Themiscellaneous section of thevillage pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on thepolicy,technical, orproposals sections when appropriate, or at thehelp desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use thereference desk.
Forquestions about a wiki that is not the English Wikipedia, please post atm:Wikimedia Forum instead.
Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for 8 days.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I agree with point 1, that "consensus" doesn't really work well at a community else of this size. I won't lower myself to commenting on the other eight theses except to say that grovelling bothesidism in articles isn't a good look.Cremastra (talk·contribs)01:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would you replace consensus with? Consensus is messy, but what would work better? Off hand, I think any other system will either lead to anarchy, or to getting mired down in more bureaucracy than the community could stand. I certainly think Citizendium has shown us the perils of putting too much control in the hands of an elite of experts.Donald Albury01:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sangar has started and moved on from other projects since leaving Wikipedia. I fully expect that the only consensus he could ever fully agree with is his own. His idea of what a neutral, his idea of what is balanced, not working with other people to come together and decide on such matters. His latest musings only serve to solidify that opinion. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My super brief, and polite as possible, summary: We're hostile to fringe and other views that are not documented in reliable sources, including to those editors that try to promote those views. But in reality, fact-based knowledgeis left-leaning, and by that nature are going to be highly suspect of right-leaning views, publications that primarily deal in promoting those views, and editors that try to push those views. Or more fundamentally, it's proposing we should cover all sides of a topic with completely equal weight, which we know just doesn't work over several years of work.Masem (t)01:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I must object to the statement thatfact-based knowledge is left-leaning. My politics are very definitely left/libertarian or left/progressive, according to the on-line political tests I have taken, but I have known professed leftists who were not really committed to "fact-based knowledge". I think it is counter-productive for the future of Wikipedia to tie support for fact-based knowledge to any particular political belief. Similarly, we should not try to tieKnow Nothingism to all politically conservative groups.Donald Albury01:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though I would say most of the time I see the type of arguments (like, being "neutral" by presenting both sides equally) are common talking points with the right, and some of the other aspects, like identifying the major contributors, are ideas frequently raised by right-leaning politicians and also mirrors aspects like the ADL. I agree that some of those points can be raised anywhere on the political spectrum, but most often is coming from those that want to push right-leaning concepts onto WP.Masem (t)03:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way I would put it, instead, is that Wikipedia is aimed at being academic, international, and mainstream. Large swaths of the modern right are to some extent or another hostile to all three of these things. Nationalists, for instance, will rarely be happy with what we say about their nations. People who place their religions on the level of sacred revealed truth and who believe that they should be treated that way in all contexts are likewise going to have trouble with an approach that reduces them to just another primary source. And anyone with an anti-intellectual mindset or who believes that academia or the mainstream media are biasedas a whole are going to be unhappy with what we say, since we largely summarize these things. We strive to be neutral but our definition of neutrality is derived from our main purpose as an encyclopedia, and is not going to align with everyone's views; if someone's idea of neutrality is to listen to what the two main political parties in their country say and to try and find a midpoint between them, they're naturally going to be unhappy here. But that's inevitable! That approach is, simply put, not encyclopedic - certainly not when writing an international, academia-focused encyclopedia like this one. It's worth pointing out that our articlesdo reflect plenty of right-wing ideas (especially on economics or when it comes to more libertarian views), in contexts where those views are treated seriously in academia. And I don't think it's a surprise that those are also the right-wing views that are the most international in character and the least tied to one specific religious faith or the like. --Aquillion (talk)16:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) IMO it's not so much "fact-based knowledge is left-leaning" as it is that, in current Western politics, groups on the right have set themselves up in opposition to fact-based knowledge (and been politically successful by doing so) far more often than those on the left have.Anomie⚔02:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you there. When I was growing up in the 1960s and 70s it was the conservatives who placed most emphasis on facts, but now it is the left.Phil Bridger (talk)19:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedias are traditionally left-leaning. Recall theEncyclopédie: Because of its sometimes radical contents, the Encyclopédie stirred up controversy in conservative circles, and after the publication of the second volume, it was briefly suspended by a royal edict of 1752 accusing it of "destroying royal authority, fomenting a spirit of independence and revolt, and ... laying the groundwork for error, for the corruption of morals, and for irreligion and atheism." Sound familiar? Our current rulers want to return to the good old days of theAncien régime, the French Rrevolution was a travesty, and everything since has been a disaster. The few need to rule the many, authority never questioned, and rulers stay in power for life. A lot like China and Russia today, is what they want. --GreenC20:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, TL;DR, this entire piece is just a reframing of Sanger'sprior complaints about Wikipedia where the fact that we don't allow fringe conspiracy nonsense and false claims to be stated in Wikivoice is the height of impropriety in his view. Especially when it comes to not pushing a conservative POV on everything.SilverserenC02:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I think a lot of this conspiracy nonsense has been (and will be) becoming less and less "fringe" every day, although not any less "nonsense"Abeg92contribs19:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is just the first 4 which mostly deal with neutrality. The other 5 theses do not appear to deal with neutrality, but rather try to tackle other issues with Wikipedia. Thesis 9 for example tries to help establish new governance. I think that would be really fun, especially if the WMF paid for it so we could all attend and start to come up with improved policies and guidelines.Iljhgtn (talk)22:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been tried a couple of times before, and the usual result is that experienced editors at the English Wikipedia hate the proposals. The most recent attempt wasm:Movement Charter/Drafting Committee (←think "constitutional convention"), which wrote am:Movement Charter (←think "US constitution"). It was accepted by most voting editors (i.e., a tiny fraction of the eligible editors) and then rejected by the WMF's Board. It was supposed to result in the creation ofm:Global Council, but that's not going to happen now.
The mitigations for that are even worse. Using AI for this is a bad idea, as anyone who's seen the volume of promotional text inserted into articles alongside an edit summary likely "Made text compliant with Wikipedia's neutral point of view" would know. Asking users to verify with their credit card or ID is a bad idea especially given that we had a massive data breach only a few months ago. At one point this asks for someone to invent userboxes.Gnomingstuff (talk)03:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The March incident is actually probably more relevant. The "leak" was all of info that was at some point public; there was no actual security lapse on the WMF's part, although it's a good cautionary tale that sometimes OSing old revisions can increase visibility rather than decrease. On the other hand, with the account compromises, a big part of why that wasn't a huge deal was that there wasn't much PII for attackers to glean from the accounts they compromised: just their emails (which they probably already had), their watchlist contents (usually not that identifying), and in a minority of cases their timezone. 35,893 compromises would be massively more consequential if there were credit cards or IDs tied in there. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)02:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we shouldn't ask for IDs. Wikipedia isNOT censored, because this is an online encyclopedia with just overseven million topics. There's no reason we should be collecting IDs so people can view certain articles and other things. If you are under a certain age, it's your parents' responsibility to know what you're looking at on the Internet, not ours.CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!)22:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The average person on the internet is, frankly, a fucking idiot. We already have to put up with a deluge of IPs and new users who don't have a clue how Wikipedia works and just want to complain that it isn't how they personally want it to be. I don't see why we'd make that worse. —Czello(music)14:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't articles already have pseudo-ratings? Like, A-class, stub-class, good-article, featured-article etc.? Mr. Sanger seems to be suggesting something that already exists. Besides, most articles would never get rated if it was done this way.Gaismagorm(talk)15:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He wants either populist ratings (i.e. open to offsitevote brigading), or ratings by "experts" (presumably hoping a significant proportion of those "exports" will agree with his viewpoints), or rating by AI (???).Anomie⚔17:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. The policies we have, we have for a reason. Just because drive-by IPs can't be bothered to learn our processes (and, more importantly,why we have them) isn't a statement about us, it's one about them. —Czello(music)08:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If ever such a change were to come about it's possible through our existing consensus-making. We don't need Larry's proposals to make that happen. —Czello(music)14:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, sometimes I've seen petitions of sorts. Though it has been a long while that I say any. Is there a format to follow for those?Iljhgtn (talk)14:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Want to help word it? I think such things are best written with the help of disagreeing sides, if we in fact fully disagree, which I am not sure of.Iljhgtn (talk)14:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An rfc to removeWP:IAR could reasonably be held at that talkpage, with notes in central locations etc. A suggestion thatt en-WP editors must reveal their real life identities, I'm not even sure it's something the en-WP community can decide, there could be legal aspects on that, and of course demands re-writing of terms of use for en-Wikipedians etc. But if not, pick a central location like the Village Pump for that rfc.