User talk:Jimbo Wales

Click here to leave a new message.

Please to do the bug 9862

Dear Jimbo

A month ago you said some comments about No Open Proxies to help us in People's Republic of China to edit. Thank You! Now there is a Bug 9862 (bugzilla:9862) which can help very much and not be a problem for stopping vandals too. The Bug work stopped because no sysop will do the last part of it.

I ask you please to say that it is okay to do the finish of Bug 9862, which will help us edit from PRC. Fzpsc 21:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been having some bad luck speaking with you lately. The reason I wanted to speak with you is because I would like to ask you to push for completion of Bug 9862, and creation and grant of the relevant permission to several people on enwiki.

Besides being pretty much essential for people in the PRC, it will also help several people outside the PRC, including an experienced medcom mediator, and an experienced (non-associated) mediator. --Kim Bruning 16:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I third this request. ←Ben^B4 04:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fourth, we're blocking proxies for vandalism, but it's keeping good contributors out. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Easy de-Adminship

Jimbo Wales, you said that the creation of an easy process for taking admin tools from people could be used by trolls against good administrators, which would cause more trouble than not having such a process causes to Wikipedia nowadays.

I think that the trouble caused by not having such a process is huge, but that's sort of intuitive and hard to show. One thing I can say is that the absence of such a process makes people be very careful when choosing who is to become an administrator, and this causes many potentially good candidates not to become administrators. Only a select few are given the tools. (here's one recent example: the first post by Friday)

Not having a process to take the tools turns adminship into a big deal: those who are chosen to be sysops celebrate and get happy about it not only due to having more tools to help Wikipedia, but also because people declared them to deserve eternal tools.

I don't see which problems could arise from the bad use of such a process by trolls. If the process required an agreement like that required to become an administrator nowadays, the matter shouldn't bother good administrators at all, since people would vote for them not to lose the tools. There could also be an established limit for nominations, such as only one per two months. Nominations that don't stand a chance could be closed early. A.Z. 00:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't think that having a Request for Lynching every six months would have an effect on some of our most prolific contributors? See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Side point on disruptive RfA comments for further discussion about why a rapid, casual process for requesting desysopping is a bad idea. (Allow me to toot my own horn by pointing at my own comment: [1]). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to both views expressed here, and actually I think we all are fairly in agreement about what the tradeoffs are. Easier adminship would be great, and easier de-adminship is a path to easier adminship. And yet, there is also value in the independence created by the fact that admins can take bold actions with courage even in the face of trolling. Wikipedia is not a democracy after all, and 50 trolls whining about something doesn't really need to matter much. And yet - accountability to the rest of the admin community and to thoughtful people everywhere is also important. I know of no magic solutions which balance all these concerns perfectly.

In general, though, I think there is no general problem of "admin abuse" or tyranny... in virtually every case that I am asked to look into, I find some very unreasonable person who has been treated with extraordinary kindness until the limits of people's patience has been reached then suddenly complaining about being blocked "for no reason at all" or "to suppress the truth" or whatever nonsense excuse fits the situation. So while I support a general attitude of welcoming change, and doing some experiments to see how things work out, I also think there is no general crisis requiring too quick action.--Jimbo Wales 15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The process would require consensus, so it doesn't matter if a few people enjoy accusing an administrator of being abusive from time to time. If you are worried about the psychological effects that "lynching" would cause on contributors, I think any kind of lynching is forbidden by policy already. A.Z. 00:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean Consensus? Several organisations already have systems in place that are capable of subverting online open votes, so that's something you simply need to take into account, and make sure you really do apply Consensus and nothing else. I'm slightly worried about where these tools may have been applied at the moment, but have no reliable means to find out.

In other news re:Lynching; someone needs to take out the Community Sanctions Noticeboard. That's insane. I've been spending less time on wikipedia for a bit, and that slipped right under my radar :-/ --Kim Bruning 03:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to have a discussion with me about that noticeboard? Durova^Charge! 09:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

By consensus I meant only an RfA-like consensus. Is that what you're referring to? Are those systems capable of subverting RfA's? A.Z. 03:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I also think that currently bureaucrats are expected to not take action against subversion, oddly enough. --Kim Bruning 16:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For misconduct, RFAr should probably be the one to sort it out. And CSN is fine with me - however, I'm am concerned about the admin-only IRC channel, as that flies absolutely against Wikipedia's principles of openness. I can't really think of any situations which are so private that they can't be discussed on Wikipedia; but yet public enough to share amongst a random handful of admins.

