User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 254

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 250←Archive 252Archive 253Archive 254

Hijacking of So Many People's Hard Work

What is this "own voice" that asserts what Wikipedia asserts "in its own voice"? This voice is the solid reputation built on the hard work of many contributors over many years. Using this voice to take sides in an ongoing war is unfair... and, in the end, will benefit no one. It will only damage the said reputation. In any case, "not in my name." Perhaps that was Jimbo Wales's message. Pldx1 (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The 'solid reputation', in as much as it exists, is built around the application of policies created by those same contributors, over many years. And given that the debate over Gaza and the way Wikipedia discusses claims of genocide is essentially one over whether, and how, Wikipedia may be following WP:RS, WP:DUE etc in regard to what under more normal circumstances, would (at least according to the majority of contributors commenting e.g. at the recent RfC) be considered entirely appropriate sources in order to make one specific statement 'in its own voice' on this topic (something it, and everything remotely describable as an encyclopaedia, does routinely for almost all topics, in almost all of its content), it is somewhat of a stretch to suggest that damage to the 'reputation', is occurring due to anything but the same community acting as it normally aspires to, or at least, acting in the same way that built the 'reputation'. And frankly, given that more or less everyone seems to have already made up their minds before entering the discussion, I suspect that the number of people who's opinion of Wikipedia has actually been changed by this single dispute is bordering on negligible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, I'm just curious if you would support the inclusion of the usual "The neutrality of this article is disputed" banner on the article since, quite clearly, the neutrality of this article has been disputed, by many Wikipedians in good standing. If not, I wonder if you could articulate your reasons why not. It is, after all, clearly within policy to do so, as far as I can see. Am I mistaken? Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Information Note: This has already been discussed at length on the talk page. CNC (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes it has, but I really did mean to ask @AndyTheGrump, whose views I am interested to know about. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
And here Kowal2701 (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Funny enough, I rarely hear any praise for Wikipedia's neutrality. Wikipedia is more about providing an online encyclopedia for anyone free of charge or ads. When it touches on sensitive topics like the Gaza genocide or the false flat earth conspiracy, there will always be a group of people bound to dislike the way Wikipedia presents them (the "Wikivoice"). Both examples are supported by a large number of scholarly sources, but haters gonna hate. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 17:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Personally, I rarely take much notice of comments about 'neutrality' from the average external critic of Wikipedia - or a good few internal ones for that matter - since they frame the whole thing according to some abstract (and philosophically untenable) definition of 'neutrality of which they are in possession, but can't (or won't) adequately explain. Or if they do attempt to explain it, it turns out to be something as bland, indefensible, and ultimately unmeasurable, as 'half-way across the US political spectrum'. As if the US readership, in it's heavily right-skewed political context (yeah, that's opinion too, but defensible by evidence) was somehow representative of (or entitled to hegemony over) the English-language Wikipedia's global readership more broadly. Given that I can't recall ever seeing someone complaining that Wikipedia gets its 'neutrality' wrong, and skews article content in favour of their own opinion, it seems reasonable to surmise that most complaints about neutrality aren't neutral. Not that one should expect them to be, but context matters when assessing such things. As does the level of thought that has gone into the complaint. So yes, there may be legitimate complaints (and possibly should be more of them, in topics currently getting less attention) regarding Wikipedia getting things wrong, but the idea that all one needs to do is yell 'not neutral' to win an argument is absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Equally, Andy, the number of times I have seen people stamping their feet that something actually is neutral, even though there is no consensus that it is neutral, is alarming. I don't think I'm using some abstract and philosophically untenable definition of "neutrality" - I'm using the Wikipedia method which is always about consensus, which is defined in policy as only saying things which have the widest possible agreement (ideally unanimity although we aren't so unreasonable as to demand that). In general, if a significant portion of Wikipedians in good standing are objecting, then we do not yet have consensus. What we do not do, again per policy, is count up votes and hand the article to the majority.
There has emerged an unfortunate trend in recent years to want to "Right Great Wrongs" and violate our traditions of consensus on the grounds that the Truth with a capital T is in the Right Sources (and we can ignore those sources which disagree, and the Wikipedians who disagree). This leads to intractable disputes and community conflict, where there is a much better way: respect the consensus method of Wikipedia, and do not say things in WikiVoice which are legitimately under dispute. Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Jimbo, for a long time now, the community has recognised that there are a great many subjects (e.g. most found on the list at Wikipedia:Contentious topics, for a start) where 'consensus' in the naive form described in your 'Wikipedia method' is unachievable. They matter too much, to too many people - and are often the subject of organised lobbying, covert manipulation and the rest, as I'm sure you are well aware. Lobbying, more often than not, on both sides of a debate, where both factions are engaged in great-wrong-righting. In that context, vague waffle about 'neutrality' achieves nothing. No such thing exists in the abstract, and neither does it exist as some sort of 'mean opinion of Wikipedia contributors'. Or (more compliant with actual Wikipedia policy) can 'neutrality' be defined via some 'mean opinion of reliable sources'. And, following on from that, contributors will disagree on what constitutes a reliable source, and on the relative weight one should put on types of sources (in particular, the privileged status that WP:RS puts on scholarship, which appears to be one of the underlying issues regarding a recent hot topic). And, given the external pressures involved, it should be entirely unexpected that those who are anything but neutral in their intentions have a direct interest in presenting their attempts to skew Wikipedia content in their favour as a 'neutrality' problem. And to accuse their opponents of being 'non-neutral'. In that context, a claim that something 'isn't neutral' needs to be seen as it very often is: an attempt to control discourse. The reality of the situation (as recognised by current Wikipedia policy, rather than vague aspirations) should require us to be sceptical of such claims. And to recognise that Wikipedia not only isn't capable of abstract 'neutrality', but shouldn't be pretending that it exists. A more honest statement would be that Wikipedia policy doesn't seek 'neutrality', but instead seeks to reflect and summarise that which can be found in the type of sources that the Wikipedia community (or at least those parts of it that aren't actively engaging in attempts to control the discourse to support their own faction) considers most appropriate. Needless to say, this implies that the existing contributor demographic (skewed as it is, in multiple ways) is the ultimate arbiter of what sources should be used to write 'neutral' articles etc. This is utterly unsurprising, unavoidable, and, given that despite its many flaws, Wikipedia seems to attract a large readership, quite possibly what readers on the whole actually want. And if they don't, we sure as heck shouldn't be trying to change policy on their behalf 'because they want it to be 'more neutral'. We don't know that is the case, and as I've already argued, because it can't be done.
In my opinion, a flawed Wikipedia (which this one clearly is) is better than no Wikipedia at all, given current political pressures in particular, but it would be better still if it dropped the pretence of being some sort of ultimate arbiter of truth, and instead took the more honest approach of telling its readers that it is what it is, because it is created by those who create it, and it needs to be read sceptically, like any other source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
The policy is right there, at WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." The problem with these consensus decisions is that the argument tends to go that because there are either so many sources making a claim, or that there are no serious sources that provide a counter claim, that thus what this claim is must be truth (typically arguing that this must qualify under "Avoid stating facts as opinions." of NPOV, which is not supported by the language there). We should never jump to that conclusion while a contentious topic is still happening. There is zero harm in using attribution rather than Wikivoice while keeping all the same information and sources already used, and prevents WP from becoming part of the controversy over a topic. Masem (t) 14:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
There's no problem with Wikipedia becoming part of the controversy. —Alalch E. 14:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
If we become part of the controversy because of choices of editors, that immediately belies the goal of taking a neutral point of view. WP's coverage of events will always be controversial because of things like WP:RSP, but that's far different than deciding to state a controversial statement in Wikivoice rather than with attribution. Masem (t) 15:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
The Gaza genocide is "controversial" because the sovereign states being accused of actively carrying out or complicity in the genocide have the incentive to skew the fact as "controversial" for their own interests. Such controversy is manmade and driven primarily by politics, not because there is a strong opposition in scholarly studies. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Which is even more a reason WP should not be discussing the genocide in Wikivoice. It is not our place while the event is still happening to decide whether those sovereign states are in the wrong or not, even though I would think most editors on WP know themselves whatever is happening there is morally and ethically wrong, but that's where we can't let RGW cloud judgment on what neutral writing is. Masem (t) 15:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Without going into the specifics here, I'd have to say that as a general principle, if I consider something to be 'morally and ethically wrong', I don't consider acting on that judgement to be 'clouding it'. I'd consider not doing so to be the questionable part. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't see how a politically driven narrative of "controversy" invalidates the use of Wikivoice. During the Covid-19 pandemic, there were lot of conspiracy theories or misinformation spread by politicians like Donald Trump of RFK Jr. Did we avoid the use of Wikivoice in articles like social distancing or vaccine because many politicians deemed those "controversial"? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Point on language, controversial =/= "seriously contested", Race and intelligence is an example of the former but not latter Kowal2701 (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers current events and is not censored, and when a genocide takes place, Wikipedia will include a statement that a genocide took place and it will immediately become a part of the controversy whereby the party that is doing the genocide will attack Wikipedia. That is how it must be and I will not settle for anything else. —Alalch E. 17:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Not taking a side or keeping things out of wikivoice is nowhere close to censoring, since the article would still be addressing the large number of people that consider the events in Gaza a genocide. But we shouldn't be arbitrating a truth that is not yet decided as a truth since the statement remains controversial. Further, the above is exactly the problem when we allow RGW guide decisions. I myself are probably like most editors that what's happened in Gaza is bad, but I wouldn't let my personal feelings and sense of morals drive how to write about it. Masem (t) 19:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Not stating a verifiable fact as a fact, in a calculated fashion, to avoid getting heat, because that fact is that a genocide has taken place, is censoring, and is taking a side: the side of those who are implicated in the genocide and are taking measures to change the record in their favor. —Alalch E. 19:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
That's rather confused about facts. Under the convention, killing is a fact -- whether it constitutes genocide is a legal conclusion. And that won't be decided until the court enters its final judgement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Please provide sourced support for your assertion that 'genocide is a legal conclusion'. It clearly can be, under some circumstances, but I'd have to suggest that in within scholarship, the term is used much more broadly, and has frequently been applied in circumstances where a trial was never a possibility: not least in historical contexts where the whole concept of genocide trials would be hopelessly anachronistic. You appear to be attempting to apply a definition from one field (law) to another (scholarship) in order to prevent the latter from doing something it routinely does: examine events from its own perspectives, with its own definitions and methodology. Perspectives which, I'd remind you, are those of the sources WP:RS rates most highly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I already did supply a source, the convention on genocide. This is 2025, not another time period when there was no court and no case. Here, now, there is a court and an open case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
The convention on genocide is a legal document. A Treaty. One which as far as I can see, places no restriction whatsoever on how anyone not party to the treaty (which scholars clearly aren't, since it is a treaty between states) choses to use the term. And as far as I can see, attempts to impose no restrictions on whether states themselves chose to describe something as 'genocide' prior to a trial. It would be rather absurd if it did, given that one generally makes the accusation first, and holds the trial later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
The point is, there is a live controversy. You've taken a side in that controversy and in your own life that's a fine thing to do. But it is not for Wikipedia to do, ever. NPOV is non-negotiable.
"I will not settle for anything else" than your preferred version of the article is... well, it isn't what we strive for in terms of reaching consensus with other editors. It's a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The point is, among the core content policies there is no "do not be controversial" policy. Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. Jumping hoops to avoid getting heat from following the same content policies as with any other article, because this time the fact being stated is that a genocide has occurred in the world, i.e., calculatedly packaging that statement into a false-balance construct, is not what NPOV means and is not compatible with the project's values and mission. I will not settle for anything else because I am invested in Wikipedia living up to its values. If Wikipedia were to compromise on its values now, because of outside pressures, I would be disappointed, and while I can see pragmatic merit in compromising on policy so as not to attract the ill will of certain powerful hostile factors, the trade-off from the compromise is too much of a bad trade at the level of the project's longstanding values. Wikipedia might have to suffer a bit because of stubbornly holding on to its values, but that's how it will have to be. —Alalch E. 16:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump I definitely agree with you "it would be better still if it dropped the pretence of being some sort of ultimate arbiter of truth". And yet, here we are, declaring without community consensus (we are far from consensus as many people in the community are giving policy based reasons not to do it) something in WikiVoice as if we are the judges. We are not. That's a pretence of being some sort of ultimate arbiter of truth and it needs to stop. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

