Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-09-23

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-09-23. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: Inside Duke Humfrey's Library (1,693 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-09-23

Discuss this story

• Those library photos are gorgeous. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

However, with no captions, there's no way to easily tell which library it even is. This is a set of pretty images, with all encyclopædic value stripped away surgically, and is far below any sort of minimal standards. There have been some issues with the FC reports of late, but I never expected it to get this bad. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

They are from the Duke Humfrey's Library (the title of featured content). Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I would have appreciated at least a basic description.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, everyone. There's simply nobody available or willing to write them currently. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In the media: PETA makes "monkey selfie" a three-way copyright battle; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (3,412 bytes · 💬)

Vox

Way to go, Vox. While not a copy-paste job you still managed to remake a story you linked to later in your work. Now this makes me wonder if this Phil Edwards frequents Wikipedia or be an editor here even. GamerPro64 21:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure what the issue is with Phil Edwards story here. While it is frustrating as a researcher to have to chase stories back through a bunch of "re-bloggers", there is nothing wrong with the repetition of a story from another source. Indeed newspapers have traditionally relied on specialist press as a source for stories. Edwards gives credit to Ed's blog, which is really all we can ask for. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC).
  
  • Maybe its a bit of bias from myself. Not an overall fan of Vox. Something about it bothers me. GamerPro64 22:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    • The stone in the tooth is the original was written by a volunteer and the simulacrum by a paid journalist. -- GreenC 02:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

PETA

As a professional photographer and animal rights activist I was intrigued by the "monkey selfies" article. I wrote a response discussing my perspective on the legal and ethical issues. Funcrunch (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

PETA is actually big into the anti-factory farming chickens, cows and pigs (not sure about fishes - who will speak for the fish). -- GreenC 02:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm against all animal farming, not just "factory" farming. Regardless, PETA's messaging is very inconsistent, tailored to whoever will give them the most money. Funcrunch (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a detailed legal analysis of the claims. It stresses some complicated points of law regarding jurisdiction -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Google results

I for one wish Google would downplay Wikipedia in its search results, particularly with pages that are not high-trafficked or whose high-traffic appears to be the results of someone gaming the system. I could also accept search engines giving a boost to articles that, over time, maintain "important topic" and/or "Featured/Good/A-class" or possibly even "B-class" status over several months, as long as there is no sign of the article being hijacked by editors engaged in "search engine optimization" tactics. Take away the "Wikipedia Search-engine-optimization bonus" and commercially-motivated Wikipedia-SEO abuse will be less attractive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Op-ed: Can we please stop bashing Wikipedia? (52,022 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-09-23

Discuss this story

• The author neglects to point out that one of the most enthusiastic public promoters of the "rancorous, sexist, elitist" meme is a certain Jimmy Wales, followed closely by other current and former high-ranking WMF officials, most notably Sue Gardner. One can hardly blame the media for picking up this particular ball and running with it, given that the WMF's most public representatives have been cheerleading this particular myth for at least the last five years. ‑ iridescent 21:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I joined because of Ella Fitzgerald. I LOVE WIKIPEDIA. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The human brain handles negative and positive input differently, psychologists say, which is why memories of unpleasant experiences seem indelible."[1] Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I smiled when I saw the image used in the write up and I'm still smiling : ) It tells it all!—M@sssly^✉ 21:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Especially the kids with the light sabres.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Surely, the Wikimedia Foundation is not encouraging editors to ignore or minimize Wikipedia’s pressing concerns -- especially harassment and extortion of editors -- in order to curry favor with the press and thus to avoid embarrassing the foundation? The framing employed here -- harkening back to the good old days and what once made Wikipedia fun -- is highly suggestive. Rather than trying to paint a smile on Wikipedia’s very real problems, it might be more productive to address them. It’s clear from Gender Gap Task Force, Gamergate, and Lightbreather that many volunteers are not having fun here, that indeed participating in Wikipedia can be hazardous. Shouldn’t we start by making a real effort to fix that, rather than spinning the press? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note that the Wiki Education Foundation is a separate entity from the WMF. Gamaliel (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• We can celebrate the good while acknowledging and working on what needs to improve. There are significant achievements to celebrate; Wikipedia's existence is something of a miracle. We can acknowledge that Wikipedia has weaknesses and serious problems while working to address them. --Pine^✉ 22:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well put. Gamaliel (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's true that we are our own worst enemy in this regard. That's why I created WP:Wikipedia has more, to prevent us repeating these urban legends about Wikipedia, and to get us thinking about the sub-text of these assertions. It's important that those who are in positions of being "spokespeople" for the movement should be aware of and understand the research that actually shows how Wikipedia works, and not fall into believing these urban legends by default. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC).
  