Either way, I think bureaucrats should have the ability to de-sysop in emergencies such as those account hacking rampages (this is more of a technical issue really). --h2g2bob (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For quite a long time we have Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. It currently has 99 administrators. I feel that the default process suggested is not safe enough and in fact put somehow safer procedure for myself. But still so far there was not a single possible case of the process hijacked by vandals or trolls. In fact there was only one request to desysop (against User:Crzrussian) who has chosen not to argue his case on RfA but accepted desysopping (and regained it via another RfA in two months).

Obviously different admins do different jobs so some are more endangered from a concentrated attack by trolls. Still I am working mostly on the Eastern European articles there even quite good and devoted wikipedians are often feel strong animosity against each other as their editing is based on different national sources, narratives and discourses. In a sort I believe it is often as bad as it gets. Still nobody attempted to start the recalling procedures against me or many other open-to-recall sysops. I think the three stage procedure similar to User:Alex Bakharev/Recall:

1. A fixed number (e.g. six ) of established (e.g. having more than thousand edits) editors in good standing (e.g. never blocked for more than 48h) sign the request for desysopping
2. RfC shows that a simple majority of established editors support desysopping
3. RfAR closed by a bureacrat as having no consensuns

might be safely made wikipedia-wide. It is reasonably troll-proof and can streamline de-sysopping for people who are not sutable for the tools Alex Bakharev 06:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You missed User talk:Friday/archive5#Petition to recall User:Friday from the position of admin, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive164#Soliciting 'endorsments' for a recall 'vote', and User:Friday/Recall Petition, Alex. I can't think of a clearer demonstration of the type of participation such a process is likely to draw.

The recall petition was endorsed by seven editors, three of whom were adjudged at the time to be 'in good standing' by the rules of the process. Two of those 'good standing' editors have since been banned (one for extensive sockpuppetry, the other for ongoing personal attacks and vandalism). Among the other signatories, this guy got himself banned for being unable to stop calling another contributor a 'Nazi sympathizer' every other day; he moved to Wikiversity so he could have an unfettered platform to continue his attacks. Two other signers had fewer than forty mainspace edits apiece. I also award bonus points for the holiday spirit shown by the individuals who decided that the day before Christmas Eve would be a good time to launch a recall petition.

Even at the premature-and-fatuous stage – without progressing to a full-blown recall – a quick survey of the incident shows that the time of more than fifty editors was wasted. Who were the people supporting the recall? Mostly editors that Friday had warned or blocked (deservedly) in the recent past for a range of policy violations. Trolling doesn't get much more effective than that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ten, You are right, I have missed the incident. IMHO it proves that the concept works. Yes, trolls were trying to hijack the new process (as well as they are regularly trying to hijack XfDs, RfCs, RfARs, arbcom elections, etc. A simple process on the other hand shielded them off. The resources wasted: (fifty users mostly spending a few minutes on a simple vote: Gee, I know Friday, he certainly makes much more good than harm with his tools - were negligible relative to the effort required for an Arbcom case. That even more important the process, unlike ArbCom ,is fully scaleable. As I said, I am in favor of little bit more of the safeguards but even the standard ones appear to be working. Alex Bakharev 10:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The success of Category:Administrators open to recall has something to do with its voluntary nature. Part of it is a question of temperament - it takes a taste for brinksmanship to converse with an editor who accuses me of malfeasance and say If you really think I've acted out of bias then here's what you can do about it... I care about using the tools properly but it wouldn't bother me if I no longer had them; I even informed Jimbo once when I was considering resigning them. Every editor at Wikipedia gets some privileges that most sites reserve for sysops. Administrator may be a poor title because of the connotations. It's not supposed to be a big deal; maybe it would be an improvement if everyone called us Oompa Loompas. BTW some of us declare a commitment to self-regulation at Category:Eguor admins. Durova^Charge! 09:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it require a quite unusual psyche to be a devoted wikieditor, even more so to be an admin. On the other case, some sort of accountability to the established wikieditors is not something unusual. Almost all admins feel that accountability already Alex Bakharev 10:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

On the title of 'Administrator, it's interesting that the term used for the equivalent position on Wikiversity is 'Custodian'. It works rather well in both senses of the word. Custodians are guardians and caretakers, responsible for protecting the project, but as servants and not owners. 'Custodian' is also synonymous with 'janitor' in U.S. English; the parallel there is too obvious to require explanation.