No one said anything about not stating accusations, but to be NPOV, you have to state the defense, too. And do be NPOV, you have to withhold judgement until the court makes its final judgment. Just like in a murder case or any other such matter. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

There have been a few articles that defend WP and its neutrality when others have raised complaints about it , for example from the Verge this year. They set out how neutrality works on WP, and generally acknowledge it does have flaws but because of the wiki approach (multiple editors, source expectation) the form of neutrality generally works. Masem (t) 13:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
And importantly, WP should not be trying to arbitrate this as truth or not, but simply to document the controversy, even if the bulk of the sources claim it is a genocide, that statement is clearly contentious when you look past the walls of the ivory tower that some editors are trying to build. Maybe in 5, 10 years when there zero conflict in the Gaza strip we can look to what academics have written far distance from the event, but we absolutely should not be doing that now. Masem (t) 23:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't think WP:EXCLUDESOURCESYOUDON'TLIKE is currently policy. Academics can, and do, comment routinely on events as they happen. Indeed, they are very often asked to do exactly that, by sources looking for expert knowledge. Something Wikipedia is supposed to be providing to its readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
And most academics commenting on current events that I've seen tend to have some stake in why they are talking about it now while the event is ongoing. We need to treat more topics like the way hard sciences handle them: if it is something you cannot objectively prove, it remains a theory, and until there's a significant wide spread duplications to validate as much as can be done while its a theory, its treated as that, just a theory. Once there's enough wide spread duplication, it remains a theory, though maybe then described "widely accepted" theory ala quantum mechanics, and to that end, we don't have to take any extra steps at WP to avoid overstepping into the truth. But when we get into soft sciences and politics, suddenly editors want to be the experts on what is fact, in some cases on something that can never be proven, outside of an accusation directly from the persons at the center of it. Now, in time, well after the dust settles, history then tends to become crystallized, like the Holocaust being a genocide decades after it happened. We're nowhere close to decades out, so we shouldn't be claiming any subjective stances as a fact. Masem (t) 02:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
What exactly is it that we should be waiting for?
If we're waiting for it to not be a politically charged topic after the genocide ends, or for enough countries to recognize it, keep in mind that, even to this day, shockingly few countries recognize the Armenian genocide (twice as many have recognized the Gaza genocide), but we absolutely should not change the Armenian genocide article to decline to call it a genocide in Wikivoice. 5-10 years from now, the statement "Israel committed a genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza" will be no less controversial to Israel and their allies than the statement "The Ottoman Empire committed a genocide against the Armenians" is to Turkey and their allies. Scholarly/academic sources from subject-matter-experts are the only ones it makes any sense to take into consideration here, whether or not the topic is contentious among the public or the international community, and there is an overwhelming consensus among said experts that what has happened in Gaza for the last two years is a genocide. There is no real dispute among the only sources that should hold any weight (as in, experts rather than world leaders), so there is no need for the article to present a false balance.
If you're arguing that the genocide is "just a theory" while it's ongoing, if what you're asking is for us to wait until the genocide is "officially over" and becomes a historical event, does that not mean we can never call any event a current, ongoing genocide? Should Wikipedia be unable to ever state that there are any ongoing genocides? Should Wikipedia decline to call the Rohingya genocide a genocide too? These aren't rhetorical questions, I am actually curious about your position on this, as well as Jimbo's. I've yet to see any arguments against calling it a genocide in Wikivoice that wouldn't also apply to at least one of the other two I've mentioned, if not both.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it takes a genius to realize that politics is playing a huge part in those calling it a genocide. Sir Joseph (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Except this is the classic case of false equivalence. How on earth are the ones (with their allies) being accused of intentionally targeting civilians and civil infrastructures in Gaza to be more credible on commenting on the Gaza genocide, than those who aren't. It almost sounds like asking the perpetrator to investigate their own crime, and claiming that no one else is more qualified. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The most important point is that we, as Wikipedians, are not judges. We do not take sides in controversies. Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
But that's an oversimplification per WP:NPOV, and it's hard not to go WP:OTHERCONTENT on it (that essay is an essay). 2020 United States presidential election, Holocaust, Chemtrails, Intelligent design, Altmed, take your pick. All of these are "controversies" for a certain value of "controversies", but IMO WP would not be improved if they were re-written per "We do not take sides in controversies." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I think this is helpful to think about. When we talk about consensus as the basis for editing in Wikipedia, we are talking about a way to work together productively and to make sure that Wikipedia remains neutral. It is not about consensus globally by everyone, it is primarily about the consensus of Wikipedians in good standing. "Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often, we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached." (That's policy.)
You won't find much if any (I think there's genuinely an absence of objections) controversy around Chemtrails (to pick one of your examples). That's very different from the current discussion where there are, both here and in the various RfCs, Wikipedians in good standing and with long experience who are making policy based arguments that saying this in WikiVoice is a mistake. That's the point. We do not have consensus within our community on stating this in WikiVoice. We do have very strong consensus on various aspects of the: that the UN said this, that Germany and the US said that, etc. That's how we will get to "as wide an agreement as can be reached". Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Well, if you're right, the next rfc at Gaza Genocide should support... well, whatever that rfc will be about. Like said, when we disagree a lot, we go process-heavy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I have a related question. You've talked about how the WP:LEAD at Gaza genocide fails WP:NPOV. What do you think of the lead at Gaza war? Is it as bad, acceptable, something else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
None of those are in an open case, in front of an open court, where there are judges to decide. As for the Armenian genocide, it did not take place when there was a open case and court to be the judge. (Also, no one said it was genocide at the time, the concept did not exist then. So, the only thing that anyone can do now with it is go back and project the later concept on its history. And that's not the case nor context, here, now. )-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
So there is a WP-valid definition of "controversies" here, based on open case/in front of an open court? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Court cases are a controversy, their purpose is to address the parties opposed positions and decide among them. To controvert means to argue, to deny, for which a decision is then rendered. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
That doesn't really help me in the "We do not take sides in controversies" WP-context, but thanks for trying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Why not? Certainly legal disputes are plainly a matter of controversy. Understanding how Wikipedia would not to take sides in the dispute for a matter in court should be helpful for how not to take sides. We don't say guilty before the court does, for example. And more broadly its easy to follow the same pattern beyond that, 1) What is the dispute? 2) Who gets to decide? 2a)how are concepts defined? 3) Who gets to argue? 4) what arguments are made? 5) what was the result or when will the result be? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Legal matters are/can be a matter of controversy, I don't think all are in the common use/a WP-useful sense of the word. But so is the 2020 United States presidential election (US president etc: "I never lost" (paraphrase)) and chemtrails (US Secretary of Health and Human Services: "We have to do something about that" (paraphrase)). And there are laws against chemtrails now. So "We do not take sides in controversies." doesn't seem like helpful WP-guidance to me in general. WP:LUNATICCHARLATANS (that essay is an essay) is also part of WP-philosophy, and a lot of stuff that it "covers" is "controversial" too, etc.
