Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:40, 20 January 2014

This page was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2014. The result of the discussion was "speedy keep".

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Archive of initial discussion at User_talk:Jimbo Wales

Commentary

• You can call spirits from the vasty deep; but will they come? It's all fine and dandy to schedule a day of Main Page features, but you'd better organize a brigade of editors to get that content ready for prime time.

• NPOV. We have to ensure that we are featuring the topic in response to the day, not decreeing an official POV - that means a pro-spy dissent is possible, and if we're not careful, it might overshadow our own. Don't start a war you're not committed to win.

  Or simply "pro-big-brother" / "pro-surveillance". There are definitely prominent speakers, writers, and political groups who support this in different parts of the world; not just spy organizations. Similar discussions arise arounbd national IDs. You can also have entirely public and transparent surveillance / data-gathering / data-mining.

• Are they notable enough? As much as I like the direction of their mind, I find underwhelming. Apart from the nifty artwork with the subtle black flag motif, it looks like something I could hack together myself. Are we sure this event is big enough to make a big deal out of? There's nothing worse than "demonstrating" a lack of support.

  I have heard a lot about this but only from people in the organizations listed. I'm not sure yet how much of a public presence it will have; this is fair to ask. On the other hand, a solid thematic main page on something that's topical in a given month/year would be pretty great, and this seems like both a good candidate and something that many people affected know little about. (thank you, low-signal mass media :-! ) – SJ +

  Reddit has announced they're doing it, so it's going to be a big deal. But more to the point, we're the sixth most-visited website on the planet earth: we don't have to worry about throwing a party and no one showing up-- we ARE the party. If we do it, it will definitely be a big deal.--HectorMoffet (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is that there is a way to expand this idea into a long series of perhaps weekly "featured topics" that provide fair and timely highlights to a wide range of political and other social issues, and that by doing so we can combine political activism (i.e. by making people think, which people on all sides should think benefits their own side) but also preserve and enhance Misplaced Pages's reputation for neutrality. Wnt (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

+1 – SJ + 23:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Day We Fight Back (article)

I'm working to get The Day We Fight Back to readable prose size so it can be submitted as a DYK. Any help with that is appreciated. Ross HillTalk to me! 21:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Day We Fight Back is now at readable prose length, and I believe satisfies all the other requirements for a DYK article. Should someone do a review? The DYK fact is in the DYK section on WP:The Day We Fight Back. Ross HillTalk to me! 05:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I moved it to "On this day" per suggestions. Ross HillTalk to me! 16:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thinking strategically about the "Fighting Back"

I think phrase "The Day We Fight Back" will be a hard sell to our community. Misplaced Pages doesn't 'fight', it doesn't normally 'take sides'-- mostly, it educates.

I would propose instead we call Misplaced Pages's effort "Surveillance Awareness Day" or "Surveillance Awareness initiative", or some other variant.

Obviously, still held on Feb 11 and still explicitly connected to the EFF/Reddit actions. Just a tweak in the wording.

As we look towards presenting this to the community, I can imagine some people skeptical of "fighting back" against surveillance. I have a harder time imagining that people will object to a special day where we make our readers aware of an issue the community deems important. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense to make it our own. Misplaced Pages has a unique presence on the web with our commitment to NPOV. An encyclopedia could participate in a way not done by any other media source/groups. I like "Surveillance Awareness Day". petrarchan47tc 05:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

International content needed

The current drafts are all very US-centric. Although the US's global surveillance role is certainly unique, we can't ignore global surveillance by other government and non-governmental entities.

Can anyone nominate content about other regimes/entities and their on-going abuses of mass surveillance? --HectorMoffet (talk)

Not yet Featured quality content

1. This is not enough time to get an article up to FA status.
2. Heck, it is not enough time to assuredly get an article through FAC with 100% certainty in that time period, for an article of already high quality that doesn't need any more work or improvements.
3. It's not feasible and a waste of time to focus on articles that aren't already WP:FA quality for TFA for an event that is less than one month away.
4. Strongly suggest the TFA portion of this discussion be limited to current WP:FAs.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Cirt speaks wisdom. We can't WP:IAR on Featured Article status. Let's focus on featuring articles that already have featured status or are extremely likely to get to FA before Feb 1. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Creating a menu of options

The guidelines for Feb 11 must be determined by consensus. Until that consensus is formed, we must prepare for all contingencies.

With that in mind, please review the draft Misplaced Pages:The Day We Fight Back/Options. If your own proposed guidelines for Feb 11 are not represented, please add them! There are lots of ways to do this, and we want to find the best way. --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Coin

Statement by Coin

My thought process (due to the limited amount of time we have to get this thing off the ground): I was thinking of utilising the already available content rather than rush to drag a lot of new stuff to FA level. Also, on another note, remember to not make the references too literal. We do not want an NSA attack page. Let's try to be creative with our choices for content, convering a wide range of issues across many different time periods and locations. Why have a picture of the NSA headquaters when you can include a striking historical image that represents what can happen when civil liberties are not upheld? Why clog the DYK space with references to NSA, when you can have a reference to a perhaps-obscure espionage story that will enlighten and entertain readers? Similarly, anything we do cover needs to remain un-editorialised. For example, IMO:

Second Coin's statement. We are in brainstorming phase-- the greater the diversity ideas we generate, the better our finished product will be. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

About the red cross for the second item, is the expression "she 'blew the whistle' on" deemed too editorial, or is there another reason? How about "she told Congress about" (slightly inaccurage: she initially told one member of the Congress, who then started an investigation)? —rybec 02:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved this from the main page about this project to the talk page here. It was quite distracting sitting there at the top of the page. — Cirt (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In the news

Proposal: This section be kept how it usually is in order to keep Misplaced Pages's audience up to date with the Olympics and other world events. The Day We Fight Back can conceivably have an entry too.--Coin945 (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this section should run normally. We can't plan for what's going to be "in the news". --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I realize that you seek to reframe the proposed event as one conveying the message "It's important to be aware of surveillance. Read these articles so you can make an informed decision about where you stand." But that won't be anyone's takeaway.

As I said, even if our special main page content is 100% neutral, presenting it in coordination with the "The Day We Fight Back" constitutes an endorsement of the underlying cause (and not merely an implicit one, as it was explicitly devised as a means of supporting the protest). —David Levy 14:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Can we use an FA that has already been previously used at TFA?

I don't think we should use an FA that has previously appeared at WP:TFA.

There is an easy way to see what has already appeared at TFA:

1. Place this code on your .css subpage:

   .has_been_on_main_page a { color: green; }

2. Go to the page WP:FA
3. Then you will see that FAs that were already on the Main Page once before, appear in a green color.
4. We cannot use those FAs highlighted in green.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That is, unless there is strong consensus that we could select an FA that has already appeared before at TFA. Thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

For a themed day, I feel like we should probably use the Best featured article, rather than the Best featured article that hasn't already ever been used on mainpage". This might be a case to invoke WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.

We need a strong consensus to do any of these, of course, so we'll find out what consensus will support. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds reasonable, I can get on board with that. Hopefully we can soon get a strong consensus for this idea. — Cirt (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate your feedback on the FAs-- I feel like once we have a couple ones that aren't controversial among us, we can use them as a 'for example' and then start soliciting wider input. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I provided some suggestions of FAs that have not yet been TFA... — Cirt (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If anybody thinks I'm going to suggest a special exception to TFA so that we can get a TV series featured because we like its POV, that's just not going to happen. If there's any IARing to be done here, it should be to get one of the main articles on NSA surveillance through the FAC process in a finite amount of time. Wnt (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Essay: How global surveillance affects Misplaced Pages

• Misplaced Pages:How global surveillance affects Misplaced Pages

Is there anyway we can link this essay with this project? -A1candidate (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that 1 in 6 journos self-censor now, as well as any details we have about spy agencies' interest in Misplaced Pages readers and editors, seem like essential additions to this project, although I'm not sure how it could be incorporated. petrarchan47tc 23:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Are we willing to include signals intelligence successes?

