User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Community-sourcing, NOT Crowdsourcing: A blog post I hope Jimmy will appreciate

Hello Jimmy and all. Due to our shared disdain for likening Wikipedia to crowdsourcing, I wanted to share a blog post that I just wrote for the New Media Consortium titled, "Why You'll Never Hear Me Call Wikipedia Crowdsourcing." I speak a lot about the nuance of crowdsourcing and its role on a wider spectrum of Open Authority. (This is a term I established through my graduate research, and it was inspired by Wikipedia. I'll be speaking on it at Wikimania.) This blog was written within my role as a contributing editor for the New Media Consortium, an organization that aggregates information on ed-tech in schools and museums. Enjoy! LoriLee (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

[Once in paragraph 5 and once in paragraph 6, your blog post has the word "asks" where apparently the word "tasks" was intended.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC) and 15:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)]

Nope, I mean "asks." You're making "asks" of the community. Sometimes these can be tasks, sure. I do appreciate the feedback! LoriLee (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Traditional thinking will get you killed, Wavelength. Ha! Seattle (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

See http://www.createadvantage.com/glossary/traditional-thinking

and http://www.createadvantage.com/glossary/analytical-thinking.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that confirms the suspicion. Seattle (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Quality from Deletists Point of View

there ru:Обсуждение проекта:Добротные статьи#Фил Вечеровский и притча о недополняемости ДС discussed a proposal from a deletists' leader (who has a medal from other deletists for "improving" quality of Wikipedia by deleting junks) that Wikipedia must have only full articles and all stubs must be deleted and not allowed to be created as low quality "junk"
Jimbo, what do you think about that tendency? (Idot (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC))

That is a matter for the Russian Wikipedia, not us. The English wiki does not have a bias against stubs just because they are stubs. Tarc (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Not so fast Tarc. I had the great pleasure of meeting Sue Gardner at a London meetup. Even back in early 2010 an excessive concern for quality was apparent to the Foundation across all the different languages. Sue suggested this excessive concern may have originated from English Wikipedia, and to an extent, from Jimbo himself.

If I remember correctly, her exact words were "Once Jimbo began siding with the deletionists on grounds of quality, this sent ripple effects out to the satellite Wikipedias across all the different languages. Projects that were once relaxed and welcoming to newcomers and new content began adopting the same over strict approach as we see on the English wikipedia" Here is Sue addressing similar themes in one of her later death spiral videos. It might have made sense to focus on quality before 2010, when the trade offs were less apparent. With hindsight, it would be most interesting to see whether Jimbo might favor a return to a less critical, more inclusive and tolerant approach? FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't watched that whole long video but at the beginning anyway she does not say that a "focus on quality" is driving newcomers away, but bots leaving templated warnings and instructions on their talk pages. Are there really people who think that quality is not something to aim for?Smeat75 (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, yes, there are. Resolute 15:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the idea that stubs should be deleted because they are stubs is nonsense. The stub template exists because stubs have a purpose. There is a difference between non-notable stubs and notable stubs. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The bias towards destroying stubs is maybe a side issue. It does seem to exist however even on English Wikipedia. Checkout this search for the word "permastub". Often deletionists give being a permastub as a reason to delete even when the subject passes GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with FeydHuxtable. I've seen even many PRODs with the reason "too short". --cyclopia^speak! 15:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Review

If a few editors could review this FLC candidate, that would be great. Seattle (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

And if anyone wants to take a look at the Harlem Riot of 1943 that would be great too. Seattle (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

German Admin banning users with self-proclaimed "Hyper-Light-Velocity"

Administrator called Itti from the German Wikipedia is stating on her page that "she" "deletes and bans with hyper-lightvelocity".

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzerin:Itti

This obviously doesn't meet any general standard of obligation for executive care.

Furthermore there is at least one person every day that feels annoyed or even stalked.

