Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nocturnalnow (talk | contribs) at 18:40, 23 June 2020 (→‎Nexus between BLM and COVID 19?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Racism on Wikipedia

    In honor of George Floyd, I'm going to list some of the subjects on African Americans that should be included on Wikipedia. Excuses aside, discriminating against African American subjects and history is wrong.

    FloridaArmy (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • These have nothing to do with racism, at least with Wikipedia itself. it is the fact that reliable sources of the past have not given sufficient coverage to many underrepresented groups (African-Americans, women, etc.) and as an encyclopedia, we require good sourcing to have articles on these people. There could other ways that the WMF could support a "Who's Who" of individuals that have met certain factors of importance but that's beyond the scope of WP. --Masem (t) 03:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We've had this type of debate before with articles about women in science etc. It's always difficult to create articles when there is a dearth of reliable sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but that does not mean that Wikipedia is racist or sexist.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm thinking that maybe there could be a number of "Niche Wikipedias" wherein each one would address specific issues of importance like a "Wikipedia (Racism)" entity which would include all of the RS info which does not, for whatever reason, does not qualify for general Wikipedia inclusion? Just an idea. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's certainly the idea of a possible Who's Who sister project that would be ideal to allow short bio entries for any person that just meets the basics of verifyability, with outgoing links to the wikis for those that actually have articles there. 1-5 sentences at most for any individual, possibly restricting this to deceased individuals (as I can see this being a honeypot for self-promotion if there's no clear guidance of whom can be added based on what sourcing). --Masem (t) 17:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the Who's Who idea, it could actually be fluid as a place where full blown Wikipedia articles could incubate and blossom or where articles for deletion might be downsized to. The restrictions, if any, could be determined after it's up and running. This topic certainly is demonstrating a need for more attention being given to these individuals who have a critical effect upon human society; even if given a short attention span by RSs. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm thinking some of those have RS like substantial obits that just have not been accessed, because such things require library research, and actually looking through a number of archives and specialty books. I think that's probably true for women, too. Relying on just the free internet, and not the library (or paid resources), is a difficulty for Wikipedia. We wish we were not limited by the easily surfaced on today's free internet, but in reality, we are. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FloridaArmy, Regarding Draft:Thomas Cardozo, there is a section about him in the article about his brother, Francis Lewis Cardozo. In the first reference of your draft, which is Dictionary of the Civil War and Reconstruction, there seems to be a lot more information than you put in your draft. You might use the Francis Lewis Cardozo article in Wikipedia as a model to try and write an acceptable draft of an article about Thomas Cardozo and then argue for its inclusion by comparing it to the Francis Lewis Cardozo article. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FloridaArmy, On comparison of the two articles with regard to sources, they look similar. In fact, the Francis Lewis Cardozo article uses a source that is about Thomas Cardozo for information on Francis Cardozo! The reason of the reviewer for declining Draft:Thomas Cardozo doesn't seem correct when just sources are considered. However, in the source Thomas W. Cardozo: Fallible Black Reconstruction Leader there is, "Although historians have frequently extolled Francis Louis Cardozo, prominent leader in the reconstruction of South Carolina, as a symbol of integrity, they have generally ignored his brother Thomas Whitmarsh Cardozo, Mississippi's superintendent of education, except to mention him occasionally as an example of Reconstruction venality and corruption." So it looks like Thomas Cardozo isn't as notable as his brother, although that doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FloridaArmy, In any case, you can add information to the Francis_Lewis_Cardozo#Thomas_Whitmarsh_Cardozo,_younger_brother section of the Francis Cardozo article. If the section becomes too big, you may then be able to spin it off into its own article. See WP:SPINOFF. Bob K31416 (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's be clear, there is no gray area over whether Mississippi's Black and Jewish Secretary of Education during the Reconstruction Era is notable. Nor is there any real case for censoring the other African American history related subjects I've listed above from inclusion on Wikipedia. An African American architect who served in the state's architectural board, co-designed an African American Museum and a significant African American community library (which not surprisingly also doesn't have an article). An African American recording artist and co-star in Western films who also appears with Frank Sinatra in a film with famed dace numbers. A Jamaican movie director and writer who has whole articles about him in the largest newspaper in Jamaica. An African American comminity in North Carolina. A predominantly African American high school with many decades of history, prominent alumni and faculty, one that's had a role in Civil Rights events and continies to make news. The truth is that African Americans don't have an advocacy group on Wikipedia and until a group like the NAACP or ACLU puts pressure on Jimbo & Co. discrimination against subjects related to African American history will likely continue on Wikipedia. Their schools. Actors. Politicians. Artworks. And community leaders have been deemed by Wikipedia consensus as being unworthy of inclusion. It's a clear as a sunny day sickness of institutional racism. We must do better. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no involvement with the WMF or board, only a volunteer, but as a volunteer, I can tell you the community here is very aware of the implicit discrimination against underrepresented minorities like African-Americans and the like that is a result of what external sources give us to work with, but by no means at all is there any type of active discrimination against these. We cannot create information out of a void to create articles on these, and historically, underrepresented minorities simply did not get the type of coverage that white males got in the media in pre-21st century media. But as Alanscottwalker said, there actually may be information out there but requires more effort to obtain, like actually going to libraries local to where these people lived and worked, rather than relying only on a Google search, as we're not at a point where everything's digitized yet. Key point here is that no progress or policy or guideline allows for discrimination, and that we would take action against editors that actually used their own personal ideas to discriminate on underrepresented persons. It is 100% wrong to accuse WP of actively discriminating here. Again to stress, we are well aware that there is implicit discrimination caused by the lack of coverage from sources for underpresented minorities; we can try to encourage more volunteer time to try to locate more sources, but the absence of sources is not WP fault.
    I will say that we do want to make sure AFC standards are being applied equally. FloridaArmy's got several examples here of articles that I agree with the AFC reviewer that they can't go to mainspace, but I worry if we have articles on well-respected groups (white people) of equivalent quality of sourcing that do get pushed through AFC. That would be a problem. From what I've seen of AFC, this is is not the case; such an article would similarly be rejected for mainspace, but we have to be mindful of this Ideally, AFC reviewers should have a racial/gender/whatnot blind eye in reviewing and are only reviewing on source quality, which gets back to the main issue of implicit discrimination coming from external sources, not WP. --Masem (t) 21:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I couldn't be the only one who wondered why such a prolific and experienced editor would be going through AfC for all their article creation. After a bit of research, I get the impression someone's trying to appropriate the furor over current events to continue a years-long battle with Wikipedia's concept of notability. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely right. I came to a lot of grief for creating lots of articles on subjects like African American policians and a University in Jamaica. Some Wikipedians were outraged I was unable to include birth dates and background biographical information for former slaves who became politicians. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FloridaArmy, For evidence that your proposed articles on African Americans have been discriminated against, you might show existing Wikipedia articles on white people who are less notable than the African Americans in your proposed articles. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bob K31416, That is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that doesn't usually work. We probably do have plenty of white folks who don't meet GNG, but have articles. However, many of those were created back before we began the more rigorous AfC process. Many of them should likely be deleted, but are just so low trafficked that nobody has noticed. TLDR: just because other articles are bad doesn't mean yours can be. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CaptainEek, Could you give an example? Bob K31416 (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I got Hugo Jeske and Nathaniel Kahn within the first ten clicks of the random article button. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to offer a, perhaps, somewhat unique perspective ( I grew up in the racially segregated South of the 50s but have lived in Canada all my adult life ) my point would be that if Wikipedia is, to any extent, influenced by Americans or American culture, it will more than likely have substantial systemic racism built into it, without the contributors of said racism being aware of it.
    I'll give you one example. When my son was in first grade here in Toronto his best friend was the only black kid in his class. One day I asked my son whether he noticed anything different about L___. My son thought and then the light went on in his eyes, and he said. "He's taller than the rest of the kids".
    Ironically, for the purposes of this discussion, some 18 years later my family was considering moving to Santa Monica, California. We had several real estate people showing us properties and every one of them showed us racial demographics about the schools located near the properties. Even I was surprised but my Canadian kids were shocked and 1 daughter blurted out "that's racism" to the real estate saleswoman.
    After 1 day of that, the same son I reference above said; "Let's go home, we don't fit in here." Everyone else agreed. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like Wikipedia is very aware of its issues with systemic bias and has taken many actions to address it. That doesn't mean there isn't room for further improvement, but it's not productive to suggest Wikipedia is ignorant of its issues and to ignore what's already being done. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Wikipedia needs to figure out some way to identify and completely block out of content any systemic racial biases and do it now. If the argument is that racial bias is not here, that is a reasonable position, if true, but to say we are aware of it and doing our best, in 2020, is shameful in terms of our level of competence. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Institutional racism

    Of course there is racism on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia it is called Institutional racism. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."[1][2] Please don't be thoughtless and deny that racism exists on Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William MacPherson of Cluny" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on November 23, 2017. Retrieved February 12, 2018.
    2. ^ Home Office, The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, Cm 4262-I, February 1999, para 6.34 (cited in Macpherson Report—Ten Years On in 2009); available on the official British Parliament Website.
    I haven't yet seen an example of Wikipedia (ie, the WMF or groups of longstanding Wikipedia editors) engaging in "discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." As Masem says above, Wikipedia is already taking action to address issues with systemic bias, which is the closest thing you'll see to (but distinct from) institutionalized racism. Such actions are the antithesis of "ignorance" and "thoughtlessness." 71.234.210.113 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That some people who are Wikimedians are working to eliminating institutional racism, structural racism, or systematic bias seems to make the point that there is a problem and not that doesn't exist. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated, systemic bias is not the same as institutional racism. Conflating the two does not help your case, and misapplying the term "racism," here or anywhere, does a disservice to those who have fought against actual racial injustice. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @FloNight: Once again, do you have any examples of institutional racism through "prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping" by the WMF or a consensus of longstanding en.Wikipedia editors? 71.234.210.113 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    From your comment and question, I believe that we have a different understanding of how structural racism, institutional racism, and systemic bias are related and the manner that they contribute to racial injustice. I don't have my textbooks available to me but an internet search show many books, articles, and websites that explain the way that an institution's policies, procedures and practices enforce racial injustice. One important point is that systemic racism may not be as readily obvious to those privileged by the system. It can be entirely unintentional. That does not stop it from being institutional and structural racism and systemic racism that causes harm through racial injustice. I have a few examples in mind that I can write up and share. It will be tomorrow my time. Thanks for engaging. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @FloNight: Well, even without examples, I think I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. Systemic bias leads to disparities in our coverage of certain topics, such as those relevant to racial minorities. You consider this disparity to be "institutional racism," as it disadvantages those with interest in these topics, right?

    While this is a reasonable stance, I take issue with the use of the term "racism" for this phenomenon. Systemic bias does not target just racial minorities, it affects all groups which lack coverage in reliable sources. Systemic bias also doesn't target racial minorities on the basis of race, again, it's a matter of topics that concern any minority groups only receiving a minority of the coverage in reliable sources. It may seem like a convenient shorthand to call this "racism," "sexism," or "[whatever]-ism," but such terms are misleading. To say there's a problem with "racism on Wikipedia" is to say that addressing "racism on Wikipedia" will address the problem. But of course, neither the WMF nor the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are racist, and many will take corrective action against any perceived acts of "racism." The claimed "racism" is merely a symptom of the overall systemic bias. Unfortunately, there is (to my knowledge) no widely-accepted term for the systemic disadvantages felt by underrepresented groups in general. But using the term "racism" necessarily draws focus when it's only one part of the larger issue of systemic bias. It distracts from the relevant aspects of the problem almost like a red herring, and inhibits discussion of the broader issues. It also leads to unnecessary confusion, as we had here. If FloridaArmy had instead said that systemic bias was preventing him from writing articles on certain topics, he would certainly have had less objections and more support. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    +1. It is always explained clearly when WP:GNG was the reason for declining a new article for submission. It isn't helpful to throw around allegations of racism or sexism in this situation. This doesn't, however, solve the problem that some people (including important living academics) do not have a great deal of coverage in reliable secondary sources. There has been a long discussion about this at WP:ACADEMIC.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the first time I'm commenting on Jimmy's talk page, but I have very strong reservations with people insisting that systemic bias shouldn't be equated with institutional racism. Unfortunately, and I speak at this coming from a minority community on the English Wikipedia, it is emblematic of institutional racism, and I'll be very blunt here: many English Wikipedia editors from the Anglosphere — and especially some who've participated in this conversation so far — have absolutely no idea what we go through just to get our articles to stick, especially in the last 5-10 years.
    The English Wikipedia's insistence on "perfection", whether at AfC, AfD or elsewhere, is particularly detrimental for us from minority communities. How many Wikipedians from the Philippines or India or Nigeria or elsewhere have been driven out of our community because some editor from the U.S. or the UK nominated the articles they put a lot of effort into making for deletion, all because they didn't have enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG? I myself have had to deal with this, and at least I've survived long enough not only to be here today, but to also give a presentation on it. But because we're a minority community, we have to navigate through structures that the majority of our community — who just so happen to be composed of highly-educated white males from the Anglosphere — have built, and have built without any consideration for how it can affect those of us who aren't from that community and have to deal with all the handicaps that come with it. We used to allow stubs to stand and have others jump in to improve our work, but now we insist on having a perfect article the first time around or it will be nominated for deletion or declined at AfC? What on Earth happened to us?
    Yes, Wikipedia isn't outwardly racist, and casual racism is something that doesn't prosper here. But we cannot deny that systemic bias exists, and that as a result there is a structural racism that we must continue to challenge and destroy so that we can have a more equitable, more equal and more open project that is accessible to all. But we are nowhere near there yet, and we have a lot of work to do. If I, with all my privilege, can recognize that systemic disadvantages exist on the English Wikipedia that happen to benefit a group of people at others' expense, I hope those who happen to be the most privileged (who also happen to be the very people having this discussion to begin with!) can recognize that too. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you've read my comment above, you haven't understood it. I have other issues with your comment, such as your claims about stubs and your repeated assumptions of the demographic makeup of this discussion, but I see no point in engaging if you haven't digested this section yet. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Explaining to a person of color that he doesn't understand institutional racism is a new low point even for this page. Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I said above that the racism claims are like a red herring, but that actually is a red herring. Good show. It seems that "inhibits discussion of the broader issues" was prophetic. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read through your slides and that's not anything like institutional racism. You're identifying the fact that we have too many people that coming to Wikipedia without spending anytime to learn policy and guidelines and quickly grow frustrated and leave when their edits and contributes aren't kept. That's a systematic disadvantage but no specific group except for new users who have no patients to learn. We try to welcome new users but far too many run off to the worst possible places to make their first contributions, often driven by personal interest - such as running to pages about Trump or COVID - which creates major problems that we (experienced editors) can't afford the time to explain why there's problems with that. Or they come and try to write articles on people or topics they think are interesting but spend no time to read on WP:V and WP:N and we are forced to delete their contributions. Or a number of zillion reasons Ive seen. I come from the pre-Endless September days were "listen and lurk" was the recommended practice before contributing to a community but that's loooong gone today. People want instant gratification, but we require their contributions to meet very specific requirements. So yes, we are systematically acting against these types of people, but by necessity to keep the quality of the work, not because we don't want their contributions. This is blind to race, gender/etc.
    Now you do raise a good point on topics outside the Anglosphere, but I do stress that our sourcing policies do not require English language sources except in the case of exceptional claims where we need at least some clear English translation. But we do have the issue that most of us in the Western countries NA and EU don't have good familiarity of what are reliable sources outside the Anglosphere so I can see a valid point that an AFC may be rejected because the reviewer can't make that distinction while they'd keep an AFC of similar sourcing quality based on clear English sources. That is something we wish we could do better on and that's not so much "racism" but "language-ism". All we'd can really do is hope that AFC creators are more helpful to explain non-English sources to AFC reviewers and AFC reviewers are more open to what are RSes from nonWestern countries. --Masem (t) 22:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, as someone who's been on Wikipedia since 2005, I can see on its face that the creeping bureaucratization of Wikipedia over the last decade or so has had a visibly detrimental impact on those who are less able to keep up. I have difficulty as it is keeping up with the volumes of policy and guidelines we have on the English Wikipedia, and that's despite me being very privileged for someone who happens to be a person of color. What about someone who doesn't have the capacity to keep up? As it is, we have difficulty retaining editors as it is in the Philippines owing to the many social, economic and political factors that coalesce to deter people from effectively participating. What more if they have volumes of policy that they need to comprehend on top of that? (Not to say that having policy is a bad thing, but in this case, perfect is the enemy of the good, and it clearly shows.)
    We cannot deny the fact that there are people who are disadvantaged by the way Wikipedia is structured, and the ones who are often disadvantaged are people of color. For those who happen to identify with the majority community, they don't realize that there are clear injustices that can be perpetuated in the name of policy. No one questions the reliability of U.S. or UK sources, yet major sources in the Philippines — despite being in English! — have had their reliability questioned (which was my point re: sourcing). No one questions the notability of a U.S. or UK celebrity, yet African musicians need to have a Grammy to be considered notable. You can insist 'til kingdom come that our policies are "blind" to gender, race and language, but while that may be the case on paper, it is rarely the case in practice. I know, because I've lived it. Many of our editors of color have lived it. You're likely extremely fortunate to not have to go through what we face, so please, don't you dare tell me that I don't know what the institutional racism on Wikipedia perpetuated by systemic bias looks like.
    The fact that I'm probably the only person of color actively involved in this discussion (a cursory glance at user pages tells me most of the participants here are either from the U.S. or the UK, with one person from Romania) says volumes about the immense privilege many English Wikipedia editors have. We're too busy with real life to edit Wikipedia, and yet when we're privileged enough to be able to edit Wikipedia, we fight the uphill battle to ensure our nations, our histories, our cultures and our languages are adequately represented to begin with — something that you are privileged enough to not have to experience. While you get to enjoy having meta-discussions on policy and culture, we have to contend with fighting for the reliability of sources, advocating for oral citations just to get our stories adequately represented, and, heck, just ensuring that we can even continue to exist on Wikipedia, given what we face to even get to the door. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a single editor questioning that source at that AfD, and the AfD (on a topic most relevant to the rural Philippines) ultimately received nothing but Keep !votes. This is an example of institutional racism? 71.234.210.113 (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "No one questions the reliability of U.S. or UK sources," yes, they do, all the time. Look at WP:RSN, or any of a number of AfDs. "No one questions the notability of a U.S. or UK celebrity," yes, they do, all the time. Articles for thousands of minor and aspiring celebrities have been deleted, including many from the US and UK. I hate to be insensitive, but please consider that your bias may be holding you back, just as you claim "most of the participants here" are blinded by their "privilege."