But, if someone starts a "When we say "We do not take sides in controversies.", what do "controversies" mean?" rfc, I'll at least read the opening statement. If the WP-community wants to add a "Like a living person can't be called a murderer in wikivoice unless there's a court ruling, a genocide can not be said to have happened in wikivoice unless there's a court ruling." rule, it can. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
The aftermath of the 2020 presidential election was a matter of court cases multiple times from the start but it can only begin one way, some version of, 'Biden won the presidential election. Then Trump said things, sued and lost in court, too, again and again.' And yes, it is true that in science matters, those discussed in your essay are often not going to be the subject of a court case. Instead of 'what is the law, who is guilty?' the issue is science, which easily presents as, 'what is the science? who knows it?' And who speaks science and who does not, and who speaks for science and who does not can be determined. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
(e/c)Choosing to downplay relevant, expert scholarship (which, per long-standing Wikipedia policy, arrived at by consensus through the community, is seen as the ideal WP:RS for subjects it deals in) in order to 'avoid taking sides' is actually nothing of the sort. It is a deliberate distortion of policy in order to facilitate a false equivalence. In more normal circumstances, such distortion would be dishonest, and damaging to the project. In the circumstances we are discussing it is also utterly immoral. Evil. And yes, call this 'righting great wrongs' if that upsets you. I don't fucking care. I have morals. I don't lie to Wikipedia readers to promote fantasies of an imaginary 'neutral Wikipedia' that never existed, and never will. I do not, and will not, downplay genocide to promote an online encyclopaedia. If Wikipedia policy demands we leave our morals at the door, what kind of project is it, Jimbo? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
What? There is nothing immoral about understanding genocide in the present context as a legal and political issue. Indeed, it was supposed to be a great advancement in human moral history that world agreed to make it the subject of international law. No one is asking anyone to lie about any atrocity, the killing and starvation and the rest. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
No one is calling for downplaying reliable sources or forcing false equivalence. It is simply making sure WP is not jumping to a subjective conclusion in a very-much ongoing event over a controversial factor of that event by avoiding wikivoice and using attribution. Its very easy in a situation like Gaza to insist WP should take a side, but that's not our role here, and this is very much illustrative of the larger problem with how we too often write around controversial topics where the moral issue is much more messier yet editors insist on using Wikivoice. Masem (t) 13:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The Wikipedia community's decision to insist on reliable sources is subjective. The same community's decision (except here apparently) to prefer scholarly sources is subjective. This insistence on (philosophically untenable) 'neutrality' is a subjective decision. The entire project exists because people make personal choices. And because presumably, at least some of them think it is a good thing. And yet somehow, when it comes to what scholarship is overwhelmingly describing as genocide, 'subjectivity' is a bad thing? I'm quite sure the dead children of Gaza will find that comforting... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Because it is still too soon, things are still ongoing and there may be issues not yet revealed that no one can take into account yet. As such, per RECENTISM, we shouldn't be assuming any source coming to a conclusion on a subjective aspect is necessarily right. 5-10 years from whatever is considered the end of the conflict, and most of all the details have been put on the table, then we can start looking to ask the questions of what are the most appropriate expert sources here to use and consider if this should be stated as a Wikivoice fact. In the present, we can certainly make those academic voices weigh appropriately in the discussion as a point of DUE, but they're still trying to judge the conclusion for a moving target. Masem (t) 13:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
It isn't too soon for the dead children. 'Too late' would seem more appropriate. Or is that too much of a conclusion for you, Masem? As for moving targets, that's how academia works. Or should. It doesn't strive for final answers. It doesn't wait until it knows everything before it says anything. That would be absurd. We don't cite academia (or anything else) because it is in possession of incontrovertible 'facts'. We cite it because fallible human knowledge is best advanced through looking to those who are best placed to advance it. Which doesn't include those who would rather Wikipedia didn't say anything at all on the subject of dead children. Or if it must, would prefer that it hide the dead children behind a smokescreen of bogus 'neutrality' and a stack of bullshit about academics not having engaged in decades of research, and thus being unqualified to comment (unlike those defending the killing in Gaza, apparently). AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
You're asking a moral /ethical question that should be left at the door when editing fir neutrality on WP. That's why calling out all this RGW pleading as a problem. Personally I think it's atrocious what's happened in Gaza and have little doubt it's a genocide, personally, but it's when editing in mainspace on WP, that personal side has to be push aside and looked at from how a neutrally written written work would cover it. A d that means at this point treating this as a contribution versial topic that we should only document and not be a participant in (in this case jumping to claim something contentious as truth). We need to edit without our morals and ethics influencing our writing approach. Masem (t) 14:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
So once more we are back to this fictitious 'neutrality' policy (arrived at through subjective decisions made by the community) as the final arbiter of article content. Why exactly? How does pretending to be in possession of some all-knowing arbiter of 'neutrality' advance human knowledge? Are you perhaps afraid that if Wikipedia were to admit it were in possession of no such thing, the entire project would collapse? Do you really think it is that fragile? And do you really think the average Wikipedia reader either thinks Wikipedia is currently 'neutral', or thinks that it is even possible to be? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Neutral here means simply documenting and summarizing the topic with appropriate weighting of all sides in proportion to sources presenting their arguments. It does not mean being an arbitrator of truth. Masem (t) 14:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Repeating the same BS about Wikipedia's fictitious 'neutrality' doesn't make it less fictitious. Why exactly are you so keen to defend something you surely understand isn't philosophically defensible? The community chose to define 'neutrality' through its own subjective choices. A self-selected community. One that the readers, presumably based on their own subjective choices, seem to like the output of (or at least enough do to keep the readership up). So again, are you afraid that the readers might all disappear (where? Grokapedia?) if Wikipedia were to admit that it isn't entirely objective (same as any other publication), and that its content might for instance be affected by the demographics of its contributors (which isn't even representative of that of its readers, I suspect, and certainly isn't representative of anything else). How would admitting that we aren't trying to be 'objectively neutral' (because no such thing exists) be so harmful? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Never said objectively neutral, just that taking NPOV at its face, our goal is to document but not get involved with controversial subjects. Because that works with aspects like DUE and RS, our summary is going to be slanted towards the dominant side of a controversy, so clearly no attempt to be objectively neutral. But we are still neutral in tone and approach, and that means not presenting contentious topics as facts, as stated directly at NPOV. Masem (t) 15:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
You are simply repeating yourself. While refusing to explain why pretending that a 'neutral in tone and approach' can be achieved (it clearly can't, without first arriving at a subjective definition of neutrality) is so essential. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Our existing neutrality policy as written is pretty clear what WP's approach to neutrality is, which is summarizing controversies, with sides covered in proportion to what coverage is from RS, but withoit taking any side in that controversy. Nothing subjective about that, until we have editors trying to push moral and ethical aspects to say we should do something different. Masem (t) 16:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Whatever. We clearly aren't going to agree. Mostly because you seem to refuse to actually even think about the possibility that maybe Wikipedia doesn't actually operate according to the fairy-tales it tells about itself. Creation myths are powerful things... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Or we acknowledge this growing problem of editors ignoring the clear wording of one of WP's core policies to push ideas along the RGW approach and making WP jump to conclusions on contentious subjects. Masem (t) 18:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
