User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Members of WP's "inner-circle"

So there are people who not only have found that there is CFD, but actually know what it is supposed to do (unlike about 99% of all internet users visiting Wikipedia), and these people make comments like this: "....I believe these categories should be deleted. While slavery is unacceptable by todays standards, in the past it was as common, natural, and trivial as owning a TV set today." "This is basically an anachronistic slur. Owning slaves was unremarkable in many (perhaps most) times and places" One could think Wikipedia's inner circle contains some overly uneducated, dehumanizing and unethical people... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.16.36 (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Who said that? Link?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I found the page via the search box. Looks like a CFD from 2007? And the users were Cool Cat and Haddiscoe respectively. 37.230.16.36, why do you bring this up now? Ross HillTalk to me! 04:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The respective users were already quoted by in a topic above this one, when having read all of my points, one should know...

Neither of whom could remotely be considered "inner circle".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

They have actively contributed deleting an article who is important reflecting the truth and what has happenen in history, building up about 25% of the voices judging to delete both the categories "slave-holder" and a similar one.

Interesting. Who do you regard as "inner circle" and why do those two fail to even remotely get there? 217.28.0.65 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

See above response, I consider those belonging to the "remote" inner circle whose voice is deciding to delete categories that should not be ommited, neither to the community nor humanity as a whole. (and whose deletion is a clear case of blatant racism and approval of oppression)--37.230.25.235 (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

They aren't inner circle primarily for 2 reasons. First, neither has made any edits since 2007 (so the inner circle has moved substantially to the left since they stopped editing) and 2nd because neither is an admin. In order to be a part of the "inner circle" one must be an admin. Which of course they say is no big deal...but it is a profoundly big deal....well to them anyway. The problem is once they get it, the only way it can be removed is if they die or stop editing. They are admins forever...like royalty. Even cases of blatant abuse are brushed off or justified. So if you meet one make sure you take a knee and kiss the ring. :-) 138.162.8.59 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Back to editing as an IP again, eh Kumioko? Resolute 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh its you! Don't you have an editor to block or an AFD to delete or something? Besides harrassing everyone and accusing them of being Kumioko. Why don't you go Resolutely find something to do! There's no reason to have an account on here anyway as long as abusive admins like you are allowed to harrass logged in editors, abuse the tools and generally act like an ass without any ramifications. No wonder the edit rate in the project is dropping when the admins on this site are allowed to do whatever they want. Everyone knows your a great writer and everyone knows your a complete jerk. You just got the tools back when they were still no big deal. You and I both know you would never pass now. But that statement will probably get me blocked instead of you since I am not an admin it would be against policy to say something negative to an admin. Only admins can do that here. And a look at the comments in your edit history over the last couple months reflect that Resolute. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.104.158 (talk)

Is Commons getting above itself

Hello Jimmy, it has been a while, and I'm glad to see you are still with us; none of us are getting any younger are we? - Seems we are doomed to grow old together - in the same city too I hear; never mind, there are worse things in life. Anyway, I'm digressing: I've recently had a run-in on my first attempt at editing at Commons (although I didn't actually realise I was editing at Commons). Whatever, to cut a long story short, you might like to take a look a this [1] not everyone is quite as resiliant and tough as me.  Giano  19:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well the impressive thing is that the community there seems solidly on your side.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is impressive isn't it? - very humbling. Funnily enough, you and I were at nearby tables in the same restaurant once last year; I nearly wandered over to slap you on the back and say "Hi, c'est moi", but then I thought the sound of very expensive dental work crumbling on a fork is never attractive or welcome - so I restrained myself. Have a nice 2014 Jimmy.  Giano  21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If you think I have expensive dental work, you haven't looked at too many closeups. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