• @Rich Farmbrough: Wow, very informative debunking. I've personally heard the ones about the porn stars and Lord of the Rings many times and believed it; I think the OP-ED does have a point that if we give people a narrative, they will use it and find any "facts" at all to support it. Also many of these examples point to a incomplete grasp of how Wikipedia works, such as how categories work (subcategories & those automatically populated by templates) or breakout pages. Maybe we can direct inquiries to a revamped Statistics Department or some sort of liaison for those inexperienced with how Wikipedia functions. The Tea House might be a good place to start. Opencooper (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Public relations without a serious commitment to a non-hostile working environment for women and minorities doesn't cut it, Mr. Schulenberg. An atmosphere of sexual profanity and images like this is uncalled for on a public project from which members of the public *can not opt out*. We fought long and hard for civil rights in the US, and many of us have no interest in giving up our civil rights just because someone invented the Internet. --Djembayz (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  So do you consider freedom of speech not a civil right? Or are you just peculiarly adept at arguing both sides of an issue? DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  @DPRoberts534: A hypothetical (perphaps slightly hyperbolic) example: If someone were to tell another editor to "go suck a dick" (or some equivalent) in the course of a wikipedia discussion, would you consider it a violation of that users civil rights/freedom of speech if they were to blocked or this insult were to be redacted by another user? Brustopher (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  @Brustopher: Sure. We've accepted some limitations on speech in order to create a productive environment for volunteers. But my point was that Djembayz' argument is nonsensical. Freedom to express one's own opinion "across any media" is considered a fundamental right by the organization Djembayz cites as an authority. Oh, and thanks. I was trying to work some sexual profanity into my initial response and couldn't think of a way to do it without getting blocked. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  @DPRoberts534:Djembayz's point was that we shouldn't attack other editors with sexual profanity and violent metaphors. If you agree that the example I wrote above is unacceptable, then you must surely be in agreement with what Djembayz wrote. Brustopher (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  Background links: In the US, the Department of Education addresses sexual harassment complaints under the framework of civil rights. 1 2. Sex discrimination in employment, which includes harassment, is also considered a civil rights question. 1. US legal efforts to address online harassment of women are also being framed as a matter of civil rights. 1. US federal workplaces have become surprisingly effective at addressing harassment issues. 1. A well known case dealing with sexual profanity and hostile working environment is here. Questions: 1) If your part of the world uses a different framework to address sexual harassment, what is it? 2) Any trained lawyers reading this, what are the legal principles used to address conflicts between civil rights/anti-harassment claims and freedom of speech? --Djembayz (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  The ED finds language actionable when it is objectively offensive. Whether or not ED has the legal authority to regulate speech is an interesting debate in itself. But applying this policy to Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope, you may be able to see how the right of free speech is protected. Since you and Brustopher are the only people offended by it, we can consider it subjectively offensive. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  I personally don't believe anything is objectively offensive. It's impossible for anything to be found offensive by everyone. If you don't believe me, read the other ED some time. Secondly, quite a few people found it offensive. Brustopher (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  Suggest showing the Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope page to your African-American friends and asking them how they feel about the image. --Djembayz (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Insert - ::::::::I agree with Djembayz that the hanging image is inappropriate. How critical is it to the page's discussion? You think this image is the focus of free speech? The point is that it does not have to be used. In a country where lynching of African-American men was so prevalent, surely another image could be chosen, or the page could be up without an image.Parkwells (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  That would be a golden rule violation. I wouldn't want my friends bringing me a diagram showing a black bishop pinning a white knight and asking if I was offended. DPRoberts534 (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  Who's "in a country" like that? The world, and en.wikipedia, is not the USA. To me, that image depicts a harmless children's game of Hangman.

NB I am not saying it should be kept; it is entirely possible that it is highly offensive to many people. I'm just rolling eyes at the usual assumption that America is the entire world. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

According to this It is widely used at schools in the United States, where nobody associates it with suicide or harassment. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC).

