This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 11:13, 14 April 2017 (→That guitar-breaking airline and our old friend Mr. Dacre: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:13, 14 April 2017 by JzG (talk | contribs) (→That guitar-breaking airline and our old friend Mr. Dacre: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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 holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats until Wikimania 2017 are Pundit and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation's Director of Support and Safety is Maggie Dennis. |
| Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here |
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
Centralized discussion
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
That guitar-breaking airline and our old friend Mr. Dacre
Daily Mail Libels United Passenger. The Daily Heil misidentified the doctor dragged off the United plane, falsely pinning a conviction for sexual assault on him, due to precisely the deficient fact-checking that led to the Mail being deprecated as a source here. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- I believe that TMZ broke that story first and the Daily Mail was just doing it's usual "steal a story, mangle it a bit, and act as if they wrote it themselves" song and dance. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- So, we're using a blog and a gossip site to pin blame on the Daily Mail? Doesn't seem like much progress to me. - 2001:558:1400:4:3C24:755D:807A:B2F7 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- First, TMZ has not blamed The Daily Mail for anything. They are just a victim of plagiarism here. Second, despite the tone and choice of material, TMZ has a good reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Unlike TDM; see WP:DAILYMAILRFC for full details. I am still waiting for a reliable source that supports the claim that the doctor was misidentified. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Mr. Chapman and Mr. Macon, I rest my case. Another example of JzG being unfit for adminship on a knowledge project. - 2601:42:C100:81D8:203E:90A0:16FF:3B79 (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- So now a minor error in documenting part of a long string of Daily Mail bullshit-slinging makes one "unfit for adminship"? I refer you to the answer given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Update the related page: With the airplane video getting a half-billion views in China, check the WP article "United Express Flight 3411 incident" and perhaps see if the Chinese interwiki (zh:中文) has sources about which "Dr. David Dao" was on that airplane. Meanwhile, WP coverage of Syria poison gas is well-sourced in "Khan Shaykhun chemical attack" (re Shayrat Airbase), and so perhaps both topics can be kept accurate in rapid wiki mode. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:24, 13 April +Chinese. Wikid77 (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your constant blathering about the "Heil" tends to Godwin your argument. Everything you write about them seems childish and petty. As for the substance of the airplane incidents, the passengers history is in the news and doesn't require it to be repeated. --68.228.239.7 (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- You "forgot" to log in. The nickname "Daily Heil" has been in common use since my childhood, I think I first saw it in Private Eye but some sources say it's been used since the 1930s. And it's not a Godwin fail because it references an actual event in the company's history (its blackshirt cover), it doesn't imply or invoke an analogy to the Nazis. Unlike Spicer Man's comments on Syria. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Are they serving humble pie in the DM canteen today after this shocker? Anyone still willing to defend the DM as a reliable news source? - The Bounder (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Re-read your source (there is a nice UPDATE: at the bottom). The Daily Mail got it correct. The internet found another Dr. David Dao that was not convicted of trading sex for prescriptions but that wasn't the one on the plane. The David Dao that was removed from the flight is the one the Daily Mail reported on. The bad information apparently came from Everipedia and dutifully regurgitated by dupes. --DHeyward (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- JzG you may wish to refactor your accusation that the DM libeled the United Airlines doctor as well as the statement that they misidentified him. They didn't. --DHeyward (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- So they accidentally included actual facts when smearing the non-white victim of an egregious assault. That makes all the difference. Guy (Help!) 07:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- You said the Daily Mail libeled him and misidentified him. They did neither. It just makes you wrong and their fact checking was better than your own. And you doubled down on truthiness by characterizing police enforcing what amounts to a trespass complaint by the airline as an "egregious assault." --DHeyward (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. The despicable thing they did was not the despicable thing of which I and others accused them, but instead a different despicable thing. And no doubt that makes the Mail a paragon of journalistic virtue now. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- You said the Daily Mail libeled him and misidentified him. They did neither. It just makes you wrong and their fact checking was better than your own. And you doubled down on truthiness by characterizing police enforcing what amounts to a trespass complaint by the airline as an "egregious assault." --DHeyward (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- So they accidentally included actual facts when smearing the non-white victim of an egregious assault. That makes all the difference. Guy (Help!) 07:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
This week in Daily Mail making shit up news
"Meanwhile, at the Daily Mail: in a superb volte-face of reactionary evil-genius narrativising, the resulting article was headlined “Student equality campaigners slam all-male University Challenge final blaming ‘hostile’ world of quiz societies”. Forced to change tack when unable to find any contestants willing to be quoted in the paper, the article became about how the kind of University quiz tournaments of which the finalists were part are “very hostile to women”. Inevitably, the Balliol team was quoted as having refused to answer questions they had not yet been asked."
Bit of hyperbole from the Staggers there, and disappointing to note that the Daily Hellograph joined the fray as well.
The problem here is the same deadline-drive culture that makes Mail Online such a cesspit. This story should have been spiked as a non-starter, instead they had to plough on and get column inches out of the nugatory amount of effort they had put in. People won't help? Then attack them. Collaborate or face the consequences. I think Mr. Dacre is not a terribly nice man, and that is a view shared by many who have worked for him.
Incidentally, the Northcliffe House of the Mail's heyday is now full of corporate lawyers. It's about 30 seconds' walk from the Witness Box pub on Tudor Street where we met some years back. There are murals of printing presses on the outside walls, some of them are rather good, worth a diversion if you're ever ambling along Fleet Street. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- So I missed the part where the roster of all male quiz teams explained why they didn't choose any female students to represent the university in these contests. I don't think the tabloids choose the teams. The privilege oozing from an all male Oxford University quiz team is hard to match. "We're woke male feminists and hate the daily mail" followed by high fives and a retreat to be with other privileged university men competing in a quiz show - doesn't really feel warm and fuzzy...unless you're a privileged male university student or graduate and feel the need to blame the Daily Mail for your privilege. --DHeyward (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I get it: you won't hear a word against the Daily Mail. You already made that clear. Some of us think tabloids are crap and getting worse. Check out Michael Marshall's Bad PR site. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Child sex ring allegations against U.N. peacekeepers; WMF response?
Jimbo, I'm sure you know the Associated Press and the Toronto Star are reliable sources. Please read this article...it is not easy to read. In light of this latest reporting and the U.N.'s already admitted to role in Haiti's cholera outbreak, is there anything you can do either alone or in concert with the WMF to impress upon the U.N. the need for them to improve their operations so that this sort of horror does not happen again? Can you think of anyway the WMF can apply pressure to bring the alleged child molesters to trial?Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim
- Well all UN topics aside, I think WP has a very good page about "Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease" in time with the rapid race for the cure (next 2 years?). -Wikid77 (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Wikid77that's a very personal and inappropriate response here, perhaps on my talk page. Maybe you want to deflect away from this discussion point for some reason, but I can not imagine why. Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim
- Wait! Wikid77, I think I see your point. When you say "all U.N. topics aside" you are saying this U.N. event has nothing whatsoever to do with Misplaced Pages? ok, I understand now. We must first determine whether Misplaced Pages has any responsibilities or role in this U.N. event...I was thinking the connection is obvious, but now I see that for your benefit and likely others, I'll have to spell it out, which will require a rewording of the section title. Thanks for bring this to my attention, Wikid77, albeit in a roundabout way and couched in an inappropriately ad hominem comment.Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim
"For anyone with a Google Home near their TV, that strangely phrased request will prompt the speaker to begin reading the Misplaced Pages entry for the Whopper."
"...And all evidence suggests Burger King is behind the edit. The line was first added by someone with the username “Fermachado123,” which appears to be the username of Burger King’s marketing chief, Fernando Machado. He uses the same name on Instagram and an almost identical name on Twitter.
A press representative for the company stopped responding when asked about the edit. Misplaced Pages specifically asks that editors “avoid shameless self-promotion” while making changes, and this very much seems to break the rule.
Relying on Misplaced Pages also opens up one other problem: anyone can edit it. The Verge modified the Whopper entry briefly, and Google Home began speaking the updated text only minutes later."
"Google appears to have intervened and stopped the Home from responding to Burger King’s commercial. The Whopper’s Misplaced Pages page has also been reverted to its pre-ad state, and the page has been locked amid an editing war." -- Source: https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/12/15259400/burger-king-google-home-ad-wikipedia
--Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- So I see the TV ad would say, “OK Google, what is the Whopper burger?" and that caused Google Home to read from Misplaced Pages. Is anyone left who doesn't think WP is slanted by promotional, advocacy edits? -Wikid77 (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, there should be nobody left who doesn't think that businesses often insert promotional material (aka advertising) into Misplaced Pages, particularly since Fermachado123 (who is not yet blocked) wrote clear ad copy for the lede a couple of days ago, as well as User:Burger King Corporation (who is blocked) who contributed. Also Burger King’s Sneaky New TV Ad Tricks Your Google Home Into Talking About the Whopper 'OK, Google, what is the Whopper burger?' appeared in AdWeek *before* the ad aired and was clearly written with input from Burger King (they tested the ad in advance).
