User talk:Jimbo Wales

Removal of WMF Board candidates

Can you provide a rationale for the WMF Board removing qualified candidates from the ballot for the WMF Board immediately before the election for reasons? Please help those of us who haven't drank cult koolaid understand how such Politburo-like self-selection of candidates for a body by that body protects and expands what should be our core values of democracy and popular participation. Thank you. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR (USA) //// Carrite (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Here's a relevant link for anyone who, like myself, had no idea what this was talking about: Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § About the 2025 Board of Trustees Elections. Graham87 (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just about to ask. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. As far as I'm concerned, WMF is a private foundation, and they can do as they please if they believe it is best for the mission. I trust Jimbo and the Cabal! Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Governance is hard, and WMF appears to have fallen into a familiar pattern of mistakes. The criteria to stand as a candidate should be stated up front and applied uniformly at the start of the process. Why didn't they do that? Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Katherine Maher was all over Twitter all the time tweeting about various social justice issues. I tried asking her to tone that down and focus more on building a neutral, fact-based encyclopedia as I didn't think such constant, blatant editorializing from the top was appropriately serving Wikimedia's public image, but she never stopped. That all finally came back to bite her when she was picked to lead NPR. And now you pull the rug out from under someone, who, following the model set by Maher's lead, was on social media talking about social justice matters of even more import than the stuff Maher was covering. Why wasn't Maher fired for that? I'm assuming this is all because AIPAC and their friends got to you. – wbm1058 (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:SOCKSTRIKE –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Are you asking Carrite, to whom you apparently replied, or Jimbo?

As for Maherkr, she has been able to raise about $55 million in excess of previous years' income since this summer's CPB defunding crisis, requiring only $8 million in cuts across the network.[1][2][3] In comparison, her predecessor John Lansing was unable to increase NPR fundraising during the pandemic-induced collapse in corporate sponsorship, which required around $20 million in cutbacks.[4] Sure she got bit by the Republican congress and administration, certainly in part because of her outspoken support of human rights and left-liberal values while leading the WMF, but clearly her board is a heck of a lot happier with her getting them off the government teat (which has been nothing but anti-journalism leverage and unavoidable conflict of interest, frankly -- remember back in 2003-09 when NPR forbade its correspondents from mentioning "torture" in favor of "enhanced interrogation techniques"?[5]) than they are with anyone who has served in her current position.

I would note, by the way, that none of the NPR board members are elected by its correspondents or listeners: "NPR's Board of Directors consists of 23 directors — 12 Member Directors who are managers of NPR Member stations and are elected to the Board by their fellow Member stations, 9 Public Directors who are prominent members of the public selected by the Board and confirmed by NPR Member stations, the NPR Foundation Chair, and the NPR President & CEO."[6]

That is not to say I agree with the WMF Board's removal of the two candidates immediately before their election, which I do not. Doing so was a serious mistake which I think Jimbo needs to address as the longest-standing member of the WMF Board. TestUser345 (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet of WMF-banned User:Nrcprm2026. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Noting for anyone who's interested that Clovermoss started a petition on Meta-Wiki to reform the Board of Trustees. That said, I would be interested to hear Jimbo's thoughts on the matter. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Nine Theses

Hi Jimmy, I just wanted to invite you to respond to my “Nine Theses on Wikipedia.” Please have a look. Larry Sanger (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• I do hope User:Jimbo Wales responds to this! Would be really interesting to see his thoughts. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  Check the NYT-interview discussed above, there's some Sanger-related stuff there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Would be nice to see Jimbo reply here I think. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  Hi Larry, and others, I would like to respond at some point but I'm very much swamped with preparations for my book launch next week, and will be doing a lot for about 2 weeks after. And Larry spent months working on his theses and it wouldn't be appropriate to dash off a quick response. The main thing I can say is that I don't find most of his proposals persuasive, but I think there are elements that are worth considering. For me, the important thing is what I said many many years ago: NPOV is non-negotiable. Many of Larry's proposals would make the situation worse and not better, and it's worthwhile to explore why I think so. I do think that, without a doubt, there are areas where we have a lot of room to improve - as has always been true and I presume always will be true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  In the NY Times piece you were quoted as saying, "In many cases, what’s happened is a real lack of understanding by politicians and leaders of how Wikipedia works." I think Larry addressed this head on with a clear and detailed proposal which would benefit from the two of you working together in my opinion. I hope that Larry and you can find common ground on some of these things and really move towards implementing some improvements to Wikipedia. Some of them seem more obvious than others, such as "Repeal Ignore All Rules", as this tends to empower the powerful with even greater authority and acts as a "power for me, but not for thee" sort of "rule". Curious about your thoughts on that one, and on other areas where you and Larry might agree. Personally, I'm less interested in what you disagree on, because that leads us nowhere as an encyclopedia, and as a community. What you agree on though can be really interesting. I listened to your podcast interview with Lex Fridman from a couple years ago (2023 I think?), and I was intrigued with what you had to say, but it struck me also as perhaps very naive compared to the real approaches to reform that Larry Sanger has proposed, which, if accepted, I think might actually result in the higher trust in Wikipedia which it seems is your priority Mr. Wales. I grew up with Wikipedia, and I hope my kids can too. They won't though unless proposals like those Mr. Sanger, who clearly spent a great deal of time and careful thought considering, are taken under consideration by the community. Your joint leadership on this would be amazing and could shake the world to its foundations. It would be like the Pope and Martin Luther deciding to set aside petty differences, to cast away indulgences, and to make the church truly reformed, without the need for senseless bloodshed for centuries to follow. Now wouldn't that be great? How rare such things are though... how rare. Wish you both the best. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  I wonder if Lex Fridman would take you both on and mediate a healthy and important conversation between you both about the future of Wikipedia? Here's to hoping! Iljhgtn (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Also, I pre-ordered a copy of your book @Jimbo Wales and I am eagerly looking forward to reading it. Did you have time to address anything from Larry's WP:9T in your book? Iljhgtn (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Gosh no, the book was done months ago. But there may be some relevance to some extent, but nothing would directly respond. I speak highly of Larry in the book. Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Is there going to be an audiobook too? I might buy that as well if you read it. I like audiobooks only when the author reads their own book.

  Also, any thoughts on a joint session with Larry Sanger? I think that would be really great to have the two of you in a room talking about the past two decades. I think it would really be some of the healing that the world needs right now. Especially with a good host. My vote (or !vote haha) would be for Lex Fridman, but I'm sure you two could find someone that would host this on neutral territory. What is the Wikipedia Switzerland, maybe Richard Branson would host this on Necker Island or something? Would be a conversation for the ages! Iljhgtn (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  I did read the audiobook, which was a very fun process!

  I don't think it very likely that it would be a useful thing for me to do to have a joint session with Larry. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  You both might not like the idea I bet, but I think it would be an important and healing event for the entire world, and all those that care about this great project of providing Free Access to the full sum of human knowledge. If that required two personalities to hold their noses and have a potentially awkward or uncomfortable conversation, I say that is something you both really ought to suffer through for our collective benefit. Though of course Larry might refuse even if you were to agree. I'll mention it on his talk page too. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  ...healing event for the entire world.... What an utterly absurd claim to make. Neither the spat between Jimbo and Larry, nor the underlying dispute about Wikipedia's approaches to 'neutrality' etc, are even remotely amongst the things that most of humanity will consider the slightest of priorities, if they have even heard of them at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  I think this is why Jimbo saying we need more "kind and thoughtful" editors of all ideological and cultural backgrounds is sorely needed. I for one would truly love to see them discuss this. If it means that Jimbo sweeps the floor with Larry too by the way, then so be it. Though I really would love to see the two of them just come together and find agreement on some areas that Wikipedia could improve. At least from what I've read, listened to, and watched, I find them both to be the sort of men that might be open to such a possibility. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  Sanger hates that Wikipedia has become a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, like Larousse and Britannica. And there are enough right-wing editors, just not of the extreme right-wing. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  It would be really interesting to see if there is any kind of mapping of editors based on ideological bias? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Question about The Seven Rules of Trust

Hi, Jimbo! I was wondering if you own the copyrights to the book cover design for your upcoming book, The Seven Rules of Trust, or if the cover design is owned by the publisher. If you do own the design, would it be possible to release it under a free license for use on Commons and Wikipedia? Thanks, ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

You know what? That's a really interesting question and I have no idea. My initial assumption is that the publisher(s) own the rights, but I'm not really sure. (There are two covers because there are two different English language publishers, Crown in US and Canada, and Bloomsbury in UK/Commonwealth.). (Yes, I know that Canada is in the commonwealth, but that's the way people in publishing say it haha.) There will also be editions in a total of 18 langauges (so far) that will come out over the next year, generally all different publishers. I know that the German cover will follow the design of the US cover.

In any event, I have a great relationship with the publishers and I can ask them.

Separately, I know that commons is very strict about these matters and tries not to rely on fair use, but for English Wikipedia, is it our usual practice to assert fair use and put up images of book covers. I think it should be but I have to admit that I haven't thought about it recently and don't actually know. I just thought up a book at random (Different Seasons) and see a book cover there. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I am curious to see what the publisher(s) say. Cheers! ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I add book cover images all the time with non-free proper justifications. It is kind of my favorite thing to do on Wikipedia, so I would have added this without issue, but it looks like it is done already. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, enwiki can use non-free book covers. However, some smaller wikis, such as Simple English, do not have a non-free image policy and therefore cannot use non-free book covers. Because of this, it would still be good for the book cover to be public domain if possible, but I would understand if you can't for whatever reason. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the Simple English wiki. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Deprecated UK newspapers

I was interested to read this quote from Jimbo, in a PoliticsHome interview:

mainstream UK publications The Sun, The Daily Star and The Daily Mail are among Wikipedia’s “deprecated” sources. “Deprecated doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to use it. It just means you should prefer a better source if you can find one...”

That may be what the de jure policy says, but such papers are, for all practical purposes, de facto prohibited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

In the case of these three, that is pretty much the case, if not completely:[7] has 27 hits at the time I post this. This could of course mean that Wikipedians are good at finding better sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

None of those appear to be citations to the Daily Mail. They are either the Charleston Daily Mail, a US publication, or in articles that talk about the (UK) Daily Mail.

And no: there have been removals (or replacement with {{citation needed}}, where there is no other source available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Point, dailymail.com gets you [8] today, but that wasn't necessarily the case when the cite was written. And I'm sure that happened, but I think there have also been replacing with better sources. I'm not going to try to prove it with diffs, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Grokipedia is now a WP-article

Which will surprise no one. I asked grok.com "Is Wikipedia's article about Grokipedia neutral?" and it replied in part "In summary, the article is largely neutral and encyclopedic, but its early-stage focus on launch-day controversies introduces a slight critical lean, common for nascent topics with polarized media attention. As more sources emerge, it may evolve toward greater balance." That's high praise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The Register reports Grok's analysis of Grokipedia's article about Wikipedia: "The page is factually dense and cites sources ... but it exhibits biases through selective presentation of evidence and heavy reliance on a single critical voice, creating an unbalanced critical lens ... The overall framing appeals to concerns about 'ideological capture,' potentially evoking emotional responses from readers skeptical of 'woke' institutions."

The Register also asked Grok whether Grokipedia was trustworthy: "'It's a critique wearing encyclopedia clothing,' the bot said."[9] NebY (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Jimbo actually addressed Grokipedia: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales isn’t worried about Elon Musk’s Grokipedia: ‘Not optimistic he will create anything very useful right now’ SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

PRWeek has an interesting angle:[10] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

A little humor:[11][12]

Wikipedia: JD Vance is a deplorable moonshine-drinking hillbilly.

Grokipedia: JD Vance is a lovable moonshine-drinking hillbilly.

Grokipedia: There are only two genders.

Wikipedia: There are as many genders as there are stars in the sky, with scientists discovering new ones every day, and if you don't agree, you're a hateful bigot.

Satire for the people! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Book questions

Hi again Jimbo. I finished your book. I listened to the audiobook version and I really enjoyed your reading of it and the content. I think you sound sincere and truly interested in bringing Wikipedia into the next 100 years. If that is going to succeed, I am curious about the following. Namely, the WP:RSP.

On page 132 of chapter 6 you wrote, "There is no handy, universal list of 'good sources,' so editors have to judge for themselves." What about the WP:RSP? This was something that @Larry Sanger specifically called for abolishing in WP:THESIS3/WP:ABOLISHBLACKLISTS, but I am curious, what are your thoughts on this since you did not mention it explicitly? The RSP is pretty heavily used, and does function as a de facto "black list" or "list of 'good sources'" at the very least. Footnote 13 in chapter 6 does mention the WP:Reliable sources essay, but that is it from what I can tell. I bought the paperback edition as well as the audiobook just to ensure I did not miss anything! I combed through the notes and did not see a mention of WP:RSP. To me, I think that WP:THESIS3 may be one of the most important of Larry's WP:9T, and something I would love to see the two of you discuss, even if you disagree on a lot of other things, this one point could really use some further dissecting. As you often said in your book, disagreement is "good", "fine", "normal", as long as it remains WP:CIVIL. I'd think that with Lulu Garcia-Navarro potentially as a host on a round two of "The Interview" the two of you could have a deeply kind and thoughtful, and civil, conversation.

Again, great job on the book Jimbo! Iljhgtn (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

After all, I couldn't say it better than you:

"And whether my ideas work is not really the point here. Starting a conversation is. I hope these ideas inspire others to think and talk and dream. And try. To repeat the famous maxim of the open-source software developer Eric Raymond, 'Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.' Let's get lots of eyeballs on the problem. Let's generate lots of ideas and give those ideas a try. That is how we'll make a better future." (Ch. 9, p. 187)

Beautifully said. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The PoliticsHome article

I'm not usually one to leave grievances on the Jimbo user talk page, but this is related to what was said in the recent PoliticsHome piece. I'm really happy with most of it, and I applaud the stance taken. But there's one part that I found jarring. On the page, it says:

“We’re in talks with Ofcom, but we will not be identifying users under any circumstances. We will not be age-gating Wikipedia under any circumstances. So, if it comes to that, it’s going to be an interesting showdown, because we’re going to just refuse to do it. Politically, what are they going to do? They could block Wikipedia. Good luck with that,” says Wales. “We didn’t cave into the Turkish government; we didn’t cave into the Chinese government. We have users we know of who are editing in Iran. We have users who are editing in Russia. Their personal safety depends on their privacy. And we think it’s a human rights issue that we’re not going to identify those people.”

This is a courageous position and is in Wikipedia's best interest, so why am I frustrated to see it? Because it doesn't line up with what happened in India and in Portugal. We already know that appetite for a "political showdown" is low, because we caved to these governments as soon as this political showdown became a prospect. Over one thousand editors demanded that we refuse to comply, but were ignored. Now apparently we're describing user identification as a "human rights issue". I really want to find a way to reconcile this, because it's only exacerbating my doubts about Wikipedia's ability to protect its users and its editorial integrity. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I can't speak to the Portugal case because I'm afraid I don't know/remember it clearly. But in India, we did not give up user data, nor did we cave. It was a very complicated situation in which if we didn't take down a page, we would lose the ability to fight (at all) a winnable case. Not great, but I think we threaded the needle quite well there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply. I understand why the ANI vs. WMF article was taken down, and that's a decision I can get behind given the circumstances. My concern with the India case is that WP:2024OPENLETTER seemed to fall on deaf ears, that there was a disclosure in some form (even if it was under sealed cover), and that we don't have many details about what was included. I understand that it's not always feasible or desirable to communicate information while legal proceedings are ongoing, but a consequence of this is that anonymous editors don't know how much personal risk will be involved the next time this happens—especially now that precedent has been set that organizations can successfully target specific editors by filing a lawsuit.

The Portugal issue was the one described at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 11#Office action: Removals on the article Caesar DePaço, where according to Joe Sutherland there was the disclosure of a small amount of user data for eight users who added the material that the courts deemed illegal. My concerns about the Portugal case mirror the ones I described regarding the India case. According to the news article linked at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 11#DN article and further legal threats:

Caesar DePaço told DN that this "information, although limited, was sufficient to identify" those from whom he will demand compensation "for damages caused to my good name, my honor, and my reputation". "I have the full identification of the responsible editors, which will be an integral part of the legal proceedings I will file. Each of them will be called to account, in their own courts, for the false and defamatory information they published and continue to publish, assuming the appropriate civil and, if applicable, criminal liability", said the Azores-born businessman, who has lived in the United States for three decades. The first lawsuits will be filed in Portugal, but Caesar DePaço says they will also be filed in the United States, as some of the targets are located there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The India situation was complex and I'd best not say too much, but I was very happy with the resolution. Again, I'm afraid I can't speak to the Portugal case because to speak now would be careless. I'll look into it and have a private conversation with legal, but it will be a few weeks! Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again for the response! For now, that's really all I can ask for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality at Gaza genocide

I have started a discussion about maintaining neutrality and balanced sourcing in the article Gaza genocide at Talk:Gaza genocide#Statement from Jimbo Wales. I presume many regular visitors to my talk page will find the discussion interesting and may be interested in helping to fix the page to resolve the NPOV issues. Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Jimbo, with how visible your user page is, please keep in mind that a message like this comes across as WP:CANVASSING, as you seem to be asking help to change the article in a specific direction. Notices pointing towards discussions should be worded neutrally, per WP:INAPPNOTE. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything in my note that could plausibly be interpreted that way. The day that someone posting a neutral message to their own talk page could be regarded as canvassing is a long way off. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

There's two elements that make this come across as non-neutral: (1) the word choice of "NPOV issue", which shows you do not regard the current article as neutral, in combination with (2) a call to action "helping fix the page" . With your talk page, I don't expect that there will be a biased audience, which is sometimes a concern when people post on their own talk page, so my reminder is solely about the wording. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo Wales, I concur with Femke's reminder. While your notifications on noticeboards (RSN and NPOVN) and WikiProject talk pages (Current events, Israel Palestine Collaboration) are compliant with the canvassing guideline, your initial comment in this section is not. This is a problem because your user talk page is watchlisted by more editors than any one of the aforementioned noticeboards and WikiProjects. As you have said that you are participating in this content dispute in your "personal capacity", we hope to see you follow the same policies and guidelines that every other editor who participates in this contentious topic is subject to. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 13:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This section and the surrounding edit warring shows exactly what is wrong with that particular page. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I disagree with alot of the criticisms of your involvement on that page. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia anyone can edit and that includes you if you want to state your view you are fully entitled to do so and it is not overreach or disrespectful. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 20:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

If he wants to act in his capacity as "any other editor", without his "founders hat" on or as a member of the board, imo he should create another account. His OP is very clearly "a founder dives in to save the day and tell everyone the page diverges from his founding vision". His above comment and the OP prejudices discussion, it is non-neutral because he deems it so regardless of what the community thinks; it comes off as dictatorial. I know that was very likely unintentional, but an "I think" would have gone a long way. Moreover, he is actually arguing against policy, on an article talk page, which is disruptive. If he wants to change policy, this should be discussed at the village pump or the relevant policy talk page. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: calling this 'dictatorial' is not really conducive to civil discussion. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Rephrased to make clear that was how I received it. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you received it that way, but I would just ask you consider that I have a right to join in discussions and that my perspective includes a very long history and a great deal of experience.

I am also glad you struck out the claim that I'm arguing against policy. I am arguing in favor of policy, the NPOV policy, which is quite clear. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Striking part of that because the wording of WP:BESTSOURCES was actually changed earlier this month, though it does still say When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements, which implies scholarship. This is moreso about differing interpretations of WP:WIKIVOICE and whether academic consensus is sufficient for wikivoice. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that there are many cases where "academic consensus" will have very little to do with important NPOV questions. (And cases, of course, where it will have a great deal to do with it.) Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the way I received it wasn't helped by the official-sounding section header "Statement from Jimbo Wales", and the hatnote below saying "This message is from me, Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia." Of course you have a right to join and begin discussions, but due to the context and the authority you wield it could've been done more tactfully and appropriately imo.

Imo the question of whether something is genocide is for independent subject matter experts, scholars of genocide studies and international law, to answer, I don't see why we should give the time to day to the opinions of people with no relevant qualifications or expertise, and governments and orgs with vested interests. Of course we can't include or cater to every POV, there has to be a bar below which we exclude POVs and another for use of wikivoice. WP:ACADEMICBIAS is a highly-regarded essay which says If a Wikipedia article has an academic (scholarly) bias, it does not mean it is "taking" sides, and it is not a violation of WP:NPOV.. Wikipedia has come to play a tremendously important role in the post-truth era, and I'm sure a lot of people would view watering down its privileging of scholarship as compromising on its integrity. The only plausible way I can see to address the issue you identify without having disastrous knock-on effects is to carve out more stringent neutrality measures for genocides and violations of international law, a la WP:BLPCRIME, but I can't say I'd support that. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

"An enclyopedia anyone can edit" includes the founder in his own account. Imo he should not have to create a new account he can edit just like any other editor in this account. The post on the Gaza Genocide page prejudiced nothing it was just an editor stating his view. He is entitled to put a message here though he probably could have phrased it slightly different. He is not arguing against policy he is arguing for NPOV. Now you may disagree with his interpretation but that doesn't mean he is arguing against policy in a way that is disruptive. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and important statement on this challenging topic.

I'm reaching out here because the talk page for "Gaza genocide" is currently restricted to Extended confirmed accounts. I'm not versed with English Wikipedia's procedural guidelines, but if you could think of a place where everyone could freely participate in the discussion, even it is not officially valid for the purpose of improving the article (like an informal user subpage or something similar) - perhaps it could foster a wider circle of contributors sharing ideas and brainstorming potential solutions.

Such a venue could serve as a valuable sandbox for gathering diverse perspectives and prototyping potential resolutions. Experienced editors could explore fresh approaches, offer constructive feedback to newcomers, and highlight the most relevant and promising improvements for consideration in the main article based on their expertise. Chenspec (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you that the current extended-confirmed protection of even the talk page, and the admonishment that people without that right should not discuss the issue anywhere on Wikipedia, is extremely problematic. It is the sort of thing that persuades people that Wikipedia is unwelcoming to corrections of bias by people who aren't elite editors. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

We used to allow talk page edits which for some reasons ARBCOM recently got rid of.

To your larger point, you're running into the issue of the numbers game. It's why many people stay away from contentious areas to begin with. Fundamentally, the question is what happens to Wikipedia when consensus says 2+2=5? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Well there can be a certain kind of downward spiral. A group of like minded people, in good faith, begin to insist that there is consensus, and people who disagree start to be treated badly, and then they just stay away, and the echo chamber just gets worse. This can be something that templates, processes, etc. can help with - or make a lot worse. We need to look at this as a case study - the article is not in line with policy but there are massive barriers for anyone who wants to correct it, barriers that should not exist. However, it's also important to acknowledge how we got here - I don't believe we got here by bad faith acting but by testing new ideas (like stopping people from even posting to the talk page unless they have extended confirmed permission) to deal with real problems (exhausting useless arguments). That one appears to have a very serious side effect of extremely biased outcomes, as we might well expect since it seems clear how it happened with the magical 20/20 of hindsight. Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You're taking a lot of things as a given (the article is not in line with policy, EC protection has lead to bias) and providing zero evidence for it. You don't participate in the process of creating this wiki. You don't deal with vandalism, you don't read the RFCs, and you don't understand our policies better than all of the editors who actually do the work. Helicoptering in with these proclamations, and with that "This message is from me, the founder!" at the top is tone-deaf at best. Editors have been repeatedly asking you to back up your assertions with anything other than 'well, it's obvious, isn't it :)'. What exactly is your plan? Arbcom is the body that created ECP. An elected body of editors whos job it is to deal with disruption. Do you plan to overrule them? Did you even know that the permission existed before today? These are important questions. Parabolist (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it is not true to say that I've provided zero evidence. I have made extended and detailed arguments on the talk page of the article. Perhaps best to consider that? As to the rest of the condescension, I'll just note that attacking me is time better spent considering the material issue that I'm raising. The article is biased, it speaks in Wikivoice contrary to policy, and editing restrictions have made it difficult for people of good faith to enter the discourse to assist with finding neutrality. Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You've made extended arguments, for sure. Which because you're the founder everyone is forced to take seriously. Despite the fact that they're indistinguishable from any given comment that would be removed for FORUM violations and for rehashing the arguments we've already settled in the RFC. Have you read the article or the RFC yet? Do you know the procedure for challenging an RFC close? The community spent an incredible amount of time considering this issue before you came onto the page. And as for your unique take on ECP: Arbcom elections are currently open. If you have problems with our contentious topic policies, perhaps you could try running? Parabolist (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

No, you actually haven't provided any evidence, in fact, I & several others have repeatedly asked for you to cite reliable sources to support your assertions, however you've yet to do so.

"editing restrictions have made it difficult for people of good faith to enter the discourse to assist with finding neutrality." - You are asking the community to dismantle a system extensively proven to be the most effective preventative measure against vandalism in the most notoriously contentious topic, all in favor of changing an article to your preferred version, even if it has to go against established consensus & proper procedure to do so.

I hope you understand the amount of time this would cost existing good-faith editors, the amount of work it'd drop on already busy admins in the topic area, & the overall damage of what you're proposing would do to the community. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I would have to support Jimbo's assertion, having tried to raise similar points about tone, wiki voice, and attribution at the articles on contentious topics. There is a fair number of experienced editors that, as I described lower on this page, are likely unintentionally writing in a RGW page to put things in wiki voice or make certain contentious points more predominant than other objective info, based only on the volume of short term coverage rather than waiting for a longer term view to be established. Suggest differently and you get editors that insist that the approach they have is fine. Wikipedia should put tons more caution in written in wiki voice for a contentious topic that is still ongoing or only recently completed to keep a more neutral viewpoint, and avoid falling into the RGW trap that easily happens. Masem (t) 21:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I asked Jimbo for reliable sources to support his assertions & your agreement with him is noted, but does nothing to satisfy that request.

That you perceive a large number of editors pushing a POV you disagree with to RGW is all well & good, but that isn't evidence they're wrong or right, it's evidence that you disagree with a large number of editors.

I honestly don't see how your comment materially pertains to mine, as it neither discusses reliable sources supporting Jimbo's assertions, nor does it relate to his objections to WP:ECP. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The Net sum of what editors are putting in articles still present the proper NPOV balance with respect to Undue and similar considerations. It's the tone and organization that is the problem, particularly expressing new and ongoing contentious topics as fact in Wiki voice. There is a major tonal difference between a statement like "Israeli is committing genocide in Gaza" and "According to several political experts, including the UN, Israel is committing genocide in Gaza." The latter is far more respecyivitive of taking a 60,000 ft view that we should be doing as an encyclopedia.

You're asking for evidence and sources that is impossible to show expect by example, because it's not the content that is the problem but the language around it. Masem (t) 00:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I share these concerns. Your repetition of "the article is not in line with policy" puts you, one person, against the editing community here. That is just your opinion, one at odds with many others. You act as if NPOV cannot be interpreted and that it doesn't have many nuances. Like every other policy, its proper application must be interpreted in every situation.

You need to enter the process and convince us rather than just repeating it as if it was a proven fact and therefore we must acquiesce. I don't see that happening, and it shouldn't. That's not how it works here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Jimbo, I am deeply frustrated at you for canvassing people into a contentious topic which as expected attracted lot of people who ignore the basic talk page rule of Not A Forum and write personal experiences which are downright irrelevant and waste of other editor's time and energy to filter through. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

If you aren't interested in the discussions here on my talk page, please stop reading them. Ok? Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I am referring to the talk page of Gaza genocide. It is even more frustrating that some of you comments there like appreciating the like-minded comments are dangerously treading into the NotForum territory, effectively encouraging more editors to ignore NotForum, and worse yet turning that talk page into a battleground. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 21:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

One idea coming out of the Gaza genocide discussion was to create a neutrality policy that gives more specific guidance for genocide or alleged genocide in general, as we have done for some other topics like religion, pseudoscience, and terrorism. I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Neutrality policy for genocide so interested editors can continue to explore that idea. -- Beland (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I am going to take a look. People throw around the word "genocide" so casually that they don't take it as a serious matter. LDW5432 (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

NPOV-specific research and its application

Has your "NPOV working group" considered the implications of these three sources?:

• The NPOV-specific research by political scientist Sverrir Steinsson, published in the American Political Science Review
• My essay about how to actually apply that research: "How to increase Wikipedia's credibility"
• The Signpost's article about that research: "Wikipedia's 'credibility transformation'"

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I can't speak for the rest of the people, but for me, yes, I've considered this work. Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Good, because if we don't apply it here, we lose credibility. Larry Sanger hates our newer understanding and application of NPOV, so we must be doing something right! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Well, that isn't my perspective on the issue really. I actually don't agree with the central claim that our understanding and application of NPOV has changed, but of course that's a somewhat subtle point. It was never the case that we would accept "Some say the moon is made of rocks, some say cheese, who knows?" as a valid position. Fringe views are always to be dealt with as such, and that's always been my understanding of what NPOV means, from the moment I typed "NPOV is non-negotiable" in the early days.

At the same time, the idea that it's somehow OK to be biased, and take sides in disputes, as long as the side we are on is often more factual, would be a serious mistake. The danger is that we then suddenly put ourselves into a position of taking sides in real debates, which is not the role of Wikipedia, and a serious violation of NPOV as the policy is in place today and since the beginning. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that it's somehow neutral to have a liberal bias, but your essay does have some ambiguous passages.

The best technique that we have for dealing with these complex issues has always been to "go meta" - if there's a real dispute in the world, then we work hard to attribute views to the relevant parties.

I'll just give an example that I remember to further highlight what I'm saying. Consider Punctuated equilibrium - this theory in biology was at one point (possibly today) abused by Creationists to claim that Darwinism had been disproven. Pulling quotes out of context, the case was made that the latest science showed that Darwin was wrong. This was no doubt largely bad faith argumentation or at least a jumping to incorrect conclusions. The view that Punctuated equilibrium is somehow supportive of Creationism is, rightly, a fringe view. We quite rightly note in passing, and with nonjudgmental language, how creationists have used the theory. But we also treat as legitimate and have a very interesting discussion of various sides of the actual debate.

I would say that's a good outcome - reject fringe views and note them in passing where it's helpful to the reader - but don't take sides on the actual debate.

One rhetorical move that we have to be vigilant about is the inppropriate characterization of relevant views as "fringe" on the grounds that we (as Wikipedians) judge them to be wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Amen!!! to your last point. We should define "fringe" according to our PAG, especially RS, not something so subjective as our personal feelings, POV, and ideas of "truth". "Verifiability, not truth" is still a valuable concept. Ideas from unreliable sources that run counter to what RS say may sometimes be defined as "fringe". The same with editors who cast doubt on what RS say and condemn us for using those sources, and instead get their information from unreliable sources. They are NOTHERE and violate PAG by misusing Wikipedia to advocate fringe theories rather than base their discussions and editing activities solely on RS. Steinsson's research tells us how to deal with them.

Also, we give more weight to information from RS that are trying to accurately report facts, sources that are guided by good journalistic principles and ethics. With the current administration, which is a lying propaganda machine on nearly every subject, we give the personal website of a subject matter expert who tells the proven truth more weight than the official declarations published on .gov websites that are constantly trying to deceive MAGA (others are not deceived). Unfortunately, because of their official notability, we must still document what those .gov sources say, but we treat them like other fringe sources that push lies and conspiracy theories. We still have a few mainstream secondary RS left that expose what's happening, and we use them and their framing of these matters. The closer we align our content with what RS say, the closer our editing becomes neutral and NPOV, regardless of how biased it may appear to those who disagree with that content. We reject personal "editorial" bias. Instead, we aim for a RS bias. We actually believe in our RS policy. We defend it. Imagine that! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

* Comment - Jimbo Wales I agree with everything you've written above; but have you considered the possibility that you may actually be unaware of the state of scholarship on the topic of Gaza? You've written repeatedly that we need to take the statements of governments more seriously. The implication seems to be that when powerful governments contest investigations and reports by scholars and human rights organizations, Wikipedia should as a rule refrain from doing more than describing their positions. Is that accurate or how would you rephrase that? Since you are representing all of us here in some way, I need to ask you, have you read this report [13] out of Israel? Many of my relatives were murdered in the Holocaust; when I was growing up my grandmother often asked how people could pretend they didn't know what was happening to the Jews. Today my Jewish friends and colleagues, many of them with similar personal or cultural memories and working as professional scholars at elite universities, consider the truth of what is happening in Gaza to be of the greatest importance. -Darouet (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it is important to understand that I have not given my opinion on the underlying events, nor do I think my view is relevant. I think that the views of scholars should be detailed clearly in the article. I also think that it is important to acknowledge that the matter is far from settled per the views of a great many other relevant parties. We should not shy away from presenting the facts - all the facts. Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This here has been a concern of mine for many years. Particularly in areas where even experienced editors in good faith are writing, perhaps unintentially, with an implicit "Right Great Wrongs" view and jumping on short-term assessments to support certain material in wikivoice, rather than waiting for the long-term, scholarly view for that purpose. Most of the time, it would just be a matter of the specific language and tone approached in these types of articles to make sure we aren't speaking in wikivoice but acknowledging the view is one shared across a majority of experts and analysts, at least until the dust on the matter is well-settled. The Gaza genocide is a prime example, but this also extends to many political areas as well. Masem (t) 13:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Masem It has been a concern for me as well: should I try to repress my interest in what human rights organizations and scholars describe as a genocide in Gaza, given my family's history? But I am not sure why this history should lead me to disqualify myself from editing on the topic of mass killings, or why my passion for biology should stop me from editing on topics in science. -Darouet (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Ideally, if you are editing within policy, and it's not a direct COI issue, then we should care little what biases you may have. One may be anti Foobar-ians, but if their additions to the Foobar page are neutral KY worded statements backed from reliable sources and otherwise meeting NPOV and Undue, we should not care about that bias. But, editors are human and that bias does show through at times, some more than others, and we can handle those cases when their bias becomes disruptive. What is more subtle and difficult to manage is when several like minded editors sharing a common bias and only seems to slightly rub against NPOV, that's the type of cases Ive seen far more difficult to correct, as no one is acting disruptive ly but their met contribution raises neutrality issues. Masem (t) 15:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Huldra (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he has the time and the edits, and have seen no indication he doesn't log in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Was this really necessary lol — Czello ^(music) 13:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• While I recognise you've already received a boilerplate message, as a reminder formal discussion within WP:ARBPIA are limited to 1,000 words per participant. So while not a formal discussion, your comments at Statement from Jimbo Wales (including the sub-sections based on the same topic) well exceeded this expectation of editor conduct (I made it ~1,800 including some quoting of editors). Given the nature of the request there did appear to be some from of formality included (namely in "What I'm asking for" section), so it'd be worth considering this word limit in future for any similar requests. As for your current involvement in the topic area, given you are at 100% for the past 30 days which is far from healthy, it's generally recommended to dramatically reduce. Getting your 1 year count back below 50% would be a good start at least. Regards, CNC (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  CommunityNotesContributor, please note that the 1,000-word limit applies only to "formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc)". The discussion at Talk:Gaza genocide § Statement from Jimbo Wales is not one I consider a formal discussion, because it is an open-ended discussion that does not fit a designated process.

  Huldra's posting of the contentious topic notice is acceptable, and qualifies Jimbo Wales for dispute resolution through the contentious topic processes that apply to this topic area. Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics, the {{alert}} template, the {{Contentious topics/alert/DS}} template, or a custom message could have also been used because Jimbo Wales had previously been alerted to discretionary sanctions; the editor who sends the alert is allowed to choose the alert's format. — Newslinger talk 14:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps it might be allowed but sending this alert to Jimbo seems extremely unnecessary as given his experience he will be aware of everything included in the alert(and certainly has the required edits and time.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  In Special:Diff/1320134296, Huldra stated in the edit summary that the alert was sent to ensure that Jimbo Wales qualifies for dispute resolution through WP:AE, which is a correct use of the alert to fulfill the WP:AE eligibility requirements. — Newslinger talk 14:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Wow ok not a necessary rule in my view that to qualify for AE a clearly experienced editor who knows everything in the alert needs to be given it but I guess the editor giving it was correct under the current rules then. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Necessary, or not, it is still a rule. I have seen -many times- editors getting away with clear violations at AE, just because they had not been given a formal alert. I purposely did not sigh the alert first time around, so I could give my reason in the edit-line when I signed it, Huldra (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah I agree it is a rule my above comment was more just my views on the rule but I agree that it is a current rule per what was mentioned by Newslinger. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 21:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Any editor, including Jimbo Wales, has the option to opt out of contentious topic alerts by placing the {{Contentious topics/aware}} template on their user talk page and specifying the topic areas that they would like the opt-out to apply to. This would simultaneously opt the editors in to WP:AE and other contentious topic processes for those topic areas. (However, the template currently does not work for community-authorized sanctions). — Newslinger talk 16:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying glad to hear that is an option(though it still seems unnecessary to do it this way for the reasons I set out above.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, that's why I referenced that it wasn't a formal discussion. I was hoping Jimbo could read between the lines here, but I'll spell it out instead since you've questioned the information provided. Exceeding 1,000 words in a discussion, when it is only in order to regurgitate the same points and arguments by an editor who hasn't read the article and is requesting changes to be made to it, is generally not the standard expected in that topic area,. As others have argued, it's often disruptive and comes across as borderline bludgeoning (even if it's not), and even when in good-faith. Nor is it recommended to spend 100% of your time editing in this specific topic area, which is arguably more of a concern here, as part-time single-purpose campaigns are never a good regardless of good intent. So in the same spirit of providing an alert for PIA, I am simply alerting Jimbo to other restrictions that are not referenced in the boilerplate message (that is somewhat out of date) that may concern the editor. CNC (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying. — Newslinger talk 16:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Really is not necessarry to send this to Jimbo Wales of all people(who has alot of experience on this platform as co founder.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey Jimmy!!! Remember to sign your posts, OK? - Walter Ego 16:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm old school enough that I find it frustrating that posts are signed automatically... but not always. This means that I get used to them being signed automatically and then one isn't. I'm not even sure when that happens! Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Is the 'NPOV working group' advising, or instructing?

Jimbo, the following is from your 'statement' on Talk:Gaza genocide: "As many of you will know, I have been leading an NPOV working group and studying the issue of neutrality in Wikipedia across many articles and topic areas including “Zionism”. While this article is a particularly egregious example, there is much more work to do. It should go without saying that I am writing this in my personal capacity, and I am not speaking on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation or anyone else!"

As I understand it, the 'NPOV working group' referred to is one organised by the WMF: Meta:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2025-2026/Global Trends/Common global standards for NPOV policies Can I ask whether this 'working group' is intended to act in an advisory capacity, as far as neutrality issues for en.Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects are concerned, or whether it (or the WMF more generally) are asserting the right to determine policy in this regard, and thereby assert editorial control of content? Your comment about 'work to do' is somewhat ambiguous in this regard, as I see it, and I think the community might deserve a little clarification on what the group is 'working towards'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I had also just replied to you on Talk:Gaza genocide asking mostly the same thing, and I endorse AndyTheGrump's question. I looked through the work that the working group has published on Meta and didn't find anything relating to researching specific topic areas like Zionism or Israel/Palestine more broadly. Is this a new direction for the working group or an existing area of research that just hasn't been published yet? Pinguinn 🐧 01:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It is a working group to look into issues relating to neutrality across all languages of Wikipedia, including how we might assist/advise researchers who are investigating the issue, and how policy is framed and dealt with in different languages, and whether we can find any useful "recommendations for recommendations".

I think we can all agree (well, most of us) that NPOV is one of our most important core policies, and that there are cases where we seriously fall short. It's worth understanding more about that, so that we (all of us, working together) can begin to change policy and process. Whether there is a role for the Foundation in terms of strengthening policy in this area is a valid question. I don't think that means "assert editorial control of content" at all.Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Content is ultimately governed by policy. If the Foundation takes a role in 'strengthening' said policy (a loaded phrase, in my opinion, in that it implies that it is currently weak, rather than being defined somewhat differently than some external critics would prefer, which I'd have to suggest is probably closer to how those from the community taking part in current discussions tend to see it), that reads as asserting control to me. Or at minimum, making a claim as to be in a position where such control might be asserted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that, PR wise and practically, any shadow of difference or conflict between tha WMF, working group, and community of editors is very damaging. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot and handing fringe and far-right voices a huge win. In fact, the damage may already have occurred. This should all be done at Wikipedia. (The "international" part could be done at WMF.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, The NPOV Working Group is primarily observatory and facilitates researchers in studying NPOV on Wikipedia. The idea is for the WMF to be able to tell people "look we are not making this up, academics have done science, and they empirically say we are neutral" and for them (the WMF) to be able interrogate/investigate allegations of Wikipedia being less than neutral (see also Croatian Wikipedia) which can then be passed on to the appropriate community process (probably U4C).

To my understanding, @Jimbo Wales is acting in his own capacity when he makes comments on the talk page and it is not a extension of the work done at the working group. Sohom (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Let me respond just a little bit. The idea is definitely not for the WMF to be able to tell people that - at least not quite the way you phrased it. It shouldn't be a PR exercise like what maybe a tobacco company would have done back in the day. I would put that part this way: The idea is for the WMF to be able to offer helpful tools and guidelines for researchers to carry out independent research which will lead where it may. If it confirms neutrality in some case, then great. If it confirmed a bias problem, then that's not so great but will be helpful in terms of grappling with it. Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it is definitely not a PR exercise and we are not influencing researchers. If the answer is "we are biased in XYZ way" then we take that and figure out how to fix it through existing community processes by interrogating and understanding why the issues came to be (iff they come back with the results "Wikipedia is perfect", we take a victory lap?? /j). My point here is that in it's current state, the working group is observation forward, with a goal of understanding what are the expected ingredients of neutrality and how Wikipedia compares rather than one that will be actively mandating policy going forward. Sohom (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Please review my history on Wikipedia

I would like to know if proceedings against me were fair. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Allthemilescombined1, please note that your community-imposed topic ban can only be appealed through the procedures described in Wikipedia:Banning policy § Review and reversal of bans. As such, your comment on this page is a violation of your topic ban. Because your appeal was declined by the community on 15 September, please participate in areas that are not covered by your topic ban to establish a track record of constructive editing before you submit another appeal. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 12:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Neutrality_in_Gaza_genocide needed to be said, thank you for helping to make NPOV mean something and for Wikipedia to be a less hostile ground for all to contribute. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm too late. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for speaking up on the state of the Gaza Genocide article. My only solution to the state of this exact article is that we need stricter enforcement against sensationalism. WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES should not take precedence over WP:EDITORIALIZING.

I don't know if you remember, but earlier this year I commented on your talk page about WP:NPOV issues, and I told you about my health issues. I was diagnosed with a severe case of POTS that likely went unnoticed most of my life. I am thankfully feeling better. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)