Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2016-03-23

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2016-03-23. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel article 3 case amended (5,485 bytes · 💬)

As I recall, I said at the time that I think the remedy is unnecessarily restrictive and that less draconian remedies should be considered first. My own suggestion was to allow established users to revert IPs without restriction, and correspondingly to block IPs who broke 1RR. If that wasn't enough, you could extend the revert-without-restriction rule to both IPs and to users with less than 500 edits and 30 days' service. In other words, don't immediately give new users in the topic area full editing privileges, but give them an opportunity to demonstrate their ability - something like a probationary licence. You could even arguably extend the "probationary licence" for users still clearly on the learning curve. An approach like that would permit new users to contribute positively to articles under sanction rather than prohibiting them wholesale. My concern is that the existing 500/30 restriction may discourage new contributors from getting involved with Wikipedia. Gatoclass (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't like being in a place where I feel I have to criticize ArbCom (I appreciate what an investment that role must be) and, like most of us I think, I rarely question the extent to which they are empowered to impart editing restrictions, but this frankly feels like over-reach. There are significant issues here that impact upon the principle that this is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit". This might technically concern just one topic area, but it's not a small one and I think it's worth remembering that this community has routinely and overwhelmingly rejected proposals to ban non-confirmed editors from participating in building the encyclopedia. I believe that, at the very least, the questions raised by contemplation of a restriction like this are so fundamental to the project's underlying philosophy and so potentially wide-reaching in impact that this feels like a decision that should have been vetted through community consensus. The net has been thrown pretty wide here, and I feel like there are significant open questions as to 1) whether this was advisable, 2) whether it jives with our normal community balancing tests, and 3) whether this move (which in essence page protects, or potentially page protects, thousands of articles) is within the normal mandate we grant to ArbCom. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It does seem draconian. In fact, the Committee admitted so in its final decision: the essence of the 500/30 remedy is captured by the unanimously-passed "At wit's end" principle: In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia. In Palestine-Israel articles 3 there were four findings of fact: the first identifies the area of conflict as the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the second finds that discretionary sanctions were ineffective at controlling disruption, the third finds that the topic area suffers from persistent sock-puppetry, and the fourth finds that the 1RR remedy has been gamed. The ArbCom must have concluded from these findings that "all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed", thereby justifying a "seemingly draconian measure". The result is the 500/30 restriction. Whether this remedy is justified depends on whether it is supported by the passing principles, the passing findings of fact, and the evidence presented. 7 arbitrators said yes, 3 arbitrators said no (one of which proposed the remedy). Mz7 (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this "solution" is dangerous, because it could cause more trouble than it prevents. With GamerGate, the only people on a side are those recruited to it, and they take their chances as they go along. But with Israel and Palestine, there are only so many editors on each side with or near 500/30 status, quite likely recognizable by posting history and even their own user pages. With this new scheme of sanctions there is going to be a strong temptation for editors on one side (possibly including those without 500/30, if they play their cards right) to gang up and give those on the other the Steven Salaita treatment, nipping their editing in the bud before they have a chance to become a problem. A ruling like this might start an out and out Israel-Palestine war on ANI, with editors hunting up any excuse to take people from the other side to task before those on the other side get to them. Things being as they are, I expect that Israel will muster more posters for this war (hasbara or otherwise) and trounce Palestine as badly as they have on the ground; the resulting pro-Israel bias should please a lot of well-placed people, but it is not what I happen to want for Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

← Back to 2016-03-23

Discuss this story

Editorial: "God damn it, you've got to be kind." (15,239 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2016-03-23