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)14:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sanger on these number eight. Indefinite blocks should be harder to come by, and I can speak for this personally. It could absolutely drive away editors, who, once they learn how the place works, could be very good. And I'm not sure how the Arb Com works, but from what I do know, they do function as some sort of legislation I think.CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!)22:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom effectively acts as a Supreme Court with regards to user conduct. Theycannot create new policy (outside of matters directly related to Arbitration and enforcement of same), nor do they judge content matters. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques14:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the one person who could make me thankful that we got Jimmy Wales. Just remind me; which of his projects in the last 20-and-a-bit years has had even a small amount of success?Phil Bridger (talk)08:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thesis 6 is a devastatingly bad idea. Given the amount of hostility already directed towards Wikipedia (particuarly where politics is concerned), requiring the most prominent Wikipedians to self-dox is, frankly, dangerous. —Czello(music)14:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say thesis 2 is a close second, having multiple "versions" of articles where people POV-push their own points is such a bad idea I found it absurd to read it and think someone honestly thought that would be good to introduce, especially written so matter-of-factly.Sophisticatedevening(talk)15:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thesis 2 would actually be great in an ideal world where the reader would be able enough to decide the truth for themselves and both sides did not regularly engage in 500 page flame wars95.5.189.54 (talk)21:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to pretty clearly say that he does not endorse doxxing actually, and that in the event of someone finding the "real name" disclosure to be a problem, they could always step down from what I read so no one would be "doxxed". Also, no addresses or personal information seem to be called on to be revealed, just names. That seems pretty reasonable given that many journalists in the world have it far worse than that and at the same time are publicly known (by at least just their name).Iljhgtn (talk)02:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the entire (or most of the) allure of editing on Wikipedia is centered around the fact that it is completely anonymous if you want it to be. You can rise up the ranks without ever revealing your identity to those with whom you interact. Wikipedia is, in effect, a meritocracy, not a dynastic society. Now, while personal transparency might be a nice thing to have, I don't think the reasons to implement it are very substantiated in Sanger's thesis. Accountability already exists, but it is cruciallyon-wiki. Every action, big or small, admin or newbie, is logged. Nothing goes completely unchecked. Also, revealing your full legal name not only does invite harassment or doxxing (e.g., some editors might be from places where editing political articles is dangerous), it deters newbies from applying for these high positions and requires hesitant editors to resign from a position for which they probably worked very hard. The pool of volunteers willing to govern the sprawling entity that is Wikipedia is already very small. By making transparency mandatory, you would only shrink that pool further. Journalists might have it worse, but Wikipediais not a journal. In fact, it is quite the opposite of a journal; it, structurally, requires transparent sources and information, not transparent writers. The limelight should (and always has) shine on the content, not the behind-the-scenes.nub:)05:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're not journalists. We're people who are creating an encyclopedia as a hobby. Giving full names not only is unnecessary but absolutely increases the threat of doxxing. —Czello(music)08:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can be naive enough to just assume that everyone in all cases is doing this merely "as a hobby". Undoubtedly there are some paid PR firms and other actors coordinating on WP, as has been reported on in theWP:PIA area if not in other areas. Additionally, "structurally, requires transparent sources and information, not transparent writers" leaves room for corruption as well as for lack of accountability to a real-world reputation. Lastly, from what I read, Larry was not calling for doxxing nor for all accounts to be transparent, just the most powerful accounts with the top tier of permissions. It is pretty wild for example that administrators and others are totally unknown and therefore have no personal reputational stake in the game. That said, I agree that doxxing is bad and we (or the WMF) should ensure the legal protections or otherwise with the hundreds of millions of dollars that the WMF has. That would not be hard, and if someone did not want to reveal their true identity, they could just revert back to being a normal editor. I don't think Larry called for normal editors to have their identity revealed, unless I misread something or am mistaken.Iljhgtn (talk)13:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt there are many COI or paid editors here, though they are very much in the minority and not enough of a problem to require the highest tier of editors to reveal personal information. They're notpublic sector workers, after all, merely editors on an online website. I don't believe Larry wants them to be doxxed, but nonetheless that is what it will lead to. The WMF should, really, guarantee the anonymity of editors who contribute here. —Czello(music)13:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Larry seems to be suggesting that they would be (or should be) granted WMF paid for security or legal support to deal with any such potential issues that arise from being a public figure. Alternatively, someone could resign their administratorship and then remain anonymous. Also, additional exceptions I think should apply for any admin living in a dangerous or under a authoritarian regime.Iljhgtn (talk)13:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Worth discussing. That is one area where a strong legal and security protection could be paid for by WMF for each of these people. Journalists do their jobs in the US, top brass at WP could too.Iljhgtn (talk)14:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now tell me exactly why everyone needs to know the real legal names of people just because they have a checkbox in their user rights on a website? Nobody should be forcing people into this position of "reveal your real private info or resign from this position you worked for". Tell me what good would ever come out of making people give up that information; the whole point of it is obviously to introduce irl threats to people's lives from people who don't like what they think is their political stance.Sophisticatedevening(talk)14:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point Larry seems to have made in response to that was that you could just resign your post if that made you uncomfortable, and regardless, you'd get full legal and security protection (under this proposal). Seems like a reasonable suggestion to me....... and no one is being doxxed.Iljhgtn (talk)14:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think more have a byline than not. Is there a way to test this? Also, even when there is no such byline, there is still usually a publicly known body of writers/editors.Iljhgtn (talk)15:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exercise for the reader: Pick up a paper copy of your nearest daily newspaper. Count the number of articles that do/don't have abyline. The last time I did this, an actual majority of the articles had no byline, skewed heavily towards short articles and routine announcements.
Now ask yourself: Why do journalists want their names on the articles they write? Hint: It's not about "accountability", since the general readership will buttonhole anyone who works for the newspaper and demand that this employee explain why their nephew's name was printed in thepolice blotter after he got arrested for drunk driving, even if that person's actual job is selling advertisements or sweeping the floors and had nothing to do with the decision.
I think journalists want their names on their work because that's how you build a career in that industry. If you want to climb thegreasy pole fromSmallville News toBig City Daily toNational Times, you need proof that you do impactful work, and the byline is proof that you wrote the articles you submit in your portfolio.
Exercise for @Iljhgtn in particular: Ask yourself why someone might demand the legal names of our anti-spam and anti-socking folks, but not the names of editors who write the policies and guidelines, or who lead projects likeWikipedia:Today's featured article that affect the content of theMain Page. If your complaint is actually about article content being biased, then why would you ever need the legal name of aWikipedia:CheckUser, whose work has nothing at all to do with article content?WhatamIdoing (talk)20:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also plenty of examples of high-level articles in newspapers and magazines published anonymously: many columns inThe Economist such as "Bartleby" and "Charlemagne" have no byline, and editorials, such as that ofThe Globe and Mail are often published anonymously too.Cremastra (talk·contribs)20:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting way to make a distinction. Whereas for us, there are no names anywhere to be found except for those voluntarily divulged, even among the "power 62".Iljhgtn (talk)03:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is "Journalism 101" information. If you didn't already have that kind of background information, then you are more likely to introduce errors and misconceptions into articles about journalism than someone who already knew this. We all have our areas of interest and knowledge. I don't know what your strengths are, but having prior knowledge of the field of journalism appears to not be one of them.WhatamIdoing (talk)03:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I find the appendix with the list of alleged "leaders" chilling honestly, I'm sure that wouldn't be tolerated from any other user, and the "don't doxx" disclaimer just reads like "don't stuff beans up your nose", it's irresponsible from Sanger. I also disagree with the idea that having a bureaucrat or checkuser flag makes you a "leader", it just means you have one extra tool to do one job. –filelakeshoe (t /c)🐱13:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are not just merely "extra tool[s]" but are incredibly powerful "tools" which shape and influence how millions of people understand history and the world around them. I think it was a pretty reasonable proposal to merely say that we know who these people are... First and last name only.Iljhgtn (talk)13:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that argument for ArbCom, but not for checkusers and bureaucrats, their extra duties are specific admin tasks which by their nature need to be limited to a small number of people. I'd say the main people who "shape and influence how people understand history and the world" are the people who write content, not the people who close RfAs or check IP addresses for sockpuppetry. –filelakeshoe (t /c)🐱14:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it make sense for ArbCom but not these others? They number (if Larry's math is right) only a few dozen people or so. If not admin, then surely it makes sense still for CU and crats.Iljhgtn (talk)14:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea of this proposal seems to have been that transparency would be tied to "power" in a way. So yes, I know what CUs and crats do, and at least under the proposal that is exactly why they appear to have been included as those who would need to either reveal their true names, or they would still have the option to resign. Unless I am reading that wrong? Seems to be reasonable.Iljhgtn (talk)03:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone want the "true names" of the anti-spam workers?
What is "reasonable" about saying that I don't have to disclose my name – I've written most of theWikipedia:External links guideline – but someone who implements the rules that I wrote has "power" and needs to reveal their "true name" to the general public?WhatamIdoing (talk)03:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you didn't answer my question. Again, through writing the anti-spam rules, I have exerted a non-trivial amount of control over our anti-spam efforts for about 17 years now. Do you think it's reasonable to say that someone who follows my directions has "power", but I don't?
Can you think ofany sound reason to give an anti-spam admin or CU's real name to a spammer orWikipedia:Undisclosed paid editing ring? Do you see professionally run websites, such as Twitter, disclosing the names of their anti-spam technicians? If a multi-billion-dollar corporation that has described itself as thepublic square for free speech don't think that the spammers need to know the names of the employees who block spamming efforts, then why would anyone think Wikipedia should disclose the names of the volunteers who do the same work here?
Is that all that you see these people as, "anti-spam workers"? Much of the so called "power 62" I think wield much more power than just fighting against spam.
I think the CUs are security technicians. They mostly deal with spammers, vandals, and sockpuppets.
I think it's silly to call them "Wikipedia’s top editorial leadership" when most of them don't actually write articles. No CU has created an article during the last year. One of them hasn't made a single edit to any article for almost 6 months now. Isnot editing articles your idea ofeditorial leadership?WhatamIdoing (talk)04:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm not the hugest fan of Larry Sanger, but #9 makes a good point. It can be a little bit tricky to figure out what is policy and what is opinion. I'm not saying we need some giant codex of rules, but making them easier to access and find would be a really good idea. It's also be nice to have some way of storing major consensus agreements somewhere. All too often, I'll have to skim through a few dozen pages just to figure out how to capitalize something, or whether we should spell something one way or the other way. I don't really like the rest of the suggestions, but #9 at least makes a decent point.Gaismagorm(talk)15:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely would support a template for talk pages of P&G to list out all major RFC that impacted the P&G. Often I see key ones highlighted separately from page archives, but realistically a simplate with a collapsible list of all such RFCs could help navigate the past discussionsMasem (t)15:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do actually like the idea of #9 as well, and #7 (feedback) could be useful if we had a way to process that feedback. I don't particularly care for the suggestion of using LLMs there but if the WMF manages to design something useful (say, better than that simplified leads thing in terms of our standards) and helps out with backlogs I guess I won't say no...
The authority thing is a hard no though, "high ranked individuals" don't really have any additional authority over content than really any editor with say, ten thousand edits does. Pretty much all of it comes from familiarity with our content policies and processes, and asking for everyone with familiarity with our policies to dox themselves... well.
I'm also a hard no on alternative facts, though I think I'd appreciate thoughts towards how we can better work against systemic bias (assuming compliance with ourcurrent NPOV policy), which I think software designed towards beingcapable if #2 (competing articles) could be useful for, potentially (say, temporarily create one of those, assess the benefits, and merge). At least, HISTMERGE probably could be technically improved judging by the comments I've seen. Probably low on the list of priority of what I'd want the WMF to do software-wise though, and it's a little hard to take seriously as a proposal when mixed with the epistemic poison that is promotion of alternative facts.
There's stuff in the additional theses I find interesting too, like maybe wecould loosen WP:N. How well would that work? Would #2 help with that? Of course, base on the experience of Everipedia, I'd think that things not meeting WP:N would probably need to be additionally screened for spam and stuff at the very minimum. Could we merge news into our project given that people keep on creating those articles anyway? Maybe we could create a namespace-like space that's separate from Wikipedia article-space proper, but notas separate as Wikinews, perhaps, again, leveraging #2 software capabilities.Alpha3031 (t •c)17:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that #9 is the strongest. We could then determine our own "theses" entirely apart from these too. That one should be started. I wonder if we could start a petition to try and bring about #9? I've never started one before, can anyone help with something like that?Iljhgtn (talk)13:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
#9 is a terrible idea, it's Wikipedia's decentralisation that makes it so resistant to attempts to capture it. Our processes are fine, the village pump is great for vetting ideas, and as much as !vote is a thing, numerical weight is almost always decisive.Kowal2701 (talk)14:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, just like in-person would not need to be merely a thing or numerical majority to decide all. Weight of quality arguments always should be a major factor.Iljhgtn (talk)19:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I learned that Sanger had found Jesus[1] I wasn't expecting him to unironically go fullMartin Luther nor to forget what a questionable figure the historical Luther was (although to be fair half remembering history is very much in Sanger's wheelhouse)... One wonders whether the new 95 thesis will be followed by the newOn the Jews and Their Lies?Horse Eye's Back (talk)15:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the WMF should convene a constitutional convention to create an editorial charter and assembly - Dang I didn't realize it was 1787 still, maybe we should get Thomas Jefferson on the phone and save our crumbling encyclopedia apparently.Sophisticatedevening(talk)15:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth pointing out that people have, in fact, tried to produce online encyclopedias based on different definitions of truth and neutrality, including the ones Sanger advocates here - nationalist ones under the auspices of individual states, religious ones that enshrine the revealed truth of individual religions, etc. The reason why Wikipedia has won out (and the reason why people like Sanger target it in the first place, rather than just retreating to Conservapedia or wherever) is because our approachworks - it has produced the most useful encyclopedia in the world. Wikipedia is freely available to everyone who follows its license; if Sanger's ideas had merit he could create a fork of Wikipedia at any time and govern it the way he wanted. Like, he says he wants competing versions of articles, but nothing actually stops him from creating a competing version of Wikipedia as a whole! Except that it would fail, of course, because nobody outside of his bubble would trust it or find it useful. The teeth-grinding thing to people like Sanger is that Wikipediais useful to almost everyone, and is therefore broadly trusted. Our policieswork. --Aquillion (talk)16:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He did,Citizendium. Which still exists, although he left it years ago. A good chunk of these theses seems to be trying (again) to get Wikipedia to adopt the policies he tried to implement there.Anomie⚔17:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the interested Larry hasn't said anything interesting in decades and has been completely disconnected from the community ever since its inception. Save yourself the time and hassle, go read something more edifying, like a chicken noodle soup recipe.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}17:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, might as well state my opinions on, this. I'm not gonna call it nine theses because that's pretentious.
Point 1: No lol. Consensus is vital to Wikipedia. The idea of a single committee regulating all articles issues would slow Wikipedia down due to beaurocracy. Could it make stuff more clear and very slightly more precise? Maybe. Will it drastically slow progress down to a halt. Absolutely it will. I have no doubt about that. The cons outweigh the pros.
Point 2: Absolutely not. This might be the weirdest idea here. We don't want people to go to Wikipedia and turn on a switch so they only see stuff that validates their preconceived notions on a topic. Our goal should be to remain objective and report on the facts. Also, the idea of the article's original author choosing who can write it might be the worst idea I've heard when it comes to Wikipedia (well, at least the worst one when it comes to opinions by major editors).