Of course it's far too late to change the title here, but I prefer to keep the Wikiversity term in mind when I go about my work. 'Administrator' brings to mind a middle-management functionary equipped with a set of rubber stamps and tasked with moving piles of paper from one side of his cubicle to the other for eight hours a day (less the two-hour lunch and half-hour smoke breaks). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that there have been a few bad admins, I think it is more common that good admins make bad calls because they act before adequately understanding a situation due to impatience, momentary crankiness, or lack of time. I recommend that some guidelines be composed to assist admins in dealing with such conditions that lead to bad decisions.--Fahrenheit451 14:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to weigh in here. I've thought about this a lot, and I think the recalls we've had (mine in particular) demonstrate a couple things: 1) yes, recall is a troll magnet. But 2) it's a troll magnet we can handle. Wikipedia is already a troll magnet. If my recall is as ugly as they get, well.. I think that's ugly we can deal with. It didn't really hurt anything or waste too much time in my view. I believe this demonstrates that we have nothing to fear from some non-arbcom desysopping process, similar to an RFC. If good reasons for removal of sysop permissions are not presented, this will be clearly visible to all. It hadn't occurred to me until it happened that people opposing the recall could play a role, but if you've got way more opposers than supporters, this generally indicates there isn't a serious problem with the admin in question. People who call for a sysop's head over a simple mistake, for example, will only make themselves look foolish in a recall discussion- same as they do elsewhere, right now today. So in short, I feel that a recall process introduces no new problems- all the problems with it are problems we already have, that we already know how to deal with. Friday (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have stumped the folks at Help Desk

I asked a couple of (closely related) questions on the Wikipedia Help Desk, here, which seem to have stumped the folks there. Perhaps Jimbo would like to weigh in? 71.70.174.217 19:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:3RR. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. -- it's not directly related to content added or removed, however it is somewhat vague intentionally, so that common sense can be used when needed. --lucid 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've read that, lucid. But when it comes to specific examples, the folks on the Help desk seem to be stumped. This question is about to roll off the top/old list of questions there onto an archive page. Perhaps you and/or Jimbo would care to weigh in with some "common sense" answers before it does? Please? 71.70.174.217 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion/protection of Ronen Segev

I don't know that this is the best place for this since I'm not sure how active you are, but I'm following the instructions at WP:Deletion review which says take it up with the deleting admin in the first place. And I'm sure there's plenty more sysops watching this page anyway...

You may recall an AfD for Ronen Segev a while back in which we both participated, which led to the article being kept. After an apparent OTRS request in June (ticket #2007011710000088) you then speedied the article and protected it. I noticed this a day or two later, and was able to use a WP mirror to rescue the cited content and add it to Ten O'Clock Classics. That turned out to be fortunate, since it was the cited sources that saved the TOC article from subsequent deletion at its own AfD.

As can be seen from both the talk page and edit history of Ten O'Clock Classics, Segev (or his associates) seems happy to promote TOC itself, and does not seem to object to his name appearing on the page (see some of the most recent edits). Therefore, wouldn't it be more sensible to create a protected redirect to at Ronen Segev instead of it being a perpetual dead end?

Regards, --DeLarge 14:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the Ronen Segev article is that there is a non-notable event that people keep trying to insert into the article, a serious problem with undue weight. I have no problem with an article about him existing, though I think both he and Ten O'Clock Classics are borderline notable anyway... but only if we can keep an eye on it. Probably your idea, though, is a reasonable one... to create a protected redirect. Can you do that? It is fine with me.--Jimbo Wales 15:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That'd be the "PL" thing. I didn't watchlist the Ronen Segev page after the AfD was unsuccessful, but I have been watching the Ten O'Clock Classics page for a few months now, and it's attracted no ill attention. It would certainly be out of place on TOC, so I can just revert any additions on that subject.

