The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-04-22. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• I, for one, welcome our new lory overlords. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• "Salt was distilled here by the Celts on the site of Schwäbisch Hall..." I'm pretty sure you can't distill salt (what with it not evaporating). Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Actually the article itself says "distilled"! Seems to be referring to the production of salt by evaporation of salty groundwater. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• As far as bitter ends go, I prefer [1]. Nathan ^T 22:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel more relaxed just looking at that picture. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• See Execution by elephant --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• This... is... troubling. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Excellent! Not just about "the end", it's about how bitter the end may be when society decides one is guilty of a capital crime. Not an easy subject for many, even "troubling" for some, and definitely a fascinating study in images! Thank you! and Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine  13:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Bitter end? I am shocked by these images. In fact, I am posting news of my execution by elephant to Facebook right now! Epic Genius (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-22/In focus

Hello everyone. The Telegraph article - and the other articles based off it, including this one - are inaccurate, but as a volunteer I simply do not have the time or expertise to argue with the hundreds of editors about taking them down. Instead I have done an interview with the Guardian which answers the allegations and obfuscations that Mr Shapps has made. It can be read here: Wikipedia volunteer who blocked 'Grant Shapps' account: I stand by my decision. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 23:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Chase Me. I added the link to the article, which was written before the Guardian interview came out. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Andreas JN466 02:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask you something, Chase me. There have been several reports of your deleting social media evidence of your LibDem ties since this story broke. I have observed one such case first-hand. Why are you doing that? Do you not realise that performing such deletions strengthens the impression that you are trying to hide something? Andreas JN466 02:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's how the journalists got my home address and showed up at my door - through my social media accounts. I realise that it strengthens the impression that I am trying to hide something, but I don't want anyone else showing up at my door. You know about my wife and how the stress would affect her. It is not something I want to do - all my friends are on Facebook and now I'm stuck to texting them - but I have to if I want to be able to live in my flat without journalists tailing people in through the secure outer door and then looking through my letterbox. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 11:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, and you have my sympathies. Beyond that, my advice to you would be to not unduly downplay your LibDem affiliations, as in doing so, you only create another media story. Andreas JN466 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• For what it's worth: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/23/grant-shapps-wikipedia-editor —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• And another "for what it's worth": [2]. Wikipedia has thousands of whitewashers and blackwashers, including indeed many proven biography subjects editing their own biographies. I still don't understand what was so different about Contribsx that it required going from zero to an immediate indefinite block, placed a full sixteen days after the Contribsx account had last edited, if it wasn't to provide a spicy hook for a news story that, by all accounts, was already written before the block was placed. Andreas JN466 21:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• "The foundation says that it sees free access to resources such as Wikipedia as a "social justice issue,"

....What? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Either elaborate upon your brazen declarations or stop using irrelevant pop. buzzwords because you want to seem like a hepcat. Just do your job, please. Thanks.

• "it is absolutely in the interests of the public to use the Internet to provide free access to education, knowledge, medical information, or other public services."

Yes. I agree with all of this, save the medical information thing that shouldn't be mentioned here, as Wikipedia is supposed to NOT be advocating its medical advice as something that you should follow, for obvious reasons.

Aside from that, though, what you say is true here. The Web has made it thankfully a lot easier for people to get the information they need, and that's a very good thing.

But still, these statements make me think that someone with some rabble-rousing agenda has snuck into the Wikimedia Foundation. That's no good, and could cause a lot of problems in the future.

Alternatively, someone just used a bad choice of words. I hope that that's all it is. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't the second quotation explain the first? Gamaliel (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The second quotation touches upon things that are related to putting useful and commonly sought after information into the public domain and/or the like in some manner or another. This is comparable, for instance, to what Project Gutenberg does with many books. It has naught to do with social justice, hence why I called out the first quotation on its hogwash. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"The foundation says that it sees free access to resources such as Wikipedia as a "social justice issue," i.e. the WMF is a social justice warrior; net neutrality is about ethics in internet journalism. hey ideologues, the WMF is a pragmatist: feel the burn. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Tharthandorf Aquanashi would you say that Freeman Dyson is full of hogwash? i.e. "Technology and Social Justice: 1998 Nizer Lecture". Carnegie Council. November 25, 1997.. Duckduckstop (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No, but what he was talking about is slightly different than what the Wikimedia foundation was talking about. I don't really disagree with what he was saying there. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The quote from Caitlin Dewey is excellent, and I still think that one of the obvious opportunities for alleviating the problem continues to be ignored: there should be a worldwide distributed group of university-affiliated people who someone pays to edit Wikipedia in constructive, open, traceable/checkable ways. These would be the people who would bring Wikipedia's coverage of, say, "Ecuadorian customs, Indian legends and Japanese history" up to speed. These are the people who would notice that a "Wiki-troll ... meddled with articles about Islamic history" long before he finally "messed with a video game page". They would voluntarily include their real names and university affiliations on their user page (that is, they would consent as a condition of employment, like any terms of service where "by continuing you consent"), and their entire contribution history would be publicly viewable and critiqueable (a feature Wikipedia already has for every user), so there would be no mysterious/unnoticed/untracked/under-the-radar paid editing involved. As for who they would be: They would mostly be underpaid adjunct professors who happen to be competent in the topics at hand (such as "Ecuadorian customs, Indian legends and Japanese history"), but possibly also university students studying those topics, if they meet some requirements of aptitude and good faith. Both of those populations include many people who would love to build Wikipedia coverage if they could make a paying job out of it. As for who would fund their payroll: rich philanthropists could set up endowments for this, and also, anyone could donate garden-variety donations to it (crowndfunding), if anyone ever got serious about building it. Now, the main reason this idea never gets anywhere is because it begins with the phrase "people who someone pays to edit Wikipedia". Bam, radioactive poison, already killed, never get a fair hearing. But this idea is so obvious and so NOT paid advocacy that it's painful that no one takes it seriously or discusses it. — ¾-10 15:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You have a point. The quotation about "the Wiki-troll Jagged85, who meddled with articles about Islamic history for years; it was only when he messed with a video game page that he finally got kicked off" emphasizes a key weakness in Wikipedia. But because the Foundation is so tightly wedded to the idea that Wikipedia is volunteer-driven & that anyone can edit it, I am pessimistic that your solution -- or any other solution -- will be adopted. -- llywrch (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I share your doubt that it will happen. The idea would not change either "volunteer-driven" or "anyone can edit". Both of those things would still be true. The university project would only augment those, not replace them. But your point is taken—there's a bias against such ideas, because the brightline version of "no paid editing" is ideologically opposed.
  One reason that's frustrating is that the university project is not some crazy BS without precedent. Crowdsourcing and it could coexist, with crowdsourcing as the main basis. Say 98/2 ratio. Nupedia and Citizendium failed because they tried to rely too hard on the university-project-like idea. They left out the crowdsourcing aspect (say, a 0:100 ratio) and thus failed. Wikipedia succeeded because its basis is crowdsourcing. But does that mean that Wikipedia must remain 100:0 and never be 98:2?
  By the way, I realize that although this comment started out as a reply to User:Llywrch, it became an argument to anyone listening, which amounts to a brick wall. Duly noted, but again, "That's the very point about why it's frustrating." — ¾-10 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Wow! As a Brazilian pt-N, en-4 editor, I think the buzz about the "Big South" gap in Wikipedia, every day more present in our discussions (see Wikimania applications), has less to do with paid editing or the volunteer-driven and all-inclusive aspect of our project and more with the language barrier. If we think Wikipedia as a multi-lingual global project, every single issue should be more or less covered by those non-native users proficient in English (specially those most wanted). The point is that there are a whole lot of dedicated users who could have spotted Jagged85 earlier if that barrier were easier to take on. Speaking about Portuguese speaking users, I can see a serious trend among us in watching pages on enwiki related to various issues related to our "world". This should be encouraged and promoted, perhaps even with a project. In areas were the native English-speaking base of users is lacking, the non-native proficient users, with the help of the locals, should be encouraged to contrbute here, as well and as easily as in their local wikis. The other side of this coin for them is that those same locals here can help us to improve our own projects (specially in technical issues: filters, local hacks etc.). This kind of of inter-language collaboration is very rare (but alive, as Medical translations projects seems to prove) and can be a way to go. José Luiz ^talk 23:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if ever-improving machine translation will help with that. If machine translation were perfect, any user anywhere could read and edit any Wikipedia (regardless of foreign language) just as easily as a native speaker. Working backward from that thought experiment of the ideal case, Google Translate (including the "Do you want to translate this page?" feature of the browser) has already gotten us to a point that is impressively far along the path, albeit not perfect. Looking forward to a point when Star Trek's universal translator is not really all that different from our reality. Sometimes feels like we are almost there. Machine interpreting on your smartphone is already available today at Google Play and the App Store. It's primitive now, but 10 years from now it might be awesome. — ¾-10 01:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? "common security guidelines recommend hiding the usernames of privileged accounts" and " MediaWiki truly can’t rely on any 'security through obscurity' tactics"? As our article on Security through obscurity article makes clear, "Security through obscurity is discouraged and not recommended by standards bodies". All competent security consultants follow Kerckhoffs's principle and make everything except the system keys -- system architecture, source code, the usernames of privileged accounts, etc. -- completely open. The system needs to be secure against insiders who know the usernames of privileged accounts as well as from external threats. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• "10 having made edits within the previous 12 months". 10 out of 3?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Having made ten, thanks. ResMar 21:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• I noticed after I added <nowiki> ... </nowiki> in an article there was a tag saying so. But I couldn't achieve what I was trying to do without it. I wanted an actual asterisk, not a square like here, to use in the way an asterisk is normally used.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If you mean that an edit filter item was attached to it, I believe that is because VisualEditor has had a problem with nowiki spam, and to help monitor progress on the problem an edit filter was applied to it. ResMar 21:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure how to use your user interface. So I am just going to put this here. Why does Wikipedia allow anonymous users in the registered accounts? I can understand anonymous users in the non-registered accounts that only use IP as a marker, which can be spoofed. Wouldn't it be better if it was based like linkedin or facebook where people are held accountable to their identity? 66.169.254.254 (talk) Julia — Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Julia. Editors are just as accountable as on social media, where accounts can be (and are) created pseudonymously, and users are not required to list all their affiliations.

We have a number of reasons for allowing pseudonymous accounts including:

1. We have editors who live under repressive regimes
2. Editors may have interests they do not wish to share with friends, family, colleagues or classmates
3. Editors may feel uneasy publicly identifying themselves, for fear of attracting unwanted attention - indeed we actively discourage younger editors from identifying themselves.
4. Editors may want to avoid being pressured by others (including employers) to bias their editing

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC).

At this point, is there any reason NOT to block both of the named accounts for undisclosed promotional editing? They are still active as of a few hours ago. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

No, there isn't. If these accounts don't get blocked then corruption is afoot. Alternatively, we could try for a community ban of those accounts.

In addition, since it was mentioned, I never particularly felt that that movie was made with any good intention anyways. It is a personal attack towards, indeed, a cruel and unlawful tyrant, but nevertheless it is itself cruel, twisted and foul. I wouldn't have batted an eye if it had never gotten released, as it was a foul production from the beginning. But, then again, so many people love barbaric cravings like bloodlust and stark incivility, so I probably shouldn't be surprised that some ill-doers decided to make some foul film. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• I would agree that a community ban would likely be the best response. I have a bit on my plate right now, but if no one else is willing to, I'd be willing to draft a discussion for ANI. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

So here's the thing: many of those edits aren't horribly objectionable. This could be more of a learning experience and the beginning of a partnership if we play our cards right and avoid the we found a witch, may we burn her approach. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The ed17 Tharthan Salvidrim! I would love to see a link to the emails which seem to indicate Sony involvement.

If it happens that any corporation is operating sockpuppets then usual response per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry would be to block the sockpuppet accounts and ban the puppetmaster. If the corporation is directing others to edit Wikipedia in a manner that is contrary to the community guidelines then I think it is fair to ban the corporation as a puppetmaster, demanding that they, their affiliates, and their contractors quit editing Wikipedia until and unless they agree to comply with the terms of service set by the Wikimedia community. It is completely unfair that a mega-corporation with access to a huge amount of resources and savvy staff should leverage the advantages it has in society to conspire to subvert the rules of community projects like Wikipedia. Larger corporations should be obligated more to respect community guidelines.

It may or may not be the case that banning Sony is warranted. I would want to see more evidence. If someone has something to share, could it be put at WP:SONY? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with linking to the emails is that they contain real names, leading to problems with outing and blp. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Accounts blocked. MER-C 01:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @MER-C: On what policy grounds, just to be clear? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes, violating the terms of use, sock/meatpuppetry and that highly misleading edit summary. MER-C 02:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

So I am of two minds here. Yes, they should've disclosed their affiliation, but in the diffs/examples cited, I don't really see anything problematic. A few PR sentences, which I presume got deleted, but as the report states, most edits are mostly "harmless or positive". So it's a storm in a teacup, the edits from those accounts seem to be mostly positive. I don't see what we gain from banning them; rather, I'd ask them to review our policies, disclose their affiliation and avoid promotional marketing speech in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

They aren't banned. They are blocked.

But yes, that sounds fair. So long as they would do it. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that a dialogue could have been opened. Unfortunately this approach means that they will probably start socking. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Prior to publication I had a long discussion with a wikipedian experienced with these issues. They raised the point that as paid editing goes, this is largely pretty harmless and maybe even occasionally useful. I am against paid editing but its currently allowed by the community policies. As long as it is allowed, we need a better way to encourage paid advocates to operate according to the terms of service. Blocking the occasional account when they are accidentally discovered does not seem a particulary productive method of doing this. Gamaliel (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It is solely their responsibility to be familiar with our Terms of Use -- which they continue to agree to with every edit they make and should have been aware of after the WikiPR saga and the well-publicised amendment that occurred as a result. I don't see any reason why we should assist paid advocates undermine the credibility of this encyclopedia. I have no problem with paid editing as long as the intention is aligned with our mission. Paid advocacy, which this is an example of, is not. MER-C 05:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We are not an advertising platform for Zony. Many thanks to User:MER-C who blocked these accounts. If they wish to operate ligitimately they can disclose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I would have blocked them myself had I not written this story. But I'm looking at the larger issue: How do we encourage compliance with rules concerning advocacy declaration? I suspect that these accounts are only a small fraction of those being used, so I doubt that just blocking them when we find them will be effective in the long term. Unless we're going to ban paid editing altogether, i think we need a carrot to go with the stick. Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The carrot is the ability to do the work they were hired for effectively without being blocked for it, embarrassing themselves and their clients. Along with this of course comes the reasonable increased scrutiny that any article from a declared paid editor will receive, but such scrutiny will lead to an WP article here that be more effective as an encycopedia article, which should be beneficial both to them and their client. And it will be quite different from the scrutiny than their undeclared work will inevitably receive if detected, which will by policy include the speedy removal of any further articles they may start under any username. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Not being beaten with a stick isn't really a carrot. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite. The idea that unpaid, anonymous contributors will edit articles that are among the top Google links for those companies with the reader's, rather than their own, best interests in mind is not borne out by observed reality. I don't find that surprising in the least.

These accounts went about their business for years. They would probably never have been stopped without this leak. (If you look at Monstermike99's first few edits, it's really quite remarkable they weren't stopped then.) We should assume that whatever Sony has been found to engage in is exactly what the corporate world in general, whose emails we cannot read, engages in. I don't believe Sony is any way special here.

What Dan Murphy said this week with regard to political editing, in the context of the Shapps affair (see this week's In the Media), applies just as much to editing in the business field:

Though many people treat Wikipedia as gospel, the website's rules appear tailor-made to foster conflicts of interest. Anonymity is prized above all. Accusations of bias are generally treated as "personal attacks," which are banned. And there are no professional editors or writers vetting the content.

Editors like Monstermike99 or indeed Wifione are in many ways the backbone of this encyclopedia. Without them, large parts of Wikipedia simply would not exist. Wikipedia is quite consciously set up to enable and solicit the participation of light-averse creepy-crawlies like Monstermike99, all under the guise of maximising participation. Please let's at least stop pretending that it isn't so. Andreas JN466 17:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"Accusations of bias" are essential - we just need to educate users on how to handle them without entering a battleground mindset. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC).

• My problem with the ban is the same one I had when I discovered these emails on my own (see section below). I guess it is the "fruit of a poisoned tree" factor. Should we be imposing bans based on the criminal or even just immoral act of a third party? I don't think so. Coretheapple (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

the problem with the block, is that it's whack a mole. doctrinaire approaches to COI, do not solve the problem. we all suspected COI editing about Hollywood, and here's the proof. you had a golden teachable moment, to discuss COI in a collaborative way, and invoke Donovan House statement [3] [4] instead you play gatekeeper, while the dysfunctional, below the radar, COI editing continues. you are part of the problem. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" is not a legitimate argument.

That dross should not and shall not fly. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is funny (if that's the right word). I went through the Sony leak stuff when it first came out and found that email to Amy Pascal about her wiki biography. Much as I am opposed to paid editing, I did nothing about it, though I did mention it on-wiki at one point. See [5] This hasn't received any publicity, and I haven't made a fuss over it because I don't think it's appropriate, but the leaked emails include one strongly implying that her [Amy Pascal's] Wikipedia article was a subject of paid editing earlier this year. I am not surprised by what you're saying. Coretheapple (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC) See the rest of that section, where I go into more detail. I'm going to trot this out the next time anyone accuses me of being a fanatic on paid editing. Some things take precedence, in this case not knuckling under to North Korea or whoever it is who did the hack. It just gave me the creeps to carry water for a son of a bitch like that. This is not to criticize the Signpost for delving into this, as it is a legitimate avenue of inquiry. But just to to think: it could have been a Coretheapple Scoop! Coretheapple (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Coretheapple: If that's true, we'd love to have you on board at the Signpost. One extra mind, especially one who thinks of things like that, is always helpful and welcome. :-) Think about it! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh it's true, look at the link. I'll think about it. Flattering. Thanks! Coretheapple (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Niece piece! That quote is pure gold. -- GreenC 01:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the quote is brilliant. That complaint means that we are quite good in keeping advertising/promo out of articles. I take is as a compliment for the community! The Banner talk 10:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a nice piece. It should be understood as a case in point illustrating what is standard operating procedure throughout the corporate world. The only thing that is special about Sony in this regard is that their internal correspondence was exposed.

  In Wikipedia articles that are largely based on "industry news" that operates as a PR echo chamber, it is practically impossible to distinguish between contributors who find the topic interesting and those who have a conflict of interest. As long as Wikipedia allows itself to be part of a PR echo chamber, rather than developing more discriminating editorial standards, people engaged in PR will not just sit back and wait for the echo, will not disclose what they are doing, and will usually remain undetected once they learn the ropes. (As the quote indicates, it is an acquired skill.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, MonsterMike was associated with three sockpuppets in 2013: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monstermike99/Archive. Those three were all blocked, but not MonsterMike himself. Tdslk (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The 2013 email is an automatic reply to a donation, not an actual email written by Gardner to Sony executives. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, the Wikipedia is enriched by information from these folks and impoverished by the advocacy. The goal here is to encourage more information and discourage advocacy. To reach that goal, I propose that self-censorship is the most efficient. With consistent encouragement, self-censorship can be a habit.

To this end, I would like to propose a robot/flag file, the ADVOCACY flag, as follows: User BlabberMatt posts or edits an article with obvious promotional language. A Wikipedian discovers the language, flags it for ADVOCACY, and edits the text to Wikipedian standards (or deletes the page). It could be a statement anywhere from "our fine, patriotic, and heroic soldiers" to "those nasty babykilling marines," -- on any subject, for or against any entity. The byword is, "just the facts, ma'am." Each time the offense is flagged, the statement, user, IP, article, subject, date, etc. are logged. The list of ADVOCACY users can be monitored over time. Get bored after midnight, go run down the ADVOCACY list to see who is doing what lately, and are they holding the line. If a single user name or IP is flagged with a threshold number of offenses on the same page or subject, a gradient series of disciplines are applied to BlabberMatt, from warning to blocking to banning. And each penalty grade is relaxed to the lesser grade over time.

The policy is posted and the user is referred to the policy for each offence. When BlabberMatt is exposed and warned, the group he represents will help to reign in the BlabberMatt's enthusiasm. In that way, we do not lose BlabberMatt's contributions, we just discourage or eliminate his tendency to use Wikipedia like a paid ad on Page 5 of the NYTimes. Eventually, 'BlabberMatt gets the message, learns to use neutral language, and Wikipedia has a professional editor who turns out neutral text with up-to-the-minute material. Slade Farney (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Slade, this is a brilliant and timely idea imo. petrarchan47คุก 01:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Those pesky Wikipedia editors... perhaps the real problem is the lack of a reasonable delay between a supposedly notable bit of history occurring, and its appearance in the encyclopaedia. If we didn't allow any film to be listed until a year (or two) after its initial appearance, there might be less of a temptation to edit for reasons that we consider unencyclopaedic, and there would be less "chatter" about short-term matters too. Historians don't try to decide if a recent event is historic for ... decades. Fascinating piece, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with that (likely sarcastic) suggestion (forgive me if it isn't) is that that would take away from the encyclopaedia in many of the areas that it flourishes in. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(More seriously) There is a real trade-off between the instant rush and the considered approach. The piece shows that the instant rush does certainly make an opening for exploitation; even quite a short delay in the life of an encyclopaedia would be a long delay for anyone seeking to exploit it commercially. Perhaps as little as waiting for, say, 6 weeks after the release of the DVD/internet streaming version (i.e. some time after the cinematic release), would be sufficient to put off certain kinds of hype and worse. It is extraordinary how large a percentage of GA nominations are film and music, for instance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

While I understand the thoughts behind this approach, isn't that a bit like throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. One look at the traffic report shows that new releases are among our most popular articles every week. Powers ^T 13:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If we could change the perception, so that this email had at least read "changed back by other Wikipedia editors" we might be one step further forward. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC).

"I am not the world's greatest fan of Game of Thrones"

-Serendipodous

Me either, I watched the pilot episodes and that was it. It's nice to see what articles were trending in the past week. Thanks @Serendipodous: Lightspeed2012 23:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Careful, Icarus. A statement like that will get you killed in some areas of the United States. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@The ed17: Man, good thing I live in Canada. Lightspeed2012 02:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lightspeed2012: Wait, that's a separate country? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@The ed17: lol, ninety percent of the Canadians live within 100 miles (160km) from the US border, I think where trying to hug you guys. Lightspeed2012 03:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Daredevil tried to blind me. Starlit-night312 called it the worst movie ever made. SingingJoseph4MusicalFilmFans (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)