User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 12

Originally posted on meta:Talk:Wikimania 2007: I'd like to suggest that Wikimedia expand the scope of Wikimania beyond their own projects so that Wikimania officially becomes a general wiki conference and encouraging users of other wikis to participate and setup booths for their own wikis and so forth. The "wikisphere" is growing by leaps and bounds and as Wikimedia - responsible for mainstreaming the wiki concept and developing the popular MediaWiki software - obviously has a leadership position in this area, I believe it would be beneficial to all if Wikimania were to evolve in this direction. And of course, it would also potentially provide additional income for Wikimedia projects as a natural consequence by selling booth space, hopefully at a reasonable rate. Anyway, I think this deserves some serious thought for the near future as we continue to witness the rapid spread of wikis. WelcometoParadise 07:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- can you explain this edit? Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 04:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For people without a large internet presence, it's common for an AfD on an article about them to be one of the first Google results for a search on their name. When that comes to Wikipedia's attention, the usual practice is to blank the AfD page. --Carnildo 06:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems in conflict with the prominent "do not blank" commands. Can we use a "no follow" tag to prevent google/etc. spidering? Sdedeo (tips) 06:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Annnnd... I bring you the all clarifying Wikipedia:Courtesy_blanking! Sdedeo (tips) 06:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jimbo, but this is a spectacularly bad idea. I cannot see an earthly reason why the Linza-related AfDs should be blanked. Several excellent editors put an enormous amount of effort into uncovering a gigantic hoax. Their work does not deserve to be insulted in this way, especially as it was achieved in the face of some pretty bad incivilty and a sockpuppet army.

But quite apart from the courtesy-to-Wikipedia-editors business, the main problem is this: can you guarantee that the sockpuppeteer and author of the article was not Mr. Linza himself? Several lies were told to make him look more notable that required a degree of personal knowledge, and the meagre Linza website changed at a crucial moments, depending on the various reasons being put forward at the AfDs. To me, that suggests either Mr. Linza himself or a close associate. If he was the sockpuppeteer, does he really deserve a courtesy blank, given all the time that was wasted and the useless distress caused? Best, Moreschi 10:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You should be warned that you are responsible for your own words at Wikipedia. Should Mr. Linza choose to sue you for libel, I wish you the best of luck in defending yourself.--Jimbo Wales 10:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but Moreschi has a point, if only in that single-purpose editors spread related information across a series of pages (those involving the individual, the surname/family, olives, a community in Italy, and, previously, a concept allegedly devised by the subject), all of which information was, to be diplomatic, at best ambiguously verifiable; other single-purpose editors then strenuously participated in the subject's AfD. In addition, during the AfD process, related web information changed frequently and apparently in response to concerns (and outright contradictions) raised by WP editors; much has simply disappeared outright since the AfD's completion. Together, this could be seen to a skeptical eye to indicate a purposefulness not often seen in straightforward vanity entries. In any case, it seems enough concern has been raised that various editors are keeping an eye out for any recrudescence within WP, which is really all one can hope for. As for the success of any possible libel action, the subject's Google trail, under several connectable identities, would seem to be sufficiently wide to render that unlikely. Robertissimo 12:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Robertissimo here. This wasn't just simple vanity, the website-changing pointed to a major hoax. I can't remember writing anything libellous, and this policy of extreme generosity to sockpuppeteering trolls is a waste of time and insulting to those editors who work hard to keep Wikipedia clean of ridiculous vanity and other impurities. Moreschi 14:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)(Oh, and I don't see how Mr. Linza could prosecute even if he wanted to. I've worked very hard to keep my real name and identity private on WP - or does someone know more about me than I know they do? Moreschi 14:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

My point is, there is absolutely no need to impugn a real person with such terms as "liar" or "lied" or "hoax" or "fraud" and all the rest. We can and should refrain from personal attacks on *everyone*, at all times, as much as we humanly can. The point is, we treat everyone with courtesy and respect. You have no idea if this was actually the subject of the article doing this, or some enemy of his trying to make him look bad on the Internet. In any case, it doesn't matter. Not our problem. We are writing an encyclopedia, not calling people names. :)--Jimbo Wales 16:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This bio has been reposted under a new title. You dealt with this once before.[1] You may want to do it again. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The page now has a completely different Brian Chase, a drummer. *Dan T.* 03:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Skyring was blocked per an arbcom ruling for 1 year that was supposed to expire on October 26, but apparently due to administrators not unblocking before blocking, his block expired today. He says on the administrator's noticeboard that he discussed the possibilities of early unblocking with you anyway, but I wanted to be sure of this so people don't go blocking him for another month when he has clearly already learned his lesson, in my opinion, and that a further block would be overkill. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 00:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Skyring was reblocked by User:Dmcdevit to correct ban duration. [2] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could take a quick look at whats happening on a couple of the guidline/proposal pages here. I've been seeing many guidlines demoted, and many proposals upgraded to guideline with almost no consensus for either change. Most of them have been headed by a user named Radiant, but don't worry about him. I'm more concerned about the guidelines and how wikipedia displays them.

Guidelines seem like an important part of wikipedia to me, and its distressing to see people mutilate them without consensus. If you could quickly take a look at some of the following pages (and talk pages), I would really appreciate it: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Non-notability, Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote, Wikipedia: Straw polls. Thanks. Fresheneesz 01:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes like the army ads, there's the idea, "I am a consensus of one" (similar to this) Some people just do things and if they're either have been here a long time or better yets admins it's like that somewhere people decided it was the right thing to radically make these changes and so the changer is just doing the janitorial work everyone secretly wants. Anomo 02:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be all well and good if it wasn't a 50/50 split. It seems like these radical changes have opposition, and not just from me. Its not a secret what people want. Fresheneesz 08:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

These are not radical changes, they stem directly from the fundamental principles of the encyclopedia, and they have the support of most interested editors. —Centrx→talk • 22:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at User talk:Publicgirluk, and the associated Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_27#Publicgirluk.27s_images. Quite frankly, the attitudes and actions of some of the editors and admins during this farce have been unbelievable. They've managed to drive away a user who attempted to contribute in good faith, and I've quit the project as I can't justify contributing to a project that treats people so shabbily. exolon 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like this "user who attempted to contribute in good faith" was likely just trolling us. The "utter debacle" I see here is that good people were suckered into defending this nonsense. "Publicgirluk" should have been indef blocked and the images speedied without so much as a how do you do. --Jimbo Wales 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am unclear as to which edits you object to. WAS 4.250 16:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see good judgment prevail. Thanks Jimmy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Trolling? How? If I was suckered I would like to know in what way? HighInBC 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If I offer a guess (& I hope Jimbo doesn't mind me speaking for him), I'd say that he doubts that the average woman -- or at least, a woman who would prove to be a constructive contributor -- would post the pictures in question. -- llywrch 20:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The block reason refers to Jimbo Wales, so I would prefer to hear his reasoning. HighInBC 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Jimbo's original answer is pretty informative. "likely just trolling", "nonsense" and "should have been indef blocked/speedied" should tell you what you need to know without pressing an issue in which Jimbo describes those defending publicgirluk as having been "suckered"... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not informative at all. It is a list of Jimbo's opinions; his opinions may well be based on good reasoning, but he has only provided the conclusions so far, not the process with which he arrived at them, so I can't tell. Jimbo has not described why Publicgirl_uk's edits constitute "trolling"; ie., what he has seen in those edits which I failed to see. And I can decide for myself what I "need to know" without you telling me, Ryan.

I understand that WP is not an experiment in democracy, but I also understand that this is a consensus-based project. I also respect the fact that as WP's founder, Jimbo's opinion deserves to be treated with respect. But so do those of the rest of the community here, which largely seemed to be supportive of Publicgirl_uk in terms of following the guidelines of WP:AGF.

Jimbo, please go back in the page history of the blocked user's talk page and read her reply to this entire debate. I have spent a great deal of time dealing with trolls here and this simply isn't one. Further, Publicgirl_uk had already posted a comment stating that rather than defend herself in this debate, she would rather her images be withdrawn and was leaving the project. That is not the action of a troll. A troll, upon stirring up so much furor, would be having a great time; they would want to stick around and have more fun by stirring the pot some more. After all, what would it cost them? In addition, I'd like to point out that in this comment I mentioned, she also stated that she expected there would be a negative reaction to her withdrawal of the images, in her words the "no smoke without fire" argument; and here it is.

I think you've made a mistake, Jimbo. Your opinion is given great weight around here. This puts a (probably unfair) burden upon you to be more careful with what you say. You can't just toss things like that off without giving a line of reasoning. Perhaps you believe that the images she uploaded weren't appropriate for the site . That's cool - we have a process for that, which was ignored in this case (images deleted without consensus). Publicgirl_uk was treated very poorly by WP and it makes me ashamed of this project. We already have ways of dealing with, reporting, and correcting inappropriate behavior at WP. None of these processes were used. In fact, quite a few procedures we have in place for dealing with "trolls" was ignored or broken here. Look at the user's talk page history and all the users who expressed their wish that Publicgirl_uk remain as a contributor. I don't mean any disrespect, but you can't just go calling all those editors, which includes myself, "suckers" and Publicgirl_uk a "troll" without providing reasons. I know I am not alone in wondering what that reason is. Cordially, Kasreyn 11:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Please WP:CIVIL. Your comment "And I can decide for myself what I "need to know" without you telling me, Ryan." was plainly uncivil. I don't expect an apology given your animosity, but I'd try to cool down if I were you. 2. Your assessment of the community being 'largely in support of' WP:AGF being the most important guideline for dealing with publicgirluk's uploads is plainly wrong.The community was not 'largely in support' of either view. 3. Your characterization of 'what a troll would do' is absolutely wrong - Just disrupting WP with this behavior is enough to retire the 'publicgirluk' sock. 4. Your continued haranguing about 'how she was treated' when it's clear that she has treated the community disrespectfully with her trolling is getting very very old.

I recommend you leave the issue alone (or at least drop some of your tired arguments as they have been rehashed to death) and try to conduct yourself civilly. Perhaps Theresa's advice on the other page you're pressing these same old issues is good advice to consider - "Actually doing something constructive, rather than the endless talk (which is happening on this page) feels good." Have a wonderful day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I found your comment to HighInBC to be rather high-handed and insulting; I felt you were talking down to him and belittling his request for information. It was his place to dispute it if he wished, though, so perhaps I shouldn't have butted in. 2. I don't see how it's plainly wrong; important talk sections on this subject have been (I hope accidentally) deleted and others have been closed, making it rather difficult to even determine what consensus there was, if any. 3. I fail to see anything disruptive in Publicgirluk's actions, and her defense of herself was startlingly civil and polite, which is very rare for a new user under such circumstances. 4. I do not appreciate my remarks being described as "harangues", I do not feel Publicgirluk ever treated this community with anything but the utmost respect, and how can my questions be "getting old" when no one has given me the courtesy of a meaningful answer?

I do feel that I have conducted myself civilly, though I will admit I have been sorely tried in that regard for probably the first time ever in my time at WP. You ask me to leave the issue alone, but how can I in good conscience? I am not in the slightest convinced that the editor in question was a troll. If you have some sort of evidence not available to me, or if there has been some establishment of proof to support your claim that PGUK was a sockpuppet, then I'd be very interested to see it. You imply my questioning is unproductive; nonsense. By questioning, I am attempting to find a way to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. WP has lost at least two editors that I know of over this, and possibly more who simply didn't announce their departure. That is unproductive. If the talk seems endless, communication and, ultimately, answers and solutions, will be the best way for us to solve it. Regards, Kasreyn 21:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that I disagree wholeheartedly with your views - both of my conduct and the original issue of the images and the behavior of the uploader. So have many. And like them I disagree with you for all the reasons that have (again) been discussed ad nauseam by what is now dozens of particpants.

Claiming there's not been enough discussion is particularly ludicrous, when Jimbo captures it best with 'should have been indef blocked/speedied wihtout so much as a how do you do'.

You're welcome to keep spinning on this, but I've said my peace enough, and done so civilly and directly. Whether you accept it or not is up to you. Peace. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"And I can decide for myself what I "need to know" without you telling me, Ryan." is not uncivil. Please explain how denying your the ability to decide for others what they need to know is uncivil? Please stop trying to block this line of questioning. HighInBC 14:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is uncivil. I'm not blocking anything - one cannot 'block' a conversation. You're welcome to keep pressing in defense of a troll if you'd like, but the reaction you get may not be what you (ostensibly) want, which is better policy and a better encyclopedia, right? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not say I am defending a troll, I am asking why it is thought someone is a troll. If you wish to discuss this matter further User:RyanFreisling, please do so on my talk page, not here. I don't think seeking clarification is innapropraite in this case. I am not asking you your opinions as I am very aware of them from other pages. HighInBC 16:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Whooa! Calm it down people. Have a nice cuppa tea (or whatever floats your boat). We are all nice people here. Let's not let passion spill over into anger. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm happy to leave it lay right here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That would seem to be quite natural, as you are satisfied with the way things have turned out. Others are not, and thus are not happy. Kasreyn 21:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it was the right decision. Quite natural indeed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

