The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-12-31. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

I think you mean Copying "within" Wikipedia.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes; it's fixed now. Thanks Sturm! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It says "When to resyop". A mistake, i guess... 190.199.79.62 (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• The link at "Image policy and guidelines" goes to pump proposals, where there is now no such section. Is this dead or still happening somewhere? Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-12-31/Featured content

Yes! Civility for all in 2013! GoingBatty (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There's actually a reason that isn't linked here. The current civility 'policy' is broken; I think everyone can see that. I'm just hoping that even though the policy is broken and no one can agree on a way to fix it (assuming there is a way), editors will take it upon themselves to improve the amount of civil, productive, interaction. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Amen to that, brother. Amen. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed! Sorry for being naive, but I'm interested in knowing what you think is broken? The way WP:CIVIL is written? Editors choosing not to follow it? Lack of enforcement? Something else? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sociologically speaking, civility is a fundamental problem with any project like Wikipedia because it is based on a culture of honor (vs. a culture of law). This sounds odd given all the "laws" (rules) we have, but the reason is there is no good structure in place to enforce the rules of civility - there are no police to call, we are mostly left to defend ourselves, which by definition is a culture of honor. This creates the Gladiatorial atmosphere (less romantic: a poor kid from the projects who shoots someone over a pair of sneakers). It might be possible to fix but I suspect a large body of editors would resist a police contingent that enforces civility rules. Cultures of honor, once established, are notoriously difficult to change into cultures of law because many people resist it since don't trust the enforcers whom they see as impinging on their freedoms. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, stated more bluntly, Wikipedia is like the Confederate States of America. Many of its soldiers actually thought it was about protecting their freedoms, brainwashed by the prevailing culture of honor. Time to replace the outdated model of Wikipedia administration we have now with a new one that's not stuck in the 19th century. Wer900 • talk 17:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! --Surturz (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you "Hear Hearing"? Green's statement seems like rather depressing analysis of the current state of affairs. Are you "Hear Hearing" that it should change or stay the same? Kaldari (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm applauding the editorial. Indenting was wrong, which I've now fixed. --Surturz (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• One of the problems is the culture of anonymity that the Internet has bred on forums, blogs, and collaborative sites. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  Or it just has become an accepted culture that people haven't felt empowered to challenge. That something is a truth does not make it either relevant or necessary to be spoken. We lifted the quality of the standards of our articles, and we can certainly also lift the standard of behaviour, contributions and respect. Aim high, not low. Don't tolerate it and call it out for what it is, "bullying", rude and unnecessary. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  Anonymity is not at fault. Whenever any Wikimedia "Office Action" is received by any community, these are hardly anonymous, but they are as rude as anything I have encountered in many years of wiki-work. If our "mothership" can do nothing more than sweet PR talk (with loads of bullshit bingo possibilities) or rude orders, there's no wonder the rest of the project is not that different. --FA2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for this, Ed. Needs to be said, and read. The Interior (Talk) 13:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• The idea that civility problems are getting worse needs a big fat {{fact}} tag. It shows a lack of historical perspective, as far as I can see. Jimbo was talking about stamping out incivility in 2007 (yes really), at a time when the community was hardly ready to accept that. My feeling is that it took three or four years for the penny to drop. There were green shoots of community renewal in 2011, in my view. There are certainly some immature attitudes still around to incivility. It seems to me to be less used for disruptive purposes than in the past, but still to be used just to be rude. It was the disruptive use of incivility in the past that made it hard to sanction ("I'm uncivil but I'm a tribune of the people"). With some dishonourable exceptions, I think this argument, at last, is no longer washing. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  I think one of the main issues with civility in the past year or so is that it's had a chilling effect on certain areas of Wikipedia. For example, I know plenty of editors who no longer participate at RfA or FAC due to incivility issues. Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  • And to be fair, I did give a nod to the past when I said "This is far from a new trend ..." :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  And another "big fat {{fact}} tag" is needed on the statement that this issue is "perhaps most visible in the featured article process". Not so, whatsoever. What has been true is that rampant socking at FAC and FAR has led to a decline in the quality of reviews, and has affected nominations at Todays' featured article requests, but to my knowledge, socking and civility are not necessarily related, and the civility problem is most certainly not worse on the FA pages then it is in the cesspits of Wikipedia such as ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I saw a quote on MetaFilter by someone who was (obviously) not a Wikipedia contributor, "There is nothing more grim and humorless than a hard core Wikipedia editor". Normally I'd defend it but didn't know what to say without looking grim and humorless. BTW Charles I agree things are better now. I also agree Featured Ego Article Candidate seems to create a lot of problems. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  "This quote being so grim and humorless, you have to be a really hard core one. Oh wait..." :-) Xentyr (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Time to bring in a 'no dickheads' policy IMO. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • We've had rules against this forever, see WP:Don't be intentionally obnoxious. It's time for admins and arbs to enforce them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