I'm concerned that this proposal is implicitly advocating a particular viewpoint even if it does not do so explicitly (e.g. by calling the campaign "The Day We Fight Back"). The proposed links seem to overwhelmingly represent articles that highlight the dangers of overreach by intelligence agencies. There is very little representation of articles that highlight the successful use of signals intelligence or the geopolitical context that led to the development of signals intelligence capabilities. If the goal is to raise awareness of issues regarding surveillance so that our readers can form educated opinions, then we should also willing to highlight articles that highlight both sides of the story. To do otherwise would be contrary to our core values.GabrielF (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Some specific topics to consider:

1. Bletchley Park, Magic (cryptography) and other articles related to allied signals intelligence during World War II
2. Venona Project, the NSA's successful effort to break Soviet codes, which revealed that a number of senior government officials and people involved in the Manhattan Project were Soviet agents (including Harry Dexter White and Julius Rosenberg)
3. Stuxnet, Operation Olympic Games and other efforts to disrupt the Iranian nuclear program

Yes, why not? We should highlight all sides of the issue. Our goal is to educate the public so that people can decide for themselves what sort of surveillance they would allow their government to do. Jehochman 02:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When I first learned of this project, the topic had been chosen as "mass spying and privacy'. Now it's been changed to "global surveillance". My own preference would be for the topic to be only mass surveillance, excluding one government's spying upon another government or the breaking of military/diplomatic ciphers. Everyone's being surveilled now, not just soldiers and ambassadors; the current title of the project implies that we'll be asking for a soap-box to encourage people to think about that.

I agree that we haven't found much about the benefits of mass surveillance. Perhaps we haven't looked thoroughly enough. Someone had proposed saying "Did you know...that due to increased security measures instituted post-9/11, many terrorist plots have been uncovered and foiled?" but we didn't find sources to support the statement. I did find National_Security_Agency#Official_responses which says

On July 31 NSA Deputy Director John Inglis conceded to the Senate that these intercepts had not been vital in stopping any terrorist attacks, but were "close" to vital in identifying and convicting four San Diego men for sending US$8,930 to Al-Shabaab, a militia that conducts terrorism in Somalia.

I was going to get around to mentioning this success, but it would seem like damning with faint praise, wouldn't it?

If there are noteworthy, documented examples of mass surveillance successes (or whatever the topic ends up as) but we don't include them in the material we propose to present, consensus is likely to be against us. —rybec 03:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"excluding one government's spying upon another government or the breaking of military/diplomatic ciphers" constitutes Begging the question. OF COURSE you "haven't found much about the benefits of mass surveillance" when you exclude from consideration all surveillance that serves a national security objective! The whole "debate" is over the extent to which incidental in-country surveillance is acceptable. There's no serious debate in the English speaking world over government surveillance that can't be justified as either crime prevention/investigation or countering a foreign challenge. Evidence of surveillance that has as its objective furthering the domestic political agenda of the party in power is evidence of a scandal, not evidence that provokes any "debate." If one's going to argue for moral equivalency between western democracies and their targets (China, Russia, al-Qaeda, etc) then of course it is far more difficult if not impossible to justify the NSA's activity.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Stuxnet/Olympic Games example, added after my comment, was sabotage. I don't know of any use of mass surveillance or SIGINT in its production. Also as far as I know, the breaking of the Japanese Purple code did not involve mass surveillance. If you know otherwise, adding it to Magic_(cryptography) or the Stuxnet article would be helpful.

I didn't mean to beg the question, rather I made the assumption that governments do not typically use mass surveillance to learn about other governments or their armies. An exception I hadn't thought of is spy satellites. If you have other counterexamples, they are on-topic and welcome.

If you disagree with the choice of privacy and mass surveillance as the topic, feel free to suggest a different topic. If you have examples related to either the current topic or your preferred topic, feel free to provide them. In programmes such as DISHFIRE, PRISM and Golden Shield, it's interception of other governments' communications that appears to be incidental.

There's no serious debate in the English speaking world over government surveillance that can't be justified as either crime prevention/investigation or countering a foreign challenge.

Perhaps you meant "can" rather than "can't"? Regardless, feel free to provide justification for mass surveillance. —rybec 22:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone agrees that government surveillance that can't be so justified is illegitimate, morally if not legally. Surveillance that CAN be so justified MAY be legitimate, some civil liberties extremists can be expected to still object. re "justification for mass surveillance", this is not the "debate". The debate is on a point of fact, namely, just how extensive is "mass surveillance" in the United States of Americans? There is an enormous qualitative difference between some ginormous mindless database noting the number I dialed and human eyes or ears looking at or listening to what I am doing. The truth is that this charge against the US government has been grossly exaggerated in the media. I go into detail on the Dual_EC_DRBG Talk page as to how overblown the allegation is that that cryptography standard was deliberately undermined by the NSA. I have edited the Russ Tice article to more fully inform the reader about the reliability of this "whistleblower." Over at Talk:Edward_Snowden#Passport I've pointed out the problems with the line that it is the U.S. that has marooned Snowden in Russia, as opposed to Snowden or the Kremlin's own choice. These matters are all concerned with getting the facts right. If you've worked in media you'd know that there is huge popular demand for conspiracy theories. It's one of the things that has propelled the success of RT (formerly Russia Today). Obama himself has noted that "The sensational way in which these disclosures have come out has often shed more heat than light." That's not a moral argument, that's disputing the extent to which the reporting has served the public's understanding. What if Obama is right here and there is less conspiracy here than is popularly believed? Does Misplaced Pages stand for knowledge or for conspiracy mongering?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman says "Why not?", I might go even further to say "Yes, definitely". GabrielF's essential question is "Are we going to be balanced, or one-sided?" I think we definitely need some balance, though I don't know precisely what form it should take. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Milestone and status of the proposal

So, we now how enough content to create a Mockup of Content for Feb 11. It's an entirely arbitrary mockup, choosing content that seems leat controversial among the proposers we've had here so far, in my completely arbitrary and unimportant opinion. Obviously, actual content is chosen by consensus-- so it's just a mockup.

I think it may be time to start actively widening the circle of those involved, starting with relevant wikiprojects. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's time for you to look for a fallback position. It's not that opposing surveillance isn't a great cause, but so is Misplaced Pages, and bending every rule to hack together a Main Page like that is just not a good idea. It smells like POV, yet it doesn't communicate our POV - what we want is the opposite of that. At WP:The Day We Fight Back/Options I pointed out that FISA Improvements Act (presently a sentence in Political positions of Dianne Feinstein and USA Freedom Act (presently a sentence in Edward Snowden) have not yet even been started. And days later, they still haven't been started -- even though they are two of very few things directly mentioned in the "The Day We Fight Back" website! Face it - we do not have the level of involvement and support we need to take the grandest lectern in the world and parade around for a day. What we can do is try to work within the rules, as they are sometimes bent - we can fish in those contentious waters off Gibraltar and try to feature a set of DYKs for the day. Right now I'm not even sure we'll get people to write ten or fifteen DYKs though. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Lack of support or involvement doesn't disturb me at this point-- virtually no one has heard about this yet, and the worst that can happen is the community chooses the status quo, which of course would be a fine option if that's where consensus lies.

Planning for the status quo is easy, and after that, the next easiest option to be able to provide the option to show a mainpage-like message and that has reasonably enough relevant NPOV content in it.

But more options will follow, and perhaps one will be worth implementing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on WNT's excellent advice, Petro and I have created USA Freedom Act. It's still start-class, please improve it! --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• It could be checked for: wording, structure, and bias. I can fill it out in the next few days, but do feel free. It's the beginning of a very interesting article. petrarchan47tc 23:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Surveillance awareness day/Arbitrary Mockup 1 is using an FA that already has appeared at TFA. Do we have strong community consensus to override WP:TFAR in this manner? — Cirt (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, firstly, please immediately feel free to replace the FA section of the Arbitrary mockup with a section that you'd be more comfortable with. The mockup was arbitrary, just to show "where we're at".

"Do we have strong community consensus to override WP:TFAR in this manner?"?? Do we have strong community consensus for any of this!? hehe. However strictly or loosely we adhere to WP:TFAR, we're clearly departing from the status quo in a way that every editor should have a say in.

So I've been trying to create a 'menu of options' that we can present, and not surprisingly, the easiest option to produce is one that involves using a page that was already at TFA once in 2007.

If sticking to the "No repeats" rule is important to you, we'll just be sure to include that as an option. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at doing writeup and blurb for Afroyim v. Rusk, a FA which has NOT been to TFA before. Please feel free to improve it and it you like it better, use it on the Arbitrary Mockup. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for peer review

I'm trying to make the List of notable people under FVEY surveillance a featured list before Feb 11 so that we can include it for our project. As time is running short, is someone willing to help me to do a peer review? That would be very much appreciated. Thanks!

• Please review it here: Misplaced Pages:Peer review/List of notable people under FVEY surveillance/archive1

-A1candidate (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• You do know 11FEB14 is a Tuesday, right? Featured lists don't run on the Main Page on Tuesdays. smh. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

ColonelHenry, we're proposing a significant change to what the Feb 11 page looks like, and we'll need to get a consensus to do that. There are good reasons to object to a proposal, but it doesn't illuminate just to re-iterate this would be different than status quo. Hehe-- we know it's different, that's why it's a proposal.

We are definitely shooting for shooting for top-quality content that is Verifiable and written from a NPOV. But WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is relevant. NOTADVOCACY is a good objection, NOTONTUESDAY isn't.  :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

I see nothing that is close to NPOV on this proposal. Have you no shame in taking Misplaced Pages in this direction?Patroit22 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If we fail to propose content that is written from a NPOV, then the proposal will fail to achieve consensus. We're not "taking Misplaced Pages" anywhere-- we're just brainstorming options to be considered by the Misplaced Pages community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC);

Hector-Get your point but Misplaced Pages Community reaches consensus on many issues based on personal or political viewpoint and not factual information. The internet and most digital systems were created in a way that it did not ensure privacy.Patroit22 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

On using Featured Articles that has previously appeared at TFA on our Feb 11 content

There is an ongoing debate about this. (Discussion moved from project page to talk)

These articles were already at TFA once before. — NCirt (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's okay to propose an article, even if it was already at TFA. Y --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not strenuously opposed to the idea of occasional "theme days" like this, but it seems that they should disrupt the flow as little as possible. Why break rules like this when it's not even necessary? N GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 21:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Because we can't know which options the community will support ahead of time. So we're generating the widest possible menu of options for them. Just cause we give them the option to select a repeat for Feb 11 doesn't mean they'll actually decide to do so. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's quite simple - whatever comes out of this proposal, as the TFA coordinator I will not be running any FA for a second (or in Obama's case, third) time as TFA. Bencherlite 20:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)}}

As TFA coordinator, you don't have the authority to run a FA for a second time, so you speak wisdom. The community as a whole, however, may choose to display a re-run, assuming we got sufficient consensus for it. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as TFA coordinator, I think you'll find that not only I do have that authority but I in fact have the final say on what appears at TFA, for better or for worse. (You will never get a community consensus to run a TFA twice for a reason such as this either, and you would do well to listen to the views of Cirt and GeeJo even if you think you can ignore me.) I'm certainly not going to be exercising the exceptional power to run TFAs twice for any of these suggestions on 11th Feb so please save your limited editing time for coming up with something more useful, like actually finishing a proposal so that the community can shoot it down in flames. Bencherlite 22:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I in fact have the final say on what appears at TFA If you believe this, then I see why you would oppose any proposal that argued content should be determined by Community Consensus in some circumstances. I can tell this proposal really angers you, and I'm sorry. Lots of people I respected asked me to help work on it, and I won't be upset in the slightest if nothing comes of it. But I am gravely upset that the mere discussion of such a proposal is so troubling to you. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I replied to this at HectorMoffet's talk page, if anyone is interested. Bencherlite 23:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Important question

Bench asked me,"Why are you ignoring the established method for the community to discuss TFA appearances - WP:TFAR?"

The answer is I don't think Misplaced Pages:Surveillance awareness day is something we can seriously do as if it's "just like april fools". We've never used that url in this way before, and I don't think it's somethin a few insiders should decide, whether they be at TFAR or UT:Jimmy Wales.

So, despite stylistic similarities, I don't even really see the custom content we'd display as an actual "main page" in the traditional, status quo sense of the word. It's custom content, created to send a custom message, timed to coincide with with a outright protest run by our allies. We need to alert our readers this isn't a status quo regular page. Indeed, we may not even STORE the custom content at "Main"-- it might be stored somewhere else entirely.

So we keep all our options available. In the event the proposal does get support, who is to say how much weight the supporters will give to the suggestion that we not use a re-run in the Feb 11 content?

Either way, this thing has NOTBUREAUCRACY all over it. I understand people who are objecting on the grounds of NOTADVOCATE, but I don't get the objection about "normal mainpage rules don't allow re-runs" or "normal mainpage rules don't allow lists on tuesday". Normal mainpages don't coincide with online protests-- this isn't a normal mainpage!

We may do it, we may not-- but I can't fathom reruns or "no lists on tuesday" being decisive in the minds of too many people. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

concern about role of non-proposers

Bencherlite expressed opposition to the proposal and advised you to focus on ideas that actually stand a chance of being implemented instead of wasting time and effort on those that don't. You responded with the following:

"So that answers your question about why I don't value your opinion on the proposal at this stage-- you oppose it here and there, you oppose it anywhere--- so why in the world would we look to you for crafting the proposal?"

Does that sound familiar to you? It sure does to me, right down to the Green Eggs and Ham reference. After apologizing to me for disregarding my input, you've once again stated (this time even more explicitly) that you don't value the opinion of someone who doesn't support the proposal. I find this quite disheartening. —David Levy 03:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sincerely sorry whenever I unintentionally upset someone. But I do not think it is controversial to give preference to the proposers of a proposal when writing a proposal. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see Groupthink.

You're dismissing helpful advice from experienced Wikipedians, whom you perceive as outsiders because we've challenged your beliefs and assumptions. —David Levy 03:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you've added the subheading "concern about role of non-proposers". That you've sorted the discussion's participants into two camps ("proposers" and "non-proposers", i.e. "with you" and "against you") is a major part of the problem. —David Levy 09:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

David, you aren't "against me"-- you're raising a very valid concern-- WP:NOTADVOCATE. You imagine I have some agenda, but I really don't. I think the community should be asked about the idea of doing something special for Feb 11, and I don't know what the "right" answer is beyond that. I didn't come up with this idea, I just wanted to help with it. The one thing I do know is that this proposal is a departure from mainpage status quo policy. So the objection that this proposal deviates from "business as usual" holds no weight-- the whole proposal is predicated on the idea that Feb 11 will be "special". We either generate a consensus to change things on Feb 11 or we don't-- but we don't slip it into the traditional main page processes as if it's business as usual. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating separate issues. Yes, I have WP:NOTADVOCATE-related concerns, but I'm not referring to them above. This isn't about what we're arguing; it's about your out-of-hand dismissal.

Some of us, despite opposing the proposal, sincerely seek to assist in the effort to assemble a proposal and present it to the community at large. We do have a preferred outcome, but it doesn't negate the importance of gauging consensus.

You might respect our opposition (which you acknowledge stems from valid concerns), but because we're "non-proposers", you "don't value opinions" on how to shape the proposal (which you've summarily disregarded).

When someone tries to explain that an idea is unrealistic or ill-advised, you interpret this as a claim that it's impossible to implement. You continually defend your approach by pointing out that a "special" main page can contain any content under the sun (leaving nothing off-limits from being thrown into the mix), thereby ignoring advice on why it would be more constructive to focus on changes that the proposal's advocates might have some non-negligible chance of bringing about before the clock ticks down. "You're a non-proposer, so stand back and let us work" (scare quotes) is not a helpful attitude. We're all Wikipedians here. —David Levy 10:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we're really getting somewhere. I hear you.

I've been very concerned about people LIMITING options that will be presented to the community. But what I'm hearing from you is that we need to cultivate options that will be more palatable to the broader community as a whole.

I would sincerely, not in a flippant way, but deeply sincerely, encourage you to start your own proposal for a way to deal with Feb 11. I say sincerely, it's very possible you would do a better job than me on putting all this together.

Make a fork and show me how it's done. And again-- I firmly believe you really can show me how it's done! :) .

I'm all about lots of options so the community can make the best possible choice. I bet your option, accepted or not, would help the process greatly. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I know from past experience that forking a proposal is one of the best ways to ensure that consensus isn't reached, especially when time is of the essence. Collaboration is the only viable approach.