I can't unprotect the article myself -- unless you want to IAR with regards to admin nomination procedures, and just grant me sysop, checkuser, bureaucrat and oversight permissions...? No? Oh well, God loves a trier. I'll just take it to Deletion review and point them in the direction of this conversation. Cheers, --DeLarge 20:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Some Editors Are More Equal Than Others, part 32

• All editors take note: Don't ever try writing edit summaries like this on your own!¹

1 - Unless you're User:Orangemarlin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.30.46 (talk) 00:21, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Democracy -> some editors are more equal than others = correct. LessHeard vanU 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My old stalker friend, rbj (talk · contribs) is back. I note the anonymous editor has been blocked too! And yes, I love writing snarky edit summaries.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

Harnessing Wikipedia. Zimbabwe is in trouble and we cannot just watch our screens. I believe Wikipedia has grown to the extent that it can cut across the complexities that exist. Is it feasible to harness the collective power of Wikipedians from all over the world to find a solution? This was the original intention, of people working harmoniously even though separated by huge distances, colour, religion, etc. Part 13:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WP Zimbabwe

Part 11:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to WP:CSN

Greetings, Regarding this edit you may state your opinion, or close the discussion, however, it may not be proper to do both. If you have closed it as improper venue, or in your unique position as who you are, would you please come edit your conclusion to reflect that? Many thanks, Navou ^banter 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just stating a simple fact. The discussion may continue, but it will have no practical impact. If that ip number is blocked for the reasons given there and for the duration given, I will personally unblock and ask people to instead file something with the ArbCom. This would be an unprecedented step, and Community Sanction Noticeboard can't be used for that sort of thing. The whole "Community Sanction" thing is on very thin policy grounds in the first place, and what useful purpose it does serve would be wrecked if people attempt to use it inappropriately.--Jimbo Wales 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear jimbo Wales

I think your userpage needs to be protected from massive vandalism .Richardson j 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not going to do that. Do you not see the bit that says "You can edit this page!". It's a core part of his philosophy, and ours too. --Deskana (apples) 00:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole of Wikipedia needs to be protected from massive vandalism. But as it is, it's organized in such a way as to allow massive vandalism by immature attention-seekers. (This is widely claimed not to be a bug but a side-effect of a feature.) The user page of the cofounder/founder of Wikipedia is an immensely attractive target for these nitwits. Granted that they'll be vandalizing some pages on WP, let them vandalize this one: as a known target of vandalism, it will be on many people's watchlists, so the nitwits can easily be identified (and their silliness elsewhere identified and reverted), warned off, and, if necessary, blocked. -- Hoary 00:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

O.k.Richardson j 02:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you just articulated Wikipedia:Fly paper.LessHeard vanU 20:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

He won't protect it. Its "watchlisted" by plenty of editors as Hoary stated. However having jimbo's page unprotected does make finding vandals easier.--Hu12 20:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know

that you were in my home town of Adelaide (australian city capital of South Australia). I hope you found it a nice city . I sure love my home town . Have you tried a pie floater or a frog cake .

Richardson j 02:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A complicated question about PD, GFDL, and so on that you (and maybe a Wikimedia lawyer) might want to take a look at

