Page semi-protected

User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What do you think about the situation?

  • Note: although Wikipedia does not normally do content warnings, the link to "photo" below may upset some readers.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Jimbo. What do you think about deletion of the photo from article Murder of Anastasiya Meshcheryakova? Recently Elcobbola kept the photo on Commons. Кадош (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Warning readers that the photo in question is a woman holding aloft the head of a 4-year-old girl that she murdered. Stephen 21:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't really want to see that photo. In general, I don't see any reason for the article per WP:NOTNEWS. There are lots of stories about mothers killing their children - probably dozens or hundreds each year throughout the world. I'd put this in essentially the same category. It would seem like almost all these cases must be related to some type of mental illness. There's a hint of Islamophobia in the article. If anybody can stand wading through all the Russian sources in the article (no western ones that I saw), I'll suggest looking to see if there is any reason to believe that this case is notable, and then consider deleting the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I just checked our article on infanticide to get a better handle on the numbers. It says "In the U.S. over 600 children were killed by their parents in 1983." Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Quite notable - international coverage. Someone probably translated the piece from Russian and copied the sources from there - this could be written off English sources - they are available.Icewhiz (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Smallbones, you said that "There's a hint of Islamophobia in the article" - I disagree with this assertion, because the article just represents facts. And the photo do the same - it just shows the fact. And each person perceives this fact differently, since we are all different. Кадош (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

As I was mentioned, I will offer a single comment, but will participate no further: This is a disgusting image; I find it to be in extremely poor taste, disrespectful to all parties involved, and a poor reflection on the judgment of those who would see it included in article space. That said, it was nominated for deletion for an COM:NCR reason, which, as I noted in my closure, is explicitly disallowed as a basis for deletion on the Commons. As an admin, I am to follow community policy rather than my personal belief when the two are at odds. The Commons is a media repository and does not editorialise what images its sister projects choose to use or abstain from using. Accordingly, the use or non-use of this image on has absolutely nothing to do with the DR on Commons; its unfortunate retention there is in no way an endorsement of its use elsewhere and the implication otherwise of Кадош's comment is nonsense. Эlcobbola talk 02:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have long been an advocate of some sort of 'NSFW' image-hiding using javascript for precisely this kind of example. The image is arguably of historical importance, to be sure. It is also not strictly speaking necessary for an understanding of the incident, and it is upsetting enough that people should not be subjected to it in order to read the entry. Many otherwise intractable debates about this and similar matters could be made easier if we found a middle ground.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
On FB, I've seen such images/video hidden behind a warning - graphic images type notice. It's up to you to click on it if you have the stomach to see it. Atsme✍🏻📧 12:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
This is also the case on Twitter and Reddit for NSFW images, Reddit heavily blurs the image before the click and Twitter hides it behind a gray box. Both functions, I believe, are toggleable by users, and so should be the Wiki version. Pinguinn 🐧 15:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Related task: (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, but would normally need a very good reason for showing an image like this uncensored. Wikipedia is not LiveLeak, Bestgore etc. The whole article Murder of Anastasiya Meshcheryakova has WP:NOTNEWS issues and needs a good cleanup. The image in question has also been used on many websites to say "Aaand it was a Muslim." While this may be true, there have been reports that the woman was mentally ill.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The woman was mentally ill - it's true. And the woman was a muslim - it's true too. Each reader pays his (her) attention to that part that he (she) wants to. Кадош (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I did not realise you were interested in historical significance, Jimbo! (new article) ~ R.T.G 11:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Jimbo, I have created template {{NSFW}} and used it to hide the picture in the article. Is that exactly you wanted? Кадош (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but hold on, your edit summary says "In accordance with Jimbo Wales' decision" and I don't make "decisions" of that sort. I merely offered an opinion about a constructive way forward. It's probably going to be better to discuss it on the talk page first.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
UPDATE I reverted the edit and left a note on the talk page. I agree with the edit, by the way, but I didn't want a constructive discussion about the concept to be sidelined by a wildly unproductive conversation about my role in the process!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I suppose, that it would be better not to revert my edit in the article, but to hide my edit summary only. Кадош (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
It would be absolutely fine for you to restore the edit now. It was a harmless error to be sure. I'm sorry I had to act quickly, but trust me, keeping that sort of extra drama out of the discussion is a good thing. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Ironically, the image seems to be available on Commons and Wikipedia mainly because under Russian law, it is not copyrighted as it is CCTV material. Some incidents become famous because they are captured on film, and the Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém is a good example. If this had happened away from the cameras, we probably wouldn't be talking about it today. The Murder of Anastasiya Meshcheryakova falls into the same category, because without the CCTV material we probably wouldn't be talking about it now. There is a case here in Britain where a woman killed her three children in 2014 due to mental illness, but it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article. No graphic CCTV material, perhaps?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
