, I run into this fallacious notion in Misplaced Pages discussion a lot, even from Jimmy. Otoh, it forces me to be much more careful and exact about my choice of words. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If A implies B, and you undermine A, then of course your argument falls. However I am not sure what Guy's argument is. Peter Damian (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

He's saying that mentioning the Dail Heil in a comment is simple abuse and it is a mistake to take the polemic as part of the actual thrust of the argument. So one might say that "Statement X by the orange sack of shit that is currently the Pussy-grabber of the United States is wrong because of Y" and that the veracity of the words 'pussy-grabber' and 'orange' are not actually part of the argument being propounded. 91.231.145.250 (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Asylum seekers, villains of choice etc

I checked some of the links above and could not find any discernible difference between those and the results from Googling 'Daily Mirror asylum seekers' ("Failed asylum seeker sex offender tried to kidnap girl from Tesco and vowed to 'kill every British etc" "Asylum seeker who 'wanted to suicide bomb train'", "An asylum seeker who raped a young woman as she walked to her boyfriend's home" etc etc.) The key issue, as Jimmy says above, is reliability. I am not sure the Mail is any better or any worse than any other paper with its target audience. The story which we can't link to complained that

• 'No further steps were taken to gauge the opinion of Misplaced Pages’s wider user base, or to establish if there was any evidence to support the contention that this paper is somehow ‘unreliable’'.
• 'All of them were apparently of the view that the Mail is far more inaccurate than any other news organisation on the face of the Earth. Yet they failed to cite any data to back up their contention'.
• simply claimed that this newspaper had more of press regulator IPSO’s sanctions against it than his favourite title, The Guardian. He failed to state that The Guardian is not regulated by IPSO, so can’t possibly have been sanctioned by it.
• According to IPSO’s own report, the regulator’s figures suggest the Mail’s record is better, not worse, than our peers.

I am not defending the use of tabloids as sources, indeed I rarely use newspapers as a source. But why has the Mail been singled out? Peter Damian (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• It hasn't. The Sun, Mirror, Star etc. have routinely been deprecated as sourcing for anything remotely contentious for many years. This was simply bringing the Mail into line with this, especially as its recent record of inventing stories is actually worse than those mentioned above, as was pointed out at the RfC given the Press Complaints Commission stats. But the real point is - the chances of the Mail being the only source for any news story is incredibly small, and if it is the only source, there's a fair chance it's probably inaccurate. Why use a source with a proven track record of unreliability when there are plenty of others available? Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exactly, there are plenty of publications on the penalty bench of (non-)journalism, and now it was time for them to join that bench. It's unique that it was noticed outside of Misplaced Pages. Which says more about journalism again, then about wikipedia and its editors. All this is, is a temper tantrum. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I understand the current state of affairs, if someone cites the Mail for something, it is not allowed (in general, though in specific cases it can be cited). While if someone cites The Sun, it's not automatically disallowed, though others may frown on using a tabloid as a source. In this sense, The Mail is indeed singled out.

In general, the wider public is ignorant of Misplaced Pages's internal bureaucracy as it is. Even if, in practice, the Mail is treated in the same way as other tabloids (I don't know if it is), an explicit rule forbidding its use in most situations is a more serious matter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

And now Tom Utley

And now an article by Tom Utley. My son's imaginary affair with Myleene Klass and why I know Misplaced Pages publishes any old nonsense Mail Online 10 March 2017. The first part is a recycled version of a piece he wrote years ago after his Misplaced Pages article was vandalised. He continues:

.. here was the allegedly politically neutral Misplaced Pages, which publishes any old rubbish with impunity, impugning a highly popular mainstream newspaper — a paper fully answerable to the courts and the toughest Press regulatory regime in the free world, for every word and fact it prints.

.. the pressure on my own industry from unregulated websites, which not only spread vile pornography, terrorist training videos and fake news, but draw advertising away from the Press.

Could Sir Tim Berners-Lee ever have imagined, I wondered, that one of the effects of his invention of the internet would be that such a purveyor of dodgy assertions and outright falsehoods would become the world’s number one source of information?

