User talk:Jimbo Wales

Selective censorship in general (e.g. New Zealand massacre)

I am defining selective censorship as photos, videos, manifestos etc. which are seen and watched by some news media people, some government leaders, any interested internet savvy people who dig a little bit (I assume), and, I assume, any special interest groups who wish to pass the info amoung themselves, but not readily available to the general public. Herostratus's comments in the section above led me to suggest this topic, although I am definitely not saying that Herostratus in any way suggested that we discuss this specific topic. Its just that I thought about putting this as a sub-topic to that pre-existing section but ultimately decided this topic should stand alone.

I obviously made the decision already that I support selective censorship in some cases, e.g. the photo referred to above. And the only thing I can say about this evil attack in N.Z. is that a discussion about the selective censorship of the video and manifesto may be worth having. I did spend about 10 minutes searching for the manifesto as I was particularly curious as to in what way, if any, it differs from the pre-existing The Great Replacement conspiracy theory. However, after a few dead links I sort of lost interest, as maybe most other people would, which may indicate its no big deal whether or not the general public has easy access to such material.

Obviously, regarding this particular event, a discussion about finding and including external links to the video and manifesto should be at the talk page for the event, but I'm just wondering whether selective censorship in general is on some sort of trend line which makes it more important as a general discussion topic within Wikipedia and, if so, where that discussion should take place? Perhaps just having such a discussion is inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia? I'd like to hear Jimbo's thoughts about that aspect, if you have any and wish to express them. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Iterating my positions on deliberate violations of laws applicable to other nations, and therefore to their citizens who access Wikipedia … First, copyright law is not "optional" - the video copyright is not validly "creative commons" under NZ law - which is where the video was made. Nor is "copyright" a meaningless issue. In addition, we have the deliberate naming of suspects on an instantaneous basis - even where such naming is banned in the locale involved -- the Richard Jewell case is pertinent. Wikimedia has to be cognizant of the EU laws concerning "right to be forgotten", Right_to_be_forgotten. Unless and until Wikipedia completely rewrites policies and guidelines, including the explicit desire to not deliberately damage any person, these issues do not disappear. And none of this is "selective censorship" in the first place. Collect (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

That's cogent, and a lot of it is true, but FWIW I think that when push comes to shove, only Commons cares about copyright status where the work was created, the Wikipedia cares about what the status in the United States. Also, free use of 20 seconds or whatever would be allowed under our rules if all free-use criteria are met.

However, there's also WP:BLP considerations in cases like this. BLP is specifically empowered to extend to the families and friends of the recently deceased. I think it'd be reasonable to argue that families of people killed in the incident might not want the video to be published by us.

If I may, I wish people did not use the term "censorship" to apply to "editorial judgement". They're two different things, and using the same term for both makes my head hurt. Censorship applies to strictures imposed on an entity by an outside force (typically a government). The Encyclopedia Britannica would not publish a picture of *** **** ****ing a ***. That's not censorship, that's their judgement, and it's not optimal to end up where you're saying "The Chinese Baidu Encyclopedia is censored, and the Britannica is censored, and these two cases are similar enough that the same word can be used for both", because that doesn't improve clarity. ("Censored" is useful for polemical purposes or confusing the issue and that's understandable. But not helpful here.)

For this particular video, there're some sound editorial-judgement reasons to not publish. There're reasonable arguments on both side, but some arguments against are:

1) If it's harmful to the world (by, say, increasing the chance of a copycat killer, making the families of the victims sadder, degrading the social environment making the world feel an unhelpful toxic helpless anger, or what have you) then of course we shouldn't do it. "You never cease being a moral player on this planet. Never, not for one instant. Sitting down at a keyboard does not remove you from the moral universe." Wikipedia is fucken website, a hobby, fer chrissakes. You weren't put on the earth to do fucked up things, so get your priorities straight. It truly gobsmacks me that people don't get this. "My dog just got run over, but Wikipedia rules require me to remove these unsourced BLP statements at once, and Wikipedia rules come first, so Fido can wait" is how some people roll here (or say they do), I guess. Other organizations mostly do not work that way, and to the extent they do, it's almost entirely due to profit motive. Which we don't have.

2) Images can actually impede learning. Technical fact-type knowledge, which is what we're about, is usually best gained when one is able to assimilate information on an intellectual level without being buffeted by strong emotions. Disturbing images and videos don't help this process; rather the opposite. If we were a TV news show or a documentary film studio, it'd be different. Those entities want to make people cry, cringe, yelp, laugh, get angry, hug their child, and so forth. If an article of ours makes you want to hug your child rather than be like "OK, now I intellectually understand more about why [horrible people] did [horrible thing], what the background conditions were, how it came about, why events unfolded as they did, and so forth", then we're not really doing our job right.

3) Videos suck. I mean, at imparting information. This is why the Wikipedia is text-based and not a bunch of videos. Our primary entry for the reader into understanding the video would be text: "A video [showing such-and-such horrific things] was livestreamed. Some important things you should know about this video is that it showed [thing] and [thing] and at one point even [thing]. Also, [more details about the video as necessary or helpful for the reader to suss the important things about it, how it was made and streamed, where it fits in the larger event, why the reaction was what it was, and so on]." Having to sit and watch a 20 minute video to get this same info is not optimal. (The video could also be included, as a secondary extra-info thing, but we don't make readers watch long videos for key info. Since it's extra-info, arguments to include it would have to be that much stronger.) Herostratus (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} slightly off topic response to "videos suck at imparting information": Suggested viewing, suggested viewing The opposite is true such that they could compliment standard Wikipedia, rather than seek to replace it, is worth pointing out. ^{~^\}\_\.rT'{~ g 12:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You suggest the edited "short Sandmann video" would compliment(?) Wikipedia? Collect (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Collect, this might be a semantics thing, I am pretty sure r is using the word "compliment" in the sense of "add something to" (Wikipedia), e.g. "gravy compliments mashed potatoes". Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Compliment: a polite expression of praise or admiration.. I, personally, have never, ever heard gravy "compliment" anything at all. Complement is a thing that completes or brings to perfection.. My point, moreover, was that unless a site has a full unedited "video" of something - that the edits may well affect the utility of such a video as a source in the first place. Collect (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason not to consider accompanying outlines based in video, but quality guidelines would be more difficult than text not to mention bandwidth and infrastructure costs if they were popular. ^{~^\}\_\.rT'{~ g 17:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC) shorter nuclear timelapse, and I didn't find the examples of what is called "whiteboard animation", but it's a good style of informational short. That's my lot about it ty ^{~^\}\_\.rT'{~ g 17:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Not this but like that, a single huge image of small parts, very effective. ^{~^\}\_\.rT'{~ g 17:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC) "Compliment" was my spelling mistake. In fact "complement" is correct.

Right, the wisdom of its exclusion seems so obvious now, after you explained it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The New Zealand shooting is a rerun of the Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward, where the killer chose a live outside broadcast and uploaded a first person video of the shooting, knowing full well that it would lead to massive media coverage. The mainstream media is wary of playing along with this type of game, because it is giving the shooter the publicity they wanted, and may encourage other people to do similar things. As previously discussed, Wikipedia does not need to show a video of a beheading to say "this is what a beheading looks like". Another problem is that if Wikipedia did show material like this, it would probably get blocked in schools, libraries etc, regardless of the merits of the material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

When has the mass media ever refrained from broadcasting a juicy story just because it gave some idiot the publicity they wanted and encouraged other people to do similar things? The only time they refrain from paying attention to a crime is when Missing white woman syndrome[1] kicks in. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There was rarely a better example of an idiot wanting publicity than Vester Flanagan, in the Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. There is a discussion in the article about whether the media played along with what he wanted. With GoPro cameras and live streaming now everyday technology, it was inevitable that sooner or later a mass shooting would be broadcast in this way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There is definite merit to having awful imagery available, but it is defeatist in the day and age of emerging functionality to use that imagery in a take-it-or-leave-it way in conjunction with a story... The story is of primary importance to all. Give words to all, and the horror to only to those who feel prepared and willing to view, across the board. ^{~^\}\_\.rT'{~ g 18:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"15 minutes of fame" is just a stupid invention by media personality control freaks who want to control the news rather than reporting it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

To be quite honest I would rather that video be shown in full at the top of every pertinent article than have impressionable readers see the current one-sided introduction to White genocide conspiracy theory. EllenCT (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I understand that you're really upset, I am too. Still... we have to step back from that, your suggestion is just not the way we roll.

@RTG:, Right, I mean videos can be a useful way to impart information.They can be useful for teaching. But we are not a teaching entity. We are a reference work, and any learning here is self-learning, which is way different. (We also provide material that is good for being made into teaching, which again is way different from ourselves teaching.) The Japan video you point to is good, but it's nine minutes long. I'm reluctant to commit nine minutes to something when I don't know if it will have the info I want. It's good teaching, to the extent that a non-interactive didactic presentation can be good teaching. It doesn't help me if I want to know when the capital was moved from Edo. It's not good if I want to browse the info, skip some and drill down deeper on other. It doesn't let me search on the term "Shogun" or whatever. It doesn't have any sources -- most videos don't, and when they do you can't cut and paste them. And so on. Videos are fine as external links tho (not the one in question here, obviously).

Oh and I forgot an important fourth reason not to include this video: politics (this is separate from the moral question). Anything that will bring disrepute on the project, cause us PR difficulties, give reasonable people reasonable grounds to dislike or reject us... this is a consideration IMO. A lot of people here don't agree, and are of the mind "Damn the torpedoes, principle can't be compromised, we'll go down flying our flag if need be!" -- which is also reasonable, compelling, and maybe right (altho not a reason for going out of our way to offend The Squares, which I think sometimes you do see). But IMO functional organizations consider the effects to the organization of actions by the organization, as a data point. Not the deciding point, maybe not a major point, but still a point. Herostratus (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I struck that video, @Herostratus: and added after, "shorter nuclear timelapse" the originally intended 3-ish mins version which makes it more interesting. For the relevant issue here, it is not right to attempt to delete such imagery from history, however we should purposely fear such imageries normalisation, should we not? ^{~^\}\_\.rT'{~ g 13:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the link to a news article featuring the manifesto, which remains in the article. I did not add the video link on account of the copyright claim, however ludicrous it may be, because I knew it would get taken out on that formal basis. However, the video remains available to this moment in Bestgore's collection for the Ides of March, and I would encourage you to look at it.

The censors seeking to exploit this tragedy to put New Zealand under the arbitrary rule of internet monopolists [2] are relying on squeamishness and fear to persuade people that they should give up their most cherished liberty in exchange for a protection they don't need. It is not merely that the video is less horrible than I expected -- because I had looked at it with the expectation that there would be people running around blind with their faces blown off and trying to stand on the stumps of bullet-fractured legs, and in reality it looks not much more graphic than an FPS game. It is not merely that it fails to deliver on any stereotypes that racists might expect when censors make a show of blocking their communications (there are no men swinging scimitars yelling allahu akbar, just a bunch of totally ordinary people going about a totally ordinary gathering). No, the reality is that the video is inspiring and it is not about the killer at all.

Oh sure, if you watch the censored LiveLeak version, it looks like the killer is the protagonist of his story, playing his merry jingle as he goes out to star in his own personal fantasy. But the moment the bullets start flying, that changes. Tarrant is no longer even a major character -- it becomes an epic about an unnatural disaster where the people of the town play out their own individual stories. The brave tackler who spurns what looks like an opportunity to escape to the right and instead tackles Tarrant, nearly getting the gun and saving the wounded and the people at the next mosque. The wife terrified for her husband who throws caution to the wind for love, and pays a terrible price.

What we see are not people shown in a bad light, defamed, disgraced -- we see human beings as recognizable as any we know who have suffered and died, with human feelings as strong as those we have seen in our own families, people with nothing to be ashamed of. The wicked urge to censor the video is a denial of that -- the same as the sick trollish comments you see on Bestgore; they are two ways of not facing the truth. But if Nazi trolls are ever the only people who will stand up for my freedom, then by God I will stand even with Nazis before I stand with censors, monopolists, and dupes! Wnt (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Double standard

I am extremely upset about what is happening at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Renamed Critics section to Criticism and I ask that the RFC and discussions there have the benefit of review by additional editors. EllenCT (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I am an independent editor and as requested I just reviewed your recent edits and the reversions of them. You are wrong. You keep insisting that the white genocide conspiracy theory contains the idea that low birthrates are bad. Your basic error is firmly based on your original research and not on what any reliable source says about the WGCT. The actual WGCT consists of the belief that low white birthrates combined with high non-white birthrates are bad, and the belief that this is a a deliberate conspiracy. Neo-nazis who hold this theory would be quite happy if the birthrate of whites went down while the birthrate of non-whites went down farther and faster.

The WGCT is still an incredibly stupid and racist conspiracy theory, and there are may excellent sources that say so, but you are not helping things bu attempting to misrepresent what the white genocide conspiracy theorists actually believe. You are setting up a straw man of your own creation, then knocking it down. Please stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy, if you are independent, can you point to any single time where you've interacted with me without complaining about me or opposing my work or suggestions? There are no sources in the article or that I can find saying that the conspiracy theory involves high non-white birth rates; all of the sources, including those in the article, only discuss low white birthrates.

The discussion going on there is surreal. Several senior editors are citing WP:OR to mean something other than inclusions unsupported by reliable sources. Several senior editors are claiming that WP:NPOV says that sources balancing an error must refer to the error instead of merely contradicting it. A senior editor has claimed WP:FALSEBALANCE means exactly the opposite of what it says. EllenCT (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

My interactions with you have been based on your bad edits. It may be that you have made good edits elsewhere, but I haven't seen them. See Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#White genocide conspiracy theory is unbalanced and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Are these edits to White genocide conspiracy theory original research? where many experienced editors have told you that you are wrong and nobody has supported your proposed changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Re "The discussion going on there is surreal. Several senior editors are...", can you think of any possible reason -- any reason at all -- for everybody telling you that you are wrong? Any reason other than "everybody else is wrong and I am right"?

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Anecdotes are fun but in this case no one here is driving on the correct side of the road. Collect (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Only commenting here after seeing this raised on a bunch of noticeboards (which is what led me to the RfC). This seems really really simple. these sources do not mention the white genocide conspiracy theory, and yet you are arguing to include them not in an article about birth rates, but in the article about that conspiracy theory. Most of those sources don't even get into "white". This would be like going to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory page and adding scientific papers showing that pedophilia is bad. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It's more like going to Black helicopters and debunking the conspiracy theory with sources that don't refer to it, which is exactly what it used to do before I pointed that out. It's a brand new requirement of WP:OR which has nothing to do with anything WP:OR says. EllenCT (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of bad sources in one article is not justification for using bad sources in another. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy, are the several paragraphs you wrote claiming that The Turner Diaries doesn't mention the white genocide conspiracy theory representative of the usual amount of care you take while editing, or do you reserve that level of effort for responses to me alone? How often do you avoid taking the effort to learn what you are talking about when you're complaining about me? EllenCT (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The way to proceed is not always to finish the fight. Compromise says, "Further information about the implications and causes of fertility rates can be found here/example, and for reproduction scandals try example/here" or similar. ^{~^\}\_\.rT'{~ g 11:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

...which would be fine if EllenCT was trying to get material about fertility rates in general into multiple articles. In fact. it looks like EllenCT might be correct about fertility rates in general. The problem is that EllenCT is trying to get multiple articles to say that white supremacists are some sort of eco-warriors, concerned about fertility rates in general. All of the sources on white supremacists say that they want more white people (example: the repeated calls to make contraceptives illegal for white women) while at the same time wanting fewer black people (examples; the repeated calls for sterilization of blacks, the fantasies about race wars where the whites kill all of the blacks, jews, and liberals).

I don't understand why EllenCT is so committed to redefining what white supremacists believe. At first I thought we might be dealing with someone who wants to portray neo-nazis in a more positive light, but recent edits such as claiming "per talk" in an edit summary when 100% of the editors who bothered to respond on the talk page opposed the edit makes me lean more towards a WP:CIR issue. Alas, I think that this is going to end up an ANI or Arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy, your statement that my inclusions portray white supremacists as "eco-warriors" is preposterous. They want more white fertility and I've never said they don't. The "100% of the editors who bothered to respond on the talk page" you refer to in your objection to my "per talk" edit is one editor other than you, who said the material should be included in the body of the article, which is the only place I've ever included it. I agree there are serious competence issues here. EllenCT (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, assuming that a supremacist argument is 'low birth rate for whites is bad for whites, so we must have whites produce more', it would naturally follow that a counter would be low birthrates are a positive, but it seems that Ellen CT needs directly on point reliable sourcing: 'white supremacist argue low birthrate for whites is bad for whites and whites need to produce more, and this argument is directly countered by these scholars with the positives of low birth-rate, so this white supremacist argument makes little sense.' All of which the RS has to directly connect and say.

Why "developed-world" societies seem to foster low birth-rate is a complicated topic, but and so, EllenCT, Wikipedia cannot connect things that the sources don't themselves directly connect. And the complications are manifest and fraught, is low birthrate than good for all, according to sources, and is that a criticism of peoples with high birth-rates (ie. a criticism of non-whites)? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright protest blackout in Czech, Danish, German, and Slovak Wikipedias

The copyright protest blackouts have started in the Czech, Danish, German, and Slovak encyclopedias to last for 24 hours (as far as I can tell, I can't read any of those languages). The Signpost would like to cover this event in some detail. Anybody who is fluent in any of these languages and would like to contribute is invited to contact the Signpost at our newsroom talk page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new role as Head Signposter, Smallbones! In related news (blacking out protests) I just saw that the 21st century protests template is up for deletion. (It's true, I read it on en.wp!) Something about too much noise & too many events / guys / etc. ... :P SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as the template goes, it's only tangentially related to the copyright protest blackouts. The odd thing about the template is that the title of it that shows up in the articles is just "Protests in the 21st century", which I'm fine with except perhaps it's too big a topic for one template. But the official name of the template is Template:Anti-government_protests_in_the_21st_century which is a whole nother kettle of fish. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I beg of you, Jimbo, please issue a decree to place a banner or do a blackout on English Wikipedia. The future of the internet depends on it. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hello Jimbo! I joined Wikipedia 5 days ago, but yesterday, I got promoted to autoconfirmed user(Yay!) I joined Wikipedia because I want to add some of my knowledge to the rest of the world. Now that I am an autoconfirmed user, I can talk to you on this page! Just dropped by to say hi to the co founder of Wikipedia! ;)