    • Yes, I agree. The problem is that there's a large body of editors who are prepared to excuse away gross incivility and make the lives of admins who try to enforce basic standards miserable (eg, the bizarre argument several editors were putting forward a while ago that there were circumstances in which calling a stranger a 'cunt' during a mild disagreement was perfectly OK). Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

      Well, if you object to the UK use of "cunt" and wish to raise standards, you could block yourself for your "no dickheads" vulgarity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  The statements about cancer were made to refute a disruptive editor's claim that men could not grow breasts. Like progesterone, oestrogen is often present in men with testicular cancer, and it is one of the hormones screened in surveillance of survivors of testicular cancer. Without cancer, men do have tits, which can lactate. Transexualism is increasingly common in the US.

  Perhaps a mea culpa would aid Ed in writing a persuasive article. What has he learned since telling an editor who just called a woman a bitch to not stoop to her level? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  Your comment did not in help any discussion in any way, nor would it. Also, it's interesting that you bring that up, given that I was hoping to reduce drama and tension by quickly removing the word. Obviously that did not work. As for the rest of the post, you have ignored the numerous apologies I made after that, including by email to Bishonen. I made many a mea culpa over that post. Have you, over that comment and numerous others? Happy 2013; let's make this as better place to work in this new year. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  My comment provided correction to a factual error. Negative reinforcement (differential reward) is important for learning and sustaining intelligence, individually and in organizations.

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• May I suggest that people on this page take a deep breath and cool off? It's the silly season turning into the nasty season, ironically demonstrating one of the points of the article. This debate is going nowhere. Tony (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The FA process was not 'hatcheted' in any sense of the word, and I would say that the FA process was 'disrupted' if it resulted in reviewers leaving. Still, I have made some tweaks to the language, so that we can move past these issues. Have a good evening! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent editorial! Great work Ed. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Respect, bros! The Wikimedia movement needs policies, but we just have to keep civil with the rest of the community to solve things. Have fun! --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to the top-viewed articles? Just so people can more easily find them? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ack, thank you for pointing this out. A link has been added. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has enough money to set up a "Wikimedia Foundation Grants Program", then it appears to me that they are indeed 'cash rich'. Either that or very foolish. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The grants program is what funds the chapters. Kaldari (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean the chapters are mostly funded by the Wikimedia Foundation, but Andrew Orlowski was "confused" by not saying that the chapters are "independent, with the WMF"? (See above.) Guys, get your stories straight. The chapters can't be "independent" when the media finds out they spent way too much money on business cards, but then be "funded" by a WMF grants program when you think they're doing a lovely job. I think the Wikiculture needs to take a long, hard look at what the words "independent" and that other favorite, "completely separate", actually mean. -- 2001:558:1400:10:241F:CEB4:6921:8249 (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, the register article reads like a direct attack article (which given register's history with Wikipedia is not surprising. Seriously, they're still harping on about Doran which is beyond old news at this point). However this signpost article doesn't do much better, coming off super-defensive. I don't see any claim in the register article that Wikimedia UK is controlled by the WMF. (Other then "In the UK, the local chapter of WMF, Wikimedia Foundation UK" which is incorrect because the organization is called Wikimedia UK, not Wikimedia Foundation UK, which has very different implications [to people familar with Wikimedia's structure, the rest of the world probably didn't notice], and because Wikimedia UK is a local Wikimedia chapter, not a WMF chapter. These may seem like picking at word choices, but they really do have different meanings for some people). As for chapter independance - they are separate organizations, run by different people then the WMF is run by and hence mostly independant. Much of the chapter's money does come from the foundation's piggy bank from what I understand, which does influence the independance claim, but the funds are mostly distributed by FDC, which is independant body, so its not like the WMF is telling the chapters to jump for money. Bawolff (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What Wikimedia conference will be held in Kazakhstan? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It was in April 2012. The grant for it is located here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