It might be good to have an article or category for "violent crimes by the mentally ill"? Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
An article about the entire topic - certainly - but not if it focuses too much on one individual. I suppose that a few articles on the acts of mentally ill individuals are inevitable. The Assassination of James A. Garfield comes to mind, probably the University of Texas tower shootings, maybe even a long section on the murder of Stanford White (it was in a very good book and a well-known movie). But in general sensationalizing the acts of sick people is not in line with WP:NPV and WP:BLP1E. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, the broad topic coverage may be useful as a learning tool that includes numerous examples and how professionals of different types, (police, psychiatrists, relatives) interacted with the mentally ill before, during and after the acts of violence, e.g. here the police officer performed an incredibly cool-headed capture. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
There was nothing wrong with the image in the article as it was. How can an American majority that supports a death penalty where people are slowly and excruciatingly tortured in their name, who show endless tolerance to pointless wars run by god-robots who blast and burn innocent people from the skies based on "behavioral characteristics", possibly object to a colorful little image of a lady with a head in her hand? Walk down the street in D.C. in 2033 and you'll smell fifteen of these before you get to the Zeta Emperor's palace. This whole murder-the-world-and-faint-at-the-sight-of-blood shtick is ridiculous, and the whole world will laugh when they see the punch line. (No, they're not laughing with you, they're laughing at you) Wnt (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't find this rant in the least bit compelling, not about the image in question, and not about anything really.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I find Wnt's observation hard to dispute intellectually, timely and not long enough to be a rant (albeit too verbose, political and inflammatory for many). I don't attend church but I did read Matthew 23 4 weeks ago and was amazed that in 6 different verses hypocrisy "hypocrites" was called out as being a terrible, stupid, and common trait among the leaders of society at that time. It might be interesting and thought provoking to do a thought experiment on whether, or to what extent, illogical hypocrisy (I might argue that all hypocrisy is illogical) grinds itself into the content and/or protocols of the encyclopedia. I'm not saying hypocrisy is obvious within any of our content or protocols, I have not thought about it, but it might be worth thinking about/examining. How this photo is dealt with may become a part of such an examination. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You may have heard that Chelsea Manning is being sent back to jail again for leaking those videos and diplomatic cables. Without 'ranting' about the whole sorry charade, I should note that if Wikipedia were what it ought to be, she need never have dealt with Wikileaks. She could have simply set up an account here and uploaded her PD files to the world, and there would be no alleged conversations with Assange for her to not testify about. But Wikipedia is not what it is meant to be -- it has been hard enough for people even to cite the diplomatic cables, and it would have been hard to imagine the files not getting erased by some bogus argument. Wikipedia is full of people who actually want freedom and equality, but the structure of modern technology is one of dictatorship and centralized control, and that wins out every time. It may be that we should review the philosophical position of Ted Kaczinsky, one of the very few who would have warned us of this, but we certainly won't find his work on Wikisource due to unusually bogus arguments even for Wikipedia (a WP:OR claim that a sheriff's sale at a shack retroactively takes stuff out of the public domain), but nonetheless, certainly illustrative of why Manning had to find some radical Australian to help her get the truth out. But if we were what we should be -- if we stood on principle to oppose censorship -- she would be free right now. Is there not one person anywhere who will stand up to the Balrog, say 'this far but no further'? Must they all be Sarumons, each bowing to the 'inevitable'? Wnt (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
After sleeping on it, I decided that out of respect for the girl and also her relatives, I'm against showing the photo in question. I thought about it in connection with other death photos, but in the end, her innocent age and her direct personal identification/connection with the photo pushed me to the opinion that it would not be nice to show it at all. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Nocturnalnow, if you decide not to publish this photo out of respect for the relatives of the murdered girl, then it is quite logical to remove the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from article Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy out of respect for Muslims. Кадош (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Then why you have not deleted cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from article Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy? Кадош (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Talk about the loss of all reason, upon a first step, is an attempt to free ones self from reason in the course of further debate. ~ R.T.G 11:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure the structure of modern technology is one of dictatorship and centralized control, it may be seen that way by some but I think the consumers and tech geniuses have the ultimate authority, whether they know it or not. Also, the whole internet scene is so dynamic and wild west, e.g. 5g, its impossible to see where it'll be in 5 years. One reasonable theory is that the top .1 % of programmers and/or hackers will be able to name their price and work on an hourly basis for whoever bids the most. Censorship is likely to die a fast death, imo, as people don't generally want it and its not as easy to do in secret as it used to be, simply because of numerous people like Assange, Chelsey and Snowden. Hypocrisy is also much more obvious these days to anyone paying attention and most people don't like hypocrisy anymore than they like censorship, so I expect hypocrisy, like the shtick you mention, will also fade away, at least among educated people. I was greatly impressed with the Town Hall Q&As on CNN last night with 2 young American politicians, one a very smart guy in a gay marriage and one a very smart female Hindu military veteran who's main theme is being ANTI "regime change wars", both of whom made the status quo American politicians look out-dated, phony, and inept. And with the woman, the CNN moderator was just in a state of shock at how she could not put the candidate into one of the standard category boxes. It was funny to watch.