That's just what it looks like to you, but it is not the case. The problem is elsewhere: Wikipedia does what it does, by publishing content about recent events, and when a genocide happens in the world, those who are committing the genocide, their allies, and supporters will, through various channels, put pressure on (what they think is) the supporting structure of Wikipedia to cause it to buckle, because they don't like it that such a popular website freely shares knowledge about what they are culpable for and implicated in. Wikipedia cannot do anything differently because the majority of its editors are radicals of Wikipedia ideology, who will not compromise on the project's values. But to you, this looks as if these people were pro-Palestinian RGW-ists. That is a conflation. —Alalch E. 19:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not even ascribing intent, simply that the topic of genocide in Gaza is a contentious topic, and thus we should approach without stating things in Wikivoice as required by NPOV. When you get arguments like above that are basically "won't you think of the children?" that is now appealing to RGW which WP doesn't do; WP should have an amoral viewpoint even in the face of a significant human disaster as to avoid violating NPOV. And I know that is a harsh stance to take but its what the policy is meant to keep us from wading into becoming part of the controversy. The more we simply state facts and summarizing opinion w.r.t. to DUE, the more we stay neutral as defined by NPOV. Masem (t) 12:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
The policy isn't about avoiding controversy, it's one prong of the three-prong content-policy framework designed to ensure that the content published on the site can reasonably be deemed to be knowledge and not something that is not knowledge (propaganda, apologia, spin, narrative laundering, etc.) —Alalch E. 23:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with documenting controversy under NPOV, it exists so we have a framework to do that, which includes the reliance on RSes, and the use of appropriate weight of coverage of all viewpoints. What the policy does not allow for, spelled out quite clearly, is to make statements of fact in Wiki voice on claims that are controversial. We attribute those claims as to cover them and document who said what as given the reader the sense of what all sidesare saying (to the limits that RSes let us). There is no narrative spin when using Wiki voice if the claim is any bit controversial, it keeps us out of taking a side. Masem (t) 00:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Praytell why we claim vaccine's effectiveness and safety when the incubent US secretary of health Robert F Kennedy Jr. argues about it. His elite stature and role as a health minister should have given him enormous weight (not credibility) in invalidating the use of wikivoice in the vaccine article lede. After all, the controversies surrounding vaccine are "ongoing". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't valid to exclude sources that we don't like, nor to take the side of the sources that we may prefer. And yet, that's exactly what has happened here. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
This entire controversy seems obvious. If both viewpoints contain tens of thousands of words, during the discussion and its aftermath, then there is no consensus. Consensus means, more or less, agreement. An agreement did not occur, so Wikipedia's voice should not be used as if it had. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't really see the current iteration of Gaza genocide lede deserves the blame of "excluding sources we don't like". The last paragraph gives Israeli counter-claims quite sufficient spotlight. The denialists on Israel's side would want the article be deleted entirely, but because they lack the capacity to achieve that, the next best thing is to manufacture "controversies" around the accusations to bait Wikipedians who would challenge the use of Wikivoice. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Re Yes, it isn't valid to exclude sources that we don't like, nor to take the side of the sources that we may prefer.
and We do not have consensus within our community on stating this in WikiVoice. We do have very strong consensus on various aspects of the: that the UN said this, that Germany and the US said that
Jimbo, a point I feel necessary to keep making (admittedly at the risk of being less persuasive each time I repeat myself) is that there is good reason why "some sources" are "excluded" when determining how to describe the event in Wikivoice. If you want to see the current version changed, you should at least make some acknowledgement of why it is the way that it is rather than asserting that everyone else is ignoring NPOV and trying to RGW, and that the closing admin at the RfC failed to understand that Wikipedia is not a majority vote. The "some sources" in question are world leaders. We care only about the opinions of subject matter experts and not about what the representatives of Germany or the US said because, if the official positions of countries mattered, we would be unable to say the Armenian genocide was a genocide. To put it bluntly, we do not and should not give a single shit if Donald Trump calls it a genocide. He is not a genocide studies expert. No one believes otherwise. His opinion does not matter. Just as we do not care what Erdogan or Aliyev have to say about the Armenian genocide. Part of NPOV is determining which viewpoints should be given weight and acknowledging that there are some viewpoints which should not.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
You misapprehend the topic in a critical way. Since the genocide convention, genocide is a matter of international law, and what national governments say on international law is per se relevant to international law. Nations create international law. Every competent expert will tell you so. And no competent expert is going to tell you, they are a judge of the international court when they are not. Experts will opine, they might seek to persuade, and they will critique, but they will still tell you, they are not the judge of the court, and we should relate what they say but not treat them as the judge, when they are not. Competent Human Rights groups will say what they think, it is their right to do so, but they will not tell you, they are the judge, when they are not. Again we relate what they say, but we cannot tell people they are the judge, when they are not. Your wholesale per se exclusion, only makes readers less informed about the topic of genocide. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
If you are arguing Wikipedia should not describe the event as a genocide until after the end of the Gaza genocide case, no matter how many decades that takes, I'll ask you the same question I asked Masem, which he did not answer. Do you believe it is a problem that Wikipedia uses the word genocide in Wikivoice to describe the Rohingya genocide?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
The two sources used in that article lead paragraph (currently numbers 4 and 5) do not support the article's genocide statement. The first carefully makes clear there is no final judgement, the other does not use the word genocide. The last sentence of the lead paragraph ascribes a POV on ethnic cleansing (not genocide) to various countries, so clearly we are able to attribute to others (including countries) in that article and should do so. Document the atrocities that have been documented, but leave final judgements to the competent authority who can render the final judgement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
We have bodies of scientific evidence over decades that show vaccines are safe, particularly after that one Lancet article several years ago. We also have numerous reliable sources that establish that RFK Jr's views on vaccine have no scientific merit. As such, this is where stuff like FRINGE and our policies about pseudoscience come into play. Same with flat earth and moon landing and climate change skeptisms.
What we don't have in the Gaza genocide is a decades-long body of scientific evidence to show that the intent was to commit genocide in Gaza. We have observations and numerous voices saying it is, but we also have a fair number of voices from RSes that say it isn't, and unless we have a confession from the agencies involved saying their goal was to commit genocide, it will remain a subjective, controversial issue that does not fall under FRINGE. If the ICJ ultimately ruled that way, that's different. Or decades from now, after sources far distance from the event can review the event under more objective considerations, and they all universally agree it was a genocide, then it makes that we can use Wikivoice then. But we are nowhere close to those conditions to be met. Masem (t) 01:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
I wonder if a list, agreed upon by consensus among veteran editors, could gather the two dozen or so most unsettled discussions in a way similar to WP:RSP. A list with color-coded indications of how well we have done with WP:NPOV, or how close to "Wikivoice" we are: is that ridiculous or do you think we could actually set aside something like that, and that it would help set a neutrality focus to have such a list? Sswonk (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Is this a controversy we shouldn't take sides on? It's clearly ongoing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:BLPCRIME apply? "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law."