By some folks' accounts, it seems we should shut down Wikipedia in languages spoken in totalitarian countries, just because these languages' digital development is also on the regimes' agenda. Actually, developing Wikipedia as an independent, objective, neutral, and in most extent quite propaganda-resistent media, might very well give a free medium for the democratic opposition - in any debate, Wikipedia supports the side that speaks the truth. That's why some regimes tend to block it (e.g. Uzbek Wikipedia in Uzbekistan). --Oop (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

While some questions have been raised, for better or worse, about the Kazakhstan initiative, I don't think the word "corruption" should have been used in the headline. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

One thing I became aware of recently is that Jimmy Wales co-chaired a Middle-East conference attended by both Blair and Kazakh President Nazarbaev. I hadn't known Jimbo was in the habit of chairing conferences like that. Andreas JN466 20:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

“One Fatherland, one Fate, one Leader of the Nation”. Andreas JN466 18:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As referenced here and reported in the Signpost of 8 August 2011, "Jimmy also announced the creation of an annual award—Global Wikipedian of the Year. This was given to Rauan Kenzhekhanuly of Kazakh Wikipedia and consisted of a $5,000 award to Wikibilim, the chapter in Kazakhstan, to pay travel expenses to Wikimania next year. This would be presented to Kezhekhanuly at a ceremony in Kazakhstan with the country's prime minister Karim Massimov". Who was the recipient of last year's "annual award"? Did I miss the Signpost's coverage of that event? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe it was the Yoruba Wikipedia's Demmy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks and dankon for this interview! Brion, although only rarely to be seen at Esperanto conventions, has made a great contribution to the Esperanto community (whose Wikipedia boasting with 174,000 is one of its major success of the recent years) and, subsequently, to all other languages and nations represented on Wikipedia, by having built the technical framework essential for the international Wikipedia as we know it today. This is truly in the spirit of Esperanto, which also strives to promote equality among languages and to present language diversity as an asset. Brion, dankon pro la laboro kaj ke ĝi sukcese kontinuu! Blahma (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Ankaŭ dankas mi Brionon! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work, Brion! Wikipedia wouldn't be nearly as great without your dedication and contributions! :) 24.242.195.208 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have to say, until reading this article, I'd always thought of the versions of Wikipedia in constructed languages like Esperanto to be pretty pointless. But if they can attract such talented and productive people as Brion to our project, they're worth having for that reason alone. Robofish (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  The big possibility for conlang Wikipeidas is to accelerate translation. Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC).
  

• Thank you for your job well done, Brion. Bennylin (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I somehow missed this interview until just now. My thanks to both Ryan K. and Brion V. for putting this together; it was an interesting read. :-) Most of Brion's background I was already familiar with, but the parts about the future (both from a technology point of view and a governance/structural/sustainability point of view) give a lot of food for thought. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• So will WMF challenge the subpoena or not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  I'm going to give some horribly unspecific language here, and I hope you'll understand that we don't want to talk about legal strategy publicly while it's still being developed. But I can safely say that the Foundation's legal team is aware and is actively investigating all options, and is in communication with Neumont. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I just want to say, I was really happy that the foundation stopped the fundraiser once the neccesary funds are raised. Fundraisers are a neccesary evil, but an evil nonetheless and should only go on as long as neccessary. (p.s. Refereshing to see something other then a Jimbo appeal for a change). Bawolff (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• I don't believe the Foundation has identifying information on file even for users with advanced permissions, other than actual WMF staff members themselves. I believe it was clarified some time ago that when a new functionary (arbitrator, checkuser, oversighter, etc.) is elected or appointed and sends identification to the Office, the identification is simply reviewed to verify the person's eligibility and then is destroyed, not retained in the files. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  Newyorkbrad is correct. You can read my statement regarding this at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=398201391&oldid=397500641. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  But does the WMF retain IP logs of registered editors for any period of time? For some, at least, they are kept due to sockpuppet investigations, right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  Yup, I would assume that such logs are kept for some time. Once the WMF receives the subpoena, I don't believe it would be lawful for them to purge those logs while the case is pending. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I think that you mean that the discussion on Jimmy's talk page about SOPA was in 2011, not 2001.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed FallingGravity (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen evidence that First Monday has pubhlished a useful and important paper on anything whatsoever; just bad papers on important subjects, trolling for attention - David Gerard (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If the Spanish Wikipedia is anything like the English Wikipedia then there is a reason why they would score poorly for drug dosage information: we strongly discourage including it. We don't give medical advice and this is an open wiki - both reasons why such information would be unacceptable. This is an encyclopaedia, not a drug formulary. -- Colin°^Talk 11:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That was the first thing I noticed in that section too. Please let's not start adding that kind of information just because some external reviewer expected to find it. We have good reasons for not including it. Rmhermen (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This page is one of the best Signpost articles I have ever seen. Good job! As for the SOPA blackout, I think a case can be made for it starting on Reddit, then the many Redditors who are also Wikipedia editors starting "a landslide that led to the protests" on Wikipedia. This appears to predate Jimbo's straw poll. (What percentage of Wikipedians watch Jimbo's talk page anyway?) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Any links to show that landslide? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I recall that they picked January 18 (though I don't have a cite to hand) - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The date might have been picked on Reddit, I think that's correct. But I am asking about proof of the assertion it was done by (or with a significant contribution) by Wikipedia editors who were also active on Reddit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