My point is I think that nothing in humanity's future is inevitable. The buck stops with each and every one of us, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Haven't there been a hundred threads about this? It's long solved: Help:Options to hide an image EllenCT (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There have been a hundred threads (and will be a hundred more) but that page isn't any kind of solution. The user is advised to "create a fork" (which is pretty offensive thing to say) or simply "stay away" ("It's a beautiful day in this neighborhood, a beautiful day for a neighbor, won't you please, won't you please, please won't you **** off and die?"). But if that's not sufficient, the reader is advised to get her computer science degree and edit her CSS to do certain things which will be annoying or won't work, or both. That page is fine and has surely helped some non-zero number of readers, but its a long way from being a comprehensive solution on a practical level. Herostratus (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Following the instructions at Talk:Muhammad/images/example css, the original urgent motivation for all this, doesn't require a computer science degree. EllenCT (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Right, I didn't mean an actual literal college degree, that was hyperbole. My point was that for a lot of us, the VCR is still blinking "12:00" and will forever. And that's for us that are Western middle class people with high school degrees or whatever. Just looking at code like that is scary for most people, let alone imagining messing with it, not to mention the other practical difficulties of finding and blocking out each individual picture that you don't want to see. That's if you somehow become aware of the page's existence, which obviously requires drilling down into our arcane procedures.
It's fine. I'm not saying the page is useless or should be deleted. I'm just saying "long solved" doesn't really characterize that page correctly, so I wish people would stop saying that it does, because that contributes to discourse about as much as saying "Poverty is long solved, people just need to get motivated and learn some skills" or whatever. I don't have an opinion on the image in question, I'm just saying we can't say "Well we don't need to discuss these things and make moral/practical/political judgements, because there's a page that absolves us from having to do that annoyingly difficult and stressful thing". Herostratus (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I went to the Mohammed page and read how that works. I thought, a really good idea would be to start Wikipedia:WikiProject Selective Content based on that information, instruct users how to create this css page and start a bunch of subpages where interested users could assemble categorical lists based on sex, violence, Mohammed, etc as well as content type, image, video, etc, etc. I've always wanted the ability to temporarily censor violence without censoring sex, and sex without censoring violence when searching for things on the internet. But it occurs to me the lists would grow very cumbersome for manually swapping in and out? ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 17:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

German Wikipedia to shut down for 24 hours to protest proposed copyright reform in the EU

Also interesting: Wikipedia will shut down for 24 hours in Protest Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like good news. Does anybody have links to the German Wikipedia discussions on this, or mainline news coverage? The link above to the Wilson Leader seems a bit mysterious. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Protest gegen EU-Urheberrechtsreform. – Teratix 08:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Noses and faces come to mind. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What can we do to stop this? Only 139 users voted for this shutdown of 2.28 million articles and rushed this in one week. It is clearly against wikipedia's principle of neutrality. I have this account for more than 10 year, am active even longer and contributed more than 500 articles and now they are abused for the political agenda of a small group. The wikimedia foundation should establish some regulations that oppose communities who make decisions against the neutrality principle for setting up political activism. The articles I wrote are not even political, there is no reason for them to be blocked for a day. This is the most demotivating act I ever experienced on the German wikipedia. --Christian140 (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia was right to protest something that effects them negatively.
"Under the final text, any online community, platform or service that has existed for three or more years, or is making €10,000,001/year or more, is responsible for ensuring that no user ever posts anything that infringes copyright, even momentarily. This is impossible, and the closest any service can come to it is spending hundreds of millions of euros to develop automated copyright filters. Those filters will subject all communications of every European to interception and arbitrary censorship if a black-box algorithm decides their text, pictures, sounds or videos are a match for a known copyrighted work. They are a gift to fraudsters and criminals, to say nothing of censors, both government and private. These filters are unaffordable by all but the largest tech companies, all based in the USA, and the only way Europe's homegrown tech sector can avoid the obligation to deploy them is to stay under ten million euros per year in revenue, and also shut down after three years."[1]
--Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
All of this was performed by 139 users in one week. Usually, the survey take much longer like a month. I want that the 500+ articles, I wrote under the banner of neutrality and free knowledge, are available on March 21. Guy, did you even say the site banner for that day? That's not just some half-way neutral statement about the copyright reform. It's an appeal to engage in large protests on the street, write their representatives in the EU parliament, go voting and even call this planned filter "error-prune and technically immature". How do they even know this. But what is worst, is that it states, the "authors of the German wikipedia protest". However, I couldn't even vote and many users are now protesting this planned shutdown since it looks like a small group of political activists is using the wikipedia for their course on the shoulders of active writers. --Christian140 (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Could you link to the discussion and indicate for those of us who don't understand German how many editors supported and how many opposed? Also, how was the discussion publicized? What I am looking for is evidence that those 139 editors were or were not a representative sample. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Here is the result of the voting. My main point regarding the vote is that it is against the neutrality principle of wikipedia and that it was performed in the short term of only one week, which is unusually short. So, that makes it seem to me like a group of political activists hijacked wikipedia for their agenda and pushed the whole idea. I also asked to reopen the survey since there is no rule against it. The discussion was not widely publicized. There was an note in the Kurier (German version of Signpost), which I didn't see cause I rather look at the large articles and not the small notes. On the sites of Wikipedia Redaktion (maybe comparable to WikiProject Groups), there was no note left. Some users even noted that the survey might could not be accepted if only ~200 people participate, but in the end, nothing was done to get more accpeptance. And now, our only possibility to stop this, it seems, is to make an equally unfair survey that lasts for only one week. According to this, there were more than 5000 active users in the German wikipedia within the last 30 days. I want that at least the articles I started are available on March 21, editing and reading. There is no reason for them to be blocked. --Christian140 (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I do agree that a shutdown is extreme when a pagewide banner would be sufficient but this is the system that was created, each project makes its own decisions. So regardless of whether this decision was correct or not, this seems to be a prime example of appealing to Jimbo in hope of overturning a community consensus you disagree with. Since the WMF runs Wikipedia and not Jimbo Wales, he is the wrong person to complain to anyway. Regards SoWhy 08:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I already contacted Wikimedia Germany who replied that they are not in charge and it is rather the main Wikimedia Foundation. I just want to know what I can do now. For me, the survey itself was an attack on the neutrality of wikipedia. Wikipedia is funded by donations instead of advertisements to keep neutrality. But how can anyone now expect that the EU copyright law article can be neutral if the wikipedia takes a political action against it? I just want to know everything I can do, if all aricles I am the main author of can be editable on March 21, the articles started from my account, I there can be a note like "the wikipedia protests... excepts Christian140" or if the survey can be started again so that I can be on the opposing site. Anything. After 14 years, I have never been so fed up. The articles are write are regarding economics, culture, movies, biographies. There is no reason for them to be blocked. I do not want to participate in a project with clear political agenda that organizes protests and stuff. --Christian140 (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

All this information is in German, but I translate the result table here: --Christian140 (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Formal validity of the survey
Stemicoon voor.png I accept the survey 143 votes 76.1%
Stemicoon tegen.png I oppose this survey 45 votes 23.9%
Sum of counted votes 188 votes 100.0%
Stemicoon neutraal.png neutral 3 votes
Vote about the content
Should we protest against the EU copyright reform?
Stemicoon voor.png I support the protest 146 votes 67.9 %
Stemicoon tegen.png I am against the protest 69 votes 32.1 %
Sum of counted votes 215 votes 100.0%
Stemicoon neutraal.png neutral 7 votes
Vote about the content
How should we perform this protest?
Wikipedia should shutdown completely 139 votes 83.2%
There should be a banner while wikipedia is still available 28 votes 16.8%
Sum of counted votes 167 votes 100.0 %

I am happy to see the results of the German vote discussed here. I also like the mechanics of how they did the vote. I would like to see votes like this take place with a longer lead time and larger participation, but there is not a lot of time left. I'd like to see more community votes like this across all the languages affected. These decisions are up to the community, not up to me (obviously) or the WMF (perhaps not as obviously to many people, but that is our tradition and I see no reason to want to change it). In this case, at WMF request, I am not taking a public stand on whether or not Wikipedia languages should protest, nor in what manner (banners, blackouts), other than this: communities should decide with a thoughtful process consistent with their local traditions as well as the wider traditions of our movement, and all protests/banners should be scrupulously factual. A very bad proposal was posted a while back on English Wikipedia with a slogan something like "encyclopedia for deletion" - this banner would have given readers the false impression that Wikipedia might be deleted if the law passes, which is not truthful. I would not like to see banners like that.

Here are two broad principles that are core to everything that Wikipedia stands for: I think it important that voters everywhere be informed of what their legislators are doing and how it will affect them. And I think that Wikipedia plays a crucial (even pivotal) role in making sure that happens. The exact details in exact situations: these are for you to decide.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Christian140's concerns about participation, With a sample size of 215 out of roughly 5000 users, and 67.9% supported the action, If they had asked all 5000 active users the chances of the result dropping below 50% are really quite small. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
That's true only if the sample is random (or a close enough approximiation). If there's a huge self-selection bias, it could make a difference.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we have to assume the sample is random, and if so, Guy is correct. I'd like to see a similar voting process here. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
According to what I gathered from de-wiki when I followed Christian's link, the vote was announced in their version of the Signpost twice as well as their community portal and their RFC portal which is sent to interested users via bot (de:Benutzer:GiftBot/Ausrufer) Judging from de:Spezial:Linkliste/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Protest_gegen_EU-Urheberrechtsreform, I don't see any obvious canvassing in favor of a certain outcome and the list of notified users (via the bot) contains people on both sides but I'm not really familiar with de-wiki processes to detect any less than obvious pattern. Regards SoWhy 20:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The sample is certainly not random with respect to 5000 frequent editors. On any topic like this there's bound to be a significant self-selection. However, even assuming we could somehow get a vote from a significant fraction of the 5000 users, we have to deal with the question of whether we should force a vote from people who chose not to participate in the survey. Also, what's the value of a vote from people who would weigh in without thinking about this carefully, or even with a completely prefabricated political opinion, as people usually do in such mass referendums?