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting currently says, "James Wenneker von Brunn...fatally shot Museum Special Police Officer Stephen Tyrone Johns."[00:45, 5 November 2025] Before the offender's death, the wording was, "According to the six-page indictment, von Brunn entered the building and shot security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns, who died from his injuries."[00:29, 29 December 2009] There was never any doubt about the facts. However, the original wording cannot be seen as creating a false doubt.

It could be argued that per WP:BLPGROUP, BLP does not apply to the government of Israel. OTOH, the decisions were clearly made by a small group, including the prime minister and various staff and military officers responsible for each of the actions in Gaza.

TFD (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

And individual guilt possibly goes even lower in the chain of command, likely if it is found they had reason to believe the orders were illegal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC:_"Scholarly_consensus_there_is_genocide"_Wikivoice_in_lead

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2025

  • Comix: Madness
    It could happen to anyone.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee election results

Dear Jimbo,

The results of the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections have been posted at WP:ACE2025. Nine seats have been filled, with three incumbent arbs continuing, two former arbs rejoining, and four new candidates being elected. This has been a remarkably speedy process this year -- the scrutineers finished just over 24 hours after voting ended! Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to the scrutineers for the fast turnaround. CMD (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:THESIS6 has me wondering... do you think members of the arbitration committee should be required to identify themselves to the WMF? Not publicly, of course, but privately by undergoing some form of identity verification that only the WMF would see and have access to? Some1 (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Where is the Wikipedia logo ball shown in the image on your userpage captioned "Wikipedia is yours, and I trust you."?

Can I get it on the Wikipedia store? Could it be possible for that to be on the Wikipedia store?

VidanaliK (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't really know where it's from. I found a reference on the image page to a creator who may have made it, but I found a bit of a dead-end in my research! Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
@Jimbo Wales In your user page. Here you say: Wikipedia is yours, and I trust you. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 15:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
No what I mean is - the image is an image from a Wikimedia publication a few years ago. When you click on the image and go and look at the media file details, there some more information, and I did a few minutes of research but I am not really sure where the object came from. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

If wikipedia was a soda flavour, what would it be like?

And would it be possible to sell it at Wikipedia conventions in hopes of fundraisings?

I can answer more questions if you wish.

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hop water. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
I can see that, what about Cream soda? GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
On a good day, Wikipedia is like that particular Coca-cola I had one hot summer day in Alabama when I was 8 years old after playing a long game of kickball with friends. Sweet, satisfying, and a perfect moment in life. On a bad day, it's a watered-down diet Coke when the machine wasn't functioning. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Water, and that's a good thing! Neutral, but vital and good for you. Probably won't have much luck selling it for fundraising, though. — Czello (music) 10:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Root beer. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
opencola. ltbdl (master) 15:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Good one! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Carbonated green tea. Refreshing and healthy. Carlstak (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
OK Soda. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Haha. Its own advertising called it "carbonated tree sap". That doesn't sound too bad, really—I suppose it would be maple-flavored. Carlstak (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Eh, it was okay. Tasted more like when you were a kid and you mixed all the sodas at the soda fountain in one cup. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

From Open Encyclopedia To Ideological Weapon: Wikipedia’s Hidden War On Truth

From The Daily Wire, for your whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Unreliable source employs unreliable research company to find out that Wikipedia disfavours unreliable sources, including the one that hired them. And now here's Dunning and Kruger with the weather. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
    If an unreliable source employs unreliable research company, does that mean this will work like a double negative and the result will be reliable? ...No, it doesn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • As usual for me, and no one will be surprised by this, I think the right approach to a critique like this is to work very hard to understand what they may have gotten right. Sometimes that's nothing - this is an ideological opinion piece, after all - but very often there's something there that we could take away and improve. This piece focusses on our list of perennial sources, and my own view is that we should constantly re-examine it for political bias. It also focusses on WikiEducation, with a lot of completely false suggestions of underhanded control and whatnot, but of course we should say: ok, what is WikiEducation funding, does it have balance, does it encourage POV editing, etc. Maybe the answer is: it's fine, this is crazy. Or maybe the answer is: gee, this does look like something we could improve.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, we absolutely are at war with Truth. Because Truth has declared war on facts.
    For most of my adult life, conservatives have sought to replace empirical fact as the arbiter of reality with ideological truth. The most obvious example is climate change denial. The companies that funded climate change denialism, knew full well that fossil fuel use was changing the climate and warming the planet. In fact, it's why they started: they knew that the inevitable action would be economically devastating for them.
    Fast forward to the present, the Truth of climate change denial is treated as superior to the fact of climate change, almost without exception, by the political leaders of the right, be it Farage or Trump. Today, on TV, Stephen Miller proclaimed the Truth that immigration causes crime and wrecks the economy, when the facts say the exact opposite. Every question of fact is reframed as competing Truths, and if the facts contradict a deeply held conviction - especially one held by religious conservatives - the facts have to be ruthlessly suppressed. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
    If you don't mind me asking, what do you mean by Truth has declared war on facts.? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
    I believe what they're referring to more specifically is post-truth - the idea that some individuals hold "personal truths" they believe in despite being provably false i.e. Alternative facts. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
    Back in the 17th Century, the word "fact" was adopted as a loanword from law, meaning "that which was done". This coincided with the rise of experimental measurement, and the growth of science out of natural philosophy. In natural philosophy, the strength of rhetoric determined reality. For Aristotelians, heavy bodies fall faster than light ones, because the argument for that truth is stronger. Empirical evidence, however, shows the fact that heavy and light bodies fall at the same rate.
    Truths are creatures of rhetoric and belief. For a creationist, the truth is that God created the Earth and all life on it, in more or less its present form, in six literal days. Back in the real world, the fact is that the Earth is billions of years old and live evolved by random mutation and natural selection. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
    To quote Sean Spicer, "sometimes we can disagree with the facts". And that's the truth. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
    A different angle: CAIR and 42 Organizations Call on Wikipedia to Oppose Censorship on Gaza Genocide Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    Powerful stuff, thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I know that Wikipedia is not a Unreliable source for some peoples. I noticed in Daily Wire article claim right-wing websites is not "Unreliable source", while sources with progressive bias like The New York Times is reliable source behind paywall. Also, I also noticed a comment in that article saying: Buy-bye Wikipedia, hello AI. (Grokpedia?), someone was always suspicious of Wikipedia, wikipedia is full of false information.
    I know that if a article has a false information contents, fix yourself, adding correct sources.
    I also has some critics of Wikipedia, like: notable article getting deleted (For example BFDI, which was only allowed to be recreated in 2025), blacklisted source and vandalism. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
    To quote one Michael Huang about 2 weeks ago, , "Now finally it deserves one, it meets the requirements." But that's just his opinion, of course. If anyone didn't know, more backstory at WP:BFDI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  • About the FTC: Wikipedia does not engage in trade, nor does it have fair or unfair commercial practices. It does not do anti-competition, by virtue of not being commercial. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  • This article floats around a valid point but completely misses it, in that when we are writing on politically-oriented topics that are based on highly subjective viewpoints (eg where DUE woudl apply), editors tend to use RSP as a tool to block any commentary from sites that are unreliable or the like, even though the viewpoints includes are opinions and similar non-factual reports from reliable sites, and when this is a left-versus-right wing issue, we tend to immediately assume a self-feeding loophole that because these right wing sources are unreliable, their opinions are not appropriate to include, and because those opinions are not in the major reliable sources, they fail DUE or are FRINGE. First, we should be trying to urge editors not to incorporate as many opinions, or at least opinions coming directly from opinion pieces but those filtered through third-party sources so that we can argue "we're summarizing the debate as presented by reliable sources that otherwise aren't offering input on the debate". But if we are using opinion pieces directly from reliable sources, then immediately that should allow the use of opinions from normally unreliable sources in appropriate proportion, and that's likely a can of worms few editors really want to engage in. That all gets tied up in how bad of a job we are doing when it comes to writing about highly-charged political news events and why we need far better moderation from editors to keep these event articles to surface level details rather than trying to deep dive to build out reaction sections so quickly. Masem (t) 01:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
    I broadly agree with you, Masem. These articles end up not as an interesting and useful documentation of a particular meme or subjective viewpoint, but as one-sided junk. It's not good enough. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

So whose crazy idea is next?



