The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-07-19. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• The Arbcom is, and has been for a long time, drunk on power, arbitrary and often irrational in its decisions, and prone to making decisions based on who they like and dislike; not the merits of the case: certain people cause problems again and again, and get off with nothing but a warning, but if you manage to offend an Arbcom member, watch out! It ought to be scrapped. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• What do you mean when you say "dumped" ? –xeno^talk 17:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure: The word "dumped" appears nowhere in what I said. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry if my indent was unclear; the question is directed at the journalist. –xeno^talk 19:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Looks like the Arbitration Committee has truly become the Central Committee! -- Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have a lot of respect for Arbcom members. They are just unpaid volunteers and have to make some very difficult decisions that affect a lot of people, and we shouldn't judge them until we've been in that position ourselves. If anyone thinks they could do better I encourage them to apply. -- œ^™ 06:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a thankless task, for sure. Powers ^T 15:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Hear hear Acather96 (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• I really dislike the proposed settlement of the Race and Intelligence matter, limiting the percentage of edits on a given topic of involved editors. This is a really dangerous step in the wrong direction. Most good content contributors (as opposed to typo-fixers) are topically focused, I contend. Carrite (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Really, it's kind of a step down from other editing restrictions -- they usually require that zero percent of a user's edits be in a particular topic. However, and of course, "number of edits" is not really a good metric by which to measure anything; we all know they can be artificially inflated or deflated as one wishes. Powers ^T 01:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Either the users in question deserve to be banned or they don't (that obviously can and should be evaluated one user at a time). But "half-banning" someone makes no sense at all, unless you're going to tell them not to do various menial semi-automated tasks or find some way to avoid counting such menial tasks.

--NYKevin @756, i.e. 17:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go at copyediting the report on the CUOS elections. The text mixed up the two points (review of old election and call for candidates for August) with the result that it wasn't clear to a reader what had actually gone on. half the coverage of the first point was mixed into the second point. There were also some wordings that seemed out of place ("tried to justify"?). Last time I looked improvements to Signpost reporting were open to all, and past articles have been edited after publication to improve their fidelity. Hopefully the copyedits make this report more faithful to the actual event and more informative to Signpost readers.

• diff

Apologies Ncm - hopefully though you will agree this is a good reflection on the sources. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I preferred FT2's version (it seemed more neutral), it has been reverted. –xeno^talk 14:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Until now, the feedback I received since publication appears to suggest that users have made sense of what is being said without your editing. I don't doubt there will always be room for improvement, and I welcome all feedback, but not to the extent where you can substantially change the text of a report that I hold responsibility over. If there may have been a major issue in the reporting of something, (for example, in another report, we (Signpost) once reported something inaccurately), we have and will leave a note to this effect - directing readers to those issues so that they can make sense of what is happening without altering our original text. Even to that extent, I don't agree that there is an issue here (and I certainly haven't received any correspondence from an active arbitrator regarding any concerns to this effect; they know how to reach me and I know how to reach them). I also don't think it was so messy or that you should have edited it given your stance no the issue, but I'll certainly take your feedback in relation to the standards that you expected. In any case, this appears to be a case where I should clarify something.