Peter Damian (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is the original article from 2008. Peter Damian (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The crocodile tears of the Daily Mail that they are more reliable than Misplaced Pages is just good farce (congratulations on meeting an extremely low, neigh nonexistent, bar) -- Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, already expressly say that Misplaced Pages is unreliable as a source. As for Utley's critique of the internet, in general, all well and good, but then again he is publishing on the internet, which gives much irony to his column (especially when he appears to laud the Daily Mail for its success on the internet, and its evils.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Neigh as in horse? Peter Damian (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, goes with crocodile, in an animal theme, and makes me think of the way Mr. Ed use to laugh, at the ridiculous (oh, the irony). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

From a public relations point of view, the argument that ‘Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines already say that Misplaced Pages is unreliable as a source’ is irrelevant, of course. Outside the little echo chamber of the people who contribute here, many people think that Misplaced Pages is reliable (‘as Britannica’ etc). So this article is bringing it to the attention of a pretty wide audience that it isn't. Which is a good thing, I suppose. Peter Damian (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It is wonderful when people are informed readers but they should have learned about this elementary aspect of information in early schooling, not wait to get it from some columnist (leaving aside, will they pay attention?). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe the medical editors wanted a banner over every medical article saying that the information in it might be completely wrong, but someone resisted - might have been the WMF. I will check. Peter Damian (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

There was an RFC. As I remember it the oppose arguments were along the lines of a standard banner warning would get mentally blanked out by users, and it was better to focus on improving articles. ϢereSpielChequers 19:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

How well did that work? Peter Damian (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not have disclaimers or spoiler warnings. Caveat lector. On medical articles we, the editorial community, hold content to higher standards. That's as it should be. It's up to us to ensure that the quality of content is best when the consequences of error are highest, biographies and medical articles being two obvious places. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• The Daily Heil has such a long history of publishing bullshit motivated by the agenda of their editor that I think we're entitled to ignore their no-doubt short-lived foray into spiteful retaliation. And frankly, if they do find significant errors and identify sources that would fix them, we win anyway. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

They've certainly reached a new low with this Misplaced Pages "revenge" vendetta. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Graham McCann and Michael Cole

‘Two writers describe their Kafkaesque experiences when they found their entries were littered with mistakes’ Interestingly it mentions Dr Blofeld, who is the author of this edit in April 2015, nearly two years ago.

In the spring of 1979, due to intense lighting used by Kubrick, the set burst into flames and destroyed the building ; it had to be completely rebuilt.

As far as I can tell, this is complete fiction. It is still there. Note the spurious citation (Baxter 1997, p. 321). This has always been the weakness of Misplaced Pages. It insists on citations, but these are never checked. Peter Damian (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I assume thats John Baxter's 1997 biography of Stanley Kubrick. Have you read it? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Can't see a real problem here. During the making of The Shining, there was a fire on the set in February 1979, and Kubrick is shown in a photograph here. However, the article should make clear that it was the film set in the UK that burned down, not the actual Timberline Lodge. I'm not sure if this error has been copied from the book, because I haven't seen it. Baxter's biography of Kubrick is here.--♦IanMacM♦ 11:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot more to this story than lets on. Firstly in writing the Cary Grant article I was subject to trolling by several editors who persisted on trying to disrupt progress because of disputes of Grant's alleged homosexuality. The McCann article was a redlink and started by another editor. When the complaint about the McCann article appeared, and there was this IP claiming to be McCann, naturally I thought it was one of the trolls as one of them had earlier tried to claim that McCann wasn't notable and even took it to AFD. It soon became apparent though that one of the trolls of the Grant article contacted McCann by email, begging him to complain and get it taken down. So naturally I wasn't wonderfully polite when this nasty IP appeared or sympathatic to the "concern" because it looked like one of the trolls was trying to game the system by forcing a complaint. A number of experienced editors agreed that because McCann is one of the best known biographers in the UK it would seem strange to delete the article. The article had a resounding keep at two AFDs, and I explained this to McCann that the community had voted to keep it on weight of his publications, some top biographies of top Hollywood stars. I made an effort to try to get McCann to identify all of the errors and correct them but he did little but throw his weight around. I found him unbearable and rude, and I tend to reflect how people treat me. The article does nothing but recite what is published elsewhere. McCann even admits in this DM article that his issue is "trivial". One of the "errors" McCann claimed was that he's never contributed to the DM, yet his own website claimed it, plus with this article now it makes him look a laughing stock, given DM's own reputation. I certainly do not make it a habit of going around leading a "circus" of people who protect articles, very rare in fact that I would do so, and if a BLP complains I would always make a big effort to iron out inaccuracies. BTW, bringing up the Kubrick article now Peter is in exceedingly poor taste and comes across as jumping on the bandwagon. Why do you need to mention this on Jimbo's talk page and infer that my work is riddled with inaccuracies? There was a fire in 1979 which destroyed the set and any claim that the lodge itself burned down was unintentional.. I don't think I wrote that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well what you actually wrote was "In the spring of 1979, due to intense lighting used by Kubrick, the set burst into flames and destroyed the building; it had to be completely rebuilt." It did follow straight after a sentence talking about Timberline but was in a section that discussed the Elstree sets, so a simple 'Elstree' before 'set' would have removed any ambiguity due to placement at the end of the paragraph. Hardly a big deal, if it was earlier where the sets were being discussed more obviously, it would have been perfectly fine. The insertion of the 'ie the Timberline Lodge' by Peter makes it look far more obviously wrong that it actually was. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hardly worthy of mentioning.. I notice this DM has also crudely inserted a video by Julian Assange, as if he is the head of wikipedia. Malicious stuff, and worrying because they seem to know that Jimbo detests Misplaced Pages and WikiLeaks being confused.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well it's been corrected now. My point in mentioning it was the slipshod editing issue. Peter Damian (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it worth it?