Hi @Jimbo Wales,

I have just read and loved your book, The Seven Rules of Trust, including its last line, "Whose crazy idea is next?" ... at which point I was saying, "It's me! It's me!"

I wonder if you would have a look at the readme page of the GitHub repo, Links? The project is pinching a lot of reputational architecture that you will recognise very well ... and trying to apply it to two types of difficult questions (1) How will we govern super-intelligent and potentially malicious AIs, and (2) How do we organise ourselves in the face of questions that require collective action?

I'd love to hear your feedback.

Cheers, Joe. JoeRasmussen (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Block on User Sca

The Signpost: 17 December 2025

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Face

Do you think articles like Mar-a-Lago face and Republican makeup with shoddy highly partisan sourcing are appropriate for Wikipedia? Where can equivalent articles on the plastic surgery practices of Democrat politicians be found? How about the tendency on the Left to lie about their ethnicity and heritage?

Does Wikipedia need outside intervention or do you think the horrific bias and poor treatment of minority viewpoints among editors can be handled within the website's community? FloridaArmy (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh wow. excessive or uniform plastic surgery interventions such as lip augmentation, Botox, and jaw contouring, coupled with heavy makeup, spray tans, fake eyelashes, and dark smoky eyes. isn't exactly a trend exclusive to Republican/conservative women. Just watch any reality TV show. Some1 (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
The phrase "appropriate for Wikipedia" does not mean anything because Wikipedia is not censored. A similar topic for liberals would be blue-haired liberal. You also haven't provided any sources that support "lying about their ethnicity and heritage", which is a really broad claim and difficult to verify. For example, has Zohran Mamdani lied about his heritage?
"[O]utside intervention" on Wikipedia is a form of canvassing. As for "horrific bias and poor treatment of minority viewpoints" - the articles you linked are about plastic surgery trends, how is that about mistreating "minority viewpoints"? Regards, --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 17:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
I interpreted "outside intervention" to mean something similar to Ed Martin's letter to the WMF. Some1 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
You are mistaken on multiple fronts here, I'm sorry. Wikipedia is not censored manifestly does not mean, and has never meant, that literally everything under the sun is appropriate as a Wikipedia entry. I think you probably know better than that, and a mere moments reflection will make it clear. We have extensive guidelines and policies about what is appropriate for Wikipedia. Outside intervention is not necessarily canvassing, and a too quick reach for "canvassing" is often a clear tell of a very unWikipedian perspective: "I don't want people who don't agree with me to edit Wikipedia, because I like the bias that I'm pushing and I am concerned that new editors will overturn it." Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Regarding 'horrific bias', to my mind, one of the most insidious examples of such that the English-language Wikipedia suffers from originates from those that think that 'neutrality' should somehow be defined according to the narrow and right-shifted talking-points of US political discourse. This is a global project, and not subject to facile 'equality between negative coverage of two political parties' rules. Not for the US, and not for anywhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
pester there is no such article on Wikipedia titled Blue-haired liberal. There is a redirect created with the edit summary " R from related topic and non neutral name" linking to section of text identifying such descriptions as a partisan slur. FloridaArmy (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Hence why I said "a similar topic". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so you can expand the section if you want to. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 09:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is Censored. For years we have had the biased coatrack attack page Racial views of Donald Trump while Racial views of Joe Biden is not only deleted but edit protected in mainspace and even in draftspace so no editor is allowed to work on it despite the widespread coverage of Joe Biden's racist statements and actions. I would very much like to hear from Jimbo Wales about the problem of bias, censorship, and BLP violations on Wikipedia. This is his talk page and he is the community's leader. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
I agree with what AndyTheGrump said above, and it also applies to this. Wikipedia tries very hard to maintain a neutral point of view, which is not a right republican point of view. English Wikipedia is a global project, because English is a global language. (I myself do not live in the USA.) --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 10:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
The problem is due to being a widely used language, English Wikipedia is hijacked by all partisans for propaganda and agitprop. The solution is a Deseret script Wikipedia as a secondary, less vulnerable Wikipedia for example, or any other English related script or language. I advocate for this. Hydrogenbicycle (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
"biased coatrack attack page" Think there's an issue? fix it. Complaining about a potential issue isn't going to improve Wikipedia.
"widespread coverage" ...yet the article topic had so little coverage it was deleted. Not that I like Joe Biden, but the deletion discussion was closed as delete for a reason.
"he is the commmuity's leader". With all respect possible to Jimbo Wales for what he has done for Wikipedia over the years, no he isn't. The leader of Wikipedia is consensus.
And no, Wikipedia is still not censored. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 10:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia tries very hard to maintain a neutral point of view by hosting attack pages against Republicans and blocking editors from editing subjects about the misdeeds and foibles of Democrats? Where is coverage on Wikipedia about Nancy Peloai's plastic surgeries that made her face immovable? If Wikipedia isn't censored why aren't editors allowed to make edits to an entry on Joe Biden's long history of racist statements and actions in mainspace or draftspace? Because we're worldwide it's okay to promote smears and slurs against parties that aren't favored among a majority of editors? FloridaArmy (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
You're assuming that everyone who doesn't support republicans is a democrat. That's not true. Unlike the USA, most countries do not have a two party system. You won't see it (not your fault; nobody does), but you're biased as well. Just as I am! We're all biased. But the sources tend to be less biased, which is why they're the base structure of Wikipedia articles.
And you are allowed to make a page on the "long history of racist statements" made by Joe Biden if you can show that the notability is met. (Also, it's highly possible that there's just more coverage of Trump than Biden, hence why the page on racial statements by Biden did not meet notability at the time.) Complaining and loudly requesting external intervention will not help.
I'm going to stop replying to you now because I don't want this to descend into a long political argument - that would be contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. I recommend you do the same, but you have not listened to me yet so I don't imagine this recommendation will go far.
Happy editing :) --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 10:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
You may want to consider whether you are listening with empathy and kindness to what FloridaArmy is saying. In any event, I don't see your response as actually addressing the concerned being raised. FloridaArmy said nothing (at all) to suggest a view that "everyone who doesn't support republicans is a democrat". Nothing. What he did identify and ask about is a valid question: is it ok to host attack pages against Republicans while not allowing such pages about Democrats? And the only possible Wikipedia answer to that question is not a straw man attack on what wasn't said, but to say "FloridaArmy, you are right. We should not host attack pages on anyone, and we should make sure that our coverage of all politicians and all living persons is clear, fact based, and neutral."
You could be an ally here, or you could persist in not listening. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
I chose to leave the discussion because it's pointless political talk. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 10:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Because this is a worldwide project, it is highly unlikely that there are any political parties that are favoured by a majority of editors. If you could only get out of your narrow US-centric mindset for a second or two, maybe you'd realise just how ridiculous that statement is. We don't demand that every potentially-negative article concerning the Austrian People's Party is balanced by one on the Social Democratic Party of Austria. And we certainly don't measure 'neutrality' on our article on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea by the standards of North Korean domestic politics. Instead, we base coverage on what the sources we have available have to say. Can that lead to bias. Yes, obviously - both in bias within the sources, and the bias in the way we decide whether a source is appropriate. What the English-language Wikipedia does have to its advantage however is that its broad contributor base helps counter the narrow political mindset of those obsessed with imposing the obsessions of the US on anything and everything. Clearly, there is still a lot of work to be done in this regard - there are far too many articles, on far too many subjects, that simply assume that the reader is only interested in US-related content - but at least there is something countering it. And despite any bias (real or imaginary), it seems that the English-language Wikipedia is still attracting both readers and contributors in large numbers: unlike at least one alternative online encyclopaedia I could name, which is both explicitly based around US content, and which appears from its statements regarding 'neutrality' (admittedly rather confusing and ill-defined), and from its new content (most is still just Wikipedia clone), to define it in a manner far closer to the preferred viewpoint of the US right. As a simple look at that project's 'recent changes' page will illustrate, it simply isn't attracting the contributor base necessary to make it a viable long-term alternative. And nor is there much in the way of evidence that it has any enduring readership base. I strongly suspect that the reason for this is simple - most of those to the right of the US political spectrum aren't particularly interested in reading online encyclopaedias, and very, very few are interested in donating free time to maintaining them. The Wikipedia you get, and the alternatives you don't, are the direct consequence of demographics, and no doubt also of the political leanings of those who contribute to it - an entirely unsurprising result, and one that nobody in their right mind could think could be fixed (if it actually merits 'fixing') by attempting to impose external political standards. That is both morally obnoxious, and likely to result in the readers and contributors rejecting any such politically-motivated interference, and looking elsewhere to continue as before. In summary, Wikipedia is what it is, and for all it's failings (it has many) it seems to be what the readers want. Call that market forces if you like. Just don't kid yourself that you can 'fix' it by whining about a lack of an article about Joe Biden... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
The US-side of things does sometimes get a lot of weight, like at Moses#Legacy_in_politics_and_law. The cure is of course editors being arsed to work on it. I haven't been, so far. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Then go to the salting admin or WP:DRV and present the brilliant sources you intend to use for your Draft:Racial views of Joe Biden and get the salting overturned. That was done 5 years ago, new sources may very well exist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
@FloridaArmy: Feel free to start a draft article for racial views of Joe Biden in your userspace, and submit it to AFC if you find enough sources to make it notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
I agree that both articles are terrible and not worthy of keeping. They are obviously not NPOV. Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Are you going to nominate the article(s) for deletion? Some1 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: The fact a subject is not neutrally presented is not a valid reason for deletion. The solution for lack of neutrality is to fix the article, not delete it. And I'd note that both articles seem to cite some pretty hefty sources. If this was an article about Austrian politicians say, with good sources, but in German (per my earlier comments) a 'delete as non-neutral' AfD might have sneaked through. Here though, no chance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Of course, but the lack of NPOV is far from the only problem. I do not agree that the sourcing is "hefty" in the relevant sense. Basically these are extreme WP:COATRACK articles "In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and if there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate." That sounds right to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
I marked them for AfD. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Seriously? There aren't popular or widely discussed cosmetic trends with liberal politicians, except maybe the blue-hair thing, which I can't even think an example of. I do think the blue-hair thing has potential to be an article of its own. Also, where on earth are your claims even coming from - tendency to lie about heritage??? Again, the article is about politicians, how many politicians have done that for it to be such a notable topic? I can think of one, and he swings right. jolielover♥talk 17:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
politicians and prominent right-wing figures, I'll amend my point jolielover♥talk 17:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Pussy hats, maybe? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Do you think that populating a government with people who all look like they were ordered from the Fox News rent-a-mouth store is appropriate? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that what I think, what you think, whatever any of us think, is not really relevant in any way - or shouldn't be. If we are writing hatchet job articles because we think some people who look a certain way shouldn't be in office, that's a problem, as I'm very sure you'll agree. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Of course. We have an article on Trump Derangement Syndrome. This is bollocks, of course, but it's notable bollocks. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
That's why I made Mar-A-Lago face in the first place. I kept seeing it all over the news, in discussion, and even psychology contexts. It was surprising it didn't exist at the time. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Easy answer even without evoking NPOV: these both fail WP:NEO. I know there terms are memes out there but they should still be taken as that and not serious topics. Masem (t) 20:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Calling BS on the assertion that these are backed with "shoddy, highly partisan sourcing." Republican makeup shows Women's Wear Daily, Glamour, New York Times, Financial Times, Guardian, El País, and on and on. We could argue about whether those two articles should be combined leaving a redirect (they should), or we could argue whether the titling of Mar-a-Lago face is appropriate, but there is no arguing about whether the topic meets WP's notability standards. It does, to a Snow Keep level. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

