Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:26, 14 August 2019

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Doc James, Pundit and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.

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: 2 days

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

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• 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

Small donations no longer accepted

Congratulations, Jimbo Wales! Despite your request for donations by the end of June, you have refunded all donations from a small donor. I am glad that Misplaced Pages is so successful. 84.120.0.236 (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Define "small donations" when you say they're no longer accepted? Looking at the "donate to us" page the minimum donation from a donor in Spain is €3, which is surely small enough (I imagine any lower than that and the transaction fees mean it's not worth the WMF's while to process). ‑ Iridescent 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: could this be connected to this recent thread? They both seem as...less than competent as each other  :) ——SerialNumber54129 06:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Katherine (WMF) wrote: Renew your donation: €1 »

Jimbo Wales wrote: Renew my donation: €1 »

@Iridescent: From the page you have linked: Please select an amount (minimum 0.87 EUR)

84.120.0.236 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, some less-intelligent trolls have proposed off-Misplaced Pages that the WMF can be crippled by making small donations and then indignantly demanding a refund. As if an organization with a $100 million budget could be damaged by people acting like fleas and gnats with their one Euro or two dollar claims. Logical thinking is not the trolls' strong point. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

And indeed once money is donated, the recipient is under no obligation to provide a refund anyway. Emails would got ot OTRS where they would get a template response, costing the Foundation precisely nothing. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

So, if no human is taking care of donation messages, could these refunds have been an automated decision? Certainly, the donation process reports an error caused by Wikimedia. After taking measures, Alice has decided to retry her donations. By the way, Bob was refunded Alice's donations. 84.120.0.236 (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"The classic notion of an encyclopaedia and 'universal knowledge' needs to be discarded".

"The classic notion of an encyclopaedia and 'universal knowledge' needs to be discarded".
"The idea of encyclopedic knowledge feels problematic".

Source: The Wikimedia Foundation
Source: Szymon Grabarczuk, Movement Strategy Process Meta Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

Please comment at Meta:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/2. Give them fair warning that the shit will hit the fan if they try to impose this on the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I think it highly contentious and misleading to label that link "The Wikimedia Foundation" as if this is some official statement of the WMF. It clearly is not. It's a recommendation by a community working group.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I have stricken "Source: The Wikimedia Foundation" and replaced it with "Source: Szymon Grabarczuk, Movement Strategy Process Meta Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation ".

Please advise as to whether you find this to be misleading as well. Might I suggest a disclaimer on pages that are signed by somebody with "(WMF)" in their user name but who does not speak for the foundation? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to be correct. After all, his upload comment explicitly disclaims personal authorship. I would ask Szymon if I were you - are these words his, or was he simply tasked with uploading the group's final document, written elsewhere, as he clearly indicates in his edit comment? In general, I do not think it reasonable to take every statement by an employee as an official statement of an organization, even when that employee is acting in an official capacity. The employee could be mistaken. I recently rented a car and the Avis person at the counter told me that the rental car didn't have it's own GPS and so I rented on - only to discover that the car actually had one. Avis refunded my money. I would think it unfair for me to characterize the employee's statement as an official statement of Avis.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see also Seraphimblade's comments on the Diversity Working Group Recommendations, based on a Code of Conduct everyone including project contributors will be "required to sign", and the Community Health rules and regulations to be incorporated into the Terms of Service. The most anyone (including me) asked for were small changes covering specific objectionable behavior, not a carte blanche laundry list of whatever ToS additions a few small groups of people hand-picked by a few Foundation insiders imagine might help -- presumably giving the Foundation a huge list of transgressions for more unreviewable bans on secret evidence.

Plus, every single working group kicked the can down to further documents equivalent to those they were asked for. The 2016 Strategy Process recommendations are far better, and only took one part-time contractor. EllenCT (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

There’s this gem too: “The focus on mainstream, Western-idea of academic-based knowledge limits the inclusion of other ways of knowing or presenting knowledge.” I don’t know what “other ways of knowing” even means but discarding the very basis of reliable sourcing will turn WP into fringe infested Wikia. Capeo (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This just gets worse and worse.

"Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?

Some editors might not agree on the need of content diversity and continue deleting articles based on notability reasoning and tensions might emerge."

Source: The Wikimedia Foundation

Source: Szymon Grabarczuk, Movement Strategy Process Meta Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yikes. I was on the fence about the first statement, but this one... Jimmy, I know I'm hardly a regular on your talkpage, just an ordinary editor who's semi-active at best, and you don't know me from squat, but this is something that I'd say we need to have you step in and step on before there's any chance of it going live; if that "Recommendation" is forced upon Misplaced Pages by the WMF, we might as well just strip the bits from all our advanced permissions users, shut down all our anti-abuse tools and bots, and let WMF banninate anyone who tries to enforce policy, because this will mean that there will no longer be any standards as to what is included in the encyclopedia beyond the current flavor of the month at the WMF.

Given that the Working Groups have, thus far, rebuffed any attempts at pointing out that there might be any sort of problem with any of their proposals by outside voices coming from en-wiki and other projects, I think the only way that we have a chance of getting them to remember that the whole point of Misplaced Pages is to build an encyclopedia is a top-down mandate from above, preferably punctuated with much sturm und drang to drive the point home... rdfox 76 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This plan shows a fundamental misunderstanding within the WMF of what made Misplaced Pages as popular as it is. Following this plan might gain us some new "editors", but we will loose readers by the thousands (or millions) once it becomes clear our overall quality is slipping. They call our method "Western" (which they use as a pejorative term, against a culture and group of people, in an official document), but if we measure quality by how well our records match reality and objective and verifiable facts, there is only higher and lower quality, not "Western" and whatever.

What blithering idiot wrote that manifesto? Guy (Help!) 07:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Tell the WMF they'll loose a lot less money if they just start another side project with this idea (similar things have already be done, Everipedia, for example) compared to how much they'll loose disrupting Misplaced Pages with this transient pseudophilosophical nonsense. When it doesn't work, at least they'll still have Misplaced Pages, and maybe by field-testing the idea we can glean some useful information that will actually help Misplaced Pages. 2601:194:300:130:E9BC:5EB6:4C25:282A (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Jimmy, I think you need to be aware of the discussions at Misplaced Pages:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#"The classic notion of an encyclopaedia and 'universal knowledge' needs to be discarded". and Misplaced Pages:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#"...tensions might emerge...". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Jimbo should look at it. But, imho, this is not something that Jimbo is equipped to deal with. The WMF, even though they may not realize it, have become an existential threat to the usefulness of this encyclopedia to anyone who reads it. The current WMF must now be recognised as a mortal enemy which has declared systematic war "to the death" against this encyclopedia. Others must go to the link above and discuss next steps from an "at war" perspective. This is a Category 5 that most everyone thinks is just another whirling dervish. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are speaking utter nonsense. Perhaps you were taken in by the false claim that this is somehow an official statement by the WMF! It is not. It is a recommendation by a community working group with very little staff involvement. The idea that we are going to discard the classic notion of an encyclopedia and universal knowledge is ludicrous. Never going to happen. The WMF is not supporting such an idea. We are a diverse and open community, and a group of people (largely community members) got together and talked among themselves and came up with some ideas that simply aren't going to fly. Blaming the WMF for this is backwards - they have merely facilitated a strategy process which has come up with many recommendations, many of which aren't ever going to happen (for better or worse - better in this case).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! I appreciate that very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo! As one of the people who's spent a vast amount of their time over the last year working as a volunteer on the strategy process, which you as a WMF Board member set up, I would be delighted if you could tell me which of the "most" of the recommendations you already know are never going to happen, so I can stop wasting my time on them. Thanks :) The Land (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for phrasing it that way. I have changed it to 'many'. There are literally hundreds of recommendations, many of which are uncontroversial and will be pursued I'm sure. Many will be controversial and some of those will make it through and be pursued. Some will be controversial and won't move forward. The Movement Strategy process is a huge and wide ranging thing. The main thing I wanted to object to is the idea that these are somehow dictats from the WMF. They are ideas that many many people have worked hard on, and that work needs to be appreciated!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Anything that in any way offloads content decisions onto the WMF. Which is a lot of the recommendations. They are complete non starters for obvious reasons and I am surprised they even got proposed. But then I remembered the point of advocacy is not to provide neutral information, it is to promote one view above another. In which context said recommendations make sense. And so will never be adopted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Do bear in mind that a recommendation phrased as "we should do X" does not necessarily mean "the Wikimedia Foundation should force all Wikimedia projects to do X". I mean, I think it's unlikely that a community that exists to write an encyclopedia is ever going to commit to scrapping the concept of an encyclopedia, but also I can imagine a future where there are some Wikimedia projects (perhaps dedicated ones) that exist to preserve and distribute forms of knowledge that don't currently fit on Wikipedias. And I'd much rather people engaged with the details of the strategy recommendations rather than making sweeping statements about how most of it's never going to happen. The Land (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, we are still in the middle of the WMF attempting to control one thing that the community has been handing since the start (blocking disruptive users) and the proposals do talk about things like changing the Terms of Use to give the WMF control of other aspects that the community has been handing since the start. Add to this certain past issues (Superprotect, Knowledge Engine, discriminating against blind people) and the lack of trust many of us have doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Where I differ from the more (cough) aggressive editors who have commented on this is that I see the WMF as being basically trustworthy and usually doing the right thing, but with occasional lapses into unacceptable behavior which they stick to until there is a huge outcry, editors and admins start going on strike, and the situation ends up in The New York Times.