And as your article points out, it isn't always well received in the wake of a suicide in the community, in that case, in Japan. This article gives the example of 60 high schools where it would not have been well received in 2007. As Sara Wachter-Boettcher points out in her presentation "Content for Kindness", context matters, because "We don’t know what our readers and customers are going through. And our readers and customers are people. They could be in an emergency and still have to use the internet." With regards to the text, I just discovered that "Encouraging a person to commit suicide" is explicitly called out in the OS4W Code of Conduct. I understand that the concern expressed here may seem ridiculous to some people, that most people here don't work on a suicide hotline and hopefully, do not have close friends who have hung themselves, and that it is not part of the experience of many people in the UK or Silicon Valley to work directly with the African American community, where the display of a noose is considered a serious threat, as in "The ominous symbolism of the noose." (“African Americans who are exposed to this are infuriated by it. It rubs a nerve, whereas with white people it is just not in their experience.” [1) However, without the co-operation of everyone here, even those who think it is silly, it's tough to see how we can create an atmosphere that is truly welcoming to African American participation and kind to the friends of recent suicide victims. --Djembayz (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• We are not our worst enemy - some of us are; there's only a handful of en.Wiki users who are the source of the negative profile of Wikipedia. Some of them are (or think they are) indispensable prolific content providers. They also hang out, some of them, on sites that exist mainly to criticise Wikipedia. We know who they are, we are just too afraid to do anything about them. The WMF of course, also has a lot to answer for: collectively, it has a 'holier than thou' attitude, while workwise they just polarise with most of them burying their heads in the sand when serious issues surface (the Education Foundation wasn't always a separate entity). When scandal breaks and provides manna for the media the WMF does nothing but waste even more money, and the masses of maintenance volunteers have to clean up the mess and repair the project's image. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  A harsh, but not unreasonable analysis. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC).
  

• I thank the author for writing this Op-ed piece. I found it to be a most heartening and upbeat and enlightening take on things of late around here. :) — Cirt (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• After reading this sensitively written article and the ensuing comments, it is plain to me that the Wikipedia project/organization is very much... human, with all the strengths and frailties of a single person. As persons, we must at some time "come of age" in order to begin to get all our atoms and molecules to work together in more or less a spirit of harmony. Along this vein, our WP project is still as a child who has not yet come of age. And just as most of us would not abandon a child who has faults, so will we do our damndest to raise this particular child encyclopedia as best we know how. Painius  02:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for writing this Frank, as the site certainly has its faults, but those pale in comparison to the number of users who do not participate in the drama and act to ensure that coverage is accurate and unbiased. I hope this will help turn some of the articles which only focus on the bad here and bring more focus onto valuable projects which aim to improve coverage for women, minorities, and things which most Wikipedians are not working to expand on a daily basis. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Writing an article

• I figure the majority of civilians are even less informed, and assume we are a bureaucracy in an office building, like this. The ones who think we're a mud wrestling festival are the more informed, hence more influential, minority. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nice piece! Thanks a lot for this positive oped. --Hispalois (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• The op-ed piece above is all part of the preparations for the new Wikimedia Foundation Expedition to Nirvana. The man in charge of this expedition is WEF Executive Director, Sir Frank Schulenburg. Sir Frank, hello there ...

Sir Frank: Ah, hello. Well first of all I'd like to apologize for the behaviour of certain of my Wiki colleagues you may have had some experience of while editing Wikipedia in the past, but they are all from broken homes, circus families and so on, and they are in no way representative of the new modern improved Wikipedia. They are just a small vociferous minority; and may I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism or uncivil behaviour associated with the English Wikipedia experience. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit, but all new editors are warned that if they try and edit and encounter any abuse or toothmarks at all while attempting to edit an article, they're to tell Jimmy Wales immediately so that he can take every measure possible to hush the whole thing up or put an entirely positive spin on the situation. And, finally, a gender gap is right out. *shouts to someone off camera* Eric ... NO! ... put down that leg. — not really here discuss 05:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is a meme our Founder has relentlessly pursued, along with some administrative grandees as seen above. It includes a conviction that seriously committed content builders who express independent opinions should be silenced, swatted down, marginalised, ignored, subjected to populist control by agenda-driven social networkers, and preferably site banned. Wikipedia is not a friendly place for content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• • @Epipelagic: Wikipedia is not a friendly place for content builders I strongly agree with this statement. The rest I don't know enough about. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @Epipelagic: @Ottawahitech: I also agree. Abyssal (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• I will happily stop informing other women that Wikipedia is not a safe place for them once it stops being unsafe. Until then, I will not in good faith encourage other women to participate unless they are fully aware of what can come with it. Denying the problem is absolutely not the solution. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Denial is used to preserve the status quo, so while it is not a solution, it is a tactical strategy for encouraging team players and concepts. Denial is required by those who promote the WP:PIMP lifestyle on Wikipedia, particularly members of the bureaucratic class who think adminship is a big deal. It's a preference for form over substance and routine over results. Without denial, these defects would become seen for what they truly are, large, gaping wounds that bleed out editors and any hope for the future. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• ..."the WP:PIMP lifestyle"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Process wonkery (Process is IMPortant). You can't use processes that are inherently biased against women to create safer spaces for women. The big pimpin' lifestyle on Wikipedia is one that encourages the exploitation of process while discouraging editors from fixing problems for themselves. Strangely, this goes against the very things that made Wikipedia successful in the first place. Furthermore, process wonkery directly supports the iron law of oligarchy and serves to isolate editors who could otherwise change the system from within. There are many of us who whore ourselves out to Wikipedia, day in and day out, only to be met with the steely end of the pimp stick for daring to highlight fundamental problems and injustices. John Lennon once pointed out that women were the niggers of the world; in the same way, Wikipedia editors are its whores. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• What an asinine redirect. I don't think I understand most of your comment, but it's perhaps worth considering that comparing process wonkery to battering women is not helping in the safe space department either. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• My homage to John Swinton has less to do with battering women and more to do with intellectual prostitution.[2] Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• The only comments here that are asinine are yours, GorillaWarfare. As you yourself admit, you did NOT UNDERSTAND most of Viriditas' comments. When I know that I don't understand someone else's comments I either request that they clarify them further or I leave well alone. What I don't do is violate WP:AGF to issue an unmerited ad hominem attack that then violates WP:CIVIL like you just did. For instance, within the context of the op-ed under discussion, I could make no rational sense of the comment, "I joined because of Ella Fitzgerald. I LOVE WIKIPEDIA." I assumed it was either just a stupid irrelevant comment or an in-joke to which I was not privy. So one moves on ... there were plenty of other comments here to read and respond to, including Frank's op-ed piece itself.

Here's some advice to you from someone who is old enough to be your grandfather. If you don't understand something, bite your tongue and keep your opinion to yourself. Most certainly, don't attack and abuse the person whose opinions or arguments you are unable to comprehend. If you keep quiet the person will possibly further elaborate on his or her words and you might learn something rather than make a fool of yourself like you just did. To be fair, you did indeed seek further clarification of his initial comment, but then you were too lazy to make any effort to properly comprehend his reply, so instead you just resorted to making bad assumptions about it based on your own zealous feminist biases. To someone who only owns a hammer everything looks like a nail. Similarly, to a feminist with a GG crusade to champion any statement made by a male person must be a chauvinistic windmill worth having a good tilt at. That, right there, is what drives intelligent and mature people away from Wikipedia. You are a perfect example of the truism: "So long as an illiterate drug addict can override the work of a Harvard professor, Wikipedia will never be an authoritative reference."

Yes, yes, I know ... you are a not an illiterate drug addict, and I'm guessing that Viriditas is not a Harvard professor either. Nor was this a clash over an edit to an article in mainspace. But the wisdom and civility disparity is indeed the same issue. What you just did is a perfect example of how an agenda-pushing millennial who thinks she knows it all (but who obviously doesn't) just disrespected and aggressively abused someone who is clearly much more knowledgeable and intellectually well-rounded than they are. What makes you look so stupid in this particular instance is that Viriditas was actually agreeing with you, but in a manner that was perhaps more abstruse than you could intellectually cope with. In which case your best response is to listen and possibly learn from him, not to lash out and abuse the person by claiming as "asinine" his comment that a web venue whose main processes are inherently biased against women cannot possibly be turned into a safer space for women until those inadequate processes are first fixed. There is nothing asinine about that argument nor the multiple links that he provided to support it metaphorically, particularly the very apropos one WRT Robert Michels' "iron law of oligarchy".

The bottom line is, people who behave like you just did are not the solution to Wikipedia's woes regarding the scaring away of potential or existing useful content providers, they are very much part of the problem. — not really here discuss 07:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's avoid the blame game and spar with ideas, not editors. We agree that there are good and bad ideas which lead to good and bad problems. So no need to blame and attack any editor, just the idea. At its core, this piece is a morale dispatch lacking substantive ideas, so we shouldn't get too worked up about it. I see an under construction sign up ahead at the next reality tunnel. A guy holding an orange flag waves me through.... Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. I wished to make a point. Perhaps I made it too strongly or inappropriately. I'll address that issue separately with the person directly involved. I think the good ideas that have now gotten lost here were the one re the "iron law of oligarchy" and the idea that denial is used as a form over substance and routine over results means of preserving the status quo. In this particular instance, these ideas potentially got lost in the pablum that Wikipedia is "an unsafe place for women". That is pure hyperbole and is what, in part, I was reacting to. I don't agree that women are the only people who feel marginalized or unwelcome at Wikipedia. I don't mean to diminish in any way the issue of women being harassed or abused; rather, I feel that that issue is simply part of a much bigger problem that has a far greater and broader scope. Wikipedia has a whole slew of systemic biases which one may or may not stumble across depending on where you spend your time editing (meaning which specific articles) and who you encounter while doing so. Everybody's mileage varies in this regard.

Wikipedia is not only very unrepresentative in respect to its gender gap, it is also highly unrepresentative WRT ethnicity, age and academia. Not sure what the numbers are for the ethnic inbalance, but over 75% of Wikipedia editors are under the age of 30, and most of the remaining 25% are under the age of 40. Given that older people since time immemorial have always been looked up to by every organized society on the planet for their life experience, accumulated knowledge and overall wisdom, the fact that well under 10% of contributing editors are over the age of 55 is lamentable. The same issue also applies to academia. An encyclopedia created primarily by editors that are only twenty-something (with most of their knowledge-accumulating and decision-making years ahead of them) is clearly deficient, as is an encyclopedia that has little or no participation from academics whose full time jobs and passions are the accumulation and dispersion of knowledge and information to others. Not only that, both working academics (outside of term time) and retirees actually have the necessary leisure time to engage seriously with some aspect of Wikipedia (in terms of making 100+ edits per month rather than just five).

The more immediate issue that needs to be addressed by Wikipedia is the lack of clarity, omissions and outright contradictions in the current guidelines and essays that govern behavior. Everything is open to subjective interpretation and gaming, both in terms of how people initially interact going about their daily edits, but more importantly, in how they get adjudicated and sanctioned when contentious situations do arise (which they inevitably will). The gaming and (willful) misinterpretation of the rules by admins and ArbCom types are just as ubiquitous, which has the consequence that in many cases the enforcement of what rules do exist WRT abusive or disruptive behavior often appears somewhat arbitrary or nonsensical (or in many cases, non-existent). Add to that situation the fact that everyone has a different threshold for what they individually consider to be personal attacks or disruptive behavior, and are even willing to adjust that threshold to their own advantage in certain situations, the overall result is often close to anarchy. Anarchy is not a sustainable way to organize anything. — not really here discuss 03:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's somewhat amusing to me that you explain in one sentence that Wikipedia is not unsafe for women, then say two sentences later that you do not wish to diminish the issue of women being harassed or abused... Anyhow, I don't believe I've said anywhere that women are the only group that is underrepresented on Wikipedia, or that it is the most problematic group to be underrepresented. I agree that it's indicative of a larger problem, and I agree that behavioral policies and guidelines need serious work. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Invokes WP:CIVIL... when not writing "I've now broken my post up into four separate messages so that even people with IQs less than ambient room temperature, or recovering from cataract surgery, like yourself will now be able to follow it", or fatuous conspiracy theories like "by "percentage of women" I mean the percentage of real independent thinking women, not women who get paid by, or receive college course credits from, feminists to intrude ultra-feminist POV material into Wikipedia anyway they can (because they don't count)."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that "not really here" would find some reason to have a go at Gorilla no matter what she said. FWIW, based on our past interactions, I was delighted when she was elected to ArbCom, and feel she does far more for the project than someone who appears to be mostly here to write enormous screeds about how every other editor but them is not worthy to bask in their reflected genius. NOTHERE, indeed. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Me? I'm not really here: That's one hell of an attack from someone I'm not sure I've ever so much as interacted with. If you re-read, you'll perhaps notice that I was referring to the redirect as asinine; an opinion I repeated at its deletion discussion. As for the rest of that, I'll just let whoever happens across it decide which of us is part of the problem. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• It wasn't intended to be a personal attack (although I can see from your own comment and the comments of others it has been interpreted that way, and even intentionally spun that way). It was intended to be an illustrative reprimand in order to make a constructive point about the Wikipedia environment. And no, we have never interacted with each other. I didn't know you from Eve until I read your words on this thread. My comment is a reaction to your words solely within the context of this Signpost op-ed discussion (oh, and I too followed the links to the WP:PIMP deletion discussion, so your words there as well). I was only addressing your words within the context of this page and NOT executing any of the ridiculously unfounded agendas that are now being maliciously attributed to me. You stated that you didn't understand most of Viriditas' post and called the redirect "asinine". That combined statement is the equivalent of saying something such as the following: "I hate calculus. I just don't get it. Integrals are asinine." My advice to someone who said that would be, "Don't knock what you don't understand."

I gave you credit for knowing that an inanimate object such as a redirect link CANNOT be asinine (only thoughts or words can be asinine, and by extension, the people that think or say them), and that you knew full well your words would or could be interpreted as meaning that Viriditas' choice of that WP policy guide was asinine within the context of the series of comments posted in response to Frank's op-ed piece. Thus, by extension, what you posted could be interpreted as your calling HIM asinine. Which would be a personal attack. I didn't personally find any aspect of his post "asinine" and thought that he made some very pertinent points therein that did not justify your own trite and dismissive response to it.

The point I was trying to make in my response to your comment - and yes, I too could have followed my own advice and left your words well alone, but I felt my comment was pertinent to some aspects of the overall discussion on this page - is that the hostile nature of the Wikipedia environment can start and escalate from innocent or well-intended beginnings that either get misunderstood or maliciously inflamed or spun. Once ignited, people then bring all their own prejudices, baggage, agendas, and grudges to the table and pour fuel on a fledgling fire to make the resultant situation become significantly more toxic. Hence my advice that sometimes it is best to leave well alone. I don't consider your original comment to be particularly insulting or egregious (at least not by Wikipedia norms), but rather it was wholly unnecessary since it was potentially insulting and inflamatory and didn't add anything useful to the discussion. In trying to point that out - not just to you, but as a kind of, "look, this sort of thing doesn't help matters" lesson for all of us - it turns out I am the one that has done the first level of inflaming here, but that wasn't my intent.

So I apologize if I caused you any distress, and if you wish it, I will remove my comment because the subsequent responses to it over the last couple of days have now made my point in spades better than I could by mere reasoning and argument. — not really here discuss 03:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This is as much an apology as that was not an attack. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The "hostile nature of the Wikipedia environment can start and escalate from innocent or well-intended beginnings", yes, but with people like you around, it can also start from a hostile beginning. Man with paranoid theories about feminism attacks feminist; innocent or well-intended, it ain't.

And no, I'm not one of the millenials you loathe so much. Hell, my _keyboard_ is older than Gorilla. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Right now the onsite dialogue about improving interaction tends to get bogged down in repetitive arguments centered on feminism - gamergate - civility - political correctness vs. free speech -- when many people do not look at the world of interaction in those ways at all. There's a real need for more mental flexibility and openness among people of all ages here-- recognizing that there are other ways to do things, and other frameworks to think about interacting with people, recognizing that things we haven't discovered yet may provide valuable insights and ideas. It's not just viewpoints like US civil rights law or the Open Source for Women Code of Conduct that are missing here. Participants in Wiki Education projects in Egypt have a different cultural tradition, for example. A fan of Pope Francis might shake their heads at the comments directed at GW, and ask, how does this kind of speech help youth be brave in opting for marriage and family? Taking a Catholic viewpoint on what goes on here, you'd point out headlines like Mercy, dialogue to be the focus of World Communications Day. A Native American traditionalist would be concerned with cultural behaviors such as respect, a Buddhist with precepts such as right speech, which might include "You should not utter words which will cause the community to break", a Latin American perspective might focus on being an "educated" person-- in the sense of being someone who has been trained to be considerate and appropriate ... and so on for many other traditions I don't know about yet. Intercultural communication is always full of misunderstandings and awkward moments, and requires making an extra effort to show respect. Adopting a community value of pro-active hospitality on this site-- in which we actively demonstrate that all sorts of people are welcome, and make kindness and friendly behavior a requirement for participation-- is long overdue. --Djembayz (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This may be one of the most patronizing things I've ever had the displeasure of reading in my decade on Wikipedia. It should come with an animated GIF of you patting a little girl on the head. Gamaliel (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

And it's this sort of conversation that made someone like Ellen Pao leave a pile of settlement money sitting on the table and walk away: "I have a request for all companies: Please don’t try to silence employees who raise discrimination and harassment concerns. Instead allow balanced and complete perspectives to come out publicly so we can all learn and improve. I and many others are eager to hear more stories being shared by women and minorities ... We need to keep telling our stories and educating people on how it can be that women and minorities form such a small fraction of our investor base, our tech workforce and our leadership." --Djembayz (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand something, bite your tongue and keep your opinion to yourself. Ouch. That much cognitive dissonance must be painful. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been more than a day since this personal attack was made against GW, yet nobody has bothered to remove it. I would have removed it myself, but my past attempts to do so have caused more problems than they are worth. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• You actually tell women not to participate in editing Wikipedia? That's a bit counterproductive if you ask me. GamerPro64 04:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, I don't. I make sure that they're aware that it is hardly uncommon for women to be harassed on the site, and that they're willing to accept that risk. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Actually, not at all. The Bridge to Selma strategy for increased participation really isn't ethical without informed consent. That's why we're here, in the comments section, to supplement Mr. Schulenberg's post-meeting editorial with the other pieces of the puzzle. --Djembayz (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• I like the sausages, but there's no point pretending it's not a bit of a sausage factory. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Male gender imbalance (sausage fest) or John Godfrey Saxe ("Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made"). Why not both? Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The latter, hence "sausage factory" not "sausage fest". The former - well, everything started as a boys' club. The latter is what keeps it that way. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Frank Schulenberg blithely says, "I know countless Wikipedians (myself included) who get a deep satisfaction out of building something online, of tinkering with articles until they meet their own high quality standards. What a great talking point." Wrong. I have been a low-profile wikieditor for the last 9 years, and at first I thought it was a great thing. But the reality is that time and again, I have devoted many painstaking hours to researching and writing high-quality stuff, only to see it trashed or rewritten out of all recognition, with the fruits of my research misplaced or deleted entirely. The problem with an "encyclopedia anyone can edit" is that anyone can screw it all to hell too! I used to get mad, but I finally learned that it did no good to me or anyone else. So now I don't give a fuck and just tinker around in my spare time with mainly small edits here and there because I'm just the kind of guy who enjoys that sort of bookwormy thing, and seeing the results immediately appear online, where I hope they will be useful to someone (while they last). But it's like drawing a picture on the sand of a beach, where you know the waves or the rowdy kids will soon come along and erase all you did. So Wikipedia is only a temporary joy, like a video game: fun while it lasts, but of no enduring value. I cannot in good conscience recommend it to anyone but word nerds like myself who have nothing better to do with their spare time. In real life I am a retired professional editor who could contribute a lot more to this operation - but what's the use? The top pic on this page is exactly what Wikipedia feels like to me, only I'm not playing tug-of-war anymore, just standing by the picnic table snacking quietly, and picking up stray bits of trash when I come across it. Of course in any group, religious, social, political, or intellectual, there are those true believers who will maintain against all evidence to the contrary that it's the greatest thing ever, but I've been burned and burned out with the whole thing, so there's my 2c.Textorus (talk)

• • @Textorus: I have devoted many painstaking hours to researching and writing high-quality stuff, only to see it trashed or rewritten out of all recognition Nicely put! I also despair sometimes thinking of the waste of my volunteer efforts.

• • trashed or rewritten out of all recognition My beef is more with ‘’’trashed’’ / permanent deletions carried out through the various deletion channels at wiki such as wp:SPEEDY, wp:PROD, wp:XFD, etc. These deletions completely remove the edits I made from the view of other editors who (one may hope) may be inclined to view them sometime in the future.

• • have also seen the rewritten out of all recognition many times, but at least in my mind it is the less of the two evils, because when I see a long article that seems to be going around in circles I simply check out its history and many times when I go far enough in history I can find a version that makes much more sense. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Back in 2005, I felt like coverage of topics that I cared about was missing. Some stuff on Wikipedia was simply inaccurate." That sort of sounds like me. I've added a lot of material that I felt needed to be here, but I don't think much of what I have done is "high quality". It's at least good enough to stay and that feels like an accomplishment to me.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• I've thought a lot about this problem in real life, too, having spent my entire professional life in male-dominated environments into which I "should" be recruiting more women. It's actually pretty difficult to tell bright, motivated young women they should invest in careers that are so often unresponsive to their needs and dismissive of their contributions, in the service of the larger abstract goal of "improving diversity". Telling people they should subject themselves to a similar environment as a volunteer hobby? That's even more of an uphill battle. It's not limited to gender, either; too often people here have a strangely narrow, can't-see-past-the-ends-of-their-own-noses perspective on the project that leads them to be obliviously and persistently insensitive to the fact that there are actual humans behind the usernames.
  The problem is that I'm fundamentally kind of a free-knowledge ideologue, and way back in 2005 or whatever I came from elsewhere in the open-source community thinking "An open-source encyclopedia? Yeah, that's an awesome idea!" and it turns out the idea kind of works. So someone has to write the damn thing, and someone has to do all the back-end technical and administrative work, and we have to find new "someones" somewhere, so we do have to figure out how to more effectively present the positive side of being here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  Thinking more about this: that early pool of semi-ideologues has long since been used up. The source of excitement associated with participating here is no longer a sense of joining an experiment - I think that was on the way out even when I got here - and doesn't feel much like 'sticking it to the man' anymore; we are The Man now and the excitement comes from the fact that what you write about a topic becomes one of Google's default answers to questions about it. That's a very different set of incentives. That dynamic overlaps with the proliferation of other places to invest your cognitive surplus, and Wikipedia does not seem to be effectively competing in that "market".

  What really stands out about that is the fact that over the last ten years, interest in open-source software has skyrocketed; participating in open-source development is now routine for people entering the programming/software engineering/"data science"/etc. fields; the concept of open-access publishing has really gotten traction in academia and especially in STEM fields; and concurrently, political developments have led to a lot of public interest in free dissemination of information. We should be drowning in new contributors with a serious interest in the free-content aspect of the Wikipedia mission, and yet I don't seem to see these people at all.

  Although this op-ed does reference "the cause of free and open knowledge", it's not really a central theme, and it doesn't seem to come through at all in current community "onboarding" processes. Those mostly seem aimed at filtering out spamming and promotionalism, and come off as condescending and nosy to the kinds of highly competent new editors we should be most interested in retaining. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, as you know, the way that "what you write about a topic becomes one of Google's default answers to questions about it" does attract editors with other motives, which is why there is so much effort aimed at filtering out spamming and promotionalism.

"Open source and suchlike" usually attracts people with an itch to scratch, but Wikipedia is "by and large good enough", and that makes it hard to inspire people. I fear I don't have an answer to this one. Most of what we do is damage control - and frankly one or two ham-handed decisions by ArbCom have left a foul taste in my mouth, too, but I already know it's a sausage factory. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Just one or two? ;)

I don't know, I'm not convinced by the 'good enough' argument. In the topic areas I work in, there's a lot of territory left - articles that don't exist at all, are badly outdated, or are missing critical information. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"By and large good enough" is intended as faint praise. People get inspired by things that are really egregiously broken, not just kind of gummed up in places. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• The conspiracy theorist in me makes me wonder if we are all just subjects in an experiment for a sociology doctorate, and that Wikipedia will simply disappear when the mice have enough data to write it up. Derek Andrews (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Hear, Hear! Great op-ed. -- œ^™ 17:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Traffic report: ¡Viva la Revolución! Kinda. (587 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-09-23

Discuss this story

• Very surprised to see the article on Malcolm Turnbull attract so many hits. Australian-related articles rarely rate. And Tony Abbott didn't make the top 25. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think people already knew everything they wanted to know about the Mad Monk. --Roisterer (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)