All this over some chick who uploaded naked photos of herself? Is there an archive somewhere? ;) --kizzle 21:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If the person is labeled a troll based simply on the pictures she uploaded, doesn't that mean no one would be allowed to upload pictures like that—anyone who did so would be trolling by definition? This is very worrying because there is no reason to think the pictures were trolling—they could have been trolling, but they could have been good faith, too, and my money's on the latter. Particularly so since no other behavior from the user was trollish in the least. Personally I think Jimbo should apologize for what he's said here. Everyking 21:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ya, I might be blinded by the fact that I'm defending an attractive girl who uploaded naked pictures of herself, but Publicgirluk is definetely not a troll, as evidenced by her goodbye message. Matters of policy over what some see as pornographic material (and not copyright, as that's basically been settled at this point that these pics are hers) are important, and should be addressed, but it would seem that labeling this user a "troll" along with other instances of below-average conduct towards this user are not justified in any way whatsoever, especially given the coherence and conduct of her goodbye message and other posts. --kizzle 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, I disagree wholeheartedly. She appeared with little else of value having been contributed prior, posted extremely graphic photos of a young woman without verification of the model's identity or the image's license, and then took offense at the inevitable requests for validation (due to the increased risk and seriousness of such imagery). Her 'defenders' have decried describing her as a 'troll', and claiming she was 'mistreated', but it's WP and the exercise of good judgment that's been mistreated here. She was, as Jimbo suggested, 'very likely trolling' - at least in my eyes and, gathering from the other opinions posted, a goodly number of other users and admins. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You would, liberal POV-warrior... ;) I just have a hard time labeling her a troll with such a lack of belligerance or a perceptible intent to cause annoyance, as her goodbye message seems annoyed but completely willing to abandon the matter. Regardless, it's over, she's gone, and i'll be desparately looking up google cache's for the deleted images. --kizzle 22:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the hoary old chestnut being wrangled over here is the definition of an internet troll. For some people, this label can encompass a wide range of behaviours, while for others, it is a very narrow range of behaviours being described. I personally don't think the banned editor was a true troll, but possibly could have been one masquerading as a new editor. Or she could have been genuine. There is no way to decide. But I do agree most emphatically with the comment by Kasreyn: "You imply my questioning is unproductive; nonsense. By questioning, I am attempting to find a way to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. WP has lost at least two editors that I know of over this, and possibly more who simply didn't announce their departure. That is unproductive." That comment was entirely reasonable and not incivil, and RyanFreisling's accusation of incivility did not help. Of course, the real reason that "talk" over such subjects is endless is because no-one actually oversees a debate, summarises it, and moves it forward. So-called consensus building around here is often extremely anarchic, and the end result can be a bit hit-and-miss. A genuine attempt to build consensus will have someone (preferably neutral and not involved) summarising the debate and keeping the debate organised. Carcharoth 14:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my 'accusation of incivility' was not based on that comment by Kasreyn, but this one: "And I can decide for myself what I "need to know" without you telling me, Ryan.". -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh please! Ryan, you tried to enforce you viewpoint on somebody else and then when they objected with a mildly snarky comment you went off to hide behind Official Policy. While Kasreyn may have been condescending it was not worth mentioning or were you trying to change the subject? Triumph's Hour 00:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There is one member who has uploaded naked pictures of himself. He is maybe 500lbs and he put them in all the articles related to obesity and nudity (I forget the exact articles). The images are very disgusting and clearly shock images. The images are more offensive than tubgirl. I won't name the person, but he was made an administrator. Anomo 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that looks like a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. I guess only ugly people can upload nude photographs of themselves. Triumph's Hour 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My faith and respect for wikipedia has been rocked, due to the indefinite ban with the flimsiest of justifications. Sure it's Jimbo's baby and his will can do such things. I just thought, because of wikipedia, that he was better than this. And no I didn't get to see the pics.--Mongreilf 14:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand what's the problem.. I did get to see the pics, and they were nothing special -- This is much more.. "obscene" [3] | Swalot 17:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh My God, That is easily one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen. Sound and Fury 00:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That notwithstanding, the 'obscenity' of the images is not relevant. What is relevant to the status of the images underlying this (now ancient) thread was the identifiability of the model and the lack of verifiability of copyright license. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Furthermore it was definitely worth losing a well-intentioned editor over. Sound and Fury 23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Or, not. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But we could've had our first ever Wikipedia porn star! Or maybe not. I have not seen the pictures but I am sure that we all know the consequences of hosting the pictures of an under-age girl on your website. The legal ramifications would be a little more severe than an indefinite ban. Sound and Fury 05:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Enough, already. Let this thread go! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I’m not sure what the grounds for letting it go are. There have been endless complaints a vast amount of which arise from the fact that the user was indefinitely blocked when she considered by many to be quite reasonable, and would no doubt have been willing to refrain from adding similar pictures if asked. Had that happened, not only do you keep a potentially valuable editor but you avoid scandal. I have used WP for years and have only recently begun actively contributing, I was not keeping up with this when it was going on so I for one probably will let it lie, but it is disheartening to newcomers to become a witness to the large scale admin usurpation of the project, meaning primarily I think handing out indefinite bans is, unarguably in many cases, more a power play than "janitorial upkeep”. This handling of this case was, and is, outrageous; for my part I’m going to forget about it but I think we should keep a sharp eye on the people who took the hard-line on this user and I hope good can come from it in the form of restricting administrative abuse of power in other cases. grendelsmother 12:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Although it seems unlikely that publicgirluk would return under any circumstances, the reason not to let the thread go is that the situation may well arise again. If a user who does something on the Index Prohibitum is to be "indef blocked ... without so much as a how do you do," then someone who comes to the project in good faith but without prior knowledge of our rules should be able with reasonable diligence to figure out what is or is not on the Index Prohibitum. We already have sexually explicit photos ([4]) and nude photos of identifiable people ([5]). Is the line we draw that those are OK but that a sexually explicit photo of an identifiable person is not OK? or is it that publicgirluk-type photos are OK provided that all doubts about copyright and the model's consent can be resolved? I disagree with the indef block here, but I hope that even those who support it would favor addressing the issue so that the next instance can be resolved without such a huge expenditure of editors' time and goodwill. JamesMLane t c 05:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This thread is already long since past it's usefulness. It's now past tired. The underlying issue is being discussed on a few pages proposing policy options for ensuring WP:V and license status, so I'm not sure what you're asking for that isn't already happening. And don't you think there's some validity to the idea that these things can be dealt with as they arise? These images (about whom the poster provided false verification) weren't uploaded to improve the encylopedia - they were uploaded to disrupt it. And they continue to do so with threads like this. Everything is not necessarily a 'meta' topic for drafting of ever more policy - WP is not about WP. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that "The underlying issue is being discussed on a few pages" it is also true that there is no proof that "the poster provided false verification" and it is trolling and defamatory to claim "they were uploaded to disrupt it". My point is, there is absolutely no need to impugn a real person with such terms. We can and should refrain from personal attacks on *everyone*, at all times, as much as we humanly can. The point is, we treat everyone with courtesy and respect (but sometimes we all make mistakes). You have no idea who contributed the pics or why. In any case, it doesn't matter. Not our problem. We are writing an encyclopedia, not calling people names. :) WAS 4.250 18:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's not trolling nor defamatory to state that the images were uploaded to disrupt it. The poster claimed they were personal photos, they were in fact professional photos of a known porn actress. I agree that we are here to write and encyclopedia, and not to call people names - that's why I haven't done so. To quote Jimbo - the images "should have been speedied without so much as a 'how do you do'." -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

(<----)You say "The poster claimed they were personal photos, they were in fact professional photos of a known porn actress." But, going from memory here, I believe the poster claimed they were of her and taken by her boyfriend. Recent evidence indicates that the subject of the photo is a known "porn actress" which while it increases the chances that the poster was misappropriating the images does not prove that the poster was not the porn actress nor does it prove the photographer was not her boyfriend and specifically it does not prove she does not have the legal copyright to the image which is the important legal point (there are moral points as well, but good grief the images aren't even pornography according to law statutes and people are absurdly claiming we need proof she is over 18). I agree that we are here to write an encyclopedia, and not to call people names - that's why I haven't done so. WAS 4.250 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That degree of lawyering (ad absurdum) is plainly inappropriate in this case, as Jimbo himself states quite clearly: -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"It looks to me like this "user who attempted to contribute in good faith" was likely just trolling us. The "utter debacle" I see here is that good people were suckered into defending this nonsense. "Publicgirluk" should have been indef blocked and the images speedied without so much as a how do you do." --Jimbo Wales 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I could mention stopped watches getting the time right; Jimbo apparently got this one right but only got it on a guess, without evidence. Blocking people just based on guesses or personal intuition is bad news, because they are usually wrong, and even when they are right they undermine the principles and standards we desperately need to maintain. In fact it may be worse when the guesses are right, because that can serve to justify the tendency. Everyking 03:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't call it a guess, I call it using judgment. Even the most effective policy cannot begin to approach the value of exercising good judgment in regards to the encyclopedia. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you let this thread go while you are suggesting it to others? Subversive element 11:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! Let's see what happens... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On Template talk:Copyrighted, you say that we should keep the 'copyrighted but Wikipedia has perimission to use this image' tag so that such images can then be deleted. I don't quite understand this logic.

At the moment, any image uploaded with such a tag will be deleted. This, it seems to me, is wasting the time of both the uploader, and the admin who then has to speedy delete the image.

If we were to delete the tag, users would either have to chose to release all rights, or release the image under the GNU licence. Obviously, some would be unwilling to do this, and we would have fewer images uploaded. However, as these images that we would be 'missing out on' would only be deleted anyway, Wikipedia is losing nothing.

Maybe I'm missing something - I'm not an expert on image tagging - and I've approached this situation from the viewpoint of an admin who regulalry patrols the Speedy delete category. There are hundereds of images a day that get uploaded and speedy deleted becasue of the existence of tags that cannot acutally be used - it seems counter intuitive.

Obviously, I'd back down on this if I got a decent explanation that I can understand, but I really don't see why this (and similar time wasting tags) still exist. Robdurbar 10:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Because all experience tells us that there would in fact not be fewer image uploads. If people does not find a suitable tag they simply pick one more or less at random, meaning we have just as many problem images, but rater than sitting on one easy to find category they are scattered all over the place under falce pretences, and that is a waste of trime trying to clean up. Try checking 10-15 images in Category:Free use images (look a bit further than the first one or two pages, they get patroled the most) and see how many of them mention only basic "permission" or "non-commercial use" or simmilar non-free restrictions (or flat out fail to provide a source or explain why the image is supposed to be free use when the website it was taken from says "all rights reserved" and so on), it's rather depressing. If we ever get enough cluefull eyes to watch every upload 24/7 as they come in we should probably do away with these, but untill then it's all we can do to keep from drowing in unsuitable unfree material. --Sherool (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just came here to say thanks for setting up this amazing website, I frequently use it as a research station. It has also given me the oppurtunity to create articles on many different things that I love for the whole world to hear about. Once again, THANKS. Dsims209 18:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. It was really a great experience [6] to have inter-action with you during the meet. I thank you for your keen interest in the development of wikipedia in the Indian languages. I am sure that the Indian wikipedians shall spread your message far and wide in this land of one billion people, and wikipedias in the Indian languages shall register great growth in the coming months. Regards. --Bhadani 17:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Jimmy. Your meetup seems to have made quite the impact on Indian Wikipedians. -- Samir धर्म 02:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

He also wore a classy guru robe. Anomo 04:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a vandal-turned-good-faith-editor. Could I have a pat on the back from Jimbo Wales? ~ Flameviper 14:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but you can sure have one from me and I'm sure the whole Wikipedia community appreciates you. Pat, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 23:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! ~ Flameviper 16:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Until they find your original account and see you're a socked puppet of an indefinitely banned editor, then they ban you. Anomo 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Making personal attacks, are we? I'll have you know that I was an indefinitely banned user, and also, it's "sock puppet", not "socked puppet". ~ Flameviper 21:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy. I tried phoning you a moment ago to find out if you will be appearing in person for our radio interview in Tampa tomorrow or doing it over the phone. I did speak with Danny and he told me that he no longer works for you and I would need to contact you directly. --Fahrenheit451 17:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A question for you at "Crackpot" & "other insulting language" -- Fyslee 18:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Per our discussion last night, Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA. — Werdna talk criticism 00:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Gilligan's Island for mature audiences.  :) Hope I don't get blocked for that. --EngineerScotty 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, no, it is true little buddy. :)--Jimbo Wales 03:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arch Coal. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. ---J.S (t|c) 05:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC).

Hey I just saw you on Charlie Rose and I just wanted to say that I thought you were very articulate and in the way you explained wikipedia's goals and its potential value. I especially like how you skillfully sidestepped Rose's pretentious and self-indulgent tendency of not allowing the interviewee to speak.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Wales,

in the German Wikipedia is a great irritation about new orders. First we heard in newspapers, that you will change the concept, that all users can edit in articles. Now you will, that a special user proof the edits, bevor the reader can see an edit in the articles. Why don't you speak special to the german users in the German Wikipedia bevor you change the concept only for the german users (named in german language: "geprüfte Versionen")? Are we special idiots or why need we a special concept in German Wikipedia? There is a great irritation! Please speak first to the german users in the german Wikipedia bevor you make a new order! Thank you! -- Nihil Kainer 18:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, sir... I'm pretty sure that it wasn't entirely Jimbo's decision... Secondly, he's not making the German wiki unwiki. wikimedia's testing a new feature... that's sorta like stable versions. -- Chris chat edits essays 13:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that this guy is as much of an idiot as he sounds, he says that he is German and he probably used a translator. ~ Flameviper 14:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken on your first point but right on the second. Just ignore this posting. Sorry for the yellow bar anyway.--88.64.11.238 17:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

("Stabile versions" in Germany: "proofed versions") If it's not Mr. Wales idea, he can say, it's not his idea. Do you know something about the german discussion about this "proofed versions"? In this discussion the admins say, it's Mr. Wales idea and this is the end of the discussion, because he is the dictator and owner of Wikipedia. You think it is a joke? Read the german discussion! If it's Mr Wales idea, that the German Wikipedia have to change the concept, it is better he speaks with the German users, if not, he can say, it is not his order! Why is this a problem? -- Nihil Kainer 19:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I Think there is a gerat different between the sentence: "We want to let anybody edit but we don't want to show vandalized versions." (Wales in Future_directions) and the "geprüfte Versionen" in the German Wikipedia. "Geprüfte Versionen" is a bad interpretaion of the Words from Wales -- Nihil Kainer 06:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What Mr. Wales decided, if I am not mistaken, is that there will be a new feature in the software. He did not decide about the policies that the German community would give itself on how and when to use this feature. I agree that the current proposals in the German community are controversial, but I do not believe Mr. Wales has anything to do with that. -- ulim, 14:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete Brian Peppers? He is an internet phenomenon... i don't know what happened but wikipedia should at least have an article on there... what is your reasoning to delete this?? Jimbob615 01:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

see http://allenpeppers.ytmnsfw.com (site is work safe, I just had to use the alternate URL because ytmnd is in wikipedia's spam filter!) Anomo 01:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's more that there is no credible evidence that he has ever been considered notable as a person; coverage in reliable sources is negligible and restricted to sniggering over his appearance on "teh internets". Ordinary human decency does rather suggest that we should not really take an active part in the freak show unless and until he achieves some kind of coverage in media outside of YTMND and the like. We couldn't even find anything significant in his local paper, which rather suggests that the case for which he is supposedly notorious was rather small beer. The guy is disabled, lives in a care home, and suffers from a congential deformity, and we couldn't even source these facts, obvious from the photographs, without original research. Does it really make us look good to join in with the peanut gallery?

As to why Jimbo deleted it, I think it was largely because the arguments were out of all proportion to the verifiable significance of the subject (which is close to zero), with the result that many hysterical assertions grossly at variance with WP:LIVING to say nothign of WP:CIVIL were being banded about. Guy 21:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We have to wait until Feb. 2007 to recreate the article, by which time interest in the information is likely to have diminished. Everyking 05:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Or rather, we have to wait until then to reconsider the article, by which time either there will be more sources or we will know that the problem is irresolvable :-) 62.73.137.190 10:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One could hope that, at that point, there would be a more definitive resolution through the passage of time; either the "meme" / "fad" will have faded out so thoroughly that nobody is clamoring to recreate it, and it can stay safely deleted; or else it will have spread so widely and strongly that nobody objects to its recreation because it's now part of the culture, for better or worse. Unfortunately, it's also possible that it will just hover forever right at the margins of notability, leading to an eternal conflict. *Dan T.* 15:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was reading some of your comments on the donkey punch talk page. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting your words, but are you claiming that all references to material that was broadcast (as opposed to published) is invalid "original research?" If you are indeed claiming this, you appear to be stumbling into the realm of the almost absurdly metaphysical. Isn't material that is broadcast over the airwaves (or cables or via satellite) every bit as permanent and meaningful as that which is printed on paper (not to mention verifiable, thanks to a host of recording/playback technologies at our disposal)? Couldn't someone just as easily misrepresent a printed source as he could the content of a respected radio or television broadcast? Isn't the ratio of unreliable printed sources to reliable printed sources roughly comparable to that of unreliable broadcasts and their reliable counterparts? Please educate me.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

These are complex editorial judgments which depend very much on the particular context. There is a huge problem here, as I am sure you will acknowledge. Suppose I tell you that on the October 5, 1987 episode of The Simpsons there was a reference to Andy Warhol's famous Campbell Soup painting. Sounds plausible enough, eh? But how to know for sure? How do we keep from being hoaxed? This is *particularly* problematic for articles about ridiculous topics like "Donkey Punch" which tend to attract very very juvenile and idiotic editors. In such cases, yes, I think it is absolutely imperative that we be very hardcore about sourcing.--Jimbo Wales 22:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• If someone could demonstrate that that episode of The Simpsons was publicly available, I don't see an issue. Lots of printed sources cited in Wikipedia are hard to find (which for many means, "not available for free download on the net")--and any source may be misrepresented. --EngineerScotty 02:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In brief; SlimVirgin has protected a page and, by his/her own statement , will only unprotect it for other editors, but not for me. This is a back-door page ban on me without proper procedure or the authority to do so. There is a bit of history you can find on my talk page if interested. Thanks--Justanother 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• A better place to discuss this would be WP:ANI; Jimbo rarely gets involved in these sorts of disputes. There is such a thing as Wikipedia:Community probation, wherein a consensus of administrators can decide (among other options) that a particular editor should not edit a particular subject. This is usually enforced by blocking the editor if he disregards the probation, though, not by page protection. Note that this a community sanction; it strikes me as unusual for SlimVirgin to making that request on her (she's a woman BTW) own volition--an appeal to WP:ANI on the matter would not be out of order. However, you should note that such an appeal to might result in the other admins agreeing with Slim rather than disagreeing with her. As I'm not familiar with your edit history or the controversy; I offer no opinion as to who is right or wrong here. Just offering advice; take it or leave it as you please. --EngineerScotty 05:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, thanks for your input on the article's talk page. I think you ascribe higher motives, i.e. allowing for a cooling-off period for all parties, to SlimVirgin based, perhaps, on your good nature and high-minded desires for wikipedia, than I do based on her actions and words toward me in my only dealings with her. I see her as continuing to punish me (by inappropriate page ban) after I have already "served my sentence" perhaps because she doesn't like my attitude. But I have invited her to clarify that her motives and the conditions of the protection are more in alignment with your viewpoint than with mine. Let's see what happens.--Justanother earlier today

Congratulations on 2500 edits! —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  17:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the message on my talk page explaining the deletion, however I would like to inform you that I intended to seek a deletion review.... if you wish to use "executive privilage" to squash this... then... ummm ok. ---J.S (t|c) 05:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have endorsed your proposal for a deletion review. The quesitonable provenance of the article needs to be looked at very carefully, and this seems at the moment a reasonable place to do it.--Jimbo Wales 13:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. The problem I have is that despite questionable provenance it doesn't seem to be a badly written article nor does it scream "spam" at me. I can't see how it's gonna inflate their stock price, and it doesn't fill me with the urge to buy a truckload of coal. If the problem is simply where the article came from it's more of a tricky issue... (is the user banned? If not, do we turn down GFDL because some money might have changed hands or the work might have come from a PR source? Gosh, I don't know!) --kingboyk 13:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we please look again at the rules, guidelines and procedures involved in regards to conflicts of interest and commercial editing? I have previously commented on the subject on your talk page/archive11, and came up with different ideas at both User_talk:Jmabel/PR#What_about_creating_.22new.22_articles.3F and User_talk:MyWikiBiz#Openness. My worry, is that this is going to drive people who are being paid to write for Wikipedia underground. I feel that the openness and disclosure that MyWikiBiz offered was entirely different and more beneficial to the usual spam that I deal with. The usual spam I encounter has been on Wikipedia for months, and is linked off prominent articles, such as the recent case I highlighted at the Admin Noticeboard. - Hahnchen 19:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Conflicts of interest for talk about "the rules, guidelines and procedures involved in regards to conflicts of interest and commercial editing". WAS 4.250 15:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) It seems the DRV is dying down and quite likely a decent NPOV stub on Arch Coal will be the result. The encyclopaedia is improved. To move beyond this, 2 questions for Jimbo:

1. Can you comment on my question on the bottom Wikipedia talk:Conflicts of interest? I think there's confusion on where we stand.
2. You also deleted The Family & Workplace Connection. Should it be reviewed like Arch Coal? (I cannot see the article so I don't know if it's worth the bother).

Thanks. Martinp 19:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding The Family & Workplace Connection - I don't think it is worth DRVing. The notability asserted was much less, and the article quality was lower. It wasn't blatant sales/share price propoganda, but it did read like a "look at us, aren't we good" sort of piece of company blurb that wouldn't look out of place in an "about our sponsors" section of some event guidebook. If someone wants to write a neutral article about them that shows their notability they can, but this probably isn't the best starting point - especially considering its provenance. Thryduulf 19:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel that atruism is morally wrong? 65.96.44.49 16:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Read up on Libertarianism. You might also read the works of Ayn Rand.Antonrojo 20:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't seem to like to talk about this, I guess because it makes him look bad. Honestly, I don't blame him; Osama bin Laden has got the moral high ground over him on this issue. And to run a project like Wikipedia while rejecting altruism is amazingly incongruous. I'd like to hear Jimbo discuss it at some length. Everyking 05:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyking, if you wonder why you are always on the borderline of being banned, you might want to consider what sort of discourtesy it is to not only draw a comparison between someone and Osama bin Laden, but to actually draw the comparison in a way that gives Osama the thumbs up and me the thumbs down. I mean, really. Do you expect people to react well to such behavior?

To answer the first poster, though, and to dispel any confusion, Altruism is not the same thing as "benevolence" or "kindness" or "caring". Altruism is a specific moral theory put forward by August Comte. I will quote Wikipedia: "He coined the word "altruism" to refer to what he believed to be a moral obligations of individuals to serve others and place their interests above one's own. He opposed the idea of individual rights, maintaining that they were not consistent with this supposed ethical obligation (Catechisme Positiviste)."

I do not agree with Comte's theory of morality. I am a strong supporter of individual rights, and I think that respect for rights is one of the cornerstones of any proper ethical theory. An ethical theory which asks us to put other people's interests above our own, is an ethics of self-destruction.

I am not, by the way, in any way interested in a long philosophical debate on this point or any other. Suffice to say that a general disposition of benevolence and kindness to others is, on my view of the world, totally consistent with my own self-interest. I do not believe in life as a cut-throat place where my benefit is in comptetition with the benefit of others. I think if we respect each other and work together, we can all progress. There is a harmony of interests for rational people which makes many wonderful things possible.

If that makes me worse than Osama bin Laden, then so be it. LOL--Jimbo Wales 22:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeepers. I know this will seem a kiss-ass pile-on because it's Jimbo's talk, but you should consider a long think-about-it, Everking, before posting comments on highly frequented pages. Marskell 22:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Judge the meaning of the words by the behavior they represent. Some say "love" and then kill. Some say "Be selfish" and then give the coat off their back to a stranger saying it gave them great personal gain to do so. WAS 4.250 02:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I said you were worse than Osama in that particular regard because as a Muslim he presumably thinks altruism is a positive thing, although he is a terrorist who favors terrible social repression, while you as a peaceful civilian think it's a bad thing. It was a playfully provocative jab, but there's an important truth to it. I hope you realize that people who say these kinds of things usually only use the idea to justify their own wealth and self-centeredness. If you draw some obscure line that makes your theoretical opposition to altruism meaningless in practice, then that's reassuring. Everyking 03:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyking, you say "If you draw some obscure line that makes your theoretical opposition to altruism meaningless in practice, then that's reassuring." But the fact is that it has been a common understanding among educated people since the publication of The Wealth of Nations that "By pursuing [one's] own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." due to the Invisible hand. Such paradoxes are common in science, philosophy and religion. The last shall be first and the first shall be last. If you want it, set it free. Simplistic thinking isn't worth too much in a complicated world. WAS 4.250 04:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect our views differ very sharply and deeply over these matters, but I have zero interest in debating them. Everyking 05:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect our differences are mostly semantic and that our actual behavior choices in a given circumstance would be similar. WAS 4.250 15:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyking,I would like to respond because this issue speaks to something I am working through myself here. I think I got your witticism when I glanced at it earlier today (before reading your clarification which I just did); I saw it simply as - here is Osama espousing altruism while he plans mass murder and here is Jimbo denying it while he creates an open-source repository of knowledge. It saw it as ironic and an interesting point to make. The problem is that, in what was likely an effort to be humorous, you added the "high moral ground" part. I too am prone to saying things I might consider witty and off-the-cuff that I then get called on. The problem is that not everyone gets the joke; perhaps because English is not their primary language, perhaps because they were not expecting a joke, perhaps because they don't have the same sort of sense of humor that you and I perhaps share, for better or worse. Perhaps they do get the joke but still don't like it, doesn't really matter which. But the big thing is that it probably is not advisable to put something on wikipedia that could be in any way offensive and expect others to turn your statement to just the right angle to get your joke. This is what I am learning today. Better that you fully explain how you want your statement to be taken but that kinda spoils the fun of a joke doesn't it? So perhaps the best thing is to just state what you want to state (I assume of course that you did NOT want to state that Osama was more morally correct than Jimbo. You can have that opinion and I am sure many people do but I don't think that you think Jimbo's talk page is the place to put it so I assume you were just adding that for humor's sake). The other option is to put it in the witty form you really want to put it and just assume that 90% of the people that read it, including the recipient, will be offended and be prepared to take the consequences of that. That way you won't be surprised. That's all, sorry to be so wordy but I tend to be wordy, its part of being a wikilawyer (kicks self in head)--Justanother 23:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, altruism with the whole putting other's interests above your own an self sacrifice is something that is the required quality for "good" alignment in Dungeons and Dragons based games. You seem to travel a lot and hence have a life a lot so I don't know if you're familiar, but I hope you will respond. The thing is that whole altruism as you define it but that's always bothered me about their alignment is pretty much the D&D definition and requirement for being "good".

Not only that, but in the recent show on the Sci Fi Channel, Who Wants to be a Super-Hero, basically one of the classic traits of the superhero is self sacrifice, not caring about yourself hardly at all and doing everything for the good of others.

While I don't like how the D&D alignment good is defined by altruism, I don't think Osama or even his minions fit the reason why, especially after seeing the Loose Change video that showed they basically were filled with hatred after being tortured. But I think a better idea of altruism turned bad is the people who fought in the Crusades, hundreds of years ago, killing in a religious war for what they believed was right, even though they were wrong. Anomo 06:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim, you say that, but your action don't support it. I support Everyking's statement, because at least Osama didn't hand out information that in turn endangered his allies. Dude.... You're the one who's wrong, jimbo. Daniel Denham

Hey Jimmy,

The Tennessee-Alabama game is in two weeks, I'll be there with bells on. I don't know if you follow Alabama, but if so, a littl wager proposition:

Alabama wins: I give $25 to the MWF. Tennessee wins: You give $25 to the Sigma Omega chapter of Tau Kappa Epsilon.

It's a charitable donation either way :)

Teke ^(talk) 05:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Copied from FloNight talk page:

This amuses me quite a bit, so thanks. :-)

Thank you for unleashing the plague.--Jimbo Wales 00:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it amuses me too. Especially the last demand that "there should be only one article on Star Trek." :-) FloNight 09:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Centrx just recently deleted Naruto2.0's userpage and talk page, for no reason. This is very bad behavior for an admin.--B&W Anime Fan 20:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You were serious. He did not give a reason in the reason box. The most I saw was that the userpage had userboxes. Anomo 00:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A) This doesn't look like a matter where Jimbo needs to leap in to save the day. Might I suggest asking, well, perhaps the guy who actually did it for a start. You can contact him at User talk:Centrx. B) If you're talking about a specific page, it helps to link to it, since there was never any User:Naruto2.0 (though Centrx did delete User:Naruto 2.0) and guessing games aren't what people come to Wikipedia for. C) The user in question had no contributions whatsoever outside his userpage, despite being here over a month, and was pretty blatantly using Wikipedia as a free web host a la Myspace. Centrx's deletion was quite obviously correct. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My guess had been that it had personal attacks burried somewhere and that was the reason. Anomo 05:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed to wide agreement in favor of the deletion, at [7]. It also had fair use images. —Centrx→talk • 19:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated the article about you to be promoted to FA status. As I was reading over the comments, one Wikipedian remarked (emphases mine):

-- Selmo ^(talk) 02:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is that the article sucks. It contains serious errors, errors which are directly driven by trolling users who refuse to abide by our editorial standards for WP:RS and WP:NOR. --Jimbo Wales 16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You know that Andrew Orlowski is going to have a field day with that one.  :) --EngineerScotty 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll be on wikitruth and wikipedia review, too. Ah, well. One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is that we are prepared to fix things that are broken, and have never ever been afraid of criticism or self-criticism. :)--Jimbo Wales 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please place specific objections at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. WAS 4.250 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I put some comments in my vote on the FAC nomination, those could be copied there for now? And if I get a chance in a couple of days... --Jimbo Wales 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please make your talk pagemore accessible by keeping it a managable size. Archiving is a very simple procedure. Thanks. 58.152.138.204 09:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is automatically archived by Werdnabot, so it is a lot better than it used to be!--Jimbo Wales 16:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Wales,

I am a disgruntled former Wikipedia editor, and I have come up with the perfect plan to destroy your tax-shelter, Wikipedia. My plan is much better than that amateur Daniel Brandt's. I won't be doing any whining, but I will be exercising only my freedom of speech in a perfectly legal manner. After I finish with you, the only money you'll be getting in donations is from your pals in the porn industry, and you'll have to start using banner ads. I have resolved to destroy you, but I could be appeased and persuaded not to do so if you clean up your filthy act. Here's how:

1) Crude sexual humor (i.e. Cleveland steamer) and its ilk must be deleted. 2) The Gay Nigger Association of America must go immediately. 3) Initiate a means of asking editors and readers if they are over 18 when accessing explicit content. 4) Delete Daniel Brandt's article, Angela Beesley's article, and the article of anyone else who has a reasonable request for deletion. 5) Shut down AfD and delete things on your own. 6) You have spoilers before content from a film, but your pervert users cry "censorship!" when someone wants a warning before a picture of, say, an erect penis or a toilet full of human feces. You will offer warnings. 7) Transfer all fanboy junk to Wikia and delete. I suggest giving the dorks a month to transfer their junk articles on phasers and such and then a mass deletion should ensue. There should be only one article on Star Trek.

Should you block the account this came from (Instant Karma), the plan will automatically go into operation, and negotiations will cease. Even when you find out who and what you are dealing with, you will not be able to stop this little plan from going into operation. (See doomsday device and deterrence.) The same will happen if this message is erased. That means you, you petty little satraps known as "admins", and you, Mr. Danny "Yes, I'm a flak." Wool. Remember, you cannot hurt me, but I can do a lot of damage to your enterprise.

Zorro

Instant Karma 23:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales: Do you expect me to reformat Wikipedia to suit your whims?

Instant Karma: No Mr. Wales. I expect you to die.

*cue dramatic music*

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I see Instant Korma (must say I prefer rogan josh myself) thought he'd covered all bases by threatening to activate doomsday if Jimbo blocked him. Unfortunately, someone else blocked him, so I guess the world is saved. Yay! --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and.... whatever.
 -- John Lennon (no doubt rolling over in his grave)

--EngineerScotty 04:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making me laugh out loud. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Lock up your wiki, lock up your editors, lock up your computer and run for your life, 'cause I'm DIS-GRUNT-LED! ~ Flameviper 17:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Instant Karma, "The End Is Nigh", to wit:

Dear Zorro (aka Instant Karma),

If you had done your homework e-signment on fanboy/fangirl (fanyoungperson?) junk, you would know that your use of the nomenclature "phaser" is highly malaprop here, as NanoSoft files are transferred via communicators and GigaHard copies are transferred via transporters. You really need to read Wikipetia more before you seek to criticize it. Now beam us all the hex outa here, Scotty. Temporary Dharma, Stardate 12:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Temporary Dharma, I think that you may have misread Instant Karma. The pharse "I suggest giving the dorks a month to transfer their junk articles on phasers and such and then a mass deletion should ensue", though potentially ambiguous, probably was not intended to mean that they should "(transfer the articles) on phasers" but that they should "transfer (the articles on phasers)". It's what Spock would call a "non-associativity property" of Federation Standard English, a property that Vulcanash most felicitously does not share. Hope that clears things up. Aston Martian 14:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is addressed to the people who made fun of Instant Karma. I think you should be ashamed of this way of acting toward a member of our community who is experiencing obvious pain and suffering and maybe having troubles expressing what they want to say in a clear way. Just because someone talks in a funny way or is angry out of bad experiences is no reason not to wish or try to figure out what is the honest way that they came to this state of mind. And besides this is also the sort of thing that gives the people who make fun of Wikipedia a lot of grain for their mills. I think that you should think about the gold rule and how it would be to be in their shoes. Anyway, that's what I believe. Idis Yutu 11:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL troll post. About 5 minor edits + post to Jimbo's page in the sock thread = obvious sock. Anomo 12:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We're supposed to treat people who make silly demands, backed up with threats of some unexplained "doomsday device" plan, as members of our community with a legitimate complaint? *Dan T.* 16:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion to remove the possibility of further misunderstanding: The sentence about phasers could be understood in more than one way; I think this is why each and everyone of us should start using the language Lojban instead of English. It's designed to only let sentences be understood in one possible way. (Sadly, also making it a hard language to make jokes in.) :) Delta Tango | Talk 00:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be more appropriate in the Lojban Wikipedia than the English one. (I note that the language code for Lojban is 'jbo', which might just stand for Jimbo!) *Dan T.* 03:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Instant Karma, he CAN damage you. What you did can be interpreted as blackmail. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It could be that "Instant Karma's gonna get you" is contemplating Mutually Assured Destruction, in which he/she/it is perhaps ruined him/her/itself, but brings down Wikipedia at the same time. *Dan T.* 17:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Or it could be that IK is a troll who should be ignored, and that this particular dead horse has now been beaten to dust. :) --EngineerScotty 18:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that to stop vandals, we could think of a catchy slogan. Perhaps "Every time you vandalise... Jimbo kills a kitten" or "Big Jimbo is watching YOU". Perhaps think about that. (You don't really have to kill a kitten every time there's a vandal, but they get the point.) ~ Flameviper 17:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sory to bother you, but I believe a problem with images is growing. People tend to interpret "fair use" very liberally. The last example is template {{HistoricPhoto}}, which basically says "if you cannot get this anywhere else, you may steal this and it is OK in the US." I noticed it was voted for deletion, but kept. I believe copyright issues must be decided by lawyers, not by crowds (or, rather by crowds of lawyers), therefore I am addresing the question to you.

If you agree that "fair use" is problimatic, I can provide other examples of frivolous interpretation for images. Mukadderat 17:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 

This image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic photograph, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the photographer who took the photograph or the agency employing the photographer. It is believed that the use of this photograph

• to illustrate the event in question where:
• The photograph depicts a non-reproducible historic event, and no free alternative exists or can be created, and
• The image is low resolution and of no larger and of no higher quality than is necessary for the illustration of an article, and the use of the image on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright,
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information.

If this does not accurately describe this image, please remove this tag and provide a different fair use rationale.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

Anyone who can't tell the difference between the above and "if you cannot get this anywhere else, you may steal this and it is OK in the US" should stay away from fair use discussions and choices. Copyright is a nonnatural government invented artificial monopoly allowed in the US solely to promote specifically named things (in the constitution) that contribute to the welfare of the people. Fair use is a specific verbalisation of that constitutional right to the copying and use of representations of ideas. The ability to profit from the government created concept of intellectual property is an artifitial creation to benefit the people, and not a natural moral right that fair use allows the theft of. WAS 4.250 18:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Geez man, you need to lighten up. The guy made a common mistake.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about these libertanianism ideas that government is bad. We are talking about law. The template text "No free alternative exists or can be created" exactly means "if no free, then just go get it". It addition, the template says "It is believed that", i.e., it is a speculation of the creator of the template: they believe it is OK to take a photo from a newspaper just because only a single journalist happen to take this photo, and hence he can be robbed of his copyright because he was too lucky.

If I made a common mistake, I am humbly ready to hear an explanation or reference in my talk page. Also how the hell you know that the "the value of the copyright" will not be decreased? wikipedia is ubiquitous now. If the resolution is low, then the photo is useless to illustrate the event. Who needs blurred photos in wikipedia? They only diminish quality and lead to annoyance of readers. Mukadderat 21:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Readers should be given the option to view those images; they can ignore them if they don't want to see them.--Tekleni 21:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And users with the name Tekleni should not be wikistalking me. Mukadderat 22:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, wikistalking you... Like only you have Jimbo's talkpage on your watchlist - it's the heart of Wikipedia :-) --Tekleni 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (also, see WP:AGF)

I wondered, have you ever supported or opposed an RFA? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 02:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Scince no one wants to answer your question-- No, he hasn't.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 03:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder who the true founder(s) of Wikipedia is? It seems like Larry Sanger was also a co-founder who supplied the idea so it is unfair not to list him as one. Isn't it rather unfair for someone to do work and not be credited with anything? Although I understand that he was being paid by your company to set up and run both Wikipedia and Nupedia, shouldn't he still be credited with the work? It's a bit unfair to name yourself the sole founder, especially when newspaper reports at the time when Wikipedia was set up differ. Reading your user page alone, it seems that you were the sole founder of Wikipedia and that Larry Sanger didn't play a part. --218.186.8.12 16:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard Stallman is the spiritual founder and leading free culture prophet. Jimbo is the financial founder and Wikipedia community leader. Larry is the paid administrative founder and highest visibility disgruntled wikipedia ex-employee. Clifford Adams is software founder. WAS 4.250 20:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How can one claim he is the founder of something when there were other people as well? How about, one of the founders? I don't understand what a "financial founder" is. Found the money? Founded the money? If you are talking providing the capital, I don't think one who provides money is sufficient to be called the "founder" you know. Of course Larry Sanger is disgruntled. Ever imagine creating one of the world's most famous international projects and getting sacked instead of recognition for it after it was successfully set up? And I'm not supporting anyone in this, just want to clarify. --218.186.8.12 12:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been following the implementation discussions for 'stable versions' on the German Wikipedia and, unless I am translating incorrectly, it seems like there is a technical problem which could block your idea of 'unprotecting the Main Page' and increasing 'openness' overall. Specifically, template transclusion and image display wouldn't currently access the 'tagging' data to pull up an older 'safe' version and thus would always show the current copy. Which, of course, leaves every page with an image or template on it (i.e. nearly all of them) open to possible vandalism unless that image/template is protected. Given that the Main Page itself has little more than formatting for the many templates and images displayed on it this would mean that the displayed content would still be uneditable by all but admins. I think the concept you have been advancing of 'stable versions' allowing us to be "more wiki" is an excellent approach and the right way to go with implementing this feature, but for that to work it will need to extend to 'stable image and template transclusion'. Which currently isn't in the 'German plan' and may require coding alterations. --CBD 18:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Brion's wikimania presentation stated that images and templates should be accessed as they were when the page was tagged. This might be a bit complicated though, especially if a template is moved or revisions removed from a template/image.Voice-of-All 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[8]Don't worry, you're not alone. =/ --KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 03:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo Wales, I need your advice, cause i do not want to involve in any edit war but there is on going war against every turks/turkey related articles by users tekleni and hectorian. Actually, i'm trying not to take them into account but i'm confronting with these users almost all the turks/turkey related articles. I'll give you a recent example. The article Turkish Republic of Western Thrace is merged with the article Republic of Gumuljina by user tekleni (who is supported by user hectorian) without building any consensus on the talk/discussion page (even without any note, so quickly). These greek nationalists (can be realized from their contributions history) are now trying to delete the article. If you investigate their contributions history, you'll immediately discover that these users are trying to dispute everything related with turks/turkey related subjects. Wikipedia should not be a propaganda or advertisement service for turkish hostility. What should we do? E104421 06:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to achieve, but Republic of Gumuljina, was the original name of the article on Wikipedia, and Turkish Republic of Western Thrace is a neologism. A google search can confirm that [9] [10]. The source of the flag added is a source which calls the entity the Republic of Gumuljina. The only hit for "Turkish Republic of Western Thrace" is some web forum. It shows who is really POV pushing around here. If you check Mustafa Akalp's talkpage, you will see long attempts to discuss the issue with him.--Tekleni 07:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr J.Wales, I have replied to the same comment by User:E104421 in abakharev's talk page [11], before noticing that the same messange was posted here as well. My apologies for bothering u and spending some of your time. Regards Hectorian 07:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why you (Hectorian and Tekleni) are so fast about merging and deleting? You never mentioned anything in the talk/discussion page but decided together to delete the article. Your contributions history simply reveals what you are doing in wikipedia againts turks/turkey related articles. E104421 07:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Better take this off this page, Jimbo doesn't deal with such things. If you guys must have a neutral ground to fight on, better come to my page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo! Must tell ya that we're having problems with downloading of images in all wikipedias. i think that the following is your job. Cheers. West Brom 4ever 19:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo. What going on in Kissimmee? Is it related to wikipedia or are you "going to DISNEY WORLD"?--Justanother 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. These is widespread confusion in the Wikipedia community about replaceable "fair-use" images, and any comments you have would be highly appreciated.

As I understand it, "reproduceable" non-free images are not allowed on Wikipedia. (Here is a typical example.) For some time, there has existed a {{Fair use replace}} tag which was designed to fix the problem. Unfortunately, the tag is simply ignored 99% of the time. The tag also says that violating images should be replaced "as soon as possible", but allows the images to exist on Wikipedia until then. But as I understand it, these images are not allowed on Wikipedia at all, and should be deleted (rather than kept until a replacement is found, if one ever is). With that in mind, I created a new template that tags offending images as violation WP:FUC #1, and says they may be deleted in seven days if no one contests the assertion that the image is "replaceable". Discussion is ongoing here. Again, it would be helpful to all of us to hear your views on the matter. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started new image policy on Bosnian Wiki more than month ago. Now there are PD and such tags, before this there were only 4 templates for images. The number of images there has dropped to ~2400. P.S. I feel really strange editing this...someone is watching me? I'm a sysop on bs wiki with 9000+ contributions, don't worry. ;) --Emx 00:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo,

Just thought I'd spoil it for you and tell you what the actual go with Lost is:

• It's all on TV. It's not real. You've "Lost" many hours of your time to it, however...

So, not in purgatory or any of that other bollocks :) And just randomly, Hi! I'm Michael, I'm new, and trying to help out by reverting vandalism (including your userpage) and nonsense and keeping articles neutral. You're Jimbo, hungry, a little tired, and you missed a spot when you cleaned the kitchen. Pursey 10:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Being the person that created this page at the first time (just for testing what would be happen, and also to write your name in Hebrew in your page), I was wondering what's your opinion about it. :-) Hillelg 19:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo, I heard that you were varnishing your table, so here is a good guide.

1. Set out a layer of newspapers to protect the work area. Make sure the areais well-ventilated.

2. Set the room temperature between 70 and 75 degrees F, which helps the varnish dry quicker without causing air bubbles and streaking.

3. Gather your disposable foam brushes, clean rags, steel wool pads and mineral spirits so that they are nearby when needed.

4. Strip any pre-existing finishes with a paint stripper. Wear gloves and a face mask while you work.

5. Clean the wood to be treated with a steel wool pad dipped in about 1 c. mineral spirits mixed with 2 tsp. linseed oil.

6. Use a clean rag to dry the wood.

7. Pour enough varnish into a separate container to do the first coat, and dilute it with 20 percent mineral spirits (one part mineral spirits to four parts varnish). This coat seals the wood. (Read the label before use and follow the manufacturer's warnings and suggestions carefully.)

8. Use the foam brush to apply this diluted varnish into the wood. Work with the grain.

9. Let that coat dry at least 6 hours, but not more than 20.

10. Apply the second coat (nondiluted) with a new foam brush.

11. Put on up to five coats, depending on how much wear you anticipate the surface to receive. Use a new brush for each coat.

12. Dispose of rags, brushes and remaining stripper as advised by the stripper's manufacturer.

Hope that helps you Jimbo. Cheers, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 06:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a waste of your time, just doing my job... *flees* :P -DarknessLord | T | C 22:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Up for deletion (but that effort was thwarted before and the article was created and defended against front office folks by a very senior admin). Here is the AfD discussion if you would like to participate. As Fred Bauder put it:

• Delete She is only notable because her death was used by unscrupulous mud-slingers as fodder for scurrilous aspersions. Fred Bauder 19:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The concern is that her articles only reason for existence is to further a "false light" campaign against Joe Scarborough. The noteworthy items are already covered in Scarborough's article. --Tbeatty 22:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the talk page has a request from someone who identifies himself as the husband of the deceased Lori. The IP resolved to Florida (Lori's state). While we can't be sure it's him, his request seems reasonable.--Tbeatty 22:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Normally, I would not bring a policy proposal to your attention, but this one is a biggie: Wikipedia:Attribution has been proposed as a replacement for WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. (I'm still undecided on whether this is wise or not--but a significant overhaul of policy like this needs to be done carefully). --EngineerScotty 16:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:MagrittePipe.jpg

It is not an "overhaul of policy". It is an overhaul of the excessive verbage used to descibe policy. Policy itself will not be changed by the proposal. "A picture of a pipe is not a pipe" for the humanities people and "a pointer to a data element is not that data element" for geekdom. WAS 4.250 16:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words, This Is Not a Pipe Dream. =P (NOTE: Damn, seems Barry Kornhauser and his plays aren't articles yet. *sob*) --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 01:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

One click on the red links above will solve that problem. --EngineerScotty 04:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Map/territory relation - WAS 4.250 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I can not, at least now, agree that this is not an overhaul. In the first place, the term attribution is different from verifiability. We already get a lot cleaned out or deleted because it is not attributed (but is verifiable and sometimes attributable if one just does a google search), but today it's done mostly to questionable information. As a concept, attribution implies attribution to anyone, be it a recognized science publication, a cheap ufologist newspaper, or just a myspace celebrity. The concept of verifiability implies more mature and balanced approach of using sources as means to the end, with recoginzing both that information may be verified even if not immediately attributed, and that just attribution is not enough, with many sources having very low publication standarts.

Actually moving from verifiability to attribution as the concept would turn Wikipedia towards plain collection of quotes and links. Renaming policy while keeping old concept would make the title misleading. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind; I've copied the above to the WP:ATT talk page. (I didn't see it there...) --EngineerScotty 17:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To comment further: Nothing in the policy as currently proposed would permit use of sources such as myspace or a "ufo newspaper". Regarding the precise meaning of "verifiable" vs "attributable"; some discussion at length has gone on there concerning this issue. --EngineerScotty 18:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(retelling my words in a more concise way): The actual point is that sometimes, specifically when reporting opinions, we really need to use unreliable sources, of course with explicit attribution. Yes, sometimes we need to use myspace or ufo newspapers. Attribution concept doesn't make distinction between reporting facts with providing reference and reporting claims. Verifiability concept does, allowing just verifiability (even w/o explicit source) for the facts and explicit attribution for the claims. It is more flexible and needs less exceptions and per-subject variations to be effective. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll agree this is the intent; though I will reserve judgement when the proposal is finalized and put forth for consensus. Attempts to rewrite things are always risky--were politicians to announce a proposal to "rewrite" the US Constitution to remove "excessive verbage" while preserving the meaning and intent, I'd be highly skeptical. Fortunately, I have greater faith in Wikipedia editors than I do in the US body politic; Wikipedia is a far more democratic place than Washington.  :) Hopefully, this will be an improvement. --EngineerScotty 17:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

But I thought Wikipedia wasn't a democracy :P it's even spelled out in WP:NOT.ColourBurst 19:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Most likly you are not going to respond to this but I have a question. Does it bother you that you are constantly made fun of on Unencylopedia? You are a very nice person and I think that is often overlooked  . And thank you for giving the world an encyclopedia of infinate knowledge that grows stronger each and every day. Have a nice day, and thank you for helping make the internet not suck--Seadog.M.S 21:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I love Uncyclopedia. For a long time, I avoided reading the article about me there, because I did not want to be upset and angry at Uncyclopedia, given that I love it so much. But finally I did, and I did not mind it at all. The great thing about Uncyclopedia is that everything is constantly made fun of, but not in a mean-spirited way expressing hostility.--Jimbo Wales 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand Uncyclopedia at all. I did however see you have a user page there. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  22:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I replied to your comment on my talk page, and have further replied on WP:BLPN. Made some further edits, but I have two uncertainties: Are you disputing the accuracy of the Wired article regarding your trading career? The statements do seem to reflect the source, so I am not sure how to reconcile that. Also, self-published sources are allowed to be used in articles about the sources themselves. So Wikimedia sources could obviously be used in the Wikimedia article. But the appropriateness of using or not using them in your bio is not fully clear to me. You are not Wikimedia, but you are the head of the organization, so it could be argued that WM sources could be used in your bio in the context of your activities on behalf of WM. It seems to be a grey area that I am not sure about. Crockspot 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I did some further removal of wiki sources. The by-laws are still there, and I think they are probably reliable, being "official" and uneditable. There are still two Sanger sources that I question, his user page, and his lecture from meta.wiki. They are self-sourcing claimes of what he stated, but verifiability may be an issue. I am still not sure about those. Some of the other wiki sources were not even needed, the claims being already covered by other sources cited nearby. I also removed quite a few unsourced statements. I noticed that Jossi put an attribution to one of the Wired cites, and that seemed like a good way to address the questionabililty of the information, so I followed her lead and attributed the other ref tag for Wired. I'll take another pass through it over the weekend after my head has cleared. Crockspot 20:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• There still may be some minor issues, but I think that 90% of the problems have now been solved. It took a little heavy-handedness, (one problem user ended up with a three month block), and there are still a few cn tags on fairly routine and noncontroversial info that need to be addressed, but overall, much better now. - Crockspot 18:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo,

This point is partly related to the above #Policy proposal. In the policies and guidelines currently considered for compacting (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, ...), a rationale that turns up is that there is a structural problem for any Wiki system to become reliable, because (giving some samples of this kind of rationale:) "anyone can edit it", or, in a differently worded version, "it is a self-publication".

For me, up till now, the thing was simple, and could be worded thus: if someone thinks that a system that allows anyone to edit is structurally impaired to reach an acceptable level of reliability, well, then, maybe there are other systems that person could turn to, like Sangers new Citizendium project, or whatever fork (wiki or non-wiki) one would like to start.

But this use of the argument "Wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can edit it", shared by many faithful wikipedians, has too much the taste of a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

And one doesn't particularily need this argument to write a good version of the WP:V/NOR/RS/... guidance. For instance, that Wikipedia can't use itself as a source, is in principle already covered by Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. One doesn't need declarations about Wikipedia's alleged unreliability to point out that Wikipedia can't use itself as a source. And what if, in the next test by Nature, Wikipedia turns out to be reliable to a level of an average encyclopedia? The "unreliability" argument would become useless then, but I'd say that at that point Wikipedia can still not use itself as a source because of the "circularity" or "self-reference" argument.

More on this on these places:

• (in an archive:) Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/archive6#Using long passages from an article in another article
• (active discussion page:) Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#A point of discussion: rationale regarding "Using Wikipedia as a source"
• (part of the new proposals:) Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Are wikis reliable sources?

--Francis Schonken 12:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

PS, and then there's this quote – I'll leave it unnamed, but I suppose you'll recognise it: "[...] is sourced to a cut and paste from Wikipedia (original research), [...]" [12] - pointing out "unreliability-due-to-the-fact-that-anyone-can-edit-it" doesn't seem to play a direct role here, or would you say it does? --Francis Schonken 12:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

While it would be silly to use H5N1 as a source to verify H5N1, it makes perfect sense to say "H5N1 is a pandemic threat" in another Wikipedia article and expect the reader to go to H5N1 for verification of that fact; in a sense using the sources provided in one Wikiedia article to source a statement in another Wikipedia article. As for reliability, our implementation of some version of what is being tried out in the German wikipedia will help with that. WAS 4.250 13:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Returning to the example I used in the PS above (sorry, I should've explained this clearer I suppose): as far as I understand, Jimbo doesn't think it a good idea to write

(born August 7, 1966)<ref>{{cite web | last = Wales | first = Jimmy | title = Wikimedia Foundation Inc.: Board of Trustees | url = http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Board_of_Trustees&diff=prev&oldid=406 | accessdate =2006-07-15}}</ref>

in main namespace. My question to Jimbo was why he doesn't think it a good idea to write that in the main namespace. Jimbo referred to the "no original research" concept,[13] and above (#Jimmy Wales at WP:FAC) also to WP:RS. My question is whether, in that context, Jimbo sees "wikis are in general unreliable because anyone can edit them" as part of that why, or not. --Francis Schonken 15:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo once half jokingly said something like its best to ignore people who give "Jimbo said so" as a reason; and in the same vein its best to ignore arguments based on the self-contradictory mess at WP:RS. But seriously, everyone has lots of opinions, but most of us are experts at only a few things. For sourcing in wikipedia SlimVirgin is a good person to talk to. If you are being exact and literal rather than asking a broader question, he already gave the reason: His birth certificate says something else. Of course using information from what he says is in fact nonverifiable and original reseach unless he wants to record it somewhere authoritative ... like maybe at wikimediafoundation.org (on a no-edit page, naturally) ... for example ... WAS 4.250 16:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the quote you might have been referring to:

[...] as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. [14]

Well, now I'm LOL: ironically it's your premise that started with "Jimbo (...) said..." - not mine. On top of that you added some interpretation ("half jokingly..."), which might be qualified OR on your part. I'm not going to interpret whether Jimbo was "half joking", "dead serious", or whatever. If I want to know, I ask him.

For clarity (@ Jimbo:) I was asking a question, a general one, for which I see you, Jimbo, as good as the next person to give an answer to. Also for clarity: the question is whether you think Wikipedia's guidance should be based on a kind of crystal ball logic with regard to the perennial unreliability of Wiki systems, or whether we can find better rationales on which to base our guidance? Whether I'll take the (possible) answer to that question into account for myself I don't know, while I don't know that answer. Whether the Wikipedia community will take that possible answer at heart, is not for me to decide. The reason why I asked you the question too, is while I suppose you're aware of the issue at hand, and that's the only thing I wanted to imply with my "PS" above. --Francis Schonken 13:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- you removed the clause about "created in the last 48 hours" from CSD G12. I think that clause is an important one to keep, because there are lots of Wikipedia mirrors out there. Take this as an example: it has a copyright notice saying "all rights reserved" at the bottom (despite also including our own copyright notice) and of course the text is nearly identical to our article. We should at least have a "non-mirror of Wikipedia" clause in there; the 48 hours part was to skirt the issue: new articles don't show up on mirrors so soon. Mangojuice^talk 18:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

But the time-based criteria is not really sensible, since it forbid me from removing a blatant copyvio that had nothing to do with Wikipedia. Anyway, this clause is only triggered after the determination that the stuff in question is a blatant copyright violation, right? And it says that the material "appears to be copied from another website". In the case of Wikipedia mirrors, it goes in the other direction.

Perhaps the substantive change here could best be phrased this way: we need to strongly shift away from the idea that deletion is a big deal. Many of our social norms around deletion were born in the days when deletion was deletion. Anything which is mistakenly speedied can be unspeedied just as fast. It is better to nuke copyvios first, ask questions later. --Jimbo Wales 18:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I've worded it so that mirrors are explicitly excluded as the source of a copyvio -- it may not be necessary in most cases but it'll be worth it the few times it does matter. Mangojuice^talk 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I re-wrote the section now, do you find it better now? Any input is appreciated. Cheers. Havok (T/C/c) 23:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that you (specifically) have recently clarified Wikipedia's policy on the use of copyrighted images under fair-use to depict living people. That is, when such fair-use images could at least theoretically be replaced by free images. Specifically, fair-use is not permitted in such situations. If you could please point me to this declaration, I'd appreciate it. It is entirely possible that I am misinformed and that you had nothing to do with this, or even that no such change or clarification has taken place, in which case I don't need to be pointed to the existing fair-use policies. Thanks for your time. --Yamla 23:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy of a comment I posted to Wikipedia talk:Office Actions:

I have just learned that at Commons, WP:OFFICE will be invoked by ordinary admins when requested by the Wikimedia office via IRC. Lets explain that on the page. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I wonder if you received an email from me. Greetings. es:Usuario:Angus 12:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A set of articles from India and also some related to Islam and Hinduism are being used as a propaganda vehicle of Hindutva leaning editors.An editor from the west may not be able to understand the complexity of the issue while many admins themselves carry that view.A recent issue was on Indian Caste System and the same set of editors has been able to distort the entire array of articles by persistent editing.Are you aware that we are in the process of providing a neutral media to carry their views.You may like to see a set of articles that detail the means used by the Hindutva brigade.Some editors here carry tags supporting RSS - an organisation known to be fascist in its agenda and nature and recently included in the list of terrorist organisations in the US.82.10.60.156 23:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I am extremely frustrated by the working of wikipedia.The article Belgaum_border_dispute and other articles related to Maharashtra, a Indian state are in bad condition and biased.Editors from our neighbouring states push their POV and a user User:Dineshkannambadi (Dinesh kannamdbadi) is manipulating history articles by citing a fanatic source.He's busy associating his state and language Kannada with every great thing or people. Is wikipedia anti-maharashtrian??? for god's sake take some measures to combat biases and implement NPOV. Mahawiki 06:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am unqualified to really analyze this, but there are many good editors at Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics, and you should raise your concerns there.--Jimbo Wales 14:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for ur reply!Let me thank you for giving us wikipedia.I request u to take necessary measures for-

1. Ensuring NPOV
2. Improve 'dispute resolution process' drastically as 'truth doesnt seem to triumph always in wikipedia'.
3. Improve accuracy by reconsidering the policy of 'free for all to edit'.

I am aware that above things might be discussed over and over again but I am just voicing my opinion.All the best! Mahawiki 13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(Reposted here as I suspect you won't see my talk page)

Actually, I wonder why you think that. I think it very much is relevant to the process, unless you believe that our actions have absolutely no moral import whatsoever.--Jimbo Wales 02:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy. While I believe the content of the article has to take moral considerations into account, that's a separate item from whether or not the article exists. There are many articles in existence that may be morally objectionable to any number of parties, but they continue to be. If personal impact statements are relevant to the process, perhaps that should be detailed somewhere in the deletion process. *Sparkhead 16:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is in reference to the Lori Klausutis article. It all depends. Personal impact statements are information. A piece of information. They can be helpful to determining if the existance of an article violates WP:NOT EVIL or not. I don't know why you would want to say Well here is a piece of information I could do without, I will expunge it from my brain. Of course other factors come into play, such as whether the article subject is marginally notable anyway or not. Certainly Klausutis is very, very marginally notable at best. Herostratus 18:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you please be so kind as to chime in here? My thanks in advance. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continues in a forum with which you're already familiar—and, with every respect and a complete lack of anything humorous to say (absent that... maybe... [grin]), this may be one of those issues that require you to say, "this is how it must be done." :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jimbo, I would like to say thank you for creating Wikipedia, but, sadly, my Wikipediholism score is 3200 over. No wikibreak can take my Wikipediholism. Can you help me manage this problem? •Sean•gorter•^{(T) (P)} 11:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, you can request deletion of your account - I'm not sure where this is done, perhaps at WP:AN. Or, you could always go up against the Cabal (if it existed, which it doesn't) and get yourself banned. Herostratus 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

JIMBO WALES IS THE BEST

Mr. Wales I would just like to thank you for creating the best site in the world!!! Harold Kewell 08:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you for initiating wikipedia! HardDisk 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am inkybutton, a student from NZ. (you know, the little country....) After reading many interesting responses to many, errr, interesting questions, I stumble accross this post about suicide pill and how to suicide in a "gentle" way, so to speak. It may be just a cruel joke from some young uni students, but please 1)say something nice/cheesy to post author, and 2) delete or move the post, because some people are being... stupid and decided to say heroin+alcolhol is the best combination for suicide. Thanks. --inky 09:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Image:JimboPimp.gif you? If so, please tell us who the photographer is. I put it up for deletion as a copyvio. It seems to be orphaned in the main namespace. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wonduring if it's possible to retrieve a page after it has been deleted? Culverin? ^Talk 07:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please see Wikipedia:Undeletion. Gentgeen 07:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mr Wales. I want to congratulate you on Wikipedia which I consider the best website on the internet. I am Meno25 but I sent this message from a public computer so I am not logged in.I have some suggestions for developping wikipedia:

• Starting a new project under the name Wikiuations concerned with all types of equations:mathematical, physical, and chemical. The database available at www.exampleproblems.com could be used as a start. It is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

• Starting a Wikipedia in Egyptian hieroglyphs.

• Stating the size and numbers of edits of each page when clicking the edit button in Wikipedia.

• Deleting all the old versions of all the pages of all the projects in all languages. This will save enormous load which will enable the servers to provide Wikipedia in a downloable version. Many people don't have access to the internet. Wikipedia users can download the database and burn it into CDs and distribute it.

• Deleting the projects:

1. 1. Wikinews: It wasts the efforts of the wikipedia community. If you want news, you go to CNN or Reuters.
   2. WikiBooks: There is no benefit in writing books now. This should be done in the future after some years. It wastst the time of the users.
   3. Wikiversity: There is no need for this project. It is similar to Wikibooks. It wasts the efforts of the users.

--196.202.92.192 21:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think if you took at closer look at any of the projects you suggested deleted, you would see the vast potential and existing benefits. Wikinews allows for other viewpoints (as long as all sides and perspectives have somebody willing to contribute). Wikinews has also done lots of original reporting and made news available that has flown under the radar major news corporations. I'm not sure about this, but I seem to recall Wikinews having a important role with reporting on the 2004 Asian Tsunami, allowing for discoveries now covered by other news outlets. Besides, we don't want the major news corporations to be the only ones who decides the focus of the worlds attention, do we? :) And of course, there is the advantage of the free licensing.

Wikibooks has so great potential, I can't understand your lack of understanding for this project. Providing both free learning material and potentially everything else you can get from books. You might as well argue that libraries just a waste of space as well. I encourage you to take a deeper look amoung the Wiki-bookshelves!

And as for the other projects you suggested, they can come to existence as long as you get others enthusiastic about it!

Delta Tango | Talk 23:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, Delta Tango. I am Meno25. Thank you for your response on my question. I, on contrary to what you think, does not underestimate Wikinews and Wikibooks. I only said that these projects wastes the efforts of the Wikipedia community. I think that a few excellent projects like: Wikipedia and Wikitionary is better than many good projects. I only wanted the Wikimedia Foundation to provide Wikipedia for download. Providing the Wikipedia database for download is a must.

--84.36.143.135 17:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia is available for download. See m:Data dumps and http://download.wikimedia.org/. Chick Bowen 03:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Wales,

I hace recently written a artical on Adelaide entertainment (on the Adelaide page) and before it was even posted it was deleted I have asked on my talk on Adelaide's talk who did it and why, but no one has responded could you please do something about this, if not put the artical back but at least figure out who did it and why. Please I beg of you.

Kind regardsJohn Harrison Highns 02:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I did a search for Adelaide Entertainment and it returned article (stubs) on both Adelaide Entertainment CentER and Adelaide Entertainment CentRE, so it looks as if we already have two articles on the topic. Have a great day! 64.12.116.69 16:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your opinion on Reward board? Are you alright with it? --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 08:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, is it safe for me to presume that you frown on Wikipedia articles that are plagiarized from other sources, almost all of which are under copyright? Well, there's a page on the web that lists dozens of these, with links to the original source, and a copy of the Wikipedia article with careful highlighting of the portions that are plagiarized. No, I cannot tell you where to find this page, because if I try to link to it, my edit gets trashed. This page is on the spam blacklist, you see, put there by Raul654. Wait until some reporters find it -- this will make a great story. 68.93.140.47 19:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You can certainly post the title of the article/page you are concerned about without linking to it, the spam filter won't stop you from doing that. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should I bother? I've already been banned for making legal threats, and this would be interpreted as a legal threat also, no doubt. 68.93.140.47 19:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no it wouldn't be. Also, please keep in mind that you can always use WP:OTRS to resolve copyright concerns. JoshuaZ 19:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're not interested in pursuing your evidence here, then why did you bother to post here? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, pointing out copyright issues is not something normally blocked for under WP:LEGAL. If you tell me your username, I'll review the block. JoshuaZ 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no procedure on Wikipedia to report plagiarism, which is distinct from copyright violation. A lot of plagiarism is also a copyright violation. But some plagiarism may be of a public domain source, where the original source is either unattributed, or attributed in a manner that does not make it clear that verbatim copying is involved. Anyway, most of the plagiarism I've found is also a copyright violation, so go ahead and start blanking the articles. They're listed at wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html Currently 70 articles are listed, which is about half of the ones I've found so far. The other half will be listed within a few days. 68.93.140.47 20:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia-watch is hardly a reliable source for anything, in particular Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides, if they were really interested in improving Wikipedia, instead of just attacking it, they would have reported the so-called copyvios and gotten them fixed, instead of just using it for further Wikipedia bashing. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Click on the article name, and you see the article, you see the link where the plagiarism came from, and you see the plagiarism highlighted in the article. Compare the source next to the Wikipedia article. Do you really want to be quoted as saying that Wikipedia-Watch is unreliable, and imply that Wikipedia should ignore this evidence? 68.93.140.47 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Mr Brandt's tool has proven quite useful, in fact. It's found quite a few copyright violations for us, and we've been busily cleaning them up. Thank you very much, Mr Brandt. Keep up the good work! DS 02:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On Wiktionary, in order to access the logs, you have to type "Special:Log" into the searchbar and click go, but in all of the other Wikimedia sites that I've been to before, you can either type that or "Special:log" (non capital L in "log"). You may want to have this corrected on Wiktionary to avoid confusion.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 00:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary has decided that capitalization matters in article titles (a reasonable position for a dictionary to take), and that happened to spill over into other things like the link to the logs. I don't see it as anything worth worrying about. --Carnildo 08:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A new category of users can be invented with partial Admin capabilities, they will have the possibility to revert much easier, but not to block editors. Blocking the editors will be done as today. What do you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#New_kind_of_semi-Admins:_the_Revert_Users_.28RU-Users.29 --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 20:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, I have noticed that the full size images uploaded to wikipedia are designated as "high-resolution" images even though they may be, in fact, low-resolution. I suggest that this be reworded to "Download Full-size image". I don't know where to address this issue other than to you. --User:Fahrenheit451 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo. I and a number of other editors (who I'm happy to name privately) have arrived at the conclusion that Wik may have returned. Based on a long history of abusive behaviour, harrassment and a general analysis of behavioural characteristics (eg using long, abusive edit summaries, failing to respond to talk page requests, conducting edit wars via edit summary, deleting comments from his talk page without response etc etc). We suspect that DreamGuy (who was found the likely originator of the sock account Victrix via checkuser request) = Wik. I decided not to take the matter further when he disappeared some time ago - however he has now returned after a period of absence, and is continuing as before. If you want any further details, feel free to contact me. --Gene_poole 03:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to update you, DreamGuy has today progressed to creating multiple sock accounts based on his and my handle, in order to harrass me and vandalise micronation. The socks include Genetauri, Geamdry and Gene_Centauri. This identical pattern of behaviour was used previously by Gzornenplatz to disrupt Wikipedia - and is clearly being used by him again, under a new account name. --Gene_poole 04:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll have better results if you post at WP:LTA or WP:SSP.Antonrojo 15:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am admin on cs.wiki, where somebody has registered account User:Jimbo Wales. Please, can you verify or negate here, that this account is your? Thanks very much. --Petr.adamek 03:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Not me, thanks. --Jimbo Wales 04:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Big J. The main difference between {{db-copyvio}} and {{copyvio}} used to the 48 hour requirement. Now you've done away with it, shall we scrap the whole copyvio report-and-wait systems? Shall I go and speedy delete all the articles here? Thanks for clarifying. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Crzrussian, There are still several useful differences, such as

• No non-infringing material
• No assertion of permission

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ich habe sehen ihr Wörden an ihr Benutzerseite und was Sie sagt auf sprechen im Deutsch, und so ich bin sagen dies jetzt für Sie aber meine Deutsch ist nicht sehr gut oder grammatisch

Whew! That's probably all the German I'll be able to squeeze out for a while, but I thought I'd do it anyway. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  05:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Better would be Ich habe Ihre Wörter auf Ihre Benutzerseite gesehen, und was Sie über Sprechen auf Deutsch sagt, also jetzt sage ich dies für Sie. (I'm not claiming that that's perfect grammar, just as much as I can remember). The important thing to remember is that, being German, your verbs in massive grammatical train wreck to the end gone have should. :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I knew that it was wrong not. ;) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  20:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

¡Hola! I'm watching this show too and until now I love it! My theory is that some eccentric millionaire mad scientist is playing The Sims on that island; since he can't create his own puppets, he looks up for interesting characters to put on his island, fixes them up a bit (healing etc.) and plays by subjecting the poor folk to strange phenomena created through a computer system which runs the island. Like with the Sims, the objective of the game will be something around the lines of creating a (perfect?) society in an unnatural environment but more importantly, just to have fun in the process! (subjecting your characters to extreme duress just tests their metal and it doesn't matter much if the dullest/weakest are killed)... that said, I really don't have great expectations about the final solution the writers will give to this show. I've noticed a pattern in which they twist and twist stories so that the mysteries will go deeper (making it harder to find a logical solution) in order to keep us interested but then they won't make a great effort in giving awesome solutions. Well, that's just my opinion...you did ask for someone to explain! ;)

By the way, I'm loving it here at Wikipedia! Rosa 16:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No doubt Thurston Howell III. --EngineerScotty 21:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely whom I was thinking about...how did you know? ;) Rosa 23:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, everyone. This is a Wiki, I'll do the first stanza. In honor of our fearless leader:

Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale, a tale of a fateful scene

That started in a Sydney port, aboard Flight 815

A murderer, a Saddam thug, and an ex-cop from L.A.

If this had been a real flight, they'd be banned by TSA

Banned by TSA

The 'quipment failed, the pilots tried

Diversion to Fiji

But then the plane it broke apart

Into pieces three

It crashed onto a desert isle

Most are dead I fear

'Xcept the Passengers, The Others too

The Stewardess, and the Babe (cute little guy)

And Tattoo too, no wait, wrong show

Da plane's already here

No plot device too ludicrous

(The writers all are geeks)

On this bastard cross 'tween Gilligan,

The X-Files and Twin Peaks

There's monsters and mythology

And government spooks galore

We're waiting for a UFO

To wash up on the shore

So join us here each Wednesday night

It really is a lark

But hurry, it's third season

'Bout time to jump the shark!

Shameless pandering, I know. :) --EngineerScotty 06:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Wales, O god like one, it seems you have (unadvertedly (is that the right word?) started a religion. Humanistical has the article on his/her user page. Also, I love Wikipedia. Well done!

Mindofzoo999 09:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I hope you didn't start that "Jimmy Wales" wiki yourself... :)

I was mandated by my aunt Catherine Serebriakoff, daughter of the artist to avoid errors on Zinaida Serebriakova's life. Just as the Benois, our relatives, we are asking to write Serebriakova and nothing else, as the painter used to do, the other transcriptions are comming from the today's russian phonetic. She has left Russia (USSR in fact) in 1924 and never came back. She lived in France with a Nansen Passport (see Society of Nations report)until 1947 where she took the French Nationality. The Family archives are more reliable than anything else and our references are comming from there. As for pictures permissions, could you tell me exactly what we have to wright and whom. I am living in France, so the best for me would be to have a contact with Wikipedia France.Catherine Boncenne 10:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been editing various articles on the Wikipedia for several months now, but I had no idea who started this fabulous resource and ongoing project. Now that I've found out it was you, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you. Regards, RobertAustin 10:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, I've never bitched here before, but this time it is too outrageous to avoid. Nobody disagrees that linking to insulting pages about specific admins is a bad idea, but the blanket prohibition ArbCom made against linking to any page on Encyclopedia Dramatica from anywhere on Wikipedia is just wrong. It needs to be scaled back to just linking to "attack" pages (What a simple, common sense rule.)

Think about it as an outside observer: What would a reporter think of Wikipedia governance when they see users being banned for linking to any site on a domain that hosts Wikipedia criticism as a tiny part of it's hosted content? They won't care about the personalities involved, they will see it's just another heavy-handed, corral-the-wagons, response to criticism. SchmuckyTheCat 19:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree... I have strong distaste for the concept of banning all links (regardless of context) to particular sites for personal, social, political, or ideological reasons. I consider the insertion of such sites in the software's block list to be an abuse of that capability, which is intended purely for stopping spam (e.g., links to "herbal Viagra" sites that spammers try to insert irrelevantly). There are some web forums out there which program their software to censor out any mention of people, companies, organizations, and websites which for some reason rub the site owner the wrong way, like for being critics, competitors, politically-incorrect, etc. I dislike this sort of censorship there or here. *Dan T.* 19:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

<snark>Yes, Jimbo - please unilaterally undo ArbCom's careful decision and help to save these crucial, necessary links to the clearly innocent and misunderstood ED site - which really didn't mean to engage in a conscious pattern of attacks on WP editors, to collect identifying information, or to intentionally disrupt WP in the first place. It's clear that Wikipedia, with all its focus on neutrality and objectivity, is being malicious and short-sighted in defense of users and admins like MONGO, while the mature, well-regulated and verifiable ED is a precious resource that must be protected from evil encyclopedias like ours. Of course the difference between 'attack articles' and 'non-attack articles' on ED is WP's responsibility to assess at each occurrence, despite the massive disruption to WP that would result. And the attack article on MONGO being made the 'Main Page' was a purely random occurence that has no bearing on the intent of ED's admins.</snark>

Give me a break. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't go into the time that WP admins protected an article that linked to geocities pages with personal and work phone numbers and email addresses, and email addresses of work superiors of ED participants. The incivility goes both ways.

And yes, it is up to Jimbo to occasionally re-consider decisions made by admins and arbcoms. That's his role. I wouldn't exactly call the ban "carefully considered" given how it all works out.

And it's common sense - a specific ban against linking to attacks makes more sense than a blanket ban. It is the blanket ban causing the disruption. SchmuckyTheCat 19:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not the case. Even links to ED's home page (a site with little control or verifiability) will require constant monitoring to avoid linking to attack pages (to say nothing of the interpretation of what constitutes an attack). And whatever took place on WP, WP will address. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for ED. The disruption is not caused by 'blanket bans', it's caused by trolls and disruptors who continue to attack, harass and troll users here. Common sense is reflected in the current policy, since ED is non-notable and the editors from ED here continue to be disruptive (like your 3RR in one day to revert the ED link on your user page). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I hoenestly don't see why anyone on Wikipedia would want to link to that website. A blanket ban seems perfectly logical to me. It's non-notable, and it (aperently) has pages specifically made to attack Wikipedia users/admins.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So you've been patrolling WikiTruth links lately? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I see little reason to feed your argument (which is a clear logical fallacy). My position does not require me to patrol anything. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What logical fallacy, exactly? No need to "feed" my argument, simply debunking yours. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The existence of policy regarding one site does not necessitate the existence of policy regarding all sites. Action regarding one site does not require action regarding all sites. Your flimsy strawman argument is hardly 'debunking'... it's just bunk. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

i'm sorry you either don't get it or refuse to get it, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I get it, but I require an argument to have logical consistency if I am to 'buy' it. Your argument has none. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

How many users are we going to lose over the dispute? [15]]

Just the ones that refuse to follow the rules to the point of disruption, I'd imagine. On WP, each of us is responsible for our own conduct. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You're looking for "logical consistency"? How is it logically consistent that this site evaluates on a case-by-case basis, with no blanket ban, links to things ranging from Neo-Nazi propaganda to hard-core pornography, but imposes a knee-jerk ban on links to ED? Now, I happen to think the ED site is tasteless and juvenile myself, and have no desire to insert links to it whether or not there's a rule against it, but it seems to me the Wikipedia admin reaction to that site has more emotion than rationality behind it. *Dan T.* 22:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a 'case-by case' basis is appropriate for matters of sexual content and matters dealing with Nazi-related issues. There's plenty of encyclopedic value in sexual and Nazi topics. For example I would support the existence of an article on the 'American Nazi Party', as I've said before, because it has a clear encyclopedic value. However, unlike those examples ED is not notable, non-encyclopedic and not merely 'tasteless and juvenile' - it's engaged in a specific, ongoing effort to attack users of WP by identifying them in the real world. Surely that represents a more direct threat than a discussion over whether an image is encyclopedic or merely pornographic, don't you agree? In short, I don't see anywhere near an equivalency between your examples and the ArbCom ruling regarding ED. If the 'American Nazi' home page contained identifying information about WP admins, I'd support a ban on links. And please don't remind me that there's a list of WP editors on Stormfront, because I know it well - I'm one of the editors listed there as being part of the 'Inner Zionist cabal'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

ED is marginally notable (perhaps notable only among the wiki subculture), but it did survive the AfD process the first time, succumbing only later after managing to piss off too many influential Wikipedians. And other sites such as Nazi sites, homophobic sites, anti-abortion sites, etc., sometimes do publish personal information in an attempt to provoke retribution against their enemies. If Wikipedia takes special action against sites that do this to WP admins, but not those who do the same tactic against other groups, then it's giving its own admins more consideration than others, not a NPOV stance. *Dan T.* 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

*Dan T.*, Wikipedia administrators often delete edits that link to personal information about Wikipedia users. Sometimes (on request and if appropriate) the edits will be removed through Oversight so even administrators can not see the edit. If you need help with this matter, please contact me by email with a detailed request, and leave a discrete post about it on my talk page. FloNight 23:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD has an inherent flaw in that while it allows admins to exercise their judgement, it doesn't force them to. "No consensus" may indicate a split argument, or it may be a cop out. Consequently an article may be renominated until a genuine conclusion is reached, and WP:CCC explictly allows for this. ED succumbed not because it "pissed off influential Wikipedians" (with the possible exception of those who have been targeted for harrassment, no-one cares, simple as that), but because once a proper assessment was made of its case for encyclopaedic notability, the result was inevitably its deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it any less encyclopedically notable than Uncyclopedia, which still has an entry? The fact that Uncyclopedia is actually funny, rather than just tasteless, isn't actually relevant to the respective notability of the sites, is it? *Dan T.* 02:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedia has received significant external coverage. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I too am not affiliated with ED, have never posted there, and only recently learned of the whole mess when an ED link on one of my essays was purged alonng with every other ED link on wikipedia. This is very troubling. If we start wholesale banning of links to websites, based NOT on the content of the linked-to-page, but based only on the identities of the domain name, it causes a horrible rift in the community-- good people, with non-offensive links, get yelled at for linking to an attack site. And where will it end? I've already encountered people who want to ban all links to white supremacists site. Non-attack/Non-harassing ED links on user and talk pages should be re-instated. --Alecmconroy 21:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

See above. White supremacy is a notable movement. ED is not a notable movement, it is a website whose community managed to obtain substantial overlap with ours and consequently adversely influenced AfDs until someone finally called time. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sam- I personally am not debating whether there should be an article on ED or not-- I haven't even read through the AFD, I can't speak intelligently on it. I'm just saying that right now, we have a very dangerous policy of "No linking to ANY document on ED servers, for ANY reason, regardless of the content of that document or the reason for linking to it". I would just say that in some narrow cases-- talk pages, user pages, etc, there could be valid reasons to link to ED. We shouldn't delete links ONLY because of the servers they reside on. If the linked-to content is in any way harassment, then of course it's fine to delete them. But if the linked-to material is acceptable, why should we delete the link?

I think it's just a very dangerous policy for us to have a wikipedia-wide policy of automatically purging ALL links to a site. It makes us look like we're implementing a censorship wall that silences Wikipedia's critics, not unlike the kind of filtration the Chinese government uses to censor its critics. And if we admit ED as the first domain name which "you are never allowed to link to", I 100% guarantee, people won't want it to end there. There are a lot of sites out there which people wish didn't exist: Wikitruth, Neo-Nazis, The KKK, NAMBLA, etc. I'm not trying to be alarmist and claim that this is a slippery slope, where this one policy will result in a chain reaction that will unravel all of Wikipedia. The slope may not be slippery, but a site-wide blacklist of ED links is one step down that slope all the same.

If someone finds a silly, non-offensive, non-harassing humor article on ED and wants to link to it from their user page, let's let them, the same way we'd let someone link to a blog site, quiz site, or other non-notable site.

--Alecmconroy 04:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is not a single possible link to ED that would benefit the encyclopaedia. User pages are not free web hosting, so that doesn't count - it's not as if we're stopping people from linking to whatever they like on their actual personal webpages. Given that, it is in our interests to have a rule that prevents wikilawyering.

How can we possibly be said to be 'silencing our critics'? We have no influence over ED whatsoever - they can say whatever they like, they just can't use up our time and bandwidth in doing it. I don't particularly care if a drunk across the street calls me a wanker, but if he comes into my house and continues calling me a wanker, then I think I have the right to throw him out.

Still, if you can get a Chinese political prisoner to agree with you that not being able to add a link to some website is morally equivalent to getting a cattle prod to the balls for voting for the wrong guy, I might change my mind. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Wikipedia is explictly not an experiment in free speech, so any arguments against the ruling that hinge on free speech are null. The only relevant issue is whether a link to ED might benefit the encyclopaedia, which it clearly never will. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sam-- you make some excellent and thought-provoking points. First, I must confess, I do realize I'm being a tad histrionic when I liken the ED-link ban to Chinese communism-- I really shouldn't do that. I do it at least semi-ironically, but it probably is a little disrepectful to the people who have been tortured and killed in that situation. Analogies like these just sort of go with the territory in these sorts of discussions. <grin>. I'm just happy nobody's compared anyone to Hitler.

Additionally, I should say upfront-- I don't really expect Jimbo to overturn Arbcom on this. I would never even have thought to ask him, and I'm almost positive I wouldn't overturn Arbcom if I was in his shoes-- even if I disagreed with the ruling itself. Overturn a unanimous ruling by the community's elected representatives-- a ruling which has clear support from a lot of the community? Nah. So-- I'm aware that I'm sort of tilting at windmills here, but I find the dialogue itself to be useful to my understanding of the project, and if somebody wants to read and reply, I'd certainly enjoy hearing what you and others think of my concerns.

Let's concede that "The only relevant issue is whether a link to ED might benefit the encyclopaedia". I feel, quite strongly, that some ED links could be VERY beneficial to the encyclopedia. I actually can think of a lot of cases where a link to ED might be useful:

1. A link to ED is useful to report on ED itself. Right now, the consensus seems to be we don't need to cover ED because it's non-notable. But at some point in the future, ED may become notable enough to merit an article. If that happens, shouldn't Wikipedia be able to link to the site being discussed? Links to an organizations website are very useful, and those links make Wikipedia a better resource.
2. In some cases, an ED page can be useful because of the information it contains. I know this from personal experience, because an ED page helped me once to understand why a Wikipedia policy was important. I read the policy page, and didn't fully 'get it'. I clicked on a link which took me to an ED page, and that page, though satirical and irreverent, instantly conveyed to me the importance of the Wikipedia policy. Perhaps my experience was unique, but since someone took the time to create the link and since that someone is an admin, we know that at least one other person sincerely found the link useful. And since the link stayed up on a major WP policy page for about six months, I bet others thought the ED page was useful too. ED is so offensive and unreliable, it's easy to conclude nothing it could possibly say could ever have value-- but I think that conclusions wrong: some of its pages might actually be useful. The usefulness of a link should be decided on a case-by-case basis, not on a site-by-site basis.
3. ED links are very useful in inter-editor communication. Normally in the above discussion about the page I found useful, I would SHOW you the page I found helpful by linking to it, and I would ask you if you, too, felt it could be useful to Wikipedia. Maybe you'd look at the page and agree it might be helpful. Or maybe you'd look at the page and be able to point out to me why it wouldn't be helpful. But right now, we can't have that discussion because of the policy of not linking to ED. So, even though it's just you and I having a conversation on a user_talk page, the "no linking to ED" policy is interfering with our ablity communicate. I would find it useful, and I think it would help Wikipedia, if I could show you the link right now, so we could talk about it. See what I mean? And it's not just this discussion where links to ED would be useful-- there are lots of instances. At some point, someone is going to try to revist the issue of whether ED is notable-- are we going to let editors in that discussion link to ED to as evidence for ED's complete lack of reliability and notability to prove the site still doesn't merit an article? What about ArbCom cases or user-conduct RFCs, where someone who is being harassed on ED wants to provide evidence of the off-wiki attacks? I think most editors would agree that links in those cases would be useful to Wikipedia, but right now, if the current "never link to ED" policy stands, an editor in that situation could actually be blocked just for presenting evidence showing they themselves are being attacked! (Naturally, I presume that if that situation ever arose, all admins would recognize that the flaws in the "Never, ever link to ED" policy, the editor wouldn't actually be blocked.)
4. Most importantly, links to ED are useful to Wikipedia, because they show our journalistic integrity. This isn't something to take lightly. Wikipedia is working hard to be taken seriously, and it is critical for us to show that we can abide by the same standards of ethics and objectivity that would apply to a reputable newspaper or a respected news network. In journalism-- you don't report on a person differently just because that person has criticized you. CNN still covers polticians who harshly criticize the network. When the New York Times published The Pentagon Papers, it still reported both sides of a story, even if it meant publishing comments from people who accused the paper of committing espionage and treason. Right now, Wikipedia has deleted every single ED link, purging the links even from talk page archives and RFC archives. It's an unprecedented step. And we're doing it for only one reason-- whoever runs ED was very, very mean to us. They've criticized our editors, they've made libellous statements, and they've harassed us-- and because of that, we've changed our linking policy with regard to that site. That change in policy makes us look very bad. Therefore, a few links to ED pages are VERY useful to Wikipedia, because they allow us to avoid the appearance of impropriety-- they allow us to show that we, as an community, are mature enough to treat our detractors the same way we treat our supporters-- rather than having separate rules for those who criticize us.

I'm sure some people reading this argument think I'm fighting for ED. I'm not. I don't care about them. I care about us. ED doesn't need us to link to them in order to have their brand of "fun". ED doesn't need the links, and I wouldn't care if they did. It's not about that. WE need those links. We are the ones who need to be able to link to ED. We need those links in order to carry on discussions amongst ourselves. We need them in case some day we want to create an ED article. And most importantly, we need those links so we can show that we're bigger than they are, and we can handle this like a real encyclopedia would-- by treating ED the same way we treat everybody else.

And the way we handle harassment and insults in every other case is that if a link is being used for the purposes of libel and harassment, it's gone. If someone keeps inserting such links for the purposes of libel and harassment, then they're gone. But if a link isn't harassing, libeling, or insulting, and if that link is, in fact, useful to the discussion at hand-- we don't delete it, just because it came from a site that's critical of us. That policy works for every other link on wikipedia-- I think it can work links to ED too.

To anyone who waded through all this, my very honest thanks.  :) Let me reiterate that I have absolutely no intention of violating the policy, and that i'm not trying to attack anyone who supports the policy in what i've said above-- issues like these are always tricky, and by criticizing the policy, i'm not in any way trying to criticze the people who create and implement it.

--Alecmconroy 14:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points (frankly, far more interesting and credible than I would have ever expected in this thread). Could you email me the link you were referring to that clarified Wikipedia policy? Personally, I would think it probable that we should make the policy more clear rather than rely on an attack site, but I would like to see the exact details first. As for the rest, I'm afraid your CNN analogy still falls down on the same problem that ED is not notable and does not merit coverage, unlike your critical politician. CNN may cover notable politicians' criticism, but it wouldn't cover some random guy in the street telling everyone he hated CNN.

Besides, we have articles not only on Uncyclopaedia but also on Wikitruth and coverage of Daniel Brandt's Wikipedia Watch, plus the entire Criticism of Wikipedia article, so it is perfectly clear that we have no problem with covering criticism of ourselves - we just don't allow handwringing over whether we're censoring dissent to interfere with our nature as an encyclopaedia.

As for the assertion that ED might be notable at some point in the future, so we should leave the door open, I sincerely doubt that will ever happen. Much like myg0t, it is so difficult to imagine an event that would catapult them into historical record that the possibility isn't worth factoring into our decisions now. If that earth-shattering event does occur, we can simply ask Arbcom to reconsider. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I agree with a lot of what you said. We at Wikipedia actually do quite an incredible job of covering criticism of ourselves, and ED probably doesn't have much to add to the serious discourse about that subject. I also tend to agree with you that it's quite improbable that ED will become notable enough to merit reconsideration of the AFD, and it's utterly inconceivable that they will ever become a Reliable Source. And you're absolutely right to point out that when I talk about the CNN's decision making process, at a certain point the analogy breaks down, because CNN and it's critics are clearly notable, whereas ED is not. I completely understand where people are coming from on that. It's not that I'm advocating for the creation of any links to ED per se.

If a given link is truly not useful to the encyclopedia, I have no problem with its removal. And if it happens that when all is said and done, we decide in every indivdual case that a link to ED isn't useful and should be deleted-- that's fine, and that's how it should be. But actually making that decision based on the link's usefulness is very, very important. According to this new policy, it doesn't matter whether a link to ED is useful or not-- even if all editors on a page agreed the link was useful and beneficial to Wikipedia, we still couldn't insert it. Indeed, under the new policy, we're not even allowed to show other editors the link, in order to discuss its usefulness or lack therefore.

And sometimes an ED link _can_ be useful-- in whole or in part. Take that one link that I found useful. When it was initially added to Avoid Weasel Words by Taw (an admin), he praised it as "concisely describes the problem" (diff). Despite the fact the linked-to page resided on a server run by troublemakers, the link was an interesting read, and I feel like I'm a better editor because of having read it. Now, even if the policy was overturned, I wouldn't insert that link right now, because six months or so after Taw inserted the link, ED added a graphic pornographic onto the linked-to page, and when that happened, the link became offensive and was appropriately removed from Avoid Weasel Words, because our policy pages probably shouldn't link to sites that have images that are so offensive.

But the linked-to page, and its text, was useful to the Encyclopedia for a little bit, and it could still be useful, albeit not on the policy page itself. It would be useful for me to be able to show the link to you and ask you want you think, as regards to the current policy. In an informal talk page discussion with someone about weasel words, mightn't it be useful for me show someone that link? Or suppose we want to, as you suggest, improve the policy page by having people take a look at the link-- I'm not allowed to even show the link to them in order to suggest it. And if other editors wanted to alter the Wikipedia page by incorporating ideas found in the linked-to ED article, that ALSO would be explicity forbidden under the new policy, which prohibits including material from E. I even had a small amount of trepidation about even linking to Taw's diff above, because the wrong person could try claim that such it violates the spirit of the policy.

If a link truly is not useful to Wikipedia, then let's kill it-- but shouldn't THAT be the standard, not what server the link points to. Personally, I think the old system worked fine, and the new policy is unnecessary. When you look at the list of all the ED that were semi-automatically transformed into broken links, I don't see any that were in the actual article space-- the old process appears to have been completely successful in removing them. By and large, it looks like we were using ED links exclusively to foster inter-user communication-- we have a lot of people linking to ED as evidence in Arbcom cases, people pointing to it in AFD discussions, and on user_talk pages. Aside from the main page, it seems like the most-linked-to ED page was their page on the term "Bureaucratic Fuck" and the links generally were inserted by users who self-applied the term. (see, for example Mikkalai's Candidate Statement). Again, it looks to me like that old system was working-- removing links that were offensive, keeping those that were useful.

I know there's a real pragmatic streak in the Wikipedia community. It's one of our strengths, and it has a lot of benefits. So I'm sure some people are saying-- what different does it make WHY we remove links-- if the ED domain name is a quick and easy way to get rid of them all, let's just do that, so we don't have to even think about whether each individual link is useful or not. But sometime's process is important-- Wikipedia's reputation for reliability and ethics come from our process. Let me go back to my CNN analogy. If CNN chooses not to report someone's opinion because their opinion wasn't newsworthy-- that's fine. But if, instead, it's revealed tha CNN reporters don't even question the newsworthiness-- instead, they have a policy that prohibits ANY reporting with regard to particular critic of the network-- then their journalistic ethics are going to be called into question. Even if that particular critic's opinion might NOT have been newsworthy. CNN needs to be able to say "We considered the newsworthiness of Congressman ED's opinion, but we decided it wasn't sufficiently notable to merit a report in this instance." But it looks very bad for CNN to say "It is our network's policy never to report on Congressman ED's opinions, so, we did not even consider whether his opinion might be newsworthy in this instance. But rest assured, we've generally found his opinions to by very un-newsworthy in the past-- he's unreliable and a harasser".

And I know I'm _really_ stretching things to liken ED to a congressman.. (well, maybe if somebody's really, really jaded and cynical about politics it's not THAT much of a stretch. <grin>). But the crux of my analogy isn't about ED's notability-- it's about OUR integrity. We need to step through the process of actually considering the usefulness of a link, and not getting lazy and resorting to the rule that "Everything else that person says hasn't merited inclusion, so I'm sure whatever they say next can automatically be deleted".

Maybe links like "Some Argue" could be useful in discussing how to improve our policy pages. Maybe links like "Bureaucratic Fuck" are useful for inter-user communication. Maybe other links to ED are useful in order to defend yourself against harassment. Maybe ED links are useful to discuss whether or not ED is notable, and deserves its own page or a mention on some other page. And maybe ED links are useful in some way I haven't considered. But even if all of those links turn out NOT to be useful-- it still is beneficial to Wikipedia for us to consider the usefulness of those links on a case-by-case basis.

Again, thanks for listening. I know I do tend towards the verbose-- I'm sorry for that. :) Anyway, I hope at least something of what all I say was worth reading, but I do admit that I seem to be in the real minority on this issue, so there's always that the possibility that "what I just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things you have ever heard, that at no point in my rambling, incoherent response wass I even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought, and that everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it." (to quote from Billy Madison) <grin>. --Alecmconroy 08:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm absolutely convinced we shouldn't ever link to ED now. ED's page on weasel words doesn't add anything apart from 'humour' that doesn't rise above the level of 'lol they said fuck', and it's absolutely inconceivable that we should add an external link on the knowledge that we'll have to continuously monitor its content in case the site's editors decide to post an obscene picture. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Are Wikitruth, and Daniel Brandt's sites, actually more notable than ED too? The amount of zeal and draconianness being put into suppressing all links to ED, regardless of context, troubles me. Among the places where it's recently been de-linked is archives of talk and project pages where there were discussions and debates over whether particular things in that site were suitable for links in articles or not. The outcome, as far as I could see, was to decide not to link it in the articles in question (even before the ArbCom ruling), but killing the link even on the talk archive is suppressing relevant history. It also troubles me that Arbcom can make rulings that are binding even on people who were not parties to the case involved, and that amount to making general Wikipedia policy; shouldn't such policy be made by community consensus? *Dan T.* 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom did rule somewhere that sysops who resign have to go through the votes to get their power back so that's a binding to all kind of. I think the whole ED link thing would be a lot easier if it was spam blacklisted instead of banning people for linking to it. Anomo 07:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

While ED as a site is troubling, I'm going to criticize Arbcom about something arbcom related. Arbcom choses who gets to be CheckUser. Guess who they always choose? Themselves. That said, if I were an admin here, I would fear wikipedia watch somewhat more than ED because wikipedia watch puts the admin's personal information and ED if they do it, it's a lot less. Anomo 07:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

...And guess who chooses ArbCom—that would be us. Jimbo gets a veto over ArbCom candidates, but the last eleven individuals added to the Committee were supported by at least two thirds of the community. (Nine were approved by more than three quarters of voters.) Note that not all of the Arbitrators have CheckUser privileges, and also there are at least two individuals with CheckUser (Essjay and Redux) are are not present or past members of ArbCom. (Both are Bureaucrats, however—another position that requires a very high level of community support and trust to attain.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not even an article? With all the useless crap on wikipedia, are you telling me that ED is less notable than, say, Last Measure, a shock site created by a couple of trolls? What kind of intellectual honesty are we talking here? OK, I know that "one man's crap . . ." but my point on intellectual honesty stands. --Justanother 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

One bad article does not excuse another - besides, Last Measure doesn't seem to have even undergone an AfD. Though if you nominated it, you'd get a lot of armwaving "of course it's notable, I've heard of it!" !votes, and would probably have to hope for one of those abusive rouge admins to insist on policy when closing it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me, how you do govern this anarchy? Wandalstouring 19:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't, actually. The community does. I merely play a certain role in that process, a role which is steeped deep in Wikipedia history, symbolism, and custom. I think of my chief function around here is to try to help remind people what we are trying to do, what kind of people we want to be, and how we are trying to change the world. I think virtually everything about Wikipedia follows from that... what kind of people do we want around, what kind of people do we need to ban, etc. --Jimbo Wales 22:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"My name is Jimbo Wales and I am the founder and president of the Wikimedia Foundation, the group that governs Wikipedia." ? Wandalstouring 04:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, call the Royal Guard on the nonconformist renegade! Rosa 07:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, does this mean you won't intervene or interfere in future ArbCom elections, as has been your habit up to now? You'll let the community decide for itself who it wants on the ArbCom? Everyking 08:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring, the chaos is managed like this: People patrolling every new edit and people who take their favorite articles, watch them and act as custodians of them. Anomo 08:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean an oligarchy of the watchful?

Yes, I'm one of those. While I was reading about the great admiration for the founder of wikipedia and the whole nature of the project, I was simply starting to wonder. We claim this to be an anarchic community governing itself, but we do have no other words than "govern" to state what the Wikimedia Foundation does. For example how many people did vote to put the many wikiprojects into live? How are these decisions made? By "people patrolling every new edit" or watching "their favorite articles"?

So I doubt it can be stated that the community does govern (reminds me a bit about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" joke). A certain ambiente for working has been created and there have been applied rules how to use the tools. Fine, but that means we are not a self-governing body, but a public workshop. Everybody can come and work and if you try to blow up the building you get blocked by our elected security. The founder has given us some rights of co determination, but there are still some rules he established and we have to abide to.

So formulating this statement in accordance with my construct:

We do actually govern by imposing some basics and guarding the means to enforce them. We let the established community make all other decisions. I see myself as merely playing a certain role in that process, a role which is steeped deep in Wikipedia history, symbolism, and custom. I think of my chief function around here is to try to help remind people what we are trying to do, what kind of people we want to be, and how we are trying to change the world. I think virtually everything about Wikipedia follows from that... what kind of people do we want around, what kind of people do we need to ban, etc.

And coming down from such intellectual highlights, I think we should keep in mind that we have a very free community workshop here, but governed by an institution.

The systemic bias of Wikipedia from its group of a limited social spectrum as well as its prominence in distributing written word worldwide make it quite attractive to inflict local (article or subject based) rule of community members. Expanding this, there could establish an overall rule of a selected community, something that may possibly happen in small wikis, but while they are free to decide there can never be a takeover of the "government". Wandalstouring 22:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I would really appreciate your thoughts on the existance of user watchlists (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist). These pages would seem to contravene both the spirit and the letter of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:PA to me by their very nature. However it's a tricky issue that I feel really needs your input.

Understand I am not soliciting your support (as if!) but your honest feeling about these pages which, once given, I will be happy to abide by, including fully or partially withdrawing the MFD. --Zeraeph 18:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for barging in, but I thought you should see the entire debate in order to get a feeling for the current opinions involved. Psychonaut's search for more people on Counter-Vandalism Unit - now relocated --A green Kiwi in learning mode 19:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy, Thank you for the interview today. I look forward to talking with you again.Tony 02:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering why you decided to move yourself and Wikipedia to St Petersburg (rather than somewhere like Silicon Valley)? Thanks! Sparkzilla 16:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think Wikipedia volunteers target on subject in a negative way and ignore hundreds of others of the same kind. For example, I've seen one school hammered mercilessly by volunteers, so much so that I have to feel that these are not impartial edits. They are rather edits by persons with some kind of agenda that has nothing to do with the goal of Wikipedia. roger, parent of a Linda Christas student (Forwarded by Linda Christas Help Desk: Policy 23:342) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Dovefeather (talk • contribs)

I also want to know why Wikipedia volunteers target on subject in a negative way. I also demand to know, Jimbo, if you are still beating your wife. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)