AfDs:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Sca
APPEAL regarding the ANI complaint filed against me today by JJARichardson here, and the subsequent note, posted here by User:rsjaffe, although possibly (?) by the complainant himself.
The Complaint (No.50) states: "User:Sca is engaging in persistent disruptive editing on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. This includes tendentiously dismissing nominations as "promotional" and describing historically significant images as "old news". Here he engages in personal attacks and admits to "trolling" with tendentious comments. JJARichardson (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)"
The complaint errs in exaggerating the magnitude of my votes at WP:ITNC, since most of my posts there have been and remain non-counting comments, rather than actual votes for or against "promotion" (approval) of nominations – which in any case are not binding with regard to Main Page POTD choices, made by users who are not generally involved in ITNC anyway.
Further, my contested comments are neither argumentative nor polemical, but rather intended to support ITNC's modus operandi under its Criterion 3, which states in part that 'promoted' FPCs should be
a) Of a high technical standard.
b) Have good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral color balance.
c) Show no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies.
d) Have its main subject in focus, a good composition and no highly distracting or obstructing elements.
In general some, but not all, questionable ITNC nominations deal with ephemeral events, past entertainment items, or other topics that seem to lack broad reader appeal or serious topical import (i.e. EV = encyclopedic value).
Nevertheless, let me point out that all nominations may draw comments or be voted upon by all Wiki participants. Accordingly, increased participation by users who aren't 'regulars' at ITNC may bring more insights and perspetive to this primarily discussion forum, the importance of which is considerable in inciting interest among the millions who peruse the Main Page every day.
All of us are here to serve the public, and as User:Jimbo Wales said a couple months ago advised to "direct our attention toward activities that inspire trust.” – Sca (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a courtroom, and this response demonstrates you either cannot or will not recognize that your conduct has not been compatible with a collaborative environment. Accordingly your block from editing the Wikipedia: namespace has been extended to indefinite. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
    Thirty-one hours sounds fair. Advice heeded. -- Sca (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)Sca (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
    Per your email, as I noted above, your initial 31-hour partial block was extended to indefinite for the reasons given above. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
    Does this mean I can't edit anywhere on Wikipedia -- after two decades and 36,000-plus edits?
    This strikes me as highly unfair, arbitrary, and totally lacking in due process.
    Merry Christmas, etc. -- Sca (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

FYI, for transparency. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I closed both as snow keep.--Launchballer 18:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
You can't snow keep an afd if it has a delete vote in it specially as an NAC Sir Joseph (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Where does it say that? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
It says that you shouldn't close as snow even if it's reasonable to expect an outcome. You should let the discussion run its course. I confused speedy with snow, but the fact remains that it should not have been closed with almost no discussion. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions Sir Joseph (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion that is ongoing, so starting a new one is inappropriate. If you want both pages instead of just one removed then go discuss over there. A speedy keep is otherwise good enough for an out of process nomination, I don't think you'll find much sympathy at DRV with that at least. CNC (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

As this debate won't end

A merge was forced through without consensus from Mar-a-Lago face to Republican makeup, so now we are apparently caught up in a new mess here:

This is why letting emotions and ego ever trump WP:RS and WP:V causes mayhem. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the consensus was to merge it the other way around. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

God Jul!

Hello Jimbo Wales: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy holidays and best wishes for 2026!

✨ Happy Holidays
Jimbo Wales!
🎄 Merry Christmas!
🎉 Best wishes for 2026!
And thank you for creating Wikipedia!
-- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)


Happy New Year!
Hello Jimbo Wales:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Well this is self explanatory.


Wanted to say Happy new year, I didn't find a template in time, so


Happy New Year!!! Starry~~(Starlet147) 02:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Not what I expected to find here

It's nearly mid January and Jimbo Talk is nothing but a bunch of New Year's cards. Where is everybody? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

yesh
A
it's peaceful, too peaceful
And syntax highlighting breaks --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 01:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Summer/winter holidays? no news is good news? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
There has been a lot of news since the new year. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 19:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Well yes, but not really Wikipedia news, that people raise to Jimbo Wales's talk page, which we all know is the best place to argue. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 20:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
It will literally be wikipedias birthday in 2 days. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 21:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC) --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 21:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Yep, but that's peaceful, good news, unlike what was here months ago. (Amazing userpage by the way) --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 21:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
1: What was here months ago?
2: Thank you! --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 21:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
You are free to read /Archive 253 & /Archive 254
Love the references! (especially the backslashes) --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 21:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
You could browse the last couple of archives of this page if you want to raise your blood pressure. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 21:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, was getting a bit too smooshed to the right. Anyway, wasn't expecting anybody to get that reference! Also, my desire to know things will now give me hypertension! --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 21:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I never wrote anything about anybody here. Move along. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 14:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Twenty-Five Year Society

Dear Jimbo Wales,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty-Five Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty-five years or more. A very happy 25th birthday to Wikipedia, and may we have another 25 years ahead of us.​

Best regards, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo! I sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, congratulate you on the 25th anniversary of your grandiose project. Banzai! Lesless (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate that! 25 years, wow! Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
As one of the July 2001 Slashdot cohort, I would not have placed a bet on Wikipedia lasting a quarter of a century, let alone as the "last best place" on the internet. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2026

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

On to the next adventure

Jimmy, if you're looking for another NPOV-challenge, take a peek at American hybrid warfare against Greenland during the second Trump administration and Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland. And maybe Talk:Kaja_Kallas#RfC:_Footnote_in_infobox_birthplace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I made a comment on the proposed move (which is obviously the correct move) from that ridiculous article title. The main thing that I'm interested in for 2026, my New Year's Resolution you might say, is to repeatedly remind us all that NPOV is non-negotiable and that we don't take sides. In this case, as in others that you know I'm interested in, WP:COMMONNAMES is quite important. We don't title things based on our judgment of what is really going on or based on taking sides in a controversy - we use the name that is commonly used in reliable sources. I don't think that's controversial, certainly not with experienced Wikipedians, but it sometimes gets lost in the heat of emotion. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy 25th birthday to Wikipedia!