Discuss this story

• Excellent, Gamaliel, it may be the most important policy of all. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Tom Lehrer summed up these sentiments best: "I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another, and I know there are people in the world who do not love their fellow human beings — and I hate people like that!" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I need that quote in cursive on a fancy cross-stitch. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is a great article Nick-D (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks for these sentiments, Gamaliel. You've hit the nail on the head. I've struggled with how to express and encourage this kind of mindset to others. I wrote Wikipedia:Imagine others complexly some time ago having felt the same way you do about editor interactions, but it's one of those pages like Wikipedia:Competence is required where if there's a problem, you don't point the editor to it directly. How do we do a better job of encouraging interactions that both serve this project and treat folks as something beyond their contributions? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that I don't want to be successful? I am not for you to be for someone else. --violetnese 13:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Bravo Gamaliel - excellent. Now, if we could all convey those thoughts and feelings with our editing... - kosboot (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Excellent. I get around a lot on Wikipedia. I've now also met dozens if not hundreds at various conferences and meetups. If I were to write a list of the editors who couldn't be nice if they tried, and published it I'm sure it would receive a resounding consensus that those people are in fact a net negative to the collaborative spirit most of us generally foster. It only takes a few to spoil the pleasure and enthusiasm of many, and unfortunately on Wikipedia , they succeed with impunity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• It is much easier when we can regularly meet some of our fellows in person. Not only do we get to know those people; it also helps us to remember that the ones who remain faceless, sometimes out of fear, are also approximately as wise and stupid, as open-hearted and sneaky, as kind and cruel, as brave and cowardly, as we are. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Remember that all is opinion.--Catlemur (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nice work. Who was the editor who died? ϢereSpielChequers 14:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Gamaliel: FYI, you may enjoy this article about applying the principles in practice - "I believe that contempt breeds contempt. That meanness breeds meanness. That hatred breeds hatred. That violence breeds violence." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• This piece is unexceptionable, because it contains little more than platitudes. Who can disagree with "be kind", "show empathy" and so on? I will just pick up on the "shop floor" comment. Gamaliel states that this characterization is occasionally invoked to justify behavior that would result in immediate termination in an offline workplace. The whole line of argument is misguided and misses the point completely. Wikipedia does not pay its editors. The editors have few rights and few responsibilities. The analogy does not work. At all. The point of the "shop floor" image is simply that the focus should be on the content, rather than interactions between editors. The latter is important, but it is a means to the end, which is the former. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• "The focus should be on the content" is also little more than a platitude. Who can disagree with that? But what happens the behavior of those who think they are on the shop floor gets in the way of focusing on the content, as we've seen again and again? Gamaliel (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• I take part of the line of argument in this piece (just describing it) to be that Wikipedia should follow the social norms of, essentially, US academia and corporate middle-management. That is what's apparently meant by "workplace". As opposed to the somewhat different subculture prevalent in manufacturing and physical labor, "shop floor". It's simply labels for different groups. The latter would make the same "gets in the way" objection to the former. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• I doubt this is a blue collar/white collar clash. I suspect many or most people who engage in negative behavior on Wikipedia actually work in corporate and white collar workplaces and think they are too stuffy, so they idealize an imaginary blue collar subculture which prizes obnoxious displays of masculinity and rudeness forbidden in their own workplaces. But your comment raises a more interesting question: whose norms do we accept and why? Which norms actually produce a better encyclopedia for everyone, and not just for the person who advocates those norms and their friends? What tradeoffs do we accept when deciding which norms are acceptable? Gamaliel (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• I suspect you're right on the demographics, but the flip side is that white-collar corporate-office "professionalism" is also a creation of a male-dominated subculture. It's just a little harder to notice, because it's the one many of us spend a lot of time in. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• These are brief comments, so grant me some simplification for concise expression. Note from the other side, again being descriptive, an argument would be along the lines of that many people who are eager to seek sanction for supposed "negative behavior" are authoritarians who think Wikipedia is not stuffy enough, so they fetishize the rigidity and punishment of the strictest types of workplace subculture. I don't think this divide is intrinsically male/female, though there are common gendered archetypes. Now, there's a big difference between "who wins?" and "what's best?" - the necktie is the perfect proof (mandatory for a long time for many environments, though completely useless to downright harmful in terms of actual work). That is, "win" is politics, "best" is about evidence. I tend to think the evidence shows it's best to give workers wide latitude, because workers tend to ignore managers, while managers are often willing to abuse workers for internal political and status game-playing (i.e. "We must have programmers wear neckties, and I'll appoint myself head of the necktie committee, create necktie reports, have regular neckie-wear status meetings, and anyone who mocks the necktie initiative will receive demerits on their performance evaluation for having a bad attitude"). It's not absolute of course, let's not waste time with that. But the inventiveness of relatively low-status people who want to find ways to boss around even lower-status people, inclines me to think that dynamic goes bad very easily and very quickly. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sure, a "wide latitude" for workers or editors is generally a good thing, and who will disagree with that? If rules are pointless or get in the way of productivity, let's get rid of them. I don't think many people in the pro-professionalism crowd on Wikipedia want to make everyone wear neckties or the electronic equivalent of rules like that. (Despite my fancy title, I've worn a tie a total of three times to my workplace, and one of those times was for a funeral of a co-worker. And I am, after all, the guy who likes to publish headlines with profanity in them, something that I recall was specifically called "unprofessional".) What we're actually talking about is not pointless bureaucratic nonsense, but rules and mores based on not being terrible to other editors. The evidence shows that giving people a "wide latitude" to engage in those toxic behaviors is incredibly damaging to institutional culture and productivity. Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Focus on the content" can also be a platitude, but it is impossible to comment in a non-platitudinous way to platitudes without recourse to specific cases. However, let's take one specific conclusion that flows from such a focus. The Arbitration Committee page states, quoting an Emory University study that Committee has generally adhered to the principles of ignoring the content of user disputes and focusing on user conduct. This is in direct contrast to the heuristic I mentioned above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• The devil is in the details with phrases such as "not being terrible". There's much potential for mischief via interpreting that as the equivalent of neckties (where a similar phrase would be something like "not being dressed unprofessionally"), or using it for group political in-fighting. The profanity example is especially illuminating, since it was clear from your comments that it's not highly offensive to you. But I suspect someone who claimed it was a case of toxic behaviors, and hence both you and the writer should immediately profusely apologize and never ever do something like that again, would not be praised by you for fighting damage to institutional culture. That is, it's no great feat to be willing to offend a relatively distant and locally weak cultural outgroup. This is a core of one of my objections - a "kind"/"toxic" dichotomy that has no other considerations besides one's cultural ingroup is simply a power-play for abuse of everyone else. It's just a relabeled "piety"/"heresy". And that's a classic setup for ideological authoritarians, who gain power by being holier-than-thou (no personal implication intended to anyone, but rather more at the principle of power-corrupts). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Seth Finkelstein I've been meaning to thank you for your recent comments on the Signpost, they have been thought provoking even though we don't seem to agree on much. I realize that some people feel like the use of profanity is unprofessional or otherwise inappropriate, but has anyone serious made a case that the occasional swearing is really a toxic behavior? If so, I'm willing to listen, but mostly I hear it brought up by others tactically to deflect complaints about civility, pretending not to understand the difference between "this sucks" and "you suck". I understand your objections to civility and conduct codes being misused as a power play. There are plenty of examples of this: tone policing, the right-wing meme of calling Paul Krugman "shrill", every Homeowners Association in America. Yet anything has the potential for abuse, so that's not really an argument for not doing it at all. Many teachers have abused their authority over students, but that's not a real argument for not letting them have any. It's an argument for doing it differently - checks on authority, stricter rules for its use, oversight, etc. - not an argument for not doing it at all. While there may be a slight chance of Wikipedia coming under the grip of ideological authoritarians, in many parts of the encyclopedia it is already a reality, but instead of using piety as a power play, they take the much more expedient approach of mob rule, using unchecked rudeness and harassment to abuse others until they flee and they are left to edit as they see fit. I'm much more concerned about the abuse that is actually happening than the possibility of hypothetical rule abuse down the line. Gamaliel (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I was thinking of this editorial when I read an interview in the Chronicle of Higher Education which had an interview with scientist A. Hope Jahren author of a new memoir Lab Girl. The interviewer asks about the public perception of science, and Jahren responded (substitute "Wikipedia" for science):