    The only evidence provided in support of the idea that "racism" is the underlying problem here are appeals to emotion and claims that those participating 'just don't get it.' (FloNight left us high and dry) It's true, we don't get it, and that's because the arguments aren't very convincing. I can only imagine the emotions these discussions must bring out, but we need to have high-quality discussions if we want to resolve these problems. These comments based on passionate appeals and personal grievances are devoid of substance and do no one any good. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to stress to @Sky Harbor: that none of Wikipedia's policies and, only speaking as a volunteer, as best as I understand the Foundation's policies/principles, support any position that would allow racism or any form of discrimination towards an editor as a person. We actively fight that when we see it happen or are notified when it happens. This is something that the WMF appears to also be establishing to roll out across all its projects in terms of handling civility, harassment, and discrimination towards persons. This is where when people call "wikipedia is racist!" its a very iffy charge because we absolutely do fight that when the discrimination is directed towards editors as persons.
    What most of your presentation was about - and what most of this discussion has been about - is the racism/discrimination of the contributions of editors, which we do not give any bearing onto the person itself, outside of behavioral issues that tie the contributions to disruptive behavior that has to be dealt with (eg someone going around adding a negative slur to all African-American articles and clearly non-apologetic for it when asked about it- which we'd likely quickly ban per my first paragraph). Someone going around editing in good faith African-Americans is fine, that implies nothing to us about the editor outside their interest in that topic area. It is just that now, we're talking an area that we know systematic bias can occur: that this is an underrepresented group and sourcing difficult if not impossible to find to justify full articles, and there's not many volunteers that share that interest to help in that area. That we may not allow many drafts of articles on African-Americans to stay in mainspace, or even have these deleted is not a reflection on the editor supplying these articles at all -- which is where some your argument seem to be directed at - only the fact your contributions to date may have problems with the systematic bias that Wikipedia has a hard time overcoming.
    There are things Wikipedia can try to do better like getting more volunteers involved in various underrepresented areas (like the Women in Red project does) or other similar article drive attempts, but there's only so much we can do about the lack of sourcing issue that comes from how history has treated these underrepresented groups and that is something that an encyclopedia we simply cannot overcome. (Hence, why I suggested maybe whos' who type project within the WMF bounds that would serve this better?)
    And I would emphasis that why WP is not being racist or discriminary to you as an editor, only your contributions, is that if you also edited in articles that were outside underrepresented topics, where there was plenty of sourcing, in addition to your attempts to bring underrepresented topics to mainspace (assuming all contributions made in good faith), we'd still readily accept the other contributions, as your contributions int he underrepresented topic area against have no impact on you as an editor or affect your other contributions. This might be a point to try to get across to new editors better: that working in an article area that is better covered in sources as your first experience rather than something obscure is likely going to make your initial editing experience better, or that if you opt to spend all your time in underrepresented topics that you're likely to see a lot of difficulty getting your topics into mainspace because of the known systematic bias and provide resources to groups that might be able to help. But to the point: none of this is reflecting on any racism or discrimination on the editor as a person themselves, only their contribution.
    This is probably where a lot of new editors do leave WP early because they don't understand that WP makes this distinction between the editor and their contribution. They seem their edits reverted, and feel that we've slighted them as a person and run off. Again, maybe we can set up our newbie documentation better to make is clear that just because they were reverted, or their article wasn't accepted, that they would feel bad about themselves. This might help make it seem less like we have any racism/discrimination occurring from that point of view. But there's only so much we can force a new editor to read before they hit "publish" for the first time, and there will always be some that don't see a word of that , and then come running calling a reversion of their edit as "censorship" or "racism" or whatever to an ANI board, which is obviously no the case. --Masem (t) 16:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've started a discussion of the "Who's Who" idea here, as this section is getting unwieldy. 2601:194:300:130:F405:9C39:A641:A0B2 (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC) <- Same anon, different IP[reply]
    (Apologies for not responding yet. I had several unexpected visitors yesterday.)
    First off, I want to say that I’m engaging on Jimmy’s talk page to have a dialog about a topic that I believe to be of utmost importance to the success of Wikipedia. I understand that racism is an ugly word and something that people want to distance themselves from. But in my view, organization and people who now pause and reflect about the ways that they perpetuate racism will be viewed in a positive way. Here and now, I encourage others to look deeper into the way that words and practices result in racism in our movement orgs and to provide a safe space for reflection about how change could happen.
    Next, I want to make clear that I’m not an expert on institutional racism, structural racism, and systemic racism, but I did deliberately study the topic of racism over the course of a decade as an adult at a university to gain a better understanding of why racial inequity is persisting in major organizations (in particular health care orgs) in the United States. After I began editing Wikipedia in 2005, I expanded my studies and reading in order to gain a better understanding why Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is failing to meet the mission of providing free access to the sum of all human knowledge. Why does Wikipedia continue to attract a narrow demographic of people making it impossible to create unbiased content? How do the sociotechnical structures create barriers to participation?
    I can see that recognizing and correcting the flaws that allow for systemic racism in Wikipedia will improve the lives of millions of people and change the course of human history. I’m not here to argue point by point for a win, or have anyone’s ideas dismissed as irrelevant because they are based on emotion, or someone's views declared invalid by the majority on this page. This approach is not going to move us toward having a community that is more welcoming of people who are underrepresented in the Wikimedia movement and on English Wikipedia.
    I believe the vast majority people in the movement are not racist or sexist at heart and are capable of meeting the challenge. We need to make it a priority to look deeper into all of our processes and policies to see how they are impediments towards diversity and inclusion.
    I also request that we show empathy for people who express concern about racism and other types of injustice especially as they share their stories.
    I understand that some of these items I identify below are challenging to change based on the traditions of the movement. But it is essential that we look to the future instead of the past if we want to achieve our mission.
    • The success of Wikipedia is largely based on volunteerism where well educated men from North America and Western Europe are spending their leisure time creating article content and enforcing policies. Niche paying jobs like Wikipedians in Residence and ED, Event Coordinators, and Trainers are limited to a tiny segment of the community. Programs that allow for compensation by way of stipends or jobs to create content are regularly quickly dismissed by the majority of the community as undermining volunteerism. There are many cultures or subcultures that do not allow for leisure time to spend engaging with Wikipedia. People of color are significantly more affected by this. Because this is a known fact, I believe that this is an example of systemic/institutional/structural racism because our community has devalued the significance of lack of leisure in people of color from creating Wikipedia content and kept it as a barrier to creating content.
    • The moriturum/slow movement toward growing larger new affiliate Chapters is resulting in the more people of color being in smaller affiliates known as User groups. These smaller groups have smaller budgets resulting in a disporpatate amount of funds and resources continuing to go to the existing Chapters affiliates.. I have concerns that this overly cautious approach to funding affiliates who are in parts of the world that are underrepresented in the Wikimedia movement is rooted in systemic racism. This affects the ability of these groups to do the amount of training and recruitment needed to bring in a more diverse group of users.
    • The nobility policy needs to be reevaluated because it is not working. Far too many articles about people of color that have encyclopedia type content are deleted because of lack of understanding of their relevance to their culture. We own this problem and need to find the solution instead of placing the blame with the outside world.
    I'm sure that some of these are hard to accept, especially on first reflection. But I hope that we can open a dialog about them in the coming months. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 00:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @FloNight: Thank you for your continued engagement. I too hope something productive can come from these discussions.
    racism is an ugly word and something that people want to distance themselves from True, but not relevant to this discussion. As I stated above, referring to systemic bias as "racism" is simply incorrect and leads to confusion. You insist that we not dismiss concerns rooted in emotion, yet this seems just like an attempt to dismiss an argument because (you claim, despite evidence to the contrary) it's based on emotion.
    I agree with you, in spirit, on many points. Systemic bias is one of the most serious and widespread issues affecting the content of the encyclopedia. Finding effective methods to further reduce the effects of systemic bias would greatly improve Wikipedia, and thus the experience of millions of people who use it.
    As to your first bullet point, it is true, and unsurprising, that the editors of the English Wikipedia are mostly from English-majority countries, and that this contributes to systemic bias. Increasing editor participation from other parts of the world would help reduce the effects of systemic bias. I do not, however, understand how this would be considered "racism." People may not be able to contribute due to a lack of time or resources, but their ethnicity is not what prevents them from contributing. The same applies to people in the ethnic majorities who happen to be poor, busy, or uneducated. Nobody is barred from the English Wikipedia on the basis of race.
    I can't speak to your second bullet point, although like many in the community, I think there needs to be greater transparency and accountability with how the WMF applies their ever-increasing budgets.
    I disagree strongly with your last bullet point. The notability policy is one the most fundamental aspects of Wikipedia. Notability is not a measure of importance. Articles are not deleted because someone thinks they lack "relevance." Notability is purely a matter of sourcing, and whether sources are available. This does put many cultures at a disadvantage, because they may lack the well-documented and widely available sources as had in the western world. But Wikipedia, by design, can only contain information available in reliable sources. To change that would mean that Wikipedia is no longer a tertiary source, and thus, no longer an encyclopedia. There are no easy solutions to this. All we can do is make the effort to locate, access, and promote reliable sources that cover the topics areas in which we're lacking. Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation could fund and promote projects to improve access to reliable sources in developing countries, or even to create new reliable sources of information (ie, help to publish books and promote local media). But these solutions are tangential to Wikipedia itself.
    And therein lies the crux of my contention. Changing Wikipedia won't solve problems that aren't actually Wikipedia problems. The WMF and the Wikipedia community can exert their influence on the outside world in ways that benefit Wikipedia, but Wikipedia, by design, shouldn't be exerting it's influence on anything. It's very tempting to think that the solution to these problems might be as simple as changing a few lines of code, or a couple of guidelines, or reallocating some budget, but the issues driving the problems are far larger than Wikipedia. It is absolutely worth the effort to improve access to information and increase representation online for marginalized groups, and I applaud those who do so. But changing Wikipedia, in an attempt to change the world, will not only have minimal effect on the world, but would also result in massive collateral damage to Wikipedia. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ^^^ IP here has captured what I was going to reply with. Particularly with #1, we really need to not call this racism or discrimination. That's systematic bias we work as hard as possible as a volunteer project to convince editors and whatever outside forces (like school projects and editing drives) to help correct but it is not going to be a correction that happens naturally. But it is not racism and calling it that hurts this discussion. And the point on notability is spot out (outside that it is a guideline and not policy and we have some wiggle room at times) - it all starts with sourcing and that goes back to the systematic bias of where volunteers live and where the necessary sources actually are.
    A good reminder to keep in mind; WP is always considered an unfinished project. Hopefully as technology catches up, we can get more local sources digitized, making them easier to source from anywhere in the world, and then searching becomes easier, and then we can add them. We've got the framework ready for when that can happen. It is not possible now because of the systematic disparity in the world, which is nothing WP can do to fix. --Masem (t) 03:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a very interesting read, even though I disagree with much of it. The point about bias resulting from well-educated Westerners' greater leisure time is interesting. I went and checked the stats for two countries, India and Nigeria (both large enough to have clear numbers, and free enough that the WMF doesn't need to hide editor stats to protect the people there), to see how far we still have to go, and to what extent we are failing to convert readers to editors outside wealthy countries. The stats were quite far from what I was expecting: India makes up 8% of ENWP's readers and 8% of ENWP's editors, and Nigeria makes up 0.4% of ENWP's readers and 0.4% of ENWP's editors.
    I am surprised by these numbers. I don't know quite what to make of them, especially since even if lack of leisure time somehow didn't affect editing, there are plenty of other things that I would expect to affect it in the same direction. --Yair rand (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples

    User:Bob K31416 to answer your question, almost every article subject we have on politicians, judges, and athletes is less notable. Every pro athlete is automatically notable. Every run of the mill state rep, often real estate agents and small business owners, is considered notable. But these extraordinary men and women who achieved firsts and major exploits, some as former slaves, the Wikipedia community has deemed unworthy. You can come up with all the excuses you want. All of the above articles clearly meet inclusion criteria but they face an uphill battle. So yes, it's racism and if you want a scientific example here are my first three hits on a random article Jerome B. Friedman, Koala emblems and popular culture and Mali, Nepal. Yes, it's bigotry. And it's disgusting. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FloridaArmy, Re "You can come up with all the excuses you want." — Don't look at me for excuses. I'm just pondering all this stuff. There's another thread on this page, Larry Sanger: Wikipedia "scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Bob K31416 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When the left and the right are both accusing us of bias, you can be sure we're pretty close to neutral. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For the rest of the world, both Republicans and Democrats are right wing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tgeorgescu, true dat. Joe Biden's platform is closely aligned with Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union of Germany. Guy (help!) 23:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FloridaArmy, Could you give examples of articles that you created about African Americans that have been accepted? Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are lots and lots listed at User talk:FloridaArmy.--Salix alba (talk): 06:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Actions, not words

    I feel, as several above have pointed out, that our lack of coverage of minorities reflects the bias of our sources and society more than it does our editors. However, us sitting and talking about whether or not we have racism is not as useful as asking: if so, then what? For argument's sake, lets assume Wikipedia is racist. How do we fix that? What would we change? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The appropriate action to take is to accept and improve article subjects on African Americans and other unrepresented article subject groups that meet our inclusion criteria as those listed above clearly do. If someone disagrees and wants to take them to a deletion discussion all the better, as they will close strong keep and be further improved along the way. Enough with the excuses: the wrong action to take. We shouldn't need balkanization and an "African Americans in Black group" or any other special interest group to advocate for inclusion in order for these very notable subjects to be included.FloridaArmy (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They do not meet our notability guidelines based on the sources provided, that's the point of why they have been rejected at AFC. They haven't been outright deleted because there is a slim chance that there may be more sourcing there for them but they fail notability to be put into mainspace at this time. To get them into mainspace, someone needs to do the legwork to look for more sources to show that either they meet one of the subject-specific notability guidelines, or more sourcing actually exists. You cannot just handwave and claim them notable because of your person importance standard. And this is where we have to be careful, we're not calling this out as being a matter of this being African-American subjects and thus require an apparent strong goalpost for inclusion. This is being impartial to what our policy and guidelines are for sourcing. If these were about white people in the exact same positions in life with the exact same type of sourcing, we'd be also not promoting them into mainspace and asking for more sources as well. Trying to twist this back to being about WP being racist doesn't help, we know what our limitations our with the systematic bias and do our best to fight it without losing our purpose as an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 23:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem, so if someone is notable in, let's say the Philippines, but there aren't enough sources that would satisfy WP:GNG despite being notable, they aren't notable? The English Wikipedia as it is has editors who question the reliability of sources from outside the Anglosphere, so even if the policy on its face doesn't intend to perpetuate systemic racism in nature, practice suggests otherwise. Not to say that white subjects don't fail AfC, but the way the world is structured gives them advantages that allow those subjects to more easily pass AfC than, let's say, a non-white subject. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    First, we're talking en.wiki's definition of notable, not the real-world definition. If you have reliable sources from Philippine papers that would meet the GNG (independent, in-depth secondary coverage - just not necessary in English) then we'd still be able to use those for GNG notability and sourcing; we don't discriminate against foreign-language sources. One key factor though is that en.wiki's definition of notability is not the same as the other sister wikipedias. Those other wikipedia may help point point to sourcing but just because an article exists in those doesn't mean we'd have an article. --Masem (t) 22:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that this is systemic racism, not institutional, though for some that’s a matter of little distinction given the democratic nature of this project. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We would first need to know in what ways Wikipedia is racist. For example, if there's a group of racist editors causing disruption or pushing their POV, then we should have policies that allow us to block them for disruption and develop a neutral point of view. But we already have that. If editors are insisting on using low-quality sources with overt racial bias, then we should develop and enforce guidelines on reliable sources. But we already have that. If we can get some better examples of this supposed racism, we might be able to devise targeted solutions to the problems. But changing Wikipedia won't solve problems that aren't actually Wikipedia problems. The evidence thus far suggests that the issue lies outside Wikipedia, with the available reliable sources. Wikipedia, by its very nature as a tertiary source, is a victim, not a perpetrator. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CaptainEek, I don't think Wikipedia is racist (though we occasionally turn over a stone and find a racist here). We do have systemic bias, and always have had. Guy (help!) 23:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a lot to digest here, and I'm still digesting...for the moment I wanted to zero in on CaptainEek's comment, above, about how to fix racism/bias.

    One thing I do, when I consider what subjects I want to edit: I look for scholarly dictionaries or encyclopedias on undercovered topics that will at least help me establish a foundation of notability for my articles. See Fati Mariko for an example (a couple of other Nigerien topics as well). They may not help me overcome the sourcing issue raised by Sky Harbor, but I hope they will at least keep such articles away from AfD. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Article reviews on FloridaArmy's Talk Page

    I looked at FloridaArmy's Talk Page and found reviews of the account's many submissions, including 30 archives! And the FloridaArmy account is only a year and a half old. This account is an extremely prolific article creator.