I can certainly understand why DM was banned as a source as the paper does publish too many dubious, poorly written articles, this recent one by McCann is a prime example. They didn't get their facts straight in publishing it. Personally I've always found it a useful source for articles on country houses, hotels and restaurants, the content produced isn't all bad. But if the paper is going to start publishing attack articles on Misplaced Pages every day, is this really worth it? I know DM is widely criticized as a source, and judging by the public comments, most people don't take them seriously, but it is still a major newspaper and it's not going to do us any good to keep seeing childish articles attacking Misplaced Pages. Do we keep the ban on it as a source and just deal with the blows? How long is the "revenge" article writing going to continue, a week, a month, a year? Perhaps if we had a large scale RFC, one involving hundreds of editors they could stop claiming only a very small percentage were responsible? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Honestly it should just be ignored. It could run 'wikipedia are bad' articles every day for a year and the worst that will happen is... those articles will get more eyes on them. Once they finish spitting the dummy they will get bored and move on to something else. Their readership is the middle-class, mostly white, central-right-to-right-wing conservative/new Labour voter. In short, not the sort of person who is going to care too much about what wikipedia says, compared to what the Daily Mail tells them is ruining the country this week. Misplaced Pages being 'wrong' is not a pressing issue for someone who is worried those darn immigrants are taking all the jobs/comitting crimes/causing cancer. The Daily Mail tailors its content for its readers - there is a reason why it is one of the biggest papers in the UK. It will soon enough learn that performing half-arsed researched hatchet jobs on wikipedia will not make them money. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to care about them or their tantrums. Unless we think there's even the tiniest chance that the decision would be overturned, holding a secondary RfC or similar would serve only to undermine the perceived authority of the original decision—exactly what they're trying to do. If someone seriously wants to overturn the decision, then sure, they can start an RfC, but otherwise the raw number of contributors to the original discussion doesn't matter—it's supported by silence. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

McCann's treatment was appalling

• 2 August 17:14 McCann writes a long comment complaining that 'It is a poorly researched article that provides only a partial, imbalanced and in places, in my view, strangely misleading impression of my past work'. He gives a few examples of the problems.
• 18:38 Dr Blofeld replies saying that McCann is notable, then immediately adds 'If you're really Graham McCann, prove it. Otherwise shut up.' The rudeness starts there, no?
• Blofeld then gratuitously states that McCann has 'tried to make a lot of money out of the public'.
• McCann (05:59, 3 August 2016) asks politely how he is to prove that it is he, then complains about the 'silly pseudonym', and objects that 'you're just some volunteer without any known expertise or qualifications, but your presumptuousness is now going too far, and that line above about intentions and money is one gratuitous piece of abuse too far'. As for the 'shut up' remark 'I wonder if Jimmy Wales knows how his volunteers behave on here? I doubt he's proud. '
• Then Blofeld calls him 'some snotty lecturer in a Hooray Henry university who thinks he can bully "lesser folk" on wikipedia because he is a respected author', then calls him a 'repellant creature'. McCann replies 'Well, you've certainly revealed all the chips on your shoulder here, haven't you.' .
• Oh yes, in response to McCann's complaint about the 'shut up' remark, some apparatchik says "We Don't feed the trolls. You should read WP:Civil and implement it. Your approach has not helped your cause or credibility."
• Disgraceful. Is this how we treat victims of BLP abuse?

