Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 4 discussion(s) to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 225) (bot |
Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
:::::Claiming that someone is a "Republican" (as in the American meaning of the word) can be rather offensive. ((([[User:The Quixotic Potato|The Quixotic Potato]]))) ([[User talk:The Quixotic Potato|talk]]) 02:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC) |
:::::Claiming that someone is a "Republican" (as in the American meaning of the word) can be rather offensive. ((([[User:The Quixotic Potato|The Quixotic Potato]]))) ([[User talk:The Quixotic Potato|talk]]) 02:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::{{ping|Coffee}} Please read my edit dated 00:40, 5 January 2018 (see above). ((([[User:The Quixotic Potato|The Quixotic Potato]]))) ([[User talk:The Quixotic Potato|talk]]) 01:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC) |
:::::{{ping|Coffee}} Please read my edit dated 00:40, 5 January 2018 (see above). ((([[User:The Quixotic Potato|The Quixotic Potato]]))) ([[User talk:The Quixotic Potato|talk]]) 01:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
:MONGO, I'd love to see a fully fleshed out example. I know what I'm about to ask will be an investment of significant effort, but if you can do it, I think your example might be enlightening to a lot of editors. Basically, I'd like you to take an example biography that you think is biased, and rewrite it in your user space to better match our NPOV and other policies. We could then have a much more meaningful discussion using that example as a jumping off point.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 08:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:24, 5 January 2018
Resuscitating dead links
This is Wikipedia biz for JW. Dead links don't need to be removed and the facts they document removed as was done for example HERE. Rather, just copy the old dead link from the WP page and visit our friends at Internet Archive (www.archive.org) and punch the old URL into their Wayback Machine tool. This more often than not pulls up a preserved permalink, such as THIS for THIS. Then reenter the permalink into the WP page. This preserves the content. best regards for 2018, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Our conservative bios are biased
One need only look at articles on conservatives and ones on progressives to see how obvious my heading is. Even progressives will admit they know this, yet they don't care so long as this website is twisted and tilted in the direction they want. Its never been a secret people like myself have only been welcome here so long as we can cross the line and edit progressive things dispassionately...otherwise the left wing idealists will do all they can to marginalize my work. I find it appalling this website has the pomposity to even pretend it maintains a neutral voice in areas such as conservative American political biographies. I really think this website should stop coddling editors that do little more than promote negativity and bias in our conservative bios and start applying equal and fair penalties across the board to all persons that misuse this website to promote their agenda on our bios, and to cease seeking excessive penalties on just the conservative editors.--MONGO 19:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- We have well-developed policies for this and well-developed mechanisms in place to enforce them. If they are not sufficient, you are free to propose improvements in the proper venues (this ain't one). If that's not enough, and I've yet to be convinced that it is not, it's the best we can do. I can't imagine what you hope to achieve in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see it is the extreme that MONGO seems to, but I have certainly noticed that when it comes to politics, Wikipedia treats biographies differently depending on where they fall on the political spectrum. The "well developed mechanisms" to enforce neutrality rely on the consensus of editors and when those editors tend to lean in one direction politically, the result is enforcement that leans in one diretion politically. Deli nk (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- IF that's so, all you can do is bring in more conservative editors who are prepared to put policy first, and that's not going to happen by discussion on this page. We are a self-governed community and that's highly unlikely to change.
One might make a case that enforcement can lean in one direction politically because policy is overly complex and nuanced, but institutional inertia is far too strong a force to make significant changes in that area. Again, we're self-governed, and that's not all good. There's a reason why most modern governments are representative governments. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)- Note: If Trump is the bad guy, it is largely this kind of attitude which gave him the job he has. Some people are out to hurt others and themselves, but most are not. Half of all people are not. The people claiming the championship of tolerance sometimes do what equates to bombing for peace. Tit for tat. Joining in. Approving by way of action. The claim that more opposition editors should be joined in is clearly covered by Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and objectivity is more important than your mere feelings and wishes. It really is. I have the high ground, Anekin. Put down your sword and return to Ashla. If you strike me down now I will become... OOPS! Too late now isn't it... Or is it? Mark this, the more dirty tricks used against them, prospectively or in kind, the more they will get away with. ~ R.T.G 21:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Its been reduced to a chess game of sorts. So many articles are reduced to 1RR and that means reaching consensus at the talkpage, but when they bring in the army, no number of valid citations will return neutrality to the article since the majority rules. That is not the best way to protect our BLPs.--MONGO 00:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- IF that's so, all you can do is bring in more conservative editors who are prepared to put policy first, and that's not going to happen by discussion on this page. We are a self-governed community and that's highly unlikely to change.
- Many people in the United States think that they are moderately right wing, but in Europe we would call quite a few of those people the far-right. People who are extremists rarely consider themselves to be extreme in any way, they think they are rational beings. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a way to easily compare the terms liberal and conservative when talking about U.S. and let's say European politics. For instance in "conservative" America there is no ban on religious based headwear generally speaking in public whereby in some parts of "liberal" Europe there is.--MONGO 21:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Turning that around, many people in Europe consider themselves moderately left-wing, but here in the US, we'd consider quite a few of those people far-left. I'm not sure what we've gained from this. As far as headdress banning, etc., see Horseshoe theory. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- I rather prefer the Pournelle chart. I am very strongly apolitical. I don't support any party or any candidate, on the basis that I believe that politicians have an ability to deceive us that far exceeds our ability to detect deception. Here is what I see when I read Wikipedia politics atricles: I see a group of what what the US considers to be liberals pushing their POV and generally winning, a group of what what the US considers to be conservatives pushing their POV and generally losing, and a group of editors who put aside their personal POV and try really hard to edit from a NPOV. Alas while the third group has the majority, the first two groups are far more persistent and tend to dominate any discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- I recently read a thread on stormfront that invited people to join Wikipedia to get rid of the "bias". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- I rather prefer the Pournelle chart. I am very strongly apolitical. I don't support any party or any candidate, on the basis that I believe that politicians have an ability to deceive us that far exceeds our ability to detect deception. Here is what I see when I read Wikipedia politics atricles: I see a group of what what the US considers to be liberals pushing their POV and generally winning, a group of what what the US considers to be conservatives pushing their POV and generally losing, and a group of editors who put aside their personal POV and try really hard to edit from a NPOV. Alas while the third group has the majority, the first two groups are far more persistent and tend to dominate any discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
“ | I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias. | ” |
— Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (2006) |
(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the PC world. Notice how it's not just conservative politicians. In the Israel arena, you'll also find a large bias, I know of quite a few people who no longer edit in that area. And I do find the bias on here a major problem, including antisemitism. (That is the one "bias" you can't mention here, you can say that as a women you are harassed, or others, and people will setup task forces or listen to you, but if you say you are Jewish and face antisemitism, you will be threatened with a block.) You see it on the front page, you see it in talk pages and you do see it in the articles and more importantly you see it in policy discussions, such as RS and BLP. So while I think Wikipedia might have been a great idea, at this point in time, it's just a fun hobby but I don't think we should use it for objective truths.Sir Joseph (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Quote: "but if you say you are Jewish and face antisemitism, you will be threatened with a block."[citation needed] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Heck, I'll give it a try. I am Jewish and face antisemitism. Now who is going to threaten to block me for saying that? (I am not actually Jewish btw, just testing if the claim is true). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- I was warned once for pointing out a potentially antisemitic comment. And, I also pointed out a real antisemitic comment when I ran for ARBCOM this past month and a few people agreed with me, but others "poo-poo"ed it. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Diffs please. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- I would have to dig it up (at least the Wiki comments), but if it helps, it did involve the admin most known throughout the town as ban-hammer Coffee. If you look at my block log, I think this was when I said I would contact the ADL and then he blocked me for a legal threat when no such threat existed. It also involved Bernie Sanders who apparently according to Wikipedia isn't Jewish, and Stanley Milgraum. The one from ARBCOM, was when someone put together a list of candidates, and only for me did it say, "A Jewish Republican from NY." And while I am mostly positive that it wasn't meant in a negative way, that is not how it is sometimes perceived. And to make matters worse, when I pointed it out, rather than apologizing and editing, he dug in his heels. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- If you write something like the stuff I quoted at 00:38 then people are going to ask for diffs. So please dig em up. If an admin threatens to block me for saying "I am Jewish and face antisemitism" then that admin will be de-sysopped. Please ping me when you've found the diffs. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Claiming that someone is a "Republican" (as in the American meaning of the word) can be rather offensive. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Coffee: Please read my edit dated 00:40, 5 January 2018 (see above). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- I would have to dig it up (at least the Wiki comments), but if it helps, it did involve the admin most known throughout the town as ban-hammer Coffee. If you look at my block log, I think this was when I said I would contact the ADL and then he blocked me for a legal threat when no such threat existed. It also involved Bernie Sanders who apparently according to Wikipedia isn't Jewish, and Stanley Milgraum. The one from ARBCOM, was when someone put together a list of candidates, and only for me did it say, "A Jewish Republican from NY." And while I am mostly positive that it wasn't meant in a negative way, that is not how it is sometimes perceived. And to make matters worse, when I pointed it out, rather than apologizing and editing, he dug in his heels. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Diffs please. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- I was warned once for pointing out a potentially antisemitic comment. And, I also pointed out a real antisemitic comment when I ran for ARBCOM this past month and a few people agreed with me, but others "poo-poo"ed it. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- MONGO, I'd love to see a fully fleshed out example. I know what I'm about to ask will be an investment of significant effort, but if you can do it, I think your example might be enlightening to a lot of editors. Basically, I'd like you to take an example biography that you think is biased, and rewrite it in your user space to better match our NPOV and other policies. We could then have a much more meaningful discussion using that example as a jumping off point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)