User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251Auto-archiving period: 1 days

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Here is the entirety of the text of Wikipedia's "ignore all rules" policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Doesn't exactly seem to mesh with a culture of protecting legitimate intellectual property rights, does it? Improving and maintaining Wikipedia > rules that protect real people's real work? Townlake (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call "copyright violations" as "improving Wikipedia". That would harm Wikipedia and so the rule couldn't apply. The rule works.--v/r - TP 18:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Townlake: I just read it again and it doesn't say or mean that at all. I think you need to read it again. Mugginsx (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US law is non-negotiable, and entirely outside our control, even for actions that otherwise improve the encyclopedia. Of course there are a very large grey area of cases that are either untested or have conflicting case law (e.g. if I heavily paraphrase a document but retain its overall structure, is that a copyvio or not? what about a long quotation like 2-3 paragraphs? answer seems to be "it depends/not sure"). At Commons we run into these all the time, particularly when it comes to threshold of originality. Dcoetzee 00:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the first is copyvio as you have described it. Apparently copyright lawyers' do not either or we would have been sued a long time ago and successfully. People's quotations are not copyrighted. If those quotations are put into a book and the book copyrighted and book is exactly quoted and in large measure that is different. Mugginsx (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case law is all over the map. Recently Warner Bros. and J. K. Rowling vs. RDR Books held that fictional facts, detailed plot summaries, and paraphrased character descriptions infringe unless they are accompanied by sufficiently detailed commentary and analysis of the sort that WP:NOR forbids. If its standard were applied to Wikipedia I'd say that most if not the vast majority of our articles on contemporary fiction would be considered infringement. On the other hand cases like Feist v. Rural allow verbatim copying of vast compilations of facts when no creative expression is involved. To make matters even more confusing, the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA permit blatant infringement to exist as long as it is properly addressed in response to requests from the copyright holders. So we have strikingly contradictory rules which most editors don't understand, resulting in vastly misplaced motivations and effort. Let's just say that most of the work to address copyright on Wikipedia is not exactly futile, but is seriously close to worthless, in terms of protecting content users including the Foundation from liability. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crep. Someone tried to publish for profit a lexicon to the Hogwarts universe, based entirely on JK Rowling's books and other info she's published. I do not see that the case is at all applicable to Wikipedia. We are not profiting off other people's work.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright law does not say "If you give the infringing material away it ceases to be an infringement." Collect (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, it does say that "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes"is one of the 4 specified US fair use factors, which gives us quite a leg up. In the Rowling decision, that factor was negative, and here it is always positive. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the license under which we publish is explicitly commercial, as are many of the Foundation's trademark branding agreements and downstream users. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright law is not a Wikipedia rule, although we have a rule that highlights the law. In the statutory chain, laws always come above rules. Therefore, IAR cannot be invoked to ignore a law that's higher in the food chain. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is logical. However, the policy does not say this, and offers no differentiation between a "law" and a "rule". The policy is stated as simply as possible, with zero explanation, and ends up looking like a wild overreach. You can't count on users to read 15 other pages for explanation of this policy when the policy page itself doesn't go into any detail. Townlake (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that copyright infringements improve Wikipedia? That's the only scenario in which the policy applies in the manner you describe. —David Levy 05:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You, I, and Jimbo all know the answer to that. But I sure didn't learn the answer from the IAR page. Townlake (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint is that the policy page lacks an exhaustive list of the things that do and don't improve Wikipedia? —David Levy 06:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman. Townlake (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a question. Please feel free to explain what you actually meant when you noted that the IAR page didn't teach you that copyright infringements don't improve Wikipedia. —David Levy 15:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your invitation to join you in additional unproductive dialogue is declined. Townlake (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your prerogative. But please don't expect people to understand your concerns if you decline to clarify your ambiguous statements. —David Levy 20:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, there's a nice big box at the top of WP:COPYRIGHTS that says "This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations" ... seems to cover it in the text itself for all intents and purposes. There's also not a policy entitled WP:PleaseDontEditWikipediaAtABar,GetDrunk,ThenDriveHome :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyrights page is a different page from IAR. You're coming at this from the nuanced perspective of a Wikipedia veteran, but there's no experience requirement to edit Wikipedia. Townlake (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on people, I think the reader knows that a "rule" means a Wikipedia rule, not any and all laws of their jurisdiction. Pity, as I'd hoped to strangle a few deletionists and tell the police it was IAR. It's even Wikilinked in the policy if they look. Wnt (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy to use Wikipedia to commit copyright infringement, believing that one is actually helping Wikipedia and the infringement is really no big deal. You think this is obvious, but editors frequently commit copyright infringement here, so I do not think it is obvious enough. And your joke about physical violence is inappropriate. Townlake (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wales, The way I feel about the shutdown is; If you're going to do it, do it soon, because there may not be a chance to do it in the future. Even If we fail at making a major indent on the bill, It will potentially raise massive opposition of the bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.165.10 (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to this conversation. Townlake (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ignore all rules" stands alone in triumph for its remarkable features as a Wikipedia icon. It is both Wikipedia's best policy, and also its worst named policy. Geometry guy 01:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the policy is well-intentioned. The problem is that it sets a certain "tone at the top" that all rules are subject to being reasonably defied; that's Wikipedia's culture. (The "tone at the top" issue is why I brought this issue up on Jimbo's talk page.) IAR's simplistic philosophy manifests in copyright rules routinely being ignored, whether or not violators are actually aware the IAR page exists. Townlake (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the title that is simplistic, not the content of the policy. If the policy were called something like "Improving Wikipedia comes first" or "Above all, improve Wikipedia", it wouldn't cause nearly as much trouble. Geometry guy 00:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply false. I've quote the policy in its entirety at the top of this thread. The title summarizes the policy perfectly. Townlake (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you ignore a law because of "Ignore all rules", wouldn't Wikimedia be sued if someone finds out? Then Wikipedia would be shut down Forever and that would harm Wikipedia (obviously). So, WP:IAR does not apply if you're breaking a rule set by a government (local, state, or federal). Am I right? Agent 78787 (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations occur routinely on Wikipedia -- the Did You Know area was particularly notorious for such issues until recently -- but these violations haven't yet caused Wikipedia to shut down forever. Townlake (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there evidence that WP:IAR is a factor in the copyright infringement problem? I've seen the policy "invoked" inappropriately on numerous occasions, but I don't recall ever seeing someone cite it to justify a copyright violation or any other legal infraction. —David Levy 06:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and I completed our dialogue above. Townlake (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a "no". —David Levy 07:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has this new file at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_Change_The_Ratio_Logo.jpg.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong in so many ways. How many XY editors do we have to shed to get to 50:50? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 18:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...or how many sex changes men would have to make. –MuZemike 18:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A sex change wouldn't affect the ratio of cytogenetically male (XY) vs. cytogenetically female (XX) editors. Also, this is discrimination against editors with aneuploidy. That logo implies that people with Turner syndrome, Triple X syndrome, or Klinefelter's have no place here. (Ok, that wasn't a serious objection). MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who says editing is a zero-sum game? Diversity is an additive, not a substractive, movement. The more women around here, the better. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As ratio is a relationship between two numbers, there is nothing inherent about the goal which indicates whether reaching it is additive or subtractive. If the WMF goal is to increase women editors, a goal of "600,000 by 2015" would be appropriate, "fix the ratio" is not. Reliable sources indicate diversity is not inherently additive: [1]. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 18:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be here. It's pretty amazing to get pushback on this -- amazing, but not surprising. Herostratus (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain to me how edits by male editors differ from those by female editors? Yes, I know, it's a participation thing, isn't it. Hoorah. But hang on, I thought my gender didn't matter here. In fact, my gender is undisclosed. So how do we get that Big Ratio exactly? So let's hear it for those downtrodden aneuploids! Or maybe we really are all just part of an elaborate social networking experiment. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked that question once in jest and the quite serious answer I got was "they swear less". To which my girlfriend said "fuck that". :) Gender equality is missing the point (on WP). However; more female editors would be good because what we do have divided amongst gender is interests - and a lot of female-interest topics are under developed (although interestingly in my ad-hoc study earlier this year our current crop of female editors don't much edit those topics either, so it is probably not a gender thing as much as an internet-person thing). All of which could be summed up as; more diversity==good. Gender is an easy diversity target (but not the only one) for us to tackle. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reassuringly reasonable response, thanks. But, needless to say, when do we undisclosed third gender editors get our day? And, in the mean time, to which on-line encyclopedia do we flee to escape gender altogether?! Ethnic origin in User Preferences next maybe? Martinevans123 (talk)

It's probably better not to think of it too much in terms of gender; or, rather, ignore much of the gendergap stuff. Eventually it will become not-PC to mention gender at all. This is kinda my bugbear but it annoys me that the foundation took the brain-dead route and cast this issue in terms of male/female inequality without realising that, as an approach, it is both highly sexist and also wrong :) That's not by definition a problem - but it does (from my observation, and I realise this may present an unpopular view) encourage the more, umm, opinionated types to soapbox. What the inequality thing seems to consistently miss is that this is not a "too many guys" issue, it's about a the internet sub-culture in general. It has been obvious for many years that people who contribute (as opposed to consume) the internet are for the most part young males of a certain type. In that respect we actually do a really really job of having a broader range of not-that-sort-of-person. Even if we are a bit light on one gender.

I can't remember the exact words for it, but it is some sort of cause/effect fallacy. i.e. "There is an inequality problem on Wikipedia. There are less female than male editors. Therefore increasing female participation redresses the balance". This is of course just sexism rendered in a more modern and palatable light (you will find it widely expressed in modern society, unfortunately) - eventually someone important will twig that it's not about gender but *people* and that they are confusing the actual gender inequality issue (i.e. men historically screwed women over both metaphorically and literally, and the vestiges of that persist in modern times) with simpyl having a large group of a particular class/type. You could almost certainly do the same studies with another minority (jews, blacks, etc.) and get broadly the same results (and indeed with have, to wit the global south issue, which amusingly is part of the same problem, but no one seems to have noticed).

It's an unfortunate historical side effect that when someone says the word "inequality" people default to creating one of a few binary groupings and wax lyrical about them. I talked to a gender equality person a few months ago whose theory was that Wikipedia was too combative, that this was sexist and that it put off women from participating - completely oblivious to how sexist their own theory was (toward women). She'd identified a problem, but had got lost by picking a broad group of people (women), generalising them in a ludicrous way, and proclaiming this as a universal theory. And I think that sums up the whole gender gap stuff; the issue has been identified (inequality) but no one seems to be fixing it, rather they are standing around being sympathetic, conducting studies and theorizing (I mean that as a general criticism; I know some very smart individuals who are actually doing pro-active things to address this). Gender is purely misdirection and hopefully soon we will get over it. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you and I are reading different source material; I've never seen the WMF, or really any of the people active in addressing the gender gap, frame the discussion in terms of equality. The gap represents a huge missed opportunity, and a source of imbalance in Wikimedia content... but I don't think "equality" per se is implicated, so perhaps you are countering an argument that has not been made. Nathan ^T 02:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! Thank goodness. Can't wait. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have less than 10% female participants in an enterprise like ours, that indicates a problem. All the handwaving and crying of reverse sexism and making excuses in the world doesn't alter that. If 90% of your sales people, or engineers, or executives, or partners, or whatever are male, then there is something systematically wrong with your enterprise. Everyone understands this (which is why enterprises like that often end up explaining themselves to a judge). And in fact you (Errant) apparently recognize this since you write with apparent approval of "individuals who are actually doing pro-active things to address this". So why all the false analogies, excuses, and denials of the obvious in order to defend the indefensible? Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just purely out of curiosity... I'm sure the percentage of all truck drivers who are male is over 90%. What is "systematically wrong" with the enterprise of shipping and transportation that has caused this imbalance, and should it be addressed? Nathan ^T 02:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The "reported number is 13%" 2. Voluntary self response surveys suck 3. At least some research [2] indicates some women participants in the internet may hide their gender. 4. As the link I provided above indicated, "ratio" solutions are likely to reduce male participants. 5. Saying "50/50 ratio is a stupid goal " ≠ "Wikipedia has no problems" Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 04:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent number was 8–9%.[3] If women are lying about their gender, they seem to only be doing it on Wikipedia. Similar surveys of other online communities usually show a majority of females these days. I do think having a more balanced ratio would actually benefit the encyclopedia. We seem to have a lot of articles that are presented from a predominantly male point of view. The dating article was almost comically biased for a while. And then there was the time when the shorts article was illustrated entirely with women in hot pants. Kaldari (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar surveys of other online communities usually show a majority of females these days; wow, source for such studies? I'm very very dubious on that one. In terms of the bias that's less to do with lack of female editors than with the type of editors. And ties back to my point that you are confusing equality issues with having 50% women. The problem here is not a gender issue, it is the predominance of a certain type of person. One activity I have seen is people giving talks at the girl geek dinners. Which is great, don't get me wrong, but it fails to realise those have a high ratio of exactly the same sort of people. They just happen to be female. :) If 90% of your sales people, or engineers, or executives, or partners, or whatever are male, then there is something systematically wrong with your enterprise.; what about secretaries? Mine workers? Lumberjacks? Nursing? All of which are predominantly one-sex industries. These help identify the fallacy, and inadvertent sexism, in your approach. Which is to assume ideally every job should be 50% of each sex. That's stupid. Equality is really about opportunity. I have the same opportunity as anyone else to go work down a mine - but I'd hope that anyone interviewing me would reject me as unsuitable (lacking the characteristics that make a good miner). Equality is that when a woman applying for the job exhibits those qualities she doesn't get rejected for her sex. You are right; corporate culture used to be disposed against women (less so nowadays). The key issue here is; more diversity is good. But casting it along gender lines is ignoring the actual issue in favour of something politically advantageous. What we need to offer here is equality in opportunity - to contribute and become involved. Which means taking the "power base" away from the current type of person that sits on it :) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to dig too heavy into the drama llama and obvious troll-assholeness that was involved in sharing this logo (which was created by two women who have been interested in and have done some blogging and outreach related to Wikimedia projects with women), but, first, a study was released a few months ago in the United States that states that women are more active in social media aspects of the internet. Here is a briefing of it from Mashable. While Kaldari states, I'm presuming sarcastically, that women in Wikipedia are lying because they're the only one's complaining (paraphrase), anyone who is active in open source communities is generally well aware of the extreme gender gap in the landscape, and Wikipedia is an open source community. This study, (unfortunately) from 2006, discusses that an estimated 2% of participants in open source are women. It's early, and I haven't caffeinated yet, but, if if people want to argue about this, then they really need to open their eyes and stop stating the non-obvious and denying the concept. If they aren't happy with the focus or interest people are putting on it, perhaps they can focus their energy on something that interests them more. We have problems in the community, and it moves beyond Wikipedia, and into roles of leadership within technology, cultural organizations, and more. As a woman who is active in both, I've experienced the best and worst of people - men and women - and I'm well aware of the lack of women's roles in these communities. Perhaps your experience in England is different, perhaps different than my experience as a woman in the community in the United States. I wish I could say that I was given the same opportunity as you, but in the United States, that's not always the case. Here, I'm a bitch for being driven, but if a man acts the way I do, he's a strong man who people want to be around. That's just one example, but, I'm glad you have had a good quality experience in England. Where I don't think any women serve on the Wikimedia UK board and that there are only one or two women active in the chapter (perhaps I'm wrong). Wikimedia is also aware that this needs to move beyond gender - it needs to move into Indigenous communities, in the United States, African American and Latino communities (and beyond), we desperately need more diversity in order to make the encyclopedia and its related projects of ultimate value for the world. By exploring opportunities to bring more women into the community, and work on user retention and creating a more welcoming environment, we can start that process. What the heck is wrong with that? On another note, I don't think any of us are begging for equality in jobs. I don't care if we have more female lumberjacks, hockey players, etc, just like I don't care if we have more male executive assistants or make up artists. What I do care about, is that those people who wants those jobs who aren't of the "typical gender," are giving the same opportunity to have those jobs as the "appropriate" gender. I think the majority of supporters of equality would probably agree with me. SarahStierch (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sarah; I agree with your analysis - except I argue that casting it as a gender issue is largely misdirection. What frustrates me is that your reply seems to come across as seeing my views as the standard anti-feminism sexist stuff. I'm sorry that it came across like that because (as I hope you will see in a moment) that's not me at all :) It feels a little like you have not read or thought about what I have tried to say. I've done a lot of outreach with kids and technology (not for Wikipedia, in general) and fighting the "internet is a boy thing" issue is a real challenge. But really it's "internet is a geek thing", because I get the same line from probably 90% of the people I try to get involved. One thing I have learned is that if you pursue the gender issue it doesn't really get you anywhere in solving the problem and simply polarises on a small fraction of the issue. As I suggested above - you could get 50:50 parity of male/female editors (and that is a good thing) but the problem would still be there - because everyone will be the same sort of person. As a friend of mine puts it; if you put an average guy and an average woman in the same room as an aggressive alpha male they are likely to both have similar negative emotions (even if the reasons for them are different). The problem in that room is not a man, it is a type of person. I readily admit to being within that "type" (young, white, middle class, educated, time on my hands) - but we do need to do something about it. I just don't feel like what has been done so far has moved in an ultimately productive direction. As a driven woman in the tech scene I can see how it would be difficult for you in many arenas. That I am sure is a gender issue. What we struggle with here, I argue, is a lack of diversity. and the key thing is; one thing I like about Wikipedia is that no one appears to treat each other differently because of your sex.. partly because most don't reveal it, and partly because it's an impersonal medium. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Sarah was just responding to your personal argument Errant. Many of the other responses in this thread have been "standard anti-feminism" stuff. I agree that part of the issue is that Wikipedia "is a geek thing" and we need to increase diversity overall. However, people who are actively making an effort to do outreach to other communities and demographics should not be ridiculed by our community (as this thread is doing). The bottom line is we need more diversity and we need more women to make a better encyclopedia. Addressing that issue isn't easy and there are a lot of different strategies to try. Making fun of the people who are trying (like the 'tribal councils' joke below) definitely isn't going to help. Also, I would like to point out that women aren't just the majority of social networking users, they are also the majority of bloggers,[4] which undercuts your argument that contributing content on the internet is mostly a guy thing. Kaldari (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Kaldari pointing out that I wasn't intending to respond directly to just Errant - Errant, I never intended to come off sarcastic (except my comment about the trolly reason for posting the icon in the first place), and I regret that my writing my have came off that way. And yes, I was providing more of a general response to the negative aspects of the community seen in this section of Jimbo's talk page and a bit about your own experiences. Again, never meant to come off attacking or sarcastic towards you! I also openly admit - this is like beating a dead horse for me these days, it's really tiring and I just get "fed up" having to sometimes express myself over and over again about how there are problems, and we need to solve them. So, nothing personal :) SarahStierch (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, don't worry about it, my fault too. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I'd see blogging as a social media really, but it adds strength to your point. Take an online *community* though (which is what you started with) and you will find it predominantly male. I do agree ridiculing the effort is not appropriate; as I said, some good work is being done. However it is fair to criticise, I think, stuff that is wrong and long term not going to help. Like this image - which comes across firstly as slightly passive aggressive and secondly has the unfortunate consequence of soap-boxing about "the ratio", which is a bad thing. Just my view of course. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have a point with the lumberjacks and mine workers. It does take tremendous upper body strength to edit the Wikipedia -- some of the longer articles weigh over 250 pounds. Herostratus (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've kinda proven my point there :S --Errant ^(chat!) 17:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the assumption that open source communities are inevitably male dominated is necessarily true. Some do have a pre-existing balance which they are likely to reflect, such as as collaborative software projects. But I don't think it is correct to compare WP to those. In terms of collaborative content and media, which is the bracket in which WP best fits, I would hazard a guess that WP does have a gender balance problem in comparison to its peers. --FormerIP (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is all white. I'm glad to see you want to add more red. Please contact the relevant tribal councils and representatives. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the usual dose of ridicule or do you have something to say? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I, or anyone else, care what the gender of an editor is? "Comment on content" and all. This is a poorly designed logo for a poorly thought out idea that comes from a flawed belief that a gender gap is somehow wrong. More female editors would be great. So would more male editors. I don't see why we should prefer one over the other. Wikipedia should try to attract as many editors as possible, but casting this as a gender issue seems deeply misguided. Prodego ^talk 19:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we care that Wikipedia is written almost exclusively from the male POV? That the article Rape by gender focuses more on rape of men than rape of women has surely nothing to do with said male POV. Or that it took many weeks to correct a citation error in the article Semen which stated that "women praise the taste of semen" when the source actually said "Let's put it this way: We didn't hear one woman praise the taste of semen." Definitely has nothing to do with the fact that 90% of Wikipedia editors are men. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical that the first depends on anything but what the particular author of that page chose to write, and that the second is even a relevant point at all. Prodego ^talk 22:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism can be a good thing: Consider your own argument that we should not give a fuck about the fact that Wikipedia is written almost exclusively from the male POV: This is not something many would understand, but there you have it. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Prodego say that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"(...) flawed belief that a gender gap is somehow wrong" --> there is nothing wrong with the gender gap --> "Why should we care that Wikipedia is written almost exclusively from the male POV?" But let me rephrase: it is not just that many editors do not give a fuck, they actively support, rationalize and defend Wikipedia's systemic bias. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is your interpretation, and it is a misrepresentation. Prodego never said that. You said it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very sadly (although I am not unduly depressed by it), you are entirely wrong. Prodego wrote that the "belief that a gender gap is somehow wrong" is "flawed". It is misguided, "flawed", to believe that it is a problem that Wikipedia is written almost exclusively from the male POV! I will admit that it requires more than a Second Grade education to connect the dots. Whether or not this disqualifies you is not for me to say. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is your interpretation that all males will introduce male POV. If there is a POV, that needs to be addressed, but the notion that it can only be addressed by changing a gender ratio is incorrect. This is similar to saying white people cannot write neutrally about the KKK, and all Germans will always write favorably about Hitler, or whatever else. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid it is not just an "interpretation" that men have a point of view that is male and women have a point of view that is female. It is similar to saying that Germans have a point of view that is German, whites have a point of view that is white, Conservatives have a point of view that is Conservative... do you get the point? Imagine if 90% of our contributors were Conservatives. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't get the point. The last example gives your fallacy away. No-one happens to be born Conservative. This is where your interpretation comes in. "Male" is not an ideological choice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By your unusual mode of thought, men can think, feel, and edit like women and speak on their behalf (just as whites, your argument goes, can speak on behalf of blacks and Germans can speak on behalf of all other nationalities). So women have nothing of their own to contribute. Thus, it is no problem that Wikipedia is written almost exclusively by men. Yawn, rationalization of systemic bias 101. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You understood correctly. The fact that somebody happens to be female contributes nothing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Women's voices, experiences, and point of view can be subsumed under those of men, or omitted altogether. Why would an encyclopedia, or articles like rape or pregnancy, need female contributors or a female point of view when men can speak for both themselves and women? Thank you, Seb, for explaining so fully. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who happen to be born male are very well capable of repeating what reliable sources say about rape; just like women are capable of reading and repeating what sources say about testicular cancer. We're not writing a blog where one's personal opinions are published. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those words are out, with no possibility to take them back: "The fact that somebody happens to be female contributes nothing." You work under the misapprehension that the male point of view is the norm, that women have no unique knowledge or point of view that would benefit an encyclopedia, and that women read, process, interpret, reproduce, and retain source material in the same way as men. So much misinformation boggles the mind. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of taking them back. This is where we obviously disagree. And your stance boggles my mind just like mine boggles yours. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your belief that women have nothing to contribute to an encyclopedia and that men should remain the norm for both sexes is incredibly foolish at best. This is hardly a matter of opinion. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we're taking about two completely different ideas. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nono Your belief that if someone doesn't give a damn about cats then that someone must be someone who worships dogs... boggles the mind. You must also think that Jimmy's hobby must be burning down paper encylopaedias.190.51.160.105 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, Seb can hate or worship whatever person, group of people, animal, plant or mineral he pleases, but when he starts supporting Wikipedia's systemic bias to the detriment of the encyclopedia's quality, it's time for some swift correction. Why would I think that Mr. Wales is doing that? Please do not project your odd fantasies and dreams onto me. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That IP should just be disregarded. But Sonic let me try this again (if I may): Here's what I'm getting out of this "outreach": You want to walk up to a random female that you know nothing about and say "I need you to contribute to wikipedia." Why? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP's comment is a perfect example of the problem. Why do I want to counter Wikipedia's systemic gender bias? If I weren't such a kind fellow I would probably say something about your question. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. My question is serious. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make it better? To improve the coverage of subjects that the current heavily-male editors ignore, pervert or distort beyond recognition? Because it's better to get more viewpoints than fewer? (It's 2011, for crying out loud; why are we still having these conversations with adult human beings?) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that that random female is a radical conservative who believes women should be subservient to their husbands. Just like the random Native American you recruit could be a convetr to Christianity who believes that the colonization of the Americas was the enlightenment. So... I'm suspecting you're thinking of a specific type of person rather than somebdy who just happens to be female. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Where do we get that "type" of women and Native Americans or any women and Native Americans for that matter? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come to rural Arizona; there's a bunch of'em. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you're already there, it seems? So why don't you... Ah yes, you support and defend Wikipedia's systemic bias and the last thing you would want to do is reach out to under-represented groups. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. The difference is that I occasionally mention wikipedia to anyone, regardless of gender or ethnicity. But alright, if it is indeed enough to you that somebody is biologically female or Native American while parroting the dominant point of view, I must say you do have a high degree of integrity. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IKR. It's a self-perpetuating problem obviously. It's pretty appalling. Maybe we should just go with the flow and post a "No Gurls Alowed" logo on this here clubhouse. Herostratus (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is fascinating to see the four golden steps of backlash: 1) Deny that the gender gap exists. If that does not work, 2) claim that there is nothing wrong with the gender gap. When others ask why you do not care that Wikipedia is written almost exclusively by men and from the male POV, 3) be indignant and say that you have been misunderstood. When all else fails, 4) go back to arguing that the gender gap does not exist. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree quite strongly with the statement "The fact that somebody happens to be female contributes nothing". The gender of an editor is a property of that editor. It does not define that editor, or their contributions. I am not so brash, as Sonicyouth is, to identify all people of a gender as a unit which is different than another. You say that we are claiming "men can think, feel, and edit like women and speak on their behalf". Ignoring "speak on their behalf" - Wikipedia isn't some platform for people's personal speech or opinion, I would say that one's gender, ethnicity, or age do not define their contributions. I do think that men think, feel, and edit like women, that in fact every person thinks, feels, and edits in the same basic way. I'm interested in why we have a gender gap, that's something useful to know. I do not think a gender gap is a problem in and of itself, though it could be a symptom of one. That's certainly something we would want to investigate. Sonicyouth, you are a difference feminist, you believe men and women are fundamentally different. Seb and I (and I hope I do not overstep in speaking for Seb) believe that there are no inherent differences between the sexes. Read more. Prodego ^talk 07:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone clue me in on a couple things? First, what is the "obvious troll-assholeness that was involved in sharing this logo"? I put in on my userpage because I think it's a good idea (obviously that's about as effective as an "End War" bumpersticker, but that's a different issue). Should I not do this? I'm genuinely unaware of what's going on here and don't want to be used by trolls (or assholes). Second, re the "very smart individuals who are actually doing pro-active things to address this", what are these pro-active things? I want to help out if I can (I'm not a "very smart individual" unfortunately so perhaps this is not possible, but maybe). Herostratus (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the above discussion, I can reflect on a few things. First, the idea that if any enterprise is 90% male, that's indicative of a problem, doesn't resonate with me. I'd say it's more indicative of a possible problem, if that ratio is due to harassment or discrimination. On the other hand, what if 90% of the applicants are male? Having done hiring in the past, I can tell you that there are fields where very few women apply (and the converse is true in other fields, note the ratio of female to male nurses for an example). So I think the question to ask is not "Are most of our editors male?", as we know the answer to that, but "Is there a pattern of discrimination, hostility, or non-acceptance to female editors because they are female?" If the answer to that is yes, then we have a serious problem and we need to fix it. If it's not, and we just don't have as many women volunteer to edit as we do men, then...what are we going to do, force people to? If someone wants to do an outreach program specifically focusing on bringing in more female volunteers, great! More volunteers are always good, doesn't matter what gender they are.

I am a bit dismayed by the suggestion that this will somehow automatically cause POV, though. There's only one acceptable "POV" on Wikipedia, and it's not the "male POV" or the "female POV", nor is it necessarily halfway between them. It is the neutral POV. And as we all know too well, neutrality is only achieved by ensuring that content matches high-quality reliable sources, not by dueling editors trying to push different POVs (this way lies an edit war, not a decent article). If we're failing to adhere to NPOV, that's a problem, but it's not a gender problem, it's a problem of not editing properly. Ideally, when you write neutral content, the reader should have no idea what the author's opinion on the subject is at all, whether the author is male or female, liberal or conservative, what have you. If we adhere to that principle we will have neutral articles, if not, we will not. "Ratio" doesn't enter into that anywhere.

So, sorry for the length. Summary: A ratio doesn't in itself indicate a problem but should raise our attention to check for any possible discrimination. If there's no discrimination, there's no problem, but we always could do outreach specifically to potential female volunteers. NPOV is not a function of "ratios", it is a function of following sources and not inserting the editor's own thoughts or conclusions. And in closing, some of the hyperbole here on both sides is rather unnecessary. Those who don't believe this isn't necessarily a huge problem and advocate treading carefully before we say it is (and may come to the conclusion it isn't) aren't likely misogynists, and those who do see it as a major issue aren't likely radical feminists.

I think that if we really want to increase the number (and percentage) of female editors, we should get rid of jimmy and replace him with a woman. Actually, a quota of at least 50% of women in every area of the wikimedia foundation is needed for a better encyclopaedia. 190.51.154.43 (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Sue Gardner. What's wrong with her? S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 00:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pre-announcement that there will be no surprises. As usual, I write up a ceremonial "state of the wiki" sort of thing each year to go along with the formal appointments. That'll take a couple more days to complete, and I didn't want anyone getting antsy about it. All is well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jimbo. I look forward to it. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be numerous different discussions regarding proposed action against SOPA (such as a "blackout", banner, etc) at various locations, including several at the Village Pump, several at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative, and there have been several here, among other locations (and there are likely many that I don't even know about). This makes it really confusing for people to find out where to discuss or to know where their voice will count. Can't we just have one clear location where discussion takes place?
I am really worried that we will end up doing nothing at all, not because we decided to, but for the sole reason that we discuss it until it is too late without ever reaching any kind of consensus either way and/or that the discussions are all over the place and about so many different proposals so there is no way to even determine whether there is consensus for/against a particular action. -MsBatfish (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Do you really believe that Wikipedia may get affected by SOPA? If Wikipedia stays strict to copyright as it is now, it shouldn't really have any issues. My primary concerns are that several thousand sources may disappear and will as a result affect a lot of articles.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to start yet another discussion here on whether or not people support/oppose any action. I am merely asking whether we can have a set location for such discussion. -MsBatfish (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for one. There is no doubt that Wikipedia will take a blow when SOPA is in effect however, Wikipedia won't be shut down.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpower, Batfish is asking about a location for the discussion, not for a discussion. Posting your opinions about the issue doesn't in any way answer the question of where to have the discussion; it makes the problem worse. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hi878. I am still waiting for a reply to my question. And I've noticed several users asking the same question - just one example being Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative#Can I vote somewhere? this post. That user was (so far) just given links to a number of the many discussions currently taking place. I was hoping someone like Jimbo might be able to help get a more centralized discussion going, or amalgamate all the discussions onto one page or something, or at least explain why that won't/can't happen and what our best course of action is as users. It seems like ever since the initial "straw poll" here on Jimbo's talk page the subsequent discussion has been fractured and no single discussion has had anywhere near the user input.

I would have thought that most users - regardless of what their stance is on a particular proposed action - would have agreed that there was a need for a more centralized discussion. Even if someone is totally against any action regarding SOPA whatsoever, wouldn't they still want a place to voice their opinion and have it count for something? Wouldn't they feel frustrated if, say, there ended up being a major action taken that they felt there was no community consensus for but only the results of 1 of the 100 discussions about the topic were taken into consideration when making the decision? -MsBatfish (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, User:Doc James has just pointed out this recent study. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having determined that they met all the criteria for appointment, including having already identified to the Foundation, and in accordance with our longstanding traditions and their performance in the election campaign, I hereby appoint Courcelles, Risker, Kirill Lokshin, Roger Davies, Hersfold, SilkTork, and AGK to two-year terms beginning January 1st, 2012, and appoint JClemens to a one-year term beginning January 1st, 2012. In a break with past tradition, I am this year not reserving the right to move people from one-year to two-year seats. The same as last year, I will not make interim appointments to replenish ArbCom unless there is a majority vote of ArbCom that we replenish in some fashion by me calling a fresh election.

I would like to ask all incoming ArbCom members to review the history of the ArbCom, and in particular to familiarize yourself with some of the difficult problems that ArbCom has faced in the past, in the hopes of gaining some wisdom to avoid such issues in the coming year.

Your job is hard. No matter how well you perform your duties, some will say you have been too lenient. Some will say you have been too strict. And some will say that you've been inconsistent or arbitrary. Likewise, some will criticize you for moving too quickly, and others will criticize you for moving too slowly.

Strive to be none of those things, neither too lenient nor too strict, neither too quick nor too slow. And never inconsistent or arbitrary. But know that you will face those claims anyway. Face those claims with friendliness and dignity, and all will be fine in the end.

Finally, last year, I promised to make an announcement "soon" about the next steps in giving up some of my traditional powers, and that announcement is now. To ensure that transition takes place in an orderly fashion this year, I am announcing today that I am creating a Privy Council to advise me on these matters. The initial remit of the Privy Council will be to work with me to review the history of our governance processes and traditions so far, with a view toward us creating and publishing in March a comprehensive report on the current situation. After that, I will with the advice of the council write up an RfC specifically delegating various powers in whatever way seems most appropriate. This RfC will be subject to a broad community vote for ratification, hopefully in June.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think if there is the need to draft new policies, no ad-hoc system needs to be implemented, and the community can take care of it, thru its usual process, or as in this case, following input from yourself, rather than nominating what sounds to me too much like a Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development 2.0, which was really not well received around here or so its my understanding of it (tho most of the issues in that RfC dealt with the arbcom overreaching outside of its dispute resolution functions, so this case, being in that way completely different, might encounter different reactions). Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a completely different situation. I need a group of people to advise me personally on how to tidy up a lot of loose ends. I'm pretty sure that most people have never even thought about or realized the depth of complexity here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for formalizing the transition: I realize this will require extra time, in the next several months, but I was worried that you would experience "caretaker syndrome" burn-out, in having founded a massive, busy organization that would consume excessive, enormous amounts of your time, because many people felt that you were the one to directly solve all problems, rather than just giving advice and "strong hints" to foster improvements. Also, perhaps the formal structure will help to emphasize, with dedicated workers, how to keep focusing on the major issues to improve. As Wikipedia, worldwide, has ended the user-exodus decline, and begins this new era of increased user participation, perhaps this is the best time to re-define and formalize broad-scope processes to cope with all the thousands of new active editors (such as "60%" support being enough to change a policy). I have been worried that the 2/3rds majority issue is too strict, to adequately reflect volunteer polls about issues, when a "landslide" political election in the U.S. has a margin of perhaps a 55%-44% (with 1% of "others"). Anyway, I hope you will feel free to ask us to help you, with various tasks, during this transition period ...and thanks for all your dedicated efforts over the past 11 years. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. One of the reasons we have kept the "reserved powers" of my role is precisely to make possible constitutional change. Most people around today will not remember that when I created the ArbCom, which represents a delegation of powers that only I had, it was felt to be important by many in the community that I retain the ability to disband or radically change the ArbCom as a "check and balance" against potential ArbCom overreaching, etc. Our systems have been stable for quite some time now, so any transition creates many potential problems. This is why I don't want to simply delegate myself - I want advice from people I trust and who have deep experience, and I want ratification from the community for any new arrangements.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (e.c.) Whilst I think moving on your residual "powers", I think this approach may well irritate some. According to the Privy Council article to which you link, such a body advises a Head of State, which you are not. Privy Councils also typically advise in confidence (or in secret) which is not the way to develop wiki-policy. Your proposal is entirely top-down, and predicated on you being a ruler who exists above the community. Yet, on several occasions when you exercise some of those powers enormous controversy has resulted - off hand, I recall the controversial image policy you declared at commons, the controversy that led to you promising to no longer use the block button, not to mention numerous issues connected to ArbCom. Jimbo, you have important roles as spokesman for the en.wiki community, as a board member of the WMF, and as Founder (amongst others). However, you are not ruler of the English Wikipedia. You don't have time to do day-to-day wiki-governance and I don't believe the community wants you to try to fulfill that role in any case. Setting up an RfC that calls for the community perspective on what powers you should hold and how to address governance issues is the wiki-way and is in line with a sovereign self-determining community. Please rethink your approach. EdChem (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a head of state, because, among other reasons, Wikipedia isn't a state. :-) As I said above, the end product of what I am doing will be an RfC, one that will be mindful of our traditions (Wikipedia is not a democracy) and, I think, wildly popular.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo and other editors may recall me asking for clarification last year as to when this "soon" announcement would come. Better late than never, of course, and I welcome this initiative.

The clarification I sought last year mostly concerned the relationship between Jimbo and ArbCom, and I stopped pursuing the request for a couple of reasons: first, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy has effectively addressed the matter; secondly, it seemed tactless to bring it up again after leaks revealed shortcomings in previous practice. I therefore trust that lessons have been learned about the value of an independent "judiciary", but am disappointed that the changes to ArbCom policy are not entirely reflected in Jimbo's announcement. ArbCom policy now only mentions Jimbo in connection with appeals, and the appointments process is purely ceremonial: there is no longer a right, for example, to move people from one-year to two-year seats, and it is a matter of policy that ArbCom decides if/when interim elections are needed.

This year, I have different issues on my mind, however. The values of Wikipedia (as an encyclopedia edited by volunteers with a mission to make the sum of human knowledge freely available) have been challenged from several directions recently. One important role a figurehead can have is as a representative and representation of those values, and hence of the community that has those values in common. I would like to see Jimbo's role clarified with this in mind. Geometry guy 02:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed this on appropriate pages but since we seem to be all over the place I will also put it here:

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual.

In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.'

For a general overview of this and different foundations IRS status look here at Wiki: 501(c) organization . For Wikipedia status look here: Wikimedia Foundation .

It seems to me that this organization would not last long if it lost its tax exempt status.

It is clear to to me that our only safe alternative, and one that Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of the very same judiciary committee states calling in and sending letters to your particular Congressman as well as the Committee is WORKING. The delay and amount of amendments (25) also indicates there is real opposition. Please check this out yourself. It is all online and from direct sources. Mugginsx (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is the "substantial part" test. It's complicated and I'm not an expert, but as an example, a typical test is to look at spending on lobbying, and the general rule here is that it must be less than 5% of total revenues. We have good advisers, and the Foundation isn't going to do anything that jeopardizes its tax status. Fear about that ought not to restrict community action in this area!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to hear and I, of course, defer to your judgment and will amend my remarks elsewhere. Mugginsx (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw: The Mozilla Foundations Website has this section on its site. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there is a consensus about the dangers of SOPA, we are working on solidarity action: de:Wikipedia:Initiative gegen den SOPA. Are there any suggestions for what we could or should do? --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this is out of WP scope. Isn't *all* political action out of scope? Or political action for protecting lives (the above appeal may as well be an hoax, but that was not your claim) is not within WP scope, but political action protecting WP's status (see SOPA actions above and around ) is? Human Live 0 - WP 'live' 1! Wow! - Nabla (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]