Point 3: Nope. For starters, it discusses sources like Fox News, which isn't even blacklisted. Pretty much all sources that are blacklisted are sources that have absolutely zero place on this Wikipedia, or any wikipedia. We report with facts, not some website made by a conspiracy theorist.
Point 4: Probably not. I'm gonna be honest, I do think the NPOV policy could do some work, but most of it is at least interpreted in a way that seems fair. Sure, it should be worded better, but I think it's important to make one thing clear. Wikipedia reports on the facts. The only side Wikipedia should be taking is the objective truth. Sometimes, however, that means that WE DO HAVE TO TAKE A SIDE. Sometimes, the facts might disagree with a side. We can and should take a stance towards misinformation and false claims, and label them as such. We should declare the objectively false as the objectively false.
Point 5: no. The ignore all rules rule is great. It allows progress here by making it clear that you can do something different, so long as it's good. That's, like, pretty sweet and wholesome. I do agree, that it probably is sometimes cited incorrectly, but all rules are.
Point 6: NO. Well, I do agree that it would be cool if Wikimedia provided help with those who are being harassed, so I like that idea. But that's the only good idea here. I mean, come on. Revealing the names of wikipedia's top brass is a horrible idea. Especially in this climate. Also, paying them? Excuse me, but I thought we wanted less corruption. part 5 of this point is reliant on the others. Point 6 is horrible. It'll just be people complaining that people are reporting on bad things they did. Also, it's disgusting for him to list these people, and tell them to reveal themselves. This is honestly horrible, and I think an admin should go ahead and delete that chunk from that point. It's doing no good, and is just gonna cause problems.
Point 7: It's already done. There are article ratings. It's not a normal voting system, but that makes it more immune to campaigns to rate articles low or high.
Point 8: Maybe. Honestly, I think that making it a last resort could make sense. Larry makes some good points. But some people need to be indefinitely blocked. But, honestly, this isn't a terrible idea. But only if done for just immature vandalism. Things like harassment, racism, stuff like that should be grounds for a perma-ban.
Point 9: Sure. It should have it's limits, but I often struggle figuring out what the policies for a certain thing are, and I could see this kinda being helpful.
.
One final note. Do not use AI in wikipedia. Just no. Any suggestions made by Larry involving AI is terrible. End of discussion.
.
These are just my thoughts from skimming through the essay. I obviously am not reading all of it, but overall, pretty bad ideas. Except, like 2 of them.Gaismagorm(talk)23:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On point 2, I think there was wiki-encyclopedia that had that as goal, it would look at your browser history or whatever and give you the version of, say, theBarack Obama article you were ideologically comfortable with. I don't remember the name, might have beenInfogalactic. Also, we sort of have this sometimes, what you do is that you change to another language version.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)10:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC it was the Croatian project, not the Serbian project, that was subject to extensive project capture. Azerbaijani Wikipedia has also had documented issues with coverage of the Armenian genocide.signed,Rosguilltalk15:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Croatian WP went very far, but there are other stuff that has been commented on in media, like Japanese WP on some WWII-topics, and how different languages write the history of the airplane[2] (for quite natural reasons). To quote one journalist, "Unlike many Wikipedias in languages with a global span, like English, Spanish or Arabic, Hebrew Wikipedia resembles its Polish or Hungarian counterparts in being more of an "Israeli Wikipedia."Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)15:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Monitoring our practices on this fundamental policy across the language editions is what we have to do in the future. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino)[ talkcontribs ]12:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do like the "constitutional convention" idea, but how could that be brought about? I think that would actually allow for us all to come up with our own points of improvement instead of sticking with these.Iljhgtn (talk)02:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to describe this is if someone walked into McDonalds and demanded that they start serving Italian food. With this many demands that change the entire nature of the site, I think you want a different website, not this one, especially because the metaphorical McDonalds is doing just fine serving burgers, and opening up an entire restaurant-within-a-restaurant serving spaghetti will only confuse visitors.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)12:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. If you want an accurate analogy, it would have to be someone working with Kroc who convinced him to invest in McDonald's thinking that it'd be a way to find staff for the high-end restaurants he thought were the real future. Then he got disillusioned with the idea of fast food and left, and over the years founded a series of other restaurants, some of which failed and some saw niche success (but without him, he had a habit of moving on). Now he's suggesting McDonald's should retool all their restaurants in the style that didn't work out at all his other restaurants.Anomie⚔03:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that article in my news feed. I particularly noticed this paragraph in it:
“What I can tell you is that over the years, conservatives, libertarians, were just pushed out,” Sanger said. “There is a whole…army of administrators, hundreds of them, who are constantly blocking people…that they have ideological disagreements with.”
We have 827 admins at the moment, and414 of them – almost exactly half – have blocked at least one IP or account during the last 12 months. A bit more than half of those have blocked 10 or more accounts, so if your definition of "constantly" includes admins who make about one block per month, I suppose that's still "hundreds" – well,two hundred. And if we define "ideological disagreements" as including opposition to spam, paid editing rings, etc., and assume that all admins who block more than once a month are engaging in "ideological disagreements", then that statement might almost be true, except, for all the unreasonable assumptions needed to make that statement look true.Hyperbole? Quoting out of context? We'll probably never know.
Why is this in "miscellaneous"? This should be in policy or proposals as a deeply serious and very important matter we should all discuss on how to implement all Nine Theses written by Larry Sanger.Woodisgoodnotbad (talk)22:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cant say I agree with everything he has said, but a lot of it is true and important to consider. No one is ever going to be happy with everything, but there has always been a lot of ramrodding on here. A lot of topicsdont have one correct side. Thats why you present both sides, and let people make up their own minds. If there is significant support for more than one perspective, then they should be included. This doesnt mean lone editors should have fringe views included, but if you have 200 editors who think one way and have sources, and 100 editors who think another way and have sources, both can be included. A lot of RS even do this themselves. And RS can be biased in all sorts of ways. All of this can be coherently included. It would also solve a lot of problems and contention and editwarring.Metallurgist (talk)07:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, briefly:
It just needs reform. Right now, consensus is somewhat arbitrary who shows up gets to decided, and then an arbitrator makes a ruling. Consensus should be coming together to agree on things, perhaps with an uninvolved moderator.
I dont think we need POVFORKs, maybe we do, but articles could be more inclusive of competing views. We do allow POV redirects...
The perennial list has pros and cons. IT definitely needs reform and reconsideration. Some sources should really be not allowed because they are total junk, but other sources may have a limited place, case by case. It should probably be a general guideline, but ultimately localized.
Yes, we should present all sides on topics, as long as they have substantiation and support. Lone wolves pushing fringe ideas, no. But, if a significant minority disagrees and backs it up, that deserves inclusion.
Meh, no opinion.
Torn on this. I see the point. Some say all editors should use their names, but I dont like that. I miss the days when the internet was decentralized forums and websites with usernames to create the persona you always wanted to be.
Didnt we used to have this? Its a good idea.
Torn on this as well. Some accounts are egregious and need it. Other times, it makes North Korea seem like a liberal democracy. The internet has always been run this way. Admin reform is needed. I dont agree with term limits, but being subject to regular review is good. Splitting admins into admins and mods would be good as well. Mods could do most of the work, and then admins review and make a ruling.
We certainly are moving in that direction and have more capability for that now. Like with admin elections. Policies could be voted on.
Just a comment on Point 6. Revealing the identity of a supposed wikipedia 'leader' or contributor may get that person imprisoned or killed in an authoritarian state such as Russia, Venezuela, Sudan or Myanmar. If you live in a democratic country, you will not face this fate, but not in these countries. I did not mention China which does not even allow access to wikipedia or Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter) or YouTube, etc. If a wikipedia 'leader' is misbehaving, just start the process to have him or her de-admined, etc. Its safer for both sides, I suppose. Best, --Leoboudv (talk)03:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the first name that would come to people's mind is Edward Snowden -- but he did afair bit more than just writing something critical of the U.S. administration.Duly signed,⛵WaltClipper-(talk)12:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the shared sources; I was actually ignorant of these, and it's helpful to have the appropriate context since it can be hard to read sarcasm in text.Duly signed,⛵WaltClipper-(talk)12:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't offered my opinion about Larry Sanger's "Nine Theses" because, to be blunt, I've long ago stopped taking Sanger seriously. He has had no meaningful involvement with Wikipedia for over 20 years. Every one of his projects to compete with Wikipedia have either ended up as vaporware or failed. And lastly but most importantly AFAICS Sanger has been making a living being the person the media turns to whenever they need to quote or interview somebody critical about Wikipedia. Either that, or the man needs therapy so he can move past the fact his role in the success of Wikipedia is limited, & as beneficial as it was some of his ideas were a danger to it. (For example, his overreliance on experts forNupedia &Citizendium led to their failure.)On the other hand, there are problems with Wikipedia, both in its processes & content. Anyone who considered themselves objective & professional will admit to it. Some may -- or should -- be solved. However, many may never find a solution. (A clue to those unfamiliar withwiki software, there is no function "user_interact_civily&rationally()" in it. Sorry.) So any discussion about how to improve Wikipedia needs to always consider is the proposal an attempt to ignore the issue ofperfect is the enemy of good? Or exchanging the current & familiar process with its known problems for a new process which will inevitably have a set of different & unfamiliar problems? Better the devil you know. --llywrch (talk)18:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
seven and nine are the only ones i remotely like (minus any use of a.i.). seven in particular as a system of rating by readers i would defend against detractors. if a key argument against it is that certain articles would be rating-bombed, i consider this an acceptable outcome as it would not apply to the vast majority of articles, and even in the events it does occur, i don't think it's unfair to let people air their grievances (even if they're unfounded). there could be checks in place such that articles with extended protection could not be rated, or perhaps articles exceeding a certain number of page visits/edits. when the reader chooses to rate the article perhaps linking to certain policies of wikipedia in the rating box would encourage deeper engagement with the site and understanding of how it works. article ratings are not equivalent to this system, and outside of ga/a-class/fa, don't tend to have a large amount of meaning (i've seen more cases of start-class b articles and b-class start articles than their proper use would dictate). besides, most people are unaware of their existence. often if i'm working on a stub to bring it to ga, i don't bother changing the class until it reaches the desired point.--Plifal (talk)06:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anomie, afraid i'm too new to have heard of this. i'll have to check properly later, but the two things that stick out are this:
(1) there was apparently still a "fair-sized" minority of proponents that supported the integration of a feedback tool (and this is over a decade ago i might add).
(2) the tool that it looked like was being trialled was a comment box for written responses. i think this would create a large number of logistical challenges and would instead advocate a simple star rating. users who want to raise specific issues should be directed to the talk page.
i'm personally of the view that articles with low ratings could be a mechanism to encourage improvement among current editors to up the quality and variety of content, and would even be a more visible way that could inspire new editors with some knowledge of the subject to potentially become involved with the project. i don't know though!--Plifal (talk)13:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look more into the history of it, earlier versions had ratings without the comment box. It turned out that, even when people actually rated the article (versus things like downvotingAdolf Hitler because he was a bad man), the ratings didn't give much guidance on just what about the article might be improved. The comment box wasasked for to try to fix that.Anomie⚔14:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but the idea of it being a mechanism for specific feedback is secondary. a rating system could encourage specific entries to be improved. reader suggestions should be made on the talk page, and the rating box could state that. most readers are generally unfamiliar with the way wikipedia works, so seeking their engagement and leading them to the 'back-end' of the site would be generally beneficial. the page foradolf hitler is extended protected, which i already suggested such pages could have limitations for. but besides, these would be edge-cases anyway (albeit slightly more high-profile ones).--Plifal (talk)15:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could? Sure. Did they try it back then, based on people saying exactly that, and it turned out it didn't? I don't recall, but I'd not be surprised. Should we try again anyway? Maybe, but we should try to learn from the past first.Anomie⚔19:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was tried. We attempted five different systems, and they all had problems. "Rating" information (e.g., "four stars") was pretty much useless; any experienced editor could provide a more accurate and less biased rating at a glance. And if someone gave it a high or low rating, you had no idea why. Was that "Five stars, it's a well-written encyclopedia article" or "Five stars, I loved this film"?
Comments provided more information, and also more risk. TheWikipedia:Oversight kept having to suppress people's personal information ("I ordered a computer from this company, but it never arrived. Please call me at 212-555-1234"). Comments on BLPs and pop culture were what you'd expect to find in anti-social media posts ("This is the worst song she ever recorded. I can't believe people still like this pop star"). But within certainsmall areas, the feedback could be relevant and practical. For example, the comments phase of AFT is why I know that the most-wanted missing information in our articles aboutrare diseases was information onprognosis. If you get a text that says "We're at the hospital, and the doctor says the baby has scaryitis", Wikipedia is one of the places people go to figure out whether their reply text should say "I'm so sorry" or "What a relief!" – so they want us to put that in the article. But while there were some benefits, overall, the costs outweighed it.WhatamIdoing (talk)21:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the safest option, for purposes of retaining Section 230 immunity, is that individual editors might be “tipped”.and the project would encourage this—and the WMF or chapters might facilitate it (e.g., by setting up the payment processing) while never directly touching the money. Wikipedia's credibility and reputation would go down the drain if this "tipping" stuff ever gets implemented.Some1 (talk)22:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's credibility and reputation are definitely top notch right now and so any changes Larry Sanger proposes should definitely meet with our full resistance.Woodisgoodnotbad (talk)22:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're being sarcastic judging by your comments at User talk:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses, but yes, 99% of his proposed changes are terrible. If he wants, he could always create another wiki / a new website.Some1 (talk)19:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sanger's theses would make editing Wikipedia far more dangerous for people from marginalized groups. I, for one, would not participate in a project that operated according to the principles he describes.Simonm223 (talk)14:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how any major change could raise red flags. My hope is that by discussing ideas one at a time, we can identify which (if any) might improve representation and transparency, while protecting vulnerable editors. If there are particular parts of the proposals that feel especially risky, I’d greatly welcome that insight.Wikieditor662 (talk)16:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Solution to complication: instead of trying to address all of the theses at once, I suggest we focus on one thesis at a time, starting with the first. Thesis 1 argues for 4 things (quotes in green are fromLarry Sanger (@Larry Sanger) unless indicated otherwise):
1a: Stop using the word consensus
(suggested reason: decisions are often controversial even when considered “settled”)
Also, while some (such as @Sapphaline) argued the current Wikipedia definition already includes dissent, in practice,controversial decisions often still get framed as “consensus,” even when many disagree. This may also diminish trust.
For example,Cambridge Dictionary definesconsensus as “a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people.” When decisions remain contested, there are better, less misleading terms.
1b:Create an open editorial committee of persons known to be uniquely identified (if not known publicly), so that there is always one person, one vote. Controversies are settled by a vote of some randomly selected subset of the committee, who can escalate important issues upward. --This one seems harder to implement than the others, so perhaps it should be set aside.
1c:As a variant on the foregoing, weight the votes in the same way that X.com does with its “Community Notes.”
1d:Those who submit a dispute to some deciding agency must precisely identify the issue on which the users disagree. They must spend at least 24 hours attempting to arrive at consensus on at least what the issue is that they disagree about.
Of these, **1a** and **1d** seem the easiest to discuss.
One defense given is that therenot all users’ voices carry equal weight.
Sapphaline objected that Wikipedia has no “people in power,” but in practice, longstanding/active/fast editors and adminsdo carry more influence — whetherde jure orde facto. That’s not necessarily bad, but it’s worth acknowledging when discussing what 'consensus' means as well as decision-making.
For example, my proposal inWikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Implementing the Nine Theses by Lary Sanger was closed within hours — and an appeal closed shortly after. Whether one agrees with the proposal or not, this raised concerns about whether early or powerful voices can disproportionately affect discussion.
Would others support isolating one thesis (or even just part of one, like 1a or 1d) for now for a more clear, productive discussion?
I think that might be a smoother way forward, and I’d welcome any thoughts.
My immediate thoughts are that any proposals for such a fundamental break from core Wikipedia policy, arrived at over many years, would be better coming from someone with ongoing active participation in the project, rather than someone who ceased to do so many years ago, and after a long succession of failed attempts to create a viable alternative to Wikipedia, has now taken to spending much of his time making questionable claims about Wikipedia process on (mostly fringe) media outlets. Regardless of his status as co-founder, it should be self-apparent that this proposal, with its 'editorial committee' and/or votes is so contrary to how things have been done that it stands zero chance of being implemented: and frankly, I very much doubt that Sanger ever had the slightest expectation that it ever would. It reads very much more like soapboxing than a serious proposal, and should probably be treated as such. If there is anything at all in any of Sanger's proposals that actually merits serious discussion, we can do so without all the 'thesis by co-founder' baggage, and on the basis of actual concrete proposals for specific policy change, coming from active contributors who have the necessary knowledge of process to offer more than facile talking points.AndyTheGrump (talk)17:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Larry Sanger's resume should impact whether we decide this or not.
If you truly believed he was a good person, would you have then instantly accepted his suggestions? If not, why instantly reject them just because you think he's a bad person?Wikieditor662 (talk)21:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think any of these should be discussed further? Why not focus on some of the many other ideas editors have put forward over the years? Or some of the many ideas that non-editors have posted all over the internet for years? I have assumed the main reason people are spending their time reading and talking about these particular proposals, when we normally ignore such things, is preciselybecause of his résumé.WhatamIdoing (talk)03:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The founder creating the foundational rules of this encyclopedia and then realizing that some of those early rules could have been done differently or better is in fact a really important moment for us all to take seriously, yes.Iljhgtn (talk)06:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Compare your story against this one:
"One of the founders of a successful business was forced out 23 years ago, largely because of disagreements over his ideas. He subsequently founded multiple other competing businesses to implement his ideas. Analysis of the failures indicates that they failed in partbecause of his ideas. He still has a fond spot in his heart for his one undeniably successful venture, and he wants to come back to it and implement some of his proven-failed and untested ideas."
If you were an investor in the first business, does that sound like a winning pitch to hire him, even as a consultant? Keep in mind that business research shows that most founders are poorly equipped for managing larger companies, because the skills needed to help a business reach its first success (e.g., innovation, vision, disregard for others' opinions) are not the skills needed to keep that same business running in the long term (e.g., avoiding sudden or dramatic changes, organizing systems, distributing resources sensibly).[3][4]WhatamIdoing (talk)18:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading a lot into his motives here that I do not think is proven at all. Neither of these sources mention Larry Sanger at all.Iljhgtn (talk)17:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources I link mention that most founders make bad managers when their little tiny business expands beyond a certain point. It doesn't need to say "And, oh, by the way, statistically that applies to the co-founders of Wikipedia, especially the one whose initials start with 'Larry' and end with 'Sanger' just as much as any other organization" to be relevant to the general principle.WhatamIdoing (talk)23:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I advocate rejecting Larry's suggestions becausethey are bad. They are ill-informed and contradictory. If they'd come from anyone but Larry, any discussion of such a bloated and rambling list would have been minimal, if anyone bothered to comment at all. As someone who himself is deeply critical of aspects of Wikipedia policies and practices, I am entirely in favour of advocating change, where it is needed - but this isn't the way to do it. And Larry knows that.AndyTheGrump (talk)05:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1a. "Stop using the word consensus."
1d. "They must spend at least 24 hours attempting to arrive at consensus on at least what the issue is that they disagree about."
Perhaps LS (and you) first need to find consensus about whether the word "consensus" may still be used or not.
And your proposal at the idea lab was closed because it wasn't a debatable proposal, but an endless list dropped without consideration.Fram (talk)17:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term "consensus" may be challenged within the proposal, but since it's still a part of the current policy, its use is appropriate until any actual change occurs.
@Wikieditor662 I think it might be useful to propose alternative things to call "consensus" instead. "Rough consensus" is probably the most likely to be accepted, and is more accurate than the "institutional fiction" which we call "consensus" today.Iljhgtn (talk)03:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I totally support this idea of going through thesis by thesis and breaking it down part by part to see what makes sense. Keep the good, and scrap the bad.
In this one, I think the point of "consensus" and calling it something else, "1a" is a solid one. As Larry calls it, an "institutional fiction". I think it should at minimum be renamed to "rough consensus" this is actually already apparent in the policy onWP:CONSENSUS itself, but is not spelled out in how we speak with one another. We really should start at least referring to it using alternative language, if not change the process altogether (which might be a herculean task to overcome, unlike renaming something).Iljhgtn (talk)03:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, taking all 9 of them at once is overwhelming. So it is much more digestible to do it part by part. I don't even know how or why you would ask something so obviously self evident.Iljhgtn (talk)06:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Different theses would change different parts of Wikipedia. There are bound to be different people active in each of those areas or watchlisting those policies. If there is anything worth taking from this, then the logical way to digest this is to have discussions and RFCs re the policies relevant to each thesis. Having commented on a couple of them on the talkpage and then seen those threads archive, I'm not convinced there is much of value in this, it is afterall a long diatribe by someone who has not been active on the site for a couple of decades, and there are places where that really shows. But if there is anything useful you'd want to go multithread rather than single thread. A single thread approach would not just be slower, but it increases the chance of nothing changing as a result of this essay. By contrast a multithread approach increases the chance of finding something useful in this that leads to some change as the low hanging fruit can be prioritised.ϢereSpielChequers15:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) I'm not opposed per se to creating an editorial board, but I can't imagine it would work for Wikipedia to remain Wikipedia, or how it would be organized. Identification, qualification, and liability seem the obvious hurdles for such a board. Then there is process -- entirely new. In short, it seems an extension of the desire for "professionalization", which has failed with the author's other projects. (On the other hand, a more professional structure has worked for something likehttps://plato.stanford.edu/ but that is something quite different from Wikipedia.) 2) We needs agreements if we are going to work together, so calling it "consensus" seems quite apt. --Alanscottwalker (talk)15:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above shows clear rejection of the entire thing and I'd strongly oppose any effort to waste any more editorial time on any aspect of it. We had our laughs, but now it's over; if youdo think there's anything salvageable your time would be better-spent trying to produce your own separate proposals without reference to this one. Even then, I see nothing of value in this discussion and cannot imagine anything of value emerging from it in any context. It shows no understanding whatsoever of Wikipedia, its policies, how it works, or anything else that could conceivably lead anywhere useful. --Aquillion (talk)19:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps more pointfully: Let's get this discussion off the village pump. This one discussion has 170 comments already and takes up more than half the page. Usually around 100 comments is where we start thinking about splitting it off to a subpage. However, in this case, I think interested parties could centralize their discussions atUser talk:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses. There are over 400 comments there, so it's the bigger discussion.