Please note that this is not a Committee noticeboard - this is Signpost; a publication that is not only independent of ArbCom's office (and its previous members), but one that was published half a week ago (most users have already read through it and come to their own views, regardless of the merits for changing the text now). Please also note that Signpost is not another vehicle for merely singing the exact tunes that are sung at the Committee noticeboard because that's what the Committee, or users who support the Committee's position (on a particular issue), want others to hear or ideally to agree with. Similarly, Signpost is not a vehicle that merely sings the same tunes that are sung by users who criticise the Committee on the noticeboard talk, because that's what users who oppose the Committee's position (on a particular issue) want others to hear or ideally to agree with. Signpost has never pretended that it is a replacement for anything, and holds no obligations in that regard - it will, through its journalists, certainly try to take care not to misstate or misrepresent a comment, a view or an issue (and any concerns should be forwarded to the relevant journalist), but it will not hold some unreal and stringent alliance to statements that were in themselves flawed (either due to omissions or copyediting in themselves). Users have the opportunity to look at links and diffs that are provided in the report to ascertain for themselves (to come to their own views) about what is happening, why it is happening, how it is happening, where it is happening and when it is happening (adjust "is happening" to "has happened" for things that have already occurred). What was written was within the discretion of the journalist (and others who looked at it the day after it was published agreed). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you mean to say when you write the results were "dumped". –xeno^talk 16:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant that the results were disposed of similar to the way waste is disposed of because they were no longer considered to be needed (or have value) in serving the purpose that they were meant to. I appreciate that there may be debate over whether recycling occurred or should have occurred, but that's something for readers to consider. Sorry for the delay in response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the results were accepted and implemented as originally planned. The one user who got through was given the rights, the other users were not. "Dumped" just seems out of place. Jmho. –xeno^talk 13:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but I think you'll find that others disagree with that view too because the politics of it is clear. The elections and its results served the purpose of filling up to 6 OSers positions and 4 CUsers positions - the results deemed that in accordance with the requirements set by ArbCom, only 1 of these positions could be filled at this time; nobody finds issue with this. Would the results have still been deemed unsatisfactory if ArbCom had set more sensible requirements (such as, for example, avoiding the use of SecurePoll)? This was what people kept thinking about. The people who disagree with your view will say this: if the elections+results had value in serving the purpose that they were meant to, ArbCom would not have made a call for more candidates, with specific encouragement to the same unsuccessful candidates, barely 2 months after the community voted in the previous election. What this means, in practice, whether the politicians of Wikipedia like it or not, or agree with it or not, is that the elections set by ArbCom+its results have been dumped in favour of another (former) process+its results. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO you're missing the point. The results of the elections haven't been dumped. The results have been accepted but only appointed one member. However as the number of people appointed is considered too low (I presume) for their effective functioning, arbcom has abandoned (dumped if you will) that method of selecting CU and oversighters and is going to appoint more people in addition to those elected in the accepted results of the election. Whether or not you agree with the arbcom's decision to appoint additional members or abandon/dump the election process doesn't change the fact the previous results were accepted and acted upon by the arbcom. In fact, it's even possible the arbcom may use the results in reaching their decision on who to appoint (I don't know if they've commented on that), which doesn't exactly speak for 'results have been dumped'. As I've said you need to differentiate between results and process/method. BTW, I don't really understand how SecurePoll comes in to it. If SecurePoll hadn't been used, it's easily possible the same result would have happened. In fact it's even possible no one would have been elected. It's true by not using SecurePoll, arbcom or someone else could have analysed any comments left and used those to help them make a decision on who to appoint, which would arguably be more useful then just analysing the number of support and oppose from the SecurePoll election. But even so, if the non-securepoll election had required 70% support, and this was only achieved for 1 or no candidates, then any decision by the arbcom, or the community, or whatever to later change the method/process of selectng candidates would be a change. And if the community had not come to consensus on re-using the results in any way or otherwise appointing/election more CU+oversighters in some way, then we would be in the same boat. The arbcom would have acted on the results of this non-securepoll, and then would have had to decide in some way to appoint additional members, perhaps by using the results of the election to help them, perhaps not. It seems clear to me the issue here is the number of people elected is was not sufficient, not that the arbcom wasn't happy with the results and that could have happened whatever method of election you'd used. Of course if you hadn't use an election method, things would be different again, but the above comment was about the use of SecurePoll, not whether an election was the best method. P.S. I didn't vote in the CU&O election. In fact I didn't even know it was ongoing. Nor did I participate in the RFC, again didn't know it was ongoing. And to be honest, I don't really care that much either way how they're appointed/elected. I simply dislike things which IMHO are clearly untrue or strongly misleading. Nil Einne (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, as I said above, I have no idea if the arbcom will use the results at all in making a decision on who to appoint for CU/oversight. If they have made it clear they will not, and the signpost entry was trying to say this, it was an incredibly poor wording. A far better wording would be something like:

The Committee also announced that no further appointments will be made on the basis of the results of the May 2010 CheckUser and Oversight election; those results were deemed as unsatisfactory (see Signpost coverage) and will not be used as part of any future decisions. Instead, the Committee has made a call for CheckUser and Oversight applications from administrators only. Additionally, the Committee encouraged unsuccessful candidates from the election to reapply.

or probably better

The Committee also announced that no further appointments will be made on the basis of the results of the May 2010 CheckUser and Oversight election; those results were deemed as unsatisfactory (see Signpost coverage). Instead, the Committee has made a call for CheckUser and Oversight applications from administrators only. Additionally, the Committee encouraged unsuccessful candidates from the election to reapply but has stated the results of the May 2010 election will not play a part in their decisions.

or something of that sort, which conveys what is intended i.e. the arbcom isn't going to use the results in making their decision, but doesn't misleadingly suggest they've been dumped. In fact I'm not particularly happy about the 'unsatisfactory' part but I'm lazy to tackle that and it isn't that bad.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to say "The Committee tried to justify this decision on the basis of its evaluation" is IMHO a rather offensive and clearly non neutral wording in my eyes. It seems to imply that the Committee tried to justify their decision, but failed. Simply saying "The Committee justified this decision" is far more neutral. Note that this doesn't imply they successfully justified this decision to my reading. It simply factually states this is the reason they gave for to justify their decision. Whether or not people agree with this justification, should be up to the reader, not the signpost writers to decide.

To use an example, if someone were to say "The Bush administration justified their decision to invade Iraq based on (alleged) evidence of WMD" this wouldn't imply the reader should accept this justification. In fact, nowadays, it would be common for someone to say something like "The Bush administration justified their decision to invade Iraq based on evidence of WMD. However no WMD were found in Iraq after the invasion. In addition, evidence later emerge that the Bush administration had mislead people in their justification." Clearly in this case, the writer is suggesting their justification was dubious, yet they don't need to write "tried to justify".

Also take from this what you will. I actually started this earlier but decided it was unduly harsh and served no purpose but reading ncmvocalist comment above, I've changed my mind. I rarely read the signpost. Some comments on Talk:Main Page recently made me wonder whether I should. But frankly seeing this I'm thinking I'm right not to read it since it seems that the signpost clearly doesn't even try to be neutral instead aims to reflect the bias of the writer and says silly and clearly untrue things I guess because of the personal dislike of the writer for something that's happening. Note that I'm not suggesting that the signpost should mirror what the arbcom says. Instead, they should aim for neutrality. It's great to present meaningful criticism, but the signpost shouldn't take a side on which one is correct and they definitely shouldn't snidely suggest one side is wrong as it seems from the discussions here and this signpost entry is the norm and accepted practice.

In other words, let the reader decide, don't try to make up their minds for them. Or do the same thing you will do when writing an article. Also what most reputable journalism sources do. While this sort of stuff may be popular with Fox News, I think you'll find it's the sort of thing which for a lot of readers just offends them and makes them far less likely to actually agree with you. As I've said above, I have no particular care about how people are elected/appointed/whatever to be CU/oversighters and AFAIK have never even participated in an election or RFC yet all this signpost entry and associated discussions on it in this page have made me do is feel that the arbcom must have made the right decision.

The funny thing is, as I've said above, I didn't know about the elections etc. I might have taken part had I known. This, not knowing but may be would have taken part if I had is quite common. Some of this probably appears in my watchlist but I almost never check it out. I probably should check it out WP:CENT a bit more. But even so, something like the signpost may be useful to get to know what's going on. As I said earlier, it was something I was thinking of a few weeks back but it's become clear to me it's not. So I'm going to continue to be in the dark. I'm guessing I'm not the only one. This is IMHO a sad thing for wikipedia.