But your American, you all have beautiful teeth, it's only us poor, old Europeans that have characterful, but often startling black and gold grins.  Giano  08:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• This explains everything that is wrong with Commons. The nomination read, and I quote, "The resolution really sucks! This graphics editor is capable of far better work than this mediocre crap. Please overwrite with a version that shows your true skills" That isn't even a valid reason for deletion. Now, here on the en-wiki the discussion would have been speedily closed after a flurry of snow. But over there, the editors saw fit to derail the discussion and turn it into about whether the picture could ever be used on an article (a redundant question in and of itself, of course it wouldn't). The discussion was then closed as delete. Forget false consensus, there was an obvious no consensus, with 11 keep and 17 delete votes. Secondly, the nominator blatantly and obviously supervoted. I don't know what the hell is going on over there at Commons, but it's obviously not good. Note that this is not a commentary on the picture itself. The picture can be found on Wikipediocracy at http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/01/26/wikipedia-the-new-ministry-of-truth/ for those who haven't seen it. KonveyorBelt 01:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that when one uploads a photograph to Wikipedia, Commons can take it and delete it here. Yes, we have the 'keeplocal' template, but many uploaders are unaware of it, and Commons has in the past tried to have the template abolished, so it's a risky, vague science. At present, uploading to Wikipedia, is rather like giving a much loved friend a Christmas present only to find it's been given away to the neighbours who have trashed it and given you the finger at the same time. Of course, we all know that when we sign away all rights, we should cease to care, but human nature is not like that. The simplest solution is to have a definitive template that prevents an image being uploaded to Commons, until that happens, I won't be uploading any more images to Wikipedia.  Giano  09:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think you deserve an apology from Commons. At the same time, some issues are merely technical. It is not Common's decision that all possible media to be hosted in Commons. It was a decision by WMF for making available all of them for all projects. I don't like the way it (the image is hosted and managed by Commons and all related requests and discussions should carry out there) is hidden from laymen. See [2]. Jee 11:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Given that photos have to be CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL'd to be usable on Wikipedia, it'd be impossible to prevent it from being uploaded to Commons (Well, we could delete everything and start over under a new licence, but I suspect that's a non-starter). If keeplocals aren't being respected, ask someone in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles to undelete it here. WilyD 11:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• It is possible to keep the same file here and in Commons, even under same name. So I didn't get what you mean. BTW, "keep local" is not a solution for the problem; it is the right attitude. Jee 11:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Uh, reading the whole conversation gives the context. If someone (Giano, say) wants an image kept locally so it can monitored/whatever here, but it's moved to Commons and deleted here, that's a problem with a solution. If someone wants to licence an image so it can't be uploaded to Commons, that's a problem with no solution. So one needs to distinguish what's meant. WilyD 13:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see more pictures "kept local" because they would not be used outside of here. For Commons to insist that they take charge of everything is silly when nobody else would use them anyway. The joke picture of Jimmy in 1984 would not be used on, say, the Chinese Wikipedia. KonveyorBelt 17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Keep Local template does not stop Commons taking the picture; it just stops them deleting it here after they've taken it. In the past there have been attempts to abolish the Keep Local.  Giano  17:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Konveyor Belt When you upload a picture, you are agreeing that "...that it is legally okay for anybody to use, in Wikipedia and elsewhere, for any purpose." Not sure why you're not getting this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"Legally ok" does not equal to "ethically ok"; if it did we would not have or need the "keep local" template. --John (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but expecting people to adhere to the latter distinction is basically hopeless. Either an image is free for anyone to use for any purpose (subject to their own local laws) or it isn't. I don't think the WMF is about to introduce more narrowly-scoped licenses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course it is legally okay for Commons to use it. That still doesn't mean that they need to. KonveyorBelt 17:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion of over the last several months about the Commons, their function and their policy and there seems to be a lot of valid arguments about the way they do things and their content. Which makes me wonder, why do we need to use commons. It should be easy enough to make a bot that pulls the images we want and need into Wikipedia and then we can just cut ties. We can do our thing and they can do theirs. As far as I know and am concerned, the usage of commons is not required and if this community decides we don't want to use it, for whatever reason, then we can implement that change locally as we did with the Visual Editor changes. There is just no reason to continue to fight with them about policy and content issues IMO. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Commons is this great monster that looms over us. We don't need it, and we don't have to have it. Without us, the uploaders, there is no Commons, no Foundation and no Wikipedia. Most of us are here to support Wikipedia and couldn't care less about this other project. If we want to upload images purely to Wikipedia, there is no legal reason why we can't - just that the Foundation says we can't - the Foundation should remember who exactly is keeping it in business - us.  Giano  20:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I share many of the concerns expressed here about Commons, but mostly it is about a relatively few admins over there and the inability for Commoners to govern themselves in a reasonable way. Somehow, I don't think the solution is just to cut ties with them, though it might be possible, it would be a major hassle (reclaiming all our pix!). There must be a more civilized way of just keeping them in business and re-organizing the governance. My only suggestion would be to have the Board do a study commission on all the problems, declare "reset" if required, and just reorganize the governance (admins, bureaucrats, rules, and other institutions, etc.) to start all over. "Reset" or "moral bankruptcy" probably aren't the right terms to use - neither is exigency, but there is a word for the effective bankruptcy of a non-profit. In any case, it would take some doing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a morale reset is practical any more than doing it here (because this project has a lot of the same problems). I also admit it wouldn't be a trivial thing and that it would be a shame to break ties. It was a shame that VE didn't work too, but we had to do what was right for the project, not what's right for Commons. We have enough of our own problems to deal with here (as do they there) we don't need to compound them by compuonding them together. Maybe we should do an RFC to see what the community thinks should be done. Maybe nothing, maybe something, but we can at least see where everyone stands. Wikipedia by far is Commons biggest customer so if this community puts a little pressure on them, they might straighten up....then we can focus on our own problems again. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• There doesn't need to be a great re-think or even anything retrospective. We just start uploading to Wikipedia and state that images must stay here. It's easy enough to do: I did a trial earlier today File:WBDiseased leaf.jpg. If the Foundation (and it is the Foundation, not Wikipedia making these rules) decide to throw our work back in our faces, then we know what they think of us - don't we?  Giano  21:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• While I'm generally sympathetic to people who have had trouble with difficult editors at commons, I don't think this approach is going to fly. A "license" that purports to be a free license, save for forbidding upload to commons, isn't really a free license. That isn't to say that we shouldn't look for solutions, but just that this particular one is not likely to succeed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well we won't know until we have tried to fly it. Most of us are here to build and enrich Wikipedia, that has to be the ultimate goal - anything that furthers that goal has to be tried. At the end of the day, this is the important place.  Giano  22:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you tagged it with a non-free license is itself a prohibition on a Commons transfer, since they only accept non-free media; the "don't send me to Commons" banner seems superfluous. I'd even say it's likely someone will send it to Files for Deletion on WP:NFCC #1 grounds. Tarc (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to say. The image deletionists will look at that and think "easily replaceable, doesn't pass NFCC". Resolute 23:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have tagged this for speedy deletion, as not having an acceptable license. DES ^(talk) 23:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A fairly obvious POINT violation, but the tag is valid enough. KonveyorBelt 23:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Intentionally uploading a file perfectly well knowing it to have a nonconforming / unacceptable license was at least arguably a violation of WP:POINT. What exactly am I disrupting by tagging such a file for the speedy deletion that current policy mandates? Especially when I notify the uploader, and those who were discussing it, promptly. Note I only tagged it, i didn't delete it. If anyone thinks this improper, remove the tag and decline the speedy, i won't replace it. DES ^(talk) 23:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the CSD is any more or less pointy than the upload itself was. Resolute 23:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The WP:Image use policy is pretty clear about deprecating non-free Creative Commons licenses. Clearly a license for "Wikipedia only" is more restrictive than CC-by-NC, and so far as I know, we're not accepting CC-by-NC except where Fair Use would apply - am I wrong? Basically, picture the following scenario: suppose a commercial company wanted to release a modified mirror of Wikipedia (say, a 'child-safe' Wikipedia where communication is strictly limited and supervised and certain content is censored, or a complete tourist-ad-sponsored translation of the en.wikipedia into Catalan). Would that company be able to copy the database and put it on the Web as is, with only such modifications as they want to do on their own initiative? Well, not if they have to track down and figure out every "no commons Wikipedia only" nonstandard license tag or be in violation. So I can kind of see the point about ruling this out right at the start. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The complaints above about how the "Whambo" deletion proves that Commons is badly run are ironic indeed. After all, aren't several of those who argued for that deletion among the crowd that was saying Commons is badly run here before? The bottom line is that Wikipedia, keeping so much content in one place with so little effective mirroring to other sites, has become a valuable resource. Complete with a resource curse, a continual squabble for dominion and deletion of opposing points of view or promotion of content when there is a potential for financial gain. The only meaningful solution to this is redundancy - more backups, so that it remains easy to find any deleted file off-site, making control of the resource less valuable. Wnt (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's confirmation bias at its finest, really. People who want to hate Commons will hate Commons just as the people who want to hate Wikipedia will hate it. Myself, I have uploaded hundreds of images to Commons that are used on thousands of articles in dozens of languages. Never had a problem. Rarely had an unacceptable wait time when I identified a copyvio, rarely had a conflict. Resolute 23:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia should have mirrors of content. It's just that we as people on Wikipedia should have at least some control over such mirrors, rather than a separate bureaucracy that is confusing to new users. KonveyorBelt 23:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Nay, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Commons gets a lot of its content from people who put up content on Flickr under a free license, which is verified by bot, even though later on they change the license to proprietary. I'd like to see someone do Commons the same favor. Wnt (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no sensible or valid reason why an editor cannot upload his/her own work and state that they wish it to remain only on Wikipedia. The WMF may wish it otherwise, but their whims do not necessarily have to take precedence over the wishes of those creating the work.  Giano  00:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the whims of Wikipedia to insist that any material that can be uploaded on a free license be done so to allow use by downstream re-users does take precedence over the the wishes of an individual editor. The options you are then presented with fall into three categories: 1. You can accept and upload on those terms. 2. You can choose not to donate images at all. 3. You can try and convince the community to change the image use policies. Resolute 01:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