October 26, 2011

SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) introduced in House

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show

October 26, 2011:

Reddit goes nuts with 5454 upvotes and 3181 comments

http://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/me5e9/american_censorship_day_stand_up_for/

November 15th, 2011:

Wikimedia weighs in

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/11/15/wikimedia-supports-american-censorship-day/

December 10, 2011:

Wales straw poll

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_91#Request_for_Comment:_SOPA_and_a_strike

I have over 100,000 karma points on Reddit under a pseudonym (I also have an account under my real name but do not use it) and was heavily involved in the runup to the blackout. We have a fair number of Reddit users who casually dropped wikiisms like "NPOV" or "noticeboard", and a much larger number who asked "will Wikipedia and/or Google join us?" --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting to know about. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure it's worth getting-into-it, but I find the review of the SOPA paper above really bizarre. It kinds of reminds me of a parody about reviewing various printed books as if they were novels - i.e. the telephone listings were praised for immediately introducing many interesting characters, but didn't flesh them out and had no plot or drama. Here the reviewer is treating a humanities paper as if it were a mathematical analysis, and thus finding it wanting. For example - "At the same time, we are provided with no number, no percentage, and certainly no correlation to back up this claim". (oh no, he gave only one example, ok here's another) "Due to the lack of hard data, most conclusions are unfortunately rendered dubious, and the paper has a tendency to make strong claims that are not backed up by data or even developed later on.". Now, maybe one can argue humanities papers are gibberish because of those sort of problems in general, and certainly that case can be made :-). But it's weird to see that general argument applied as if it were a specific failing, to an ordinary paper in its genre. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing First Monday does. I see they've taken "A Critique of Vulgar Raymondism" down Ah, sorry, you're talking about the story - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the reviewer holds a PhD in sociology. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Tbayer, yes, I checked the reviewer's user page. Which makes the approach even more strange. One would think s/he had encountered many nonmathematical papers by now (papers also at least regarded as meaningful). It's as if "review" was taken to mean "do a review as if it were a journal article in your field, to the way you think such articles are best done". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Seth that sociology papers are generally not held to the same standards as "hard science", but I also agree that this means they can be more easily dismissed as sheer opinion. Kaldari (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad sociology papers are not held to the same stadards as "hard science" and can and should be dismissed. Comte and Durkheim are turning in their graves... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my recollection too is that the meme essentially became "SOPA threatens Wikipedia" – and that was clearly false. Andreas JN466 03:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In sociology, we do quantitative research, too. Quite a lot of it, in fact, through not all the time (I myself have published papers with very little quantitative analysis, so I'd like to think I can understand both sides of the barricade). But this is not a theory paper; if it would I wouldn't complain about missing data and methodology. But from part 3 of the paper it is clear it leaves the theory and moves on, as the author implies she collected some data (but she doesn't tell us how) and then she attempts to analyze it - or rather, she draws conclusions, as I see little of any analysis, just conclusion, without so much as a hint about the data structure. I am not asking for regression models here, now, but how can one talk about the trends without so much as the number of cases, percentages or a single graph? The author writes at one point "We can trace a new line of arguments" - and I'd like to ask how did she trace this line? Where's the time plot, where's the count even?