P.S.: Any recommendation to take it to the German Wiki oder Admin board is useless, as "Itti" is deleting any complaint before anyone there is able to read it--37.230.13.58 (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an issue for the German Wikipedia's community; you will have to follow their processes, including appealing any bans or blocks their community has set on you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

First off, this is not about me, personally. I've been following this user's conduct for a couple of weeks and there's a whole bunch of (unbanned) users constantly filing complaints on her talk page, which "she" then deletes within seconds (!). In addition, following German Wikipedia's processes is useless, as I already stated, as "Itti" is stalking anyone and any complaint, even by active users, is erased with "hyper-lightspeed". And surprise, surprise, my info on her talk page, that she was mentioned here, was erased in the same minute (!) -probably to prevent one of the over 400 users having her on the watchlist to take notice and come here.--37.230.13.58 (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't mind this, nonsense. -jkb- (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User -jkb- is a personal friend of the mentioned German admin called Itti, therefore his input is not valid or to be taken seriously. But let's see whether one of the users feeling annoyed or stalked shows up here...--37.230.13.58 (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It is also interesting that Itti bans entire ip ranges in turkey, where "opposition members risk their life to overcome internet bans". https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzerin_Diskussion:Itti&diff=131425250&oldid=131425075--37.230.13.58 (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The User/IP you mentioned is blocked after CU [1]. --Alraunenstern (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

First off, you are the one who reverted the information on the mentioned admin's page that he is discussed here. https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzerin_Diskussion:Itti&diff=131666862&oldid=131666849 And your reason is obvious: You want to prevent those users who regularly visit that abusive user's page and regularly complain about him to take notice about this. That is clear.

On a second note, whether the OP adding the original info that the mentioned admin has banned entire ip ranges in turkey, has been banned or not is irrelevant. The problem is a German Admin is jeopardizing the physical health of tens of thousand of people in turkey, where free speech is suppressed and oppositionals jeopardize their life to overcome internet bans.

If you want to say that getting one member banned on the German Wikipedia - where a whole lot of admins show xenophobic tendencies and which may be the reason why this user has been blocked, btw - justifies blocking entire ip ranges when the users inside this range try to fight a dictatorship and try to illuminate their country over Wikipedia what their government is all about, then you and this administrator and all his friends probably should either forbear of using ip range blocks to single out a user or give up on Wikipedia, completely, cause this is obviously not only the wrong place for xenophobic views but also for risking people's lives and chances to elucidate their fellowmen about dictatorships while trying to circumvent ending up in a Turkish prison cell.--37.230.13.58 (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't discuss with someone who accuses me of xenophobic tendencies and surmises "where a whole lot of admins show xenophobic tendencies and which may be the reason why this user has been blocked". EOD --Alraunenstern (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Who said I have interest discussing with you? You revert justified complaints from friendly user's pages, so who cares about people doing things like this? Besides, I have witnessed enough examples of xenophobia on the German Wikipedia and will not let you turn things upside down telling the opposite. And what is sad is I highly respect the German culture and I know loads of educated and tolerant people from this country, but what I see on the German Wikipedia, especially when it comes to foreigners or orientals trying to make articles or edits, often makes me shiver. --37.230.13.58 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Does the German Wikipedia have a version of our WP:ANI? If so it would be a better forum than this talk page to complain about the actions of a German Wikipedia administrator. On our ANI, a baseless complaint may have an undesired effect. Edison (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said, complaints on the German's ANI are highly likely to be deleted by user's with "hyper-light velocity"...--37.230.13.58 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure we have. But this IP is an incident by itself, that's the problem. -jkb- (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute, aren't you the admin who likes to permanently ban foreign users, after they have made an article that contains a few mistakes, rather than try to correct these? That is an incident, by itself.--37.230.13.58 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If a user is travelling faster than light, there's nothing to see here. ;-) Jonathunder (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hiho, here I am. What a funny post here. You made my day! Regards, the devil of the night. By the way, could anybody stop this IP, the postings are more than abusive. --Itti (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. He's evading an indef block on his account here, anyway. Choess (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What did the edit summary mean? "This, too, is probably Ernest Shackleton's fault". Ernest Shackleton didn't travel faster than light in Antarctica. Did the sockpuppet travel faster than light? What did a heroic explorer have to do with this? I have missed the point. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is this thread that can travel faster than light, as no information is being conveyed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Choess, merci :-), @Robert McClenon, this IP belongs to a multiple indef blocked user on dewiki. We call him "Südpolarforscher". Here is a list of his accounts and IPs. He hates Shackleton and all time he tries to bring his POV into artikel over Shackleton an artikel arrount the exploration of the South Pole. I´m Admin and Crat on dewiki. Thank you and have a nice day. --Itti (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can find him and capture him, take him to a few miles away from the South Pole, where there are no visitors, and freeze him. Then he can be eaten by Amundsen's sled dogs. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Amundsen's sled dogs prefered obviously seals and penguins not puppets :-) -jkb- (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