Peter Damian (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I have to agree with PD here (and was just about to post something to that effect at ANI, when people told me the matter was already discussed here). This BLP subject was treated with an incredible amount of aggression, condescension and scorn by the main article author, User:Dr. Blofeld, and the fact that the complaint was then summarily dismissed and brushed off by no other than Dr. Blofeld's perennial tag-team partner User:SchroCat, acting like a cynical bad cop / good cop pair, is just the icing on the cake. I would have blocked both users on the spot, had I noticed the case back at the time. I do believe it is vital that Misplaced Pages be seen doing the right thing here, even when under unfair attack from the Mail. A public apology to this article subject on behalf of Misplaced Pages should be the least thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Somebody agrees with PD? Shock. Peter Damian (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: McCann asked 'I wonder if Jimmy Wales knows how his volunteers behave on here?'. Would you like to answer? Peter Damian (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm with Peter Damian and Future Perfect on this (now, PD, you know I've agreed with you many times); I too wish I'd seen it at the time. I'd at the least have topic banned @Dr. Blofeld: from the article like a shot. This post — "If you're really Graham McCann, prove it. Otherwise shut up" — followed by the IP asking how he could do that ("Tell me how and I will"), followed by no reply from Blofeld, is just heinous. Way to bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute. Blofeld's reply to criticism today shows him as perfectly well pleased with his own conduct, and ready to attack the article subject some more ("pompous oaf"). Bishonen | talk 18:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
  • I didn't see this latest post by Blofeld until now. This is way beyond the pale. I have blocked Dr. Blofeld for two weeks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• It's especially troubling that even after the extraordinary sequence of events that brought this to people's attention, the editor still posted a self-serving and highly questionable account of the dialogue with McCann, attempting to brand him as just another disruptive IP/sock/meat puppet. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

An interesting Afd discussion re: Should WP have an article that tends to revolve around Trump's attacks of the American press?

Hi Jimbo, An Afd discussion regarding an article that tends to revolve largely around Trump's attacks of the American press, is going on at Afd discussion. I thought you might find this discussion interesting. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree by the way with those who say this article is a WP:COATRACK.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I have come to realize that it is indeed currently more of an "essay article" than a "balanced article." I thank you kindly for reviewing it. I am considering making a suggestion to the Afd group that it be currently turned into a redirect, and that I and a few "more neutral friends" might try to work on it for awhile to make it more neutral, and then possibly resubmit it. If you might happen to have any further comments on this possibility, they would be most appreciated. Scott P. (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Also need a WP guideline re Trumpisms

I also think WP needs a guideline about "WP:Coverage of Donald Trump" because he has said/done so many bizarre things, and explain to editors how Trump got elected by fake news about Secretary Hillary Clinton in minor plurality primaries (with no run-off elections) and winning by average 5 votes per precinct, apparently where low voter turnout, to offset massive Clinton +3 million popular vote where higher turnout. Such a guideline +sources is needed to explain bizarre ideas, such as build-a-wall (from deep foundation) despite 40% of illegal immigrants are visa-overstay (not fence-hopping) and drugs are smuggled via hundreds or thousands of under-border tunnels, some of which extend miles (several km) underground, while even small border walls are known to violate wildlife migration regulations as reason for courts to deny wall construction. Likewise explain Trump's sex-molestation comments and wild claims of Obama "wiretapping Trump Tower" with no motive and zero evidence but being investigated by Congressional committees, while Trump University still investigated for fraud, and Trump investments transferred to a trust where Trump is sole benefactor as if clears conflict-of-interest collusion; plus Trump raved, "I love Wikileaks" which is known to assist treason in leaking hundreds (thousands?) of U.S. classified documents, while Trump condemned Secretary Hillary Clinton ("Lock her up") for receiving only 25 secret emails on her private email server over 4 years. To many Wikipedians, the recent coverage of Trump would be mind-boggling, as the minimal background to knowingly edit pages about Trump, in the context of the chaotic, twisted nature of Trump's comments and actions. As one comedian noted, "Donald Trump has been President for 35 years now; at least that's what it seems". However, this is not funny to Wikipedians, but rather a swamp of extremely disturbing information to sort into coherent text. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't have guidelines covering such narrow subject matter, and this is hardly the place for such a discussion. One would have hoped a veteran editor with 10 years of experience would know that. Trump may have said some bizarre things, but your examples aren't convincing. You claim Trump is making claims with zero evidence, then you assert he won based upon "fake news". Can you appreciate the irony?--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for characterizing a discussion about Donald Trump as "irony" because that so concisely indicates the problem of editors imagining Trump is somehow merely ironic rather than shockingly out-of-touch with mainstream views and court decisions across the world. As I noted above, the guideline would include sources, such as the old 2016 reports of wall-harming-wildlife news:

• "The Environmental Impact of the U.S.-Mexico Border Wall" at Newsweek.com (2016-02-26)
• "What would Trump's wall mean for wildlife?" at BBC News (2016-09-01)
• U.S. courts have prevented further wall construction per wildlife regulations.

Similarly, dozens of other sources could be linked to explain the bizarre level of comments by Trump, as background for editors when editing the related WP pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You missed the point. You made a claim, without evidence, which turns out to be false, even while railing against someone for purportedly doing that. Do you now understand the irony?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I noted Trump won by low voter turnout in some precincts and by fake news, such as noted in source "10 Times Trump Spread Fake News" (2011-2016). Donald Trump repeatedly stated fake news, as false reports where candidate Trump got 59 four-Pinocchios ratings (source: ), and won the 2016 U.S. presidential election while those voters noted they believed Trump in his fake news. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You didn't "note" it, you conducted Original Research and posted your own conclusion, accompanied by zero evidence. I hope you don't edit Misplaced Pages articles the same way.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The policy and guidance implications are not new. Only the volume of crap is different. As I have said before, I do not know whether we should have an article on shit Donald Trump says or whether it should be a project page, but there is definite merit in collecting a list of the claims he has made and the objective assessment of their merit, because otherwise we're going to end up with endless arguments over whether a particular claim should go into some other article or not. Example: should the article on Obama include the bogus accusation of wiretapping? I say no, obviously. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I see value in the creation of a FAQ, perhaps created in a central place, so it could be transcluded on multiple relevant pages, in the same way we have done so for other contentious issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I like that idea, slightly overly colorful title of shit Donald Trump says. Perhaps the title could be a slightly more stodgy and encyclopedic sounding Informationally challenged Trump statements, no..... how about: List of poorly documented Trump claims? Scott P. (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Probably, the thing to do for now, is just write good articles, and not the COATRACK above. I haven't looked into it much but "Deep State (United States)" might be such an article. or at least a section of some article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems underestimated to imagine "COATRACK" when I think the reality is more like Trump is swimming in a vast "Cesspool" of info-sewage, and that is the reason a project page is needed to provide background for unsuspecting editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump's doppelganger

I think everyone would agree, Trump's new leadership of the "free world" represents a new social phenomenon that may have significant implications for how the world in general consumes information for some time to come. Whether or not what I will call the "Trump news cycle effect" will have a positive, negative, or neutral effect on information consumption is something that is most probably not agreed upon. As I pointed out in the Afd for the new Ethical Journalism article, I do have my own admittedly biased personal opinion, that if Trump were to succeed in his apparent attempts at fully discrediting the traditional American news media, eventually this could spill over into even discrediting our humble institution the now "traditional" American encyclopedia media! Obviously my last statement here is not agreed upon by all, but I contend that it is worth at least considering and discussing respectfully and rationally.

The fact that Trump seems to have in one way or another profited for years by perpetuating various conspiracy theories, and the fact that over the years Misplaced Pages has managed to expose many widely published conspiracy theories for what they truly are, would seem to me to naturally tend to put WP in a sort of a primarily adversarial position regarding Trump, especially for however so long as he continues to make wild unverifiable claims. Were Trump's doppelganger an aspiring WP editor, trying to weave his wild claims into articles, he would probably get himself permanently banned here within a matter of hours!