I genuinely don't think an editorial board is coherent with Wikipedia as an open wiki, and it would go against pretty much everything the project has stood for until now. Experienced editors, even administrators, shouldn't be granted more authority over article content than anyone else. While user status mayde facto impact consensus-making, we should fight against it, instead of formalizingpulling rank as a legitimate basis for editing.Regarding 1d, we already haveWP:3O andWP:DRN as tools for mediation, and the proposal seems to replace volunteers with adeciding agency, which wouldn't be an improvement whatsoever.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)22:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these 'theses' merit any thought. They are utterly opposed to the core values of Wikipedia and what made it successful.Stop listening to a grifter with an axe to grind.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}02:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Motte-and-bailey RFC (WP:MOTTE). I've seen this happen enough times that I felt it deserved an essay so I, at least, would have something I could link to to express the problem when I feel I'm dealing with an RFC of this nature. It's most common, in my experience, atWP:RSN, where we'll sometimes encounter people asking trivially obvious things like "is the New York Times reliable?" when the actual question is a much more thornyWP:DUE question of "should we includethis specific thing?", but I've seen it in other contexts, too. --Aquillion (talk)19:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or just link to actual examples of such discussions. If you're stating that it can occur, and you're taking the time to write an essay about it, link to three good illustrations. "In this example (linked), editor X argued that Y, and based on that answer, they concluded Z, which did not follow logically", or something. –Jonesey95 (talk)20:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gun drawn at Wikimedia North America conference in NYC
I'd have to suggest that morbid curiosity is probably pursued off-Wikipedia, if anywhere. More so since outing a contributor is distinctly frowned upon.AndyTheGrump (talk)18:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, sorry. Didn't want to out anyone, was just wondering if it was a known editor, i.e they let people know who they were. Most people who attend such conferences contribute, hence why I was wondering.jolielover♥talk18:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I bet someone in the press comes up with the bright idea that the way to deal with a threat of self-harm is to arm everyone so they can shoot the person making the threat.Phil Bridger (talk)20:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination period for the2025 arbitration committee election will start in two weeks. Have you thought about who you would like to see run as a candidate, whether it is an existing arbitrator, a past arbitrator, a newcomer, or you? I encourage you to consult with anyone you feel is necessary, whether it is to bolster their plans, or for you to make your own decision on running. Don't be caught by the nomination deadline! For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see thearbitrator experiences page.isaacl (talk)04:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a proper use of the RFC process and I have removed the discussion banner. If anyone would like to comment on the global ban proposal, please do so at the link that Peterxy posted above,not here. English Wikipedia has no authority over the global bans process.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)12:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By pure coincidence, a while ago I was writing thisQasr el Banat, Red Sea Governorate. Unfortunately this is further south, but some of the sources I included in the article might prove useful for your search.
For what its worth I've tried just putting those names on google maps. Bir Bikheit took me to a place called Bi'r Bukhayt (29.216668225605414, 32.299997549211184) and Bir Thimeil took me to a place called Bi'r Thumayl (29.14999352209771, 32.366662308526664). Both of these places are due East of Beni Suef, however they appear to be in the middle of nowhere, several kilometres away from the nearest road and I didn't notice any obviously man-made features nearby, so not sure if the locations are accurate, but it should at least be a place to start looking. I'll look around a bit more when I have time, but can't promise I'll find anythingGiuliotf (talk)17:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a passage in[1] saying that Wadi Araba is the wide valley leading to Zaafarana and says that sides near the coast abounded in metallic lodes. It also describes "a group of copper veins at the northern slopes of Wade Araba", which is roughly in agreement where the two sites I found above are. While not explicitly naming the site, this is imo likely the correct place.
This Gazetteer states clearly that Bir Thimeil is Bi'r Thumayl and gives coordinates, however only to the nearest arc-minute, which is where google maps seems to have got its coordinates fromGazetteer of Egypt - Google Books, the locality is listed as well, not a mine (not particularly concerning for me as it would have operated as a mine in antiquity and while the mining operation probably ceased long ago its not unreasonable that a well would have remained.
I also found this journalAnnales du Service des antiquités de l'Égypte - Google Books, unfortunately I can only access snippets but while searching for "Thimeil" I can see a snippet of a map with Bir Thimeil as well as Bir Bikeit in positions that look to be a match for the values I previously reported with an icon labelled as a copper mine very close to Bir Thimeil. This I think is the original source cited in your article (which I can't access to verify). This source also mentions a ruin at Bikheit, however from the description it could only be one building and given the lack of precision of the coordinates and the fact that it may well have been destroyed in the 75 years since the source was published I was unable to locate it.
So I think the conclusion here is that Bir Thimeil and Bi'r Thumayl are both transliterations of the same place name and that the coordinates are the ones I gave in the previous post, but only to the nearest arc-minute (~1.6km) I'm sure a more precise value could be found, but not in the sources I was able to find/have access to.Giuliotf (talk)21:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So Wadi Maghara appears to be El Valle de las Cuevas on google maps (28.89739272326269, 33.37266152157547), the satellite image seems to match the description here.
There is a location labelled Bir el-Markha (29.00138335649667, 33.22194128054493) that looks to be where we expect it based on the map and its relative position to Wadi Maghara. This presumably is the well described in the article, the article also describes el-Markha plain, and it has a map that shows that it is the large flat looking area of land around the present day settlement of Ras Abu Rudeis, with the northern end around the location of Bir el-Markha.
The source also describes aBay of el Markha with a settlement on the northern edge of el Markha plain (Site 346), it gives coordinates for the site, however entering those coordinates they don't look correct. They do however describe Site 345 as 1.76km south of site and consisting of a circular fort of 42m diameter and 5m wide walls which seems to refer to the feature at this location (28.984224934897398, 33.18162593899306). Going 1.76km north of this site, knowing that the road travels right through site 346, it means the locations is somewhere around here (29.00010248060224, 33.18312936607091), and there are some gullies that do seem to roughly map onto the image provided in the paper, however with the satellite images (and considering the paper is 20 years old) I can't really make out any other features. They also provide a photo of the location. This appears to be looking south and the shape of the coastline, and position of the road and line of what look like telegraph poles does match what I can see in the satellite images on google maps.Giuliotf (talk)00:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's just occurred to me that I look up a lot of articles about movies here, which typically have a "Plot" section, and I don't think I have ever seen a single citation in those sections, ever. Nor can I recall ever seeing a "citation needed" tag. I mean, I don't think it's really necessary, but I also can't really explain why it doesn't seem necessary. I'm curious if there is a defined exemption for that, or do we all kind of just accept that the movie itself is already a trusted source regarding the details of it's own plot? Maybe I've just answered my own question, idk...OwlParty (talk)07:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of a grey area where you could theoretically write whatever the hell for an incredibly obscure film nobody else has seen... but also, movies that aren't blockbuster hits aren't going to get a reliable source providing a detailed plot summary. It does suck, but I think we'll just have to cope and move on, tagging articles with the typical LLM giveaways.jolielover♥talk17:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The disturbing incident involving a man waving a gun at the recent WikiConference prompted me to revisit some of Wikipedia's most sensitive topics. In doing so, I read both the English articlePedophilia and the Dutch articlenl:Pedofilie, and I noticed that both contain problematic errors in their lead definitions that deserve urgent attention. The English article currently opens with: "Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a mental condition in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual attraction to prepubescent children." This characterization is misleading. The two sources cited, Helen Gavin'sCriminological and Forensic Psychology (2014) and Michael C. Seto'sPedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children (2008), both emphasize that pedophilia, as a sexual preference, isnot inherently a mental disorder. They refer to the DSM-5 classification, which distinguishes between pedophilic interest and pedophilic disorder. According to DSM-5, pedophilia is only considered a mental disorder when it causes significant distress to the individual or leads to harmful behavior. Therefore, the use of the term "mental condition" in the lead sentence is not supported by the very sources it cites and should be revised to reflect the clinical distinction between preference and disorder. Similarly, the Dutch articlenl:Pedofilie has a lead that says: "Pedofilie wordt als psychische aandoening gezien. Pedoseksualiteit, het verrichten van seksuele handelingen met personen jonger dan 16 jaar, wordt in Nederland gezien als een vorm van kindermishandeling en is strafbaar als kindermisbruik." This too is inaccurate. A more DSM-5-aligned version would be: "Pedofilie is een seksuele voorkeur voor prepuberale kinderen. Volgens de DSM-5 is dit geen psychische aandoening, tenzij het gepaard gaat met lijdensdruk of schadelijk gedrag. Pedoseksualiteit, het verrichten van seksuele handelingen met personen jonger dan 16 jaar, is in Nederland strafbaar en wordt gezien als kindermisbruik." Unfortunately, theTalk:Pedophilia page is protected due to an "extraordinary indef protection" applied byUser:Swarm in September 2019, making it impossible for me to raise these concerns there. Additionally, both the English and Dutch articles are currently protected from editing, which further limits my ability to correct these issues through normal editorial channels. I'm posting here in hopes that experienced editors and administrators can help assess these concerns and determine the appropriate next steps for improving the accuracy of these sensitive articles. --62.166.252.159 (talk)09:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Headbomb. That answer misrepresents the psychiatric consensus. Pedophilia, as defined by the DSM-5 and ICD-11, is a paraphilia. Not inherently a mental disorder. It is only classified as disorder when it causes clinically significant distress or leads to harmful behavior. The statement falsely implies that distress is common simply from resisting impulses, and that pedophilia is therefore generally a disorder. This is incorrect. Moreover, the idea that pedophilia "innately" leads to harm or distress, and is thus unlike other orientations, directly contradicts the DSM's explicit distinction between atypical sexual interests and diagnosable disorders. The answer's framing directly contradicts psychiatric consensus. --62.166.252.159 (talk)12:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a discussion forTalk:PedophileTalk:Pedophilia, not the Village Pump. Before opening it, I would recommend going through the archives listed on that page in order to review prior discussions of the question. It looks like the FAQ was added in2014, and the discussion precipitating it is archived atTalk:Pedophilia/Archive_18#Disorder, although there have been several more recent discussions of the same that in principle carry more weight and relevance.signed,Rosguilltalk17:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case they are invited to create an account and earn their editing stripes rather than circumvent page protection.signed,Rosguilltalk17:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a psychiatrist; only someone they talk about. But it springs to mind that there may be a difference between a condition and a disorder, so the recently created redirect needs to be discussed.Phil Bridger (talk)18:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are distinct diagnoses for paraphilic disorders, which are arguably different from paraphilias, even though they do overlap. The problem may be whether or not the distinction is notable for Wikipedia.BlockArranger (talk)22:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Help us decide the name of the new Abstract Wikipedia project
Hello. Please help pick a name for the new Abstract Wikipedia wiki project. This project will be a wiki that will enable users to combine functions fromWikifunctions and data from Wikidata in order to generate natural language sentences in any supported languages. These sentences can then be used by any Wikipedia (or elsewhere).