    I certainly couldn't look through all of the reviews, but as I started to look at the reviews on the current FloridaArmy Talk Page I didn't see a pattern of racism. There are so many articles in the 30 archives that I'm not surprised that someone could pick and choose the relatively small list that we were shown for the claim that Wikipedia is racist, which may be a misrepresentation. I'll wait to hear from FloridaArmy before deciding what to think of this. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Subjects related to African Americans and the African diaspora are far and away the hardest to get accepted. Even after they have been accepted they are the ONLY ones I've had dragged to deletion discussions. As the lengthy list of excuses above makes clear, subjects about Black people are largely unwelcome on Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see it. Good luck with your articles. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to demonstrate they are being rejected because of the subject matter. And to do that, you need to find articles of near equivalent "quality" in terms of the sourcing, the person of the topic of the article in terms of their status in life, and other similarities except race, and show that we routinely keep those at AFDs (or at AFC, do not challenge them and let them go to mainspace), as to show we are implemented a bias that is beyond the systematic bias related to sourcing. We've already established there's a sourcing bias against minorities, you need to normalize that out to proof that WP has its own bias beyond that. --Masem (t) 04:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FloridaArmy, you've done nothing to establish your assertion. If you feel that you can do that, Masem has provided a framework. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that AFC inherently will have a slightly higher "bar" for notability. Probably the biggest reason is that a reviewer has to put themselves on the line to say "this is wp:notable" for it to pass, and that other people may be looking at their decision later and so are probably more likely to "play it safe" and make sure it is not borderline. Whereas, later on it needs somebody to decide "this is not notable" to AFD it. So the borderline ones are less likely to make it through AFC. Also because AFC might be a bit of a teaching / mentoring area for new editors, where holding one up for improvement or finding more sources for wp:notability could be seen as a part of the teaching / mentoring process. North8000 (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A new WikiProject?

    After stating "We shouldn't need... an "African Americans in Black group," FloridArmy has created Wikipedia:WikiProject People in Black, seemingly by copying Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red (without attribution, oof). I note that a less ambiguous name might be "WikiProject:Black People in Red," and that we already have Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora, who should probably be involved with anything like this. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Good point about attribution. My mistake. Hopefully anyone who thinks Wikipedia should cover notable subjects related to African Americans and the African Diaspora will sign on. Sad that it's needed. But as the discussion above shows, it clearly is needed. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming that you mean wp:notable, that is already the norm, and you've done nothing to support your claim otherwise. Repeating the accusation (as you again did implicitly again in the above post ) does nothing to support the accusation. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Update of article draft list in OP

    Six articles in FloridaArmy's original list have been accepted. Here's the updated list with the accepted articles indicated without a bullet.

    Vince Proby
    Lucius Brooks

    Hamilton High School (Memphis, Tennessee)

    Thomas Cardozo
    Lawrence Lindell

    Ferdinand Gaynair

    I did a little editing on the Thomas Cardozo article. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Effective use of false racism charge

    It looks like FloridaArmy just used a false charge of racism to help get articles through the AFC process. Reminds me of a scene from Beverly Hills Cop. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please use the deletion discussion process to eliminate any article on African Americans or their history you don't think belongs on Wikipedia. Your argument that Wikipedia isn't racist but that we are correct to omit these article subjects from mainspace is farcical. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say "that we are correct to omit these article subjects from mainspace". In fact, I even edited one of your articles that I got interested in.
    I support your efforts to create articles related to African Americans. It's a noble project that you have done magnificently and I encourage you to continue creating articles and also to expand articles that you created. I just think your racism charge was wrong and that it was unfair to editors at AFC who are working hard for Wikipedia. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    KP: I recently saw an article that zoomed through AfC, fat, lush in its fullness of facts, repeated as information, then reformulated (again) and restated with different quotes from different parts of the same serialized publication (each cited separately), decorated with copyright violating images, and replete with some amusing SEO name-positioning. Insta-Pass! Being a bit more prolix (wordy) might get you through AfC more easily, I don't know, FA. What I am sure of is that I'm glad you & KP got me to read that JSTOR article about Thomas Cardozo. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 20:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Progress of one of the list articles Thomas Cardozo

    May 2, 2020 — Last time the article was declined by AFC. [1]

    May 29, 2020 — Article posted here in list of declined articles. [2]

    May 31, 2020 — Article accepted. [3]

    June 5, 2020 — State of article now. [4]

    Bob K31416 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    June 9, 2020 — Thomas Cardozo article upgraded from start-class to C-class and mentioned by a media organization.[5] Bob K31416 (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    More evidence of racism

    I've now been hauled before ANI, as I was after creating stubs on the African American Reconstruction Era politicians of Georgia. The hearing resulted in my being severely restricted.

    Here we go again. The articles used as examples of my horrible editing include entries on African American politicians who were elected in North Carolina. Many were murdered soon after. But User:Guy doesn't want them included unless they are DYk length.

    But No No No. No racism on Wikipedia. We can't have an editor adding entries on these subjects but it's absolutely not racism. No racism here folks. Absolutely no racism. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FloridaArmy, bullshit. The problem is the creation of large numbers of undersourced stubs. You did that in mainspace, it overwhelmed AfD, so you were told to send them through AfC. Rather than banning you form creating articles (we have done that before), I advocate that you are reminded to at least put enough effort in to meet the standard of ...And?
    If you are smart you will realise that this way you get more articles to mainspace and less drama. Which, it seems to me, is what everyone in that ANI wants. Guy (help!) 16:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, undersourced stubs on African American politicians, Cameroonian cuisine, and the military school where the Netherlands trains leaders of its former colonies. YOU ARE RACISTS. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is name calling. Most Wikipedians are not racists, if this is defined as prejudice or discrimination based upon race or ethnicity. Various people have pointed out that trying to interpret WP:GNG and making good faith decisions based on it is not racist.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @FloridaArmy: Calm down. There is no excuse for personal attacks. You're just giving them a reason to block you. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an established problem that African Americans or notable academics may not have enough secondary sourcing for a decent length article. We have been through this many times before. Once again, systemic bias is not the same thing as racism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let the racists block me.
    Here we are on Blackout Day when we're supposed to be honoring George Floyd, an African American father killed with a knee on his neck as he begged for air and his life for 8 1/2 minutes. And a large group of editors is working stop me from creating articles on subjects about African Americans. The examples THEY targeted are Draft:James Martin (South Carolina), Draft:Solomon Dill, Draft:Joseph Crews and Draft:Lucius Wimbush. Guess what these people all have in common?
    Let the racists block me. I'm not going to calm down or be quiet. I was attacked for asserting Wikipedia is racist. Not enough evidence. Honestly what more evidence do you need??? So let these Racists block me. It will be fitting. Especially going down after this discussion on Jimbo's page. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @FloridaArmy: And how will playing the martyr help your cause? 71.234.210.113 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm upset and angry over the Killing of George Floyd but it isn't helpful to throw around accusations of racism when an article for creation request is turned down.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What do they have in common: they were Republicans. FWIW: I see the two black men's entries are now in mainspace, while the two white guys' stubs are still drafts. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 17:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SashiRolls, the determination to ascribe motives is rather depressing. I hope that no experienced Wikipedian would be unaware of the fact that Republicans were historically progressive, and that the link between the Republican party and racism was a deliberate policy to hoover up disaffected racist Dixiecrats after the Civil Rights Act. Guy (help!) 10:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't mind, I'm going to steer clear of the mudslinging, but I'm not clear what the purpose of your "history lesson" is. I mentioned that the four pages were about Republicans because the tacit assumption was that they were about African-Americans. The pages above are related to the Reconstruction Era, which ended in the late 1870s. By the 1880s, the bank & railroad party (i.e. the Democrats) had consolidated power in the South with the aid of allied paramilitary groups (White League, Red Shirts, KKK, etc.). The Southern Strategy was several generations later (more than 20 years after Strom Thurmond's 1948 run as a Dixiecrat).
    Also, Hoover, as you may know, was not one of our better presidents. His association with the Lily-white movement helped him break the Southern block in 1928. I suppose, being British, you may have been talking about "Boss" Hoover rather than HH? :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 20:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SashiRolls, the only point was that nobody's going to reject these articles because the people were GOP, because we all know that the GOP was different back then. That's all. Guy (help!) 20:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FloridaArmy, it is rare to find any human who is entirely free of racial bias, but calling me and others racists is not going to win you a lot of friends around here. Asking for at least a minimal level of sourcing is not racist, it's Wikipedia 101. Guy (help!) 10:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FloridaArmy, I looked over there at ANI[6] and so far you haven't been restricted more than your current restriction of requiring AFC for new articles. So far it stands at 3 admins for further restriction, 5 opposed, and 1 neutral.[7] Also, they don't seem inclined to block you because they think you're a net positive for Wikipedia.
    Apparently the issue is the high rate of new article submissions by you that is difficult for AFC to keep up with. How would you feel about reducing your rate of new article submissions? You could use the extra time to expand your existing articles or expand articles before submitting them. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested the solution which is to remove the requirement I go through AfC. The community made clear that it doesn't want one or two sentence stubs so I don't by and large create those any more. Occasionally I do make exceptions. But I aim to please and always try to respect community consensus as best I am able. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, I'm not familiar with the workings of AFC. I went over there[8] to try to see how articles are chosen for review. As far as I could tell, the review of articles was voluntary. So it seems that if FloridaArmy was submitting articles at too fast a rate, editors at AFC would have the freedom not to review them. I'm probably missing something and maybe someone can help clarify. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FloridaArmy, that's not going to happen for the exact reason that the AfC drama is happening. If you can't be arsed to write enough of an article to establish why we should care, then don't write the article. I'm astounded that you are so extraordinarily passionate about having these people on Wikipedia, and yet this passion stops short of being prepared to write a proper article. Stubs were fine when we had ten thousand articles and no Draft space. Now we have millions and the expectation is that a new article will be more than a directory entry. Guy (help!) 10:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't control whether racists care about African American politicians or article subjects from Africa and Jamaica, but if the subjects meet notability criteria they should be included. I understand that not caring and not liking these subjects is widespread. Racism is a BIG problem especially here on Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bob K31416 , I can at least reply to this, not barring Guy’s response, given my familiarity with AfC. There are a multitude of factors behind the acceptance of an article, though notability as guided by the GNG is paramount. With caveats for different subject areas, and POV forks. Perhaps you could provide us links to these AfC submissions so we can comment on specifics? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FloridaArmy, here's a clue: if you write more than a single sentence, the notability question becomes obvious. Wikipedia is not a directory, and writing what look like directory entries is a recipe for drama - as you already know. A lot of us support what you do, but your militant refusal to accept the validity of any concerns does you no favours at all. Guy (help!) 11:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Personal attack removed)
    Pardon the interruption, but Guy, you seem to be familiar with the workings of AFC. Could you respond to the request for clarification in my last message? Bob K31416 (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bob K31416, I don't think it's a problem creating large numbers of articles.For under-represented communities that can be a real boon. The problem is that FA has been restricted to creating articles via AfC, due to past issues with sourcing as far as I can tell; he resents this and it's becoming increasingly difficult to conclude anything other than that he sees this as some kind of challenge, to force reviewers to either accept his word on trust (i.e. abrogate the AfC process) or pick fights with them.
    Saying, as FA does, that everybody who fails to appreciate the innate worth of every article he creates is a bigot or a racist, is profoundly unhelpful. It comes across - really rather strongly - as playing the race card. And I think if he continues to call individual editors bigots based on his own personal interpretation of their motives, rather than any objective evidence of bigotry, then I think he will end up blocked, which is a shame.
    So to answer your question: I don't think anyone cares how many articles he creates, but they need to unambiguously establish notability before he clicks Submit. The most I saw created in a day was about six. That's not so many. But it's too many to have to go and look up the subject in your library every time. Guy (help!) 11:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, Re your comment, "But it's too many to have to go and look up the subject in your library every time."
    If any reviewer feels that way, doesn't the reviewer have the freedom not to review FloridaArmy's articles? Bob K31416 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bob K31416, not that easy. There's a backlog, and the backlog doesn't identify the author. So you keep opening articles and finding one short paragraph with a couple of passing mentions as sources, and no real indication of actual substantive notability. And as you see here, you get unbridled hostility if you don't accept the article.
    Reading between the lines, FA resents having to go through AfC and resents even more any submission that is not immediately accepted because he resents having to go through AfC in the first place. And being frustrated, the then calls people bigots, liars, racists and what-have-you, which makes matters worse. Guy (help!) 20:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, regarding your comment, "There's a backlog, and the backlog doesn't identify the author. So you keep opening articles and finding one short paragraph with a couple of passing mentions as sources, and no real indication of actual substantive notability."
    After a reviewer opens an article, can the reviewer decline to proceed and return the article to the backlog? If a reviewer can do that, the reviewer can note the article title to avoid it the next time. Seems like this would significantly cut down the time involved. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    • Liars and bigots do not belong on Wikipedia. If my article creations on African American, Jamaican, and African related subjects are upsetting to some that is their problem. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      FloridaArmy, no, the problem is your refusal to write enough of an article that AfC reviewers c an easily see that the subject is notable.
      You know this. You know this is why you have to send articles via AfC. At this point you are doing a stunningly accurate impression of someone who wants to make it as hard as possible for AfC reviewers, because they resent having to go via AfC. And the irony is that both issues would be fixed if you just took the time to write a couple of decent paragraphs on the subject before hitting submit.
      AfC reviewers would stop bitching, and the AfC restriction would probably be lifted.
      Please meet people halfway and at least establish, in the article, why they should care. Guy (help!) 11:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that it's a bit of a shambles to post an article with an erroneous birthdate to Jimbotalk... given the prevailing attitude about "completeness". Personally, (and yes I know this goes against current policy) I would prefer to run across sparse but interesting entries that need "correction" because I know it can be fun to "fix" their wiki-surfaces without changing the quality of what counts (the references)... someone being "wrong" on the internet can indeed be a motivating force some mauvaises langues might even say that's part of a "movement" strategy. Just look how solid that article has become in the last day... it's not just the birthdate that's been repaired for Mr. Q95967914!
    I would submit to FA that JzG's statement the AfC restriction would probably be lifted might be worth pushing on at ANI (if that's still open) before piling up the briars & ligots for a self-immolation on Jimbotalk. It's lame to have to go through AfC when you like to work on edge cases. But your detractors are not all racists, some of them probably just like standardized punctuation and accurate birthdates (when they're in the refs)... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 20:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues in Systematic Racism and Wikipedia and Notability