- I do think that there are some people who don't care about it - and I have to wonder why? For example, I believe that there are arbs who would interpret WP:Outing as being enough reason to block @Guy Macon: for his edit above (linking to a site that gives the employer of an editor), and perhaps enough to block me for this edit ("outing" User:Burger King Corporation).
- How should Wikipedians respond? First we should ban the whole company (excluding the burger flippers and minimum wage folks) from editing. In particular, all directors and officers ranked VP and above, and all employees of the advertising, marketing, and PR departments, their regular advertising and PR firms, as well as the ad firm known as "David in Miami" who conceived of the ad. (He is also know for this work of genius )
- Of course they should be let back as editors if they declare all their previous paid editing adventures. These are likely to be extensive since there are 71 articles linked to the Burger King navigation template (just over half of these are exclusively about Burger King).
- More later. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- It certainly is interesting how many people suddenly think I should be blocked without any prior warning for various transgressions right after I decided to get more serious about Misplaced Pages governance. It makes me wonder how I have managed to spend ten years making 30,000 edits with a clean block log. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't want to block you; I'm hoping to see you join the list here. wbm1058 (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- It certainly is interesting how many people suddenly think I should be blocked without any prior warning for various transgressions right after I decided to get more serious about Misplaced Pages governance. It makes me wonder how I have managed to spend ten years making 30,000 edits with a clean block log. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sometimes I think we need to start shaming brands by adding "This manipulative brand is trying to skew your opinion by editing their own Misplaced Pages-article" to their lead for a year.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Kudos to User:Julietdeltalima for playing it straight at User talk:Fermachado123. @Smallbones: My position on outing, as expressed about the previous Daily Mail article controversy here, is that material openly available from a major news source is not secret, and should not be treated as secret. It should not be brought up as "opposition research" in any Misplaced Pages argument ... except COI/paid editing issues in which the information is germane. That condition is met here. Wnt (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect an hour of having your product described as containing cyanide and children at the peak of publicity might be enough to impart the lesson. I'd love to know the sequence of events which led to Google disabling their results. -- zzuuzz 16:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @TheDJ:, would this shaming include those brands that are substantial donors to the annual Wikimedia Foundation fundraising drive, who are simultaneously manipulating their Misplaced Pages articles to read more favorably? Extensive research was done on this matter (on a Misplaced Pages-related but not-affiliated site that is generally critical of the Wikimedia Foundation), but when it was brought to the co-founder's attention, he mostly pooh-poohed the whole issue. (Interested parties can find out more about the multi-part investigation by performing a web search for "thin bright line" and "Wikimedia".) - 2001:558:1400:4:4D0F:38FF:2E09:A9DF (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Repeating what I said at ANI, I think the best response would be to let vandalism like this stand until the ad finishes running (note that I'm aware google has stopped the ad from working as intended, but still). I'm only half-joking: WP was essentially trolled and, in this day and age, trolling BK right back has the potential to garner a lot of positive press. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Bones, nobody seriously disputes that advertising isn't inserted into Misplaced Pages. So the idea that "Misplaced Pages will never have ads" is a joke. You want to ban Fermachado. Outing him isn't necessary. Just ban him. You can ban anonymous people without identifying them. Think of promotional editing as illegal immigration. You can't stop illegal immigration by just declaring that you banned it. Take a lesson from how the East Germans did it. You build a tall wall (costs money, you need to pay construction workers) then guard the wall 24×7 with guards wielding automatic weapons (more people you have to pay). The guards did not need to identify and out persons they observed climbing the wall. Perhaps eventually, as the singularity approaches it won't be necessary to pay people any more (think Clue Bot on steroids), but for the moment since you aren't willing to pay anybody, you can "ban" paid editing, but stopping it, under your self-imposed rules, is impossible. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note the ani discussion is here Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Whopper_fiasco
- Also, I did not out Fernando Machado.