As it happens, I have in fact researched Wikipedia and SOPA vote myself, and have a paper on that topic under review, so I am not complaining about something impossible; the numbers are there, can be easily collected and analyzed. Just to pick a bone with another statement in the article: "almost all of the people who opposed the blackout pointed to the institutional problem of using Wikipedia for political goals, and claimed it was illegitimate and “unconstitutional” under Wikipedia’s internal norms". Well, according to my numbers on that very issue, it was only 40.3% of protesters who did it (89 total out of 221 who objected to at least one of the aspects of the protest as it passed), not "almost all". I really don't want to be disrespectful to a fellow scholar, but if you make claims, cite your data. And it's not like we have any numbers or methodology to dispute the claims in this article - and here's at least one I have a bone with. The discussion of legitimacy and the description of the vote are fine, but when you make claims like "The only argument that equals the strength of the legitimacy argument is one of existential threat, a battle of survival.", you should have a way to prove it (and for the record, if we are talking about pure numerical strength, I counted five other types of arguments that surpassed the strength of the legitimacy arguments, the existential threat bypassed it by a factor of 2.5 if we count just the threat to Wikipedia, or 4, if we include the threat to the Internet).

Now, our articles on Humanities does not mention sociology, so if you are coming from that field, you may be right my review is a bit harsh - but I will stand by Comte and the scientific method. Which, sadly, I didn't see much in that paper. How are we supposed to replicate the results without methodology given? Aaargh. As it stands, the humanities argument does have some weight, as a lot of what I see in this paper is an essay - author's thoughts backed by anecdotal evidence (the paper has one, I repeat, one data point - a single quote).

Anyway, I'll end on the note that it is not a bad paper. If I was reviewing it I'd suggest a major revise (add methodology and data, or drop all references to having collected and analyzed the said data, and focus on theory) and resubmit. Apparently, other reviewers disagreed with me, as this was published in a peer reviewed journal. Goes to show the world of "academic lottery" (as in - will you get reviewers who will go easy on you or not?). Congrats to the author for getting the piece published, I just don't think it was there yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh! In sociology, we do quantitative research, too most of it borders on junk science. No matter, the issue remains that the SOPA page in mid January 2012 was unmitigated rubbish, mostly sourced from opposition press releases and blogs. SOPA was not an existential threat to wikipedia, being as wikipedia is based in the US. Any making such a claim were either ignorant of the way that the judiciary interpret laws, or deliberately lying. John lilburne (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside your fallacy of generalization (one critical study of a tiny subfield of social science published in a popular magazine is hardly representative), I am looking forward to the time you add sources to your claim above. Somehow I would like to see a single reliable source backing your assertion that SOPA was not a threat to Wikipedia. I hope I am not asking for too much (and no, I am not presenting sources to the contrary, but I am also not making an assertion that it was a threat). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I had no idea that I was "either ignorant of the way that the judiciary interpret laws, or deliberately lying". I am interested in how you managed to acquire an infallible ability to interpret legislation -- that would seem to be a handy ability to have. Does this magical ability also allow you to determine what percentage of a given science is junk? That would also be a handy ability to have. Basing my opinions on evidence and logic really is tedious, so this could be a real timesaver for me. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Lawyers are simple souls and interpret legislation based on the plain meaning of the words used. See Law 101. If the wording of US legislation says "foreign based websites" then the Judiciary don't interpret it to mean US websites. If the wording says "primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity" then they don't interpret it to mean any old website that isn't "primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity". So once they've determined that a) its a foreign website, and b) that it is "primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity" I'm sorting guessing that the website in question wouldn't be wikipedia. John lilburne (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, because the law is never abuse. You may want to read up on patent trolls, or stuff like this or this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't discard rape laws because some people make false accusations. If you want to propose that we should abandon all laws on the basis that they may be abused, then make your case. I'll listen and promise not to laugh. John lilburne (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Amazing! First I find out to my great surprise that those who disagree with you are either ignorant or deliberately lying, and now I suddenly discover that we are proposing that we abandon all laws! Perhaps you can save some time by jumping right to the part where we are all Nazi Pedophile Bedwetters. (Come to think of it, Hitler was a big fan of strawman arguments...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't me that erected the strawman that SOPA needed to be opposed because law is abused. As for the rest well ... when one spends one's days hanging out on the street corner with the drug dealer, and boogies the night away with the bootlegger, one can hardly be surprised when honest, decent kind of folks look at one askance. John lilburne (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This was never about the law being used to close down access to Wikipedia. It was about the law being used to close down access to foreign websites, in a way which (because it was badly written) presumed them to be infringing. Experience has shown us that corporates who, for example subpoena a robot's personal details, and send cease and desist notices to laser printers, would certainly be shutting down access to many, many, sites, which may not have the resources to defend themselves, offending or not. As well as cutting off access to source and external links, this would feed the climate of balkanization, encouraging retaliatory actions from other countries. Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

HOW WIKIPEDIA'S CONCERN IS DEPICTED ABOVE:

"SOPA was not an existential threat to Wikipedia, being as Wikipedia is based in the US. Any making such a claim were either ignorant of the way that the judiciary interpret laws, or deliberately lying."

"If the wording of US legislation says 'foreign based websites' then the Judiciary don't interpret it to mean US websites. If the wording says 'primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity' then they don't interpret it to mean any old website that isn't 'primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity'."

HOW WIKIPEDIA'S CONCERN WAS DEPICTED BY REP. LAMAR SMITH

"SOPA targets only foreign Web sites that are primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity. Domestic Web sites ... are not covered by this legislation."

WIKIPEDIA'S ACTUAL STATED CONCERN (WP:BLACKOUT):

"Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that has been developed by tens of thousands of volunteers from all over the world over the last 11 years. Together, we have created millions of articles containing billions of facts, referenced to hundreds of thousands of sources from around the world. We have grown to be one of the most frequently accessed websites in the world. Wikipedians are fiercely proud and protective of our ability to freely share knowledge with the rest of the world, as the first of 846 related projects in 280 languages working under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation."

"In late 2011, the United States Congress proposed two legislative bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), which legal scholars and others have advised have the potential to significantly change the way that information can be shared through the Internet. It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open web."

It wasn't an accurate depiction of Wikipedia's concerns when Lamar Smith first said it, and it still isn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute - Guy Macon, are you agreed that Wikipedia was not threatened by SOPA? And are you saying that even though Wikipedia was not threatened by SOPA, SOPA was just such a bad law that it justified Wikipedia getting dramatically involved in political lobbying on one side of a law even though it was again not threatened itself? Note, please, I've heard the pro/anti SOPA arguments too many times, there's no need to waste space on them. I'm trying to clarify exactly what you are claiming vis-a-vis Wikipedia. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No. I do not agree that Wikipedia was not threatened by SOPA. Certain specific threats are precluded -- the law as written does not allow them to directly shut down Wikipedia -- but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia was not threatened by SOPA. Not all threats are direct threats. You don't have to use a gun to harm a species. You can wipe out a species through Habitat destruction without ever directly harming any member of that species. And you can cause great harm to Wikipedia if you damage the environment Wikipedia lives in - a free and open web. That was Wikipedia's stated concern. And it is disingenuous for Lamar Smith or anyone who parrots his talking points to suggest otherwise. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say then you're redefining "threat" in a way which is not appropriate - and if I were to be harsh, misleading. Being specific, do we agree that if "threat" is defined as a take-down as was contemplated under SOPA for sites primarily dedicated to infringement, that Wikipedia was not threatened in this sense of the word? You're using what I call a "culture war" definition - anything you deem as harmful to the "habitat" or "environment" then can be called a "threat". Again, that's not how the term is commonly used. It's a bit like when Jimmy Wales claims Larry Sanger couldn't be co-founder of Wikipedia by definition because Sanger was an employee of Bomis - it's switching between two different senses of a word. Anyway, refining, is it your view that SOPA was just such a bad law that it justified Wikipedia getting dramatically involved in political lobbying on one side of a law even though Wikipedia was exempt itself from being taken down by SOPA? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So my using the exact definition Wikipedia used -- agreed upon by the community and signed off by the foundation -- is "redefining", and if I want to avoid being accused of redefining I have to agree to use the definition put forth by U.S. Representative Lamar Smith (sponsor of SOPA)? If you have a shred of evidence that supports what you claim Wikipedia's official position at the end of the discussion was, this would be a good time to produce it. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No one is denying that the WMF didn't redefine "threat" for political purposes. John lilburne (talk)

The meme was "Wikipedia is threatened". Sue Gardner for example said the legislation, "if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia". She quotes the words "devastating to the free and open web" from the RfC closing statement, approvingly. And she said, "although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not. As Wikimedia Foundation board member Kat Walsh wrote on one of our mailing lists recently, 'We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate.'" The implied meaning is clear: it sounds like the legislation threatened Wikipedia's ability to operate. Tim Starling later commented on that on the Wikimedia-l mailing list, saying: "Maybe SOPA was a 'serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet', and worth fighting against, but it wasn't a threat to Wikipedia's existence." Andreas JN466 20:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

