Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

Moved to Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Original_Research_in_.22White_Argentinian.22 —Preceding undated comment added 00:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

What's it with these buttons? Perseus (t • c) 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click this button.

Expand an article.

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

Click this button.

Copy edit an article.

They're buttons, and you click them and are presented with a random article to fixup. What's the problem with that? Many editors are looking for work to do, these provide a cute way to present them with random articles which they can do work on. What's the harm? --Jayron32 21:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is really looking for work to do, Requests for feedback is very understaffed. Providing some feedback to a new editor may well turn someone into a regular, who could then help out with many of the tasks.--SPhilbrickT 23:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding a button for Requests for feedback then? Roger (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, someone has to create a button to request more buttons before you can request that button. Resolute 18:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click this button.

Help train ClueBot NG.

Heh ... :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 01:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way of getting rid of those annoying "Please read: A personal message from..." items which pop up a couple of seconds after a page loads? You start editing a page then find you're editing the wrong line. It happens every damn time and it's thoroughly annoying,t o say the least. There's a click box under the notice, but it doesn't do anything. Every other message that's put at the top of pages by WP, you can simply hide. These, you can't, and it's driving me up the wall! Grutness...wha? 09:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Preferences, Gadgets, "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really good thing would be a "Suppress the fundraiser"... Is this turning into the gimme-some-money-pedia? I haven't logged for some months (a couple of years?...) [Hello, Grutness, good to see you're still around! Sorry to greet under an IP but I'm not into logging...] I simply point that using WP is getting quite annoying, it looks like a permanent fundraiser. - 2.82.177.86 (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank god. These have been pushing my buttons for days. Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks PH - that did the trick. And yes, 2.82 (whoever you are :), I'm still here, though not as much as I used to be by a long way. Grutness...wha? 22:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the missed opportunity here is that I don't mind seeing the banner, but I made a substantial donation and really think that my reward could be a way (a code?) to enter into the banner and suppress it. The next time there's a fundraiser, go ahead and take me through that cycle again. I understand it takes money to run WP well, I don't mind the occasional appeal, and I would hope that a broad swath of the public would give a little, but let me turn it off easily for the current drive. -- Scray (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are people are missing the close button or are they annoyed that it comes back after 1 week? — Dispenser 02:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried the close button dozens of times. It doesn't work - not in Safari, at least. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And every-time you change browsers, computers, accounts or projects, back it comes! Luckily I only use my named account on more than a couple of projects. Rich Farmbrough, 11:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Presumably, the way to do this is to elect a WMF board that devises a way of funding WP more sustainably (for example, by not paying $150K to one staffer), and gets rid Jimmy Wales and his insistence on using these to self-servingly up his own profile, and highly fictionalised status as "found". Or had you something shorter-term in mind? Smartiger (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to say this clearly: Jimmy didn't inflict this campaign on the projects. In fact, he's fairly uncomfortable with it. It was my call. I took a ton of data to him that demonstrated through fairly exhaustive testing that nothing else was anywhere near as effective... banners with his personal appeal and face actually yield more than 300% more than other banners. It's incorrect to say that this is an ego campaign on his part. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably substantially diminish the perceived Jimbo annoyance factor without effecting donations by pairing this image of Mr. Wales with that of another person (probably Sue, or any typical editor, though preferably a woman with a pretty face) and presenting a joint essay. Such a display would reduce the creepiness of this lone staring head popping up and would underscore the fact that Wikipedia is a diverse and collaborative enterprise. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Google search has indexed a vandalised version of Wikipedia (as in the article about Wikipedia). A search for this shows a snippet from the lead which says something offensive about Wikipedia being "for Jews". Is there something that can be done? Brambleclawx 00:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished drafting the third irregular newsletter for WikiProject Sociology (here). Some time ago I realized that we have bots capable of delivering newsletters, but to my surprise WP:Newsletter took me to Signpost, and instead of one dedicated bot, it seems we have various bots "working" for different projects. Signpost uses User:EdwardsBot (which says nothing about on its user page about that function). MilHist Bungle uses User:BrownBot, which, clandestinely, advertises itself as a newsletter bot for WikiProject Films. I sense MILHIST intelligence department at work :) Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Newsletter seems to be delivered manually... Other newsletters I listed at Category:Wikipedia news (a category I just found, and that I am sure is not 100% comprehensive). This brings me to my points:

• do we need a policy on newsletters? I agree with WP:CREEP, but at the very least, it would be nice to have a community discussion on whether projects can send newsletters to 1) all signed members, 2) to all Wikipedians who are part of project-relevant Category:Wikipedians subcategory (for example, last SOC newsletters went out to Category:Wikipedians interested in sociology), and how to give people and opt-out option if they don't want to receive them
• even if we don't need a policy, a good practices guide would be nice, perhaps with an easy "create a newsletter for your project how-to", and a section on bots that can automate the process for you (I am not looking forward to sending another 100 or so newsletters manually). While this is quite a foreign territory for me, locating all the newsletter-delivering bots and getting their operators to talk shop and perhaps create an official newsletter-delivery bot, with how-to add your newsletter to it, and standardized opt-in/opt-out procedure, sounds useful.

Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a community-wide guideline to tell any particular group of editors how they ought to communicate with each other.

However, you should feel free to post how-to information and/or your best advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide (or one of its subpages). Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Use_bots_to_save_work would be a reasonable place for a link to a newsletter-delivering bot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ What he said. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have attempted to clarify the units used in the article 1910 London to Manchester air race. However, they keep being removed by the most frequent editor.

I see the following claim:

• Featured content represents the best that Wikipedia has to offer. These are the articles, pictures, and other contributions that showcase the polished result of the collaborative efforts that drive Wikipedia. All featured content undergoes a thorough review process to ensure that it meets the highest standards and can serve as an example of our end goals

The choice appears to be between delisting the article or persuading the most frequent editor to allow improvements. Would anyone else like to try? Lightmouse (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the sources quoted in the article a prize was awarded for making an aeroplane flight one hundred years ago between two named places subject to certain time constraints and limitations on the number of stopovers. The prize was awarded and the mileage, flight time and number of stops/location of stops quoted. The quoted figure for the flight was x miles. A "war of words" has then ensued with one side requiring confirmation of whether the miles were measured in miles or nautical miles and what the equivalent number of kilometres would be. This is patent nonsense. Straight lines could be drawn on a modern map between the starting point, the named intermediate stopover point and the final point; and a mileage figure obtained. This derived figure could be compared against the mileage figure quoted in the source; and an estimate made as to whether the "miles" were nautical or not, but such a comparison is fraught with uncertainties and it would be WP:OR. Whilst such a comparison could easily be carried out, it could not be used to prove that the wining flight involved flying along those two straight lines; it cannot take into account the effects any head winds, tail winds or cross winds on the aircraft; and it fails to consider whether such flight data was every collected and still exists. The "argument" seems to be that, firstly, if the flight were done today GPS could be used to collect such data; and it could be collected in accordance with wikipedia's manual of style. Secondly, since it can be done today (and wikipedia exists) those who did the flight 100 years ago "should" also have done it that way. One side seems to think they should have done it and the other side sees the absurdity of such a "mind set". Data should be considered in historical context and current usage should not be back projected as a Straight jacket on to prior generations. Pyrotec (talk)

I agree with you that the values are approximate. Wikipedia is full of approximate values with helpful conversions. The question of nautical versus statute is a secondary issue. By default, ordinary people will read a distance in 'miles' and assess it against their experience of distances in statute miles. Similarly, conversions of the unqualified term 'mile' will default to statute miles. As you suggest, it's likely to be near enough and that's better than nothing for metric readers. Multiple editors have tried to make this article accessible to metric readers. But continual removal of km values by the most frequent editor is unfair on ordinary readers. Lightmouse (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have some common ground. In that time period (1910), aircraft flight over land seems to have been by "line of sight", so they might well have flown along the path of railway lines, or roads, between London and Manchester. Planes did not have odometers, so the mileage might well have been that given by the railway companies, such as in "Bradshaw", rather that "aircraft" mileage. In which case, I suspect, the mileage was in miles (statute miles), so 185 miles (298 km) might be sufficient with a footnote. It becomes more problematic where Manual of Style is brought in and the use of nautical miles is insisted upon. The sources say "miles", so statue miles is assumed and I can see no strong arguments against adding a km equivalent. However, I'm not convinced that we need nautical miles with statue miles and km equivalent if that is being made the "price" of the article remaining an FA. Pyrotec (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis seems reasonable to me. As far as I can see, the Manual of Style doesn't mandate either form of mile. If editors of an aviation article think a value in 'miles' is statute and say so, there's no requirement to mention nautical miles. Lightmouse (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Please see this archived thread for context)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Wikipedia policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Summary:One of my staff brought up the idea of Wikipedia consulting as opposed to paid editing

As you may know, we have ceased all our previous paid editing practices of our firm. We see the intrinsic COI problem that invariably exists. However, one of my staff brought up the idea of Wikipedia consulting as opposed to paid editing. The idea was to do webinars, consultations, et al, to help people learn how to compose wikipedia articles, but not do any actual editing, posting, dispute resolution, etc., on behalf of the client. The client would have to do all writing, editing, publishing, h/erself. I want to ask the Wikipedia community what it thinks about this. This is an honest question; whatever the community thinks, we'll go with. And we have no intention of violating Wikipedia policy again. Thank you.

Sunflowergal34 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts Multimedia Communications LLC[reply]

• This is not really the appropriate place for an RfC, but asking the clients to write about themselves is still a COI. However, simply showing people how to use Wikipedia/start articles/etc. is a good thing, and COI doesn't mean someone is banned from writing about their company, but it would be pretty difficult still to get the whole NPOV idea and whatnot into shape and avoid promotion, accidental or intentional. It might be worth thinking about consulting a company to write about things they may know about but something that is less likely to be seen as promotional (like a zoo writing about some species of animal or a computer company writing about some sort of technical innovation). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the appropriate place to ask for comment on an issue like this? Also, what about an online training course, with a series of modules, that walks people through, step by step, on how to conceive, write, edit, compose and publish a quality Wikipedia article? We would sell the course. It would be like self-paced, online course. We would do no editing, no writing, no publishing, no arbitrating - just purely, "This is how you add an image; this is how you make a citation; this is where you go to ask for help; etc." Is that still a COI?
• Also, one of my staff brought up what I thought was a good point today in a staff meeting. They said, in effect, "Doesn't really everyone have some sort of conflict of interest in editing/writing an article, in the way Wikipedia defines it?" Their point was if someone is going to write about, say, the Beatles, or edit the Beatles articles, they would most likely be either a fan, or a supporter, or a rep of a PR firm, or a friend, i.e, it is likely going to be somebody who cares about the Beatles. Caring about a subject creates, in one sense, a COI - doesn't it? How is this different than a paid editor? A paid editor cares too, only, for a different reason. This is also a COI, when you think about it, was her point. Admittedly, it is not as egregious as an outright paid editor, but still, you can see the point.

• Ignore this argument, for the moment. As I reread it, it isn't convincing. I think that the COI is sort of on a continuum where way over on the left is outright is paid editing, an obvious COI. Way over on the right is some hypothetical person editing an article on a subject s/he doesn't even care anything about or have any relation to whatsoever; then, the majority of cases, somewhere in the middle grey area. No? Sunflowergal34 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts[reply]

• So, her question, was: In what circumstances is an article written by someone devoid of a COI? It would seem to me to be relatively few. It would have to be edited/written by someone with no personal affinity or contempt, no special relationship to the subject, no monetary interest ... They would have to be just, basically, editing it for the fun of it, for the enjoyment of it, which I suppose is possible, but how would you know the difference in the majority of cases?
• Anyway, I'm not leaning in the wiki education direction, either, just so you know. I don't even want to be bothered with all this nonsense, truth be told. It's just my staff is worried as heck about their jobs and they're putting a lot of pressure on me to do something.

Sunflowergal34 (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts 19:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does happen. It isn't even unusual. WikiGnomes just copyedit every article that comes up when you hit the Random Article button or check for wikilinking on every Did you know... article or just help out someone else's article because they ask for help or admit poor command of English. New page patrollers may check every new article and might edit quite a few. I sometimes translate articles just to keep my language skills up with no interest in the article subject at all. Rmhermen (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's unusual, but it's also not particularly common. Musicians write articles about music, health professional write about medicine, coders write about software—sharing your expertise is the backbone of the project.

On the other hand, the opposite also happens: I've done a lot of work because I read an interesting source and wondered if Wikipedia happened to cover the subject. See, e.g., my recent work at Pine Manor College, which I hadn't heard of until a few days ago, and everything I've ever written about transsexuality, triggered by reading this article and discovering that the Wikipedia article was pushing an anti-academic, pro-activist POV—the point of view, as it happens, of a long-time Wikipedia editor who is disparaged by multiple sources for having posted pictures of a researcher's children with sexually explicit captions on the web. (All of our articles on transsexuality, BTW, are almost entirely written by transwomen, another sign that sharing what you know is the backbone of the project.)

On balance, I'd say that far more people contribute to an article because they have some personal connection to it than the other way around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, WhatamIdoing. However, although I edit in a field I am entering, I also edit extensively in a couple of areas outside of my field, where a lot of misinofmation abounds on the web. I don't contribute any more, though, in my primary areas of expertise, because wikipedia is not into experts. But, yes, people write wikipedia articles, generally, because they have an interest in the article. Also, many wikipedia editors misinterpret WP:COI to mean the article must be deleted. I see this at WP:AFD (a place where many editors don't follow and don't know policy and are advocating their pet side of the coin rather than writing an encyclopedia).

Sunflowergal, you brag that we only caught 10% of what you paid people to write. But the little I've seen attached to paid editing outings on wikipedia has been schlock. Badly written, poorly sourced press releases look exactly like what they are. When wikipedia readers click on those links from the top of a google search they will get that: a badly written, poorly sourced, second-rate press release. And, they will know that's what it is. Companies are paying for that? Companies will pay to learn to do that? Probably most good articles on companies are maintained by employees of that firm. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatAmIDoing That's my point. If most articles on transsexuals are written by women transsexuals, and some new research comes out that indicates that "transsexuality is really the cause of xyz disease," or "transsexuality is the cause of abc social ill", etc - do you think the "transwomen" (is that even a PC term?) who do most of the editing of these articles, are going to include it? (There is no research out there like this, to my knowledge; please, no one take this as any contempt toward transsexuals; it is ONLY an example). Of course not, is the answer. That supposedly "objective" information, will likely not be included by any transwomen. That's the point: to have a strong interest in a subject based on identifying in some meaningful way with the class of that subj, I don't see how COI can ever be avoided. So, I am a business owner; I identify with other (small) business owners. In the exact same way, the transwoman identifies with transwomen.

And @Kleopatra First of all, I wasn't bragging. If you read my entire confession, and the subsequent editing and participation since you'll see that 1) I'm very humbled by this whole thing and 2) I'm the only one in my firm (and I have ppl working for me all over the place) who is "for" this. You are mistaking "humility" with "groveling". I don't grovel before anyone, and I refuse to let anyone in Wikipedia treat me or my staff like a criminal. That is not bragging. I only mentioned that we've done a lot of articles to show just how much shutting this operation down hurts us financially. Not to brag.

I didn't see any "humility" or "groveling" that caused me to make my comment about braggin. What I saw was this:

"We've written lots of articles on here, for pay. I am not going to tell you which ones they are, but suffice it to say that the ones you "discovered" only make up make, maybe, 10% of all the ones we've published."

You're bragging that we only caught 10% of your paid articles. Kind-of throwing it in our faces, to me. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the statement you're referring to. And, again, you're reading something into it that wasn't intended because you're taking it out of context. That statement was made in response to User:Berean_Hunter who asked us to "turn over" all articles we had written for pay. It was not bragging. It was to show that, we're already hurting as a business, and to do what BereanHunter suggest would be equivalent to business suicide. And I apologize for yelling. You have to understand how devastating this is. We've been editing articles for years, for pay. And all of sudden, in literally one day, because I just couldn't take all this FBI-like interrogation, I called a cease fire, so to speak. Everyone of my staff is demoralized, bewildered, upset, unsure. So, pardon me for being a little sensitive about this, but we've been in this ridiculous "fight" for quite some time. You came in on the tail end; you didn't see the Wikipedia Twitter patrollers, threatening us; you didn't see the Wikipediareview.com people, coming to our blog and badmouthing us every few months; the admins coming to our wikidot site and criticizing us; coming to our userpages and calling us criminals. You didn't see all this, Kleopatra, or if you did, you were conveniently silent. But I don't see you criticizing the Wikipedians who were at times just as uncivil as we admittedly were. So, don't just criticize us for our wrongs; we're trying to do the right thing here. Also take a look in your own backyard. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts[reply]

(Cont'd @Kleopatra) Secondly, I would agree with you that some of the articles were schlock. But they are no more schlock than a stub of two sentences that sits there for 3 years. Also, some clients only paid for "schlock" (you get what you pay for). All clients didn't contract long term, month to month, editing and revision to get the article to the point where it wasn't schlock. And yes, companies will pay to do that. Just before we shut down our business, a staff member was speaking with a prospect who said that both he and his sister - despite the fact that he had an MA in lit. and she had a PH.D in something - after a couple hours on Wikipedia trying to figure out how to edit something - they both gave up in irritation. You get the point? People want to be in, they don't know how to be in, and they will pay for it. Maybe instead of a big faceplant of Jimbo asking for money, you know what would be an easy way for you to raise money? DO WHAT WE'RE DOING AND SHUT ALL THE PAID EDITING HOUSES DOWN! You won't need to have Jim's face all over Wikipedia asking for money, trust me.Sunflowergal34 (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts[reply]

Not much I can say in response to your agreement that you wrote and contribute schlock. No need to yell about it, though. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it you're asking what "we" think of your business offering classes in how to edit wikipedia, lectures on wikipedia guidelines etc - so the ultimate aim is to make better editors, similar to an "introduction to computers course". I can't see anyone having any real issue with that. Not sure how commercially viable that would be but it's not my business (literally). I suppose the only problem would be if people are learning to use wikipedia to promote their own interests, and you are aware of that you would need to make them aware that what they would be doing would be a COI issue (and ultimately counterproductive) - since POV and promotional articles always look like spam shit to anyone with an ounce of sense...83.100.225.242 (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of client base were you aiming at?83.100.225.242 (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not any clientele in particular. Like I said, everyone wants to either be in Wikipedia, or if their article is already up, they want it cleaned up. We've done articles for doctors, lawyers, artists, musicians, professors, writers - and, yes, businesses. We've done bios, as well as pure information entries. We wouldn't be targeting any one market. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts[reply]

I, for one, am happy to edit articles written about verifiably notable poeple and companies when there is a conflict of interest. If the article belongs on wikipedia, it belongs whoever does the writing. Send your MA and PhD to my talk page, and I will be glad to help. For free. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleopatra You're missing the point. You think it is easy for people to just "go to your userpage and request help" because you understand how to do this. The average person is quite technically illiterate. I work with people, believe it or not, who still don't know how to copy and paste things on a PC! Who don't know how to create an email signature in Outlook, for example. Who don't know what an address bar or a URL is. I'm not exaggerating. The average person, who could be more notable than Jesus Christ, does not know how to go to a talkpage and ask question unless it is made as clear as day. I think what we Wikipedians (notice I said "we") don't want to deal with is this fact: we really don't want anyone editing Wikipedia (though we say we do). Because if we really did, we would have made this site a lot easier, a lot more user-friendly, a long time ago. But we weren't really concerned with that, now were we? Perhaps we would have put all the rules and guidelines in one place, and not with cryptic URL syntaxes like /WP:COI so that no one but someone who frequented the site on a regular basis would even know where to look. But we weren't so concerned with that, were we? So, we are partly to blame for the emergence of the paid editing market, too. That's all I'm saying. But we don't seem to want to take any responsibility for this, because really it's just easier to place all the blame on the paid editors and castigate them, rather than see our part in it. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts[reply]

No, Eric, I don't think it is easy to do this, just because I understand how to do this. First of all, I don't understand how to do most of this, and I use adapative devices with strict technological limitations to do my editing. So, how I do it is not applicable to how others do it. I do know, however, that many technically illiterate people get on wikipedia and try to create lasting articles. I know this because I help a lot of people get their articles to stay on wikipedia. As an IP editor, I've hung out around new articles, afc, and afd for years, helping people who just want an article on wikipedia. An article about themselves, or their grandmother, or their friend's company, or some minor singer they took a fancy to. If the topic is notable, and if it has verifiable references, then I'm all for it being on wikipedia, from diseases to buildings to South Asian villages and roads, from companies to minor opera singers. I help because I know people get terribly frustrated by the impossible chaos of wikipedia's rules and their arbitrary enforcement.

And, in spite of your contention that there's schlock in my back yard, there's none at the level I saw in the paid-writing articles. And I didn't take someone else's hard earned money in return for putting it on wikipedia. I don't read wikipedia review. I don't twitter. I haven't read your blog. You uploaded schlock for money. You admitted it. And you want us to know that we only caught 10% of the schlock. Nanner nanner nanner on us. There's not much else to say. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I'm coming into the middle of a conversation I wish I could read more of. However, my gut response to anyone who asks if it's okay to make money being a Wikipedia consultant is to ask, "Probably not -- if you intend to hire Wikipedians who have real experience with this project." A lot of us have opinions about the best way to write articles or handle policy issues, & I'm sure few of us would mind being paid to share those opinions -- especially since AFAIK no currently active editor makes a living writing Wikipedia articles. -- llywrch (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Why is it so difficult for you people to answer a question with a straight answer? I just ... don't get it. Maybe I never will. @Kleopatra @LLwrch, ok so you will edit for free. Great. Good for you. But why does that mean an editor who is paid for her knowledge/expertise, is in the wrong? (Not talking about paid editing, now; I'm talking about someone paying for you to teach or instruct them on how to do Wikipedia). I don't get it? We know that COI editing is strongly discouraged. But this wouldn't be COI editing. Where is the policy, the guideline, the set of essays on this? Surely, we've encountered this before? Surely, I'm not the only person who's asked these sorts of questions? Wikipedians are so wishy-washy when we ask you a simple question of what is acceptable use and what is not. But you are downright ready to crucify when someone just does something that is in a grey area, without consulting the community. That's just ... scary, if you ask me. Do you folks not see the suspect groupthink happening here? Or is it just me? Maybe it's me? What is it I'm not seeing? As a businessman, it seems to me a simple question: Is it a violation of policy to offer a Wikipedia class, webinar, or training - for pay - to teach a person how to edit an article, or not? If it's not, then let's keep it movin'. If it is, then this conversation can end here without taking up a single byte more. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts[reply]

Maybe this is also a matter of Wikipedia ethos? Where are the essays on the Wikipedia ethos? Are there any? If not, I may have to write one. In all my years in association with Wikipedia, here are what I see as a few essential aspects of the Wikipedia ethos:

1. An article should develop in a granular way, bit by bit, one little piece at a time
2. Ideally, an article should develop over a long period of time, by many different editors contributing to it
3. An article really should not be either created in its entirety, or consider a finished product, if produced by only one editor
4. As a result of 3, single purpose accounts are viewed with suspicion and more thorough scrutiny
5. We obviously don't want a monied interest influencing an article in any way
6. We really believe that, if people want to contribute to Wikipedia, they should work hard, as the rest of us did, to learn the code, mores, rules, etc.
7. People who are unwilling to go through this process, it's not that they shouldn't be allowed to contribute, it's just that their contributions should be reviewed more harshly, for lack of a better word
8. Q.E.D. If somebody comes in here not understanding or respecting this ethos, then we will assume the content he contributes is in violation of either COI, NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:SPA, or what have you?

Does this get us closer? If so, I'll write an essay on this and post it somewhere and you guys can come in and add to, substract, revise, and we can post it somewhere at least as a poor start to something that may be lacking here. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts[reply]

Wait a minute. I think I might be starting to see something in a different way here. Bear with me.

1. We offer a Wikipedia training course. That means,
2. Either the person we're teaching is wanting the knowledge to edit an article for himself or his business, etc.

Q.E.D. COI Violation

OR

2. The person, after getting the knowlegde, would have to find or hire someone else he knows to write his Wikipedia article for him.

Q.E.D., A meatpuppet/sockpuppet violation (or at best still a COI)

OR

2. The person would have to come to Wikipedia and find an impartial editor and ask h/er to help him get the article up, anyway

Q.E.D., in which case, our service is unnecessary to begin with.

Q.E.D., the only way to offer a class like this would basically be to say: "Go to a Wikipedia userpage of an editor and just ask them for help.

Or, create a userspace, write the first few sentences of your article, and then just put the {{help}} tag up top, and wait.

Q.E.D., this would be a shitty class . LOL

Q.E.D., The defense rests, your honor.

Sunflowergal34 (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts[reply]

Listen buddy - you already know the rules on wikipedia. Your business ethics are your concern not ours.83.100.225.242 (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about business ethics. I was talking about rules and ethos of Wikipedia. And your rules say nothing about a company offering Wikipedia training courses for pay. That's what I'm asking about. Can you contribute something meaningful to the discussion, or do you just want to bark at me? Sunflowergal34 (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, would you mind changing your sig so that you're not promoting your company with every edit you sign? Thanks. Also, why has no one blocked you for evading the blocks on your other accounts? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see, this is why people can't stand you folks. I put my name here, not to promote my company, but so everyone here will know it is me. We've had so many accounts banned as socks or meatpuppets, that I'm trying to do the right thing and make sure you know it's me you're talking to, and not someone else using this account. Because, this account was orig. created by a staff member, not me. This account wasn't banned because BereanHunter is assuming good faith - which is more than I can say for the rest of you. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you obviously didn't read this part of my confession which is on my userpage:

• In all likelihood I will create a new account (or simply use this one [sunflowergal34] should you decide to let it stay, which something tells me you wont :) and become a real (i.e., acceptable) Wikipedia editor. I enjoy editing articles. Always did. Even from the very beginning. I haven't done much editing lately (save for the Solve Media article you'll see in my contribs; that was only uploaded, not written and coded, by me; so yes that makes this account technically a sock, I know, have at it ;), since building a business and hiring other editors, but I still very much enjoy it. I also enjoy the lively debates that happen here. It will be nice to participate in these debates without any monied interests or ulterior motives. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have, as it happens, participated in teaching an interested group how to edit Wikipedia. In my case, it was with a seminar for the archivists at the Smithsonian Institution, under the auspices of our D.C. group, but the same principal could apply commercially. I would not hesitate if asked by the project to teach a group of corporate hacks how to use the tools and follow our guidelines for style and inclusion in exchange for a sizable donation being made to WMF. bd2412 T 15:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported you to WP:ANI for block evasion. Also it seems clear to me that you know what the rules are on wikipedia regarding WP:COI, and that giving lessons in wikipedia is not a problem - if your problem is whether or not to give lessons to people who you know or suspect will break wp:coi etc then that is a business ethics problem, not ours. There doesn't seem to be anything else wikipedia needs to tell you. I really don't think you are in a position to troll us here on the Village pump so please stop. If your business has a problem then don't take it out on wikipedians because it's not our fault it's yours. Thank you very much.83.100.225.242 (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trolling the Village Pump. I didn't even originally put this RfC here, it was on my talkpage, for your information. Furthermore, it was suggested to me to bring up the RfC here by user:Berean_Hunter . I am not trolling anything.

Let me tell you the honest truth. When we first started editing Wikipedia for pay, we didn't know it was a COI. That's the honest truth. It was only way later, after we had built up a client base, that we found this out. I have never told my staff to just blatantly, knowingly, violate any of Wikipedia's rules. Where we got tripped up and started acting less than honorably, was mostly in reaction to the hypocrisy, biting, harsh criticism of Wikipedians. All I'm saying is: take responsibility for your part. We're taking responsibility for our part.

Furthemore, you know more about me than I do you. You don't even use name, you don't even have a talk page set up. No one knows anything about you. Are you an admin? Why are you even here? Meanwhile you know a whole lot about me. You know my name, my business name, many of the articles we've done. You know a whole lot about me; I know nothing about you. Does that look like someone who's purposefully trying to "break the rules?" Does it look like someone who is acting in bad faith? Does it look like I'm trying to evade a block? Your argument doesn't even make any sense?? If I were trying to evade a block, would I have told you who I was? My goodness! Can you make a logical, rational argument - one that takes into account the facts? Or, did you just report me for block evasion, just out of spite? Berean Hunter , RHaworth, either one of these admins could have blocked me already. They chose not to - after my telling them who I am and confessing. So, what sense does it make for you to report me for ban evasion? See, it's behavior like this - on your part - that you don't want to take any responsibility for, and which leads people to just say "screw them, we're gonna do what we want." Why can't you see that you're not helping the issue? Sunflowergal34 (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't know you real name etc - I haven't looked - maybe you've posted it somewhere don't know)- what I do know is that what you've done since you started editing wikipedia under the new editor name is discuss yourself, and your company, and not make any real contributions to wikipedia. It's easy to create a new editor name, and start working. You could be the worst vandal in wikipedia's history, but provided you make a fresh start and don't go around telling people what you used to do nobody will ever know...

Not true. I looked at a bunch of new pages, I added the newpage patroller on my userpage, even added a sentence to an article on Ed Pinnance whom i couldn't care less about. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding making it easier to edit wikipedia - you can write a guide to that if you want to, and if you want to publish it online (here) for free. Please don't blame it on other wikipedians that such an "how to get started made easy guide" doesn't exist - make it yourself - that is the ethos of wikipedia.

We have no problem making it, but we are a for-profit firm. We (unlike you) don't just make stuff for free. That's what I'm asking.

If you want to make contributions please do, but if you want to waste time on matters that primarily concern you and your company don't be suprised that I've assumed that your not actually interested in helping wikipedia. As an uninvolved outsider I can tell you that your post here looks like you are seeking some sort of tacit permission to continue the same behaviour that got you and your company blocked in the first place.83.100.225.242 (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not primarily interested in helping Wikipedia! Are you ... have you not been listening?! I'm primarily interested in keeping my business from going down the tubes, from having to fire everybody, and for keeping a roof over my head. But I don't see how that is the point. Show me in your policies or guidelines where it says "an editor must care about helping Wikipedia in order to edit here."??? Sunflowergal34 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Fair enough. It is not what you say, but I see how you could see that. It's because you haven't looked at the entire history of this. But no matter.

Whoever you are, I want you to know, I'm not scurred. (That's ebonics for, I don't know who you think you are, but you need to get off your high horse). I could report you for SPA. Who are you? I don't see any edit history. Are you a newbie? If so, how do you know about Villahe Pump and how this goes here? How do you even know how to edit this page? Maybe I should suspect you as a sockpuppet? Maybe I should report you in violation of WP:CIV?

I'm only being rhetorical here, before you decide to report me for something else. I'm just saying, you don't run the show; I'm here asking an honest set of questions; trying to get clear on the whats and whys of your policies. I have a right to be here, to speak, to express my opinions, and to ask for guidance and help. I am not being uncivil, I am not breaking any rules by being here. I've seen RfCs go over for hundreds of pages here full of what I might call nonsense. That isn't a grounds for reporting anybody for anything. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually editing wikipedia in a beneficial way would help convince me. Not interested in rhetoric sorry.83.100.225.242 (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to state it explicitly again "training people for money or for free to use wikipedia is not a problem".

Thank you! A clear, concise answer. But I want to know what the many think, not just you. That's why I posted this here to begin with!! jeez! Sunflowergal34 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on it Wikipedia:Ethics. (hahahahaha) ethics is your problem, seriously, you really need to think about it. 83.100.225.242 (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a problem is when Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issues arise, please read that article. There is a sentence in the first paragraph of that page that is bolded which appears it could relate directly to you. You have the best knowledge about your aims, so please decide for yourself whether you can operate within wikipedia guidlines. 83.100.225.242 (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was very helpful. Thanks. I never saw that set of essays on Ethics. Basically, as I read them, if an editor's primary objective is to benefit the encyclopedia, to make it better, then that's good editing. But if his objective is to advance an interest other than the integrity of the encyclopedia, then he stands in COI. Is that correct? Sunflowergal34 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to rest now. On behalf of me and Gnosis Arts, we will not offer any type of training course. We will not do anything that even gets anywhere near the grey area of COI. I want to be a regular, normal old editor. I didn't even want to bring this up here; only did because my staff keeps bothering me about it. But I guess I'll just have to put my foot down with them and say, "Sorry, folks, our reign of terror on Wikipedia - is over." LOL.

But seriously, I will probably patrol pages now for COI violations. I think there is a lot more of this going on than just somebody getting paid to write an article, after this discussion. A New Page Patroller on the lookout for COI violations. I'm coming after Chauvinists, political operatives, SPAs, agenda-pushers, people with an axe to grind. Here I come, baby! Ha! If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? 68.192.169.177 (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Forgot to log in. Don't worry, it's still me. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one last thing. that Wikipedia Experts site - we are in no way affiliated with them. Let's bust them, too, while we're at it. :) Sunflowergal34 (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that the link above be changed to something a bit more neutral, like "that company mentioned in the 2010-12-20 issue of the Wikipedia Signpost". This would give less undue promotion to a specific outside commercial entity, and allow discussions about the general issue. Disclosure: I work for the company mentioned in the 2010-12-20 issue of the Wikipedia Signpost. No other comment at this time.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     17:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been archiving my user talk approximately every 32K (the old article size recommendation). I know this number has been out of use for some time and my archive list has grown to 29 sub-pages. Can anyone offer an opinion whether it would be more helpful to have many short archived pages or fewer long archived pages? If my concern is overly pedantic, please be gentle in pointing that out :-\ Thanks Tiderolls 00:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, being an awkward old bleeder, I've arranged to archive my talk page by month, on the basis that it may be easier to find stuff. This will probably bite me at some point (not least because at the moment I have to remember to set each month up in advance on the talk page: this needs fixing, but I haven't got a clue how). I wonder if in the long term, this may be a more rational approach, as ease of access becomes more important than technical considerations? Just a thought... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always archived mine by year, article size be damned. Maybe I'm not too chatty, but that hasn't been an issue. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody likes being squeezed for a few more dimes more than me, but can we have a new banner please and not the jimmy wales one.

eg [1] [2] [3] , I've confined myself to the ones containing humour.

Noticed how the eyes seem to follow you around the room.

Please can we have a message from proper celebrity or something, I heard william shatner works for peanuts.

Cheers. (but seriously please change it soon) I'm not the only one http://www.google.co.uk/search?=UTF-8&q=make+jimmy+wales+go+away Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a user account so head over to the Gadgets tab of your preferences and check the box to permanently disable the banner, the you need not worry about which one is displayed. Job done. – ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While no doubt many individuals are clever enough to expunge the banner, I guess it would be beyond the technical ability of most Wikipedia users to do that. I think it's fair to ask for how long the face of Mr Wales will stare out onto the world from all of our pages? I should imagine most people feel (as I do) that the banner is egotistical. May I ask, has there been any report on its increasing or declining effectiveness, or any analysis of the public reaction to it? Frankly, I should actually rather see some discreet paid-for advertising on the site, but if a long begging campaign like this is to continue then surely it would be far more successful if a wide variety of more appealing people could be used to front it? Moonraker2 (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two months, just like always. You can go ahead and mark your calendar: On or about November 1st of every single year between now and when you die, the foundation will probably request donations to buy computers, hire staff, and keep the electricity on, so that you and others are able to read and edit Wikipedia. As always, the campaign ends on or about January 1st, also every single year between now and when you die.

I really am going to have to write a FAQ. Anyone have any suggestions for page titles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Wikipedia:Why is that staring man demanding my money at the most financially stressful time of the year?". DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Banner Appeal FAQ ? 83.100.225.242 (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, "Two months" answers my first question, although it seems much longer than that already. If there are going to be some FAQs, could my other questions please receive answers, too? Moonraker2 (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ads are extensively tested. See m:Fundraising 2010/Banner testing for the details. I don't know what the latest word is, but earlier in the season, the ads with Jimmy Wales' picture were bringing in ten times as much as other graphical ads, and graphical ads were bringing in twice what text-based ads did.

In general, the Foundation runs a very impressive, efficient, and extremely data-driven fundraising program. They wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't working. "Working", by the way, is measured solely by the number of dollars appearing in the bank account, not the number or nature of words appearing on the web.

As to your other questions, you will probably find the answers at User:WhatamIdoing/Fundraising. If someone wants to pull the informative bits out and put them into a serious FAQ, then I'd be happy to let them do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to have some insight - can I suggest a black banner with white text (no "catchy caption") - as a try out - don't know if this has been tried. Seems like a potential good idea .. eg like this [4] but no picture. just black (amateur psychology behind it is ...) 83.100.225.242 (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just posting this here so that regulars here, who may be asked, are aware: Today, I had the fundraising banners disabled for logged in users. This was a data-driven decision: it became clear that those logged in users who wished to contribute already had, and those that hadn't yet probably knew how to. With that in mind, the banners are now running to anonymous users only. This state will continue until around January 1, when we'll turn them back on for everyone for the final push of the campaign. As always, more information is available at m:FR2010 or by emailing me directly (philippewikimedia.org). Thanks for your work, everyone.

Note: this decision only applies to users who are not in an area that is running chapter selected banners. Chapters control messaging within their areas, and some of them are continuing to use banners, as is their privilege. I know that they're all making smart decisions based on their financial needs. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. They were a TOTAL bother in editing work! Arlen22 (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, on the latest fundraising banner with the animated arrow, Jimbo looks like he has a pretty bad case of jaundice. Stalwart90 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an attempt at slander?—RJH (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an attempt at humor. A failed attempt. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following a post at the help desk, I noticed that the page Sainsbury's has an extensive "financial performance" section, which struck me as too detailed. I deleted it with a similar rationale, but was reverted. I'd made the post below to the talk page when I realised that a good deal of pages - at least British Airways and M&S, and probably more - have similar sections:

I removed the Financial performance section and was reverted. I consider this statistical detail too, well, detailed for an encyclopaedia, which attempts to maintain a general interest. Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details; it doesn't list, for example, the league table finishes in each year for football teams. Such detail would be contained in specialist works on the subject, similarly, this financial details must have a place somewhere in literature, just not here. I'd think a graph would be a suitable compromise, since any change in figures might be suitable for an encyclopaedia. Clearly, my view is not universal. What do others think?

And so I ask. I also note that eps is specifically one thing unlikely to be relevant to the vast majority of readers.- Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen both done - including the removal of all financial info except the current year - actually I prefer to have the data going back many years rather than a current snapshot.(so I'm sort of in favour of it). I note the info seems unreferenced which isn't good.

What I'd say is that it doesn't kill the article - it's not actually a bad addition, so maybe just live and let live - not perfect - but a recipy for a less stressfull editing experience on wikipedia.

I've never seen this issue nailed to any guidelines.

Have you tried Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance or Wikipedia:WikiProject Business for guidance or advice on the topic in general. I bet they could give you some info on how much finance info is considered normal or acceptable.Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note this might be something editors have been doing on British articles - companies such as Siemens, General Electric, Samsung Group, Sony etc don't have such detail in general.Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that, as tabular data, its probably too technical. It would be better if this was presented as a prose description of the financial performance of the company - e.g. Sales decreased X% between 2008 and 2010, etc. Mr.Z-man 21:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to wish everybody at Wikipedia a happy holidays. It's been another interesting, enlightening, and all too squirrelly year here. Good luck in the next one! Cheers.—RJH (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays to you as well RJH, and best wishes to all. - BanyanTree 08:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

both water fluoridation and water fluoridation controversy are protected :(

i am trying to suggest an addition: "Serum Fluoride Level and Children's Intelligence Quotient in Two Villages in China", Quanyong Xiang, Youxin Liang, Bingheng Chen in Environmental Health Perspectives

188.2.166.104 (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could also ask one of the regular editors of the pages to add it for you. User talk:Gwen Gale protected the talk page, so you can ask her to do the edit. Or an issue for Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt it will happen because this IP happens to be from the range of IPs that has been attacking those articles, and is thus the very reason for the semi-protection. Now if the IP would register they'd have better conditions. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of indef blocked User:Freedom5000. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please be careful with accusations BullRangifer. 188.2.166.104 (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]