| Revision as of 15:31, 31 October 2011 view sourceFormerIP (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,570 edits →"Verifiability and truth": r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:05, 17 January 2025 view source Sir Macaw (talk | contribs)102 edits →A brownie for you!: new WikiLove messageTag: WikiLove | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{maintained|1={{user16|Jimbo Wales}}|article=no}} | |||
| {{pp-move|small=yes}} | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{ |
{{noindex}} | ||
| {{Stb}} | |||
| {{same page other wikis|commons|meta|message=Please choose the most relevant.}} | |||
| {{Usercomment}} | |||
| {{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|}} | |||
| {{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an ].'''<br /> | |||
| '''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s .<br />The current ] occupying "community-selected" seats are ], ], ] and ].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is ].'''}}}} | |||
| {{Notice|1={{Center|1='''This page is ] and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, <br> ] '''}}}} | |||
| {{Talk header|search=yes}} | {{Talk header|search=yes}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}} | |||
| {{annual readership}} | |||
| {{Press | |||
| | subject = talkpage | |||
| | author = Matthew Gault | |||
| | title = Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit | |||
| | org = ] | |||
| | url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit | |||
| | date = 8 December 2021 | |||
| | quote = The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other. | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| | algo = old(10d) | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| | archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |counter = 86 | |||
| | counter = 252 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 350K | |||
| |algo = old(1d) | |||
| | archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Centralized discussion}} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>|indexhere=no|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| {{archives|age=1|target=./Archive 69|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot III|archivelist=User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivelist_manual|collapsed=yes|search=yes}} | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| {| align="right" style="clear:both" | |||
| |] | |||
| |} | |||
| ==]== | |||
| == Sorry to Bother You == | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team. | |||
| Could you or your page watchers help me with ]? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites. | |||
| Hello, there, Mr. Wales, and I'm sorry to bother you, as I know you're a very busy man. One of the smaller articles in Misplaced Pages is one that I've hand-raised myself, much like the subject of the article, ], a beluga whale at Shedd Aquarium.. ] suggests that 70% of the article needs to be rewritten, and that it may have to be significantly cut. I know you probably won't fret over such a small article. But please, look at it yourself, and tell me how it can be improved, if you may. Thank you, Mr. Wales, and good day. --]]''<sup>]</sup> 12:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]] | |||
| :: I will leave space for Jimbo to answer, above, but recently he has been very busy. Meanwhile, some of us other editors have added notes and sources (from the ''Chicago Tribune'') into article "]" as examples for updating the sourced text. It is an interesting article because the multi-year sources cover the whale's life from birth to age 12 now, and have described reactions to other whales at the Oceanarium. Similar articles (such as a page about "]") provide indepth information that is difficult to find, combined, on the Internet at large. -] (]) 05:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. ] (]) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't notice this until now. My concern with that article, like every other one that I encounter, is that it not contain unsourced information; particular, that it not contain unsourced POV information. You indicated to me on my talk that you know of more sources, and if you add them then there is no problem. Also, note that I could have just gone in and immediately removed everything that wasn't verified; I chose not to, as it seemed like it could be saved, and that regular editors (such as yourself, Belugaboy) would be able to do that far better than I could. I'm happy that other editors have since added sources and improved the article. ] (]) 09:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :If Godber is not ], which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? ] (]) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I dunno, but ] wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. ] (]) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ::::And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". ] (]) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Godber's photographs include "views of the ] including large numbers of cars traveling to ], and the ]. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the ] Homestead in ] with scenes of farm life, including ], ] sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the ], ], ], the ], and the Hillside Railway Workshops); ] (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, ], ], ], ] and ]. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the ], and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the ], ], ] area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori ] and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." ] (]) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. ] (]) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. ] (]) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == == | |||
| == Donations. == | |||
