Wikipedia Review demands, Let's make some! Just for fun. Options

[blissyu2]

Someone on Wikipedia's mailing list has decided that Wikipedia Review are making demands. So, using the old motto of "Do the time, do the crime", I figured that we should all think of some demands that we'd like to make. Of course, we'd all like different things to happen, so let's say 5 things that are within Jimbo's power that we'd like him to make.

Here are the rules:
* You can't ask Jimbo to resign, to shut down Wikipedia or to do anything that would harm Wikipedia
* You get 5 demands each
* They all must be legal
* Jimbo must be physically able to do them
* They must be relatively simple (physically) for Jimbo to do, and not overly complex
* If someone else has already made the same (or virtually the same) demand, you can't make the same one twice
* Each demand must be only one thing
* All demands must be related to Wikipedia

Sounds like fun? Then when next Wikipedia insists that we are making demands then we can have something to point them to.

As for my top 5, they are:

1. Delete and oversight Request for Arbitration/Internodeuser
2. Delete all sock puppet accusations
3. Unprotect Internodeuser and Zordrac
4. Unban me
5. Undelete the User:Zordrac/Poetlister page

What does everyone else want? (This is for everyone, even Wikipedia administrators)

[the fieryangel]

Oh, I just LOVE making demands! Here are mine:

1. Make an organized effort to include non-English language sources and information in articles on EN WP, so that it's not just "Jimbo's big grabbag of trivia".

2. Delete all of the Pokemon character articles as being non-notable (I'm feeling generous, so I'll let keep the main Pokemon article)

3. Get rid of articles about sexual practices so disgusting that nobody can imagine doing them and which nobody can imagine anyone doing, such as the old chestnut Cleveland steamer.<----Not Safe for Work!! (I didn't even know this existed until I read the WP article, but I can't really say that this belongs in an Encyclopedia.

4. Make a concentrated effort to nominate more women administrators, more administrators outside of North America and Northern Europe and apply strict 50/50 % gender equality for positions of power such as checkuser, arbcom, etc. as well as promoting geographic and cultural diversity among these positions as a matter of enforced policy.

5. Make strict policy regarding BLP which overrides anything that the WP "community" considers consensus, including a opt-out for anyone, complete control for the subjects of biographies over their own articles, rules against categories such as "rape victim", "child abuse victim" and the like, and penalties for POV warriors who refuse to play by the rules.

That's not so much, is it???

[Jonny Cache]

1. Fly me to Havana !!!

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[dtobias]

Oh, I just LOVE making demands! Here are mine:

Your "demands" can be paraphrased as "Delete all the stuff I personally don't like; Impose politically correct quotas on the leadership of Wikipedia to conform to leftist standards of "diversity"; and have the community's policies be dictated on them from outside the community." Is that accurate?

[blissyu2]

Oh, I just LOVE making demands! Here are mine:

Your "demands" can be paraphrased as "Delete all the stuff I personally don't like; Impose politically correct quotas on the leadership of Wikipedia to conform to leftist standards of "diversity"; and have the community's policies be dictated on them from outside the community." Is that accurate?

Yes, well, I didn't say that they had to be reasonable. They can be anything.

Why don't you make some demands too?

[the fieryangel]

Oh, I just LOVE making demands! Here are mine:

Your "demands" can be paraphrased as "Delete all the stuff I personally don't like; Impose politically correct quotas on the leadership of Wikipedia to conform to leftist standards of "diversity"; and have the community's policies be dictated on them from outside the community." Is that accurate?

My demands are pretty much what every American institution of higher education is applying by law to their operating and hiring policies and what mainstream publishers apply when publishing biographies of living persons (unless you're the National Enquirer or Kitty Kelly, in which case, you expect to get sued as a matter of course) , so I don't see why they would be considered unreasonable.

Of course, to compare Wikipedia to any sort of Institute of higher learning or to a mainstream publisher is pretty far-fetched, I'll give you that....Unless we were planning an academic conference on the cultural implications of the "Cleveland Steamer", that is.....

the Pokemon is indeed my personal bias. I also considered demanding that articles about songs like "Hollaback Girl" be banned from the front page, but I only had five wishes....

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

[dtobias]

My demands are pretty much what every American institution of higher education is applying by law to their operating and hiring policies and what mainstream publishers apply when publishing biographies of living persons (unless you're the National Enquirer or Kitty Kelly, in which case, you expect to get sued as a matter of course) , so I don't see why they would be considered unreasonable.

The hotbeds of loony-left PC that are "institutions of higher learning", and the bastions of corporate cowardice and marketing manipulation that are "mainstream publishers" are hardly the role models I'm eager to follow.

[the fieryangel]

The hotbeds of loony-left PC that are "institutions of higher learning", and the bastions of corporate cowardice and marketing manipulation that are "mainstream publishers" are hardly the role models I'm eager to follow.

...and there lies the entire problem and ultimate failure of Wikipedia.

I rest my case.

....oh, and....by the way....I kinda thought that this was supposed to be a joke. You're taking this seriously?

Sheez, if I had known that, I would have asked for something big, such as naming Somey as the new WMF chairperson, with Daniel Brandt as the new head of Arbcom.....

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

[JohnA]

My demands:

1. Institute a mandatory review system for all articles and all editors.
2. Create a feedback system so that articles may be voted on for reliability, readability, completeness, overall quality. Feedback applies to both articles and editors.
3. Refuse to publish all articles (ie make them viewable by google) until articles pass minimum quality standards
4. Strip anonymity from all administrators and ban them from editing articles. They either administer or edit, but not both.
5. Institute a proper visible independent board of academically qualified trustees.

I have lots more demands, but as I'm limited to 5 I went for the top ones.

[Infoboy]

#1: Admins, Arbiters, Beurocrats, CheckUsers, Stewards, Developers, and Board Members must all be legally named and identified to the Board of Trustees. The Board/WMF in turn locally has to publish the names of all such people, as they are legally liable for all actions they take. If people are not willing to take FULL responsibility for their actions, they are not needed. Bye, don't let society's door hit your ass on the way out.

#2: IP address information on ALL users is kept "indefinitely". Yes, this will be a privacy pain in the butt. Yes, some people will leave because of this. Yes, this will severely hamper sockpuppeting. Yes, this will put all people on the hook in theory forever for all their contributions, the point of this: do something you can be in legal trouble for, and you can be traced back for it. You can be anonymous, but don't do anything WRONG.

#3: Modify the log notices, so that if a username is CheckUsered, users will know their privacy was possibly reviewed. If they need to follow up with the Foundation then, they can. All it has to say is: "Dmcdevit Checkuser on Ryulong, {date}" and thats it. Don't publish when IPs themselves are Checkusered.

#4: BLP pages immediately, but ideally ALL articles, go to the German system of revision control.

#5: Any unsourced material from BLPs can be deleted by anyone, controversial/negative or not, and BLP opt-outs with a stringent COMMUNITY review process, ****NOT**** decided on by admins only, is implemented.

[Joseph100]

1. Fly me to Havana !!!

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

MY DEMAND FOR WIKIWIKI JIMBO JUICE CLUB....

1. PULL THE WIRE FROM THE WIKIWackySERVER FARM FROM THE INTERNET...

[blissyu2]

1. Fly me to Havana !!!

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

MY DEMAND FOR WIKIWIKI JIMBO JUICE CLUB....

1. PULL THE WIRE FROM THE WIKIWackySERVER FARM FROM THE INTERNET...

I actually said in the rules that you aren't allowed to ask for that (its too boring to ask for it anyway, everyone would).

Care to be more creative?

[Joseph100]

1. Fly me to Havana !!!

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

MY DEMAND FOR WIKIWIKI JIMBO JUICE CLUB....

1. PULL THE WIRE FROM THE WIKIWackySERVER FARM FROM THE INTERNET...

1. I demand all the wiki admins id themselfs with
first, last name; current address; phone no; real emai from a non anon email account

2. I demand that all wiki admin are accessable, for communications as well as all communications between wiki admins are in the open and in star chambers and back rooms.

3. I demand that all Wiki admin need 10 admins to ban people and rules for banning
are explicit and procribed.. that [[WP: IGNORE]]

4. I demand that all wiki admin be banned from editing.

5. I demand the wikipedia fountaion take better control of th'er animal farm less
the class actions start to fly...

so much for my demands

[thekohser]

Someone on Wikipedia's mailing list has decided that Wikipedia Review are making demands. So, using the old motto of "Do the time, do the crime", I figured that we should all think of some demands that we'd like to make. Of course, we'd all like different things to happen, so let's say 5 things that are within Jimbo's power that we'd like him to make.

1. Complete deletion and salting of all external links from Wikimedia properties to websites that are owned or operated by Wikia, Inc., or to websites owned or operated by the financial investors in Wikia, Inc., including the $10 million Series B round of investing from December 2006, which would include Amazon.com. The only exception would be for one external link from the subject articles, such as the [[Wikia]], [[Amazon]], and [[Bessemer Venture Partners]] articles. Anything less is a severe conflict of interest, as Jimmy Wales has personally blocked exploitation of Wikipedia for external corporate interests, even while his own company and its investors reap the benefits of thousands of outbound links from a Top 10 website that is purportedly non-profit.

2. Complete deletion and salting of the Reward Board and a clear admonition that money or any other favors with monetary value shall never be associated with the development or editing of content within Wikipedia.

3. Complete deletion of the entirety of Wikipedia articles about legal entities that were proven or even appear to have been authored by the subject of the article, a single-purpose account, or any agent in the employ or contract of the subject. Likewise, complete deletion of any specific edits within Wikipedia articles about legal entities that were proven or even appear to have been authored by the subject of the article, a single-purpose account, or any agent in the employ or contract of the subject. These edits and articles may be restored or rewritten by established editors who can also demonstrate within a reasonable doubt that they are not agents in the employ or contract of the subject.

4. Employees of Wikia, Inc. or employees of investors in Wikia, Inc. are banned from editing in any Wikimedia Foundation property article space. Their edits cannot be trusted to have a neutral point of view (NPOV), being that the construction and ongoing success of Wikia, Inc. depends on the content and goodwill generated by the Wikimedia Foundation properties. Governments require of civil servants divestiture in cases where it is reasonably necessary to resolve a conflict of interest with the employee’s official duties to the people. They are certainly expected or required to not interact in the corporate governance of companies in which they hold an investment stake. It should be no different in Wikimedia Foundation properties (where the "business" is editing an open-source free content encyclopedia) vis-a-vis Wikia (and Amazon, Bessemer, etc.).

5. Allow User:Badlydrawnjeff to write Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia Review and about Gregory Kohs, and have them carefully scrutinized under the existing notability guidelines, whereby the result should be "speedy keep".

I'm not asking for anything more than what Jimbo himself purported was so damn important in August of 2006 -- that paid-editing and financial exploitation of Wikipedia creates a very bad image problem because of the palpable appearance of a conflict of interest. My first four demands would quickly and nearly completely clean up the system to meet Jimmy Wales' highest standards. The fifth demand would just be personally satisfying, to see WP:NOTE actually executed in an evenhanded manner.

Get going, Jimbo!

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Nathan]

1. Review all blocks which were made due to "backroom evidence" or "off-wiki reasons" and completely apply the rules of common sense and fairness. (I don't want to directly say 'unblock me', I prefer to say 'unblock everyone which have been unfairly blocked' (including those blocked for posting on Wikipedia Review), this would include Daniel Brandt, blissyu2, Poetlister and many others who use WR). All blocks due to off-wiki reasons would be immediately be reversed, unless they involve police reports, court decisions, legal reasons, which must directly relate to Wikipedia or a person's well-being on Wikipedia, prove that a user's welfare has been threatened, etc. (I'm aware this could be exploited by Wikipedia somehow)

2. Accountability to all Wikipedia administrators, release full names (if not to the public, at least to the Board), location (city, state/province, country) and e-mail function enabled at the very least. (This is similar to Infoboy's #1 demand but it's not that specific).

3. For Jimbo to take an objective look at Wikipedia (I realise I'm asking for the impossible), notice what's broken and propose many sweeping changes that would ultimately benefit the wiki. This includes: For Jimbo to post here, asking for serious criticism of what's broken/flawed in Wikipedia, for him to seriously accept criticism and do what needs to be done (including desysopping or blocking admins - and their supporters - which have been proven to be abusive). Time to remove those rose-coloured glasses & see his beloved creation for what it really is.

4. Administrator review/recall mandatory for all admins. All admins must go through an RFA within 30 days or forever lose their admin status, no exceptions. This ensures that abusive admins will receive the necessary criticism (though the cabal may try some vote-stacking measures), they will either improve their attitudes or lose the sysop bit. This will ultimately help change the image of Wikipedia and the visible cabalism.

5. Review the practise of anonymous editing. People usually like to see real people, not some pseudonym like SarahsKillerPoodle (yes, I made that one up). If a user or admin is found to use their anonymous status to push a particular POV, agenda, to abusively block, wikistalk, etc etc, the user or admin should be blocked indefinitely for abusing the system.

I had more ideas but these don't count (use them if you want), and could probably be added to the above if I was really focused on the semantics.

1. Remove WP:COI (conflict of interest). Owners and staff of websites are absolutely allowed to edit their own articles, and should be viewed as more knowledgeable and trusted to do so.

2. Revamp the RFC process so that it works. Make it an ArbCom-style system but different in that the community can propose actions against users and the consensus of any proposal is binding and enforced by the community (what I'm proposing is not completely unlike anarchy).

An example:

Assertion: Admin X is an abusive admin. Admin X has been using his admin status to bully users, block unfairly and push his point of view. Proof is (insert links proving this here).

Proposal: Admin X must stop this immediately or relinquish his admin status.

...and if enough people vote support, it's binding and the community (read: other admins) has to enforce it. (I'm sure this can be skewed to Wikipedia's advantage somehow, I haven't thought it through completely)

[Cedric]

I demand ONE MILLION DOLLARS. If they fail to meet to meet this demand, I will BLOW UP THE MOON! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Nathan]

Cedric: I suppose you have a cat too and a Mini-You[tm]?

[blissyu2]

6. Remove WP:COI (conflict of interest). Owners and staff of websites are absolutely allowed to edit their own articles, and should be viewed as more knowledgeable and trusted to do so.

7. Revamp the RFC process so that it works. Make it an ArbCom-style system but different in that the community can propose actions against users and the consensus of any proposal is binding and enforced by the community (what I'm proposing is not completely unlike anarchy).

You're cheating too! I said 5!

[Robster]

I demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!

Oh, wait, someone else wrote that...

I demand that Wikipedia stop taking itself so damn seriously. It's just a website... or an RPG... or Jimbo's delusion. It's not that important. Really. A vast majority of the world's population has never seen Wikipedia. Most never will. They're not all that.

[Nathan]

You're cheating too! I said 5!

Yes, but I'm allowed to add ideas after the five demands. Nobody said I couldn't. >:)
You have to be specific in your rules. I got carried away and continued brainstorming so 6 and 7 are just ideas to steal.
I can probably do some fancy writing in my demands to include these but it's much too late in the night for thinking.