What we can compare this with is a hypothetical vote of the same type that would've lasted several weeks or months, long enough to attract all occasional or temporarily vacationing editors like Christian140. Out of that selection, the sample of 215 really is random and statistically significant. Besides, 215 would be a fairly strong turnout even for Whether to think of such a process as experts self-selecting themselves, or a bunch of demagogues lording it over the silent majority is anyone's pick, but this is probably the best we can do (so far) when it comes to decision making. DaßWölf 22:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Daß Wölf: Well, maybe I am a vacationing editor for you. At least, I decided to leave the wikipedia now since I do not want to participate in political activist groups. However, I created over 500 articles in more than 10 years and one of my articles was just recently featured as article of the day. I was always encouraged to improve articles and often left out the politics inside the wikipedia since it costs so much time. But apparently, that makes me a temporarily editor. Well, now I am a former editor.
User:SoWhy: Me and many other users who focus on articles rather than meta discussion do not subscribe to Ausrufer since it's annoying. Until now, there never has been made such a decision against the principles of wikipedia. --Christian140 (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Possibly but I have not seen any indication that "you and many other users who focus on articles rather than meta discussion" are a homogeneous group that would have overwhelmingly voted against such measures if informed directly, so the problem of "self-selection bias" that Jimbo mentioned seems not to exist. Regards SoWhy 08:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you read this as some sort of derision, that was not my intent. Most (semi)active editors (definitely including me) miss days and even weeks on Wikipedia, and things happen in the meanwhile. My point was what SoWhy put eloquently above me: I see no reason to believe that people who missed that particular week would've voted differently than the people who only missed some other week(s) and happened be there and vote. DaßWölf 02:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Daß Wölf: I'm also sorry. It seems it comes of like I firmly believe the vote would turn out completely differently if more users would have participated. I also know why. When it comes stating a complex opinion issue in English, I become lazy easily and am often misunderstood if I do not put much effort in my words. Although, I really believe the vote could have turn out differently, my issue is much deeper about the process and wikipedia.
I participated in wikipedia for 14 years since I always could identify with free software and free software. Writing is relaxing for me, so is reading. Already in university, I liked writing papers. I like order and thus the German category system of wikipedia. Moreover, I enjoyed the freedom of wikipedia and its neutrality. I am not really a political person. When I was really young in school, I was though, and I think I can make my own decisions in regarding politics if I need to. But now, the beliefs of few are forced upon me.
In my opinion, the whole idea is against the core of wikipedia. There are no ads on wikipedia to be neutral. But now, wikipedia positions itself politically. How can be secured that the article de:Urheberrechtsreform der Europäischen Union is neutral after this? The whole survey shows that it only takes 139 people to overturn every principle of wikipedia. There is even more to it. Of the 17 initiators, there are several members and former members of the board of Wikimedia Deutschland and admins as well as former admins.
Who protects wikipedia now if those 139 people turn wikipedia in a political party and close the encyclopedic project? This is what the process signals. This survey lasted one week. What if the next is only one day? So far, only one of the people who voted "pro" admitted that the survey has a legitimation problem and that "we" could only hope that the press (or anyone else) doesn't come to know what really happened. And this only happened after one of the initiators said that the vote is unnecessary since the rules are not changed and wonders if they couldn't just shutdown wikipedia without voting. A very provocative statement, leaving unclear if admins or the Wikimedia Foundation should have the power to shutdown wikipedia everytime they want for political actions.
Of course, by the people who voted "contra" and user who came too late to participate are discussing the lack of legitimation even more. With several users now talking about the "1%" (less than 1%) since according to this statistics tool, there were more than 20,000 active users in the past 30 days (The 5,000+ number is probably active users who have "Sichterrechte", but too lazy to look into it now since I am not at home). Compared to "administrator elections", the participation was quite low.
Other than me thinking wikipedia shouldn't be used as a tool to get their political will, my problem with the whole process is the behaviour of the initiators and some supporters. No one even knows how Wikipedia will shutdown and who will does it and apparently, only one user receives information about it. When I send a request to Wikimedia Deutschland, they just replied that they don't know. Moreover, despite there was a lack of information before, the initiators strictly go against the critics of the process, always claiming that we really don't have any right to complain with some "pro" voters even telling people to leave wikipedia ([2], [3]) instead of criticizing a long existing feature of wikipedia. They call themselves "heroes" for joining the protest against the copyright reform and claim that wikipedia's image will improve. However, this unnecessary action already cause long-term users like me leaving the project. I really do not want to be part of a political activist group.
Well, next week, we will see what the outcome is. If the press will speak positively or negatively about the shutdown. Last week, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported negatively about Wikimedia Deutschland. How will the news articles look like from March 20 to March 22?