So, the question is, would it be helpful to write an FAQ regarding the new "Trump news cycle effect" and how WP intends to specifically deal with it? In my not so humble opinion, for sure! I would propose that for starters everyone who has commented in this section might possibly be invited to serve on such a committee. Scott P. (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed WP page "Big lie" to explain getting people to believe a preposterous claim by repetition (as a news report), which is so big it would be obviously false, as noted in the U.S. 1941 O.S.S. report (but enough people could believe a big lie to sway elections). Likewise, to create a distraction by yet another outrageous newsflash is another old tactic which could distract from refuting fake news before the public has time to process how they have been duped by a barrage of fake claims shotgunned into the mainstream news, unaware how the echoing of such false claims across numerous news outlets often will empower fake news rather than clearly diffuse and refute the substance. To stop a firehosing of numerous fake claims, the hose should be shutoff as much easier than carefully clearing the swamp of false info-sewage. People must stop repeating the false claims, as easier than trying to refute the complex details of how the myriad lies are false. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggested kernal for a "Trump Guidelines" project?

I have now put together here, a "suggested kernal" for a "guidelines project" as suggested above. I would very much appreciate anyone's comments, and/ or suggestions for improvement, revision (or deletion) of it.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

However, the tactic of creating a WP FAQ page might be more effective to inform enough editors about the shocking hundreds of fake-news issues to beware, as well as the prior 7 years of distortion, such as noted in source, "10 Times Trump Spread Fake News" (2011-2016). -Wikid77 (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Another source estimated Trump had "at least 194 false" remarks during 50 days in office: "How President Trump has already hurt American democracy — in just 50 days" (2017-03-10). -Wikid77 (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed draft now begun for "Trump fact-checking article"

I've just started a proposed draft of the proposed first article in this project, which is linked to from h e r e. This thing is going to take a lot of time before it will be ready to move into article space, and I just spent as much time as I will have for the next several days on this. Any help by anyone else to format and incorporate all of this data into the page would be most welcome. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect to your initiative, this looks like a one-sided attempt to criticize the incumbent US President. With a spattering of Reductio ad Hitlerum for good measure… Not Misplaced Pages's job, not at all. (Not WP's job to lionize him either, obviously.) — JFG 18:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

New term: fake tweets

The U.S. news media has used the term "fake tweets" which provides a more-definitive term, compared to the general phrase "fake news" which some have limited to indicate fake news agencies. The term 'fake tweets' also reduces the propaganda technique of reappropriating the term 'fake news' to imply, or insinuate, that somehow mainstream news sources were essentially faked news sites, as an attack not only on U.S. news agencies but also other news sources across the world. Misplaced Pages currently has extensive coverage in "propaganda techniques" but limiting the impact of propaganda could be explained in "antipropaganda" or "anti-propaganda techniques" such as not repeat a false claim when refuting details but only refer to the general remark or fake tweet indirectly, perhaps reworded as a "non-memorable paraphrase" to avoid empowering the original false claim in repetition. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Also found some sources for 'Trumpspeak' as topic: I was also unaware people have been writing about so-called "Trumpspeak" (or "Trump-speak") for several months now. It seems to be a form of utterly self-righteous rhetoric, posted in 140 characters or less. People have tried to imitate Trumpspeak in other matters. For example, if we had a similar Wikispeak, people might say:

"Saw Misplaced Pages today. Excellent. Very popular. Yuge numbers. Never any errors. Amaze-zing. Users never quarrel there. Un-believable. Great stuff. Believe me."

You forgot to put "Sad!" (or "Unfair!" or "Something with an exclamation point!") at the end. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think there could be enough sources already to explain the characteristics of Trumpspeak to readers. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A Misplaced Pages wide new policy is needed to ban "paid for" editing

Hi Jimbo, It is obvious to me from the mere existence of this and other "paid for" editing content, that a defining moment has come upon Misplaced Pages.

My own opinion is that drastic and final action is required in the form of a new policy which would suggest or even require a permanent ban on any and all editors who engage in "paid for" editing as well as complete removal from the encyclopedia of any edits which have been made in exchange for any type of compensation. What is your opinion on this issue? Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not going to happen. The Sangerites won't allow it, because they are chummy with Kohs, the prototypical Wiki-profiteer. I think there should be a CSD criterion for undeclared paid articles (i.e. TOU violations) but even that failed. People seem determined not to allow robust or drama-free actions to control paid editing. They like the drama, I reckon, and they like "winning" against the admins who tend to find and try to stop it. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Its an obvious existential threat to the character and essence of Misplaced Pages being a vehicle of free and uncompromised information and history, so giving even an inch is not an option. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Need to prove harms more than fanatical free-edits:

• Another major issue is to weigh benefits versus harm, where many editors might add needed pages, even if paid, plus prove paid-editors are not fixing numerous non-paid edits. For example, IP-address users are a major source of hack-edits, but meanwhile as login editors focus on fixing thousands of small errors/typos, I often find complex, convoluted errors being fixed by IP editors as if usernamed editors are far too busy to take time to fix contextual errors while overwhelmed by thousands of small errors not autofixed by templates or generated by Bot-edits such as hundreds of invalid, red-message cite parameters "DUPLICATE_...=" hideously added by User:Citation_bot, while only IP editors have time to "debug" complex errors (or time to prank pages). Perhaps today's paid-editors are tomorrow's core support staff. Hence, must prove overall, long-term harm from their relatively meager pay, perhaps to cover medicine costs not covered by their king's or president's healthcare plans. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't accept that binary choice. I hope, assume, and believe that the majority of IP-address users are spending their time fixing stuff out of a desire to be constructive to the project and useful to society. If some of them sometimes make edits for which they get paid, then they have to know they may get "fired" similar to a policeman knowing he can not turn on his siren just to hurry to his moonlighting job. Nobody has to prove that jaywalking is less efficient than crossing at designated spots in order to support the jaywalking rule. The onus is on the group that wants to change the rules to prove that the change is in society's best interest. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I seriously dispute that paid editors are adding "needed pages" - or rather, that Misplaced Pages needs these pages, rather than the subjects (who are almost always selling something). We've said since the beginning, pretty much, that creating an article on yourself or your company is a bad idea, and paying someone else to do it does not make it any better. Autobiographical articles introduce problems of neutrality and WP:OWNership. Paid articles add an additional financial incentive, since payment is often contingent on the page remaining in place for a certain time. Volunteers have to check for bias, and the spammers have a vested interest in fighting off anyone who tries to make the article objective, or nuke it as spam or as failing to establish significance.

I am disgusted with those who fight tooth and nail to retain spam articles and enable spammers. Paid editors are spammers. Pure, simple, unambiguous. They are parasites on a charity-funded, volunteer-run project. Virtually everybody here gives time to Misplaced Pages because we believe in sharing knowledge freely. Paid editors are vermin whose only thought is: how can I profit from this? Technically, they are not forbidden. In the same way dogs are often permitted to foul public places. Don't expect those who have to clean up after them, to view this as anything other than a problem. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely that there should be a complete ban on paid editors. My hunch is that those who have been opposing the ban have probably been mostly paid, and should therefore be exccluded from commenting unless first fully and prominently disclosing their "pay status." Anyone with a few bucks and a little technical savvy can easily create legions of nearly untraceable but faithful and loyal sockpuppets. Is there even any functional way of accurately determining how many sock puppets may have been clamoring against the ban? Scott P. (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that paid editing should be banned, 100%, no exceptions. I have advocated this for many years, and recent events only deepen my conviction. This should be a top-down decision, with editor input not required or even solicited. Jusdafax 23:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If the top waits for the bottom, and the bottom waits for the top, it will take so long that it will in fact never get done before it's too late. I say since so far the "top" has not yet given any impression of being able to organize itself on this question, perhaps it is now time for those of us at the bottom to begin to take the first steps towards organizing regarding this one very critical question. Scott P. (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The only reason for permitting paid editing is the impossibility of actually banning it effectively. We could only accomplish such an effective ban if we abandoned the principle of anonymous editing. Possibly it may become necessary to do this to preserve our other values, but I don't think we are at that stage of desperation yet. Thus, the reason for permitting declared paid editing is to provide a route for having it done isn a controlled and legitimate fashion, where we can see it for what it is , and evaluate articles accordingly. By providing a route for paid editors to do their work honestly, we provide them with encouragement to come forward; if we did not, we would only encourage them to hide from us more effectively. I don't like this conclusion--I wish thee were some other solution. But I do not think there is, and the last thing we need here is an increase in the number of unenfoceable rules, which only give people reason for contempt of our policies. The most important thing we can do is to develop more effective way of removing bad content no matte who may have contributed. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Right. And I think we need to be much firmer about kicking out paid articles. Whether that means speedy deletion or moving to Draft or user space, with a template that says not to move to mainspace without proper review, sourcing check and removal of spam links, I don't much mind. I have had it up to here (holds hand above head) with people who bend over backwards to give spammers what they want and what they pay for. Some people think that paid editing being tolerable provided it's declared, is the same as paid editing being welcome. It is not. Smert' spamionem. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Related "Help"