As for "engaging with the details of the strategy recommendations", I made a small suggestion at meta:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/2#Please don't use punctuation this way.() It was ignored. Go ahead and read the entire page at meta:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/2 Have any of the efforts on that page by English Misplaced Pages editors to "engage with the details of the strategy recommendations" resulted in any substantive back and forth discussion that includes a single member of the working group? You appear to be telling us to do more of what isn't working. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• You do all realize that a list of notes made during an open brainstorming session is not the same thing as policy, right? Nothing has changed about Misplaced Pages because people had ideas and wrote them down somewhere. There are other molehills that need to be made into mountains somewhere else, aren't there? --Jayron32 14:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely. I'm very interested to learn more about what problems the working group thought this would solve. What immediately comes to my mind is not that our licensing policy or the idea of an encyclopedia are a problem (they obviously aren't) but that there are problems that our current arrangements do not solve. The first little idea that popped into my head is that the WMF, which is reasonably well funded these days, might want to fund the creation of a relevant peer-reviewed academic/professional journal where things could be published under whatever license makes sense for that, leaving the encyclopedia free to cite that material in the usual way. I do think there are some interesting questions around knowledge that is not written down in traditional "reliable source" ways but that does form a legitimate part of "the sum of all human knowledge" in the encyclopedic sense. The answer, it seems obvious to me, is not to give up on the encyclopedia, but to bridge that gap.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy, you do know that those WMF-run journals already exist? ‑ Iridescent 15:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that, cool! But to be clear, that isn't "WMF-run". It is a community effort!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The proposals do include ones to preserve spoken knowledge/oral history, and to digitize often-neglected material. Both of those are excellent ideas, and I would love to see more initiatives like that with WMF support. Seraphimblade 18:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've been taking the time to identify how these proposals which so many people find noxious came to be included in the draft recommendations. I'll admit that there is a lot to read, & I have only read a sample of that mass, however I'm not seeing where these proposals came from. For example, I've focused on the meta:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/2019 Community Conversations/Strategy Salons most of which took place outside Western Europe & North America, & in none of them is there any mention that "the classic notion of an encyclopaedia and 'universal knowledge' needs to be discarded" or "some editors might not agree on the need of content diversity and continue deleting articles based on notability reasoning". If anything, their suggestions are much more in line of those who object to the proposals under "Diversity". In the Egyptian & Spanish strategy salons, they ask for more communication from the Foundation. In the Ghana strategy salon, while acknowledging the need for a code of conduct, it is also noted that any such code must conform to local laws; they explicitly mention that homosexuality is against the law in Ghana, & thus LBGTQ Wikiedians there must hide their sexual orientation.Based on what I've read so far, I suspect that the ideas & suggestions from these brainstorming sessions have been rewritten &/or reframed to fit someone's agenda -- which is not necessarily shared by even a majority of the volunteer community. This revision is what has angered so many people. And it is unfair to the hundreds of volunteers who gave of their time to offer feedback & suggest ideas. -- llywrch (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The very first recorded edits by the very first recorded Misplaced Pages editor!