But there is an interesting side point that your three categories don't cover. We can allow people to upload under free licensing terms *and* we can not be jackasses to them if they change their minds. We can and should warn them that the original donation is legally irrevocable, but we can also be humane about not continuing to host something that someone regrets donating - for whatever reason, good or bad. The sometimes-seen stance of "fuck you, you signed a waiver" is just not in keeping with our values.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well funnily enough Resolute quite a lot of people want to change the polices. I just want people to be able to choose for themselves individually per image, but if you want a dictatorial blanket policy - then so be it - we can work towards one  Giano  01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You might as well try to change the policy allow yourself to retain full copyright over your individual text edits as well for all the good it will do. Call it "dictatorial" all you want, your proposal is the antithesis of Wikipedia's mission. Resolute 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's mission, at least in theory, is to build an encyclopedia. Creative Commons has a different mission. Plenty of © material (blog entries, etc.) incorporates CC images, so presumably a CC encyclopedia article could include "wikipedia only licensed" images. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's mission is to be an open source encyclopedia that is freely re-usable. That includes both text and images. We allow fair use images insofar as they are required to be a complete encyclopedia, but the goal is free. You are correct that Commons has a separate mission, but it remains one that is closely linked to Wikipedia's and Wikimedia's overall mandate. That is beside the point, however, as my argument was that it is unlikely that either the community or the WMF will favour moving to a more restrictive image license on Wikipedia that harms the reusability of our content because a couple of people are butthurt about Commons. The phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind. Resolute 03:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, the point of Fair Use claims is that they are the same no matter who you are. If Wikipedia hosts a file with a restrictive license or no license under Fair Use, with a Fair Use rationale, and another site copies that image, they copy the rationale, and they should have the same right to display that image (at least if based in the U.S.) as Wikipedia. But if Wikipedia says go ahead and host this file that is only accessible by Wikipedia, without a Fair Use rationale, and another site copies it, then they don't have the same right to display it. Wnt (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I can easily understand the difficulty that Giano faced here. He contributed a media here, believing he has enough rights to do so and later found that it is not his work. So he want it get deleted. Meanwhile it was moved to Commons, our centralized repository, and some people there refused to believe his words of claim. I am not supporting that unfortunate incident; but it will happen even if there is no Commons at all. See, that work was being transferred to de, fr, and many other wikis. Then Giano has to approach all of them and make requests for deletions. Chances that the image being used off-wiki too.

Limiting to an English Wikipedia only license will solve that issue. But then Wikipedia become less useful as many other projects where images can serve only to describe the article. No one (a student, researcher, etc.) can use those images for their assignments or research works.

Another limitation is the lack of supply of enough quality contents. I'm not talking about third party uploads from sites like Flickr. But we have many sister wikis and German and French wikis are roughly the second and third suppliers of media files. How we get connected to those contents? My contributions are negligible; but if no Commons, I had to upload all of my 514 works to Malayalam Wikipedia which is my home wiki and little chances that it will be available for other Wikipedia(s). Jee 02:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have had exposure to the culture at Commons, and had my share of bad experiences there too (as I have had here). Where I choose to participate is my affair and mine alone, and my activity level at Commons has dwindled since same. Whilst it's certainly against the spirit of cooperation that underlies the collaborative nature of the various WMF projects, it's regrettable and understandable that push has come to shove, and users on one project want "divorce" from another because of their collective bad experiences.

  Such problems are usually caused by people (often but not always admins) who are psychopaths sociopaths, or who do not possess or fail to properly use their diplomatic skills, or by people who choose overly-strict interpretations of rules and then carry them out officiously (and often brusquely) whilst refusing to back off or apologise even when they are manifestly wrong.