This is something that science does to protect itself. We have this language that we write in, that we don’t ever speak, that is full of words that are inaccessible to people who aren’t us. We tell ourselves that it’s the only kind of writing that matters. And most of the rewards we give each other are based on our assessment of that activity. It keeps science in this protected realm. It’s the ultimate demonstration of the fact that science is not something everybody can do. And it’s odd because out of the other side of our mouths, we increasingly say, "Science is something we need to get more people involved in."

-- kosboot (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Featured content: Watch out! A slave trader, a live mascot and a crested serpent awaits! (149 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2016-03-23

Discuss this story

In the media: Angolan file sharers cause trouble for Wikipedia Zero; the 3D printer edit war; a culture based on change and turmoil (5,762 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2016-03-23

Discuss this story

• Wow. TechDirt really recommended that Wikipedia, if it won't shut down the W0 program, should just agree to look the other way on users from poor countries uploading copyrighted content to Commons because avoiding censors is training for overthrowing their governments? That's the kind of logical thinking skills I'd expect from a high schooler, not a professional blogger wait no nevermind. --PresN 03:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  As Cracked.com says: "Wikipedia is meant to be a reference guide edited by experts, not the Web-based version of an 11-year-old desperately proving that they do so know what "sex" means by scribbling on their notebook in the back of class." Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  Breaking the law, breaking the law.--Catlemur (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Those trying to frame the Wikipedia Zero debate as an intellectual property/civil liberties issue are missing the point. Let's try a little though experiment. The community issues could easily be solved by giving Wikimedia Zero users their own private Commons. The legal issues could be solved as well: make sure the server hosting that private Commons is located in Angola and operated by an independent Wikimedia Angola. Now the true problem comes to light. While the telecom provider partnering with Wikimedia Zero is willing to give free access to small, educational Wikipedia articles out of altruistic motives, they are less likely to be willing to provide their users with free access to gigabytes of entertainment. There is a reason why data usage is so expensive in Angola, it's because the technical infrastructure is underdeveloped. That infrastructure is not going to be developed further if people are not paying for their usage. So whatever lofty goals Jason Koebler has in mind, it simply isn't going to work for purely technical reasons. There isn't enough bandwidth in the country to make it work. —Ruud 11:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is a nonprofit, but that's about it. Not so, WMF is a non-profit, Wikipedia is free content (as in speech) that we would like to be free (as in beer). The suggestion that Angolans should be denied it because My Little Pony is not free (as in beer) is absurd on its face.

Absolutely, as things stand, we may need to "play whack-a-mole" or maybe do something a little smarter to prevent the platform from being swamped. That, though, is a different problem.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC).

Agree with User:Rich Farmbrough. This is not much different than dealing with paid promotional editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• To me, the argument of underdeveloped infrastructure suggests a trend that can correct itself when it gets out of hand. If Commons is a major source of pirated multigigabyte movies, thus swamping the limited transmission capacity, the mobile providers are bound to notice the profit drain. They will either give up Wikipedia Zero or find another way to free their channel capacity to accommodate customers who pay fat per-Megabyte fees. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"the mobile providers are bound to notice the profit drain"? Is there any actual profit drain? i.e. are the people using this work around people of limited means who if they could not get access to this material would simply go without? The number of people who can "pay fat per-Megabyte fees" is probably quite limited. However a business model where the companies get a larger number of signups an turn a blind eye to more creative responses to crippling copyright law, as actually the "profit-drain" is largely illusory. It's a bit like the fantasy that GLAM organisations used to tease themselves with, that vast revenue-streams were slipping through their fingers if they released material on Open Licenses. The more problematic aspects of underdevelopment is that it has been an ever present phenomenon of capitalism as a world system for several hundred years and no-one has yet made the case that that situation is likely to change soon. W0 is perhaps a small step in the right direction, but basically I agree with User:Rich Farmbrough and User:Doc James. Leutha (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Another editor has offered, "There is a reason why data usage is so expensive in Angola, it's because the technical infrastructure is underdeveloped." Unfortunately, we do not know the degree to which that is true. If it's entirely the reason, I'm right. If it's not at all the reason, you're right. Jim.henderson (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Interestingly, on this archived blog page the blogger KnowProSE (Taran Rampersad) tells the world, in an update added at the end, that they just created the RepRap Wikipedia entry.  --Lambiam 20:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Interview: Exclusive: interview with interim ED Katherine Maher (5,471 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2016-03-23