And as we've discussed, I don't want us to run any special content on February 11, so if I were to outline my preferred course of action, it would amount to nothing more than the status quo. Obviously, that view is incompatible with the general concept (irrespective of the precise direction that the proposal takes), and I certainly don't suggest that it be reflected here. I'm simply asking you to recognize the distinction between opposition and constructive criticism. Those of us who oppose the idea are in no position to serve as advocates for its implementation, but that doesn't mean that our opinions have no value whatsoever. —David Levy 11:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Please, don't even get out the tape measures, there's no need. We really don't have the mass at this time to claim a "consensus" for change, nor the time to get one, nor is it in our best interest to do so. If we somehow managed to talk them into it and hit them with a hodgepodge of marginally privacy/government related articles with a common POV theme tying together the Main Page (as in the mockup) all we're going to do is tick off a lot of people and damage Misplaced Pages's reputation. However, if articles are written and available, it won't matter what day of the year it is, they'll always be out there educating people. Never forget that Misplaced Pages itself is already a good cause. Wnt (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of getting "Today's Featured Article", don't forget that you have somewhere else you can be featured from -- the site of "The Day We Fight Back". If you can line up some people to hack together a portal for the day, you can have your own Main Page and stock it however you like, get it linked to and from their site, and try to get it out to go viral on the social networks. Wnt (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"We really don't have the mass at this time to claim a "consensus" for change, nor the time to get one" -- we certainly don't have a consensus, and indeed the consensus may well be for the status quo-- and that'd be fine. But we definitely have time to reach consensus. If we get that far, sitewide discussion should take a week at most. It may all be a waste of time, but I've learned alot, so have some others.

I think people assume my work here is predicated on the presumption that proposal succeed. It isn't-- I'm perfectly happy to see it rejected if that's what should happen. We're asking the community a question, all answers are okay from my point of view. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is very rare for them to even start to close an RFC in less than 30 days, and an opposed policy change would be put to one. Wnt (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Above my pay grade-- I'm just here to offer the options. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

30 days is just convention for minimum length as most RfCs aren't time-critical—I think the blackout discussion and polling took place over 3 or 4 days. Still, I and others have recommended starting the discussion sooner rather than later. benmoore 13:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

And let's keep in mind that the blackout essentially entailed flipping a switch. Presenting special content is much more complicated. —David Levy 13:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it is. Now, let's take DYK for instance. First we would need a centralized discussion on whether the main page content should be changed as part of a protest/awareness day. If so, we would need a discussion on whether some of the ordinary DYK rules should be changed (for instance the requirement that articles shall be new or recently five-fold expanded); then after these two discussions, we would need time to evaluate individual nominations for core policies; including neutrality issues and proper sourcing both for the articles and the suggested hooks. I think you pretty much need to start the centralized discussion right today, if you shall have any chances at all to get this done to February, 11.Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we can get two panels of seven DYKs each by February 1 fair and square, going by every rule in the book, provided we have a dozen or more people willing to participate. And doing that - adding articles about 14 mass surveillance related topics to the encyclopedia - that is what really matters. The 11th is going to come and go and things will be the same, but if we make those 14 articles for every person interested to read, that stays. Wnt (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Backup plan

If the main page can't be changed, can we create a separate page for our content instead? -A1candidate (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Where? Beware WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bencherlite 16:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• As I suggested in the "What you can do" section, you can update Portal:Intelligence or create a new Portal:The Day We Fight Back. The WP page for this starts with a quote about how "A message is most effective when it matches the format of the media", but somewhere people seem to be forgetting this. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hard work

Thank you all for your dedication to this project. I understand that some of the existing Misplaced Pages processes resist changing to accommodate the goals of this project. I recommend working within existing processes, rather than requesting exceptions. For instance, we should find a suitable featured article and nicely ask that it be featured. We should not ask the FA director to suspend the usual rules. Likewise, for DYK, we should have a list of articles that could be created or expanded, do the work within the 5 day period and submit them. If we are going to ask any special favors, they would be to coordinate the timing of appearances, nothing more. I hope this advice helps to reduce frictions. Jehochman 17:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this advice by Jehochman. Good thoughts. — Cirt (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"some of the existing Misplaced Pages processes resist changing to accommodate the goals of this project" because they are resistant to using Misplaced Pages as a political vehicle! May I suggest finding your own website for engaging in activism ("Libertarianopedia?") instead of hijacking this one?--Brian Dell (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Whenever I hear someone talking about hijacking a page, it makes me suspect that they think they are the pilot. See WP:OWNERSHIP. My philosophy is to find out what the consensus is and follow it, whether I agree or not. We went though this "using Misplaced Pages as a political vehicle" argument with SOPA. The consensus is that we should use Misplaced Pages as a political vehicle if the issue is a threat to Misplaced Pages. Sopa was a threat, and so is this. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but can we prove it? Can we point to one person, even in China or Russia, who has been taken down the police station and beaten because he looked at our article on methamphetamine or Falun Gong or gay rights? How do we show the surveillance really is affecting Misplaced Pages? That's what we ought to feature. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the Wikimedia Foundation received legal advice (from attorneys) that SOPA and PIPA directly threatened Misplaced Pages's ability to operate. What comparable evidence of a threat to Misplaced Pages exists in this instance?