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Office.bomis.com

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Obligatory Rogers: “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." Capeo (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages used to be WikiPedia Count Iblis (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

But why did everyone's username have a .com back then? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 01:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Nigos, I think that's an unregistered edit. Many very old edits have domain names instead of the username. —Kusma (t·c) 10:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah... ok. So they didn't record IP addresses back then. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 11:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record, these are the earliest edits that have been found, but not the earliest edits. In the early days of Usemod wiki, I did a lot of deleting things *on the hard drive* (as this was the only way to really do that). Those will never be found of course. The first words, soon deleted, were "Hello, World!"--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Diversity Working Group calls for the end of Misplaced Pages's availability as freely and openly licensed

Just going to leave this here. Jimbo, how does this square with your clear stance? From meta:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9:

• "For an article in which an indigenous historian/scholar has provided “authoritative” input and marked with distribute only through GNU, it would be semi- or fully-protected from drive by editing for those sections"
• "Likewise, photographs, which are marked ND (No derivative works) or NC (No commercial works) could be made available for use"
• "All change has negative connotations to some members of the community"
• "The current version of the Terms of Use does not reflect the present reality"

I don't know which I think is worse, this or #"The classic notion of an encyclopaedia and 'universal knowledge' needs to be discarded".. BethNaught (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently "Multiple studies have determined that extant movement policies don’t just reflect the systemic biases, they make biases against marginalized communities worse, in effect, re-colonizing and oppressing diverse knowledge." If you contribute to Misplaced Pages then you agree to the Terms of Use, which include freely licensing the work and allowing other people to modify it. If you don't like the Terms of Use, don't contribute. It's as simple as that.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Some perfectly reasonable and virtuous open source projects that ought to be done somewhere, are best done elsewhere than on WP. One example of this is original research. it is excellent for original research, and the first written transcription of traditional knowledge, do be freely available on the web, and it is also reasonable for it to be protected from editing and the possible corruption. But that is the very antithesis of a crowd sourced freely editable encyclopedia, which relies on continual revision. Various people in the past--mainly scholars--have protested that WP is hostile to their work, because it provides them no authorial integrity. They're perfectly right--WP is not the appropriate place for creative or scientific work which depends upon the maintenance of the author's work intact as they wrote it. Literature and scholarship could not proceed otherwise. The same is true for traditional knowledge: it too deserves preservation in a integral and incorruptible form. Therefore it too needs to be elsewhere than on WP. And the WMF should not be operating a project, even if differently named, for it would difficult to sufficiently distinguish it from WP; other organizations might do it with less confusion. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