If anyone is interested in starting something which will aim to tell me what's going on in wikipedia, presenting multiple sides were appropriate, but not aim to tell me what I should think, then do leave me a message, it would be welcome. Perhaps even better would be for signpost writers to consider whether trying to tell me what to think alienating me and likely many others in the process and therefore effectively leaving me in the dark is good for wikipedia. Or whether it may be better to neutrally tell me what's going on, neutrally presenting criticism where appropriate and letting me make up my own mind.

P.S. Perhaps the reason why limited criticism was received of the wording is because many people have given up on reading the signpost, and even those that haven't don't feel there's much point offering criticism since it will just be dismissed (particularly if they don't offer it within a day of publication or whatever) as the earlier criticism by others seems to have been?

Nil Einne (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Related discussion: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost#Ncmvocalist needs to step down or be replaced. –xeno^talk 00:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As an addition I'm please to see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-26/Arbitration report clarification is offered in the next entry about the concerns. While this is a good thing and reduces my annoyance (I probably wouldn't have bothered to post the long rant above about the signpost if I'd seen this earlier), clarification should be offered in this entry as well since there's no guarantee readers are going to read the next entry (I clearly didn't until now). That's one of the good things about electronic media, you don't have to wait until the next edition to offer clarification.

BTW, while I still clearly have concerns that this sort of thing happens in the first place I admit it seems the signpost isn't quite as bad as I first thought from this entry so perhaps I will start to read it. However this should also be an important message on why getting it right in the first place is important, and offering clarification in the current entry is wise. First impressions count and there's no guarantee a reader is going to see the clarification.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I realised I probably should also mention I don't really have the dislike for 'arbcom power' that some people have so am usually not overly worried about that sort of thing. Also I am somewhat of a believer in representative democracy and do somewhat believe there's a risk if you try to get people to make too many votes, many of them just don't care enough so they either don't vote leaving own a small number of self selected voters, or they spend next to no time considering their vote and may make a bad decision. I'm not trying to have a debate about these points, simply mentioning it to acknowledge I do of course have biases which undoutedly influence my opinions Nil Einne (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to state again about how much I like this format. This feature has gone from being scan-worthy to being worth a thorough read. Great job, folks! - BanyanTree 15:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've skipped reading the Signpost for weeks because watching the FAC page is about the same thing. This touch is now more interesting. I'm impressed. --Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I can only echo the above. It's flipped from being a boring list to something I can be entertained by. On a side note, I read Tarrare because of this, and I fully agree that "cat lovers may want to give this one a miss". —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I have to agree, it looks awesome. I never had a problem with the old format, I always read it and didn't think there was anything wrong with it, but that didn't mean it couldn't still be improved, and this is definitely an improvement. -- œ^™ 07:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, seresin has been doing a very good job on this for about three years, I think. This expands and modifies the structure he established. Tony (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer that we continue to show all of the new featured pictures. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What, all 23? Tony (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The old style was cluttered and conveyed the FP promotions in a way that was not aesthetically pleasing, something which FPs are meant to be. The old design where the images were pulled together in small thumbnails was a bit of a slap in the face to the reason they were promoted. WackyWace ^{you talkin' to me?} 12:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Great job on the new format. May you could add a link to a google image search that somehow shows the weeks latest FPs. Their image search has recently been upgraded. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Roderic Page biology story has spawned a discussion on refactoring the way the taxobox template works: Template talk:Taxobox#Automatic taxonomy generation. A prototype of the new system is currently being tested. Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone who reads the final discussion on the article she championed will see clearly that there were few -- if any -- "anti-Semites and Israel-haters" involved in deleting that article. Even those arguing to keep the article never felt the need to accuse those who disagreed with them of being one of these -- despite the conversation getting heated at points. I believe this says everything one needs to know about Karin McQuillan -- & not just about her judgment about Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but I think she is accurate on this point: "it is not pleasant to try to contribute to topics dealing with Israel. Major topics like Jerusalem or the Holocaust attract enough attention that destructive editors’ depredations are kept at a minimum." That matches the experience of many editors who've ventured into this area. She's only wrong in thinking that all the disruptive editors are anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. Controversial topics always attract a great number of POV warriors trying to promote their own perspective, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most controversial of all; there have been, and will continue to be, plenty of disruptive and tendentious editors on both sides. ArbCom has tried to help by banning and restricting some of the worst offenders, but it's not a problem that will ever go away completely, as long as the real-world conflict exists. Robofish (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I won't argue with you about any of what you wrote Robofish. But claiming that Wikipedia is a nest of anti-Semiticism & Islamofascists not only shifts the blame entirely onto one set of shoulders, it insults everyone who is part of Wikipedia. The only reason she wrote this was to deny her own reprehensible behavior & inability to usefully contribute here. Instead of increasing the viciousness inherent in these disagreements, why don't these advocates for one or both sides from outside Wikipedia come here with the goal of calming things down instead? (Yes, I know the answer, but maybe one of them will see this & consider trying that tactic.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, is it any real surprise the Muhammad issue is flaring up again? It had been settled... until Jimbo Wales and the Foundation decided that Offensive to Muslims = No action, but Offensive to Fox News = PANIC!!! MASS DELETION SPREE!!! Jimbo Wales vastly undercut the moral authority of Wikipedia, and we're seeing the result of that now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that the pornography thing was a legal issue that could have some serious repercussions (rightly or wrongly), while the threat of boycott from Indonesia was less likely to faze anyone at the Foundation as a serious blow to the project. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo later admitted that there was no legal issue: it was a horribly failed propoganda move on his part. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how deleting porn-cruft from commons erases our "moral authority". Do you really think that homemade penis photos are just as encyclopedic as historical depictions of Muhammad? Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a great approach to the question of freedom of speech: I don't like it so let's delete it. I would like to see gratuitous penis photos disappear too, but as the result of editorial discretion, not hate campaigns by Larry Sanger and FOX News. Lampman (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It seems to me that that quote (commonly (mis?)attributed to Voltaire) is quite apt here; I think we need to be saying something similar in the first person plural. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 23:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales did not go on a deletion spree of homemade penis photos. He deleted several Victorian artworks - not because they were in any way illegal but because he, in his wisdom idiocy thought that they were of no value. here is an image Jimbo Wales deleted. here is our article on the artist. Evidently, the idea that lesbians exist and appeared in art deco artwork was far too shocking for Jimbo. I was worried his next stop was going to be Gustave Doré, because Doré uses nudity in his Divine Comedy illustrations.

So, yes, as Jimbo was going on a quest to purge depictions of female sexuality by major artists, I do think that what he did was exactly on the level as deleting historic images of Muhammad. He also deleted: File:Félicien Rops - Sainte-Thérèse.png by Félicien Rops, and a couple others, all while encouraging other admins to do the same, and edit warring to keep them deleted.

This is NOT about a few homemade images of penises. This is about Jimbo Wales deciding that Wikipedia cannot cover sexuality, even in works by major artists. If anything, removing every piece of erotic art - as Jimbo explicitly attempted to do - and edit-warring to keep them deleted is a far more destructive act than deleting images of Muhammad would be. The images of Muhammad being deleted destroys our coverage of one small aspect of one religion. Jimbo's deletions would, had they remained, destroyed our coverage of every single aspect of sexual behaviour, dozens, if not hundreds, of important artists, and, judging by all his deletions of female sexuality, any idea that women are sexual beings.