Secondly, while both are forms of political advocacy, a material distinction exists between an indiscriminate blackout (which insulates the actual encyclopedic content from the protest) and the selective compilation and presentation of relevant articles (which accomplishes the opposite). —David Levy 22:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you have a point there -- nonetheless there are things like WP:WikiProject Square Enix, a project dedicated to one particular company that gets one of its video games featured as TFA, like clockwork, every six months since the early 2000s. There was also a flap about a Gibraltar project that did the same. We want to be pure, but we don't have to be any purer than Misplaced Pages itself. If you want to propose a general reform that rules out Square Enix releases on the Main Page I'll definitely give it consideration. Wnt (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, this is at its genesis your idea, we've mostly been brainstorming what your idea might look like. I've been operating under the assumption that Feb 11 would be an Ignore All Rules day after presenting such a proposal to the entire community. Now that you've clarified, you should probably do a rewrite of the proposal lede, perhaps do a title change. Then you or someone else needs to take the lead on the proposal process. I'm still happy to help, but I'm definitely not the person who could interface with the main page community-- I didn't know any of their rules before this proposal, I still don't know most of them, I've never planned for their rules to apply, and I've said as much. Any involvement I have going forward will probably bias them against the proposed content. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the thing about POV is that there are a few illegitimate ways of advancing it, such as biasing articles and posting lengthy diatribes to their Talk pages. But there are also many legitimate ways to express it, like contributing image uploads from a demonstration, nominating an article, photo, or other media to feature, working on the article to make it featureable quality, starting an article about a notable topic and requesting a DYK, creating a WikiProject, creating a Portal, creating relevant See Also and infobox links to direct viewers between related topics, and creating/putting userboxes on your user page. Misplaced Pages reconciles the need to allow people to inform others about what they think is important with the need to develop neutral and comprehensive articles that present all sides of the story. Trust me, you're not sunk. The point of a demonstration is to demonstrate something. Demonstrating that you can throw away the rules of the encyclopedia to re-feature an article about Gerald Ford isn't proving much useful at all. Demonstrating that you can get together a group of people and write quality reviews of a dozen or more articles from scratch, in a few weeks, for the whole world to be able to consult for many years afterward, would be impressive. That's honestly how I see it. Wnt (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• I thought I should have chosen a different word than "hijack". Is "replace" all right? —rybec 22:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Editconflict, (to WNT) Well, we certainly have time to get a dozen articles created for DYK-- but who is going to decide whether it's okay to include them on Feb 11? My thinking had previously gone (1) We need to consult the whole community for a change like this, and (2) If the whole community is consulted, they are not bound by Mainpage rules. If we don't present to the whole community, who decides it's okay to schedule them on Feb 11? A half-dozen mainpage insiders? I don't know how cool I would be with them making such a change of such magnitude. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Look at the end of T:TDYK. There's a "special occasion holding area" for DYKs that are accepted. It's not new policy, so there shouldn't be any great trouble with it. Wnt (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but has "special occasion" ever been used in this way before? This isn't like the olympics, this is timed to coincide with an online protest. As I told the guy who owns TFA yesterday-- I don't think they have the authority to do a change like this on their own. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Olympics, The Day We Fight Back, what's the difference? It's two groups ostensibly in the public interest, ours a whole lot more than theirs. Sure, the Olympics has more money, but that shouldn't be a policy distinction. Besides, even if they did try to deny you the special occasion status granted to others, that would only generate support and sympathy, so you win either way. Wnt (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'd count that as a "win", I worry I'd count that as them correctly recognizing the limitations of status quo consensus for main page content. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)