| Revision as of 14:58, 5 September 2019 view sourceStephan Schulz (talk | contribs)Administrators26,888 edits →Trump's wiki page mentioned that he had a "bigly education": Never bother a human for tasks a computer can do better.....← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:13, 5 September 2019 view source Nocturnalnow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,769 edits →"Naming" perpetratorsNext edit → | ||
| Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
| :::::Those are strawman distractions. In the specific matter in Odessa the police spokesman specifically said he simply did not wish to speak the name of the killer, even though many people knew the name. It was nothing to do with the other type of withholding names that you are bringing up as ditractions. Yes, its a free press issue whenever public officials decide as individuals to delay revealing to the general public a name simply beause they do not feel like speaking it. Next time it might be a week delay instead of one day. Of course its an unnecessary restriction upon the freedom of the press if you believe that freedom means freedom to publish as soon as reasonably possible, not after some public official decides enough time has elapsed before putting out a facebook post. ] (]) 22:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC) | :::::Those are strawman distractions. In the specific matter in Odessa the police spokesman specifically said he simply did not wish to speak the name of the killer, even though many people knew the name. It was nothing to do with the other type of withholding names that you are bringing up as ditractions. Yes, its a free press issue whenever public officials decide as individuals to delay revealing to the general public a name simply beause they do not feel like speaking it. Next time it might be a week delay instead of one day. Of course its an unnecessary restriction upon the freedom of the press if you believe that freedom means freedom to publish as soon as reasonably possible, not after some public official decides enough time has elapsed before putting out a facebook post. ] (]) 22:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::There is a major difference between withholding information and the sort of prior restraint forbidden by the first amendment. Consider the text of the ]: "Congress shall make no law . . . ." Now, we know that thanks to the doctrine of ], the Amendment applies not only to Congress, but to all levels of government. Also, we know thanks to ] that it applies not only to laws, but to all exercises of government authority. But you are saying not that it should be used as a shield here--preventing an action--but as a sword, compelling the government to do something. I would agree with you that transparency is generally a good idea, but not that this is a fundamental violation of any sort of right, especially to a free press. Consider your argument in a Second Amendment context. The Amendment gives me a right to have a gun. Let's say I don't have one. The government has guns. Therefore it is a violation of my second amendment rights if the government doesn't give me a gun? Similarly, here, we are talking about the government not giving something, and on your time frame. If the press had independently discovered the shooter's name (which I note is now widely known) and the government had coerced the press into NOT printing it, you would have a point. But that's not the case here, and it seems the evil that you predicted has not come to pass, as the information has been divulged, one way or another. Cheers. ] (]) 22:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC) | ::::::There is a major difference between withholding information and the sort of prior restraint forbidden by the first amendment. Consider the text of the ]: "Congress shall make no law . . . ." Now, we know that thanks to the doctrine of ], the Amendment applies not only to Congress, but to all levels of government. Also, we know thanks to ] that it applies not only to laws, but to all exercises of government authority. But you are saying not that it should be used as a shield here--preventing an action--but as a sword, compelling the government to do something. I would agree with you that transparency is generally a good idea, but not that this is a fundamental violation of any sort of right, especially to a free press. Consider your argument in a Second Amendment context. The Amendment gives me a right to have a gun. Let's say I don't have one. The government has guns. Therefore it is a violation of my second amendment rights if the government doesn't give me a gun? Similarly, here, we are talking about the government not giving something, and on your time frame. If the press had independently discovered the shooter's name (which I note is now widely known) and the government had coerced the press into NOT printing it, you would have a point. But that's not the case here, and it seems the evil that you predicted has not come to pass, as the information has been divulged, one way or another. Cheers. ] (]) 22:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Its the slippery slope concept, ]. I'll think of important examples if you wish like National Security Letters' | |||
| *] is no longer editing and I blame ] and other similar mean-spirited and scornful attacks by many others more later toward him for making it reaaaly difficult for editors like me, and maybe WNT to bring out anything outside of the box. ] (]) 15:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Trump's wiki page mentioned that he had a "bigly education" == | == Trump's wiki page mentioned that he had a "bigly education" == | ||
Revision as of 15:13, 5 September 2019
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
 | 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 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. |
Centralized discussion
- 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?
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)
- These refunds are not automated. 84.120.0.236 (talk) 15:11, 26 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- It could foreseeably be disappointing if you donated your life savings to WP and they didn't bank the money, but otherwise, sitting on the money given in small donations and large philanthropic donations, will not go the way you expected. If they bank most of the money, taking it for granted, donations will dwindle. They will surely amount a few hundred millions into an egg that way, but these millions will slowly lose value without being replaced. What happens then is, to maintain the value, they are forced to invest in the sort of investment schemes which give capitalism a bad name among capitalists. You think Jimbo gets a lot of personal complaints about being a leader now... watch those complaints get injected with vile and venom when the foundation becomes involved with big banking, especially if the investments are successful. They are given the money to maintain, and improve, the sites, and they wisely spend it towards that purpose as currency, rather than taking it as a grant. What might cripple them is if they hold the money for some time, and then larger investors demand it bank. "They've still got it, Your Honour! We want some of it back, we want most of it back and then..." Then it's not for granted any more. Suspicion should definitely not be castigated, however it makes more sense than is immediately apparent to do as they are doing with it, so where your concern is best placed is in exactly how the money is spend rather than if it is spent at all. They are juggling small beans on a large stage in the reality. What is the figure... 16 billion edits a year now? The foundation is receiving what, under 0.01c towards each edit? (not sure if that is totally accurate...) ~ R.T.G 11:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Two significant issues in one
Aside from the dubious economics and malign environmental impact of flying in handpicked confreres from around the world instead of handling these discussions online, why is WMF hosting a "harmonization sprint" in Tunisia, of all places, from Sept. 20 to 22? Carrite (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Carrite, WTF is a "harmonization sprint"? Google is no help, since (almost uniquely) meta:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Advocacy/Minutes seems to be the only time in history the phrase has ever been used, and that sheds no light at all. ‑ Iridescent 08:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Somehow I suspect that Carrite himself (?) isn't actually certain of what that means. My own reading is that it's a meeting to harmonize the efforts of all these working groups, but that's just my interpretation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Carrite's user page includes "my name is Tim Davenport" so you can assume it's a "him". That's my reading as well, but it doesn't make any sense; harmonising the proposals of the working groups is a perfect example of something that should be done entirely in writing, to ensure that there's a documented trail of how decisions were reached and exactly what those decisions were, and avoid accusations of backroom deals in future. It's certainly not something worth flying anyone halfway around the world for. ‑ Iridescent 08:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Iridescent, see this mail for some details on harmonisation sprint.... ∯WBG 09:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Unfuckinbelievable. The jet set on steroids AND acid. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Iridescent, see this mail for some details on harmonisation sprint.... ∯WBG 09:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Carrite's user page includes "my name is Tim Davenport" so you can assume it's a "him". That's my reading as well, but it doesn't make any sense; harmonising the proposals of the working groups is a perfect example of something that should be done entirely in writing, to ensure that there's a documented trail of how decisions were reached and exactly what those decisions were, and avoid accusations of backroom deals in future. It's certainly not something worth flying anyone halfway around the world for. ‑ Iridescent 08:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Somehow I suspect that Carrite himself (?) isn't actually certain of what that means. My own reading is that it's a meeting to harmonize the efforts of all these working groups, but that's just my interpretation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Why on Earth, Tunisia?
- I am personally acquainted with two reporters who have covered the ISIS battles out of there and the entire bordering area with Libya (incl. many prominent towns) seemed to be a damn dangerous territory, from their descriptions.
- The entire country is often declared to be in a state of emergency courtesy persistent terrorist attacks on civilians and security forces (incl. in Tunis).
- FCO advises:-
Terrorists are still very likely to try to carry out attacks in Tunisia, including against UK and Western interests. Security forces remain on a high state of alert in Tunis and other places. You should be vigilant at all times, including around religious sites and festivals. Crowded areas, government installations, transportation networks, businesses with Western interests, and areas where foreign nationals and tourists are known to gather may be at higher risk of attack. You should be particularly vigilant in these areas and follow any specific advice of the local security authorities.
- which is not very heartwarming, to be mild.
- The DoS (USA) advisory has floated between level 2 and level 3, over the past few years which is not any nice, either. ∯WBG 08:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Don't over-think State Department warnings. They operate on the precautionary principle, and "exercise increased caution" (yellow) and "contains areas with high security risk" (striped overlay) are their default for most of the world (Tunisia has the same risk level as India, Israel or Brazil). If you really want to persuade me that you're at more risk visiting Denmark or Germany than you are in Argentina or Liberia—or that Turkey is so dangerous that anyone with a trip there booked should reconsider travel—or that the Terrorist Menace is lower in Turkmenistan than in Antarctica—feel free. ‑ Iridescent 09:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah; DoS warnings are often overblown and can be weirdly perceived, if compared to other countries.
- But, I still find little reason to travel to a country which every now and then moves into a state of emergency after some terror-attack, declaring random curfews in the process and all that ..... ∯WBG 09:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Tunis has the same State Department rating as London. I think I'll probably be fine. The Land (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I want the same rose-tinted glasses that makes
Exercise Increased Caution - Contains Areas with Higher Security Risk
read the same as—err—justExercise Increased Caution
:D Anyway, I think the criticism of Tunisia for the WMF's works' outing isn't whether they'll bump into the Ajnad al-Khilafah, but rather that an organisation that prides itself on inclusivity should go somewhere...infamous for how it "accepts" non-traditional lifestyles. ——SerialNumber54129 09:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I want the same rose-tinted glasses that makes
- Also, I imagine it was selected on a balance of cost, travel time, and visa accessibility. I think there was a strong preference for a venue outside of Europe, as well, in part on principle (almost every strategy meeting has been in Europe) and in part because of visa practicalities. The Land (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- The land of the free in particular might be completely inaccessible to large parts of our community. Super inclusive. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I believe that the point the OP was trying obliquely to make is that it's wilfully perverse of the WMF to be holding a meeting on inclusivity in a country which still locks people up for "homosexual seduction". ‑ Iridescent 11:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- The land of the free in particular might be completely inaccessible to large parts of our community. Super inclusive. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Don't over-think State Department warnings. They operate on the precautionary principle, and "exercise increased caution" (yellow) and "contains areas with high security risk" (striped overlay) are their default for most of the world (Tunisia has the same risk level as India, Israel or Brazil). If you really want to persuade me that you're at more risk visiting Denmark or Germany than you are in Argentina or Liberia—or that Turkey is so dangerous that anyone with a trip there booked should reconsider travel—or that the Terrorist Menace is lower in Turkmenistan than in Antarctica—feel free. ‑ Iridescent 09:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Correct. The two issues are: (1) Why is WMF spending tens of thousands of dollars (hundreds?) flying in people to have a discussion that could have been handled over the internet? and (2) Why is this gathering ostensibly over expanding inclusion of underrepresented or threatened groups being held in a country with a malignant track record on the issue of gay rights? Carrite (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe consult this map and this map, and then pick a venue for the inclusiveness conference. Why would WMF book a conference in a country that has "low levels of physical security" for women, and "moderate discrimination is codified in law, and practice discriminates even more than law." Jehochman 12:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Studying those two maps, I found that the best country for such a meeting that is not in a First World country (i.e., North America, Europe, or Industrialized Asia/Oceana) would be... Paraguay. Wunderbar. -- llywrch (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe consult this map and this map, and then pick a venue for the inclusiveness conference. Why would WMF book a conference in a country that has "low levels of physical security" for women, and "moderate discrimination is codified in law, and practice discriminates even more than law." Jehochman 12:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- What Carrite is dancing around (probably because he is generally a nice person) is that it would be trivial for someone of a vindictive bent to find out which of the attendees are LGBT and drop an anonymous report to the local police giving their names and hotels (which would also be trivial to locate). If you think people on short term holiday/working wont be persecuted by the local security, you havnt travelled much. In a lot of countries they would make an *extra* effort to embarress foreigners and organisations they are affiliated with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, and particularly foreigners from countries whose foreign policies have not, perhaps, made those countries universally popular. ——SerialNumber54129 20:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- It should be cancelled immediately. WMF is insane and risking lives with this newest daredevil stunt. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- FFS the WMF has meta:User:NNair (WMF) whose bio at Trust & Safety says she is "counter-terrorism/countering violent extremism professional with more than eight years of experience working with governments, law enforcement, and corporate firms". One would hope, nay expect, that she has been consulted and provided a minimal threat assessment, special circumstances assessment and a 'how to avoid becoming a target and what to do if you do' training session/document for the attendees. Any competent CT practitioner should be able to put such a briefing together. If she does not want to take on the professional liability -- probably wise -- then contact some reputable firm like Control Risks or Business Risks International. (Disclaimer: I have no association with either company beyond having some of their people as instructors in a class 30 yrs ago. I am not a practicing CT professional.) I am glad their safety is not my responsibility but it is the Foundation's. Jbh 21:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's too bad we don't have some sort of online platform that facilitates collaboration... Jehochman 03:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- +1 — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've heard the Foundation is experimenting with WordPress. Maybe they'll let us know how it compares to the alternatives. -- llywrch (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it would be reasonable for the Wikimedia Foundation to follow common practice in selecting its communications methods, I would think. If other organizations are largely forgoing large in-person conferences for the purpose of global planning, and replacing them with something else, then maybe we should too. If not, maybe not. I don't know the answer to this, maybe somebody else can shed some light on current practice and trends here.
