User talk:Jimbo Wales

Happy New Year

In Chinese Wikipedia, editors from Taiwan and Hong Kong have shown different attitudes towards North Korean and South Korean media.

North Korean Because it is a state-controlled news outlet, it is unreliable.

South Korean media Even if it is state-controlled media, it is reliable.There is a Chinese word to describe this situation. "Double standard".（双重标准）I'm not involved in the fight, I just want you to know what happen in the Chinese Wikipedia?Editors in Taiwan are trying to list China's most important media as "unreliable reference sources." As I said before, I have no confidence in the Wikimedia project if a reference source is judged to be reliable solely on the basis of political leanings.

Good luck with reality and a happy new year. Assifbus (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Surely you realize it's a lot more complex than this?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

If we met in real life, I would buy you a cup of coffee.Assifbus (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean the exact same thing happens on English Wikipedia. Voice of America and Radio Free Asia are considered to be reliable sources, as are most of the corporate media in the US. On a totally unrelated note, most enwiki editors come from anglophone countries. So, I'm not sure what your point is. Sagflaps (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

To clarify a little bit, the determination of whether a source is reliable is generally biased based on the norms of whatever countries the majority of editors happen to be from. Also, the topics that are chosen to have articles written will be biased based on language as well. This is a fundamental flaw of Wikipedia. I am American editor with no Chinese ties, and generally speaking the issue I notice is that many American editors naturally assume that whatever the western perspective is, that must be the global perspective on the issue as well.

The fact that many other editors here have accused you of being a CCP shill or propagandist is proof of this. To be honest, your points are reasonable, and I wish people here would engage with you civilly instead of trying to shut you down immediately. If anything their responses are just proving your point. Sagflaps (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The point about US state-owned broadcasting is valid. VoA and its sister programs are arguably propaganda (even if it’s our propaganda) and it seems to me to be a systemic bias issue.

Something editors don’t always keep in mind is that a big chunk of WP’s readers (but rarely editors) are from post-colonial Anglophone countries.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@RadioactiveBoulevardier: Well the idea of having Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources in general is a flawed idea. For any citation added, consideration needs to be given to the biases of it, and who funds the source and who owns it. To have editorial standards is not enough, because at the end of the day CNN/MSNBC/CBS/FOX, they are all there to make a profit at the end of the day. This means that if a major advertiser were to threaten to pull funding, these networks will feel the pressure. Similarly, state funded sources are accountable to their governments first, and non-profits to their donors.

However, editors are more than willing to crutch off the idea of a reliable source to avoid critical analysis. Also, when editors like Assifbus come by, their edits get far more scrutiny, and people invoking Cold War era fear rhetoric about them being a communist (or in the more modern sense, a wumao or CCP shill or Uygher genocide denier). Usually this attracts little scrutiny, because in the places like the US such things are so deeply entrenched, that it has become normalized. Literally speaking, that's not WP:CIV nor WP:AGF. But yet, the community mostly accepts it. Sagflaps (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

VoA and its sister programs are arguably propaganda.... I'm inclined to disagree. Those programs are designed to counter deliberately biased propaganda from despotic and dictatorial regimes, along with casting American opposition to them in a positive light, but while doing so with a strict adherence to western journalistic standards of accuracy, editorial oversight, and independence. It might be helpful to review some context about the place of the US Agency for Global Media companies in the propaganda sphere. Not all state media are created equal.

state funded sources are accountable to their governments first, and non-profits to their donors. When an organization chooses to support itself by voluntary donations, the point is to sever accountability to any one person or group. For example, there is a lot on Wikipedia which may be so offensive to all of the top N corporations and governments that any one of them would be likely to pull support over it if they were sole supporters. But they are not, so large companies keep giving no matter how large their critique articles grow, and as far as we know they don't go after the authors. Doing so would be foolhardy and would likely backfire with a Streisand effect.

when editors like Assifbus come by, their edits get far more scrutiny, and people invoking Cold War era fear rhetoric about them being a communist (or in the more modern sense, a wumao or CCP shill or Uygher genocide denier.... I'm skeptical that this happens more often than not. Can you point to some examples you thought were particularly unwarranted? Sandizer (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sandizer: There is an implicit assumption in what you are saying here, which is that the pro-America perspective is the unbiased one (and therefore VOA/RFA just exist to counter biased propaganda sources), which really if anything just proves what I've been saying all along about how enwiki editors view the world. Sagflaps (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe bias is a matter of extent, measured as distance from accuracy, not a binary property. Sandizer (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Bias is a bit more complicated than you have described, but there are always the Wikipedia articles on its many forms if you want more information. Sagflaps (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

19. 20, 21, 22, I devoted the most beautiful years of my life to Wikipedia.

I hope that people in the future will not engage in wars or struggles due to different political tendencies. Assifbus (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Assifbus: I would like to learn more about this: Editors in Taiwan are trying to list China's most important media as "unreliable reference sources." Where is that discussion?

As I said before, I have no confidence in the Wikimedia project if a reference source is judged to be reliable solely on the basis of political leanings. The reliability of state media sources are often easier to judge on the basis of objective accuracy than private sector outlets, which lack certain advantages; not least being the ability to use force and the threat of punishment to squelch criticism and require agreement. Leveraging such advantages, however, rarely goes undetected internationally. If this is the case, as it has been in most if not all the critiques of Chinese state media I have seen, then the basis is not political but epistemological.

Here is a relatively sympathetic take on the challenges faced by autocratic enforcement of state media perspectives from Singapore, concluding that, "although China's media have been professionalised over the years, the level of professionalism continues to be low as they have been compelled to act under the constraints of the Chinese party-state [so they] are not competing on an even-playing field with other transnational media companies." Sandizer (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If you are proficient in Chinese, you will easily find that page on Chinese Wikipedia. Assifbus (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, I am not proficient enough to think asking you for the link would be less efficient than looking for the discussion to which you referred. Sandizer (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:可靠来源/布告板 Assifbus (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Assifbus: It appears that from reviewing the debate over China Daily, many of the editors in the discussion either have that they are from the PRC in their infobox, or they had requested IP block exemptions in order to edit from the mainland. This would suggest to me that there's not undue weight being given to Taiwanese perspectives in these discussions. Sagflaps (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

If you don't understand Chinese, let me translate.This is what a editor said.

"After the passage of the Hong Kong National Security Law, 《Asia Weekly》 was accused of having good official relations with mainland China and taking a pro-government stance on Hong Kong affairs. It is recommended that its political content be positioned as generally unreliable."

When WMC was at its most powerful, they did not list any reference materials from Taiwan or Hong Kong as unreliable reference sources. Some editors in Taiwan and Hong Kong have been stoking conflict by labeling more than 20 state-run media or media platforms from mainland China as "unreliable reference sources" in the past two years. Assifbus (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the current status of Apple Media, Tibetan native outlets, the Epoch Times, and Taiwanese state media on zhwiki? Sandizer (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Apple Media：Although it does not exist in real life, it is still a reliable source thanks to the efforts of some Hong Kong editors.

Tibetan native outlets：There is no discussion about it.

Epoch Times：The discussion did not list it as an "unreliable source".

As far as I know, pro-China editors have no plans to target these outlets.Taiwanese editors have been provoking conflict, but pro-China editors have been restrained.But I think this kind of restraint does not mean "If you hit me, I won't fight back." Assifbus (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you think Chinese state media will achieve editorial independence? Sandizer (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone, do you feel it good to argue about politics under Jimbo's talk page with others? Why not discuss with them on their talk page? -Lemonaka‎ 10:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

At least their comments don't just disappear like mine did. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Counterfeit Purses: It was oversighted by Primefac. Sagflaps (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Should Foundation Board of Trustees members be allowed to read oversighted revisions and deleted pages?

Note: I converted this to an RFC on Meta. Sandizer (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Recently I participated in a discussion here before I saw that parts of it have been oversighted, and then I remembered that Jimbo was stripped of his permissions to read oversighted revisions when the Founder Flag was removed.

In my opinion, Jimbo should be allowed to read oversighted revisions and deleted pages, simply because he's basically the top corresponding Board member. I'm considering an RFC on Meta, or an IAR appeal to rouge bureaucrats or something, but I thought I would post here suggesting it first. Sandizer (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sandizer is there a particular problem you are seeking to fix? If Jimbo needs access, he can advocate for himself in general, and or...ask any person with access to share what he needs for his work. Let's save an academic discussion for a more urgent topic ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a Foundation official is likely to be asked questions which require review of deleted material as part of their expected duties, which in this case pertains to Jimbo's opinion of how his talk page is being edited without being able to see how. A Wikimedia Foundation in which board members can't see their full talk page history would have lost an oar. I want board members to be able to read deleted pages and revisions without having to ask anyone, because without such ability, I do not believe they are truly able to fulfill their obligations as board members. On the other hand, I am willing to entertain opposition speculating that board members should not be able to see their talk page history, just to keep this convertible to an RFC with a neutral question if need be. To me, this seems extremely obvious, to the point of substantial while humourous vulnerabilities if the issue is left unaddressed. Sandizer (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not the attack vector I have in mind, but it is both valid and amusing. Sandizer (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

In any professional organisation, mechanisms are in place for board members or senior staff to be given access to confidential information held by the organisation. It's not necessary for board members (for example) to be able to retrieve the information themselves. Besides, this is a high-profile page; all sorts of junk gets posted here and most of it has nothing to do with Jimbo personally, much less the WMF board. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Jimbo has access to everything through global founder right, doesn't he? It's fair to assume he can get database access if he really needs it. WMF grants us rights. We can't pick who in the WMF gets rights. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

No, his perms were stripped. I will spare you my opinion of the rectitude thereof. Sandizer (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

No help at all. He's still a founder[1]; it still includes everything under the sun[2]. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

25 out of over a hundred boxes are checked? If it were up to me, Jimbo would have permission to get all the dumps sent to him by carrier pigeon whenever he wears green in public. Sandizer (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, those are checkboxes, that's what I was missing. Do you know whether board members, or at least Jimbo, can get database access when they need it? Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably, if their NDA is current. Sandizer (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

First thing to note, "Updating at Jimbo’s request to improve overall site security" - the removal of certain technical rights from this account was a request from me. If I ever needed, as part of my board work, to see oversighted revisions, I'm sure that could be facilitated by Trust and Safety or the legal team. But, that's never come up, and in general I don't think board members have any need or desire to see oversighted revisions - they are usually quite uninteresting to be honest.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

While I respect you, your perspective on this situation, your works, and what I know of your general outlook, I find it hard to believe that you've never looked at a deleted page as part of gathering information pertinent to subsequent board member actions, even if merely formulating opinions on desired appointee profile characteristics. But if this is the way you prefer it, I drop my request. I can still think of attacks this situation enables, none of which I feel like I should mention in public, but which I can communicate in a more closed venue. I think T&S should prepare a risk analysis of hiding deleted revisions from board members before the US primary elections conclude. Radio static is boring until someone goes to the trouble of transmitting something.

P.S., On reflection, I have to admit my interest is unduly driven by curiosity about whatever Counterfeit Purses said in the discussion of whether Chinese state media is reliable that Primefac felt was so abhorrent as to be oversighted instead of hatted or elided remaining in the talk page history. Those comments were oversighted before I joined the conversation or knew they existed, and because of my curiosity about the topic in general, I doubt they would be uninteresting to me even if they are to you. Let me drop this by asking Counterfeit Purses to put a summary of their comments on my talk page? Sandizer (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, well, I think it would be unwise for the board to operate at that level of detail. Board meetings are only so long, and we have to rely on briefings from the Trust and Safety staff and legal teams, who do review such things in detail. I thank you for your kind words and trust, and of course if you'd like to email me for a more private discussion that'd be great. (But I forewarn you, my inbox is a zoo so it might be slow or get overlooked so you might have to poke me here if I haven't answered in a week or so!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

So let me ask you this. A respected reporter asks you what you think of the edits to discussions on your talk page that you can't see. What do you tell them? Sandizer (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That's never happened, I don't recall any reporter ever asking me about oversighted edits at all. But to answer the question, I would first speak to the generalities of why things get oversighted, and what the process is. I'd point them to Wikipedia:Oversight to learn more about it, and if they still wanted more details I suppose I'd ask them to speak directly to the WMF and the legal team would weigh in.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you think of a time when a reporter asked you about a deletion since you've been unable to see those? Sandizer (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

How will they know about these edits if they can't see them? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The same way we know about Counterfeit Purses's. Sandizer (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You know I can't tell you that. Whether or not it is "interesting" is irrelevant. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry. As far as I can tell I was only asking the person whose text you deleted, and have no information about whether the oversighting was a good idea, but as much as I know that you are an admin in good standing for many years, I would not ordinarily be opposed to the idea that the censorship was warranted. However, I think I may consider it unwarranted. I do not expect or anticipate information from you about it, unless within the confines of what Counterfeit Purses chooses to disclose. Sandizer (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If something is really so important, and wikipedia:Appeal to Jimbo is the last resort, why not try for Arbcom or Wikipedia foundation trust and safety previously?
BTW, I believe the removal of rights from Jimbo may be technically, Jimbo can definitely asking T&S or arbcom for help if they need to read something overnighted. -Lemonaka‎ 02:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

draft:Stuart Kinder

I'd be happy to have help with this draft on an early British filmmaker. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this what you intended when you started Wikipedia?

Jimmy, you may have heard about the recent incident in which a Pennsylvania man killed and decapitated his father? I can only assume that he was mentally unwell. This is a tragic incident and the family must be devastated. I am disappointed to see that an editor added his name to a list of people with the same surname. The incident has also been added to a list in Beheading video.

When you started Wikipedia, did you think that it would one day be used to track videos of people being beheaded, or to spread the name of someone who commits such an act? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for Jimmy, but while it's a disgusting phenomenon, it is a real and notable one, and this seems to be a noteworthy occurrence of it. Wikipedia isn't only here to provide information on nice things. Also, I cannot find that the articles link to the video itself, just to news stories about it, and I don't see that any of them show the video either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade I know that Wikipedia isn't here to just document the nice things, but sometimes it feels to me like certain editors are here to venerate mass murderers and spree killers. It might be nice if Wikipedia had more restrictive guidelines about such things as adding their names to lists of people with the same surname or from the same place. Just as an example. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade The person who allegedly committed this act has not been convicted of the crime. Is it ok for Wikipedia editors to state outright that he did it in beheading video and list of people who were beheaded? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Rather than drawing further attention to it, would it not be more prudent to remove the content yourself (as has already been done)? Inappropriate entries are added to disambiguation lists all the time, and not every such case is worthy of a protracted discussion on Jimbo's talk page. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kinu Do you think anyone would have removed it if I hadn't brought it up here? And what's the policy or guideline that's going to keep it out? His name is currently in two articles saying that he beheaded his father. Yes, that's what he is accused of, but he hasn't been convicted yet. You're apparently an admin and you (should) know that's not right but you want me to "so fix it"? I would prefer not to get into an edit war with Wikipedia's murder junkies, thanks very much. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

editors won't appreciate being called murder junkies, i imagine. ltbdl (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "true crime enthusiasts"? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

A quick google news search reveals that the name in question appears in tons of reliable sources, and so I don't really see what the problem is supposed to be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales Have you read WP:BLPCRIME lately> Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Why is this thread a thing? There was no article on the individual in question and it would have taken less time to snip the non-link from the list than it would to complain about it here. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Carrite I started this thread to draw attention to a situation and to ask Jimbo a question. After I started it, someone removed the addition that had caught my eye. I dealt with the other instances myself but, as expected, they did not go unchallenged. With the help of other editors at the BLP noticeboard a compromise was reached. That took somewhat longer than "complaining" here. I SOFIXIT'd it, but that didn't fix it. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Augmented reality glasses may displace mobile phones?

Jimbo, I'm a little bit self-conscious (but strictly not sorry) about asking you questions on organizational transparency issues. But there is now a much more important question I want to ask you about.

Have you seen the video of the guy driving a Cybertruck while doing some kind of keyboard/window work using an Apple Vision Pro headset, livestreaming, and successfully getting himself pulled over for distracted driving? You can also find very recent video of people using the AVP apparently to do work while crossing the street and in a subway car. I wish we could get these videos with what the subjects were seeing in their APV view inset. I would note that people doing work on a cellphone while crossing the street is pretty common nowadays.

My question is, do you think that augmented reality glasses will replace mobile phones as the cultural norm for personal communication devices in five to ten years?

I ask because I also yesterday saw a comparison of how people were acting prior to the introduction of cellphones compared to today where their behavior is obviously affected by the fact that they are staring at a handheld screen. My opinion is that AR glasses (not goggles) are the logical way forward.

Also, what do you think the ultimate user experiences using augmented reality glasses or goggles with arbitrary visual passthrough and UI element transparency would be for reading and editing wikis? Sandizer (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

P.S. https://chat.openai.com/share/dd9b1274-4ae4-4b10-a343-495275dcf26b

I'm not sure about the security/privacy implications but when has that ever stopped anything in tech? Sandizer (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

what does any of this have to do with wiki? ltbdl (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, "what do you think the ultimate user experiences using augmented reality glasses or goggles with arbitrary visual passthrough and UI element transparency would be for reading and editing wikis?" Sandizer (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Look at what recent science fiction would suggest, expecting students to go to specific places: https://youtube.com/watch?v=KvMxLpce3Xw Sandizer (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't take my word for the validity of the question, see Casey Neistat at nine minutes in: https://youtube.com/watch?v=UvkgmyfMPks&t=9m0s Sandizer (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I've not really tried modern augmented reality glasses, so I don't yet have a very informed view. I did try Google Glass back when it was new and it was a pretty underwhelming experience and so I wasn't surprised that it failed. One interesting thing is that Google said quite clearly that they would never put facial recognition into the product, due to the rather obvious weird privacy issues, but as someone who meets a lot of people in the course of my work and who has pretty weak facial/name recognition skills I was disappointed as I would actually find that useful!

Google Glass was at least pretty unobtrusive as compared to the videos that I've seen. It's actually pretty hard to imagine people really walking around wearing such things, but... as you say, people do walk around staring at their phones, which I'm sure would have seemed completely impossible to most people living in 1950.

I have tried Virtual Reality, even recent iterations, and I really just don't get the point of it at all. At a conference, Facebook demonstrated a virtual office meeting product where we were all cartoon avatars chatting and it was a cute gimmick (especially that people's voices seemed to be coming from the direction where their avatar looked to be sitting) but... zoom meetings work well and I can see the real person, so other than as a cute gimmick, I doubt it will catch on. Of course there are some obvious use cases in gaming, but I'm not really a gamer so...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, the only privacy issues I see for individual access to facial recognition are dwarfed by those for government use, and they already have it. So while I do see it as an issue, I feel strongly that forbidding facial recognition from individual use may be the wrong direction until it's uniformly forbidden from government use too, which will never happen.

Google Glass was interesting, but very early. Apple has done the kind of user testing to show, for example, that displaying the user's eyes to indicate information such as pupil direction to people looking at the goggle-wearers is less trouble than it is worth, enough to solidify it in their product offering. I would point out that the only substantial hardware difference between the $400 Meta Quest 3 and the $3500 Apple Vision Pro is the pair of ~$15 outward facing displays, which is not a substantial obstacle for adding to sunglasses-style AR glasses as far as I know.

I remember watching an NVIDIA demo of sunglasses-style AR glasses before the pandemic. I don't want to go into detail because I have no idea how close they were (or are now) to a viable product, but it seems obvious that it's only a matter of engineering (and many iterations of user testing and software improvements) to get what Casey Neistat predicts will displace mobile phones.

Regarding the Zoom call mode, please see 10:27+ in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86Gy035z_KA&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee&t=10m27s

@MPinchuk (WMF): do you think it would be appropriate for the Future Audiences team to look at how reading and editing can best happen in AR goggles and glasses? Sandizer (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia's Rules Applied Equally or Selectively?

Are Wikipedia's rules universally applied or not? After delving into Wikipedia's guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP), I'm fairly certain I grasp them well. They are straightforward about the treatment of living individuals. Yet, I've observed a series of events that suggest these rules might not uniformly apply, especially when the subject matter is sensitive and the Wikipedia community shows a tendency to favor certain topics or perspectives over others, particularly when individuals are portrayed negatively.

A case in point is Joseph Edelman's page. According to a tax return document, the Edelman Family Foundation appears to contribute significantly to the Do Not Harm organization. However, the source of this information was Huffington Post, which is acknowledged as biased in US politics. I removed this source and detailed my reasoning on the Talk page, but subsequent actions by the same editor raised concerns:

• They attempted to reinstate it.

• They then cited even less reliable sources, including Pro Publica (a primary document of contributions to various organizations in 2022) and the Associated Press (which did not even mention the foundation).

• My complaint on the BLP Noticeboard led to the removal of the information, yet

• Another editor suggested using Pink News, which merely echoed the disputed source.

• In the discussion, when I pointed this out, the response from editors was an overly broad and ambiguous justification, ignoring that Pink News simply relayed the HuffPost article without any journalistic investigation or accountability, thus sidestepping Wikipedia's criteria for citing contentious material about US politics.

While I'm open to adding information about Joseph Edelman following Wikipedia's protocols, the apparent bending and bypassing of rules lead me to question whether some rules are selectively applied. I'm bringing this to the community's attention for clarification, and if there's something I'm misunderstanding, I welcome correction. Llama Tierna (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Your assumption that PinkNews (which, per WP:PINKNEWS is a generally reliable source) did none of their own investigation flies into the fact that while Pink News did cite the HuffPo for some of its coverage, it cites other things in its own voice, placing its own reputation behind that. Your concern about "bias" fails to acknwoledge WP:BIASED, which notes that biased sources can be reliable. As for the claim being "contentious", I have yet to see anyone contend that the claim that the Edelman Foundation gave money to Do No Harm is not true; indeed, the Foundation claims it is true on their tax filings. You have already brought it to the community's attention at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Joseph_Edelman, and the responses you got said that while sourcing only to the tax document as posted at ProPublica would be a problem, PinkNews is an appropriate source. You have bent rules or at least guidelines yourself, WP:THREATENing an editor, and here you are WP:FORUMSHOPping when the discussion you opened the noticeboard is still open for discussion. (You may also wish to view the notice at the top of this talk page in editing mode.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @NatGertler:.

I remain unconvinced by the explanation regarding the Pink News article that appears to have replicated content from the Huffington Post without clear consensus. I intend to seek additional perspectives from other editors to ensure a broader consensus. If there are aspects I do not understand, I trust that other editors will provide clarification. At present, I am experiencing cognitive dissonance, as my observations conflict with the Wikipedia guidelines I have learned. It seems to me that these rules are applied selectively, which undermines Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality. Additionally, the Noticeboard has not been particularly helpful. From my perspective, the issue involves controversial content being copied from an article that lacks consensus, supported by a primary source subject to broad interpretation. The inclusion of such disputed information on an individual's personal page contradicts my understanding of Wikipedia's standards. Consequently, I will seek further opinions on various Wikipedia forums. Llama Tierna (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

→ WP:ANI -Lemonaka‎ 06:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt as to the reliability of the Huffington Post reporting of the fact that the Edelman Family Foundation contributes significantly to the Do Not Harm organizaiton. I also don't see it as a particularly difficult BLP issue - Do No Harm is a 501(c)(3) charity in the United States with a particular worldview and mission.

If I were to critique our biography of Jospeh Edelman, I think I'd be more concern with WP:UNDUE. Forbes says his net worth is $2.5 billion, and this donation was for $1 million. The Edelman Family Foundation has $100 million in assets and appears to give over $8 million a year in grants. It is not at all clear to me why this one donation deserves to be such a large part of a very short biography. However, the usual solution to that would be to see if we can find more sources to create a more well-rounded biography.Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

• News and notes: Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers

• Disinformation report: How low can the scammers go?

• Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to touch grass to dramatically improve images of flora and fauna

• In the media: Speaking in tongues, toeing the line, and dressing the part

• Serendipity: Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi?

• Traffic report: Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football

• Crossword: Our crossword to bear

• Comix: Strongly

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)