Feuding Art Masters, Wikipedia makes the Evening Standard Options

[Peter Damian]

OK to his great credit, Wales has said this:

Chzz, an editor in good standing added an outrageous and false statement from a notoriously salacious and unreliable tabloid. That's not ok at all. It should be a blocking offense to use the Daily Mail - and similar sources - to add negative information to BLPs. It's really really really bad. Pending Changes would put a stop to this immediately and perfectly, at virtually no cost. You ask "How can the reviewer be expected to perform fact-checking on each news item?" - Reviewers should be experienced editors who are familiar with BLP policy, and can be expected and trusted to not do outrageous things like this. It's not that hard. The Daily Mail is not a valid encyclopedic source in most cases. (There are a few rare exceptions, but even those should be subjected to the strictest possible scrutiny.) In particular, relying on a single tabloid source of known low quality to post outrageous accusations of salacious personal details of people's lives is wrong, wrong for Wikipedia, a violation of BLP policy, and not something that anyone should accept cavalierly. It is easy to solve this.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 10:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=428358054

But then (a) nothing is going to happen and (b) look at some of the nutcase comments on that page. There are people saying that Wikipedia is like the room in the library with all the tabloids (presumably including the Daily Mail. At the beginning of the thread there are a couple of personal attacks on the victim of the libel (or some supporter of the victim).

The problem is not Wales, but the dysfunctional community.

[Milton Roe]

The problem is not Wales, but the dysfunctional community.

The dysfunctional community running on the policies and pilars that Wales instituted and allowed to be Talmudically perverted into what is now Wikipedia politics. Which is to say, the problem is Wales.

[Peter Damian]

The problem is not Wales, but the dysfunctional community.

I'm sorry , what was I saying (wipes brow). I take it all back. Sorry for that (see below).

Is it actually true that other language versions of Wikipedia have limited terms for adminship? If so, I'm unconvinced that it is a good idea at all, but am willing to learn from their experiences. As far as I know, there is zero evidence to suggest that there are more problems from longterm admins than recently made admins, and that in fact, it's the recently made ones who are more likely to have or cause problems, due to inexperience. I should add that when I made the comparison to the House of Lords up above, I didn't mean it in a negative way. Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor should it be. (Though it should have democratic elements, checks and balances, etc.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

[Milton Roe]

The problem is not Wales, but the dysfunctional community.

I'm sorry , what was I saying (wipes brow). I take it all back. Sorry for that (see below).

Is it actually true that other language versions of Wikipedia have limited terms for adminship? If so, I'm unconvinced that it is a good idea at all, but am willing to learn from their experiences. As far as I know, there is zero evidence to suggest that there are more problems from longterm admins than recently made admins, and that in fact, it's the recently made ones who are more likely to have or cause problems, due to inexperience. I should add that when I made the comparison to the House of Lords up above, I didn't mean it in a negative way. Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor should it be. (Though it should have democratic elements, checks and balances, etc.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There you go. With Wales' fascination with the English peerage and the House of Lords and the castles and all, you see it actually is NOT a big *&^%ing coincidence that Wikipedia is stuck in feudalism. Wales LIKES feudalism. So long as he himself gets to be feudal lord, or at least a permanent member of the House of Lords. Preferably the pre-WW II one.

It's not that philosophically complicated, Mr. "Damien." It's good to be The King, too. Nice work if you can get it.

As for Jimbo's "zero evidence," what about Essjay? Or as Wales (who didn't know him that well and was wont to refer to him as "Mr. Ryan") spelt it: "EssJay"? Another guy who enjoyed lording it over others. While all the while propped up by you-know-who.

[thekohser]

While all the while propped up by you-know-who.

Propped up and underwritten via paystub.

[A Horse With No Name]

Agreed. However, I can't help but remark on how interesting it is, that Amanda Matetsky is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia.....she even put the boy in one of her book acknowledgements.

That's Brad's mama? Wow...she ain't a bad looking lady.

[A Horse With No Name]

Chzz, an editor in good standing added an outrageous and false statement from a notoriously salacious and unreliable tabloid.

Was it Chzz or was it that mysterious fellow in his boarding house that used the communal computer in the hallway to edit Wikipedia? (If this doesn't ring a bell, go back to the lad's RfA - the very worst socking ever put on Wikipedia!)

[gomi]

Wales (who often makes good points, even if he fails to implement any of them)

My impression isn't so much that he fails to implement them, but that the community fails to implement them.

This vague/bizarre "community" that you speak of is a central problem in Wikipidiocy. Your statement is equivalent to "it's not that the cops fail to control crime, but that the community fails to control it" or "it's not that the Congress fails to balance the budget, but that the community wants too much".

"The community" is shorthand for "an undefined, undefinable, unknown and unknowable set of people who may or may not choose to comment with one or more voices in the giant online chat room that is Wikipedia:Talk". Is the community the 1.3m editors of English Wikipedia, or the 65,000 or so editors with "standing" good enough to vote? Is it the 1000+ admins, or the 150 or so admins who chatter away on the administrator's boards? Is it the admins plus a set of noisy, vested editors? For the purpose of doing things or failing to do them, I doubt that the English Wikipedia "community" numbers more than 150-200 highly verbose individuals, if that.

The problem is, and always has been, that Wikipedia as a community has no meaningful leadership. No one on ArbCom takes any leadership role, preferring to be slowly reactive, remotely Delphic, and utterly unaccountable. Admins are powerless to do anything positive, cf. the BLP deletion debacles of recent years. Admins are (largely) empowered only to do negative things, like block, ban, and histrionically prattle. The WMF and its Board foreswears any responsibility or control beyond keeping themselves out of court, and padding their wallets with sizable salaries.

Just who is this "community's" leadership? Answer: There is none. It's not a community, it's a mob. Newyorkbrad is the Wikipedia mob's Robespierre in their current Reign of Error. He is verbose and faux-philosophical because it keeps his neck away from the wiki-guillotine. Doing something -- anything -- would ensure his demise.

[thekohser]

Jimbo calls the Daily Mail "trashy and unreliable".

Well, we know that's Wikipedia, Jimbo, but what about the Daily Mail?

[melloden]

Jimbo calls the Daily Mail "trashy and unreliable".

Well, we know that's Wikipedia, Jimbo, but what about the Daily Mail?

If it's so unreliable and trashy, does that mean this kid never actually died?

[EricBarbour]

If it's so unreliable and trashy, does that mean this kid never actually died?

Right next to that story are "headlines" like "Emma Watson shows why she was named world's best-dressed woman as she displays enviable figure in frilly minidress" and "Miranda Kerr draws attention to herself in a very sexy pencil skirt as she hits the shops".

Real newspapers don't put that on the front page of their websites, as if they were "important stories".

That's Brad's mama? Wow...she ain't a bad looking lady.

STEPmother, dude......

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 11th May 2011, 1:39am

[thekohser]

Jimbo calls the Daily Mail "trashy and unreliable".

Well, we know that's Wikipedia, Jimbo, but what about the Daily Mail?

If it's so unreliable and trashy, does that mean this kid never actually died?

Well, clearly, the SUV never went "ploughing through a metal fence", as the accident happened in New York, not York, so it would have been "plowing".

[Detective]

The Daily Mail is not a valid encyclopedic source in most cases.

of course not. The Daily Mail is a (shudder) Conservative newspaper, totally inimical to everything that Jimbo holds dear, like using material regardless of copyright and treating people who have demonstrated their ability as common criminals. How much better to rely on say The Guardian, which since the death of that rabid liberal C. P. Scott has moved much closer to Randism.

Right next to that story are "headlines" like "Emma Watson shows why she was named world's best-dressed woman as she displays enviable figure in frilly minidress" and "Miranda Kerr draws attention to herself in a very sexy pencil skirt as she hits the shops".

And this for the many millions whoo were worried about Mischa Barton. It may be tabloid froth, but is it unreliable?

[HRIP7]

Wales (who often makes good points, even if he fails to implement any of them)

My impression isn't so much that he fails to implement them, but that the community fails to implement them.

This vague/bizarre "community" that you speak of is a central problem in Wikipidiocy. Your statement is equivalent to "it's not that the cops fail to control crime, but that the community fails to control it" or "it's not that the Congress fails to balance the budget, but that the community wants too much".

"The community" is shorthand for "an undefined, undefinable, unknown and unknowable set of people who may or may not choose to comment with one or more voices in the giant online chat room that is Wikipedia:Talk". Is the community the 1.3m editors of English Wikipedia, or the 65,000 or so editors with "standing" good enough to vote? Is it the 1000+ admins, or the 150 or so admins who chatter away on the administrator's boards? Is it the admins plus a set of noisy, vested editors? For the purpose of doing things or failing to do them, I doubt that the English Wikipedia "community" numbers more than 150-200 highly verbose individuals, if that.

The problem is, and always has been, that Wikipedia as a community has no meaningful leadership. No one on ArbCom takes any leadership role, preferring to be slowly reactive, remotely Delphic, and utterly unaccountable. Admins are powerless to do anything positive, cf. the BLP deletion debacles of recent years. Admins are (largely) empowered only to do negative things, like block, ban, and histrionically prattle. The WMF and its Board foreswears any responsibility or control beyond keeping themselves out of court, and padding their wallets with sizable salaries.

Just who is this "community's" leadership? Answer: There is none. It's not a community, it's a mob. Newyorkbrad is the Wikipedia mob's Robespierre in their current Reign of Error. He is verbose and faux-philosophical because it keeps his neck away from the wiki-guillotine. Doing something -- anything -- would ensure his demise.

Quite so. Anyone (including Wales) attempting to institute leadership is shouted down.

Arbcom got itself a bloody nose in 2009 when they tried to form a committee that would merely work to generate ideas. (All the ones who weren't in the committee, like Durova and SlimVirgin, campaigned against it.)

Wales got a bloody nose when he tried to delete some of the amateur porn.

SlimVirgin just suggested creating a committee to look at the BLP issue:

As a first step, we ought to start indefinitely semi-protecting BLPs. Then, Jimbo, perhaps you would consider setting up a working group, consisting of 20 experienced editors to make a series of recommendations to the community regarding how to protect BLPs further—with a mandate that the community choose, via RfC, at least one of the suggestions to be implemented within a reasonable time. And if they can't decide, the group itself decides. The group can hold its discussions on a public page if it wants to, but only the 20 should take part. Is that something you'd consider? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The only reply to that, predictably, was:

Well, stopping BLP edits from appearing is a non-starter. That's a social change well outside Wikipedia's scope. As to your suggestion... yikes. A committee to decide if we should hold an RfC to decide on a policy implementation that, if it doesn't work, they can WP:IAR and impose a rule on everyone? I don't see that flying at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The underlying mindset seems to be, If I can't be in charge, nobody else should be either.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

The underlying mindset seems to be, If I can't be in charge, nobody else should be either.

The thing is ... there is no one who is nobody, so it has to be somebody. Things ... flows ... don't just happen. Someone must be making them.

Sure, one talks often about hive mentalities but does that really apply at a human level? Therefore, surely if one analysed matter closely one could deduce who exactly, what coterie, is setting the agenda or gently steering the rudder. I'd bet it boils down to a handful of people.

It does take some skill, as well as luck, to successfully float and maintain an interactive website or community.

Back to ancient pre-democratic forms of governance that were, in essence, power struggles of a few over the exploitation of many.

[jayvdb]

SlimVirgin just suggested creating a committee to look at the BLP issue:

As a first step, we ought to start indefinitely semi-protecting BLPs. Then, Jimbo, perhaps you would consider setting up a working group, consisting of 20 experienced editors to make a series of recommendations to the community regarding how to protect BLPs further—with a mandate that the community choose, via RfC, at least one of the suggestions to be implemented within a reasonable time. And if they can't decide, the group itself decides. The group can hold its discussions on a public page if it wants to, but only the 20 should take part. Is that something you'd consider? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The only reply to that, predictably, was:

Well, stopping BLP edits from appearing is a non-starter. That's a social change well outside Wikipedia's scope. As to your suggestion... yikes. A committee to decide if we should hold an RfC to decide on a policy implementation that, if it doesn't work, they can WP:IAR and impose a rule on everyone? I don't see that flying at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The underlying mindset seems to be, If I can't be in charge, nobody else should be either.

We've already had a "committee" to look at the BLP issue.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_fo...indings_outline
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/061179.html

[gomi]

We've already had a "committee" to look at the BLP issue.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_fo...indings_outline
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/061179.html

Those weren't amenable to control and filibuster by SlimVirgin and her ilk, so they don't count.

[A Horse With No Name]

Agreed. However, I can't help but remark on how interesting it is, that Amanda Matetsky is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia.....she even put the boy in one of her book acknowledgements.

That's Brad's mama? Wow...she ain't a bad looking lady.

What, am I the only here who thinks Brad has a hot chili mama?

And how did that fine looking lady wind up with Baby Huey as a son? I bet he was switched at birth in the hospital.

Based on those photos, I bet she's a great dancer. Oh, one, two, cha-cha-cha...

[Milton Roe]

Agreed. However, I can't help but remark on how interesting it is, that Amanda Matetsky is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia.....she even put the boy in one of her book acknowledgements.

That's Brad's mama? Wow...she ain't a bad looking lady.

What, am I the only here who thinks Brad has a hot chili mama?

And how did that fine looking lady wind up with Baby Huey as a son? I bet he was switched at birth in the hospital.

Based on those photos, I bet she's a great dancer. Oh, one, two, cha-cha-cha...

That's NYB's mom?! She's cool. So yeah, what happened at the hospital...?

[HRIP7]

We've already had a "committee" to look at the BLP issue.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_fo...indings_outline
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/061179.html

Thanks, interesting.