There will be two rounds of voting, each followed by legal review of candidates, with votes beginning on 20 October and 17 November 2025. Our goal is to have a final project name selected on mid-December 2025. If you would like to participate, thenplease learn more and vote now at meta-wiki.Thank you!
From my understanding, think of it as something akin to an Esperanto Wikipedia, with a front end that can translate Esperanto into other languages, completely standalone from any other language Wikipedia. Then replace "Esperanto" with "programming-style syntax".isaacl (talk)15:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At some point they'll probably create ways to use the generated content here. And we'll probably wind up treating it the same as we do Wikidata at best.Anomie⚔16:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm skeptical about there being a viable community of editors to write articles using programming syntax, versus a natural language. Though I suppose it might be feasible to have reverse translators turning natural language text into the wikifunctions used by Abstract Wikipedia, which editors could then check for accuracy.isaacl (talk)13:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wot? seems like an apt name, assuming it survives thelegal review??? But whatever the name, keep this new level of terribleness very, very far away from enwiki.Fram (talk)16:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the identity of the original poster, is the sentence "These sentences can then be used by any Wikipedia (or elsewhere)." supposed to represent an official WMF position? How many times do we need to keep telling them we hate text automatically generated from Wikidata before they get the message? —David Eppstein (talk)02:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICTwe don't want this – but other communities do, and as long as they're going into it with their eyes open, I don't see any reason whywe should stand in their way.
Those examples seem to be basically different ways of displaying Wikidata content, rather than creating prose articles in a special syntax amenable to translation to any language.isaacl (talk)15:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of them had a simple paragraph as well, but was limited in the number of languages it could handle. I seem to recall complaints about it listing Hitler's professions indiscriminately: "was a soldier, painter, political writer..."WhatamIdoing (talk)23:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of today's facts is "... that the world's longest continuous rock climbing route is a horizontal 4,500-metre (14,800 ft) traverse on El Capitan,according to Guinness World Records?" As far as I'm aware, GWR isn't necessarily the most reliable source, charging tens of thousands of dollars to verify a record (as per the Wiki page), which doesn't sound like the peak of journalism. Additionally, the rock climbing route itself doesn't have a Wiki page, so I don't know of any other sources to verify this claim.
As you noted, Guinness World Records' current business model (post its spinoff from the brewery) is to gain revenue from certifying record achievements. I feel it's reliable for determining that the achievement happened, and reasonably reliable that the achievement was a record at that time, as that's what it is being paid to certify. But the record could have been broken later by someone who didn't hire Guinness to certify the event. I think the best that can be done is to ensure achievement records are attributed to whoever recorded them.isaacl (talk)15:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I blathered a bit on this topic atWP:DYKFIRST. I'd say this one falls into the "really hard to verify" bucket, if not impossible. What does it mean to be a "rock climbing route"? I've taken hikes that long that included stepping on rocks, but I doubt anybody would call those trails "rock climbing routes". Is there some official definition of what makes something a "rock climbing route"?RoySmith(talk)16:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guinness World Records seems to mostly consist of "records" that are not really records at all, but just things that only one person or group of people have bothered to do or notice.Phil Bridger (talk)19:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably not the right place to ask, but I dont know what the right place is. I just came across this article about Plazi.org and their reasoning about the legality of using species descriptions published in copyrighted journals:[8]. Does anyone know if this has been litigated/challenged/accepted? If it is accepted to be true, this would mean it would be way easier to add species descriptions to articles on Wikipedia.B33tleMania12 (talk)14:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only way for Plazi.org to host articles that are not copyvios is to write new articles based on the copyrighted material (like we do here on Wikipedia). In that case, the question is whether they are a reliable source, which is best asked at thereliables sources noticeboard or at the talk pages of the appropriate WikiProjects.Donald Albury15:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "species descriptions" are you referring to what our articleTaxonomic treatment is describing? I note that article has a sourced claim thatTreatments are considered data and thus copyright is not applicable, which seems to be one of the points Plazi is making in the linked document as well (they also go into much greater depth about transient copies during processing anddatabase right).Anomie⚔16:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to get this looked into by someone on wikipedia who has knowledge about these matters? It would be quite a big thing if it would really be true that we could just use these taxonomic treatments in wikipedia without worries about close paraphrasingB33tleMania12 (talk)22:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I thought someone else must have seen it before and discussed it, but could not find it. We will have to wait and see what happens when someone challenges Plazi then :PB33tleMania12 (talk)07:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any guideline describing permitted and prohibited behaviour by users of temporary accounts? For example, I may want to create a new temporary account for each edit. I know there is a limit on how many can be created from a single IP address in one day (maybe 6?), but other than that, is there anything prohibited about using lots of temporary accounts?96.81.173.25 (talk)21:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Last word on when is November 4. Besides the limit of 6 per day per IP (and 10 minutes between each per IP), I don't know of any specific rules about it. Rules might be instituted if you somehow get too annoying with trying to get around it though.Anomie⚔22:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I need help deciding whether theTalk:AI page should redirect toTalk:Ai, the disambiguation page for titles under the similar "Ai" notation (for which it's currently set to), orTalk:Artificial intelligence, a talk article with its own obvious merit. I want to note that, in the past, this redirect got deleted three times for issues related to vandalism and a user's request, but I believe it may serve as a useful redirect. I'm just not sure if it should redirect to a page regarding its disambiguity, or common notion. This is also the reason why I never put it up as aredirect for discussion. What do you guys think? —Alex26337 (talk)11:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw thatUser:ImprovedWikiImprovment has been adding a footnote to the infoboxes of numerous alcoholic beverage articles indicating their IARC carcinogen group. Ithink this is inappropriate because (a) alcohol in general is classed as such, so it really isn't a characteristic specific to each of those articles' subjects, meaning it's the wrong level of detail for that information, and (b) it gives the articles the impression of being product labels bearing government-mandated warning labels. I'm not positive that my assessment of the appropriateness of this will meet with general agreement, so I'm looking for feedback.Largoplazo (talk)17:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this is acceptable but the details should be improved. That is, it should be applied to all alcoholic beverages (because it's equally true for all of them), preferably through an automatic process (e.g., if|proof= is non-zero, then the standard message displays), and it should be a standardized message, with a citation, that says this applies to all alcoholic beverages/is not specific to the particular brand or product.WhatamIdoing (talk)23:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