You can see the full question here, but the short version is: Can public domain sources be copyrighted, and if not, wouldn't a Wikipedia page drawn from a PD source be PD itself, as the GFDL cannot apply to it? I bring this to you because it's a complicated legal issue for the foundation, if a page was significantly founded on, say, 1911, the edits to it (barring total rewrites from the ground up) are all minor changes to a public domain source, and are probably not copyrightable, which means that a page made from PD sources would probably always be PD, and not GFDL. I also have seen you quoted as saying that Copyleft is incredibly important for Wikipedia (especially because of forks and mirrors), and thought this might interest you personally. --lucid 03:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but I don't think this is really a big problem. If something is under a less restrictive license than the GFDL, then it really doesn't affect distributability. And PD is the ultimate in less restrictive licenses, having as it does zero restrictions. -Amarkov moo! 03:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the law, rendering the entire question moot. Things in the public domain can be modified and then the new version is copyrighted. Public domain is not "copyleft". A page made from a public domain original source can therefore be GFDL without any difficulty of any kind. Period.--Jimbo Wales 14:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said though, this could be a problem because if something like this happened (which I'll admit is unlikely, as Jimbo has himself said in interviews that even things like historical articles in 1911 are horribly outdated) the Wikipedia article would not be able to be licensed under the GFDL, as that is a form of copyright, which can't be applied to PD. As Jimbo has also stated, Copyleft is important to Wikipedia, I can probably find the exact quote very easily. A Wikipedia article being in the Public Domain, instead of GFDL, could be problematic in the future, not to mention it's just an interesting scenario --lucid 03:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think adding wikimarkup, categories etc makes changes significant enough to consider an article to be a derivative piece of art. Thus, if an article is a verbatim copy of EB1911, then taking the text from wikipedia without applying GFDL is legal, taking the text and links and categories and illustrations is not. When we have a pure PD pieces of art, like our images we mark them accordingly Alex Bakharev 04:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very valid issue especially since some misquote and misjudge Jimbo's words on the old sources and try to "clean WP" from 1911 EB and other old sources in a bot-like fashion. Once I've seen an excellent note to this degree by written Utgard Loki:

"It was absolutely endemic in 1900 to judge one's subject. 1911 EB entries on authors not only provide information but also rule on whether the authors are worth reading or not, and which works show the best spirit... The facts have not changed, largely, but we no longer pass judgments. It is not that the 1911 EB is a bad source -- it is a very, very good source -- but that it contains inappropriate judgments... [citing facts rather than conclusions] is complying fully with scholarly practice. In simple terms: there is nothing wrong with citing an old source's information, but there is something wrong with citing its valuations... Scholarly practice is to use the most current references solely so that the reader knows that the author has read everything, not because there is anything inherently better about them. In fact, most contemporary sources will be based on the older ones, especially for their primary research. If there is nothing more current, then a 19th century source is fine..."

So, yes, we need to have the PD issue settled. At the same time, if I understand the issue correctly, we are concerned with the freedom of distribution and redistribution. Having some of the WP in PD in addition to most of it in GFDL won't limit the redistribution. In fact, some of the WP is already in PD as some users in their multilicense tag on their userpages, choose PD as their second license. So, unless there is something I don't see, both using the old sources is not bad, when done properly, and having part of the WP under PD-licence is not bad either. --Irpen 04:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much that the content is PD, so much as if the content is PD only, as using one from a previously PD source would be (A user's contributions might still be under the GFDL and PD, not PD only) because then small corrects made to it are still working off of a public domain source, which would make that revision itself copyright -- which could mean that an entire article is under PD, not GFDL, with no attribution to their authors, as well as copyleft not existing --lucid 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If the article does not cite its sources it needs to be fixed regardless of their copyright anyway. Once the sources are attributed, what exactly is the problem? I don't see any. --Irpen 04:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There may be editorial issues arising from use of sources such as the 1911 Britannica, but I agree that there are no troubling legal issues because PD by definition is more free than GFDL, not less, and in any event, no one would have standing to raise any complaint. Newyorkbrad 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That rationale (setting aside the conclusion) is probably inconsistent with the statement just offered above Jimbo Wales. Moreover, an I.P. specialist would probably take immediate issue with the conclusion on standing, which is always contingent on specific facts, which have yet to be presented, let alone clearly stated.

In any event, the nuances and legal theories that may (or may not) apply here are entirely independent of the standards, practices and objectives presented by the Wikimedia Foundation pursuant to its charter. Impromptu adjudication of prospective legal disputes is, quite frankly, beyond the scope of this discussion page. dr.ef.tymac 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but "public domain" means that anyone is free to use the image for any purpose, which includes creating derivative works, using it for commercial profit, and relicensing derivative works under whatever license they choose. This means if we take PD works, we can use them for whatever we want, without attributing the author, and create derivatives (adding them into our articles) and relicense the derivative under GFDL. --Deskana (apples) 15:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

IANAL either, nor I do anal, but there are more sources that are public domain than just 1911 Britannica. On a much larger scale, all works by the U.S. Government on the federal level are PD, with some minor exceptions. Since we do reference pages created by the Feds, the concerns are not restricted to the Britannica text that has fallen out of copyright.

But even then, public domain means simply that the work is not copyrighted. Since copyleft uses copyright law to create restrictions on prohibition of redistribution/modification/lack of attribution and their kin, documents that fall outside of poyright restrictions also fall outside of copyleft restrictions. Since PD works are not copyrighted, you really can lift a PD document and do anything you want with it. (Of course, I'm leaving out the entire issue of moral rights, but that is an entirely different beast.)

Since we're supposed to be citing where we get our stuff from, this should not be an issue: Yes, we can distribute text or an image under the GFDL, because PD does not prevent us from doing that, but if someone wants to do something with the original PD text that the GFDL does not permit, then they can go straight and use the original PD source, just like we did to begin with. They would only have to obey the GFDL for any modifications we would have made to the original text, which constitute derivative works and are indeed copyrightable, or in our case, copyleftable by individual contributors. Or they could choose to follow the GFDL restrictions we placed on the PD text if they choose, because it would make their life easier. So I'm not really sure what the problem is here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Titoxd hit it spot on. I could take, say, Ruthsarian's public domain layouts and redistribute them on my site under my own license. If I didn't substantially modify them (see e.g., Bridgeman Art Library vs Corel Corporation), then I wouldn't be able to enforce my license, but there's nothing wrong with applying my own license anyway. In the context of free documentation, copying a Wikipedia article which was based on a public domain source is effectively equivalent to copying the documentation from the PD source, then adding some changes that Wikipedians made. Whether that is fair use is based on those modifications from the original, not based on the article as a whole. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

racist anti-semitic editor

Resolved

This is a tricky case and you may feel that it would be inappropriate to get involved, but you ought to be aware of this, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Kola Boof

A request was put on my talk page about an article myself and other editor deleted due to OTRS concerns.[2] Since it was deleted twice for OTRS concerns, I wish to bring it to you before I wish to do anything with that article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Complaint of 3RR

I found that someone merged Kiev and Kyiv. I explained that Kyiv is a wrong word but they still having revert. The problem becomes a edit war now. Raymond Giggs 20:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is Jimbo Wales talk page and is usually used for matters that mostly concern Jimbo or require serious attention. Edit warring, three revert violations, and similar issues can be addressed at requests for page protection, the three revert noticeboard, and administrator noticeboard/incidents.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Original Barnstar
		Congratulations, you have been awarded the origional barnstar for creating Wikipedia, which is a major accomplishment that requires hard work. --Alien joe 21:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that Jimbo's awards can be put straight into his barnstars section, to which there is a link from his userpage. :-) Lradrama 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Um also you win for existing.

Attemping to compromise on the Sanger article

To no avail...any suggestions?--Trulexicon 01:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be pretty easy to find a compromise. It is wrong for Wikipedia to take either side on this issue.--Jimbo Wales 13:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the real problem here not a debate over whether or not Sanger is a co-founder, but that people insist on summing up a fairly complex situation in a few words, when it needs more like a paragraph to explain it? --lucid 14:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, just for the record, which "compromise" version of each article(yours and Larry's) do you endorse/perfer? It might help if you posted it here so we could refer to it. TIA and regardless of who "founded" wikipedia I really enjoy it :) Cheers! --Tom 14:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think my own preferences are not all that important as to the exact wording. :-) --Jimbo Wales 14:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I was curious since you say that a compromise should be easy and you have said that you like the "current version" but the ways thing change so fast around here I wasn't sure which version that was. I also disagree with the editor below. Your imput is welcome and trolls will be trolls regardless(not referring to the editor below). Anyways, --Tom 18:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, don't you think getting involved at all with this, let alone advocacy, does more damage to your reputation than whether he's called a co-founder or not? I sure do. It makes you seem pompous and vain. Can't you be emotionally independent enough to not care? I beg, please ignore this. It just gives fuel to your enemies who want to call you names behind your back. Tn017 17:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Judging from Jimbo's replies above, I don't think you have anything to complain about. - Crockspot 20:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