- I am just sick of the jerks who preach that we just have to accept paid editing. Why would anybody say that it is alright to lie to our readers via hidden ads? Nothing we can do about it? Just watch. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- You want to out Fernando Machado, don't you? You want to name and shame him, correct? You believe that naming and shaming a few companies like this will be an effective deterrent, and that this will stop all paid editing, correct? Who said it was alright to lie to our readers via hidden ads? Certainly not me. I just told you what we can do about it, but you aren't listening. wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, I don't want to out Machado - he did it himself - he doesn't care if he openly violates our rules. Nope. Not really needed - just a clear statement from the Misplaced Pages community that it is not ok to violate our rules. Nope. Forgive me if I misunderstood you - but you did say that the only thing we can do about paid editors is to build a wall and shoot them (2 comments up)? Correct me if I'm wrong. I took that to mean that you think there is nothing we can do about it. Isn't that what your saying? Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- You want to out Fernando Machado, don't you? You want to name and shame him, correct? You believe that naming and shaming a few companies like this will be an effective deterrent, and that this will stop all paid editing, correct? Who said it was alright to lie to our readers via hidden ads? Certainly not me. I just told you what we can do about it, but you aren't listening. wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- OK, let me try to make a less deadly analogy. Compare promotional editing with littering. We could "make a clear statement from the Misplaced Pages community that it is not ok to violate our rules" by posting a sign on the left margin of every page, right below the globe logo and above the link to the main page. Vandalizing Misplaced Pages and promotional editing are prohibited What should we set the fine at? Despite this clear statement to travelers, the problem has not been stopped (look at the ground). Hint: if you want to stop promotional editing, set up some speed traps, manned by editors with radar guns and checkuser privileges, lurking on the other side of Pending Changes Hill. But you don't want to pay them. As there will never be enough sufficiently motivated volunteers watching the sides of every road, there will always be littering and speeding. Sure volunteers can help (next 2 miles, <your organization name here> picks up litter three times per year) but that won't stop the practice entirely. wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
So I've got exactly what you're saying. You can't stop all litterers, so when somebody pulls up to City Hall in their SUV and drops a full load of garbage on the steps and are caught on video by 5 CCTVs, plus the driver drops his driver's license on the sidewalk and admits to the police that he was at City Hall at that time, then you shouldn't impose the $100 fine because that would be unequal treatment. Ha, ha. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Assuming that we're still talking about the Burger King thing, I wasn't aware that any Burger King employee admitted to all of that, but, if they had, and that explicitly violated the terms that they agreed to when they clicked "publish changes" then the Wikimedia Foundation should do whatever it takes, including starting a case in the appropriate court of law, to recover damages. This might not actually hurt BK at all under the theory that any publicity is good publicity. wbm1058 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Smallbones, you may not have noticed, but Machado has been indeffed already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I wonder about the risk of surveillance here. I've been concerned in the past about reader IP numbers being recorded; in this case that seems moderately valuable. For example... let's suppose, only hypothetically, that BK has no access to GH tracking data. (I imagine GH might know all kinds of stuff, if it's always listening...) But BK can "hack" the system with the ad. Now every TV network that airs the ad sends the GH customers to Misplaced Pages, and GH has that data. But Misplaced Pages also has that data, right now. As I recall the Misplaced Pages "privacy policy" allows that the software has a record for 90 days of who accessed the encyclopedia at the exact moment that a particular network played the ad, each time it played the ad. So what does that tell you? Well, it gives you an index of IPs that are Google Home customers. It gives you an index of IPs that are watchers of particular TV stations at particular times when particular shows were running. And it gives you all this no matter whether you're related to BK or GH or the TV station or shows, if only you can arrange some back door deal to get the data. Now none of those lists would be complete (if the TV was off), but they should be accurate, and that might be worth some of money to somebody. So I wonder if there's any way that Misplaced Pages can spot those lists making their way out of the building... Wnt (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think BK got exactly what they deserved, and we all got a good laugh out of it. And... that's about it. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
wp:articleprobem
have you heard of WP:ARTICLEPROBLEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdnf (talk • contribs) 12:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, Misplaced Pages:Featured articles may have problems is an essay that was first written in 2009, with updates in 2011 and 2013. Are you referring to any article in particular? Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
What, if any, responsibility does Misplaced Pages have for addressing the sex molestation of children by U.N. peacekeepers?
Jimbo, this article requires some deep and focused thought, but please hear me out and think about my belief that Misplaced Pages does have some, if tiny, levels of responsibility for dealing with these atrocious crimes against children. Here is my reasoning;
- User:Herostratus made an honest and clear description of where Misplaced Pages sits in relation to the United Nations and other international entities.here. His words are so educational, regarding Misplaced Pages, and eye opening that I think I should repeat some of them here, with some emphasis being mine:
- "The Misplaced Pages is an Age of Enlightenment institution (which is why our references typically are to peer-reviewed or fact-checked sources, rather than consisting mostly of "The Pope himself has said that this is true" or "The leader of our country himself has said that this is true" and so forth, as would have been done in former days -- and still is, in many places.) "Internationalization goes hand in hand with Enlightenment ideals to some degree. The modern system of international treaties and relations is to some extent an Enlightenment institution. The United Nations is, in my opinion, an institution consistent with how Enlightenment ideals would be expected to develop. And you can't easily separate these things out." ...Herostratus (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Since neither you,Jimbo, nor anyone else challenged Herostratus's description of Misplaced Pages, I conclude that description is largely accurate,
- Here we find the corroborating mission description noticed by User:wbm1058 within the "call for proposals" "We think it is time we all step back and think together about where the world is headed over the next 15 years"
- So, Jimbo, let's just admit that Misplaced Pages has become, for whatever reasons, a part of what User:Herostratus, and I, call internationalism.
- Now here is where I may lose you; any member of any club....e.g. NATO or the EU..or in our case, the group of international institution creators and promoters...must take some responsibility for how other members, in this case the U.N., are operating. Especially when they are operating in such a way that "hundreds" of children were systematically sexually molested/raped within one of their operations and none of the criminals has been brought to trial.
So, I'm making the case that; ok, Misplaced Pages contributors are adding value to the Wikimedia movement. The executive leaders of this movement, including you, have decided to put our efforts and the donations generated by our efforts into a global project consisting of global institutions which include the United Nations. Therefore, we have some, albeit small, responsibility for any horrific results occurring from the activities of the United Nations.
This may seem too esoteric of a connection for some, but may I remind you that WW1 was quickly ramped up from a small event to a huge event because of alliances....and I contend that, as Herostratus eloquently said, there is an institutional connection between Misplaced Pages and the United Nations.
You can't be part of a group and then turn your head and say "oh, those children being molested (by the agents of another member of the same group) have nothing to do with us. We have no responsibility for what member X of our group is doing."
So,Jimbo, I repeat, what can and will you do about what happened with the U.N. operation in Haiti? Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim
- Ehm, is this serious ? I'm all for fixing the entire world, but this seems somewhat extreme. Too vague, not within scope, not an effective use of our attention. You have a habit of going onto wild tangents on this Talk page, distracting people etc. It's seriously annoying me whenever I visit Jimbo's talk page. I'm all for AGF, but you're behavior has you ranked rather high up on my 'troll' list. And the fact that you boast about 4000 unpaid edits, of which in reality only 480 are in main namespace, and a large portion of those are regarding Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation) and related topics, isn't helping to reassure me otherwise. I don't need to hear you defend yourself, just move that needle on my bullshit meter. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- (@Nocturnalnow) Let me be brief and to the point, because I refuse to be mired in the specifics. Misplaced Pages is not the U.N., is not directly associated with the U.N., is not morally responsible for the U.N., and has no responsibility to right great wrongs beyond the ones affected by its encyclopedic mission. If you want to write an article about some "great wrong", then you're already invited to do so, within the bounds of neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages's other rules. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- TheDJ, your insult is blatantly Ad hominem, "an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument,.." Don't embarrass yourself further by using that argument on others.
- Quacks like a duck, probably is a duck. I've been silently observing this for months now it was time to call out the obvious. This kind of non-sense doesn't deserve serious arguments. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- User:Nihiltres, please think logically, we can not claim, as User:Herostratus did above, to be connected with the U.N. as part of an "age of enlightenment" group of institutions, again quoting him because he is so correct and honest about this connection; "The United Nations is, in my opinion, an institution consistent with how Enlightenment ideals would be expected to develop. And you can't easily separate these things out.", and then when something bad happens run away from that connection and condense ourselves back down to what you call our "encyclopedic mission". A country can't say they are part of NATO and then ignore it if another NATO country's soldiers are committing war crimes against children. We can't have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too.Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim
- One editor compares Misplaced Pages to the U.N. in some aspects and suddenly the WMF has some responsibility to hold the U.N. accountable? Hey, the WMF is a non-profit organization. Now it has to hold all other non-profits in the world accountable! Utterly idiotic. --NeilN 20:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- User:Nihiltres, please think logically, we can not claim, as User:Herostratus did above, to be connected with the U.N. as part of an "age of enlightenment" group of institutions, again quoting him because he is so correct and honest about this connection; "The United Nations is, in my opinion, an institution consistent with how Enlightenment ideals would be expected to develop. And you can't easily separate these things out.", and then when something bad happens run away from that connection and condense ourselves back down to what you call our "encyclopedic mission". A country can't say they are part of NATO and then ignore it if another NATO country's soldiers are committing war crimes against children. We can't have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too.Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim
- Quacks like a duck, probably is a duck. I've been silently observing this for months now it was time to call out the obvious. This kind of non-sense doesn't deserve serious arguments. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- TheDJ, your insult is blatantly Ad hominem, "an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument,.." Don't embarrass yourself further by using that argument on others.
- I'm having trouble following this argument. There is an article called Child sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers. Is there a problem with it? Coretheapple (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Coretheapple: You're having trouble following the argument because the argument is ridiculous. Supposedly the U.N. and the WMF are part of the same "club" because one editor made a comparision between the two and that means the WMF bears some responsibility for U.N. actions. --NeilN 20:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh. Well there is an article on the subject, so if this person has any remaining energy he or she can wander over there and dive in. Coretheapple (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Coretheapple, NeilN, I apologise for not explaining this well. Its not a matter of one editor; its a matter that actually a different editor pointed out in relation to our Executive Director's call for proposals regarding the overall strategy of our movement going forward 15 years, i.e. "We think it is time we all step back and think together about where the world is headed over the next 15 years" ... Not just Internet encyclopedias, the world. wbm1058 (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- You see, this statement by our Executive Director...not just some single editor...just as User:wbm1058 emphasized...puts Misplaced Pages squarely in the club of global institutions rather than being simply an encyclopedia. So its ludicrous to ignore this reality and now fall back into the posture of "oh, we're just an encyclopedia with no responsibility for what our brother and sister global institutions are doing." Can you really deny with a straight face that Wikimedia is settling into the path that Herostratus describes so well? When we read words like these from the A.P. article; " More than a decade ago, the United Nations commissioned a report that promised to do much the same thing, yet most of the reforms never materialized. For a full two years after those promises were made, the children in Haiti were passed around from soldier to soldier. And in the years since, peacekeepers have been accused of sexual abuse the world over. In response to the AP’s investigation, the UN’s head of field support said Wednesday the international body was aware of shortcomings in the system." and we juxtapose that with the view expressed by Herostratus..which has been confirmed by Jimbo in his silence, as well as the statement by our E.D. that Wikimedia's focus is on "where the world is headed" over the next 15 years, then as much as we'd like to stick with our article and shirk any responsibility for how the global institutions are behaving, our Executive Director, and I suspect Jimbo and most of the directors as well have squarely put us all and all of our contributions into the club of international institutions. I realize this argument may be hard to grasp but I urge you to try, Its really important, I think. And I think that the WMF and Jimbo may actually be able to have some influence over the U.N. in this matter. The status quo in this child abuse matter is not acceptable, I'm sure you will agree. Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim
- I wouldn't say that the WMF could be held responsible for the UN's actions. Clear this up for me – has the WMF given money to the UN, or do they have some sort of working relationship with the UN? Or are you just saying that the WMF and UN are simply two of the many organizations working to better the world, in their own unique and different ways? wbm1058 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think you're just asking the WMF to speak out to express their displeasure with this UN-related issue, just as they spoke out to express their position on Stop Online Piracy Act. Given the apparent broadening of the scope of their mission, it seems like it might be a reasonable request to make. Of course, it would also be reasonable for the WMF to decline to comment on this particular issue, as the extent of their broadened mission may still be in flux, pending the result of the ongoing strategy discussions. wbm1058 (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- My personal interpretation of the statement you quoted would be marketting speech for: Misplaced Pages must continue to strive and adapt (technologically, and perhaps in other ways) within a moving, evolving or turbulent world. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 00:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, but the context is not Misplaced Pages -- it is, as the document describes, the organization of multiple organizations around the world, WMF comprises. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, wbm1058 phrases it exactly; I'm just asking the WMF to speak out to express their displeasure with this UN-related issue, given the apparent broadening of the scope of their missionNocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim
- The fact that Wikimedia is an organization of organizations around the world is not a broadening, it has been an organization of organizations around the world for a long time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, wbm1058 phrases it exactly; I'm just asking the WMF to speak out to express their displeasure with this UN-related issue, given the apparent broadening of the scope of their missionNocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim
- Indeed, but the context is not Misplaced Pages -- it is, as the document describes, the organization of multiple organizations around the world, WMF comprises. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)