I feel disappointed and sad about the behaviour of Wikimedia and the initiators. --Christian140 (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
While I agree strongly that Wikipedia should not take sides in political debates, this is an issue that affects Wikipedia directly. If an anonymous editor posts a copyright violation, then Wikipedia will be held responsible. A better approach would be to punish publishers for consistent and intentional copyright violations, and provide penalties for sites that refuse to remove copyrighted material when requested. TFD (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Citation needed. Actually, that is highly disputed. Since Wikipedia is not considered as a "Online Content Sharing Service Provider" by definition, the law reform has no effects on wikipedia. Several statements have been made, explicitly refering to wikipedia, that nothing will change for this platform. See this German release (by the Pirate Party Germany btw). Also, the protest banner of the German wikipedia says nothing about this. Instead, it states, that "the European Parliament decides about a law that could restrict the freedom of speech and freedom of press." Nothing about the wikipedia is stated there because it seems that it is unaffected. --Christian140 (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
"Article 13 gets Wikipedia coming and going: not only does it create opportunities for unscrupulous or incompetent people to block the sharing of Wikipedia's content beyond its bounds, it could also require Wikipedia to filter submissions to the encyclopedia and its surrounding projects, like Wikimedia Commons. The drafters of Article 13 have tried to carve Wikipedia out of the rule, but thanks to sloppy drafting, they have failed: the exemption is limited to 'noncommercial activity'. Every file on Wikipedia is licensed for commercial use." Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation, The EU's Copyright Proposal is Extremely Bad News for Everyone, Even (Especially!) Wikipedia --Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Let's be clear. Wikipedia must not "filter" to the tastes of all the totalitarians that have no power over it. To the contrary, it may be time for Wikipedia to recognize and return to the reality that it is a strictly American project that has allowed some foreigners to come in as guests. Wikipedia has never seriously tried to defy U.S. law anyway, and it may be time to explore, not further censoring Commons, but rather to drop the "courtesies" Commons has shown to foreign countries in not hosting certain content published in those locations even though it is legally public domain in the United States. If there are some parallel effects that come with this, like dropping the quixotic attempts to translate conversations into six different languages for "centralized" discussions, which are always months out of date anyway, that would not be much regretted either. Wnt (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Claiming that the German Wikipedia is a strictly American project or that they are foreigners we (the real Wikipedia) allow to come in as guests is a hard sell. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Selective censorship in general (e.g. New Zealand massacre)

I am defining selective censorship as photos, videos, manifestos etc. which are seen and watched by some news media people, some government leaders, any interested internet savvy people who dig a little bit (I assume), and, I assume, any special interest groups who wish to pass the info amoung themselves, but not readily available to the general public. Herostratus's comments in the section above led me to suggest this topic, although I am definitely not saying that Herostratus in any way suggested that we discuss this specific topic. Its just that I thought about putting this as a sub-topic to that pre-existing section but ultimately decided this topic should stand alone.

I obviously made the decision already that I support selective censorship in some cases, e.g. the photo referred to above. And the only thing I can say about this evil attack in N.Z. is that a discussion about the selective censorship of the video and manifesto may be worth having. I did spend about 10 minutes searching for the manifesto as I was particularly curious as to in what way, if any, it differs from the pre-existing The Great Replacement conspiracy theory. However, after a few dead links I sort of lost interest, as maybe most other people would, which may indicate its no big deal whether or not the general public has easy access to such material.

Obviously, regarding this particular event, a discussion about finding and including external links to the video and manifesto should be at the talk page for the event, but I'm just wondering whether selective censorship in general is on some sort of trend line which makes it more important as a general discussion topic within Wikipedia and, if so, where that discussion should take place? Perhaps just having such a discussion is inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia? I'd like to hear Jimbo's thoughts about that aspect, if you have any and wish to express them. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Iterating my positions on deliberate violations of laws applicable to other nations, and therefore to their citizens who access Wikipedia … First, copyright law is not "optional" - the video copyright is not validly "creative commons" under NZ law - which is where the video was made. Nor is "copyright" a meaningless issue. In addition, we have the deliberate naming of suspects on an instantaneous basis - even where such naming is banned in the locale involved -- the Richard Jewell case is pertinent. Wikimedia has to be cognizant of the EU laws concerning "right to be forgotten", Right_to_be_forgotten. Unless and until Wikipedia completely rewrites policies and guidelines, including the explicit desire to not deliberately damage any person, these issues do not disappear. And none of this is "selective censorship" in the first place. Collect (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That's cogent, and a lot of it is true, but FWIW I think that when push comes to shove, only Commons cares about copyright status where the work was created, the Wikipedia cares about what the status in the United States. Also, free use of 20 seconds or whatever would be allowed under our rules if all free-use criteria are met.
However, there's also WP:BLP considerations in cases like this. BLP is specifically empowered to extend to the families and friends of the recently deceased. I think it'd be reasonable to argue that families of people killed in the incident might not want the video to be published by us.