| That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, these donation ads are getting tiring. Please out of respect to your members, consider removing these ads. These volunteers do enough work by writing these articles, then you ask them to write code for you like the coding event that was just held, you ask them for storytelling services. Please pay these people, rather than continuing to ask them of this. I know not all of the blame should be upon you as it should also respectively be upon the WMF, but you are the owner. Regardless, thank you for your service for the largest encyclopedia on the net. As it regards, ] (]) 21:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : We look forward to your pending membership :-) (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 21:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not the owner. :) --] (]) 07:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent activity at Verifiability policy page and talk == | |||
| ::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to from {{u|Tryptofish}}? | |||
| {{hat|Closing this discussion in the interests of harmony. Sarek's close was a good close, but I see no harm emerging from allowing the RfC to run a few more days. I think SV should take a break from this issue.}} | |||
| :... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, {{u|Jimbo Wales}} will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than ] was. | |||
| FYI. There was an RFC on a proposal that began on Oct 5 re WP:V. The RFC had the participation of about a hundred editors. About 8 hours ago it was closed as successful by an administrator and the changes were implemented in WP:V. Since then, the changes have been reverted. A couple of hours ago there began intense activity opposing the proposal, after . --] (]) 00:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage ''et al.'' is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --] (]) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, Jimbo. I was just coming over myself, because I'm very distressed at what's going on. (I was the admin who did the close.)--] 01:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''''Reminder:''''' Well, I am not convinced that moving ''"verifiability, not truth"'' to be lower in the policy page was really a helpful, significant change. What people should understand is that the word "verifiability" requires ''"truth in representing sources"'', plus some sources are not correct, so "truth" is an aspect required to judge accurate sources (articles should not cite known false, out-dated sources). Hence, the broader reality is "verifiability ''and'' truth" (while the word "not" has been misleading for years). Meanwhile, the phrase "verifiability-not-truth" sounds like convoluted "]-speak" (Yoda: ''"Do, or do not; there is no "try")'', so even when people do not gag about verifiability requiring truth ("]"), some viewers will read the "verifiability-not-truth" phrase and think, "WTF??" (trendy term for ''"sounds like utter ]"''). I can appreciate a compromise, to lower the "not-truth" phrase further down into the policy, but "]" with reality, and accept the fact that Misplaced Pages is in the truth business? -] (]) 17:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::You make some good points, but you also miss a few (possibly though due to how obvious they are). Articles ''should be'' permitted to cite known false/outdated sources. It's ''how they are used'' that's important. I can point out thousands of articles where it is ''required'' to cite such sources. One example is ]. Besides reasons such as applicable to that article, often, to show historical changes in perceptions and understandings, it is also required to cite incorrect/outdated sources (grossly paraphrased made up example: "In the 1500's scientists believed (some item we believe to be nonsense now){incorrect/outdated cite}, which was later proved to be false{newer cite with current beliefs/theories}"). | |||
| ::And of course, truth is often largely irrelevant when beliefs, belief systems and such come into play. In those instances, since for each belief system there are dozens or thousands of conflicting ones, we ''cannot'' determine truth, but can simply only posit what each believes without giving weight to which is "true". These are some of the key reasons why verifiability is more important than ''our own'' individual ''"truths"''. It's one of the reasons that "v... not t..." is so important. Numerous (many many many) Misplaced Pages articles are comprised of way too many beliefs that have counter-beliefs and no universally held "truths". Even the same goes for BLPs, where all we have is what's reported, which is at best just a shadow of the truth. Of course, in those situations, it again boils down to properly using all sources; correct or incorrect, outdated or new. If BillyBob made (notable) claims about MarySue, which were later proved to be false, they still (sources and all) should be included - but with the new information and cites presented as well. Of course, that gets back to weighing the notability and relevance of each. | |||
| ::Simple point is, it's far more complex than "old vs new" or "incorrect vs correct". It's a balancing act that needs to be encompassed by numerous other policies and guidelines to determine how such is applied in each article. And with a lot of NPOV and BALANCE (not bias) applied to ensure due weight to each individually and conflicting views as a whole. At least, those are my thoughts. | |||
| ::One last thought. Too many people seem to pick apart one single policy or guideline in an effort to improve it without looking at the bigger picture to realize that one cannot do that without determining how it affects the interaction of that policy/guideline with the numerous others we are required to adhere to. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>|<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 17:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''''Overcomplicating issues can obscure the role of truth:''''' I agree there is a balance, but when dwelling on ''"it's far more complex"'' then there is the danger to overlook the simple factors. It reminds me of the student talking to his parents, ''"We had a long discussion in philosophy class today, and I no longer know what really exists, perhaps it is all an illusion, and is anything real?"'' The parents, of course, reply like, ''"Well, we always thought your car and your allowance were real, but perhaps they no longer exist."'' Articles should be true to the sources for a specific topic, and the sources should be checked for known factual errors. The key issue is that truth is determined by the collection of sources; when there is a mixed difference of opinions, then that is the limit to the truth of those sources. When people have tried to justify the "verifiability-not-truth" phrase, they use terms such as "no ]" or Misplaced Pages does not seek "]" because that seems to be the heart of the problem (versus truth relative to sources). Instead, when articles are written and copy-edited for corrections, the editors are working with so-called "]" where a reporter focuses on what the sources have said or written. That is why "]" addresses the concept as an out-dated mode of thinking (compared to "The earth is round"), and the old sources are used to show that some people ''formerly'' believed in that concept, but secondary sources judge the earlier primary sources as having mistaken notions. WP uses secondary sources to give true opinions about the concepts, where possible. For example, a controversy in that topic concerns quoting Greek philosopher ] out-of-context, where he wrote a comparison of the flat-earth and round-earth concepts, but some people used only part of his text to "prove" he believed the earth was flat (not actually), by quoting selected phrases, out-of-context, and omitting the parts where he noted the earth as round. Step 1: Focus on truth, then the next steps involve weighing the sources and avoiding a partial out-of-context quote about a topic. The focus on truth is how slanted text is judged. When a new ] source is published which reports, ''"The conviction has been overturned"'', then WP should change the article to reflect the truth, not pretend the conviction stands as verified by an out-dated source. That is how current up-to-date sources are detected as being omitted, and the focus on truth is why an article which omits the acquittal would no longer be viewed as correct. Misplaced Pages is in the truth business, where truth is determined by all the sources, to the extent possible. Beyond that point, the truth is uncertain, but WP articles do not depend on "verifiability-not-truth" in practice, just in policy wording which confuses many people. The focus on truth is how an editor can determine a word is misspelled, versus a variant spelling, and when to append "" to emphasize a misspelled word is truly a direct quote from a source. -] (]) 00:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| IMHO, a splendid example of how things work all too often on Misplaced Pages -- for a rather different sort of take try reading ] showing an attempt to explain the reasoning behind policies, rather than counting angels on the heads of pins within policies <g>. Cheers. ] (]) 00:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| :Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face. | |||
| == FUD tactics or admins know best? == | |||
| :As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Suddenly ] going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. ] (]) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.}} Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. ] (]) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{hat|I agree that this was an embarrassing incident, but in the interests of harmony, let's just move onwards}} | |||
| After ] got posted on WP:AN there was a flood of opposes in that WP:V RfC. That's quite interesting sociologically because a notice had been up for nearly month at ], which is transcluded on WP:AN. ] (]) 17:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Oh, and you only have 15 minutes to comment on the issue above before the offer expires! {{smiley|grin}} ] (]) 17:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Hey Mr. Wales, there's a discussion on ] about what image should be used on your Misplaced Pages entry. Figured you may want to chime in with personal opinion about the recent freely-licensed images of you that are presented, as there hasn't been much engagement there at the time of my post. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Many editors do ''not'' pay attention to ] on a regular basis. Thus, there is nothing whatsoever unusual about the "flood" of opposes and essentially equal flood of approves. Cheers. ] (]) 17:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::For policy change proposals, perhaps something similar to what we use for "Gee, we're all getting together in NYC next weekend. Yay!!!" should be used, that way all editors are made aware of such. I understand the importance (and fun) of interacting with the community at such events, but I'd posit that community involvement in potential policy changes is probably a lot more important. And oddly, though rarely used for such, the mechanisms are already in place to ensure such involvement. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>|<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 17:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 15 January 2025 == | |||
| == A great idea that can't be missed!!! == | |||
| <div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2025-01-15}} </div><!--Volume 21, Issue 1--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 07:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div> | |||
| Dear Mr Wales, | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1269316164 --> | |||
| == A brownie for you! == | |||
| I was wondering if you would like to include WikiBates into part of the Wiki organisation. | |||
| WikiBates is a debating part of the Wiki organisation, where once or twice a month you come up with a topic and allow to teams to battle it out to win that certain argument. | |||
| {| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);" | |||
| I believe this is a great idea and I have 2 people to back me up so far. | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | brownie :D ] 19:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| yours Sincerely, | |||
| ] (]) 12:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :We already have that as part of Misplaced Pages and it happens a lot more then once or twice a month. Just check out ] or the talk page of any contentious article :) --] (]) 13:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>Thanks for the smile - even if what you say is probably sadly true. ;-) <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>|<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 20:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Happy Halloween! == | |||
| {| cellspacing="0" style="background: #000000; border:5px solid orange; margin:0px auto;" | |||
| | ] | |||
| | style="font-size:10pt; text-align:center; padding:0pt; line-height:1.25em; color:orange;" | '''Sp33dyphil has given you some ] and a ]! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun ] treats, and promote ] on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!''' | |||
| If ] come your way, add {{tls|Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message! | |||
| | ] | |||
| |} | |} | ||
| Treat or I'll tear this site down! Mwahahaha! :D --] ''] • ]'' 05:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == "Verifiability and truth" == | |||
| may provide an interesting case study on why I think "verifiability, not truth" is a poisonous formulation. Here we had a fairly unimportant claim in an article that Justine Thornton attended ]. The claim was not backed up by the source, but actually sources do exist to back it up. By normal standards, this would be considered legitimate to enter into Misplaced Pages. | |||
| But as it turns out, it isn't true. (She told me it isn't true.) There are no sources that I can find of her publicly denying it - it's a silly small error typical of tabloid newspapers, so I doubt if she ever made a big deal out of it. | |||
| If you accept the "verifiability, not truth" formulation, you are likely to think that unless we find a source debunking the claim, then merely knowing with some confidence that it is false is not good enough. I don't agree. I think that truth matters too much to be silly about it. Yes, verifiability is a good thing. It is not the only thing.--] (]) 14:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :That's not what "V not T" means. When editors see that a given citation is wrong, it fails the threshold of ] and that's the end of it. Verifiability means sources cited in article text can be checked by readers (and editors). It's not a licence to knowingly (bad faith) or otherwise (mistaken) dump wrong factoids into an article. ] (]) 14:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::It may not be what it is supposed to mean, but that's literally what it says. And we have plenty of evidence of people misunderstanding the phrase - people say things like "Misplaced Pages doesn't care about the truth" - they are wrong, and this phrase is wrong. It's just false to say that the standard for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is "verifiability, not truth". | |||
| ::Notice too, the circularity in what you are saying. If the source says something that we know to be false, then that source fails ]. But that's just another way of saying that the truth trumps a source in some cases. We seek verifiability '''and''' truth.--] (]) 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Reliable sources trump unreliable sources. Published secondary sources, even those which are taken as mostly reliable, are awash in mistakes and en.WP content echoes this, as does any tertiary source, sometimes in ways akin to ]. We do what we can. The pith comes down to verifiability, not someone's OR notion of truth. 14:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)] (]) | |||
| ::::While I agree with the general thrust of what you are saying, I think that's what makes this particular example interesting. Are you saying that we should reinsert the falsehood into Misplaced Pages? Or are you agreeing with me that a big part of "we do what we can" is editorial judgment about the actual facts of reality?--] (]) 14:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You forget that the policy is here to help us when editing is not a no-brainer issue, like whether to rely on a tabloid's statement on a minor detail or not. In those cases if there is a consensus that the source is likely to be wrong it doesn't matter if they base that on OR or not. Policy is here exactly to help us take decisions when there is disagreement about what is true. In those cases it is imperative that all editors recognize that they can not simply make statements about what is true in their own experience but have to back those up with evidence. Editors arguing in favor of the change keep using banal situations like this but they ignore the effects that the change is going to have on the really controversial areas of wikipedia. ]·] 14:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not ignoring anything of the sort, actually. I think this change will be helpful both in these kinds of situations (in which it is made glaringly obvious that the current wording is wrong) and in more controversial situations (which are the ones that tempt people to use a made up rule that's actually not true). In all situations, the phase 'verifiability, not truth' is not as good as proposed alternatives.--] (]) 15:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What is that "made up rule that's not true" exactly? And can you be more explicit about how it will beneficial in those controversial situations, to be rid of the not truth criterion.]·] 15:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It is not true to say that Misplaced Pages's standards are "verifiability, not truth" - no one is actually (as far as I know) defending the claim that it is. Read through the proposed formulation at the RfC - it's much clearer and will help new editors understand policy correctly from the start.--] (]) 15:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I have read the proposal, thank you. I guess you can't be more explicit about how you think this policy change will help me argue against those who would use their own Original Research to override statements by published experts.]·] 15:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}} Just to play devil's advocate, how do we know that she was telling you the truth? Maybe she has some motive to have correct information removed from Misplaced Pages? How do we know that ''you'' are telling the truth? If someone else removed well-sourced information from an article while claiming "She told me it isn't true", should we allow that edit to stand? ] (]) 14:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::We can and should exercise editorial judgment. We should take into account all the facts of reality at our disposal in a strong effort to present the truth always. Upon request I can go into a lot more detail about this point.--] (]) 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you explain how that statement does not create conflicts with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH?]·] 14:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Editorial judgment is precisely about thoughtfully balancing various factors. We are not transcription monkeys. In this example case, what I'm telling you is that I engaged in original research. I found out that the source is wrong. I trust, for good reasons, what I was told on this issue more than I trust the Daily Mail on this issue. Nothing can remove the need for thoughtful judgment, and a particularly bad way to try to do so is to have a phrase that suggests strongly to many people that having a source is more important than what is actually true.--] (]) 14:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It sounds like me that you are saying that personal, but unverifiable, knowledge of what is true trumps the policies about OR and Synth? I do not see how you can hope to build an encyclopedia that anyone can edit on that principle. ]·] 14:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"It sounds.... that you are saying" - I didn't say that, nor anything like it. Editorial judgment can properly take into account the full context, all the known facts, not just published sources. In general, yes, verifiability in reliable sources is absolutely critical. But elevating that to a religion which rejects truth is a huge mistake.--] (]) 14:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I said "it sounds" because you did not answer my question clearly about the relation between "truth" and the policies of OR and SYNTH. And you explicitly say that you believe that the information uncovered by your own original research should be accepted by other editors as a valid argument in the case you mention. I think that in the case you give I would probably accept that since it is a piece of trivial and irrelevant information. I deal however on a daily basis with editors who claim to know the truth about how the world works on the topics of Cults, Race and Intelligence, extremist politics, terrorism, climate change, genocide, and much more of that sort, and who claim that their view of "truth" trumps the published sources in the area. How am I going to explain to them that their views of "the truth" cannot dictate what to include or exclude in the articles, and that it cannot override the published opinions of trained professionals on those isues? ]·] 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I think I did answer your question clearly. Editorial judgment is a complex matter about which we have written many volumes over the years. What I recommend in the kind of cases you are talking about is that you send editors to the improved ] that is being proposed. This version, which removes the confusing and false formulation of "verifiability, not truth" and explains the real situation accurately and clearly, will be quite beneficial in helping new editors to become better editors. Saying something transparently absurd and obviously false to them is only likely to encourage them further in bad behavior. For example, by encouraging people to think that Misplaced Pages doesn't care about the truth, you encourage them to engage in further battleground behavior.--] (]) 15:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If the mistake is so widely published that it's hard to overcome with published sources, as to BLPs like this, that's what ] and ] are for. ] (]) 14:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, this is not an OTRS or OFFICE issue at all! This is an example (they are all around us!) of a minor error in Misplaced Pages that we know is wrong, even though there are sources for it. We can and should use editorial judgment to decide what to do.--] (]) 14:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It is indeed, if she cares about it enough to get in touch with OTRS or Office. Otherwise, any editor can in good faith go to an article talk page and put forth why they think the sourcing on something is wrong. ] (]) 14:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}} I still haven't seen a single example of an editor ''knowingly'' insisting on adding material to an article based on the fact that it's verifiable. Nor have I seen any evidence that it happens so often, it requires a change of this magnitude. ] (]) 14:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Recent contributions (10-27—28) to ], maybe? It was a case of I-have-one-ref-that-says-what-I-want-so-all-the-rest-of-the-refs-must-be-wrong.--] 14:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is not a change of any magnitude. It's the removal of a false statement that a majority of people have voted to remove, for the main reason that it is misleading and wrong.--] (]) 14:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::en.WP isn't a democracy that works by majority vote, it works mostly through consensus. ] (]) 14:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree. I'll just note the folly though of the recent view that changing policy pages requires massive degrees of support. This enshrines old bad practices and privileges the past over the future. What is really important is that people understand that voting is never formal in Misplaced Pages, and things can and should change without getting 80% support for every change. That radically conservative attitude conflicts with ] and ]. Saying that we don't work by majority vote is valid - but so is saying that we don't work by supermajority vote. We work by assuming good faith, open dialogue and debate, and compromise. In a case where a small faction is not engaged in good faith debate and the majority of the community is against them, it's not right to ram something down the minority's throat - but it is also not right to allow them to prevail indefinitely against opposition. Something has to give.