First, while Amundsen's dogs preferred seals and penguins, with ample blubber, there were no seals in the interior of Antarctica, and any penguins would have to be shot first. The dogs were not that selective. Amundsen's dogs also ate Amundsen's dogs (after Amundsen selected which dogs were to be cannibalized). Second, I didn't mean to take the sockpuppet to Antarctica, but to take the banned user to Antarctica. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

More Yank Barry lawsuit questions

As is usually the case in such situations, commenting publicly on ongoing litigation is strongly advised against. And in this particular case, I am not personally a member of the legal staff nor a member of staff at the Foundation at all, and so I have no direct role in dealing with this kind of thing. I do have some strong opinions about this case, but I fear I must keep them to myself for the time being. Having said that I can say that I am strongly in support of the Foundation aggressively defending members of the community where appropriate and am proud of our track record in these matters. Carrite asks "What I myself do want to hear — and I am not alone — is a statement of some sort whether, speaking in general, malicious prosecution in a SLAPP-like manner of individual good faith Wikipedians attempting to render a POV biography of a living person to an NPOV state will be provided with substantial assistance by WMF." In my own personal opinion, the best answer to this lies here: Policy on defense of contributors in this passage: "Such an undertaking may be possible in cases that raise significant issues relating to free speech and that advance the mission "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."" If WMF staff determines that a lawsuit appears to be a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), i.e. an attempt to intimidate contributors to prevent them from writing an article that complies with all our usual policies, I strongly support that we should act. Do take note, though, of the importance always of good behavior and doing the right thing on the part of all of us - we can't expect the Foundation to defend people who really are engaging in libel. Determining which cases to intervene in, and which not to intervene in, has fortunately been a very rare situation indeed, in no small part because the community effectively bans people who violate BLP. But making that determination is still necessary and still requires serious work on the part of the legal team and other relevant staff. I respect that and trust that, per our long history, they will tirelessly work to do the right thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lawsuit filed by Yank Barry was mentioned a few days ago, but I have some more questions on the general issues involved. To avoid arguing the main case, I won't address the apparent contributions of Richfife, NatGertler, Nagle here, though it appears (to a casual examination, which doesn't rule out potential editing after the fact) that most of the edits referenced in the suits seem attributed to them in the archived version. My main interest is how John Does 1 to 50 and one other named editor whose account isn't obvious could be involved. To begin with, I looked through that list of 31 quotes listed in the lawsuit. Apart from the three authors I'm excluding, these seem to be: (11) I removed the Bo Derek, Yank Barry film announcement because an announcement was never made. Npl10 (archive 1) (13) he was in the music business and is now is involved in "the multi-level marketing field" specifically with VitaPro, Global Village, Propectin and Jeunesse. Editingisthegame (archive 2) (19) So yeah, it really does look like "random lawyer in Bulgaria claims to nominate Yank Barry", which isn't worth mentioning in the article. Atama (archive 1) (30) Misrepresenting the situation by contributing to the false impression that he was a regular part of the band is a problem per WP:BLP. The band's willingness to play a one-off show with him changes nothing. Grayfell (Talk:Yank Barry) (29) seems to be cut and pasted together from five different RfC comments on Talk:Yank Barry#RfC: Should Barry be characterized as a former member of The Kingsmen? by Richfife, NinjaRobotPirate, Nagle, and Collect. In the lawsuit these are joined to read as a single paragraph. There are some other apparent paraphrasing irregularities in (26) and (9/17) but at least not multiple authors. Now some questions. I'm not a lawyer, so please understand these are pretty ignorant: What happens when a lawsuit contains an inaccurate transcript of a Wikipedia conversation? Is it possible, for example, that the firm suing over comment 29 could subpoena WMF for information about the identity of all four authors of the quote, or even of the intervening authors whose comments were omitted, or everyone who participated in the RfC? If that were the