If I may, I wish people did not use the term "censorship" to apply to "editorial judgement". They're two different things, and using the same term for both makes my head hurt. Censorship applies to strictures imposed on an entity by an outside force (typically a government). The Encyclopedia Britannica would not publish a picture of *** **** ****ing a ***. That's not censorship, that's their judgement, and it's not optimal to end up where you're saying "The Chinese Baidu Encyclopedia is censored, and the Britannica is censored, and these two cases are similar enough that the same word can be used for both", because that doesn't improve clarity. ("Censored" is useful for polemical purposes or confusing the issue and that's understandable. But not helpful here.)
For this particular video, there're some sound editorial-judgement reasons to not publish. There're reasonable arguments on both side, but some arguments against are:
1) If it's harmful to the world (by, say, increasing the chance of a copycat killer, making the families of the victims sadder, degrading the social environment making the world feel an unhelpful toxic helpless anger, or what have you) then of course we shouldn't do it. "You never cease being a moral player on this planet. Never, not for one instant. Sitting down at a keyboard does not remove you from the moral universe." Wikipedia is fucken website, a hobby, fer chrissakes. You weren't put on the earth to do fucked up things, so get your priorities straight. It truly gobsmacks me that people don't get this. "My dog just got run over, but Wikipedia rules require me to remove these unsourced BLP statements at once, and Wikipedia rules come first, so Fido can wait" is how some people roll here (or say they do), I guess. Other organizations mostly do not work that way, and to the extent they do, it's almost entirely due to profit motive. Which we don't have.
2) Images can actually impede learning. Technical fact-type knowledge, which is what we're about, is usually best gained when one is able to assimilate information on an intellectual level without being buffeted by strong emotions. Disturbing images and videos don't help this process; rather the opposite. If we were a TV news show or a documentary film studio, it'd be different. Those entities want to make people cry, cringe, yelp, laugh, get angry, hug their child, and so forth. If an article of ours makes you want to hug your child rather than be like "OK, now I intellectually understand more about why [horrible people] did [horrible thing], what the background conditions were, how it came about, why events unfolded as they did, and so forth", then we're not really doing our job right.
3) Videos suck. I mean, at imparting information. This is why the Wikipedia is text-based and not a bunch of videos. Our primary entry for the reader into understanding the video would be text: "A video [showing such-and-such horrific things] was livestreamed. Some important things you should know about this video is that it showed [thing] and [thing] and at one point even [thing]. Also, [more details about the video as necessary or helpful for the reader to suss the important things about it, how it was made and streamed, where it fits in the larger event, why the reaction was what it was, and so on]." Having to sit and watch a 20 minute video to get this same info is not optimal. (The video could also be included, as a secondary extra-info thing, but we don't make readers watch long videos for key info. Since it's extra-info, arguments to include it would have to be that much stronger.) Herostratus (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
(Citizen Buttinski.jpg Buttinski) slightly off topic response to "videos suck at imparting information": Suggested viewing, suggested viewing The opposite is true such that they could compliment standard Wikipedia, rather than seek to replace it, is worth pointing out. ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 12:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
You suggest the edited "short Sandmann video" would compliment(?) Wikipedia? Collect (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Collect, this might be a semantics thing, I am pretty sure r is using the word "compliment" in the sense of "add something to" (Wikipedia), e.g. "gravy compliments mashed potatoes". Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Compliment: a polite expression of praise or admiration.. I, personally, have never, ever heard gravy "compliment" anything at all. Complement is a thing that completes or brings to perfection.. My point, moreover, was that unless a site has a full unedited "video" of something - that the edits may well affect the utility of such a video as a source in the first place. Collect (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no reason not to consider accompanying outlines based in video, but quality guidelines would be more difficult than text not to mention bandwidth and infrastructure costs if they were popular. ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 17:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC) shorter nuclear timelapse, and I didn't find the examples of what is called "whiteboard animation", but it's a good style of informational short. That's my lot about it ty ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 17:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Not this but like that, a single huge image of small parts, very effective. ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 17:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "Compliment" was my spelling mistake. In fact "complement" is correct.
Right, the wisdom of its exclusion seems so obvious now, after you explained it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The New Zealand shooting is a rerun of the Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward, where the killer chose a live outside broadcast and uploaded a first person video of the shooting, knowing full well that it would lead to massive media coverage. The mainstream media is wary of playing along with this type of game, because it is giving the shooter the publicity they wanted, and may encourage other people to do similar things. As previously discussed, Wikipedia does not need to show a video of a beheading to say "this is what a beheading looks like". Another problem is that if Wikipedia did show material like this, it would probably get blocked in schools, libraries etc, regardless of the merits of the material.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
When has the mass media ever refrained from broadcasting a juicy story just because it gave some idiot the publicity they wanted and encouraged other people to do similar things? The only time they refrain from paying attention to a crime is when Missing white woman syndrome[4] kicks in. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
There was rarely a better example of an idiot wanting publicity than Vester Flanagan, in the Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. There is a discussion in the article about whether the media played along with what he wanted. With GoPro cameras and live streaming now everyday technology, it was inevitable that sooner or later a mass shooting would be broadcast in this way.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
There is definite merit to having awful imagery available, but it is defeatist in the day and age of emerging functionality to use that imagery in a take-it-or-leave-it way in conjunction with a story... The story is of primary importance to all. Give words to all, and the horror to only to those who feel prepared and willing to view, across the board. ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 18:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
"15 minutes of fame" is just a stupid invention by media personality control freaks who want to control the news rather than reporting it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

To be quite honest I would rather that video be shown in full at the top of every pertinent article than have impressionable readers see the current one-sided introduction to White genocide conspiracy theory. EllenCT (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I understand that you're really upset, I am too. Still... we have to step back from that, your suggestion is just not the way we roll.