CONFERENCE IN MALLORCA, SPAIN

Dear Mr. Wales,

We would like to invite you to give a conference/speech about free software, open source, and linux in general, in our hometown, Palma, in Mallorca, Spain. We are an association called InfoCoop, which belongs to the UCTAIB, focusing on developing our work within a cooperative effort, especially in education, which started two years back, as a support group for computer science teachers, and which later developed into organizing related events. Last year we invited Xavi de Blas, a university teacher from Barcelona who shoud be coming back to do his linux show later this year, last May we had Richard Stallman talking about GNU/linux, and in October, we will have a journalist, Vicent Partal who is running an online newspaper all based on free/open source software from Barcelona. Now we are trying to organize and book some more lectures, and we would be very interested in having you over here, and listen to what you have to say. The lecture would be open, and we usually count on the cooperation from club Diario de Mallorca, a local newspaper's venue which fits over 200 people. There is also further press coverage, including television, since we keep it open to everyone and invite and send information to all major organizations in the area. Obviously we we would cover travel, food and board, and your own fees. I hope we can meet soon in Mallorca, and attend your lecture, of course. Please let us know about your agenda, availability of dates for 2007-2008-2009, whenever it is more convenient for you (except July, August, everything seems to stop for the summer, over here) and costs.

Thanks for your time, hoping to hear from you soon,

Llorenç Mercer

[email protected]

Wikipedia:No original research

Hello! You may be interested in the heavy discussions and edit wars concerning Wikipedia:No original research. Cheers! The Ogre 18:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

Jimbo, I know that you will probably not answer this, but i am quite certain that someone will. Any admin, or any user, who spends any time in wikipedia cannot but be aware that there is an increasing tendency for users from Eastern Europe to user the project as a platform for their particular political platforms. Yes, I know that any user can, and should be able to, edit wikipedia. And yes, I know that wikipedia is not censored. But it is patently obvious that our friends from (mostly) Romania, Lithuania, Ukraine and Estonia have no interest in posting any articles except their particular political dogma. This just leads to ongoing edit wars between diffent national political factions of the country in question, and does not in any way enhance Wikipedia. I am fully aware that I can 3RR block, but is there no more radical solution that can be adopted for what I see as a major problem? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would hazard that with the derth of reliable sources regarding immediately pre-Communist national history, the repression of cultural and nationalist sentiment during the Soviet bloc era, and the lack of *recent* experience for the citizens in *the practices of* democratic debate, that the attitudes emanating from *some of* the editorship of those articles is not surprising - if more than a little depressing. However, it is hoped that Wikipedia is going to be around for a very long time and that eventually we will see good articles being created (by consensus) around these very subjects. In other words, remove the worst, hope for the best, and wait. LessHeard vanU 22:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As one of the editors primarily concerned about EE-related articles I wholly concur with Anthony's description of the problem although I disagree with Anthony's overgeneralization.

Yes, there are several EE editors who come here to pursue their narrow political and nationalist agendas. At the same time there are many EE editors who edit WP honestly and in good faith. They also frequently disagree which create a set of controversies that take root in a huge stack of interconnected content disagreements as many editors' views are often affected by nationalism or, at least, differences in narratives in national scholarship and/or education.

The ArbCom already threw its hands up recently at Piotrus' ArbCom. At the same time I already broached a porposal that may actually work. It is a lengthy one but if anyone has time to read it, as well as other parts of Piotrus' ArbCom they would understand what we are dealing with and, perhaps, develop my proposal or offer a better one. --Irpen 23:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. It looks as though it would need both internal and external momentum if it were to achieve its goals. LessHeard vanU 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But as the first step, it would need the editors who express their concern about the problem and look for a solution to refrain from disrespectful and patronizing tone. Thank you. --Irpen 23:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have read Piotrus comments. The basic difficulty, it seems to me, is that in political discussions/arguments on Eastern European issues, it is not possible for anyone to accept that their arguments or position might be wrong. Until editors accept that their opinions are only opinions, and not dogma cast in tablets of stone, the problem will remain. So, going back to my first comment, what is the answer? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer lies in a combination of things. Sensible enforcement of the existing policies has to, sadly, be combined with the enforcement of some common rules of decency and ethical conduct, which is less trivial, since the concept of ethics is often an implied, rather than an explicit one. That there are ethical issues along with the mere policy compliance was made clear in the case in questions.