Hi Jimmy Wales, thank you for creating for the Wikipedia page, that the users can edit the page, create the page and so much more. Happy 25th birthday to your page Wikipedia! :D Ludo Games-T (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your vision, Jimmy, and for making this project possible. Say, does anybody know where to verify the trivia question that was in error according to Jimmy Wales on the video stream today? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

eighth note Happy birthday, dear Wikipedia! eighth note
Thank you, Jimbo, for this enormous contribution to humanity. I've been here nearly 20 years, using the encyclopedia more than editing it. YoPienso (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm so glad to be a part of this. Thank you so much for giving us something like Wikipedia! Here's to many more wonderful years! Sincerely, Qədir (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

We're geitting some friendly media-coverage, I liked these: After 25 years, Wikipedia has proved that news doesn’t need to look like news and Wikipedia may be the largest compendium of human knowledge ever created, but can it survive?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

On Wikipedia's 25th birthday it seems right to thank the one who started it. Thank you so much for giving us all the chance to further humanity's knowledge. Thank you and happ birthday to Wikipedia. Happy editing. Dafootballguy (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Flower of the month

Aesculus parviflora, Alabama

Hi Jimbo

For founding Wikipedia, I would like to award you with the Flower of the month. This award is actually intended for contributors to small language versions of Wikipedia, but your great idea has made all of the small language versions possible. Thank you very much for that!

--Holder (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

RIP User:Mark Miller

Hi Jimmy, I have some sad news about the passing of Mark Miller (see his talk page). Since he made over a thousand edits to your talk page, the last one in 2021, I thought I'd let you know. You might remember him under his old username, Amadscientist. Graham87 (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Wow, sad to hear. (I've just now seen this due to a crazy two weeks mostly not online.) Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Permission request

Jimbo, in the following thread:

A BLP issue is being discussed that would seem to be easier to resolve if you either gave permission to post the parody in question or stated that you oppose posting it. What say you? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to keep posting this at noticeboards and high traffic pages? I don't think this reflects very well on you. If you posted some satire of me having a cocaine problem at WP:BLPN and WP:JIMBOTALK I wouldn't be very happy. Doesn't seem very WP:CIVIL. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
...unless Jimbo answers and says that he thinks that he is fine with the parody because it is a legitimate criticism of his Banner ads. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
I think it isn't funny. So "fine with it" depends on in what context. If trolls on 4chan like to post such things, well, whatever. If some random person posted a link to it in a wider discussion, that's not a big deal obviously. If someone persists in posting it over and over on high profile pages despite it not being funny and factually misleading (both on the literal accusation which is 100% false and on the satirical claim that our banners are progressively more desperate which is also 100% false) I can see why people would say that it's a BLP violation.
However, I think there are things which are far far more important for all of us to worry about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2026

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Safety of VRT

A Commons user? have expressed concerns regarding the safety and privacy of the VRT system. Could you give your thoughts?

commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Protests_in_Minneapolis_under_one_hour_after_the_killing_of_Alex_Pretti.webm Trade (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Anyone with even a small understanding of computer security would agree with the comments by Alexis Jazz. It is simply not possible to declare that a system where dozens of people (apparently 100?) have access to confidential information is secure to the degree required when a person's liberty or more could be threatened. However, as far as the issue is concerned, if proper licensing is not available, images can't be accepted unless there are exceptional cases that I am unaware of. Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
I agree with you on the second point (about licensing) fully, that's not really a question in the discussion and appears to be something that will be worked out soon.
On the first point, I also agree with you albeit with a few additions for nuance, which you might agree with as well but just didn't happen to say. Basically decisions about whether a particular system is secure enough to the degree required is a decision ultimately up to the individual. I would personally say that I would be very comfortable with the existing setup in this situation. Taking a video at a protest against ICE is not illegal, and literally hundreds to thousands of people are doing it daily and posting under their real names (not at Wikiepdia, but in social media). The risk of retaliation for doing that is significantly lower than the risk of retaliation (including as it turns out, being killed by out of control ICE agents) from just being at the protest in the first place. I applaud the courage of those who go and those who post video, and I also respect that it won't be for everyone and that's their right to decide. Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Anecdotally, I do know of at least one independent Journalist that's being harassed, albeit by some far-right rabble rousers, not ICE. still, at the end of the day, VRT is fairly secure i should think. Speaking as an IT professional, at the end of the day, the most secure system is only as good as human fallibility. 100 people isn't a huge number, especially for a volunteer operation of this size. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Now we're all in the Epstein files, sort off

Epstein jail cell pics and Trump Wikipedia page included in newly released files. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The original is around here. Those redactions don't contain any secrets. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
We sorta know that the department works with blacklists etc of things that get autoredacted to deal with this amount of info they have to process, so this tells us that these words are likely also removed from many other documents. That is useful information. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Ah, that was back in the days when republicans smiled on their official photos. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

A few questions

Hello Mr. Wales! I am a Wikipedian from China since 2025. In 1 year, I have edited and created many articles, and mainly in Chinese.

You might don't know, I have been encouraged plagiarism by HMOXDSS1 (per w:zh:User talk:HMOXDSS1#还在抄袭我), which I consider he is a radicalist later. Then I know the zh-wiki community status is so messy since WMF actions. Later the encourage plagiarism was indefinitely blocked Recently, an user always uses bold red text in my talk page (e.g. w:zh:special:diff/87981323, w:zh:special:diff/87981343, etc.)

So I would like to ask Mr. Wales, do you agree with some Wikipedian's radicalism? Do you think radicalism can improve the Wikipedia? Also, I have knew Zhemao hoaxes last year, which is one of Wikipedia's largest hoaxes. What is you comment for this hoax? Peterxy（talk） 13:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

what you're predication for 2026 April fools Event

This is kind of going to be my first April fool event and i just want to know what usually happen in these events Nerd-in-history (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:FOOLS. Generally speaking, jokes added to Wikipedia as April Fools may be less funny than they seem.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
100%. I participated in one (2024) but after that I realized how it was both a waste of editor time and honestly a slight bit disruptive - there’s always something that ends up with mainspace being screwed with. No offense to people who do participate in it; this is just my opinion on it. EF5 21:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
@Nerd-in-history The Did you know ... section on the main page will have some adapted content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
ok Nerd-in-history (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

AI enhanced images are distorting reality

The Wikipedia wars and Russian disinformation

Email up to date?

The Signpost: 17 February 2026

Different project norms

There’s a whole show about Wikipedia, and it’s delightful — and hopeful

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5

Upcoming Wikimedia Café session regarding the Wikimedia Commons mobile app

ipblock-exempt for registered editors

Curious

thoughts on Privileged accounts

Introduction to contentious topics

Adding {{Shortcut}} to this talk page

Discussion about NPOV and sourcing

Indonesia sort-of blocks WP

The Signpost: 10 March 2026

Question

Pornographic hooks at DYK

A barnstar for you!

A barnstar for you!

Not everything is written

The Dhurandhars

Upcoming Wikimedia Café meetup regarding the the 2026-2027 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan

The Signpost: 31 March 2026

Something I see more often that I used to

Ciao

Happy April Fool's!

Thoughts on AI chatbots?

Welcome!

The Signpost: 21 April 2026

Your upcoming visit to New Zealand

Wikipedia's general take on popular culture (outside Fandom)

The world is changing

Indonesia update

Failed comprehensiveness, successful minimalism: Wikipedia’s 3-year struggle to govern AI-generated content (2022–2025)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI