User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Letter to Wikimedia Foundation from Ed Martin, United States Attorney for the District of Columbia: "To Whom it May Concern"

So it begins:

Today Ed Martin sent this letter to the WMF. Carlstak (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that the Wikimedia Foundation, through its wholly owned subsidiary Wikipedia, is allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public.

Is it just me or is this part arguing that letting non-Americans edit Wikipedia in any capacity is the problem, in this person's opinion? Silverseren^C 21:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, the chutzpah. Martin writes:

Wikipedia is permitting information manipulation on its platform, including the rewriting of key, historical events and biographical information of current and previous American leaders, as well as other matters implicating the national security and the interests of the United States. Masking propaganda that influences public opinion under the guise of providing informational material is antithetical to Wikimedia’s “educational” mission.

Good lord, has he not read Conservapedia's article on Putin (rhetorical question)? Then:

Lastly, it has come to our attention that generative AI platforms receive Wikipedia data to train large-language models. This data is now consumed by masses of Americans and American teachers on a daily basis. If the data provided is manipulated, particularly by foreign actors and entities, Wikipedia’s relationship with generative AI platforms have the potential to launder information on behalf of foreign actors. Carlstak (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Just block Ed Martin for WP:NLT then. ^[Humor] —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 03:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm absolutely a foreign actor. Fwiw, I just started the George Lundeen article, and he just made a statue of Trump, so maybe it evens out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Come to think of it, according to WP, Jimbo has UK citizenship, so he's a foreign actor too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I wish I lived in a world where the official WMF response is “fuck off Nazi”. I don’t think I do, though. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

If ever there was a time for such a response, now is it.

I hope if you are visiting the US any time soon Jimbo, that your paperwork is 100% in order and you leave your mobile at home. Knitsey (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

"We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram"

- Roxy the dog 23:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Be more Hislop. Knitsey (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This article includes a response by a WMF member, implying they will uphold how WP is edited and the result of all editors checking everything to fit core content policies. Masem (t) 01:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Page 3 point 6 of the letter from the Acting United States Attorney for the District of Columbia says Similarly, what is the Foundation's official process for auditing or evaluating the actions, activities, and voting patterns of editors, admins, and committees, including the Arbitration Committee ... This is clearly a major concern for all editors and administrators. Clearly, these people are planning to "audit and evaluate" us when the WMF tells them that is not appropriate and not how Wikipedia works. I reject the notion that editors and administrators should meekly step aside and expect the WMF handle this latest outrage with zero input from us. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Explanatory note: Foreign actor. Quite scary. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Guess what Mr. Martin? Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece of the American government. Now America is no better than China. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• The Martin letter shows a complete lack of understanding how Wikipedia works. It assumes that the Wikimedia Foundation has a kind of executive role controlling content, supervising the Arbitration Committee and so on. However, outsiders looking in frequently assume that and have a right to assume that. I think it would be a serious mistake not to take its concerns seriously, not only because of the implicit threat here but because the concerns underlying his letter are not incorrect. To me this is very much like the concerns raised over conflicts of interest and paid editing some years ago. This is a WMF problem not an editor problem. We shouldn't get bent out of shape over it. Coretheapple (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Mmm, "the concerns underlying his letter are not incorrect"? Unlikely. It sounds to me as if he doesn't like the issue that facts presented by Wikipedia conflict with his (and his masters) view of reality. As mentioned above, I think that the Arkell vs Pressdram reply is the correct one. Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, yes:

Dear Sirs, We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you could inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.

Yours etc.

(“Mr Arkell has now, albeit belatedly, complied with the suggestion made to him at an earlier stage of the proceedings.”).

Carlstak (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure Martin would love to be told to "fuck off." Coretheapple (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Coretheapple they don't care how it works. It’s all about ideology, it is straight out of 1984. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

So yeah, I'm aware of all this and discussions are underway about how to respond, and so I can't and shouldn't really say anything here (lots of journalists read this page in my experience) that's too quotable. But you all know me and you can very likely guess my views on this. Maybe I'll be able to say something soon enough.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you about Strictly, but how about HIGNIFY? - Roxy the dog 16:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Since the man is no dummy, surely he knows perfectly well that his questions are predicated on incorrect assumptions, and he also has a good idea how you are going to respond. It's not as if Wikipedia is an unknown quantity or that its governance or lack thereof is a mystery. Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Simply pointing out to Ed Martin that the WMF's relationship to Wikipedia is that of a common carrier & the Foundation has only limited control over the contents of Wikipedia, would be a suitable & quotable response. The fact that this response only illustrates that Martin is an unqualified hack with no effing idea what he is doing here would only be a beneficial side effect. -- llywrch (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The issue is not that Mr. Martin “misunderstands” how Wikipedia works; this is not a letter seeking to “understand” anything. He has ample resources to have someone provide him a report on how Wikipedia does and does not work if he’s genuinely curious. A letter like this has only one purpose: to intimidate. He is putting us on notice that we are a target. 28bytes (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Correct. As much as we like to assume good faith here on Wikipedia, Mr. Martin and his ilk are operating in purely bad faith. Their goal is power, and free information is a threat to that power. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Neither the pro-Israel side, nor the pro-Palestine side have the upper hand at Wikipedia. There is nothing illegal about that. Mr. Martin has to learn to live with such equilibrium between POVs. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Possibly both of those sides disagree with you on that. But if there is a "On the IP-conflict issue, en-WP gets a reasonable amount of stuff reasonably right reasonably often, certainly compared to a couple of other Wikipedias."-side, we don't hear about it much in the media. I like to think it exists, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I suspect many editors here already know about it, but I just realized that no one here has pointed out that there is a very extensive discussion about this at WP:Village pump (WMF). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not under any delusion that Martin can be persuaded. But my language has a much better look than to tell that hack to go piss up a rope. And might actually be considered as a response by the Foundation. -- llywrch (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

My initial impression was that Martin did not understand how Wikimedia relates to Wikipedia. But re-reading the letter I suspect that he knows perfectly well what the relationship is, and will be leveraging that in some fashion. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys but when I google "edward r martin" the first result is the Wikipedia article "Ed Martin (Missouri politician)" and the snippet google provides is: Edward Robert Martin Jr. is an American far-right politician, conspiracy theorist, acting U.S. Attorney, and ardent supporter of Donald Trump.. That is probably not in line with how he views himself. Polygnotus (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Fortunately, as we all know, Wikipedia articles are not based on how a subject sees themself, but on how reliable sources describe them. And separately, I would hope that the acting US Attorney for DC would base his actions on the law and not on personal slights (though in this case actually neither factor appears to be at hand). —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Billy Long, who is quite agreeable to taking direction from Mr Trump and who is apparently going to be the head of the IRS soon and thus the person who will hold the Wikipedia's charity status in his hands, I believe

Mnmh. It's my understanding that it is the Internal Revenue Service that decides if an organization retains its charity status. There are laws and procedures about how revoking charity status is done -- audits and so on, which usually take months to complete I think -- but there are a couple of reasons that these could be be bypassed: the unitary executive theory which basically holds that these sort of decisions are up to the President solely, and the how many divisions do the courts have? theory, which has certainly been in play many times in history. Obviously Martin's letter provides a supporting basis for an audit, but I don't think that anything is necessary beyond a simple presidential order to the IRS to just revoke the status. Maybe not, but maybe. Presumably plans to move Wikimedia HQ out of the United States in a quick hurry are being given top priority. Never hurts to have plans in place.

Another point is, well, encyclopedias are by their nature political entities. So let's not be too surprised. Denis Diderot, the creator of the first true encyclopedia and thus our spiritual forbear famously said that he would be content when "the last king was strangled with the entrails of the last priest". And that's why he made his encyclopedia -- as a fighting vessel of the Age of Enlightenment (which will always be unpopular with many if not most people), not just a fun collection of info. Yes it sounds harsh with the entrails and all, but he lived in a harsh world -- and so do we, turns out. We are a fighting vessel too I would not like Mr Diderot to feel that we've dropped the torch. We knew that the governments of China and Iran and Russia etc. were going to be, not to put too fine a point on it, our enemies. If they weren't, we would have been doing something awfully wrong. The United States is just another country. If they want to be enemies, well, OK; we've gotten by without the good will of China and Iran and Russia and etc. etc. and I suppose we can get by without the good will of the United States. Carry on and fear no evil. Herostratus (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I am going to go against the hivemind here, and say that the right-wing backlash against Wikipedia is justified and well-deserved. As someone who holds beliefs across the political spectrum, I have noticed an increase in partisan activity since I first became active in 2017. It is not entirely our fault though, as many of our reliable sources traded objectivity over politics a long time ago. I have wanted to write about my frustrations for a long time, but have never felt well enough to do so.

For example, at the time this discussion was published, Ed Martin's Wikipedia article was more vitriolic than Adolf Hitler's article. The "far-right" descriptor was apparently unsourced. Of course, I have observed more blatantWP:BLP violations in right-wing politicians than anyone else. When it comes to right-wing politians, most of our reliable sources are more interested in writing about why they are wrong, rather than writing about what they do or believe in. As a result, our articles look vitriolic.

It is also very clear that a sizable chunk of your editors, will not support anyone for adminship who isn't a staunch progressive by American standards. That alone means that we have become a partisan source. Look at Tamzin's RFA.

Whenever the facts have a right-wing bias, the language is perfectly neutral and watered down. When the facts have a left-wing bias, the language reads like an Encyclopedia Dramatica entry.

Right-wing sources are routinely discouraged on the grounds that they are biased, but when a left-wing source does the same thing, editors correctly cite WP:BIASEDSOURCES.

Many of the same editors who support WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA also view anti-religious bigotry as acceptable.

I see a lot more WP:NOTNEWS violations in right-wing BLPs than left-wing BLPs.

The community is very hostile to anyone who expresses even mildly right-wing opinions. Since 2023, I have felt like I am walking on egg shells every time I open my mouth because people react more negatively than they did in 2020. This is funny because I have shifted left on economic issues in recent years.

Look at the pro-Israel KlayCax's edits on topics related to abortion and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He committed many policy violations in both topics. I genuinely believe that the only reason he rightfully got kicked off the site was because he took a pro-Israel stance, and most of the community is pro-Palestine.

I am ill at the moment, so I am sorry I could not write a better post. I will provide more examples if requested, but I am sick and tired of rising levels of anti-intellectualism on this site. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Your complaints might carry more weight if you cited actual examples of the sweeping claims you make, with diffs. Carlstak (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

For starters, you could compare the arguments by defenders of Jacobin in the recent RFC on WP:RSN compared to the arguments of cittics of Catholic News Agency in an earlier discussion. [1] The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

You can also check Wikipedia talk:Civility as the discussion has not yet been archived. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I want to clarify that although I share my concerns with the Trump administration about bias, revoking our tax exemption status is nothing short of fascism. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you email me for a further discussion? This topic is one that I'm digging into fairly deeply as chair of the NPOV working group. When you're feeling better (sorry to hear that you are sick!) it would be very helpful to me if I could examine specific examples. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I also want to make it clear that much of our bias isn't actually our fault, but rather the fault of many of our sources for abandoning objectivity. If you Compare the content on the 1619 project with the 1776 Commission you will see that the former lacks the vitriol of the latter. Just to be clear though, I am highly against both interpretations of American history.

Pat Buchanan is a pretty extreme conservative by any rational person's standards. However, the article does a good job at staying neutral despite his extreme views. Trumpists who are in office today would not get that same level of grace. Again, it is not entirely our fault because mainstream sources are far more interested in making right-wingers look bad than they were when the article was first written.

Compare the article for Ranavalona I of Madagascar vs Leopold II of Belgium. They were both genocidal maniacs, but only one article has sources defending their reign. If the articles were written 60 years ago, more academics would have defended King Leopold. Again, this reflects a shift with academia rather than wrongdoing on our part.. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

King Leopold? No. By 1965 he wasn't a particularly relevant figure. Academics wouldn't have been interested in defending and as English speakers the largest batch of recent coverage we would have got would have been pre-war "Isn't Britain awesome for stopping this whole thing".©Geni (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

About The community is very hostile to anyone who expresses even mildly right-wing opinions: I'm a neoliberal and pro-life, and have no problems editing Wikipedia. I don't edit much about abortion, though. The WP:CLUE is this: the Wikipedia Community is tolerant with tolerant right-wingers. It is not tolerant with vitriolic right-wingers. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I admit that the comment you quoted lacked nuance. I know a lot of amazing people on this site who are willing to set aside politics, but a significant amount are not. The community rightfully kicks racists and queerphobes off the site, but I am worried about rising levels of bigotry against groups associated with the right. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I agree that your experience is generally what happens, but occasionally I'll see things that make my confidence in that a bit shaky. For example, I was asked about my perceived religious beliefs (I'm an atheist) at my RfA. It didn't really surprise me that the question was asked in some capacity, but I wasn't expecting it to be so upfront. I was much more surprised when it was defended at BN. [2] There is a general consensus elsewhere that simply being a member of a religion is not a COI, and what should matter is whether someone's actual edits are biased vs policing someone's personal beliefs. The latter also risks encouraging actual religious discrimination. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC), edited 11:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Clovermoss, thank you for bringing that up. Your RFA was the first place I noticed a problem. There was also a recent discussion at WP:AE about whether one's religious affiliation is a WP:COI. Pbritti, you were the other party in the discussion.

Now that I remember, I remember Pbritti getting into a discussion with another editor about Catholic sources and WP:COI. The editor could not make a case for why Catholic sources are an inherent WP:COI on religious articles, but that Native American sources are not WP:COI on indigenous topics. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the average editor would see that as a COI, either. As for my RfA, people outside of BN came to a different conclusion, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Clovermoss#Manboobies's question. I think we get things right most of the time but sometimes things get a bit shaky (especially when smaller amounts of editors are involved). I think that there tends to be much larger interest when it comes to political articles so most of the time the risk is minimal. Whenever I've had issues in the past with such things, bringing something to a venue like WP:BLPN gets things back on track. One example is this discussion, where getting more editors involved definitely changed the outcome of a much smaller discussion that was happening on the talk page itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Knowledge Pirate: I genuinely believe that the only reason he rightfully got kicked off the site was because he took a pro-Israel stance, and most of the community is pro-Palestine. I very very much doubt that, but you can ask User:Tamzin.

Compare the content on the 1619 project with the 1776 Commission you will see that the former lacks the vitriol of the latter. Because one was a long-form journalistic historiographical work and the other was a childish kneejerk response by conservative activists filled with errors and partisan politics? Do you think they should've been described as if they were the same? Polygnotus (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

If you'd asked me a minute ago which side of PIA KlayCax is/was on, my guess would have been no better than a cointoss. I try not to pay attention to such things if I can help it. I indeffed them for long-term, pervasive, deceptive sockpuppetry, which I don't think anyone who's looked at the evidence disputes they were guilty of. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin, I believe you, but he socked to evade his topic bans. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Knowledge Pirate But then the statement I genuinely believe that the only reason he rightfully got kicked off the site was because he took a pro-Israel stance, and most of the community is pro-Palestine is still incorrect, right?

He didn't get kicked of for his PIA stance but for long-term, pervasive, deceptive sockpuppetry. Polygnotus (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't clear when I wrote that. I am saying that his PIA stance is what indirectly got him kicked off the site. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you it sounded a bit like you accused Tamzin of being naughty. Polygnotus (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Not at all. She does good work here. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

KlayCax was TBANned on 20 August 2024. KlayCax began socking on 3 March 2022, or maybe even a month before that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I must have misremembered then. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, both were filled with factually correct information. The reason both articles take a different tone is because of how they were received by reliable sources. This isn't really our fault as much as it is our sources. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Knowledge Pirate: In my opinion, both were filled with factually correct information. You can't say "in my opinion" and then add a verifiably false statement, right?

In my opinion, the moon is a horse.

The reason both articles take a different tone is because of how they were received by reliable sources. If that is true then Wikipedia is working as it should right? Summarizing reliable sources is kinda the point. Polygnotus (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but... I think this is a pretty limited way of thinking about NPOV and the issues, and I'm not sure that would be as blaming on the sources (who definitely do deserve some serious blame here!) without also acknowledging that we have the skills, ability, and passion to "knock the rough edges off" of biased sources where we can identify the bias. This is often, as The Knowledge Pirate is saying, about "tone" rather than a question of facts. While I think we do a better job on this stuff than, well, than anyone really, I also always think we should have intellectual and moral ambition to do even better. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales Not sure I understand. Wikipedians have little control over "tone" when exclusively summarizing reliable sources in a neutral way.

The main criticism of the 1776 thing was sourced to NYT (rightwing), WaPo (rightwing) and Politico (centrist, maybe?).

And then there are statements from the American Historical Association and Association of University Presses.

Introducing our own bias to knock rough edges of biased sources seems just as bad as adding rough edges to biased sources. Polygnotus (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Definitely we should not introduce our own bias. But we can, and often do, recognize and reject hyperbolic language that is unfortunately common in the news media. Our word choices are often quite rightly more measured than in sources, and that's particularly true when we are aware that there are multiple perspectives on the topic.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call the Washington Post and New York Times right wing by the way. [3] [4] [5] [6]. This might be, ironically, a good illustration of the issue that The Knowledge Pirate is raising - if Wikipedians actually think that the NYT and WaPo are "right wing" it's no wonder outsiders think there's something very biased going on.

I agree with you, by the way, that the 1776/1619 example isn't the best one, for the reasons that you mention. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

WaPo is owned by Bezos, not exactly a leftwing hippie. You won't hear him shout "Workers of the world, unite!".

I live in Europe, so from my POV everyone including Guevara, Marx and Stalin is far-right. Please don't kill me this is a joke

AllSides and Ad Fontes judge relative to themselves, like everyone else, and they are not in a hypothetical exact middle.

I think the main problem is that the left–right political spectrum is an oversimplification which has long outlived its usefulness. It originated during the French Revolution based on the seating in the French National Assembly.

The Democratic party of America is a rightwing party. Polygnotus (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I can think of few things that would give critics of Wikipedia who come from the US right wing more ammunition than calling the NYT, WaPo, and the Democrats, right wing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tryptofish Then this will blow their minds: accessible activism activists advocacy advocate advocates affirming care all-inclusive allyship anti-racism antiracist assigned at birth assigned female at birth assigned male at birth at risk barrier barriers belong bias biased biased toward biases biases towards biologically female biologically male BIPOC Black breastfeed + people breastfeed + person chestfeed + people chestfeed + person clean energy climate crisis climate science commercial sex worker community diversity community equity confirmation bias cultural competence cultural differences cultural heritage cultural sensitivity culturally appropriate culturally responsive DEI DEIA DEIAB DEIJ disabilities disability discriminated discrimination discriminatory disparity diverse diverse backgrounds diverse communities diverse community diverse group diverse groups diversified diversify diversifying diversity enhance the diversity enhancing diversity environmental quality equal opportunity equality equitable equitableness equity ethnicity excluded exclusion expression female females feminism fostering inclusivity GBV gender gender based gender based violence gender diversity gender identity gender ideology gender-affirming care genders Gulf of Mexico hate speech health disparity health equity hispanic minority historically identity immigrants implicit bias implicit biases inclusion inclusive inclusive leadership inclusiveness inclusivity increase diversity increase the diversity indigenous community inequalities inequality inequitable inequities inequity injustice institutional intersectional intersectionality key groups key people key populations Latinx LGBT LGBTQ marginalize marginalized men who have sex with men mental health minorities minority most risk MSM multicultural Mx Native American non-binary nonbinary oppression oppressive orientation people + uterus people-centered care person-centered person-centered care polarization political pollution pregnant people pregnant person pregnant persons prejudice privilege privileges promote diversity promoting diversity pronoun pronouns prostitute race race and ethnicity racial racial diversity racial identity racial inequality racial justice racially racism segregation sense of belonging sex sexual preferences sexuality social justice sociocultural socioeconomic status stereotype stereotypes systemic systemically they/them trans transgender transsexual trauma traumatic tribal unconscious bias underappreciated underprivileged underrepresentation underrepresented underserved undervalued victim victims vulnerable populations women women and underrepresented Polygnotus (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Try saying that three times fast. (Yes, I know someone is going to reply: "that three times fast".) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

We shouldn't worry about the fact that stating facts gives the far right ammunition, because they are triggered by such a large number of things that they will always have an infinite amount of "ammunition" (aka things that trigger them). Obama in a tan suit? An Islamic community center a few blocks from the WTC? Far right grifting has become incredibly profitable and they can just invent a story to get mad about. Polygnotus (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Right, and bias in Wikipedia is unwelcome. If people come here to be left wing activists, they've come to the wrong place. Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I think your ideas of right wing and left wing are a bit out of alignment with the mainstream. USA's Democratic party, the Washington Post, and the New York Times are all considered left in USA. One could argue they are center-left or center, perhaps, but they are definitely not right wing. This is easy to verify by paying attention to USA politics and seeing what political positions each newspaper and party espouse, and if they are the same or opposite of the Republicans, Trumpists, etc. For example, the New York Times has article after article covering what is happening to USA federal workers from a sympathetic angle, which is the opposite of the right, Trumpian position (the Trumpian position is that the federal government is full of "waste, fraud, and abuse"). –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae From your perspective, because you probably live in the United States (right?). Left and right are not very useful labels because there is no universally agreed definition (or anything approaching that; anyone can just use them to smear people they disagree with. I support Divine. Polygnotus (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that if Wikipedia were viewed as too far to the left by rightist critics, and as too far to the right by leftist critics, we would probably be doing just what we should. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tryptofish Whatever Wikipedia does it will always be viewed by right wing critics as left wing, and by left wing critics as right wing. This is how humans work. But we should take care to focus on reliable sources, and pray the Overton window shifts back. Polygnotus (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

With that, we finally found something where we agree! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This would be a part of a broader point that I think we should make more clear sometimes in our editing processes and guidelines. To give an example, the label "far right" versus the label "far left" - both are highly contentious, very unlikely to give rise to consensus except in a narrow subset of people, and there's reasonable (but not definitive) evidence that Wikipedia tends to (somewhat) use them differentially. Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe. I don't edit much on political articles on Wikipedia.

The only place I noticed it was on Ed Martin (Missouri politician) which was this version at the time.

The far-right label was not reffed in the lead (In cases like this I believe it should be WP:LEADCITE). But the source is the NYT, which is generally speaking reliable imo. Polygnotus (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Given your mention of the Ed Martin bio page, I have some observations that I want to add. You've pointed to a version that got returned when you did a web search, but I think it's important to note that Martin's page has changed rapidly in the weeks since he wrote the letter to WMF, and the controversy was discussed at the Village Pump. The version that called him "far-right" in the lead sentence has been edit warred in a few times, but it has never been a stable version. I'm not normally interested in editing a page like that, but I decided to pay very close attention to the page once the controversy started, largely because I think that page became important to how Wikipedia chooses to conduct our editing in the face of the criticism underlying the controversy. (In real life, my personal views lean left and are extremely anti-Trump, if anyone cares about that.) As I've said repeatedly, the most important thing for editors to do is to maintain our NPOV standards in mainspace in the face of claims that we are biased, and not give in to the urge to WP:RGW. As I've been editing the Martin page, I've seen some editors who, in my opinion, are POV-pushing an anti-Trump perspective, by trying very hard to insert content that reflects badly on Martin – and some editors who, in my opinion, are POV-pushing a pro-Trump perspective, by trying to remove any content that reflects badly on the Trump agenda. But my experience has been that neither "side" has been getting their way. Multiple other editors established that most reliable sources call Martin "conservative", and that's what the lead sentence was changed to, and that's what it has continued to say for quite a while. (Currently, he is characterized as: "an American conservative activist, politician, and lawyer, who served briefly as the interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.") I've made edits including these two, that I think go to NPOV, and that do not reflect my personal bias: [7] and [8]. Both edits have been stable. I'm not saying that to blow my own horn, but to document that, when we edit according to community norms, we can still achieve NPOV, and that's our best response to the recent criticisms. The way things work here, there are always going to be versions of pages that are flawed, or even cringe-worthy, but we can correct them, and making those corrections is the right way to go about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

This echoes my comment below that we do have a problem with editors rushing to push negative descriptors and material, even if well sourced, as early and as often in articles on BLP and other topics in general that fall opposite the left-leaning viewpoints that most of our RSes and most editors here tend to have. Masem (t) 20:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Glass half-empty: it's a problem. Glass half-full: we're pretty good at correcting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I would disagree with how easy it is to correct, as when I've followed talk page discussions on such cases, a large portion of editors across all levels of experience often see no problem with this type of inclusion. Masem (t) 21:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to minimize anyone's reported experience, but I do notice that you said "the left-leaning viewpoints that most of our RSes and most editors here tend to have". RSes and editors are two different things. If the preponderance of reliable sources say something, that's quite properly what we should go by – unlike the personal predilictions of editors. Maybe RSes and the world at large are biased against conservatives, but our job is to report the world as it is, not to correct it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not so much about what's included, but the how and where it is included. When I last checked this, if you go to most any US politician with a non controversial history, you'll find the first sentence of the lede to be an objective statement of their professions, and only until the second or third sentence does their political affiliation come up. On the other hand, go to a politician well on the right, and you will often find that affiliation as well as other political labels in the lede sentence. It's not that the political stance shouldnt be included within the lede but we should be striving for an eqialivalent approach in these ledes to avoid the tone of looking like we disfavor the right purposely. Masem (t) 21:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Is that only for US politicians on the right, or also for those on the left who have controversial histories? (In other words, is it a matter of right-left, or controversial-noncontroversial?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

This is far from a full survey, but if you compare the ledes of Josh Hawley, Mike Johnson or Ted Cruz, all whom are conservatives that have drawn a deal of controversy, compared to Marjorie Taylor Greene who is very controversial, that's exactly the problem with tone.

And I don't think its limited to just the US, just that for non-English politicians there's fewer English language authors working on them. A quick comparison I found was for Germany, Bärbel Bas (or any other member of the leadership of List of members of the 20th Bundestag) all simply mention the political party, compared to Alice Weidel, where the inclusion of "far right" in the lede sentence seems out of place against those. It may be minor but that's the type of inconsistency that those that attack WP's "lack of neutrality" will readily pick up on.

Again, I want to stress that it is not improper to include those aspects in the article, but they should be presented with context and that usually means they shouldn't be front and center in the lede. Greene's lede for example would still need to include some of the controversy she's raised, but there would need to be something objective like her professional background and how she got into politics before jumping into three full paragraphs that are basically all sourcable criticisms of her. Masem (t) 00:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Who is willing to run some sentiment analysis on political BLPs? Polygnotus (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Masem, I asked specifically about conservative/liberal, and yet the only examples in your reply to me are conservatives. If we are going to compare the leads for Greene, the comparisons might reasonably be Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. I'd have to say that I do find Greene's lead more critical than the other two, but the other two are far from being whitewashed. And I'd say Tlaib and Omar have leads that are somewhat more negative than the ones for Hawley, Johnson, and Cruz. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, those do should a bit of bias at the ends of their ledes but the first halves are still very neutral in their tone, comparable to my other examples or to less sensationalist liberal politicians like Ron Wyden, Patty Murray, or Jasmine Crockett. Likely because those two have spoken out against Israel, they have draw that unnecessary attention in the lede (I don't know which way WP leans overall in regards to Irsael/Palestine, but I do know that those that take firm positions on bpth ends of that spectrum are very vocal and active in editing around that position) I don't necessarily know if that material needs to be in the lede but if it does, it should seem to be getting that much focus and take a more neutral tone, similar to the other articles. Masem (t) 22:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I want to make it very clear that I am not claiming that our content is perfect, so I can happily agree with you that there is room for some improvement in tone, to be more encyclopedic. I see some of this as reflecting Wikipedia's relatively poor ability to deal with recent events, in general. But I also think that some of this is in the eye of the beholder. I've repeatedly looked long and hard at Mike Johnson's lead, and all that I can see that I could construe as "critical" is one sentence that calls him a "social conservative" and recounts his positions about abortion. But I'm familar enough with his career to know that those are accurate characterizations of things that he, himself, has often said are essential to understanding his political beliefs. It's preceded by a sentence about his position on the 2020 election, but I would see that as very much of historical importance, and entirely due for the lead. I'm unable to find anything in his lead that could be legitimately taken as editorial bias. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I should be clear, I feel that an intro like that on Johnson's page *is* nearly what we should be writing for any person in terms of its tone (there's tiny improvements I could see but nothing critical), and avoids going too far into any controversies he's been involved with. That's great, that's what we want. But compare that to Greene, Tlaib or Omar, and those pages expose the problem when editors focus too much effort to include or make predominate negative information about a person in the lede. (This would also work in reverse, in that we'd not want a lede that was overtly glaring of praise, but that's far harder to ever catch - people naturally want to include negatives). Masem (t) 11:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you said that. I think we've come close to agreement. Throughout this discussion, I've been cautiously trying to push back against the outside criticism that Wikipedia is in the bag with the left and unfair to the right, while also wanting to listen to arguments that might challenge my current understanding. But I can agree that we can be limited in the quality of our coverage of current events, partly because we simply do not yet have enough independent secondary sourcing to guide us, and partly because we get edits from such a diverse population of users. That can show up in articles about people and subjects from the political right, but it also shows up for the political left. Maybe it tends to tilt one way at times, but that's not coming from any sort of conspiratorial cabal, and a lot of experienced editors are supportive of fixing errors when we become aware of them. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

On "which way WP leans overall in regards to Irsael/Palestine", Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict may be of interest. It might not actually help with the question, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I would definitely say that in my experience the Overton window on talk pages and in project space is significantly shifted, both in general and on specific issues, from that of the general public and sometimes also from that of the relevant field. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

But is that because the public's Overton window has shifted, or Wikipedia's? Polygnotus (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I can’t speak for Europe, but certainly in the US the Overton window has not significantly changed since 1980 or so, certainly not in my lifetime.

And yeah, the discussions of project bias may seem a little US-centric, but that’s because the bias concerns seems to be primarily about AmPol. I personally have not noticed significant issues in our coverage of British politics nor, to the extent I have read, in the politics of any major Continental nation.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

We absolutely can control how WP handles it's tone. A very common example is that for major figures associated with the far right, editors will do anything to try to justify the use of labels and other negative terminology in ledes (and lede sentences) prior to other more objective facts about the person, while for highly visible people in liberal or moderate views, such negative language if applicable is introduced with care and after all other objective statements. That's a tobr problem. I am not saying that we can't include RS-backed negative statements about far right individuals but they should be included in the same manner as we'd do for any individual. There's an implicit RGW bias that overall WP editors have towards these extreme conservative positions that we know we should set aside but often don't. Masem (t) 14:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Masem What is a tobr problem? Polygnotus (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Should be "tone". Phone typing typo Masem (t) 14:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that The Knowledge Pirate's post of 20:31, 6 May 2025 is basically correct.

To me, this is a bit like the Paid Editing Wars of a few years ago. Wikipedia has an institutional problem that is widely ignored, excused or deflected. Despite "hivemind" ignoring of the problem, it exists. It hurts Wikipedia as an institution. For quite some time I wasted considerable energy in fighting paid editing. But at bottom it is not my problem. It does not impact upon me as an editor unless I drift into articles that are impacted by the problem. I therefore have two choices: I can fight a losing battle against an institutional problem that overwhelms Wikipedia's defenses, or I can edit other articles. I chose the latter with paid editing and I am doing the same with the articles impacted by what The Knowledge Pirate references. It is Wikipedia's problem and the Foundation's problem, not my problem, and I am not going to waste my limited time on the planet dealing with something that people paid good money are failing to adequately address, or deny even exists. Coretheapple (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Coretheapple For convenience, here is a link to that comment.

Two claims in that comment were already debunked:

The "far-right" descriptor was apparently unsourced. That is false, as I explained above. It was sourced to the NYT.

I genuinely believe that the only reason he rightfully got kicked off the site was because he took a pro-Israel stance, and most of the community is pro-Palestine. He was blocked for long-term, pervasive, deceptive sockpuppetry

The rest is a bunch of subjective assertions without proof (and a complaint about reliable sources, which we have no control over).

If this is a real problem, it should be easy to post some anecdata. And it also shouldn't be too hard to do some research and uncover real data. And if we have real data we may be able to do something about this alleged problem. Polygnotus (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for. I frequently see the "data" argument advanced, and data can go either way, for or against your argument, depending upon how it's set up. This can and will be done off-wiki by those with an axe to grind. I think it's up to the WMF to determine if 1) they believe there is a problem and 2) what to do about it. If they can't get past "1," well? That is their problem. I can still edit articles that interest me unaffected by this situation and I hope that my fellow volunteers recognize that, and not get too wrapped up in an issue that does not affect their personal reputations and personal utilization of this hobby. (I once made a similar statement re paid editing years ago; I forget where). Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Coretheapple If we have data that shows that there is a problem then that is good news because then we can do something about that.

If we have data that shows that there is no problem then that is also good news. Sentiment analysis is not very complicated (e.g. the Deep Java Library for Sentiment Analysis) and there are quite a few people on WP:VPT who know how to do that. And then we can figure out if the data is more negative because they are more likely to be criminals or whatever or if there is bias. Polygnotus (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

To get back to the main topic of this section, Ryan McGrady has published this essay, "What Attacks on Wikipedia Reveal about Free Expression" He says:

Because Wikipedia summarizes existing publications through a transparent process guided by publicly written principles and does not publish novel ideas or opinions, the act of threatening, censoring, or otherwise attacking Wikipedia is a straightforward extension of an attack on press freedom, academic freedom, and free speech. If a leader does not like what scientists, scholars, journalists, and educators have to say, they will not like what Wikipedia has to say, either. But for those who benefit from sowing distrust in institutions, Wikipedia may be a bigger, easier target, at least rhetorically.

And:

Because Wikipedia does not publish original ideas and is so widely liked, attempts to threaten or censor it are rarely a first sign of attacks on free expression, but an indication that an erosion of rights is already taking place. Leaders who prioritize their own interests over the education of their citizens — or worse, fear an educated populace — do not typically begin with such popular not-for-profit resources.

Carlstak (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

If the WMF takes the position that an attack on Wikipedia is attack on all that is good and glorious, they will be behaving in delusional fashion. I hope they don't, I hope they take criticism seriously, but so far the impression I get is that they are just flinging platitudes at critics and hoping to outlast them. This may be a good strategy but I doubt it. Coretheapple (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not an attack on all that is good and glorious, it's an attack upon both sides being allowed to edit. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against banning the pro-Palestine side, but I don't expect such ban to be taken lightly by the public opinion worldwide. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Well imagine that

"Republicans may have just tanked President Donald Trump’s controversial nominee for U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters Tuesday that he informed the White House that 'I wouldn’t support (Martin's} nomination.' It only takes one Republican in this committee to sink a nominee, assuming all Democrats vote no, which in this case, they would have. Martin’s nomination appears dead. Herostratus (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Time will tell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that he'll be replaced with someone who is not equally [pre-emptive BLP redaction]? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. Of course, it seems plausible that we might have four years of "interim" appointees in succession, each one worse than the one before. On the other hand, CNN is saying that if Martin's nomination doesn't go through, an Obama-appointed judge (James Boasberg) might make the appointment instead: [9]; I don't know how credible that is. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Trump has withdrawn Martin's nomination, and Martin's term will end in twelve days. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't cancel the letter tho. Whoever replaces him will be just as interested in maintaining the intimidation. They just might do it more competently. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, although "more competently" is a low bar. Probably best to take things as they come. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, after I posted that thing about a judge, instead, making the appointment, that got taken up in multiple other news sources, and even in some tweets by Republican Senators, so it appears to be true. I don't claim to fully understand how this works, but it sounds to me like if Trump can't get a nominee confirmed by the end of this month, the appointment automatically gets handed over to the judiciary, by law. Again, I'm not an RS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Er, things aren't looking good:

Trump Names Jeanine Pirro as Interim U.S. Attorney in Washington

Like Mr. Martin, she supports Mr. Trump’s efforts to exact vengeance on his political enemies, has backed his challenges to federal judges who have questioned the legality of his immigration policies and spent months protesting the legitimacy of President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s election in 2020.

Carlstak (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Whatever person is in the position, it does not change that the letter is just a letter. Similar letters are being sent out to hundred or thousands of institutions, from San Francisco to Stockholm. Even if there is a shift to something that is actually legally important, it is probably still mostly a matter for the WMF rather than something that should immediately concern the en.wiki community. CMD (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. It's the civic duty of US citizens to pay attention to what the fascists in the US government are doing. Carlstak (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that isn't true at all. Someone, can't remember who, said that "ignorance kills", and that definitely applies here. Ignorance and looking backwards instead of taking action will harm the US in the short-term future, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they do try to take it down. Trump and his cronies don't play by the rules, something we learned on January 6, 2021. — ^EF⁵ 14:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Our individual editors have many civic duties, but none of them are to ask en.wiki to respond to letters. Replying to a letter would not help anyone stop en.wiki being taken down. CMD (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't asked en.wiki to respond to letters, but I don't subscribe to the "roll over and play dead" advice from commentators like James Carville. I'm sure WMF's lawyers had a response ready to send to Martin (if they hadn't sent it already), and will respond similarly if Pirro sends them such a letter. Carlstak (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with James Carville, I don't think they've been referenced here. I also don't think anyone has suggested the WMF play dead, although I'm not sure what that means. CMD (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I pay attention to civic affairs to have an informed opinion about them. We have an article on James Carville; he was the mastermind of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, and he has recently had op-eds published in the NYT. He is still regarded as a political guru by some people, I don't know why. Roll over and play dead (his advice regarding how Democrats should respond to Trumpist assaults on the rule of law) is what calls for the Wikipedia community to ignore letters from an interim Attorney for the District of Columbia sound like to me. Carlstak (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, glad to hear that. Wikipedia is not a political party, so that context does not apply, and at any rate continuing to function normally is pretty much explicitly the opposite of playing dead. The WMF has recently handled legal action in India, the latest part in a track record suggests they will not play dead where relevant. CMD (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your comment earlier that this is a WMF issue that is of no concern to individual editors whatsoever. They're paid to deal with these kind of matters. Coretheapple (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• What Ed Martin is up to, next: [10]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The only solution to the problem with lede sentences I can think of is that contentious labels (e.g, Fraudster, Conspiracy Theorist, Nazi, Climate Change Denier) should only be included in the opening sentence if they are defining characteristics of that person. For example, opening sentences should describe someone as a "politician" before they call someone a "fraudster" or "far-right". Egregious cases like [redacted per WP:BLP as proximate good sources are not given] would be an exception because that is what she is known for. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. Even if there are sources, we should not use such terms in the lede, except for actual fringe nutcases where that is a key part of their notability. I would seldom, if ever, describe a person who has been elected or appointed to high office as a fringe nutcase. If elected, they represent their district which is populous, and with people who presumably know what they are doing. For good or ill that is democracy in action. High-level appointees, well, their appointer is presumably democratically elected. You can't just disregard that.

Later in the article, you could use "XYZ and ABC have described [subject] as 'an empty suit'" or whatever, providing there are many good sources. But only if we we are also doing this for people we like. Does Bernie Sanders have "John Stossel described Sanders as 'a dumb dupe about economics' who has praised many violent Socialist revolutions" and so on and so forth? It had better or else we should be over there fixing articles like that first. I have noticed some laxness in this area amounting to, well, an occasional bit of unbalance. Being vigilant to protect our reputation for ice-cold fairness -- even when, or especially when, we are the entity whose ox is being gored -- is one of our best defenses against calumny -- and worse. That won't matter to our sworn enemies, but we are playing to the larger public here.

Let the reader read the facts and decide for herself if a person is a scaramouch or not, we want to be super careful about leading the reader with what Pinkcny Pruddle at The Atlantic or whatever had to say. We don't have to publish everything that has good sources, particularly opinions.

Don't mean to hector, as we all know this of course. That's just me. Herostratus (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Well said, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

A reader! Thank you. I want to add this: this is hard. I get that. I just added the following entry to Bernie Sanders#Articles:

• "Man and Woman", Vermont Freeman, 1972. (The title of the ref is "Bernie Sanders 'Rape Fantasy' Essay, Explained".)

The article is discussed by NPR, Vox, Mother Jones, and probably others. It's notable. (And these are not publications who would want to smear Bernie and make his article notable for ideological reasons). And I mean Bernie was 30 not 18. Yes it's two sentences first published in a very obscure broadsheet. Two sentences that have been discussed to the point of notability. Bernie is a public figure. His notable public writings help the reader to answer the question "What is this entity Bernie Sanders?" Sure, he and we would prefer that the article was not notable. Oh well. People prefer lots of things.

Adding the entry was emotionally painful I assure you. I like Bernie. And not only that: I want his program to gain popularity. That is a real-world thing that matters. And my entry will do the opposite. But then, the Wikipedia is an important and famous public good and thus its cherished reputation for fairness is important to the world. So I am not only pained but torn. Feeling hurt and torn are hard things to ask of editors.

Life is hard. Was it morally right of me to add that entry, or not. I don't know. Neither do you.

Anyway... the entry was quickly reverted, by User:Parabolist, with an edit summary expressing a couple of reasonable (but easily fixable) objections, followed by an insulting misrepresentation of my motives.

Oh well. Maybe they're right. But would the edit have been reverted if it noted a similar writing by Jim Jordan? No, it would not have. Am I going to engage on this and try to get an agreeable entry, if that is even possible? No I am not. I do not have the spirit.

Is this a problem? Yes. Yes, it is. Herostratus (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd describe it less "insulting" and more "correct" since you basically admit in this very post that this was to prove an incredibly stupid point and not to improve the article. Great job! You can't even disagree with my removal, yet somehow this is some travesty of justice? You made an edit that was basically vandalism and you got reverted. I have no grand love for Bernie Sanders, it's a page on my watchlist. Get over yourself. You should re-insert my edit summary, or would that make it too obvious that it was a revert primarily on BLP grounds? Parabolist (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Pshaw. As the article notes, even "conservatarian" Charles W. Cooke, senior editor at National Review, wrote "Let's Not Crucify Bernie Sanders for His Sexual-Fantasies Essay":

"Nobody honestly believes that Bernie Sanders is a sexual pervert or that he is a misogynist or that he intends to do women any harm. Nobody suspects that he harbors a secret desire to pass intrusive legislation or to cut gang rapists a break. Really, there is only one reason that anyone would make hay of this story, and that is to damage the man politically."

Carlstak (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

As the editor who said "thanks", I feel that I have to say that I also think the edit to the Sanders page was properly reverted. I'm not endorsing that edit. I'm also the editor who wrote WP:2WRONGS, and, although that essay is about user conduct, I think it applies here to a content issue. The solution to the possible problem of there being WP:BLP-violating content about figures on the right is not to create WP:BLP-violating content about figures on the left. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

References

For the interested

What Wikipedia can teach us about truth, information, and random trivia, podcast by Colin McEnroe with Stephen Harrison (author), Amy Bruckman and Annie Rauwerda.

What Attacks on Wikipedia Reveal about Free Expression I don't recognize the publisher, but the article was pretty good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

UK Online Safety Act

Hi Jimmy. Considered emailing you but might make sense to post publicly.

I'm a bit worried about Wikipedia's possible classification under the UK's Online Safety Act 2023. Several media outlets have said the judicial review is not likely to succeed for us. I'd probably be forced to edit via a proxy for the rest of time if the worst happened. Does the WMF even have the capacity to create separate rules/data collection for UK-based users? Allowing only UK editors to block one another also sounds crazy. I just don't think the site will function properly under these conditions.

I wrote to my MP but doubt that will accomplish much. My understanding is that you live in the UK—do you have any thoughts? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I think I probably shouldn't speculate publicly on a legal action which is underway, but I can tell you that I share your concern about all this stuff. My understanding, based primarily on this post by our lead counsel in the UK, is that we absolutely would not have the capacity to comply with at least some potential demands by Ofcom as a matter of technical practicality. As is quite common, the rules here are written with only classic "social media" models in mind and so the rules conceptually don't make any sense for us. I can further say that there is no support from me personally, nor (I don't speak for anyone else, I can only testify as to what people have said or not said to me) any board members, nor any staff, for implementing the kind of data collection needed in order to verify editors, not for the UK, not for anywhere.

And the idea of users blocking other users (in the social media sense), as you correctly note, leads to completely unworkable outcomes for us. It's a total nonstarter.

The only assurance that I can give you, considering I have no idea and can't speculate anyway on what the outcome of judicial review might be, is that I have not heard of any comments from any politicians, not in the press nor in private conversations I have had, which would indicate that they would think forcing Wikipedia to follow these rules would be anything short of crazy. The real questions is whether they (Ofcom, the government) can pull themselves together to make a sensible decision before this gets really weird. (What does weird look like? I hope we never have to find out.)

I'm on top of this, in daily communication with the legal and comms team, and doing meetings where I can and where appropriate with members of Parliament up to and including relevant (and irrelevant! I'll talk to all of them if it helps!) ministers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

A frank but fairly reassuring response—appreciate your time and the reply. Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)