case, is there a way for Wikipedia to challenge the transcript to protect the identities of those authors? Would WMF be allowed to notify authors whose identity is subpoenaed? If so, do they? If this information is handed over, are there any limits on how it can subsequently be used? For example, would law firms be able to reuse it for other clients, or trade it with other firms online? Do Wikipedians have any self-help mechanism to match editors with those who could serve as expert witnesses about how Wikipedia works? For example, to explain how Editingisthegame was asking other editors if they had consensus to move forward, rather than repeating something just to repeat it or out of malice. Who is able to serve as an expert witness for Wikipedia questions? Does WMF have any advice for potential experts? No matter how wide a net I cast, I don't understand where you get 50 John Does, unless maybe every editor of the talk page ever is a defendant. Is it normal for a lawsuit to name an excess of John Does "just in case", or do they really have 50 people in mind? To my untrained eye, the core of this lawsuit is the idea that every editor named is part of a "conspiracy" with joint and several liability for every other editor's actions. In the case of the people whose quotes I listed above, that seems remarkable. I mean, even if Npl10 was wrong and an announcement was made, they would be saying he should be liable for what all these other people did, not merely for the minor offense of not finding an announcement or for not plating his announcement with "so far as I could determine". Is there any precedent (Usenet, chat rooms, online forums, etc.) for considering an article Talk: page to be a conspiracy, whether or not the version of the article at the time was biased? And does WMF take seriously the general issue of whether it could be regarded as one, whether for criminal or civil purposes? In the recent discussion someone started talking about SLAPP laws. Of course, it would be premature for WMF to speculate on whether that could apply in this case, but can WMF provide some tools for users to understand what their rights may be under such laws? For example, do John Does 1-50 have to wait to be named and brought into court, or could they take a proactive stance? Could Wikipedia editors who make a case that their freedom to edit has been impacted have the chance to win any real money? The community could benefit greatly from some direction here. Wnt (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC) The Doe 1-50 thing is almost boilerplate and something like it appears in tons of suits where the exact defendants aren't known in advance. It doesn't mean they think there are really 50 more likely co-defendants. The rest of your questions are specific enough that discussing them here on WP is probably counterproductive due to the possibility of any discussion getting recycled into the lawsuit, but at the same time basic enough that if you take a law student out drinking you can probably get some answers. IANAL etc. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Provided the defendants themselves don't comment, how can our blundering about be recycled into their lawsuit? We have nothing to do with them. Wnt (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC) I would like to hear an official statement from WMF on these matters: "To my untrained eye, the core of this lawsuit is the idea that every editor named is part of a "conspiracy" with joint and several liability for every other editor's actions. In the case of the people whose quotes I listed above, that seems remarkable. I mean, even if Npl10 was wrong and an announcement was made, they would be saying he should be liable for what all these other people did, not merely for the minor offense of not finding an announcement or for not plating his announcement with "so far as I could determine". Is there any precedent (Usenet, chat rooms, online forums, etc.) for considering an article Talk: page to be a conspiracy, whether or not the version of the article at the time was biased? And does WMF take seriously the general issue of whether it could be regarded as one, whether for criminal or civil purposes?" Also: a statement as to whether WMF has the backs of good faith editors attempting to render neutral POV articles of living people. Because if they don't, it's time for us as a community to do something drastic... Carrite (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC) There is some general info here. I kind of doubt WMF is likely to comment on active litigation but I'm not them. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC) It's not "active litigation" against them. Inquiring minds don't just want to know, they need to know — because if this whole "everyone who ever edited is part of a conspiracy to defame" line of reasoning is allowed to win in court, there is absolutely no way that anyone should ever touch a BLP. Good luck with maintaining NPOV in that event. Moreover, potential donors to WP will need to be advised that WMF's $20,000,000+ sitting in the bank doesn't actually help the volunteers in the trenches one whit when they really need it... and there will doubtlessly need be a new non-profit legal defense entity established. Carrite (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC) You need to relax. This is not the right place to discuss this matter. Whoever has been sued should (themselves or via their lawyer) contact WMF and request help. Although policy may say WMF isn't liable, as a practical matter WMF ought to help innocent contributors who get swept up in a lawsuit. There is also a federal law, the Volunteer Protection Act that shields volunteers from liability for torts, with some exceptions for egregious misconduct. Jehochman Talk 01:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC) I asked questions rather than calling for drastic action because I still don't understand much of what is going on. For example, just because some other editors were quoted doesn't prove they would be named as defendants even if identified - judging by #29, it's possible some of them were quoted simply in error. The general information that naming 50 John Does is commonplace does alleviate some of my concern. I imagine that some other general legal information (such as whether the WMF would be able and willing to notify a Wikipedian if she or he has records subpoenaed, or whether the VPA really protects Wikipedians) would help to reduce the concern further. In general, the more editors understand about the details of this process, the actual risks and protections they have, the easier it will be for people to get through this process with the confidence that some people will be protected and others can be offered moral, legal, and financial support as appropriate. Wnt (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC) It's really unhelpful for you or anybody else to discuss the case details here because whatever is said might prejudice one of the parties. When there is a lawsuit, it is a good idea to discuss the case with your own lawyer, and otherwise to remain silent. Jehochman Talk 16:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC) To be clear, I'm not involved with this case so I don't have a lawyer to ask, but as Wikipedians we all have an interest in these issues. These aren't just private claims, but very serious political issues for us that threaten how we work on any article, and I expect Wikipedians to address them the way they should anything, in the open. If you start deciding that you're afraid even to talk about ongoing situations like this that are prone to affect your behavior, you've already been censored before the government even makes a decision let alone a precedent or law. I'm assuming those directly involved have been counseled on what to say and not to say. What do you mean by "prejudice one of the parties"? Wnt (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Somebody in discussing the case might make a loose remark such as, "X did Y, which was wrong" and that statement could be used against X. A discussion of the case here could prejudice a fellow volunteer. Please leave it to the parties who are involved to deal with it through their professional lawyers. Any organization that gets sued or has its staff get sued will impose a rule that members of the organization not comment on the case, except when advised to do so by a lawyer. Jehochman Talk 17:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Leave it to the lawyers. Jehochman Talk 17:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Is that supposed to be a redlink, since anything you say can be used against you? Seriously though, I don't understand your suggested prohibition. I've never been in a room with any of these people. Anything I know about the case will be the most flagrant hearsay. So how on Earth can some lawyer claim that something I'd say is evidence that ... anything, so far as the defendants are concerned? Wikipedia just isn't a company, they don't pay me a salary to keep my mouth shut, they couldn't possibly have paid me to do something unethical, and the only "conspiracy" I could possibly get into is... editing a talk page. Sigh. So if this were coming from Wikipedia or someone associated with the defendants I'd think of it as the equivalent of someone going into a Usenet forum or posting to Twitter "don't talk about my case". Now it's possible that all you're really saying is that the lawyers might not think of something so don't give them any good ideas, but if so you should be clearer that's what you mean. Wnt (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC) In my experience lawyers can and will claim anything. Yes, your statement might be used directly or it might