@RTG:, Right, I mean videos can be a useful way to impart information.They can be useful for teaching. But we are not a teaching entity. We are a reference work, and any learning here is self-learning, which is way different. (We also provide material that is good for being made into teaching, which again is way different from ourselves teaching.) The Japan video you point to is good, but it's nine minutes long. I'm reluctant to commit nine minutes to something when I don't know if it will have the info I want. It's good teaching, to the extent that a non-interactive didactic presentation can be good teaching. It doesn't help me if I want to know when the capital was moved from Edo. It's not good if I want to browse the info, skip some and drill down deeper on other. It doesn't let me search on the term "Shogun" or whatever. It doesn't have any sources -- most videos don't, and when they do you can't cut and paste them. And so on. Videos are fine as external links tho (not the one in question here, obviously).
Oh and I forgot an important fourth reason not to include this video: politics (this is separate from the moral question). Anything that will bring disrepute on the project, cause us PR difficulties, give reasonable people reasonable grounds to dislike or reject us... this is a consideration IMO. A lot of people here don't agree, and are of the mind "Damn the torpedoes, principle can't be compromised, we'll go down flying our flag if need be!" -- which is also reasonable, compelling, and maybe right (altho not a reason for going out of our way to offend The Squares, which I think sometimes you do see). But IMO functional organizations consider the effects to the organization of actions by the organization, as a data point. Not the deciding point, maybe not a major point, but still a point. Herostratus (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I struck that video, @Herostratus: and added after, "shorter nuclear timelapse" the originally intended 3-ish mins version which makes it more interesting. For the relevant issue here, it is not right to attempt to delete such imagery from history, however we should purposely fear such imageries normalisation, should we not? ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 13:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


Sir,I am the uncle of Bhanwar singh vaish who is blocked now. Please unblock him last time and I guarantee that he will not voilate Wikipedia any more. It's my humble request to you. Reply me as soon as possible. Thank You! Have a nice day. Jay prakash bais (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Requesting to be unblocked. --Christian140 (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Double standard

I am extremely upset about what is happening at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Renamed Critics section to Criticism and I ask that the RFC and discussions there have the benefit of review by additional editors. EllenCT (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I am an independent editor and as requested I just reviewed your recent edits and the reversions of them. You are wrong. You keep insisting that the white genocide conspiracy theory contains the idea that low birthrates are bad. Your basic error is firmly based on your original research and not on what any reliable source says about the WGCT. The actual WGCT consists of the belief that low white birthrates combined with high non-white birthrates are bad, and the belief that this is a a deliberate conspiracy. Neo-nazis who hold this theory would be quite happy if the birthrate of whites went down while the birthrate of non-whites went down farther and faster.
The WGCT is still an incredibly stupid and racist conspiracy theory, and there are may excellent sources that say so, but you are not helping things bu attempting to misrepresent what the white genocide conspiracy theorists actually believe. You are setting up a straw man of your own creation, then knocking it down. Please stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Guy, if you are independent, can you point to any single time where you've interacted with me without complaining about me or opposing my work or suggestions? There are no sources in the article or that I can find saying that the conspiracy theory involves high non-white birth rates; all of the sources, including those in the article, only discuss low white birthrates.
The discussion going on there is surreal. Several senior editors are citing WP:OR to mean something other than inclusions unsupported by reliable sources. Several senior editors are claiming that WP:NPOV says that sources balancing an error must refer to the error instead of merely contradicting it. A senior editor has claimed WP:FALSEBALANCE means exactly the opposite of what it says. EllenCT (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
My interactions with you have been based on your bad edits. It may be that you have made good edits elsewhere, but I haven't seen them. See Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#White genocide conspiracy theory is unbalanced and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Are these edits to White genocide conspiracy theory original research? where many experienced editors have told you that you are wrong and nobody has supported your proposed changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Re "The discussion going on there is surreal. Several senior editors are...", can you think of any possible reason -- any reason at all -- for everybody telling you that you are wrong? Any reason other than "everybody else is wrong and I am right"?
There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Anecdotes are fun but in this case no one here is driving on the correct side of the road. Collect (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Only commenting here after seeing this raised on a bunch of noticeboards (which is what led me to the RfC). This seems really really simple. these sources do not mention the white genocide conspiracy theory, and yet you are arguing to include them not in an article about birth rates, but in the article about that conspiracy theory. Most of those sources don't even get into "white". This would be like going to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory page and adding scientific papers showing that pedophilia is bad. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)