- As for the venue, yeah, interesting question. On the one hand, the Misplaced Pages is an enlightenment entity, so naturally science, liberty, and liberalism is how we roll. Why spend time in places where these are small beer, since there're a lot of other places to go, and also if it makes people feel unhappy to be there.
- On the other hand, I don't know how actuarially dangerous it is; I'm pretty sure you're safer from being shot at, at any rate, than you are in a shopping mall in Omaha say. And Tunisia is really nice. It's very pretty there I understand. The people are amazing, I have heard. You want to avoid otherizing it as if going there is a dangerous safari into savage Africa. Our article says
Tunisia is a unitary semi-presidential representative democratic republic. It is considered to be the only fully democratic sovereign state in the Arab world. It has a high human development index... and has obtained the status of major non-NATO ally of the United States... Close relations with Europe, in particular with France and with Italy, have been forged through economic cooperation, privatisation and industrial modernization... The Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet won the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize for its work in building a peaceful, pluralistic political order in Tunisia.
- So either our article needs to be updated, or maybe its not so bad after all. Herostratus (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps Emna Mizouni and those like her? Usually, such conferences have local involvement, promote local involvement, and are wanted by locals, so all are not Swedish or Londoners, etc., right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Assange
Seeing the "Misplaced Pages" category at The Guardian here, just a heads up, you might want to get them to remove the Assange one! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- But the cartoon listed there is hilarious. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, what's the issue?Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Croatian Misplaced Pages
Jimmy, have you read this Signpost article? The situation on the Croatian Misplaced Pages seems pretty dire. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
"Naming" perpetrators
Jimbo, would it be better if Misplaced Pages never included the names John Wiles Booth, or Benedict Arnold, or Hitler, or Stalin? I know it sounds crazy, but there is a "movement" in the USA by media personalities and law enforcement and some Wikipedians following in lockstep to with hold the names of mass killers.
- I know you are wondering "why", Jimbo. And I know the reasoning is absolutely insane, but the idea is to "not give any recognition to this bastard", as if, even after death, the bastard is seeking and would know about any "recognition" he might get. Another, less insane, but still Orwellian in its effect, reason is not to "encourage" any copycats.
Selective Encyclopedic Information Sharing is what I see as a HUGE problem for Misplaced Pages. With this latest event, for the first time, the name was delayed for longer than ever by all the Main Stream Media celebrities and law enforcement people and their buddies and everybody in west Texas knew the name of the bastard killer, but they treated like stupid subservient lower class slaves the general public, who were kept in the dark. purely because of some bizarre and self righteous made up, pseudo psychiatric theory that just in the last year is becoming a "big brother" tool. I think this is a very slippery slope. How can we stop this insane "depriving the dead (killers) of fame" mentality from fucking up our encyclopedia? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I would agree with you, if there were any indication that the withholding were intended to be long term. I see no threat here to naming the historical persons you mention; yet I also see no problem in withholding a name for a period after an incident like the recent Texas shooting occurs. In essence, I am taking a "wait and see" approach here and would suggest considering that it might yet be okay. But I am wrong plenty, so there's that too. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- If that worked, we would not know Herostratus' name. Or have an article about him. -- llywrch (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Correct, but delaying news to the general public just because a public official does not feel like allowing the general public the same access at the same time as a limited public is not a free press. That's a simple fact. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, that's not a fact, simple or otherwise. It is an assertion you are making based on your own preconceived notions of how the world works. Identification of both victims and perpetrators may be delayed because of the time needed to confirm identity or notify relatives. I am sure that in some cases identities of perpetrators are withheld so as not to compromise efforts to serve search warrants or track down accomplices. It isn't unreasonable to expect to find out the name of the person who committed a crime. It is unreasonable to expect to find out as soon as the police know it. Bitter Oil (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- So, we have reached the position that any time there is something the press don't know, it is "unfree?" All non-omniscient press is a violation of the first amendment? I feel that this leads, ineluctably, to finding out that John Peter Zenger had supremely powerful psychic powers. I'd pay to see that movie. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Those are strawman distractions. In the specific matter in Odessa the police spokesman specifically said he simply did not wish to speak the name of the killer, even though many people knew the name. It was nothing to do with the other type of withholding names that you are bringing up as ditractions. Yes, its a free press issue whenever public officials decide as individuals to delay revealing to the general public a name simply beause they do not feel like speaking it. Next time it might be a week delay instead of one day. Of course its an unnecessary restriction upon the freedom of the press if you believe that freedom means freedom to publish as soon as reasonably possible, not after some public official decides enough time has elapsed before putting out a facebook post. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- There is a major difference between withholding information and the sort of prior restraint forbidden by the first amendment. Consider the text of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . ." Now, we know that thanks to the doctrine of incorporation, the Amendment applies not only to Congress, but to all levels of government. Also, we know thanks to court decisions that it applies not only to laws, but to all exercises of government authority. But you are saying not that it should be used as a shield here--preventing an action--but as a sword, compelling the government to do something. I would agree with you that transparency is generally a good idea, but not that this is a fundamental violation of any sort of right, especially to a free press. Consider your argument in a Second Amendment context. The Amendment gives me a right to have a gun. Let's say I don't have one. The government has guns. Therefore it is a violation of my second amendment rights if the government doesn't give me a gun? Similarly, here, we are talking about the government not giving something, and on your time frame. If the press had independently discovered the shooter's name (which I note is now widely known) and the government had coerced the press into NOT printing it, you would have a point. But that's not the case here, and it seems the evil that you predicted has not come to pass, as the information has been divulged, one way or another. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Its the slippery slope concept, Dumuzid. I'll think of important examples if you wish like National Security Letters'
- There is a major difference between withholding information and the sort of prior restraint forbidden by the first amendment. Consider the text of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . ." Now, we know that thanks to the doctrine of incorporation, the Amendment applies not only to Congress, but to all levels of government. Also, we know thanks to court decisions that it applies not only to laws, but to all exercises of government authority. But you are saying not that it should be used as a shield here--preventing an action--but as a sword, compelling the government to do something. I would agree with you that transparency is generally a good idea, but not that this is a fundamental violation of any sort of right, especially to a free press. Consider your argument in a Second Amendment context. The Amendment gives me a right to have a gun. Let's say I don't have one. The government has guns. Therefore it is a violation of my second amendment rights if the government doesn't give me a gun? Similarly, here, we are talking about the government not giving something, and on your time frame. If the press had independently discovered the shooter's name (which I note is now widely known) and the government had coerced the press into NOT printing it, you would have a point. But that's not the case here, and it seems the evil that you predicted has not come to pass, as the information has been divulged, one way or another. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Those are strawman distractions. In the specific matter in Odessa the police spokesman specifically said he simply did not wish to speak the name of the killer, even though many people knew the name. It was nothing to do with the other type of withholding names that you are bringing up as ditractions. Yes, its a free press issue whenever public officials decide as individuals to delay revealing to the general public a name simply beause they do not feel like speaking it. Next time it might be a week delay instead of one day. Of course its an unnecessary restriction upon the freedom of the press if you believe that freedom means freedom to publish as soon as reasonably possible, not after some public official decides enough time has elapsed before putting out a facebook post. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- So, we have reached the position that any time there is something the press don't know, it is "unfree?" All non-omniscient press is a violation of the first amendment? I feel that this leads, ineluctably, to finding out that John Peter Zenger had supremely powerful psychic powers. I'd pay to see that movie. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, that's not a fact, simple or otherwise. It is an assertion you are making based on your own preconceived notions of how the world works. Identification of both victims and perpetrators may be delayed because of the time needed to confirm identity or notify relatives. I am sure that in some cases identities of perpetrators are withheld so as not to compromise efforts to serve search warrants or track down accomplices. It isn't unreasonable to expect to find out the name of the person who committed a crime. It is unreasonable to expect to find out as soon as the police know it. Bitter Oil (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Correct, but delaying news to the general public just because a public official does not feel like allowing the general public the same access at the same time as a limited public is not a free press. That's a simple fact. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Wnt is no longer editing and I blame Bitter Oil and other similar mean-spirited and scornful attacks by many others more later toward him for making it reaaaly difficult for editors like me, and maybe WNT to bring out anything outside of the box. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Trump's wiki page mentioned that he had a "bigly education"
We can see this here at 31 seconds into the video. So, who made that edit? Count Iblis (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- 1st I have to say that the video by Randy Rainbow is absolutely hilarious, but "(Trump) has a bigly education" has no place in the article on Trump. The video was released on YouTube on July 16, 2018. Theoretically, we should be able to find the editor or editors who inserted that and how long the edit lasted, but that's too much work for me. There's even the possibility that "bigly education" never was in the Misplaced Pages article. Look closely at the video. There are 2 shots of "the Misplaced Pages article". The first does not have "bigly education" in it that I can see, the 2nd doesn't have "Misplaced Pages" in it.
- But, if you want to track down whether Rainbow or his friends/producers inserted "bigly education" the easiest way might be to just send him an email and ask. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Or just use Blame to find out that the word "bigly" was indeed never in the real page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)