    Contributors:

    • Wikipedia makes systematically certain that no one has to know the race of any contributor, and for (almost all?) contributors their race is unknown. Question: Why is that not enough to ensure that racism is not systematic? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • One comment here: there are some editors that based solely on their editing patterns one can make a guestimate of their gender and/or race and/or geolocation. An editor that focuses on biographies of women? Good chance that editor is a woman. That said calling this out at any point if the editor hasn't already offered that information, short of behavioral issues, is an absolutely no-no under OUTING, but I know over time we've had cases involving editors mistreating other editors based on such implied behavior from editing patterns. When we know this is happening, we call it out as disruptive and put a stop to it. This may play a tiny bit into the systematic bias aspect - the ones that tend to raise this issue - even if they don't mention their gender/race/etc. - may reveal some insight, and other editors might call them out on this, which is not a good thing. In these types of discussions, we have to be very aware of not trying to make this a personal issue to the editor raising the question. --Masem (t) 23:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    African American topics:

    • From both personal experience writing and just looking around Wikipedia, Wikipedia does cover African American topics. Question: Does that not prove there is no systematic bias in this area? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are multiple books/encyclopedias/journals/archives on African Americans in multiple fields. Question: As a systematic access problem to those resources, how can access be systematically remedied? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability:

    • "Notable" may be one of the worse concept-names there is -- it causes confusion, anger, and sometimes, it seems, even pain (as in, 'Obviously exceptional African American person is not notable!' Response: 'What the hell is wrong with you?'). Question: Why does not Wikipedia stop leading with its ass, and get closer to what it wants to discuss, something like, "Topic sourcing requisites", short name "WP:TOPIC-ABILITY"? Followed by, "General Topic-source Guideline" (GTG)? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it absolutely is classism. Race is a standby for class in a fair number of instances. My experience is that bourgeois snobbery is rampant here. (Most editors are not actually rich or even have a rich-person education, but you know: they identify with the ruling class.) But... I mean the Wikipedia is rampant with young, white, first-world, college people. That makes sense, so I'd expect bourgeois snobbery here. But... I mean, a person can transcend that, you know. But most people won't, either here or in real life. It's like water to a fish: you might as well convince a fish that they're wet as convince most Wikipedia editors that their mindset is blinded by class bias. And most of the rest are proud of it.
    As to the subject a hand... a normal person would think "Here is an entity that is clearly notable (a band, let's say). We have evidence that huge crowds attend their concerts, their sales figures are thru the roof, they started a whole new genre of music, plus they're preternaturally skilled. However, nobody writes about them. They're from Franistan where the government absolutely forbids writing about pop music, and anyway the country is small, poor, and mostly illiterate, and anyway there's not even a decent machine translator for the Franistanian language. BUT, they're very well known and important anyway, in Franistan. Since that's so, our job here is dig up whatever references we can to support at least a small article about them. And to that end we should bend our standards some if needed... after all, we're not rule-bound here. We're here to serve the public."
    But, like "reliable source" or "consensus" or many other terms, "notable" has a somewhat fuzzy relationship to the term as used by normal people in real life. To a Wikipedian, "Notable" means "has refs (to our standards)". That sorta kinda mostly works out -- genuinely notable entities often do have sufficient refs, but not always, so the paradigm breaks down sometimes, especially at the margins.
    A functional response to that is "well then let's refine our rules to match reality" rather than "let's ignore reality when it doesn't fit our rules", but... it is what it is. People, you know? Herostratus (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Herostratus: This young white college stereotype is old and ridiculous. Have you ever been to a Wikimedia Meetup? How many young white college kids you see Wikipedia:Meetup/Gallery? And it looks like some Franistani revolutionaries need to make work of their oppressive government. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 23:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yer all wet. Herostratus (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks TryKid [dubious – discuss]
    these photos are wonderful....the happiest most engaging bunches of people I've seen in at least 50 years....truly a beautiful gallery of groups of happy people from all over the place. These photos say it all about Wikipedia's fantastic influence and accomplishments. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    People sometimes ask why Wikipedia has copious articles about characters in The Simpsons but not an African American activist or a female academic. The sad fact is that it may be easier to write and source an article about Mr. Burns than it is to write an article about these people. So it is time to accept that WP:GNG is not perfect, and can produce systemic bias. This is not the same thing as racism or sexism, although it can appear like that to some people.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A point I've made time & again, based on my own experience. Why are there so few articles about Federal government ministers of Ethiopia, some of the most notable people in that country? Because despite a lot of effort, I could not find enough information to write more than a two-sentence stub on them. (And at the time I felt Wikipedia had far too many stubs, so I was loath to add more.) The easiest articles to write on Ethiopia was 19th & early 20th century history -- the time of European Exploration & Colonization -- & perhaps the least useful for defining the unique character of that country. (Even sources for history of the last 30 years were inadequate; one of the reasons I finally gave up writing articles on those topics.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That said - certainly some of the top level posts in the government of Ethiopia are notable as government positions, and it would not be unreasonable in a standalone article on such a position to list all those who have held the post, which would give use redirect targets for any individual otherwise not notable otherwise. We'd not be able to include full bio details but this is where additional references for that person can be included. --Masem (t) 20:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to do that. Online resources about details of the Ethiopian government (which is what I was depending on at the time) are sketchy, to put it mildly. For example, there was one government website that appeared to be the product of an afternoon's experimentation with IIS. Print sources, on the other hand, can be often be critically out of date. In short, in some subject areas of Wikipedia one must devote a great deal of time & effort to find the needed content. And the Foundation could offer some form of help in these efforts. (There are ways to help editors besides money, but finding the right person who is willing to help is often a discouraging challenge.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ianmacm, if we relax GNG based on subjective "under coverage", I am reasonably confident we will have 50 articles on obscure Christian worship bands for every one on Nigerian scientists. Guy (help!) 11:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting relaxing the GNG rules, but have pointed out that the reliance on the sourcing that exists will sometimes lead to systemic bias.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you both agree that GNG is correct, then you may both agree that Wikipedia is not at fault for any bias that is caused by limited sources for some subjects. I mention this because when systemic bias is mentioned, there seems to be an implication that Wikipedia is at fault for something it has no control over, i.e the available sources. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Concrete examples

    I think that anyone who questions the prevalence of racism on Wikipedia should probably spend 5 minutes reading the talkpages of our articles on, well, pretty much any unarmed African-American shot by the police. Or the archives of Talk:Barack Obama. Or how about the time when we had an editor who was quite literally a member of the KKK—he uploaded his self-produced pictures of cross burnings, which he insisted we call cross lightings, in the interest of neutrality—and the Wikipedia community was like, "you can't ban him just because his views are unpopular!" We actually had an admin say that it was a good thing to have him editing our articles on the KKK, because of his subject-matter expertise ("OrangeMarlin called for a Klan member to recuse himself from editing the Klan article. But really, who better?") Think, for a moment, about the way a non-white editor might feel about our embrace of outright KKK members into our community under the guise of "neutrality" and "objectivity".

    But back to the present day. Take a look at Talk:Ronald Reagan. Reagan was recorded on the Nixon tapes mocking African diplomats as "monkeys". (His exact words to Nixon were: "To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!") This portion of the Nixon tapes was suppressed during Reagan's lifetime, to protect his image, but was released a year or two ago, attracting substantial coverage in reliable sources (e.g. The Atlantic, New Yorker, TIME, BBC, etc), and some scholarly work has incorporated it into an understanding of Reagan's racial views. However, there is an ongoing, and likely successful, effort to suppress any mention of this material in our article on Reagan. The excuses range from the desperately silly ("This was a private conversation and there is no evidence Reagan knew it was being recorded", "this was a decade before he became President") to the outright shameful (minimizing it as "an unguarded and foolish remark in a private setting"). The article is full of fulsome trivia about Reagan, so concerns about notability are implausible. Anyhow, maybe we could start by committing to reject active KKK members from our ranks, and to basic honesty about notable, well-documented racist utterances from our political idols. It would be a modest start. MastCell Talk 23:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (The hits keep coming: we shouldn't include the commentary because it "was not reflective of anything (other than the man he was trying to make nice with)". Nixon made him say those racist things! I mean, who could possibly be in Nixon's company and not say racist shit? Definitely not notable and not a reflection of anything! Jimbo, you have a problem. MastCell Talk 23:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your criticism of editors who downplay racism and your connecting it to the broader problem of racial bias on Wikipedia makes editors "uncomfortable" and they feel you should be sanctioned for it per this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Masem#Uncomfortable. That, if anything, just strengthens concerns of racial bias on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the issue is near direct calling out a specific editor as a member of the KKK based on the discussion here and the Reagan page, which is near a NPA and absolutely not allowed. --Masem (t) 17:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does Mastcell all out the specific editor who downplayed racism as a KKK member? I've read his comment above and all of the comments on the Reagan talk page.[9] In his comment above, he's addressing two manifestations of racial bias on Wikipedia: allowing racists to edit (a long-standing issue that has been addressed in the broader literature about Wikipedia) and downplaying racism (an issue that reared its ugly head in the currently active RfC on the Reagan article). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The KKK-member editor was awhile ago, and he's long-since banned, but he was welcomed and valued by a substantial portion of the Wikipedia community despite his very open affiliation. He even had other editors affiliated with the KKK come to his page and leave supportive messages. His presence was defended in the interest of inclusivity of "unpopular" viewpoints, while people who objected were derided as "politically correct", irrational, or biased against unpopular viewpoints. I brought it up because it demonstrates how we as a community approach racial issues. I don't see any reason to think much has changed.

    Separately, there is an obviously bad-faith effort to suppress well-documented racial issues right now, at the Reagan talkpage, and so far the major concern seems to be tone-policing me for bringing it up. Seriously, go check it out; editors are arguing that mocking African people as "monkeys" is somehow not racist ([10]). MastCell Talk 18:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's the clear implication of the second half (I am ignoring the first part that deals with the long-past editors). Mastcell points out the past cases (which I will assume were true), and then goes on about their current problems at the Reagan page, and then says that "maybe we could start by committing to reject active KKK members from our ranks". No, they are not calling out any specific editor, but it is very clear between the lines which specific editor they are having problems with (since we know this is from the Reagan talk page) and why they are commenting here on this. It is clear as day who that editor is. I'm not saying there's anything wrong about the downplaying of racial issues, and I agree we need to be careful about suppressing information where appropriate, but you do not go around calling any other editor racist or the like , even indirectly, like this. WP:NPA is an absolutely policy, and if you cannot see the issue with your comment and implication, that's not good. --Masem (t) 18:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you've spent a lot of time and effort tone-policing me, and made zero effort to confront the guy who sees no problem with referring to African people as "monkeys", makes my case more eloquently than anything else I could possibly say. MastCell Talk 18:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem is always very concerned that we never refer to harassers and other deplorables as exactly what they are but only seems to care when his blp concerns affect deplorable folk but not their victims.--Jorm (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This has crossed the line into incivility. --Yair rand (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I agree with both Jorm and MastCell here. Masem was only brought here by someone who is on the other side of the argument at the Reagan talk page, and only seems to be concerned about BLPs when its someone on the opposite political spectrum of what most would consider the left. I think he should recuse himself from policing the politics area of Wikipedia as he lets his obvious bias cloud his judgement. This is just from an outsider looking in, so please feel free to ignore. Valeince (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I will look for any case where we're not being neutral in how we use labels, and not only to BLP but bios and entities. The problem is, the problems arise nearly exclusively on the right, there is rarely a case of left-leaning labels that even come up for discussion, let alone exist. BUT this situation has zero to do with BLP or anything like that. It is an editor nearly calling out another editor on NPA for being a KKK member, and I dropped a caution on their talk page about getting close. If it was calling out the editor for being Antifa, all other factors the same, I'd do it again. --Masem (t) 00:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think that there are more labels for the right than for the left exactly? Could it be that they are accurate descriptors of behavior that is typically championed by the right than the left? There are more pseudoscience positions held by people in power on the right, examples being climate change and the fact the earth wasn't created in 6 days. There are more people engaging in the hate filled, racist rhetoric and ridiculous conspiracy theories peddled by the right then the left, examples including "pizzagate", the 75 year old protester that was recently abused by the cops being an "antifa provocateur", calls for journalists to be hunted due to reporting on false statements made by the President. There are more reports on the right engaging blatant falsehoods, emboldened by Trump who has such a documented detachment from the truth that he is fact checked on nearly every remark. Now, this isn't to say that the left hasn't had its issues as well, and when they come up they are documented based on what's been reported, but to say that they should be treated equal when they are clearly not is why I think you are not neutral in this matter. Valeince (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And of course, I've never said we can't use labels, but they should be used in a neutral, impartial manner, as BLP, LABEL and several other policies say. It is really really easy in the climate today to stack up label atop label on certain people easily supported by the media (the scarlet letter effect I've talked of). That's fine, but we still are an encyclopedia writing for the long term, and we have to working from a much more neutral stance to be impartial. Doesn't mean you can't use labels, but they shouldn't in Wikivoice (eg they need attribution or some clear statement that it's a common label and that need to be backed up by consensus on talk pages), and shouldn't be the first thing said about a person or group until we've had a chance to actually state who or what they objectively are. That's it, 90% of the time. So yes, most of the time, this is only coming up with persons and groups with right-leaning labels, but point me to where left-leaning labels are misused in the same way, I'll be there. A lot of editors are angered (rightly so) by whats happening externally and the inability do anything about it - except on WP - but we are still committed to being an encyclopedia and we can't let feelings like that cloud judgement which happens far far too often nowadays. --Masem (t) 00:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've stated at an ANI thread and at MastCell's talk page, I have been shown I was overzealous on the warning related to a possible NPA, so I'm being clear as well to publicly apologize to MastCell for that as well as to consider that matter closed from my side. (There's a separate ANI issue related to the Reagan talk page that i'm not inolved with). --Masem (t) 04:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What matters is that editors here don't engage in racism or other problematic behavior toward each other. It is wrong to ban editors who stick to all the rules w.r.t. editing here including proper conduct on talk pages, just because their views on certain subject matters is considered to be racist, homophobic, misogynist, antisemitic, etc. Count Iblis (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Count Iblis, I think you are missing a point here: advocating for content supportive of bigotry, however politely, is offensive and distressing to editors who are victims of bigotry. A civil POV-pusher advocating, say, the Lost Cause narrative, is more of a problem than one advocating free energy conspiracy theories. Guy (help!) 06:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Monsters are due on Wikipedia. So gather your bricks and rocks for later, grab a bag of popcorn for now, and sit back and enjoy this clip. [11] Bob K31416 (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MastCell, what can you do once racism has been mainstreamed? We still have the endless circular arguments at white privilege and race and intelligence, to name but two, based on fringe sources that are given spurious legitimacy, occasionally in sources that are nominally reliable. Guy (help!) 06:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, I think there's plenty we can do in our roles as Wikipedians, and in line with site policy. When we observe people making obviously bad-faith arguments, we can call them out and stop lending them credibility. We can examine our sympathies, and wonder why we immediately jump to the defense of people who make or excuse racist comments without considering the impact on people affected by those comments. Perhaps most importantly, we can resist cynical efforts to rebrand basic human decency as "political correctness", and we can push back against half-witted invocations of totalitarianism and "witch hunts" from people who are not used to being held accountable for the shit they say. MastCell Talk 19:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    However, on the opposite site of the problem, and this is related to the matter above, is that not every editor action that is made that works "against calling out racism" (for lack of a better way to describe it) can be considered racist, because there are many other valid reasons that action may/may not be appropriate depending on the situation. Totally separate case, but this is what I experienced when I was trying to argue for a neutral approach to the Gamergate controversy (where at that point, one angle of the story was the instigators of the controversy were pushing an angle about rape and the like against named BLP, and the talk page was being bombarded with IP/new accounts trying to push for inclusion of this story), I was called out as a "rape apologist" on the argument that I must support the rape angle to make the article neutral, which, of course f'ing not. Policies like NPOV are there for a reason and at the time, weren't being followed.
    In the case above, one of the editors stated that the material related to the new sound bites on the tapes didn't have due weight on the main Reagan page, a point I'd agree with given how little Reagan and racism had been discussed anywhere on the main bio page, but did have a clear section on his presidency and issues page. (This is compatible to the a previous section here on Jimbo's page about what Obama "conspiracy theories" we don't cover on Obama's main page and where they really are more appropriate) Where the new tape material should be incorporated is a fully appropriate question to ask, and not including it on the main Reagan page but elsewhere shouldn't be taken as a racist editor action (though the stance ... "utterly inappropriate" I think was the wording OTTOMH, was definitely a bit strong and came off dismissive, though in context of further discussion, it was clear what the intent was). End of the day, around that entire situation, trouts for several including myself, as there was a better way to approach it.
    But my point relative to this discussion is that identifying things like racism, bigotry, misogamy , or anything similar cannot easily be seen through a single or a handful of edits, and it usually takes a pattern to identify It does not help WP or any other editors to jump to the conclusion that because an editor disagrees about the singular inclusion of what appears to be a significant racial issue, that that editor is racist or perpetuating to keep any claims of racism out of the target article. There are fair encyclopedic questions that are asked that might be difficult discussion points that one might not like the answer to but that's why we have talk pages that we ask for civil behavior and understanding this is open debate from a global community. We absolutely do want to be vigilant against any form of editor-derived racism/etc. but not so hyperfocused to mistake every possible slight as a racist action. Over long-term or multiple actions, we absolutely do want to be careful. I do hope that more editors out of the protests from the last few months have a keener awareness of the issues around racism and other similar matters as to be aware to be more careful with their words in such discussions as to not appear so readily dismissive of issues of high racial importance, but that still doesn't change other encyclopedia policies like UNDUE as well that can come into play. --Masem (t) 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "usually takes a pattern to identify It" And yet despite well documented acts of outright racism, racist speech, racist political policies, reliable sourcing going back decades, we still dont call Donald Trump what he is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a label for a BLP, even with something that disliked by the global community, we can't say it in Wikivoice, but the first sentence of Racial views of Donald Trump calls it out as closely and plainly as we can say it factually. (And I was speaking obviously of editors on WP, and here calling any editor directly as a racist or having racism intents, you'd better be ready to back that up with evidence.) --Masem (t) 14:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I could make a perfectly plausible argument for a redirect pointing at Trump for the phrase 'Racist-in-chief' given the amount of sources that refer to him as that. It even brings up articles about trump in search engines that make no actual mention of the phrase. RE Editors: It would actually be fairly trivial to source evidence of racist editors. Its already been done repeatedly on other websites as you well know. The barrier to doing it here is that large sections of the community clutch the fiction that everyone is entitled to their opinions and shouldnt be shunned because of them. I could pick an editor, show years worth of edits deliberately anti-(insert colour, ethnicity, country here) and it would be waved off as 'thats politics' or 'we cant ban people for their beliefs'. Well lets see how that pans out going forward. Its not going to be people like Mastcell or myself who get the sharp end of the pitchforks in the long run. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No racism that true men.Tbiw (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Internet Archive in trouble?

    A few months ago, news came out that some publishers have decided to sue archive.org because they opened a "emergency library" and decide to help people in these trying times. Internet Archive has really helped me and all of Wikipedia. I heard WMF wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on bullshit projects over the years? That money should have gone to IA. What is WMF doing to help Internet Archive? TryKid [dubious – discuss] 00:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The lawsuit is only over the Open Library part. Now, whether that suit will succeed or not still is up in the air but this doesn't affect the rest of the Internet Archive, outside of any financial hit that may come depending on penalties from the lawsuit. Its going to be years before that suit is resolved. --Masem (t) 00:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    TryKid, I heard WMF wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on bullshit projects over the years? Really? I heard the Earth is flat and only 6,000 years old. But I ignored it. Guy (help!) 18:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah. I shouldn't be believing things so easily. I've started re-realising that an hour or two ago. Thanks for reminding again. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 18:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You might also want to consider how effective a strategy that amounts to this really is: "Hey, Jimbo, here's something I'm worried about that you may also be intersted in. Is this something you think the WMF could help with. Also, <insult>." Even if the WMF had wasted hundreds of millions of dollars (it hasn't), that'd hardly be a very effective strategy of advocacy and persuasion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sci-Hub may be able to host archive.org should it be banned in the US. Count Iblis (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Count Iblis, don't. Please, just don't. Guy (help!) 21:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Rowling is now to the right of Gorsuch, she is awarded the Pennant of the Right and may allow Russia to possess a copy of the IA for a suitable donation or sufficiently persuasive prose. EllenCT (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    From a writers' point of view, this lawsuit is long overdue. They are engaged in thinly-veiled piracy of the "copyright is theft" mindset, using the pandemic as an excuse. I would be tempted to quit all WMF-associated activities if any of my donations were used to aid and abet the Internet Archive in their ongoing criminal activity. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ↑That. Unless and until the copyright laws are changed, what IA are currently doing is just straightforward organized crime. ‑ Iridescent 22:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah. And I here I thought Wikipedians were Fully Automated Luxury Techno-communism type of people. Disappointed. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 22:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    At last check, Wikipedians held the views that normal people hold, which includes a wide range of opinions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedians ... normal people Hahah--oh, you're serious?[FBDB] --JBL (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Barring an early settlement, the concept of controlled digital lending (the basis of the open library) is going to have its legal test from this case, as well as their argument as to why it was suspended. There are a lot of important copyright, fair use, and other key issues for copyright in the digital age this case presents. I would think it is unfair to call their work "theft" at this point given they have yet to be proven guilty of a copyright crime in court yet. --Masem (t) 23:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Without wishing to opine on the validity or lack of same with respect to this particular case, it seems unlikely to me that the Internet Archive went into their National Emergency Library program thinking it wouldn't attract attention from publishers' lawyers. It will be interesting to see how the case pans out; the suit as filed (from the NPR report) makes for an interesting read. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read through it, its clear the National Emergency Library is the straw the broke the camel's back as the authors/publishers had long had their issue with CDL as defined by the Open Library but never took the opportunity to sue. Given that the NEL seems like an obvious copyright infringement case, it made sense to challenge the principle of CDL at the same time (to cut down legal fees). Hence why I feel CDL is not a slam duck either way and will be an interesting legal challenge to follow. (And I would not be surprised that IA didn't work out the legal case to run the NEL before announcing it, given they were talking with the libraries they got the books from before starting it too. --Masem (t) 23:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know any professional writers, human beings who depend on their royalties to make a living, who do not consider this a blatant theft thinly veiled under the guise of CDL, with the veil removed using the pandemic as an excuse. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Orangemike, in my personal opinion, the whole CDL thing is an attempt by Brewster to drag copyright owners kicking and screaming into this century. From what i understand from their ideals they abhor information getting lost due to inaccessibility. They basically blame authors and publishers for making hardcopy books purposefully or by accident inaccessible or very expensive to access, when they stop distributing hardcopies. This is a problem that they think needs addressing (in law) but without forcing ppl it will not get addressed (in a way that the common man can experience). This also ties into IA, which purpose is to preserve the (usually non physical) digital works of the Internet, for which really there is also no legal base other than being a potential ‘fair’ exception. I think they overplayed their hand with the NEL, but are hoping that that will help their argument towards the public to make changes to copyright ‘for the good of humanity’. Its gonna be an interesting lawcase. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds rather Napster like. The cost of defense/damages seems a very high risk. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    TheDJ, a lot of the books being "made available" can be bought wherever you buy your e-books, so this is a specious argument. There is no excuse for stealing the authors' right to make money from the sale of their books, either in hardcopy or e-book format. Pious blather about "for the good of humanity" is a pretty feeble argument when you're talking about a pop novel or self-help bestseller. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The suit is seeking either the statutory copyright damages fee for each book that was mis-used under copyright this way (which I think was $150k per book without checking the lawsuit), or if the case is ruled against the Open Library, for all profit/revenue made from their service. And yes, when the NEL was opened, the Open Library had a position paper ready to go to argue its stance, which you can be pretty sure there was one or more lawyers giving them the goahead to launch it. And to wit, they have some case law on their side (Authors Guild v. Google) but adding the first sale doctrine to enable loaning books is what makes the legal aspect of CDL questionable. --Masem (t) 20:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem: Is there a copy of said position paper anywhere public, do you know? I'd be interested to read it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CDL position paper can be found here [12] and for the counterpoints, the filed lawsuit against the IA/Open Library is here [13]. --Masem (t) 21:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    All of this talk about intellectual property aside (& the parties suing are clearly not doing this out of altruistic concern for unfairly underpaid writers), I'll note that without the IA's use of CDL, I would not have been able to access 2 out-of-print books that I have been using to write Wikipedia articles with. (Public libraries are on hiatus, so ILL is no longer an option for me.) In other words, I've gotten more help to improve Wikipedia from Internet Archive than I have from the WMF. (As another data point, that one website Which Shall Not Be Named helped me get an article during this time without ILL -- & proving it, too, is more useful to me than the WMF.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that site Library Genesis? I don't see why it shouldn't be named, it's already quite popular. If it isn't LibGen, then it should be named even more to increase awareness about this good lesser known source. Library Genesis is named in the lead of WP:Resource exchange which I bet has helped lots of people. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 07:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's the site one commentator mentioned above, to which someone else replied "don't, please don't." (Amazing how many of these sites are springing up. To be honest, I prefer more law-abiding ones just because I'm not interested in the hassle of a "copyright infringement" lawsuit even if I think I can win it. Legal battles are very expensive.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Llywrch, IP piracy sites are a nightmare for Wikipedia. And the article on Sci-Hub is owned by fans who are really keen for it not to mention the fact that systematic violation of copyright is problematic. Guy (help!) 06:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG I'm not sure what your point is. If you are worried I'll link to a site like Sci-Hub, I have no plan of doing this. As I said I wouldn't even be looking at Sci-Hub if my local library was in operation. Or I could count on the Foundation to help with getting material to write articles with. -- llywrch (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IP piracy sites are a nightmare for Wikipedia. How exactly? Without LibGen, SciHub and other websites hosting materials that they don't have copyright for, Wikipedia would be a lot worse. These sites reduce systematic bias by giving access to knowledge to those wouldn't couldn't afford it otherwise. I certainly wouldn't have been able to get Districts of Bhutan to FL without LibGen. But I'm just a small editor; I'm sure more prominent editors will also vouch for LibGen's (and SciHub's) usefulness in Wikipedia editing. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 07:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi sir

    Good day sir. Tbiw (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Good day to you too!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sir i just want to talk to you about some things.Tbiw (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    How to discuss something with you and also interview you.Tbiw (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See User:Jimbo Wales#Contacting me.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The section mark hashtag crosshatch is outside the wikilink. When you do stuff like that, how to you muster the gumption to not immediately fix it? EllenCT (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay.Tbiw (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't help.Tbiw (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A question that might be of interest to readers of this page

    The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article doesn't address the accuser's personal / family life directly but only what facet are explanatory with regard her allegations, these facets not presented within the context of a full telling of her life, as available in high level sources. And what is included tends toward the derogatory, ending up only with this partial biography dribbled out in bits and pieces and not impartial nor equitable with regard to her. How can Wikipedia's ideals be upheld by such an imbalanced telling of a living person's life? (See this talkpage discussion.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If "crickets" show interest in this matter hereabouts inn't so much, I'm not surprised. Because it's crickets I get when I ask the following hypothetical, as well.
    1st some background information - Sometimes, of course, the community believes wp:ONEEVENT situations merit sole entries/subentries focused on individuals respectively associated primarily with single well-known events E.g Juanita Broaddrick; Rodney King or, else, on these events E.g Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery or, else, in certain instances, in multiple coverages E.g Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination#Sexual assault allegations but also a blp of its accuser; Killing of George Floyd / victim; Zapruder film / author.
    In the case of Reade, her separate blp was AfD'ed with its result being to merge it with "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation." However there is no consensus at the event article to include any biographical section with regard to this accuser, so essentially no biographical content successfully ended up being merged to there.
    Now the hypothetical. Say there's a blp on Wikipedia on what highest level sources identify as the leader of Levantine holy warriors, "Abdul---.. Ben Curaish" (ABC). Some believe, however, that not enough solid info exists about this alleged person. (Is what's available mostly mis- or disinformation arising from: Western and/or various mid-Eastern (Turkish/Syrian/Israeli etc.) intelligence agencies? from the Levantine holy warriors themselves?) This blp is AfD'ed, the result of which is a merger of its content with the article "Levantine holy warriors."
    Q. - What happens if the editors on the latter (Levantine holy warriors) page don't reach consensus to include anything in the way of a biographical of ABC on its page, believing its treatment of a complex topic is complex and convoluted enough, already? Does a redirect remain at the ABC namespace from which its content was failed to be "merged" resulting essentially in its being deleted? Or is the blp restored at this namespace until when and if it can be redirected to some "target" omnibus type of article elsewhere? (Go ahead and cue the crickets now, if you will.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    chirp chirp petrarchan47คุก 19:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Brand Project

    Hi Jimbo Wales, you were one of the board members who approved the Brand Project last month. You did this despite significant opposition by the community. Do you as board member endorse the new survey which does not provide the status quo as an option and which doesn't take the result of the RfC into account? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I can only speak for myself.
    I support the project to seriously examine the question and work through all the issues thoroughly. I'm unaware of any real opposition to that concept. It is possible to support the project without supporting or opposing any particular outcome.
    I don't read the survey in the way that you do. It doesn't offer "the status quo as an option" because it doesn't present any questions that are a choice among options at all. If the relevant people in the relevant organizations strongly disagree, they should strongly disagree and explain why. That's what this stage of the process is about, not about a final answer at this point.
    I think this survey very much does take into account the result of the RfC. I can only presume that if the RfC went in a different direction, this survey wouldn't be necessary at all. There was significant opposition and so this survey is precisely about the right thing: understanding the opposition more deeply to begin a look for the best answer. (Which could, of course, be the status quo - nothing about this process precludes that possibility.)
    Finally, you're never going to get me to oppose a genuine community consultation. Far worse, and what I wouldn't support, is either of these options: "There was an RfC and people expressed significant opposition, so we should immediately drop the whole concept rather than explore more deeply to see if there is a solution that works for people" nor "There was an RfC and people expressed significant opposition, so we ram it through regardless."
    The right answer to "Here's a preliminary proposal and people didn't like it" is - ok, let's all dig in and see what can be done.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certainly not blaming you for this—you can't be expected to follow every single WMF statement—but the above appears to me to directly contradict the WMF's current stated position that it's non-negotiable that future cross-WMF branding is definitely going to include "Wikipedia" and all that's up for decision is the exact nature of what that branding-including-Wikipedia is going to be. If you're not already aware of it, I'd also draw your attention to the community feedback on the survey text, which has only been open for the few hours the survey has been published but is as unanimous a consensus as I've ever seen—including from people who normally rarely agree on anything—that the current version of the survey is irredeemably flawed. ‑ Iridescent 10:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if you perhaps sent me the wrong link? the WMF's current stated position does not say "it is non-negotiable that future cross-WMF branding is definitely going to include "Wikipedia"". Indeed, it says the exact opposite: "No, the outcome is not predetermined." And in case that weren't clear enough, it goes on to say "What has not been decided by the Brand Project team: The proposed naming convention". I don't know of any way to read that that would make it in any way match your interpretation. It isn't vague. If they did say something like that, I assume it must have been somewhere else, which is why I'm assuming good faith that you must have accidentally cut and pasted the wrong link.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimbo, I take it that what Iridescent is referring to is the point on the FAQ saying Wikipedia is a valuable asset that should be used somehow in proposed branding - reading that initially, I also think it reads as "we've decided to use the Wikipedia name". Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While no one has asked me for my opinion -- & to be fair, no one has asked several hundred core volunteers for their opinion either -- I believe this entire rebranding exercise is a solution in search of a problem. No one has bothered to present a case for spending a non-trivial sum of money -- which could be better spent on other things -- for changing the name of the Foundation. Well, at least no one has presented this case to me. (Unless I'm expected to descend into an unlit basement & rummage thru unmarked file cabinets to find this presentation.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're being asked your opinion now - that's what this kerfuffle is all about. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Twenty minutes ago, an executive statement was put out by the WMF Head of Communications: "We should have been clearer: a rebrand will happen. This has already been decided by the Board. The place where we seek consultation and input is on what an optimal rebrand looks like, and what the path to get there will be." (Bold in the original.) "In the end, the Board, Brand team, and Legal team agreed that Wikipedia was the change which supported the goals of the change while also meeting practical legal and financial constraints." --Yair rand (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that's an interesting development. I'd love to hear Jimbo's thoughts on this; that very much doesn't seem like not about a final answer at this point, and it's explicitly saying "the status quo is not an option". Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And there are numerous options beside the status quo, that we have not been allowed to explore. We have (literally) been given the choice in this survey of calling the foundation "Wikipedia", "Wikipedia", or "Wikipedia".--Pharos (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't accurate, Pharos. No decisions have been made. If you have a proposal that you like, then make it! I don't know of anyone on the board who wouldn't welcome it! (I can't speak for anyone other than myself, of course, but seriously, this is a consultation and the board is happy to hear ideas.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Jimmy. Seeing that Heather (WMF) (talk · contribs) wrote "We should have been clearer: a rebrand will happen. This has already been decided by the Board. The place where we seek consultation and input is on what an optimal rebrand looks like, and what the path to get there will be. [...] In the end, the Board, Brand team, and Legal team agreed that Wikipedia was the change which supported the goals of the change while also meeting practical legal and financial constraints." [14], do you still stand by the characterization that this process is exploratory? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "...a rebrand will happen. This has already been decided by the Board."[citation needed] Are there minutes of this decision? Jonathunder (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jonathunder: I've been looking for those too - I asked on the talk page of the statement, but although some replies have come from the WMF, none to my questions so far. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is now a statement from the Acting Chair of the Board: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2020-June/095051.html --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Nataliia's statement makes clear what I have said: this process is exploratory and nothing has been decided yet. "The Board has not approved any specific recommendations yet." "Has the Board made the decision to change the name of Wikimedia Foundation yet? No, the Board has not." When Heather wrote "a rebrand will happen" this refers to the broad project of updating our various branding elements. As Nataliia wrote: "Rebrand may include: names, logos, “taglines,” colours, typography, or any combination of the above. An outcome of the project will be a set of recommended new branding practices."
    I can only repeat: this is a project to explore various ideas. No decisions have been made about the outcome.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimbo Wales, that really isn't how it looks to an outsider. This parses as a marketing person doing what marketing people do: capitalise on your best known brand, poll the stakeholders to see if you can get some great quotes, but the fix is in.
    That may not be what's really going on, but it's how it appears. And you know I am not given to conspiracy theories. This just looks like absolutely standard corporate marketing shitweasel stuff.
    My $0.02: keep a separate brand. Sure, link them: "Wikimedia: Making Wikipedia Possible" or whatever, but please don't underestimate just how fucked off people are with the WMF right now.
    Some of us remember the days when the WMF meant people like Danny and Cary, who are just so nice that resentment is impossible. I admire several of the WMF peeps right now. This desperately needs to be humanised - and the foot needs to come off the gas. Guy (help!) 22:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're hardly an outsider, you've known me for years. When I tell you nothing has been decided, I mean it. I don't know of anything that I have said that would parse like a marketing person speaking corporate-speak. I'm speaking plainly. Please re-read everything that I wrote up above. There is no 'fix' in and I think that perception is sadly preventing a real discussion from happening about the much more interesting question: what should we do?
    I personally think that something like what you suggest is where we're going to end up. I also think that rather than the current situation of anger about things that literally are not at all true ("the fix is in") we'd be in a much better place if people could relax a notch or two and discuss interesting things instead.
    As Nataliia said in her letter, on the face of it, an obvious and plausible candidate option is to rename the WMF to the WMF, changing "Wikimedia Foundation" to "Wikipedia Foundation". There's some legitimate objections to that (I personally find some aspects of it compelling), and some legitimate arguments for it (I personally find some aspects of it compelling). I'd love to chew on that some more. But the extreme degree of noise around "OMG THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE US DO THAT THEY ARE CORPORATE SHITWEASELS AND HEDGEFUNDERS AND MARKETEEEEERS" isn't something that I find particularly interesting or useful. It isn't true, I'm telling you: the board hasn't secretly decided anything here, waiting to pounce it on people with some bullshit quotes. That's not close to the reality.
    As to what caused the current dust-up, I have my views that focus primarily on particular incidents in the past. But beyond that, I don't know exactly what caused it this time around. As you can see from reading this thread (up above, here) people have linked me to things and claimed they said things that they don't say, and so on. All that I can do is repeat the simple fact: nothing has been decided, no fix is in, and on a personal level I'd much rather we drop the drama stick and move into the much more interesting discussion about the actual things that could be done to improve our naming conventions, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Learning

    Hello Jimbo, Just curious cause your the founder. What is the hardest math you learned or topic in general? Any programming languages you are fond of? Any favorite math problems? Thoughts of space exploration especially the long-term implications. Any books you recommend?Fun question - do you watch anime? Hope you reply.Manabimasu (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimbo excelled in most areas of mathematics, but when faced with the question of how much automatic programmed trading should skim from index funds ahead of rebalancing, he hesitated. Jimbo is a fan of Python, PHP, HTML, C, sh, R, JavaScript, CSS, X.25, and REST, not necessarily in that order. Jimbo recommends Billionares and Stealth Politics by Jason Seawright. Jimbo restricts his anime input to clips approved in advance from the Community Relations Team. EllenCT (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Manabimasu, just in case you didn't know, EllenCT is making a joke. I don't understand the joke, and it isn't funny, but this is not a serious answer.
    I studied stochastic differential equations - that was pretty hard. I'm fond of Ruby programming language. I'm fascinated by Cantor diagonalization as a mathematical topic - but I'm no expert for sure. I'm in favor of space exploration. I always recommend the book Your Money or Your Life by Vicki Robin. I don't really watch anime.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nexus between BLM and COVID 19?

    Hi Jimbo, I came to the opinion that the 2 most important societal events in my entire lifetime, imo, are the 2 which occurred within a 3 month time period; A: The COVID 19 shut down in the USA and B: The BLM (Black Lives Matter) transformative movement's explosion

    Being also interested in statistical probabilities, I, just for the fun of it, started to wonder whether there is/was any sort of causational nexus regarding the timing of these 2 events. So I took a very simple approach of taking 3 months as a % of an 80 year life span = 1/4 x 80 =1/320th and then to try to get a rough probability of both events happening within the same 3 months, I multiply 1/320th times 1/320th and get the probability ( according to this rough and likely not great mathematical approach ) of 1 out of 102,400. or 1/102,400.

    So do you think there is some kind of causation between the 2 events? Or that it's just another one of humanity's coincidences? I asked the smartest person I know and she said something like; "Well, the COVID shutdown put everybody 'on edge' and therefore more energetic towards jumping on a "cause". Maybe that could be it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at George Floyd protests#Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the given quote, I don't think the two events are completely independent. --MuZemike 14:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd tend to agree that the shutdowns gave people a different perspective on life, I would argue that in the face of the undeniable tragedy of all the deaths, that different perspective is largely a good thing. At any event I hope that we are all thinking hard about governance and quality of life - for everyone, and this may have shocked a lot of people out of standard stereotypes and ways of thinking. So yeah, I think there may be some connection but I doubt if there's any way to really prove it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Jimbo is right--something was very different here. As we all know, we've been seeing unarmed black men shot to death and beaten by (mostly) white policemen for many years--Rodney King comes to mind as perhaps the first of the series. But almost always the police are not held responsible. So what happened here to finally break this camel's back and provoke not only local but nation-wide and eventually even worldwide reaction? Certainly the points that Jimbo brought out are important. But also, the symbolic fact that we all were able to see this black man's life ending with a white police officer's knee on his neck. That was televised and it was something new. But for me there was something else: He called out for his mother as he lay there dying. Women understand this and it rips their hearts out. But I think that men understand this too and, though I'm not a man, I think that it must cause deep sadness for them as well. Here is commentary on the aspect of men calling out for their mother as they die: [15] Gandydancer (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There was also the strange sad coincidence of the symbolism of Colin Kaepernick's protest of going down on one knee being turned around to be the method of killing in this case. The two were unrelated as far as I know - although I don't find it a stretch to imagine a racist cop finding it sickly funny to turn around the kneeling against racism protest into an act of violence. My only point here is that I can't be the only person who first saw the pictures in the press of that cop kneeling on George Floyd's neck and immediately thought about Kaepernick.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So did I, and I'm also guessing that we were not alone... Gandydancer (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimbo Wales, oh yes. And it probably was a coincidence (no, really), but fuck, it looked bad. Guy (help!) 22:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a lot of people are being played. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course these events are related. The clearest explanation I've come across is in Adam Serwer's piece in The Atlantic: "The pandemic has exposed the bitter terms of our racial contract, which deems certain lives of greater value than others". I'm not sure I can do justice to his points in a brief summary, and I'd recommend reading his article in its entirety, but he draws a direct line from the disregard and devaluation of non-white lives evident in police-brutality cases to the shift in discourse about the Covid-19 pandemic as its disproportionate impact on Black and Hispanic Americans became evident.

    There was a direct link between the first reports of the pandemic's disparate racial impact, and the shift in conservative/right-wing rhetoric away from containing the disease and toward re-opening the country regardless of case numbers. The underlying theme is that the comfort of (mostly white) Americans is of greater value than the literal lives and deaths of the non-white Americans disproportionately impacted by Covid-19. As Serwer wrote: "... federal policy reflects the president’s belief that he has little to lose by gambling with the lives of those Americans most likely to be affected." The Administration's response made it crystal-clear that it "did not consider the lives of the people dying worth the effort or money required to save them."

    Serwer's piece also accounts for the views of people like Bob K31416, in that the American social contract with its relative valuation of white vs. non-white lives is so baked-in as to be invisible to people who are determined not to look. But the constant drumbeat of inexcusable acts of police violence against non-white Americans, combined with the willful, negligent disregard evident in the federal response to the pandemic, makes it harder to ignore. MastCell Talk 19:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MastCell's reference to the article in The Atlantic is very appreciated. I had never heard of the "racial contract" before and the entire article is profound, at least imo.Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bob K31416, played? No. Black folks are more likely to be hourly paid, and hourly paid have suffered worst under the lockdown. They also are more likely to work customer-facing jobs, again, hardest hit. But unlike the Gravy Seals who stormed State Capitols to protest their right to a haircut, Black communities and community leaders have been on board with protecting each other during the pandemic.
    So you have a community that is suffering economically, that sees entitled white dudes raising a finger, and then watches a cop kill George Floyd in what, to all appearances, looks as close to murder as makes no odds. This on top of Ahmaud Arbery.
    People are hurt and angry and rightly so, and the pandemic just raises the background temperature close to the flash point.
    But hey. I am just another white dude, so ignore me and listen to people of colour. Guy (help!) 22:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to think that Nocturnalnow is a rather young person if they think that COVID 19 and the Black Lives Matter Movement are the two most important societal events of their lifetime. Yes, COVID is pretty unique, nothing quite like it since the "Spanish" Flu a century earlier. Unless you're Roberta McCain's age you wouldn't remember that one. What its long term effects will be remains to be seen. As for BLM let's be realistic. How is it going to change the long term dynamic between law enforcement and largely Black communities? The Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd cases stand out because their deaths were so obviously unnecessary. The protests have been fairly massive (and, of course, occasionally violent and destructive), but what beyond token gestures are they likely to accomplish?Who cares if NASCAR officially bans Confederate flags . . we'll still see plenty of them . . . or if Aunt Jemima's image is no longer on the pancake box or syrup bottle? None of that will change a social dynamic in which vast numbers of Blacks live in poor, but more importantly high violent crime areas, and will continue to have frequent, unpleasant, and sometimes violent confrontations with police. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, I've been pretty cynical for quite awhile, but 2 of Jumbo's phrases really ring true to me about this time being a defining moment(s),"...that we are all thinking hard about governance and quality of life - for everyone, and this may have shocked a lot of people out of standard stereotypes and ways of thinking."
    So he may be a self described pathological optimist, but I doubt most of us are. The power, authority and recent acceleration of the BLM movement are incredibly overwhelming, imo.
    It may look like just another wave to some people, but it feels like a tsunami, to most people, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding a puzzle piece to the logo for Wikipedia's 20th anniversary?

    I had a thought a while ago that in celebration of 20 years of building a repository of the world's encyclopedic knowledge that the logo could be updated by adding a piece to the ball. I was thinking just to the right of the Ge'ez (Ethiopic) piece would very subtly show up on that upper right corner, but the added character would only be visible from alternate views. Anyone have any thoughts on this idea? Would this sort of discussion need to happen somewhere else, since it's going to effect all Wikipedia projects, not just en.wikipedia? VanIsaacWScont 19:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Vanisaac, make it a black piece please. Guy (help!) 22:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanisaac, you could add a piece that says, "BLM". Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 01:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well hell

    Some days you feel that the world is going to shit and getting worse. And then... this. NASCAR teams push Bubba Wallace to the front of the grid for Talladega, in a giant "fuck you" to racism. There is hope. Guy (help!) 22:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, tear to my eye. Good stuff. This was good too. Non-Americans and possibly even Americans who didn't grow up in the South probably don't realize what a legend Richard Petty is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=964123120"