• FYI: In today's mail . . . Misplaced Pages:Help desk#"For hire" Misplaced Pages writers/editors (permalink) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Commercial edits and sockpuppetry

As I understand it WP has not yet invested anything in protecting against technically hacked sockpuppetry (e.g. IP spoofed). By inviting paid editing, does this not also invite those with the money to hack? Unless and until WP is willing to both invest in state of the art technical protection against sockpuppet hacking tom-foolery, and to instate a matching ban on paid editing, isn't WP just another leaky boat that eventually will sink? Isn't the level of the trust that the public has for us, which we have carefully built up over years, just going to slowly dissolve back into the sea of commercialism and vested interests from which we first arose, as our ship slowly sinks beneath the waves of the new "fake news"? Scott P. (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

So what can we do?

Paid editing is not something that we have to accept. The community can do something about it. I'll just use the words "paid editing" instead of "paid advocacy editing" or "undisclosed COI editing" because we all know that the large majority of paid editing is both undisclosed and is used for commercial advertising (i.e. advocacy). While fine distinctions might be made for a few cases - I'd prefer we all grab the bull by the horns and just talk about the major cases - and then carve out the few exception that we should consider, e.g. Wikipedians-in-residence at GLAMS, university professors who are not promoting their universities, Wiki-chapter employees working at Editathons, etc.

• The first thing we should do is formally make Jimbo's bright-line rule part of the WP:PAID policy. Does anybody really want paid editors directly editing article pages?
• We need to get the message out to all the various corners of Misplaced Pages that paid editing is not allowed, e.g. to AfD, AfC, and it seems we have to let the Arbitration Committee know that we expect them to enforce the rules.
• The WMF should have a media campaign to let the media know we don't accept paid editing. If they don't do it, editors need to do it themselves (though this will be a bit clumsier)
• We need to target the companies that openly state that their business is to put paid edits into Misplaced Pages, e.g. the Wiki-PRs, and Wiki Experts of the world. (more on this later)
• we should forbid paid editing where the jobs are posted on open job posting boards, e.g. through a change to WP:PAID.

There are lots more things we can do, please just list them below. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Some of this will require changing policy a bit. I have to note that the basic RfC process is subject to manipulation, e.g. after the Wiki-PR scandal I suggested a a straight RfC on the bright-line rule, and then suddenly 5 confusing variants were also put forward, making the whole process into a farce, and nothing could be passed. (Of course a few months later, with the RfC supervised by WMF legal, the Terms of Use change passed 80%-20%).

I suggest that we get a process here that allows for a reasonable discussion of the alternatives, and then a straight vote from the maximum number of users. In particular, getting two groups to propose policy changes - one that proposes strengthening paid editing restrictions and another that proposes "kinder, gentler paid editing policies" should come up with straightforward proposed changes. When these 2 sets of changes are proposed, an RfC should be run for 30 days, with a banner on en-Wiki to bring in the largest possible group of !voters. Anything else will likely leave the policy in a state of confusion. User:Jimbo Wales, would you support such a proposal for a mega-RfC for this mega-question? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The simple thing would be an RfC that would a) validate that WP:PAID as policy (it is policy, but some have called for an RfC to validate that, which I think would be a good idea); and b) propose that the "peer review" aspects in the COI guideline be made part of the PAID policy. These two things would probably fly, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I see no need for an RfC on paid. It is alread firm policy, supported by both the community here and by the foundation. There are some differences between the community and the WMF-legal view, but they are compatible, as the WMF view is that their statement is the minimum, and that we may have further restrictions. And we do, in that we regard editing by an employee under the terms of his employment to be paid editing, and the WMF does not . Given our ability to extend the rules, our rule is valid, tho we can not expect the WMF to take legal action except on the basis of its own rules. (There are laos considerable differences between the WMFview of when outing is appropriate in the investigation of paid editing and our much more restrictive position. Again, it is acceptable that we may have a more rigid position, and I thin the general consensus here is clearly in support of our rules, though many of want to make some modifications for borderline circumstances . I think RfCs can often confuse not clarify the issue, and an incremental approach is more likely to be successful. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Russian Government Youth Group

Was wondering if in your view the following is good news "Russian Government Youth Group Wants to Make Misplaced Pages More Patriotic · Global Voices"..--Moxy (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)