Frankly, his actions on Commons have cost me any respect I had for Jimbo. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What a tempest in a teapot. Most of the stuff Jimbo deleted was crappy porn. The other stuff was a poor attempt at PR control. The end result was that we got a lot of productive discussion about how no one on Commons was enforcing our scope policy. Kaldari (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Where did Jimbo admit that, if I may ask. I'm interested to read it. Powers ^T 15:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

here. The signpost never actually covered half the story going on in that situation. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to "Jimbo later admitted that there was no legal issue" - you seem to be interpreting something into the quoted words. Smallbones (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No one is arguing that 2257 applies to us legally. Please remember not to engage in personal attacks, it is entirely unhelpful. I expect the Foundation board and/or staff to make a formal statement about this within a few days. The question is not going to be whether we are going to be a porn server.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC). He made vague statements like that throughout the debate, but never once admitted the true motivations before the post linked above. He also stated that he refused to discuss undeleting any of the artworks for a month. "I have redeleted the image [ {File:Félicien Rops - Sainte-Thérèse.png|}, by Félicien Rops ] for the duration of the cleanup project. We will have a solid discussion about whether Commons should ever host pornography and under what circumstances at a later day - June 1st will be a fine time to start.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)" (commons:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive/2010/5#Art). He basically wantd to do a coverup until Fox wasn't looking, but didn't trust the users enough to ever mention this to them until after he had disrupted the project, and caused all the uses of the images to be lost. He later claimed ...I deleted some things that I assumed would be undeleted after a discussion. I wanted us to take an approach that involved first deleting a lot of borderline things, and then bringing them back after careful case by case discussions. That proved to be quite unpopular, and I'm sorry about it."

I don't, however, trust him. He never mentioned the Fox News sliming until after he did the deletions. He claimed he was seeking the input of the commons community on policy, and when it was decided by the community that atrworks should be protected, just reverted and began deleting them. He attempted to delay discussions, claimed it was a crisis situation, and failed utterly to "avert" the crisis he claimed that his actions were in aid of, instead making us look worse. He failed to trust the users, failed to communicate with users, failed to listen to users, and vandalised the project. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is probably not the place to discuss this - what is the relation of the topic to the above story? -but it looks to me like you are getting wrapped up in this and losing your objectivity. It's just not obvious to me that the things you quote are at all related to the conclusions you draw. I for one have no objections to keeping kiddie porn off of Commons. At first glance, kiddie porn there looks like it is against US law, the law has a reasonable purpose and was voted on by my elected representatives, and kiddie porn in 99% of the cases I've seen has nothing to do with the purposes of Wikipedia. I realize that other things got wrapped up in this, but if you want Wikipedia to distribute kiddie porn for free, you'll get no support from me, or I suspect from Wikipedia's sponsors (the people who pay for Wikipedia's operations). Why do we need to come so close to breaking the law with no educational benefit? Smallbones (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what images we are talking about, nor do I have any interest in the matter. What I do resent is editors like the above, implicitly labelling as paedophiles anyone who disagrees with them on deletion policy. "if you want Wikipedia to distribute kiddie porn for free"? Could you please point to the editor who said he thought we should be distributing kiddie porn for free, or are you simply creating straw-men and tossing around unsubstantiated bad faith accusations? Lampman (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me completely. If you are for a deletion policy that removes kiddie porn from Commons, then we have no argument. Surely you've seen some of the pictures where you couldn't tell if the subject was under 16 years old. (I believe the legal cut-off is 18). It appeared to me as if a large minority of folks in the discussions following Jimbo's announcement were against any "censorship" of porn ever, which as a practical matter meant distributing kiddie-porn for free. I had tried to get some obvious kiddie porn removed pre-announcement. I had to work very hard at this for about 6 weeks, sending e-mails to people at all levels in the Wikipedia hierarchy, then gave up because NOBODY in the hierarchy was willing to say that we should remove obvious kiddie porn speedily. Fortunately, the 5 pictures were removed about 2 weeks after I gave up. Smallbones (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what these pictures are, and no interest in finding out. If you do have problems with potential paedophile material, you should contact the people at WP:PedMen, who ought to know what to do about the matter. My only point is that people here might have different ideas about deletion criteria on Commons, but implying on that basis that someone condones child pornography brings the discussion down on a level that is unacceptable. Lampman (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My only dog in this fight is that Jimbo was deleting artworks, and editwarring to keep them deleted. I've linked to works by notable artworks he deleted, which I objected to. Noone is arguing that we should be encouraging paedophilia; however, Jimbo's deletions did nothing to enforce this. I don't want to actually look at Wikiporn; but, from commons:Commons:Sexual_content/Deletion_log, it looks like 3 of the 76 works he deleted were historic artworks, and I think, going by files being svg or of similar names to ones with svg extentions, about a dozen were illustrations. As far as I'm aware, not one image he deleted involved people who were even plausibly under 18, and it appears that over half his deletions did not stick. In short, about one-fifth of his deletions were either illustrations or historic artworks. As far as I'm aware - and you'll forgive me if I do not check, none of the files he deleted had anything to do with kiddie porn; and I believe that most of the files he deleted were in use in at least one Wikipedia project. So, how did his actions supposedly protect Wikipedia from Kiddie porn? Answer: They didn't. It was just a convenient excuse that had nothing to do with his actual actions, and he was called out on this by people like Cary Bass (check his talk page on Commons). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I lost respect for Cuerden a considerable time ago and I wouldn't pay any attention to anything he has to say. 217.44.191.251 (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved here from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-26/In the news:

Jimbo may be one of the most powerful people in media, but his recent actions have given grave doubts as to whether he can be trusted with that power.

Jimbo Wales, out of fear of a media attack, led by Fox News, about allegations of pornography on Wikipedia, instituted a massive deletion of content from Commons, including many examples of artwork by notable artists. For example, the artwork to the right, by Franz von Bayros, was personally deleted by Jimbo, who even edit warred to keep it deleted. On being challenged about this deletion, Wales wrote:

He also deleted a work by Félicien Rops, File:Félicien_Rops_-_Sainte-Thérèse.png, and numerous line art illustrations used to illustrate articles on sexual content.

Only long after these deletions were done did he state his reasons:

It wasn't even effective: [http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/ FoxNews shortly thereafter posted an article attacking Wikipedia.

However, as covered in last week's Signpost, the Acehnese Wikipedia has erupted in controversy over images of Muhammad hosted on Commons.

This is by no means a new debate. In 2006, the article on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy was featured on the main page, and caused significant controversy for including the cartoons. In 2008, a petition to delete images of Muhammad circulated. However, as long-standing policy stated, like Wikipedia itself, our image host, Wikimedia Commons, is not censored. That it could cause offense was not sufficient to remove an image.

Amongst those advocating for this view was Jimbo Wales. cited his free speech advocacy, and stated that "we can not deviate from our goals to accommodate [those governments who would force Wikipedia to be censored]."

One has to ask: How can we refuse to delete historic images of Muhammad, which are deeply offensive to Muslims, when historic images of lesbians, deemed offensive to Fox News, are personally deleted by Jimbo?

If Wikipedia is going to sacrifice its moral high ground and neutrality - for saying that things offensive to Fox News are worth mass deletion sprees including historic artwork, but that the complaints of Muslims are not, is highly non-neutral - we should not sell ourselves cheap. We recently did, and only the effective loss of all Jimbo Wales' powers over his actions leaves us any moral high ground at all. Still, Jimbo's actions have shown that, yes, we will give into pressure - but only if it comes from our mainstream Western culture.

--Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you move this to a subpage of your userpage and link that here. Sort of a waste of the reply space to the article if you ask me. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

End of moved part

The issue of low-quality Google-powered/funded translations on the Bengali Wikipedia was extensively covered by The Telegraph (India) on their July 14, 2010 lead story. (link) --Ragib (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be something patronizing in Google calling Arabic and Hindi "small languages." If I'm not mistaken, these and perhaps other mentioned in the article, are in the top 10 of native speakers in the world. Smallbones (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

See also What happened on the Google Challenge @ the Swahili Wikipedia, a recent blog post by Muddyb Blast Producer, an admin and bureaucrat on the Swahili Wikipedia. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them. So there! – ukexpat (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dent by Catrope about the coverage of his presentation: [1]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Such is the reward for presenters who make their presentations easy for lazy journalist-types to find! - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Roan's presentation on extension development is great. I'm a novice developer, and it's really easy to forget about that kind of stuff. Reach Out to the Truth 19:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one concerned that people betting over which article will be vandalized next will lead to people secretly vandalizing articles in order to win bets? Dcoetzee 16:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. The whole idea of betting on vandalism on Wikipedia will not only lose the betting company money because punters will themselves vandalise pages they have put money on, but it also defeats the idea of the project. Betting companies appear to be gaining similarities with Wikipedia now, as they seem to AGF, which I never thought I'd see. WackyWace ^{you talkin' to me?} 17:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• On a different topic, I am disheartened by the amount of people, including the South African government employee, who take everything Wikipedia says as true without cross-checking with other sources. I see it all the time, even to the point of people citing Wikipedia as a source in academic reports. You do not assume any published source is giving you completely true information under any circumstances, especially a source that is fluid such as Wikipedia, and the employee responsible should be reprimanded or sacked for such poor editorial practices. If the employee had taken five seconds to do a Google search for "Joseph Sepp Bellend Blatter", he would have realized that something was up. Or he could have gone to FIFA's website and done a search there. The same goes with Lindsay Lohan's death report. How hard is it to take two seconds to do a search before realizing the rumor you're about to publish is blatantly false? Has society really become lazy to the point where speed is more important than truth, and where instant gratification is better than quality? Xenon54 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Lazy journalists, too. I changed the wording in part of a "current event" page three weeks ago, and within a few hours it was on the BBC online news site. But on the betting issue: the betting company never loses money: they do the math and skim off a percentage. It's a proportion of the betters who lose money. And I'd have thought "pending changes" would remove vandalism from such prominent pages. Perhaps the betting list needs to be added to our pending changes list? Tony (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How are these major BLP vandalism edits still occurring? Isn't this what Pending Changes was supposed to stop? Especially on such a highly-visited page. Why not make all BLPs under pending changes? *sigh* 71.164.195.137 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's complicated. --Chris 08:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris, is there a link to information on why it's "complicated"? Tony (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, did you see how much discussion, debate, voting, etc went into getting this fairly mild trial configuration of flagged revs running? I would love for wider use of pending changes but flagged revs are a fairly radical change to a wiki and it is very hard to form consensus. Personally I think there should be a better decision making system, because although I'm all in favor of the notion of consensus, it can be hard to measure and can prevent/stall even very simple changes from happening (e.g. the enabling of rollback, man that was a massive uproar for what in the scale of things was a very small change). Other areas where consensus can suck is where people are misinformed/uneducated about the actual facts (e.g. Adminbots - for a long time people were strongly opposed to them because 'zomg the wiki will blow up/skynet' and they were forced to run in secret, we now have ~11 approved admin bots and the wiki is still here) --Chris 13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And lets not forget that this whole issue probably was the result of a July 2009 case of vandalism. Kinda predates the time that Pending Changes was even a working model in the software extension. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Bellend edit is going to be in the "LOL" file for a while now. How pleasently ironic. ResMar 13:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Lazy journalism indeed. 'Bellend' is a British slang term for the glans, not the entire penis. You can never trust a journalist to get the facts right.... 86.147.163.123 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I like this format as much as the previous. Could there be some kind of compromise between the two? I know Q&A isn't inspiring, but neither is "... stated [someone]", "[someone] responded". I don't know what you could do though; maybe bolden the names and remove the above, or have a mix of block text and another format? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)