  We cannot force cooperation, nor can we legally stop Commons from usurping our content. However, there are practical and technical means I employ to "localise" the media. First, I add a {{do not move to commons}} and {{keeplocal}} tag; a {{nobots}} tag helps to slow the transfers from happening. Although it's not very productive use of watchlisting, it helps to watch the media and systematically to be aware of any transfer tags that any drive-by editor might have placed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  • But {{do not move to commons}} is intended only for legal reasons; not for author's interests. So others can neglect it (happened in my case too); if no legal reason prevent it being hosted in Commons. {{nobots}} also don't work as those bots don't edit the file page; they add the "eligible files" to a gallery so that a user can manually move them to Commons. You're right you can have on an eye on the "file usage" and remove it form those "maintenance galleries" whenever you found that your file being included. :) Jee 07:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Section break

What many are failing to realise is that legally Commons is meaningless. Under international law, the publisher of copyright is responsible for it, and the law requires individuals to be responsible - in this case the members of the WMF. If they are ever sued, standing in any court in any country and saying "Well, User: Fred the Fox in LaLa Land said he owned the copyright" will not get them very far - in fact it will probably loose them any money they have, Far better for them and us, to keep things tidy on Wikipedia alone, where they can be easily yanked in and suppressed if there's a problem.  Giano  07:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

We are trying our best to improve the quality standards of Commons; but all our efforts went vain as they fall in to deaf ears:

Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Trabalhos.jpg

User_talk:Geoffbrigham#Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy.23Commons:Village_pump.2FCopyright.23File:Trabalhos.jpg

User_talk:LVilla_(WMF)#Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy.23Commons:Village_pump.2FCopyright.23File:Trabalhos.jpg

Template_talk:Personality_rights#Template_as_is_is_alienating_for_image_use

Template_talk:Consent#Full_consent.3F

It seems WMF prefer to wash their hands by hiding behind this disclaimer. :( Jee 08:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that saying "None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, sysops, or anyone else connected with Wikimedia Commons in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages." doesn't carry much weight in many legal systems - I'm not sure it does in any. A publisher (that's the members of WMF) is 100% responsible for what it chooses to publish. Commons is a very high risk Utopia.  Giano  08:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Then we have to delete tons of contents from Commons. But I prefer it than hosting useless unverifiable contents. (Unfortunately I will be away for 3 days; so can't participate in this discussion, any further.) Jee 08:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Giano I understand why you are angry and agree some folk on Commons lack the gene for common sense and social understanding. However, it is not a homogeneous community and "don't upload/transfer to Commons" is not an appropriate reaction. What you are writing about legal liability is complete rubbish. Both Wikipedia and Commons are "free content" projects. Many people are under the impression that Wikipedia is just a "Free to read" encyclopaedia, hence the "can I donate to just Wikipedia" question. The fact that our content is free means we have no control over who gets it and uses it. That's the point. And we would be grateful for that freedom should it ever become necessary to fork. -- Colin°^Talk 09:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• You are rather missing the point, and I can assure you that what I am writing on the legal side is far from complete rubbish. The members of the WMF are personally responsible for what is published on Commons. It's enshrined in all legal systems and constitutions that no man can set himself above and beyond the law - of if you like: national law does not have an in-or-out option for its citizens. Disclaimers are pretty worthless. Uploading to Wikipedia only would be a far safer option as it gives complete control when things go wrong. Were I a liable member of the WMF, I would certainly want that option - if only for my own pocket.  Giano  09:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Giano, you broke copyright by uploading a picture you didn't take and claiming it was yours and slapping a CC licence on it. Getting these things right in the first place is your responsibility, not the WMF and not the Commons admins. You were treated badly initially when you tried to fix your mistake, but it is your mistake. Now you seem to be trying to make WMF personally responsible for your cockup. And you are trying to tar the whole of Commons for the actions of one person, despite huge evidence that Commons agrees this one person was stupid. As for your comments on copyright law and liability, please desist from spouting this nonsense. Give citations for your extraordinary beliefs or stop spreading misinformation. -- Colin°^Talk 11:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Giano, I'm not familiar with the Internet laws of any single country; but at least in Germany where several suits against unlawful re-users of my photos are currently in progress, you cannot generally say "a publisher (...) is 100% responsible for what it chooses to publish". There is a certain law on telemedia (de:Telemediengesetz) and its § 10 clearly limits the responsibility of the owner of a website for anything contributed by users (other than by the owner themselves, or the redaction). That means, for example, that if I find a copyright violation of my photographic work in a webforum, I may prompt the owner to immediately remove the copyvio, but it will be pretty useless to sue them for a monetary compensation. --A.Savin (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Giano, you say that if all Commons media were instead on en.wp it could be "yanked back in". Why would that be easier on enwp than on Commons? We on Commons have procedures for deleting things, just as enwp do, and WMF can office action on Commons, just as they can on enwp. There would be nothing gained by taking everything from Commons and putting it on enwp.

As an aside, I will say you were badly treated by Jcb, who can at times be a complete idiot. Just like some enwp admins, some wikisource admins, some zhwikicupcakes admins... any social group, which Wikimedia surely is, will have idiots. And sometimes people will get badly treated by them. It's not an excuse, but it is reality, and while we can try to ameliorate it, we can never entirely avoid it. The problem image has been deleted, but please understand that if the file has been there for years and years, someone coming along and trying to get it speedied is a bit curious. And if it has been there for years, the extra few days a DR takes is unlikely to be a problem. I encourage all sides to take a step back and breathe. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What you could do, of course, is detool the abuser of tools on Commons. Of course, that would probably start quite a chain of dominos falling, would it not. Best not risk that, eh? (By the way, Mattbuck, I've neither forgotten nor forgiven the abusive way you went after my Commons uploads, back in the day before I wised up and started using the { { keep local } } template...) Carrite (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• It would be easier to 'yank back in' because the image would only be permissive on Wikipedia, an image uploaded 'Wikipedia Only' would only be here. Once an image has been uploaded to Commons it belongs to the world and has flown the nest.  Giano  12:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  At the cost of undermining the whole "free encyclopaedia" thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• (EC)If you know this admin lacks the communication skills and judgement to handle a situation like this sensitively, why is he allowed to keep the tools on commons? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  People who do good work occasionally make mistakes. Hell, you blocked me once! -mattbuck (Talk) 13:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Similarly in the US there is a law saying that sites hosting user-supplied content are not considered publishers of that content, and are not liable for possible defamation included in such content, nor for any of several other grounds of action. Giano, I am confident that the WMF legal team was involved in writing or approving he disclaimer you find of such little value. In any case actions for copyright infringement or other legal issues would be no harder at Wikipedia than at commons or any other WMF project. I don't see what would be gained, in a legal sense, by limiting images to en-Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 12:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• @DES while I am pointing the risks of Commons, if you can read through all the verbage above, you will see that what I am saying is that editors should have the choice of being able to upload to Wikipedia alone if they wish to. Those that want to play with Commons and its risks should be allowed to do so; I cannot see what is wrong with people being allowed a choice.  Giano  12:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that all the content we have on Wikipedia was licensed under the explicit promise we wouldn't do that. We'd have to delete everything and start over, which probably wouldn't go over well. WilyD 13:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Yes that was clear enough, Giano, but that wasn't the point you were making just above so it wasn't what I responded to. The answer is that Wikipedia and the WMF generally have made a policy choice to privilege the rights of reusers over those of uploaders. Insofar as possible, the goal is to allow any person at any time to reuse content from Wikipedia (and other WMF projects) in any way. One can argue that this is a poor choice, and it could be changed, although it is sufficiently long-standing and fundamental that I don't expect it to be changed. In order to allow reusers to fork or mirror all or part of Wikipedia easily, or to use its content freely, it is highly undesirable if not unworkable for images to be under a wide variety of licenses, some of which permit reuse and some of which do not. You received what I agree was quite improper treatment at commons, largely from a particular commons admin.That was unfortunate, and commons governance should quite possibly be changed to allow some sort of appeal in such cases, and to have enforced WP:AGF on the admin. But then such ill-advised actions have happened on en WP also. This incident is not, IMO a reason to change the whole free-licensing model. Users do have a choice: They can upload with a license acceptable to Wikipedia, or they can not upload. Or they can start a proposal to change the list of acceptable licenses. DES ^(talk) 13:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have put that absurd admin at Commons to the back of my mind; I shall be dealing with him later - it confirmes a log held belief, but if they wish to keep such admins that's something they need to address. However, it has highlighted problems and anomalies of which I was not really aware. We don't just have to accept something because it has always been so. Nothing I'm proposing needs to be retrospective. The oly difference is that uploaders have a choice or limiting their images to Wikipedia only; it would only apply to modern images that are still within copyright. We'd also get a lot more image donations, I've often contacted website owners who are happy to have an image used illustrating a page, but when told they have to sign away all rights, decline. How is that helping Wikipedia?  Giano  13:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  It's a question of whether we would prefer lots of images but to not be able to reuse them, or fewer but freer images. I go for the latter personally. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Is that really what is at issue here? I am having a difficult time understanding what Giano issue really is. I get that he stumbled and bumbled his way over on Commons and got met by an unfriendly admin for his efforts. However, the image was deleted and deleted for the right reason. The admin in question was verbally censured by numerous other users for the reception he gave. Whether further sanction is warranted should be addressed over there. How we go from obnoxious admin to a bizarre notion that things should be hosted exclusively on WP vice Commons is where I get lost. WP exclusive content is anathema to the entire ethos and goals of this and every related WMF project. Moreover it solves nothing Giano has raised an issue. The risks being discussed are inherent in any "free and open" project. Nevertheless, from what I can see on Commons there are efforts to mitigate that risk where possible and at least educate users to those risk in amore open and meaningful way. 131.137.245.208 (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well however you care to trivialise it there's an awful lot of people who seem very concerned and interested in my 'bumbling.' There are also a lot of people who do not wish to have their work uploaded to Commons, and there is no satisfactory reason given why they should. There is not one single valid reason why images cannot be uploaded purely to Wikipedia, other than some people at Commons wouldn't like it. Saying one would rather Wikipedia had fewer pictures illustrating its articles than permitting these proposed sole uploads, seems to me that certain people have lost sight of the greater good of the project in favour of the worship of Commons.  Giano  14:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You have a point, Giano. Some years ago I argued for a somewhat more limited image license, one that would not permit highly modified derivative images (as opposed to simple rescaling). Some photographers (particularly professionals) would be more willing to contribute images if they did not have to worry about the possibility of their images being used in collages or other drastic modifications, and some museums and educational institutions have as a license condition that charts and similar images may only be reused if they "do not distort or misrepresent the underlying data", which would be satisfied by a no-derivs clause, but not by any of our currently acceptable licenses. Those suggestion got no traction at all, and were shot down as "not fully free, and so out of the question". I think re-examining our policies on this might not be a bad idea, but I would oppose permitting "en Wikipedia only" to be a valid choice. Even our fair use images do not have that restriction. DES ^(talk) 14:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you have found that some people are just resistant to change in any form, which is odd for a project where one imagines most of the editors to be young. I would support any form of licensing which attracted more high quality images, but I do seriously think that limiting their re-use will have to be the ultimate bait. Giano  14:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Or perhaps people here believe in freely sharable content and are resistant to what they perceive as being negative change? Resolute 15:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• but hardly negative to the project which is deprived of thousands of images because commons is placed before Wikipedia.  Giano  15:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is deprived of thousands of images because it does not allow for fair use where free equivalents could be found. That has very little to do with the issue of one Commons admin vs. your ego. Resolute 15:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I always know that when Wikipedia admins start to get personal that I am making headway. Thank you Resolut; this must be very difficult for you. 15:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And I always know you are losing a debate when you start dodging the salient point. Once again, Wikipedia is deprived of thousands of images because it does not allow for fair use where free equivalents could be found. If you want to propose a change to our image use policies to allow for Wikipedia-only licenses to the detriment of all other reusers, the village pump is ready and waiting. Resolute 15:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh dear we are getting tetchy [3] Resolute; I will endevour to find a cure for dyslexia just to sooth your fraying nerves. Now calm now down dear.  Giano  15:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Now you're getting personal. I must be making headway. Resolute 15:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the effort to be legal has been been polluted with the effort to get people to give away their IP for unlimited commercial use by everybody has de-focused any coherent effort in this area. A part of this has been to reject all of the normal forms of (limited) permission to use, and only accept permissions that grant permenent permission of all uses by anybody. The (rejected-by-wikipedia) normal type permissions would give an immense amount of protection while enabling uses but the WWF blunder (plus the go-too-far Barney Fifes enabled by their vague wording) has prevented the norm types of legally safe routes to be the norm. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that it would be perfectly legal to use content released under more restrictive licenses, and anyone who says that not doing so is required to avoid copyright problems is confused or being disingenuous. However Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content is a pillar and has been since a very early period of Wikipedia development. It says, in part: "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute." What North8000 and Giano propose would require modifying or abolishing that core policy, as I see it. DES ^(talk) 16:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think you will find it will come eventually, with or without me, sooner or later, and from the WMF itself. This resistance to change is concerning because things that don't adapt and change usually expire. Wikipedia is no longer the small beast it was when these core policies were engraved in stone, and neither are those who engraved those policies the people bearing the ultimate responsibility today. Commons is now a wild beast with too many 'free' images to control and properly monitor, and a simple disclaimer will prove to be worthless; couple this with the fact that Wikipedia and its dedicated editors are divested of and no longer responsible for their own images, it's a problem in the making.  Giano  17:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(Added later) DESiege, actually, while tweaking the policy should be open to question, stopping overreaching from it would also help. Nowhere in there does it say that all permission short of infinite must be rejected. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't North8000 but it does say "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute." and "anyone can...distribute" seems to me to preclude a "Wikipedia only" license, and "anyone can...modify" seems to argue strongly against a no-derivatives license. It also says Non-free content is allowed under fair use, but strive to find free alternatives... and ...all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. I think those would need to be altered a fair amount to allow the kind of changes that Giano is suggesting, or even something like a CC-by-ND-NC which sounds like what you have in mind, unless I misunderstand you. I have thought that allowing somewhat more license restrictions might be a good thing. At this point, however, it would require both a community acceptance of such a change, perhaps in a site-wide RFC, and a modification of the relevant WFM board resolution, as I understand it. Maybe Giano is correct and all this will happen, but I don't see it any time soon. In any case I don't really see any of the above being a sensible response to Giano's original issue, which was simply a very poor misinterpretation of already existing policies and practices. I could see a somewhat more restrictive license option as possibly being a plus in some cases -- I don't see a "Wikipedia only" option as being anything but a negative. DES ^(talk) 21:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, DESiegel how about this I had obtained permission to use an image of a celebrity/performer who is also sort of a social activist. I was explaining that the required licenses allow basically unlimited use (provided that there is attribution). She asked, as an example whether it permission for the American Nazi Party to use the photo as a cover of their magazine, or for people to put the image on coffee cups and T-shits and sell them. I asked the former question at the image talk page, and they said "yes". End of ability to use the image. So I think that some type of permission that doesn't go quite that far would be a better idea. North8000 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that isn't really true, because there is a whole nebulous layer of personality rights and even other vague conceptions which further muddy how free a free image really is. I haven't really heard evidence that the verdicts of such cases can be predicted, but an image of a celebrity would quite certainly carry the Commons:Template:personality rights warning on it, letting anyone unpopular with shallow pockets know that the free image could be quite expensive for them. Wnt (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest that discussion of Commons policy would be more useful on Commons than on someone's talk page on a different wiki, even if that someone is the founder of WMF? Most of the relevant parties are unlikely to find the discussion here, whereas you could easily invite Jimmy Wales into a discussion there if his participation is needed. - Jmabel | Talk 17:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, Giano's arguments are pushing for a change in Wikipedia policy rather than Commons. Commons cannot control what licensing terms we allow here. It would still be better handled at a VP if there is an actual proposal to be made, of course. Resolute 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll share my "good" Commons story for what its worth. Recently, I guess out of boredom, I googled my user name for the first time, and was plain shocked (I literally had no idea that this is what would come up) at the number of places my poor amature images are used by bloggers, news organizations, web businesses, brochures, newsletters. etc. (obviously, these were the publications that honored the attribution license) but, I don't know, it seemed like a "nice" thing that people were actually communicating using my images. And "via Wikimedia" seems like a bonus, for Wikimedia any way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This whole complaint/proposal makes about as much sense as someone who, after being treated rudely by a bus driver for not having anything smaller than a £20 note for his fare, proposes the government should build a new train line past his house so he doesn't have to take the bus ever again. -- Colin°^Talk 19:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Start reading at the top Colin, you'll soon be able to grasp it - word of mouth/email can be so unreliable.  Giano  19:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have read from the top and I think Colin's analogy is quite applicable. You think because you were treated badly that the whole world must now change to deal with your hurt feelings. Problem is the things you want to change have nothing to do with why your feelings are hurt. The silly part is you are blaming Commons for the entirety of the Free Culture Movement and WMF policy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The Day We Fight Back

Can someone point me (and others) to the latest discussions about what we might do that day? The last I heard, there was pretty strong support for changing the home page to an all-NPOV special day with educational information about the issues of the NSA, surveillance, etc. And then there was a complicated poll that someone was complaining about, etc. I just would like to know the current state and whether we are ready for (and whether we need) a straight up vote.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A highly-relevant POTD has been reviewed and scheduled for Template:POTD/2014-02-21.
A semi-relevant FA has been scheduled for TFA on Feb 20, while I have not been able to identify a highly-relevant FA or FL that has not previously been at TFA/TFL. notable re-runs: FA Freedom for the Thought We Hate and FL Bibliography of George Orwell
At least 8 highly-relevant new articles of sufficient size have been nominated at WP:DYKN, but are not yet reviewed and scheduled. USA Freedom Act & FISA Improvements Act, Klayman v. Obama & ACLU v. Clapper, Mass surveillance in East Germany & Mass surveillance in North Korea, Amash-Conyers Amendment & Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act

As for me personally, I have no talent for generating consensus for scheduling and have disconnected from that process, focusing my time in the content creation trenches over at WikiProject Mass surveillance. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's "semi-relevant" in the sense of "not at all relevant". Afroyim v. Rusk was said to be relevant because it was said to be about the Fifth Amendment, but actually it has nothing to do with the Fifth Amendment (you will hunt in vain in the article for anything about the Fifth Amendment). It's a citizenship case, not a free speech or a surveillance case. Bencherlite^Talk 15:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, 14th amendment or 4th amendment, Afroyim v. Rusk is a landmark human rights case-- it's relevant, but only semi. I'd favor a free speech FA like Freedom for the Thought We Hate, even it if it is a re-run. But that's a decision for higher authorities than me. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So the argument about "relevance" has become simply this: "The Day We Fight Back is about one aspect of human rights - this is a TFA about some other aspect of human rights - therefore it is relevant". I disagree, but there's little point in going on about it because it's not running on 11th Feb anyway (it got no support for that when nominated at TFAR). Nor have you found any support for the notion of re-running any TFA, least of all Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, which was TFA just over 4 months ago (and not even from the principal author of that article). Bencherlite^Talk 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd support Freedom for the Thought That We Hate on that date, I was the principal author, but yes it did already run recently. So I'll respectfully defer to the wise judgment of Bencherlite about that. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The latest discussions can be found here (feel free to add more if I missed any):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Surveillance_awareness_day/RFC
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Surveillance_awareness_day/Archive_2
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Surveillance_awareness_day/Archive_1

The RFC on whether this should happen never started. Ross HillTalk to me! 02:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I would very much support a last minute !vote on this. (Or a "straight up vote" for that matter) Ross HillTalk to me! 02:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the most useful thing at this point would be for some neutral parties to comment on the DYK hooks. The event won't dominate every all the DYKs for February 11 by any means, but it's been very productive at getting some new articles and an even larger number of drafts started abut these important issues. My feeling is that it's less important to support the day's protest per se than to continue getting people involved at WP:WikiProject Mass Surveillance and other related WikiProjects, and above all building the articles. To be honest, a Google News search offers only about 11 results dated more than a few days after the initial announcement, so I don't feel like the activists are going to win the media game this time - it may be that the protest will be seen as a key event by historians, and I think it's important, but I'm not expecting to wake up in a different world on the 12th. To make a difference we need to grow and train our own network of genuine human intelligence (using those last two words not as a military jargon but with their English meaning). Wnt (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The RFC on whether this should happen never started.

Actually, it did, but HectorMoffet (who'd been one of the idea's main advocates) removed it almost immediately. —David Levy 16:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It's almost as if those wanting to use the main page for political advocacy on 11th Feb knew that any such proposal would resoundingly fail if brought to general attention and decided that discretion would be the better part of valour. It's obviously far too late to do anything now, after so much time has been wasted by a handful of supporters in not coming to a decision about what to propose (either in general or in specifics) or how to propose it. Bencherlite^Talk 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Jimbo...a last minute effort was made by User:Jehochman, myself and others to pin down a potential featured article but we don't have any that are theme related or that could have been brought up to that level in a timely manner. Though some theme related articles may very well be quite excellent, it still takes at least 30 days to push an article through to featured level. What other ideas did you have in mind?--MONGO 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Fuck (film) is eligible (there's currently a discussion about its suitability, as you probably know). That's about censorship, not about surveillance, so maybe misses the point by too far (it would certainly get some attention though). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a confusing message to the point of being a non-message. Ok so, we don't have ANY past featured articles that are on this general theme? Is there something we could intensively fast-track by bringing a lot of attention to it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Dunno, I'm warming up to the idea of that article on the mainpage... How about three features on top of one another: Fuck / Ewe / National Security Agency??? Humor-impaired persons: this is a joke. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is a GA that has spent about a week at FAC. IFF it's good to go or requires only cosmetic polishing, perhaps extensive effort could get it to FA in time. But if it needs restructuring, the "lack of stability" alone would prohibit us from calling it a FA within the next few days. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution has issues related to close-paraphrasing. Well, I found one instance, which might or might not indicate there could be others in the article. It will need to be checked throughout for this. I left a note about it at the FAC. — Cirt (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked Moonriddengirl for help with what to do about the article Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. — Cirt (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: These are WP:GAs, not WP:FAs yet, but some other quality articles I've contributed about freedom of speech include: Beyond the First Amendment, Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege", and Freedom of Expression. Of those, probably Freedom of Expression would be the most relevant. I suppose I could nominate it to FAC right now, but I don't think that would be nearly enough time for that particular process to run its course. Unless I guess perhaps some experienced editors could help me out, but even so, there's already an article scheduled for February 11, 2014, and we really don't have much time. Thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Orlady's Prejudgment of consensus and scheduling against procedure

Orlady has attempted to schedule a Feb 11 (or later) nomination for Feb 6, despite clear flagging that the nomination was to be held for Feb 11 or later, as per our usual practice (see the Olympics). Orlady explained reasoning by pre-judging the outcome of our on-going discussion here by saying "we are not going to treat 11 February as a special occasion on the topic of mass survaillance. Your hook is currently scheduled to run on 6 February". diff. This is behavior that needs addressing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Racism Articles

They same people who have deleted categories like "Slave-owner" Category:Slaveholders making statements like this:

"....I believe these categories should be deleted. While slavery is unacceptable by todays standards, in the past it was as common, natural, and trivial as owning a TV set today." "This is basically an anachronistic slur. Owning slaves was unremarkable in many (perhaps most) times and places"

have been notoriously been pushing the POV and try to villainize an unarmed, black boy being shot to death in all articles connected to the incident http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.25.235 (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Links please?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Slave owners and Category:Slaveholders. While the latter had a discussion with the quotes I cited, until yesterday, but quite frankly, this discussion is gone since I mentioned it, exactly, ...yesterday... --37.230.25.235 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is not gone. It was and is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 28#Category:Slaveholders. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid I was unclear. I'm not that interested in the Category deletion debate - we discussed that recently and while there were some terrible comments there (quoted above), it's an old, dead and gone issue. The current claim is that the same users have been POV pushing on "all articles" connected to Trayvon Martin. That's a pretty bold claim and would require links to back it up.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia made me do it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzeZhCt5PVA--37.230.25.235 (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Example of criticism - Report about Wikipedia being "a menace to society" published across the world

http://www.t-online.de/computer/internet/id_67681618/manipulationen-in-wikipedia-dauerbeschuss-von-pr-agenturen.html

(Translation kudos to Google Translator...)

Wikipedia manipulation is "a problem for democracy"

Copy of the article removed as a copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless it is worth highlighting a few statements under Fair Use. As translated by Google:

Malte Landwehr, a specialist at manipulating Wikipedia articles PR consultant, told monitor as the procedure is this: "There are many professional providers who work on such a level with so much effort that the Wikipedia there really no chance has to reveal it. "

On one hand, desired information would be specifically enhanced in articles, on the other hand removes unwanted information. Landwehr've worked on several projects, where was doing, he said in an interview. These manipulations would not be in the open and have permanent existence...

Even the Wikipedia authors confirm that the attacks of PR agencies are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Dirk Franke, honorary author, PR Hunter and one of 250 administrators at Wikipedia told by very advanced manipulation at Wikipedia. Since going to tricky the weighting and the tone changed for individual paragraphs and, for example, in the criticism-paragraph also adds a critique of the critique. "This is an eternal cat-and-mouse game for years drags on," he said.

The big problem of the online encyclopedia: In the Wikipedia there is always less honorary active authors like Dirk Franke and more and more paid writers like Malte Landwehr who work for PR agencies and have even managed to administrator privileges on Wikipedia. "I have several PR agencies in Germany known to have at least one user with administrator privileges," he says...

Now to be sure, if Wikipedia can motivate some good people to do development, it can fight back against stuff like this. For example, we could have a built-in feature with an article that hunts through the history for references that have been removed, linking to the relevant diffs. (I've actually thought about writing such a thing myself in Javascript, but it would be better for a program to have access to save its interim data files so that they can be reused by other readers, and to be widely and easily accessible by editors who never heard of it) Wnt (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Planned mass disruption of Wikipedia

I strongly welcome such projects as described here. Half of the following discussion is so laden with sarcasm that I fear the real point is being lost. Happy to host a serious discussion but any serious discussion has to start with a recognition that Wikipedia has a problem with systemic bias caused by a lack of diversity of participation of various kinds, including a lack of people who know anything about feminist thought.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Don't really know where to post this, but should we allow a fringe group's planned disruption, since their goal appears to be making sure Wikipedia reflects their political ideology? — Confession0791 talk 17:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC) If you think that a "Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon on Art and Feminism" is "disruption" by a "fringe group"... please find another website to participate in, because we have enough problems with rampant sexism and systematic patriarchal bias here already without you worsening it with your particular regressive 2¢. — Scott • talk 17:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Ping: SarahStierch. Ross HillTalk to me! 17:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC) I don't think you understand what "mass disruption" means, Confession0791. That said, "It's aesthetically very masculine in its design"? Really? I'd be very curious to know the intended context behind that statement. Resolute 17:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)Did you read the entire article? They plan to "write feminist thinking" into the articles. Not very objective, is it? Also, anything supported by "Bitch Magazine" is bound to be radical. — Confession0791 talk 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Agreed. I would argue that Wikipedia is one of the most neutral websites around when it comes to design- black text, blue links, white background. Ross HillTalk to me! 17:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Hysteria aside, we should just go on about the editing business as usual. Vandalism can be easily stopped, and NPOV problems can be discussed. KonveyorBelt 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Anyone interested in creating content to fill gaps should be welcomed. Of course, a close eye should be kept on any activities related to it in case there is POV-pushing. In fairness, the talk about "writing feminist thinking" into articles was from an event last year.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Am I the only person who thinks an invasion of militant women is quite funny? It will be even funnier if they start editing the many articles written by our resident females - I think I shall go and warn a few of them.  Giano  18:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC) I see little humor in dismissing people who write from a feminist point-of-view as "militant", honestly. Is this the Wikipedia or a Rush Limbaugh chatroom? Tarc (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC) While I approve of them coming to liberate we poor downtrodden lady editors, they're not going to attract many men writing "feminist thinking into Wikipedia articles about technology." are they? I fear they'll have wasted journey and go home empty handed and disappointed. In their own interests, we should point them towards flower arranging, table setting and fashion, and suggest they leave technology to our rugged and rather handsome menfolk (like dear Mr Wales). It quite reminds me of when I was marching alongside Miss Pankhurst, mind you she never managed to find a husband either. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC) I don't mean to be snide about this, but how would you know if there was a "mass disruption"? Seems that there is already a good volume of disruption and vandalism taking place all the time as it is. I don't see how any organized campaign could make itself heard over the background noise. Coretheapple (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC) For the record, tracking this back from the goofy "Campus Reform" site listed, to "Bitch Magazine", to a better source, I finally reach Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism, which was held on February 1. If it caused any disruption, I hadn't noticed. Looks like these folks still have a lot of redlinks to work on, so let's hope for more "mass disruptions" sooner rather than later! Wnt (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-English redirects to English Wikipedia maintenance pages on English Wikipedia

I was wondering if you have an opinion on this issue? This came up in a discussion about the foreign-language redirect Spezial:Beobachtungsliste which is currently listed for deletion -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)