Secondly, the answer is in the unbiased review and not of the "opinions" because editors' opinions don't matter onwiki and they should not. The reviewed should be (1) the fitness of the sources to the material they allegedly support and (2) the fitness of the material, even if sourced, to the article where it is being pushed. An example of (1) is having historic facts sourced to the newspaper article or some web-site signed by a non-historian, or worse, unsigned. Another example is passing the sources' judgment, even referenced to the academic's writings except for the cases where the judgment is widely accepted or at least very common. Being able to tell requires the knowledge of the subject, honesty and integrity since even academics fiercely disagree on judgments while mostly provide facts correctly.

On (2), the main problem is WP:UNDUE. When an account with an agenda creates a referenced section titled "Homophobia in Poland" and inserts it directly into the Poland article despite a dedicated and narrower LGBT rights in Poland article already exists the editor needs to be brought to order. The same way, the anti-Russian and anti-Soviet grievances some former Soviet-block editors have are being injected unduely into the Russia-related articles to make a WP:POINT.

Sorting this out requires not just good faith and willingness to help but also the familiarity with the subject. That's why I proposed the workgroup. ArbCom however neither accepted or rejected my proposal. Its "resolving" the case without any meaningful decision and lack of participation of the arbitrators in the workshop demonstrates its inability to handle the problem the way it should. I don't think Jimbo can help much either.

As I wrote in my original statement to the ArbCom's case, the mess will likely continue for the most part. After that, when the case was almost concluded, I came up with the proposal of the novel solution. I saw no meaningful reaction to this which, perhaps, means that my proposal is also unworkable. --Irpen 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is associated with wealth of Soviet and Imperial Russian sources that are used generously by contributors of Russian descent on Wikipedia, and which are very biased and propagandic. This leads frequently to conflict, the problem re-surfaces time and time again

[3] [4]

As long as Stalinist era, Soviet and Tsarist era sources about history are used problems will continue. We don't use Nazi sources about history we shouldn't use Soviet ones either. Of course that is just part of the problem, many other factor's exist. --Molobo 00:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This passionate entry by Molobo largely demonstrates what I was talking about. :( --Irpen 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We do not seem to have a guideline on dealing with on-line hate groups. It is my belief, that in many cases what looks like a content dipute is in fact an on-line group using Wikipedia to promote an irredentist or revanchist agenda, or even worse, engaging in incitement to ethnic or racial hatred. -- Petri Krohn 03:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ads for Wikipedia

Just curious, why don't we have commercials on Television for Wikipedia? I was shocked to see that a lot of people don't know about it. It would definatley be a nice break from that HeadOn commercial! Cheers,JetLover 23:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a charity funded by donations from the people who edit its wikis. There's no money left for TV ads - most money gets used on things like bandwidth and computer equiptment. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer is (1) the foundation doesn't have any funds for this, and (2) most people know about Wikipedia already. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Also most internet searches on Yahoo or Google turn up Wikipedia as one of the top three search results. While Wikipedia is now the tenth most popular website, it is relatively unknown among the non-internet savvy generation, but who cares? 199.125.109.26 02:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

HTML layout of Wikipedia

I have no idea how to get this information to the right person, however this should be a good start. You know that blank space at the top of every page that has a bar and above the bar is the name of the page? Like right now I am staring at "Editing User talk:Jimbo Wales (comment)" - well I have noticed that periodically other notices get stuffed in there and they are underneath (covered up by) the above text and make cutting and pasting page titles difficult, because the stuffed in stuff gets dragged along, like right now what is also there is: "• Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! • • Learn more about using Wikipedia for research •". My suggestion, is there any way of talking your developers into moving that extra stuff to above the tabs, along with the other links like Sign in and stuff like that? However, I also want to thank your developers for moving the coordinates information, such as at the top of Glen Alpine, New South Wales to below the bar. It was very annoying to have the coordinate information up above the bar. While some page names are short, others are long, and covered up the coordinates. Just because you did one thing right you didn't need to mess it up by putting something else there. 199.125.109.26 02:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)