provide ideas to the adverse party. Now that I've told you this three times, do you understand? You can go to some other site and say whatever you want, but here on Wikipedia, this is not a discussion form, it's not a battlefield, nor is it a place to conduct litigation, settlement discussions or analysis of litigation. Jehochman Talk 17:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC) But Wikipedia is a place to educate and to work together to ensure that we are able to do that education. Recognizing the problems is part of that. If my statement has persuaded you to write an essay that none of us should say boo about any lawsuit affecting anyone on Wikipedia, well, was that a deficiency in policy someone needed to point out? (But then, how do we respond when we already have a huge article about some lawsuit and then one of the parties registers an account and becomes one of our fellow Wikipedians...) Maybe if people go through the scenarios and decide this is the only way to prevent a fellow volunteer from being railroaded in some potential future proceeding (and I should emphasize Jehochman and I have been talking about hypothetical issues which have nothing to do with any particular case) they can then organize politically to prevent Wikipedia volunteers or other forum participants from being muzzled, and/or to invent a legal rule that stops idle chatter from strangers from becoming an issue in legal cases that ought to be settled based on things that have some relevance. But I think there has to be a better way, that the state of the legal system can't be that much a shambles, that we should be able to allow Wikipedians to be Wikipedians. After all, there have been many Signpost articles and other discussions about the few lawsuits in the past. Furthermore I should add that this is not a static system - when there's a lawsuit over an article or the related talk page, those pages still exist, people are still changing them and have to decide what to do with them. I don't think putting the lawsuit under glass and hoping we'll find it mummified in ten years is really an option. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Re: the above. I don't care particularly if WMF Legal doesn't make a statement about the merits or lack thereof of the specific Yank Barry case. What I myself do want to hear — and I am not alone — is a statement of some sort whether, speaking in general, malicious prosecution in a SLAPP-like manner of individual good faith Wikipedians attempting to render a POV biography of a living person to an NPOV state will be provided with substantial assistance by WMF. This is an enormously important matter to those of us who write content and WMF needs to clearly understand that they need to do the right thing if this situation should arise. Actions speak louder than words, obviously. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC) There is a policy that WMF may help. They purposely keep their promise weak, but in practice I think they will always stand behind a good faith contributor, because if they don't, we're all going to quit. Perhaps they should strengthen the policy, but there is a risk that doing so may encourage more litigation because prospective plaintiffs will feel that WMF is acting like a deep pocket insurance company. Jehochman Talk 18:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC) I am emphatically not requesting a statement from anybody but the WMF Board or its Legal representatives — one member of the Board being Jimmy Wales. The amateur legal theorizing above is interesting and irrelevant; your political position on this matter untenable. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Additional note. The Yank Barry case is not a matter of a plaintiff going after the "deep pockets" of WMF, it is an attempt to agglomerate multiple editors into an alleged "conspiracy" and to go after their "shallow pockets," leaving WMF and its legal and financial arsenal alone. I have no opinion as to whether any part of the case has merit; this is what appears to be the strategy here and the precedent will have lasting consequences. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC) I don't think we have the right to put them on the spot if they don't want to comment - ultimately Wikipedia is us, all the people who do something with it, and the WMF is just one refined expression of our desires. Speaking generally, in response to your hypothetical scenario, in our ability to educate the public about what their rights are and how to use them we potentially can have immense power; we represent a majority that will, if it is truly necessary, become mobilized for action. We need simply keep an eye out for unsound, unfair ideas and practices that pollute the cause of justice, and call them out as necessary to preserve our right to educate. Wnt (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)