Discuss this story

• Why is the interviewer so obsessed with replacing Mediawiki? He is asking a question and giving an answer at the same time, then forcing the interviewee to agree (which obviously is the wrong person to ask). You should ask difficult questions, but you should not take part on the conversation. --jynus (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I want you to talk to Wake County Schools alumni! --violetnese 13:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wow. Judging from that interview, I'd suggest the WMF Board has already found its executive director. :) - kosboot (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm equally impressed by her answers to a tough interview. and think she would be a good permanent ED. Nevertheless, it's too early to put Maher up as the next consensus ED - that would be a disservice to the community, the board, and especially to her. One of her chief tasks - perhaps the chief task - is to enable the ED search to find the best ED candidate. There will be many good candidates, and having the community put her forward as the obvious candidate would put her in a false (COI) position. Please let her do her first job - as interim ED - then we can judge whether she is the best ED candidate. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

And she can decide if she even wants the job. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am also equally impressed.with her. EllenCT (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Since then [i.e. HSBC], Maher's career has been in the NGO sector ... World Bank. So, she's a banker. -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I am glad she has insider experience from a large abusive bank. I am sure that makes her more cognizant of the abuses. EllenCT (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Thanks DePiep: it's an inter-governmental org. I've added "mostly" to fix this in the lead. Tony (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Very weird response, Tony1. The key word is: 'banker'. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
      • What is "very weird" about adding "mostly" so that the categorisation is correct, given that one of the specified roles was not with an NGO? Tony (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
        • @Tony1:: My post pointed out that these are two banks. Their classification is not redefining that, while your reply suggests it is. -DePiep (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
      • @DePiep: You're leaving out a pretty significant chunk of her career with that ellipsis. Bit of a stretch to call her a banker, unless citizen reporting, UNICEF, and NDI are also banks. (usual caveat of this is a volunteer, not a work, edit; I have personal thoughts and feelings that I like to share from time to time) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• uh and i thought mediawiki is older than the wikimedia foundation, by magnus manske&co, and they say in this interview the foundation originally developped ...? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @ThurnerRupert: According to MediaWiki#History, what became MediaWiki was started in 2002, but the first MediaWiki was so named as a play on words from Wikimedia Foundation. So while it's probably not technically correct to say it was originally developed, it's pretty close as a convenient shorthand. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• It is a bit disappointing how almost every answer is "Great question! There are multiple viewpoints and we will consider all of them", which isn't really an answer. Seems that interim director does not want to express any opinions of her own, or has none. --SSneg (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Mobile view much too wide

The mobile view is quite bad, I guess it is not only the Katherine s foto too big. Sign... ThurnerRupert (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a known issue. :-) Someday it'll get fixed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

News and notes: Lila Tretikov a Young Global Leader; Wikipediocracy blog post sparks indefinite blocks (22,175 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2016-03-23

Discuss this story

• The de-sysop on Commons is very disturbing. It perhaps reveals the black hole the Foundation fell into when it started making global bans for secret reasons. For clarity the comment was a perhaps rather unhelpful comment in context by globally banned user Russavia on an attempted de-sysop. There were a number of users involved in removing and re-inserting the comment in what is known as an "edit war". One of them even taunted admins by using in their edit summary "Any user may remove content from a globally banned user and suffer no penalty for doing so." This goes to the heart of an issue that has never been resolved - should good contributions by banned users be allowed to stand? And at the same time there are many on Commons and elsewhere that have deep misgivings over the Russavia ban. Discussions even took place suggesting that we should reject permission release he had solicited from third parties.

The whole thing smacks of guilt-by-association, personal animus, and silencing techniques.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC).

It looks rather worse than that. I see a not-an-admin taunting an admin not to restore conversation including votes about an issue or the non-admin will have the admin blocked. So this is really a sort of Russian law, where it isn't safe to act against a vandal unless you know who he is and that he isn't well-connected. The worst part is the implication that Commons RfA policy isn't under community control (I commented about that on their Village Pump). Wnt (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

---

"Limited resources"?

Year	Source	Revenue	Expenses	Asset rise	Total assets
2014/2015	[1]	$ 75,797,223	$ 52,596,782	$ 24,345,277	$ 77,820,298
2013/2014	[2]	$ 52,465,287	$ 45,900,745	$ 8,285,897	$ 53,475,021
2012/2013	[3]	$ 48,635,408	$ 35,704,796	$ 10,260,066	$ 45,189,124
2011/2012	[4]	$ 38,479,665	$ 29,260,652	$ 10,736,914	$ 34,929,058
2010/2011	[5]	$ 24,785,092	$ 17,889,794	$ 9,649,413	$ 24,192,144
2009/2010	[6]	$ 17,979,312	$ 10,266,793	$ 6,310,964	$ 14,542,731
2008/2009	[7]	$ 8,658,006	$ 5,617,236	$ 3,053,599	$ 8,231,767
2007/2008	[8]	$ 5,032,981	$ 3,540,724	$ 3,519,886	$ 5,178,168
2006/2007	[9]	$ 2,734,909	$ 2,077,843	$ 654,066	$ 1,658,282
2005/2006	[10]	$ 1,508,039	$ 791,907	$ 736,132	$ 1,004,216
2004/2005	[11]	$ 379,088	$ 177,670	$ 211,418	$ 268,084
2003/2004	[12]	$ 80,129	$ 23,463	$ 56,666	$ 56,666

• 
    revenue

    expenses

    assets

Although I really don't see any evidence of "limited resources" preventing us from doing a first-class job of child protection, if indeed we don't have the resources to protect children we should immediately cancel all Wikimanias and most travel to free up more resources for what should be a higher priority. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, does anyone feel like making a new version of the bar chart above with the legend added so we don't have to tack it on the end every time? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

And as I've learnt by being niggled by colour-blind readers, consider not both red and green next time. Tony (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, please note that I have not expressed an opinion one way or the other about the issue Wnt brings up below; I am just commenting about an organization that is cash-rich and and spending more and more each year without really accomplishing much of anything crying "we would like to do more, but our resources are sooooooo limited!". This is stupid whether or not the "we would like to do more" bit is actually worth doing. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Wayne Ray is not an isolated case

That Wikipediocracy blog post is very prescriptive and points out a number of things that were missed in one particular case. That's fine (and it has lead to some action on Commons) but the larger issue may have been lost in the rush to local corrective action. Wayne Ray is just one person who has been blocked by ARBCOM under similar circumstances. I am at a loss to understand why the WMF could not simply block these people on all WMF projects immediately. They globally blocked over 50 accounts yesterday as spammers or sockpuppets of User:Russavia, so it's obviously not that big a deal. @Jalexander-WMF: why can't you block these accounts right now? It would seem like a poor use of your "limited resources" to re-investigate cases already dealt with by ARBCOM. Limited Resources (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jayen466: you seem to be able to get andwers from Jalexander, do you think you could ask him why the WMF cannot immediately block the small set of users who have been ARBCOM blocked? Or why they haven't been able to act on this one particular case despite knowing about the situation for over a week? Maybe you could do a follow-up piece in the next Signpost issue to show the progress of this case (bearing in mind that "child protection, of course, is incredibly high" on the priority list of the Trust & Safety department). If the two full-time and five part-time members of the Trust & Safety department aren't able to act on reports in a timely manner even when they are spoonfed the information, then this would seem to be an issue for the ED and the Board. Thanks. Limited Resources (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Limited Resources, James has advised me that the WMF investigation is still ongoing, and any possible visible actions probably won't occur until later next week. Andreas JN466 22:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. And thanks to James for taking the time to squeeze out this tidbit of information. I look forward to answers to my questions when he has more available time. Limited Resources (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

To the contrary, this kind of initiative is unjustifiable and foolhardy. The user was making decent contributions on multiple projects until recently - projects which had not adopted the English Wikipedia's specific language about banning "identification" as pedophiles. Now to some people it is disturbing that this person possessed 60-70 images illegal in Britain and disseminated them on a Yahoo group. (note that Britain does not necessarily go by the same laws as the U.S. does, and their overall reputation on censorship lately has been anything but good) But Wikipedia will proudly allow people who have gone to jail for murder to start contributing again when they get out. It looks to me like some self-important person in the WMF has set himself up as judge, jury, executioner, doctor, and psychiatrist, deciding that they can tell from the news report about a folder of images they've never seen that this poet must be a confirmed and untreatable pedophile and hence a danger worse than a killer. Now if you people want a cause, why don't you go witch-hunting for Crips and Bloods trying to post about their organizations, then gradually work up to the Mexican Mafia, ISIS, Contras, Ukrainian far-right militias, Syrian resistance, Anonymous, U.S. Army and so forth. You'd have a better chance of protecting people (especially with the last one).

P.S. Note that the WMF of today would proudly ban Allen Ginsberg from any form of participation in any project, without even a second thought. Is that something to be proud of? Wnt (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wnt, your comment prompts many worrying questions. But here is a less worrying question. Why do you think Britain and the law in Britain have anything to do with the Wayne Ray issue? MPS1992 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Because the article linked indirectly above called him a London poet. (to be sure, there are crazier jurisdictions - I'm not sure if the WMF would also blindly ban any named editor convicted of possessing materials deemed "child porn" for depicting adult women whose breasts are too small and hence incite pedophilic desires, but until there's a test case there's no telling!) Wnt (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There is more than one place called London in the world. The article linked also had plenty of other rather "large" clues. MPS1992 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if somebody calls their town London and situates it on the bloody Thames, and their paper writes the London Arts Festival and so forth without the slightest qualification, that's a level of deception that ordinary people can't be expected to be looking out for. :) Wnt (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wayne Ray went to jail for child pornography offences after pleading guilty to two of the charges. That alone should be enough to warrant removing him from any WMF project where he might interact with minors. To do otherwises seems grossly irresponsible, if not outright negligent. The WMF has known about this situation since the publication of the blog post a week ago, although perhaps they were already aware of this user. I find it surprising that they have not acted already. Limited resources is an excuse that can only be stretched so far when there are two fulltime employees and five others assisting. Limited Resources (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. Assume for the sake of argument that an individual pled guilty to a charge of first degree murder, served his time, and then resumed editing Wikipedia. To keep things simple, let's assume this was all in the US. Would that mean that we should remove him from any WMF project where he might interact with future murder victims? Getting closer to what Wikipediocracy talks about in this case (as usual I have no idea how reliable the report is) would it matter if our imaginary murderer used Wikipedia to lure his victims to their death? What if, after his release, he continued to do things on Wikipedia that could only be explained as attempts to lure more victims? What if the court had, as a condition of parole, forbidden any Wikipedia editing? Would it be our job to enforce the court's decision? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No. Yes. Yes. Ok, sure. Sorry, are using Wikipedia to lure victims in this case or is this simply a parole condition? If it is the latter, then no, it isn't Wikipedia's job (although I would hope that the WMF was monitoring their edits for signs of luring, given the made-up history). If it is the former, then the WMF has a responsibility to block the imaginary user for the safety of other users, regardless of any parole conditions imposed by the court. In the non-imaginary case at hand, we have a person convicted of child pornography charges who has demonstrated a pattern of inappropriate interections with other users, some of whom appear to be young. Knowing this, do you think that the WMF has a responsibility to globally ban Wayne Ray, for the safety of other users? Limited Resources (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: let me pose some questions for you as well. How old do you think the model is in this image uploaded by Wayne Ray? Do you think she give her permission for it to be shared on the internet? Is there any evidence that she did? Do you think she give her permission for it to be re-used, including commercially? Is there any evidence that she did? Limited Resources (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to look at that image, because I never knowingly look at pictures where I believe that there is a high probability of someone's privacy being violated. I will not by my actions become part of the problem. I am assuming that it isn't in a public place, so my view is that the subject of the photo must give permission and we must have affirmative evidence of that permission.

So it looks like you are saying that in cases where there is a reason to believe that an individual will harm minors on Wikipedia they should be banned. If so, I agree. Previously you wrote "Wayne Ray went to jail for child pornography offences after pleading guilty to two of the charges. That alone should be enough to warrant removing him from any WMF project where he might interact with minors." biut you replied "No" when I asked "Assume for the sake of argument that an individual pled guilty to a charge of first degree murder, served his time, and then resumed editing Wikipedia. Would that mean that we should remove him from any WMF project where he might interact with future murder victims?" So is your answer really different for child pornographers vs. murderers? Or am I misunderstanding you? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You are not mistaken. My answer really is different for child pornographers and murderers (unless those are your hypthetical murderers who "lure" people through Wikipedia). I am not suggesting that we discriminate against people who have been to prison. I am suggesting we discriminate against people who are likely to pose a risk to other users and to be especially cautious if those users are younger users. As for the image, we have no affirmative evidence of permission, but that isn't a requirement for Commons, so it's clearly not a problem. Limited Resources (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like a Commons admin to look over this image (and others) and decide about it. Obviously posting child porn to Commons would be a far more significant concern than some story you found in a newspaper, but someone has to figure out if that ever happened. A story like this should be cause for this sort of investigation - but this sort of investigation should have been the first thing that happened, because our need to keep illegal content off the server is far more pressing than our need to get rid of the one person in a thousand with a charge like this in their past who actually gives out enough information for us to know that. Wnt (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your thoughts seem disordered. Limited Resources (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with Wnt's thoughts. Do you want to have a reasoned discussion or do you want to troll? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

When you posted it I contacted a Commons admin about it and he has now gotten rid of it. I understand that there is contradiction here --- my political position is that nothing should be obscene, coupled with important social safeguards to minimize victimization by means other than censorship. However, my Wikipedia position is that I don't want to take chances with our site if there is any significant worry about the legality. Ordinarily the image you cited would not seem like a serious worry (i.e. because the upload was labeled as a collage from an art show, and assuming good faith would imply it is both authorized and legal; also because it only showed breasts, which affects one of the legal tests if I remember correctly), but it is true that when the uploader has been prosecuted this way that the worry can seem more serious. But there is a difference between suspicion and guilt, investigation and punishment, between worrying about the legality of our images and worrying about whether we have all just the right kind of people among our thousands of anonymous users. And there are many users we worry about a bit. It is a bit complicated and at times even a little muddy but I'm trying to go by the principle I see here.

And so an aspect of this is that what annoys me is that you're trying to do the right thing the wrong way. When you see this person has been uploading since 2012, it's a great thing that you looked at his pictures and found something to question. But that should be the very first thing people do, and that way, if someone is problematic you figure it out AND clean up the actual problem, versus first arguing about the person in the abstract, which I think is much less reliable, and not looking to see if there's something on the servers to actually worry about until later. I feel like if the WMF is going to take global action, it shouldn't be left up to people arguing in the talk page for a minor newsletter to make the call on something like this. Wnt (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, someone should have gone through these uploads to find anything questionable and dealt with it. Perhaps in 2012 when he was ARBCOM blocked here? That obviously didn't happen. Perhaps when he was blocked on Commons almost a week ago? That didn't happen either (although a couple of the specific images mentioned in the blog post quickly disappeared). @Jalexander-WMF: - will someone do this when the account is globally blocked, or are your resources too limited? Limited Resources (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to know why this was not done. If the answer is really limited resources, please respond to the section above this where I argue that the WMF has more than enough resources to do this. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Jalexander-WMF: Following on from this article and the wikipediocracy blog, I spent a little time in the darker reaches of the Commons that I didn't appreciate existed before. I would like to discuss the cat under E in this screenshot (to be clear, the problem is the cat title, no images are seen in the screenshot). JMWt (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Traffic report: Be weary on the Ides of March (149 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2016-03-23

Discuss this story