On top of that, saying "I am oppressed and a victim" is a very poor reason for banning other people from altering something that you have written on Misplaced Pages. You can see what a can of worms this would open up.--♦IanMacM♦ 05:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, just as there is a place--apart from WP and the WMF for the publication of original research, there is a place for advocacy--similarly apart from WP and the WMF. I hope all of us want to help those advocating against oppression, but the only way we can do it on WP is to maintain true NPOV where all can find information Successful action must build on accurate knowledge, not on the partial knowledge produced by even the most well-intentioned bias. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• You all do realize that a list of brainstormed ideas is not the same thing as policy, right? When people are brainstorming ideas, those ideas do not become policy merely because they wrote them down somewhere. There's nothing to object to here, because there's no reason to believe that anything is likely to happen to these meeting minutes. It's just a record of ideas people have had. Having ideas is not the same as setting policy. --Jayron32 14:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  Jayron32, you do realize that recommendations from working groups which will supposedly lead the entire Wikimedia towards fulfilling some Strategy2030 (accepted by BoT) and has a timespan of one month to be commented upon, exceeds the status of meeting minutes, right? ∯WBG 14:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah - we seem to have some people over-interpreting the recommendations, and also some under-interpreting them. Certainly, those of us involved in the strategy working groups got involved on the basis that the eventual set of recommendations would largely be adopted by the WMF Board, and other movement bodies. Which is not the same thing as every recommendation then being imposed by the WMF on every project and community (let alone every *draft* recommendation being agreed without debate or without changing in response to feedback). But equally, they're not just braindumps of ideas that are widely expected to be ignored. The Land (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please understand that these working groups are putting forward proposals and, it seems in at least one case, proposed changes to the Terms of Use. It's good to get a discussion going, but I don't think the tone of the discussion should be "The WMF could never participate in this" or "If you don't like the current ToU, get lost." Proposals should be discussed civilly.

The WMF does participate in things where editing is not allowed in some ways, e.g. on Misplaced Pages we are not allowed to edit somebody else's quote (if that person did not say or write the new quote). I'm sure Wikisource has similar rules. As far as allowing "original research", it should be clear that there are not always clear borders defining OR. We have a perfectly valid exception on en:WP saying approx. "Including 1+1=2 is not original research." This comes up in photography quite a lot. If you go to a specific address and geo coordinates to photograph a historic building, you have to be aware that addresses can be renumbered, streets can be renamed or even moved or a new street can be built right in front of the building you want to photograph, "official coordinates" are sometimes wrong, and buildings themselves can be moved. Thus the "original research" of a photographer concluding that "The house across the street is the one I need to photograph," is commonly accepted and even required in many cases.

So we can discuss and even approve new cases where "do not edit this" and "OR" are allowed. The main case I believe is being suggested by the working groups is collecting oral histories in areas where there have not been reliable sources in the Western sense in the past, e.g. no local newspapers, publishing houses, etc. (I haven't been involved with the working groups, so don't know for sure) I do think the WMF can get involved in starting up oral history collections and training the recorders of such history where they are needed. I do think they should partner with other institutions, e.g. universities or other foundations, on most of this, and eventually spin-off any of their involvement. If you look at the proposals in this light, I'm sure you can see that they do not portend the "end of Misplaced Pages as we know it". I'll ask that folks discuss these proposals more in this light, rather than as an existential threat to Misplaced Pages. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, these proposals are going nowhere so it seems a bit silly to argue about them but a few would be “the end of Misplaced Pages as we know it.” One of the proposals would lock the contributions of an “authoritative” editor of a disadvantaged population under a different license. That’s a can of worms WP isn’t capable of dealing with. Who decides whose “authoritative” to that degree? Where I do agree is that the WMF’s money is far better spent, and more in the spirit of its supposed mission, in the scanning of rare documents and the recording of oral histories so that they are preserved and more accessible to academics. That’s the type of activism the WMF should get behind. Even that proposal screws up by saying that such primary sources could then be used by editors as sources for articles. The everyday fight against OR and SYNTH is hard enough already. Capeo (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk-pages

I've noted lots of talk-page stuff has been deleted (or moved ?). Is this a new general policy ? I believe the use of talk-page to be imperative for our general quality and in the long run. Also I think the large templates on what to do, classifications etc, should be located at the bottom of the talk-pages. It's easy to repeat something already discussed. But it's the first issue mainly. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Boeing720, I was wondering whether I should address this by Drmies and this by Jehochman .

I actually do think Katherine Maher's comment concerning her feeling of "awkwardness" in the quite flattering published article about herself, which she participated in, was something of possibly profound importance in relation to the recent commotion here between the community and WMF as well as the direction in which she may be ( in extreme good faith, mind you ) moving Misplaced Pages and I wanted to see what Jimbo has to say about it.

I was shocked to see Drmies AND Jehochman unilaterally remove the topic, which I assure was brought up by me in good -faith also, and perhaps even more surprised to have those deletions accompanied by a block threat towards me.

I complied with their wishes because as far as I know this is another 1 of the new normal in our overall society, but it has not been sitting well with me over night in the context of the overall health of this project going forward. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that I don't agree with the removal of the question by Drmies and Jehochman, but I also find the question to be pretty trivial and silly. I've done a lot of travel, and a lot of random bumping into people, and it's not at all uncommon that wondering what to wear and when and feeling awkward if I get it wrong is a part of that life. I fail to see why anyone would consider this some kind of "profound" issue. It's a casual human interest piece about what her life is like.

I'm on my way to Wikimania right now. I just packed at home and at first I was relieved that I'm going somewhere that it is perfectly normal and ok for me to wear t-shirts every day. I've got a Global Goals one, because that's the theme. Then just as I was closing my suitcase, I suddenly remembered that I have to do a couple of television interviews, and a magazine one, and I wasn't sure what I should wear, so I packed a button down shirt and a nice jacket. If that raises profound questions about the future of the project, for the life of me I can't see what they are.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Glad you complied. Your comment was not simply some citation; you interpreted her comments, in a very unfriendly and BLP-violating way. As for "the way forward"--you've made 1047 edits to this page, and a little over 500 in mainspace. Your comments on Talk:Huma_Abedin are all over the place and show a lack of understanding of RS and of the BLP. Elsewhere you place forum posts (and here, on the same day). I wonder if you are on some kind of vendetta against Jody Wilson-Raybould (see last week's BLP violation), and that you hate on Katherine Maher frequently is clear as well. Sorry, what was the "new normal" you were talking about? Drmies (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I consider twisting someone's words to be a BLP violation, and now that I've looked over the editor's other comments over the years, there's just a whiff of sexism, and I detest that. It's bad enough already that women are judged by their clothes much more than men are; I find it hard to imagine you making a similar comment and Nocturnalnow or whoever jumping on it to draw some crazy inferences. I mean, "Wales felt self-conscious about wearing his Auburn shirt when accidentally running into Putin, and so he must be in cahoots with the Russians". Drmies (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Jimbo. I understand now how that feeling of awkwardness about how one is dressed when traveling might occur. My question was maybe silly and I, in retrospect, should have certainly left out my attempt at sarcastic humour about "an extension of U.S. foreign policy", but my thought process was an attempt to identify why many comments in forums, especially with the Fram issue, has been along the lines of WMF dismissing the concerns of editors and even looking down upon the community.

So, I interpreted, and now I see I may have misinterpreted, Maher's concern about what "State" people thought about her traveling attire as perhaps an indicator of a hierarchical mentality; i.e. being deferential to the status of U.S. Gov. officials. Had I been correct in that interpretation then I do think that could be profound in terms of explaining any treatment by WMF of the community in ways that some in the community interpret/interpreted as dismissive, condescending etc. because a hierarchical mentality is always aware of people either being above, equal or below in importance. And to conclude that train of thought, I believe ( could be wrong ) that the essence and structure of Misplaced Pages is that of non-hierarchical equality.

I absolutely hold no ill will towards her nor anyone else associated with Misplaced Pages in any way. This is a unequivocally fantastic encyclopedia. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Context is everything. The editor was continuing a past pattern. I note they have a Checkuser block, and early edit history suggesting they are a recycled account, some not great interactions along the way and nine of their most recent main space edits were deleted for copyvio. Jimmy, if you want us to control harassment and make Misplaced Pages feel safe for all contributors, please don’t undermine us when we apply a bit of clue to do what's needed. Jehochman 18:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I undermined you. I disagreed that this particular instance was correct. Disagreement is not disparagement for the excellent work that you do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. Nevertheless, if there's a strange-looking redaction of content, please ask why before forming an opinion. Yes, I know your preference is to leave all comments, which is fine if you're the target. However, we can't let this page become a free fire zone where editor A comes to talk about editor B inappropriately. My sensors are tuned to be more sensitive when B is a member of an under-represented population on Misplaced Pages. Please let me know if I am suffering from some sort of cognitive bias. Jehochman 13:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, Katherine is the CEO. So while I consider the question to be (being diplomatic) silly, it seems well within the bounds of legitimate silly questions. I do agree with you - even if this page is a bit more "open" than most by my personal preference - it isn't a page for attacking other editors, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok. For Misplaced Pages officials, I will dial back enforcement somewhat since they are assumed to be experts at handing "silly" comments. Jehochman 16:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It is kind of amazing that Nocturnalnow hasn't been blocked yet per WP:NOTHERE. --JBL (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Shh. Don’t tell anybody but blocking isn’t all that effective. Sometimes it’s better to let the user continue with their account and keep an eye on them to mitigate any problems. If you block and they get a new account it can be a worse outcome. Jehochman 18:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, sure, but we're talking about someone whose last 50 edits to mainspace happened over the course of 16 months, with less than 600 total over about 5 years -- it's all just brain-rot posted here. --JBL (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

JBL's accusation above is inaccurate. I know I've put in a lot of effort over many years with a lot of, imo, constructive edits, just like the one on ASAP Rocky a few weeks ago, which was accompanied by a friendly discussion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Transparency and accountability of the Wikimedia Foundation

From 2008 to 2014, the WMF gave public monthly reports on their activities. Every team gave a fairly detailed account of what they did that month. In 2015 these were replaced with quarterly reports, PDFs summarizing each team's activities. These were then replaced with (intermittently and then frequently missed) "Quarterly check-ins", which were replaced with nothing. Not one WMF team or department has, afaict, produced a single public check-in in seven months.

In 2012, following a lengthy process, the community, board, and WMF created the community-elected FDC and its associated processes, bringing accountability and transparency to funds dissemination. The WMF frequently did not participate in the process, and when it did, it repeatedly ignored the FDC's recommendations on the WMF's internal spending and activities. Finally, this year the FDC appears to have been dissolved entirely. The members' terms have all expired and no new elections have been called. The WMF staff appear to have taken over the process in what they're calling a "simplified format", quietly eliminating board approval and community involvement, leaving the funds dissemination process lacking accountability or community oversight.

The WMF continues to act in general in a non-transparent and unaccountable manner. The m:Wikimedia Foundation transparency gap is larger than ever. They've been creating groups with secret membership, scope, and activities, such as the (undocumented) Security Council and (ironically) "On-wiki Documentation working group". They've been quietly shutting down every means of seeing what goes on inside, and moving things from wikis to WordPress sites without public logs, history pages, contribs lists, or author info.

Many members of the Board of Trustees frequently talk about transparency and accountability. User:Esh77, who will be joining you on the Board this Wikimania, opened her candidate statement with a commitment to accountability, transparency, and FDC compliance in particular. The WMF itself talks about transparency and accountability, and yet, the state of transparency does not look good. Can you and the board try to work on this at Wikimania? --Yair rand (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Page Pandit, the board liaison to FDC (and Doc James). ∯WBG 08:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)