@Guy Macon - I'm not asking about "official position", as (whatever that is) it cannot reply. I'm discussing your reasoning and justification, which may or may not correspond to whatever PR that the WMF came up with. Note indeed, it's quite possible for a political statement to use hyperbolic or dubious language - this should not need to be argued. After all, it would be pretty silly to claim that because a political campaign uses terminology, that by itself makes the usage standard or reasonable (isn't twisting meaning what the "Orwellian language" cliche is all about?). And my query "is it your view that SOPA was just such a bad law that it justified Wikipedia getting dramatically involved in political lobbying on one side of a law even though Wikipedia was exempt itself from being taken down by SOPA?" seem to me rather straightforward (yes, I'm putting in some derogatory connotations in my phrasing, but I think it's very mild and acceptable in such a debate). Forgive me if I'm not respecting your desire not to comment further, I wanted to respond to what you said above. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And yet so many seemed to think that SOPA was an existential threat to wikipedia. The actual SOPA page in mid January 2012, was predominately expressed in those terms. The vast majority of references were to external page of opposition to SOPA. To quote Rory Cellan-Jones at the BBC:

Over the years, despite the occasional mistakes and mischief introduced by its amateur editors, the online encyclopaedia has gradually built an enviable reputation for accuracy and impartiality. Its account of the detail of America's anti-piracy laws, the arguments surrounding them, and their impact if they are ever pushed through Congress, could be invaluable. But, having taken such a public stance on this issue, can Wikipedians ever be seen as objective about it in future?

All pretence of impartiality was abandoned, the SOPA page itself is a testament to that. And over the past year, more and more people have been coming forward to tell how they communities were manipulated and lied to at the behest of Google and other mega-corporations. John lilburne (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather than the anecdotal "And yet so many seemed to think that...", why not ask the sociologist who in the thread above said that he "researched Wikipedia and SOPA vote [him]self, and [has] a paper on that topic under review"? Why guess when the actual figures are available for the asking?

As a general comment (not specifically addressed to the comment above), if someone wants to make an argument like "Wikipedia joined the blackout because [actual stated reason], and that wasn't a good enough reason to justify doing that", I would be fine with that. If someone wants to make an argument like "Wikipedia joined the blackout because [reason made up out of whole cloth by Lamar Smith], and that wasn't a good enough reason to justify doing that", I am going to have to cry foul. And if the argument is "Wikipedia joined the blackout because [reason given by X% of those who joined the discussion], and that wasn't a good enough reason to justify doing that", I would have to ask what X is, and whether it is being claimed that Wikipedia's actual stated reason for joining the blackout was not the community position. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? Well because the maths that sociologist's use tends to be suspect. As some have said they only finish the analysis when they've tortured the data enough that it gives them the answer they were expecting. Piotrus's paper may or may not do that, we won't know until we've tortured his data ourselves. As for the rest of your rant, there are buttons that can pressed in most communities, which will generate a knee-jerk reaction. On reddit, and here to some extent, it is the RIAA/MPAA is coming to get you. In other's it is Obama isn't an American, or the government blew up the Twin Towers, or they are giving polio vaccinations to our kids to make them sterile - kill the doctors and nurses. Go figure. In any case the SOPA page does not approach NPOV by a long way. John lilburne (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "As for the rest of your rant", clearly you are not interested in having a civil discussion, preferring personal attacks and cheap debating tricks. Sorry, not interested. I am withdrawing from this conversation and unwatching this page. WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a ref for this "1 billion people are now estimated to have free access" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely an overestimate; the mobile partnerships were estimated to cover 230m people in October, when Saudi Arabia joined. The only expansion of the program since then was when Orange launched in the DRC in December, adding a couple of a million more users. (Note that this number is the total of subscribers to the partner organisations in those countries, rather than WP readers - we know there's good uptake, but it's certainly far from 100%!) Andrew Gray (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I did request a more accurate figure, but did not receive a reply. I've corrected this version for posterity and will revisit the subject in next week's look forward. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 09:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't think that "wrangle" makes too much sense in that context... AnonMoos (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Guess you could mean "rankle", but that would probably require dropping the "with"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, rankle. That's the one. "rankle with" does seem to be a thing. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 09:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-12-31/WikiProject report