--] (]) 14:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I dare say it will (whatever you or I think the outcome should helpfully be). ] (]) 14:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Edit conflict: I wonder if a better word, or the word we are actually referring to is not truth but accuracy. Misplaced Pages's articles must be accurate per the topic/subject of the article. Truth might better be defined as subjective and refers to what each believes to be an ultimate. One of the problems on Misplaced Pages is that some editors believe that despite evidence that something is inaccurate, if a source which passes some of the RS threshold, for example, the publication test-reputable publisher- or reputable newspaper, then that information can be used on Misplaced Pages. Gwen your definition of RS seems more complete to me than what I've seen in multiple situations, but honestly I know its not adhered to on some articles. Seems we have three words to contend with. Verifiable, accuracy, and multiple meanings per individuals of what the word truth means and what "truth", the universal truth, is. On the Verifiability policy, when we use truth I think we are referring to what editors believe to be accurate although they may use the word truth. We use the word truth in common speech every day to mean accurate, but on Misplaced Pages we may ultimately have to clearly delineate the three words- truth, accuracy, and verifiable.(] (]) 14:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)) | |||
| :::::::Accuracy is the right word we should be using here. Let me give you an example when I encountered a situation in which another editor insisted on retaining the false information that ] was located in West Belfast, just because a British Government report stated this. A quick peek, however at any ordinance map will plainly show that Ardoyne is located in North Belfast. To have retained such blatant geographical inaccuracy would have seriously undermined the credibility of Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 15:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::And what do we do when the map is wrong and the source is right? Or when it requires specialized knowledge to understand the map, that the authors of the source have but the editors using it as a basis for their arguments lack?]·] 15:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Just as it happens, there are official local government areas of Belfast (as with many other UK cities). It also so happens that Ardoyne falls (though only just) into North Belfast under those divisions. But you can't tell that from an OS map. --] (]) 15:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Fail in iw == | |||
| hey, why you can see the Danish wiki when an article is good in English wiki, but in English wiki can not see if the Danish article is lovende articæe. Is there a reason why they? sorry my bad English. --] (]) 15:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:05, 17 January 2025
| 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 Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit. The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt. |
| This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, 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. |
 | This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Centralized discussion
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.Albert Percy Godber
Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.
Could you or your page watchers help me with Draft:Albert Percy Godber? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.
I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Godber is not WP:NOTABLE, which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. Polygnotus (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I dunno, but User:Sulfurboy wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. Polygnotus (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". FloridaArmy (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Godber's photographs include "views of the Hutt Valley including large numbers of cars traveling to Trentham Racecourse, and the Hutt River. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the Mendip Hills Homestead in Canterbury, New Zealand with scenes of farm life, including haymaking, merino sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the Ross Reservoir, Otago Boys' High School, Seacliff Mental Hospital, the 1926 Dunedin Exhibition, and the Hillside Railway Workshops); Invercargill (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, Moeraki, Tuatapere, Waiau River, Oamaru and Port Chalmers. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the Burnside Iron Mills, and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the Piha, Karekare, Anawhata area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori marae and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." FloridaArmy (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. Here's a link to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors
That doesn't sound good. From The Forward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. CMD (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Edit_request and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Heritage_Foundation_planning_to_dox_Wikipedia_editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to these concerns from Tryptofish?
- ... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, Jimbo Wales will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than Claudine Gay was.
- Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage et al. is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Sita Bose (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
- As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Suddenly ANI going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Suddenly ANI going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Newer_2024_image?
Hey Mr. Wales, there's a discussion on Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Newer_2024_image? about what image should be used on your Misplaced Pages entry. Figured you may want to chime in with personal opinion about the recent freely-licensed images of you that are presented, as there hasn't been much engagement there at the time of my post. BarntToust 21:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 January 2025
- From the editors: Looking back, looking forward
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024
- In the media: Will you be targeted?
- Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last
- Opinion: Reflections one score hence
- Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next
- Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics
A brownie for you!
|
brownie :D Sir Macaw 19:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |