MPants at work (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
::I suspect an hour of having your product described as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&type=revision&diff=774927989&oldid=773838067 containing cyanide and children] at the peak of publicity might be enough to impart the lesson. I'd love to know the sequence of events which led to Google disabling their results. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 16:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
::I suspect an hour of having your product described as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&type=revision&diff=774927989&oldid=773838067 containing cyanide and children] at the peak of publicity might be enough to impart the lesson. I'd love to know the sequence of events which led to Google disabling their results. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 16:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
*Repeating what I said at ANI, I think the best response would be to let [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&diff=775093761&oldid=775093659 vandalism like this] stand until the ad finishes running (note that I'm aware google has stopped the ad from working as intended, but still). I'm only half-joking: WP was essentially trolled and, in this day and age, trolling BK right back has the potential to garner a lot of positive press. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 17:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== wp:articleprobem == |
== wp:articleprobem == |
Revision as of 17:00, 13 April 2017
WMF board member qualifications
Does it seem strange that, in an environment where RfA candidates are routinely rejected because they haven't created enough GAs and/or FAs, a WMF board member appears to have never edited Wikipedia, has no user account, and cannot be reached by email?[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Foundation Board Handbook --Moxy (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Key quote: "Following a candidate's selection to the Board, the following steps should be carried out: [...] Emails and wiki accounts activated. At the direction of the Secretary, WMF's IT staff creates email and wiki accounts for the new Board member and arranges for systems access according to the Onboarding Permissions Protocol."
- Also, it appears that only two current board members (not including Jimbo) actually read the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard. See m:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard#Hello? Is anyone home?. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Shameful,and I perceive an unacceptable level of arrogance from the responses. Maybe we need a much more enhanced level of oversight by the editing community.I have the feeling we may be seen as rotating bots by some of the WMF board.....I mean, not to even check this board at least once per week is dereliction of work responsibility by the WMF board membersand insulting to the community, imo.Something has to change! Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Also, it appears that only two current board members (not including Jimbo) actually read the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard. See m:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard#Hello? Is anyone home?. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Its beyond strange, Guy. Perhaps just a rookie mistake going back for years. All WMF Board nominees should have to meet the same benchmarks that our Administrators have to meet as well as having the qualifications needed to be a trustee of Wikimedia; that's a no-brainer.Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- I can't think of a worse idea. One of the best ways to avoid "group think" and a failure to see new ideas is to fail to recruit from the outside to the board. Asking every board member be an expert at editing Wikipedia - something which is totally irrelevant for most board work - would be a huge mistake. We are very careful to always have deep deep editorial and community representation on the board - this is absolutely crucial. But not every board member needs to have that skill set to be effective, and indeed, coming from outside can be a huge benefit in terms of seeing things in a way that is useful and different from our usual thoughts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nice Straw man you have built there, and I admire your skill in knocking it down. Getting back to what I actually wrote, I am not asking that board members be experts at editing Wikipedia. I am merely asking that they have a user account with a user talk page. and/or that they can be reached by email as clearly specified in the Wikimedia Foundation Board Handbook. Making one or two small edits to Wikipedia (in any language) and actually reading the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard (I am looking at you Jimbo) would be a nice plus, but I am not asking for that. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales, ok, maybe its a matter of the ratio of deep editorial and community representation. Perhaps it should be something like 50/50 whereas now the board appears to be lopsided toward the "never edited..much" board members. Also, I would argue that Wikipedia etc. are substantively unique in their/our processes and dependence on an ever changing stable of volunteer contributors....so different that there should be a much larger ratio of experienced participants on the board than in typical corporations or even non-profits, which operate largely on hierarchal and employee based models. I suggest that rather than having the deep editorial and community representation in the minority, that those coming from outside with fresh sets of eyes be in the minority. Furthermore I do not see group think as being a real hazard among experienced Wikipedia editors...just the opposite...consensus building is more of a challenge here. On the other hand, when WMF board members are coming from NGOs, non-profits and/or politically affiliated enterprises, that is where you really run into epidemic and dogmatic group think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)- the board sometimes doesn't always mix well with people representing the editing community. see this. There are some issues with appointing too many people who are immersed in the values and methods of big tech companies and their board-level operations; the WMF board and jimbo have never addressed them. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Guy Macon, yeah, you are correct about the Straw man, but it could be unintentional. Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim
Recognition for unpaid editors
Jimbo I am floating this idea to see if there is enough interest to suggest it on Village Pump. I have 2 ideas; 1:creating a "barnstar" for unpaid, non-advocate editors and 2:WMF doing a random draw each year from a list of all self declared unpaid editors with more than 1,000 edits that year with the editor selected getting some kind of really cool prize...like $10,000. check, and/or some really expensive computer gear perhaps. What do you think? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors do not control the purse strings, so nobody at the Village Pump has the power to implement this. You should try to get consensus at the m:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard. Oh, right. Nevermind. wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- I wonder if you could explain what your 'Nevermind' means?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- wbm1058 is pointing out that hardly any of the board appear to actually read their noticeboard (section above) so trying to get consensus there would be pointless. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Two bob and a pickled egg and it's all yours guv'nor. — O Fortuna velut luna 17:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- wbm1058 is pointing out that hardly any of the board appear to actually read their noticeboard (section above) so trying to get consensus there would be pointless. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- I wonder if you could explain what your 'Nevermind' means?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Am I the only one to see the humor in this proposal? Paying somebody who is an unpaid editor? It would be more appropriate to have the WMF send a barnstar to everybody who has the "No Money Handshake" pic on their user page. And the cost is about $10,000 less. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- I also perceived the irony. On the other hand, my other concerns with the proposal are that most editors are unpaid already (to edit Wikipedia), and this would be incompatible with that many editors prefer to remain anonymous (often with valid reasons), which would make this impractical, unless they expected bitcoin prizes or similar... —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 00:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- IMHO Wikimedia Foundation's budget is not something that should be wasted on lotteries. Though, if you are looking for some 'recognition', try applying for a scholarship to Wikimania. Also, there is Wikipedian of the Year award. --Lingveno (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Yea, let's stop paying editors US$2.5 million for editing the strategic planning process. I'd be quite happy to help with strategic planning for free. I'm less excited about indefinitely patrolling {{error}}s, making spelling corrections and and reverting vandalism for free. Where else in the world do you find volunteer janitors?
- reduce mean time of vandalism reversions...
- reduce mean time of reversions of promotional edits...
- reduce mean time of reversions of copyright violations... to less than 30 seconds
- reduce mean time to close Phabricator bugs to less than one month
There ya go. My free strategy. wbm1058 (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
That guitar-breaking airline and our old friend Mr. Dacre
Daily Mail Libels United Passenger. The Daily Heil misidentified the doctor dragged off the United plane, falsely pinning a conviction for sexual assault on him, due to precisely the deficient fact-checking that led to the Mail being deprecated as a source here. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- So, we're using a blog and a gossip site to pin blame on the Daily Mail? Doesn't seem like much progress to me. - 2001:558:1400:4:3C24:755D:807A:B2F7 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- First, TMZ has not blamed The Daily Mail for anything. They are just a victim of plagiarism here. Second, despite the tone and choice of material, TMZ has a good reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Unlike TDM; see WP:DAILYMAILRFC for full details. I am still waiting for a reliable source that supports the claim that the doctor was misidentified. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Mr. Chapman and Mr. Macon, I rest my case. Another example of JzG being unfit for adminship on a knowledge project. - 2601:42:C100:81D8:203E:90A0:16FF:3B79 (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Update the related page: With the airplane video getting a half-billion[!] views in China, check the WP article "United Express Flight 3411 incident" and perhaps see if the Chinese interwiki (zh:中文) has sources about which "Dr. David Dao" was on that airplane. Meanwhile, WP coverage of Syria poison gas is well-sourced in "Khan Shaykhun chemical attack" (re Shayrat Airbase), and so perhaps both topics can be kept accurate in rapid wiki mode. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:24, 13 April +Chinese. Wikid77 (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your constant blathering about the "Heil" tends to Godwin your argument. Everything you write about them seems childish and petty. As for the substance of the airplane incidents, the passengers history is in the news and doesn't require it to be repeated. --68.228.239.7 (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- You "forgot" to log in. The nickname "Daily Heil" has been in common use since my childhood, I think I first saw it in Private Eye but some sources say it's been used since the 1930s. And it's not a Godwin fail because it references an actual event in the company's history (its blackshirt cover), it doesn't imply or invoke an analogy to the Nazis. Unlike Spicer Man's comments on Syria. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Are they serving humble pie in the DM canteen today after this shocker? Anyone still willing to defend the DM as a reliable news source? - The Bounder (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Child sex ring allegations against U.N. peacekeepers; WMF response?
Jimbo, I'm sure you know the Associated Press and the Toronto Star are reliable sources. Please read this article...it is not easy to read. In light of this latest reporting and the U.N.'s already admitted to role in Haiti's cholera outbreak, is there anything you can do either alone or in concert with the WMF to impress upon the U.N. the need for them to improve their operations so that this sort of horror does not happen again? Can you think of anyway the WMF can apply pressure to bring the alleged child molesters to trial?Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim
- Well all UN topics aside, I think WP has a very good page about "Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease" in time with the rapid race for the cure (next 2 years?). -Wikid77 (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Wikid77that's a very personal and inappropriate response here, perhaps on my talk page. Maybe you want to deflect away from this discussion point for some reason, but I can not imagine why. Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim
- Wait! Wikid77, I think I see your point. When you say "all U.N. topics aside" you are saying this U.N. event has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia? ok, I understand now. We must first determine whether Wikipedia has any responsibilities or role in this U.N. event...I was thinking the connection is obvious, but now I see that for your benefit and likely others, I'll have to spell it out, which will require a rewording of the section title. Thanks for bring this to my attention, Wikid77, albeit in a roundabout way and couched in an inappropriately ad hominem comment.Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim
"For anyone with a Google Home near their TV, that strangely phrased request will prompt the speaker to begin reading the Wikipedia entry for the Whopper."
"...And all evidence suggests Burger King is behind the edit. The line was first added by someone with the username “Fermachado123,” which appears to be the username of Burger King’s marketing chief, Fernando Machado. He uses the same name on Instagram and an almost identical name on Twitter.
A press representative for the company stopped responding when asked about the edit. Wikipedia specifically asks that editors “avoid shameless self-promotion” while making changes, and this very much seems to break the rule.
Relying on Wikipedia also opens up one other problem: anyone can edit it. The Verge modified the Whopper entry briefly, and Google Home began speaking the updated text only minutes later."
"Google appears to have intervened and stopped the Home from responding to Burger King’s commercial. The Whopper’s Wikipedia page has also been reverted to its pre-ad state, and the page has been locked amid an editing war." -- Source: https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/12/15259400/burger-king-google-home-ad-wikipedia
--Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- So I see the TV ad would say, “OK Google, what is the Whopper burger?" and that caused Google Home to read from Wikipedia. Is anyone left who doesn't think WP is slanted by promotional, advocacy edits? -Wikid77 (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, there should be nobody left who doesn't think that businesses often insert promotional material (aka advertising) into Wikipedia, particularly since Fermachado123 (who is not yet blocked) wrote clear ad copy for the lede a couple of days ago, as well as User:Burger King Corporation (who is blocked) who contributed. Also Burger King’s Sneaky New TV Ad Tricks Your Google Home Into Talking About the Whopper 'OK, Google, what is the Whopper burger?' appeared in AdWeek *before* the ad aired and was clearly written with input from Burger King (they tested the ad in advance).
- I do think that there are some people who don't care about it - and I have to wonder why? For example, I believe that there are arbs who would interpret WP:Outing as being enough reason to block @Guy Macon: for his edit above (linking to a site that gives the employer of an editor), and perhaps enough to block me for this edit ("outing" User:Burger King Corporation).
- How should Wikipedians respond? First we should ban the whole company (excluding the burger flippers and minimum wage folks) from editing. In particular, all directors and officers ranked VP and above, and all employees of the advertising, marketing, and PR departments, their regular advertising and PR firms, as well as the ad firm known as "David in Miami" who conceived of the ad. (He is also know for this work of genius [3])
- Of course they should be let back as editors if they declare all their previous paid editing adventures. These are likely to be extensive since there are 71 articles linked to the Burger King navigation template (just over half of these are exclusively about Burger King).
- More later. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sometimes I think we need to start shaming brands by adding "This manipulative brand is trying to skew your opinion by editing their own Wikipedia-article" to their lead for a year.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Kudos to User:Julietdeltalima for playing it straight at User talk:Fermachado123. @Smallbones: My position on outing, as expressed about the previous Daily Mail article controversy here, is that material openly available from a major news source is not secret, and should not be treated as secret. It should not be brought up as "opposition research" in any Wikipedia argument ... except COI/paid editing issues in which the information is germane. That condition is met here. Wnt (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect an hour of having your product described as containing cyanide and children at the peak of publicity might be enough to impart the lesson. I'd love to know the sequence of events which led to Google disabling their results. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Repeating what I said at ANI, I think the best response would be to let vandalism like this stand until the ad finishes running (note that I'm aware google has stopped the ad from working as intended, but still). I'm only half-joking: WP was essentially trolled and, in this day and age, trolling BK right back has the potential to garner a lot of positive press. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
wp:articleprobem
have you heard of WP:ARTICLEPROBLEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdnf (talk • contribs) 12:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia:Featured articles may have problems is an essay that was first written in 2009, with updates in 2011 and 2013. Are you referring to any article in particular? Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
What, if any, responsibility does Wikipedia have for addressing the sex molestation of children by U.N. peacekeepers?
Jimbo, this article requires some deep and focused thought, but please hear me out and think about my belief that Wikipedia does have some, if tiny, levels of responsibility for dealing with these atrocious crimes against children. Here is my reasoning;
- User:Herostratus made an honest and clear description of where Wikipedia sits in relation to the United Nations and other international entities.here. His words are so educational, regarding Wikipedia, and eye opening that I think I should repeat some of them here, with some emphasis being mine:
- "The Wikipedia is an Age of Enlightenment institution (which is why our references typically are to peer-reviewed or fact-checked sources, rather than consisting mostly of "The Pope himself has said that this is true" or "The leader of our country himself has said that this is true" and so forth, as would have been done in former days -- and still is, in many places.) "Internationalization goes hand in hand with Enlightenment ideals to some degree. The modern system of international treaties and relations is to some extent an Enlightenment institution. The United Nations is, in my opinion, an institution consistent with how Enlightenment ideals would be expected to develop. And you can't easily separate these things out." ...Herostratus (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Since neither you,Jimbo, nor anyone else challenged Herostratus's description of Wikipedia, I conclude that description is largely accurate,
- Here we find the corroborating mission description noticed by User:wbm1058 within the "call for proposals" "We think it is time we all step back and think together about where the world is headed over the next 15 years"
- So, Jimbo, let's just admit that Wikipedia has become, for whatever reasons, a part of what User:Herostratus, and I, call internationalism.
- Now here is where I may lose you; any member of any club....e.g. NATO or the EU..or in our case, the group of international institution creators and promoters...must take some responsibility for how other members, in this case the U.N., are operating. Especially when they are operating in such a way that "hundreds" of children were systematically sexually molested/raped within one of their operations and none of the criminals has been brought to trial.
So, I'm making the case that; ok, Wikipedia contributors are adding value to the Wikimedia movement. The executive leaders of this movement, including you, have decided to put our efforts and the donations generated by our efforts into a global project consisting of global institutions which include the United Nations. Therefore, we have some, albeit small, responsibility for any horrific results occurring from the activities of the United Nations.
This may seem too esoteric of a connection for some, but may I remind you that WW1 was quickly ramped up from a small event to a huge event because of alliances....and I contend that, as Herostratus eloquently said, there is an institutional connection between Wikipedia and the United Nations.
You can't be part of a group and then turn your head and say "oh, those children being molested (by the agents of another member of the same group) have nothing to do with us. We have no responsibility for what member X of our group is doing."
So,Jimbo, I repeat, what can and will you do about what happened with the U.N. operation in Haiti? Nocturnalnow/Alzheimer's victim
- Ehm, is this serious ? I'm all for fixing the entire world, but this seems somewhat extreme. Too vague, not within scope, not an effective use of our attention. You have a habit of going onto wild tangents on this Talk page, distracting people etc. It's seriously annoying me whenever I visit Jimbo's talk page. I'm all for AGF, but you're behavior has you ranked rather high up on my 'troll' list. And the fact that you boast about 4000 unpaid edits, of which in reality only 480 are in main namespace, and a large portion of those are regarding Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation) and related topics, isn't helping to reassure me otherwise. I don't need to hear you defend yourself, just move that needle on my bullshit meter. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- (@Nocturnalnow) Let me be brief and to the point, because I refuse to be mired in the specifics. Wikipedia is not the U.N., is not directly associated with the U.N., is not morally responsible for the U.N., and has no responsibility to right great wrongs beyond the ones affected by its encyclopedic mission. If you want to write an article about some "great wrong", then you're already invited to do so, within the bounds of neutral point of view and Wikipedia's other rules. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)