Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 72

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75

An idea for wikipedia

Greetings Mr Wales, i've sent an email to info-en@wikimedia.org and gotten an irrelevant generic reply from someone over there saying irrelevant things. I would like to bypass whoever it is that doesn't read my email fully and presses the send-generic-reply button, and now ignores my emails completely by perhaps instead having pressed the spam button for my email address. The last email i sent has "ATT: Jimmy Wales" written on it, but i haven't received any reply. the ticket number for it is "Ticket#2011013010005844". (It was sent 7 days ago) I would rather not discuss it in public, and it seems finding a simple email address to you is difficult.

You say you are open to good and useful ideas concerning wikipedia but you give no contact information, and those at the end of info-en@wikimedia: a) do not read the emails b) ignore them or do not forward them to you or you have not read your email. Giving you my contact information HERE on a public place would require me to publish my email openly.

Please respond to the email i requested to be forwarded to you, or provide me with an other way of contacting you. I doubt that you intend that propositions for future wikipedia projects are to be exchanged and discussed openly like this.

Namaste

O D 85.97.3.43 (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Namaste. Please scroll up, click "Toolbox", click "Email this user", and then talk directly to Jimbo about your world-destroying plans. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
That only works if you're logged in. See User:Jimbo Wales#Contacting me for his email address. Graham87 02:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

ok THANK YOU BOTH! should i delete this section now?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.5.147 (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No, just leave it. This page is archived by a bot, and in the meantime it might spare someone else asking the same question. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr Jimbo, please check your spamsettings, i have sent an email to your wikia address from a gmail account 85.101.23.105 (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sure I will get to it. To warn you: I'm only working part-time this week, so I'm a bit slower than normal in responding to emails.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll wait, thank you 85.101.222.131 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

COMPLAINT FROM RUSSIAN MAN !!!

Hello Jimbo! My name is Maxim Urasov. I am russian man. My complaint consists of: Editing the russian Wikipedia i comed into collision with tyranny of russian administrators & their helpers. All my rights were violated. Ip adress was blocked, editings were abolished. They are the real vandals who hate progress & science. I think so. We (russian Wiki) have not an article about Masters & Johnson. They are the most authoritative sexologists-academics in the world who wrote "Human sexuality". This book (manual) is the basic product of scientific sexology everywhere. I found it in Internet (russian version translated in 1998) & began add paragraphs from this book to external link folder of main articles by this topic ("Sex" & another). All my actions were conformed to the basic rules of Wikipedia. They are not a spam because site where published the book is not appertain to me (foreign) & owner allows to use all information from there for free. The most important: content from the book is very authoritative source & conform to content of articles here. Administrator*s name who violated my rights is Yaroslav Blanter. His page: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Yaroslav_Blanter .I very hope for Your protection in this situation. All my rights must be restore: ip adress - unblock, rollbacks - abolish, editings - save. I*ll wait Your true resolution & results. The book is here: http://sexology1.narod.ru/ Thank You for attantion & sorry for grammatical mistakes (i am russian)! 95.158.201.7 (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that some website gives you permission to reprint portions of a book he has posted on the website: the copyright of the book is with the original authors (and with the translators in case of a translation), who both need to give permission. From your post here, it looks like you don't have that permission, and were posting copyrighted material on Wikipedia. This is not allowed, and can lead to a block when it is repeated after a warning (Russian Wikipedia may well have different practices, e.g. immediate block, I don't know, but the basic principles are the same). Fram (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
In the USA, it is Fair Use to quote a few paragraphs of a book (except for those few cases where people literally buy a book for those few paragraphs). Also, translators of a book under Copyright gain no copyright rights. (In the UK it works different, as they allow effort to count; not just creativity.) - WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, just to be fully clear here, they do have copyright of their translations, but not of the underlying work. And they can't license their translations without the consent of the author of the underlying work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No.
- WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No, the law gives the original copyright holder the right to control the creation of derivative works. In the French case the translation was not licensed. But in a licensed translation to Copyright resides with the translator under license from the original holder. --Errant (chat!) 19:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, translating a copyrighted work without proper license is a copyright violation. Translation is an example of a copyrightable derivative work cited specifically in circular 14. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Abandoned new users?

Hello. I know attracting new editors is a goal of Wikipedia. In that spirit, I am troubled by the lack of attention here combined with the problem I mentioned at the Help Desk. I may be wrong, but IMO it appears to be important enough to mention here. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is very interesting, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'm not sure what the best solution is. For others reading this, what Jesanj is talking about is that it isn't feasible to watchlist the Requests for feedback page because, by design, it is made of transcluded daily sub pages, and those are the ones that get edited most often.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

External Link? Al Jazeera YouTube Channel Live Feed

Looking for some quick feedback about an external link debate at 2011 Egyptian protests. It's been a rapidly changing article for the past two weeks and no less so today. The debated link is to Al Jazeera's YouTube Channel which has been broadcasting a live online feed since this afternoon (Mashable.com reference to YouTube's live coverage here). It's in the Wikipedia article's external links section, obviously.

  • Arguments for the link: it's within external link policy; Al Jazeera is one of the best and most proximate sources for coverage; they're streaming live online during critical events; these events are extremely important globally; the online feed is high quality, commercia- free, and unique--no other website (CNN or AlJazeera.com) has a direct link or coverage of comparable quality; the article is already tagged with Template:Current event; the article has been continually updated to reflect the most current news and sources; the link can be changed as the article changes and the underlying feed changes; the link is currently titled to reflect that it goes to a Channel page and that the coverage is live; other external links include a variety of live coverage including 'live blogs'; external links can link to news or media that wouldn't be appropriate at the article itself; IAR.
  • Arguments against the link: it's against external link policy; there's nothing unique about Al Jazeera's coverage compared to other news organizations; the link violates prohibitions on news coverage; the link won't be current once the live feed is replaced by another video; the link is indiscriminate and there are already too many live links coverage links in the section; linking to a YouTube channel rather than a specific video is inherently bad practice; the link is unencyclopedic so not grounds for IAR.
note: I included all of the arguments against I can think of, but since that is not my position, I might have missed some. Feel free to add to it.

Relevant prior discussion at the talk page, at Cptnono's talk page, and there's a 3RR thread. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion about this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and I will read over it all. I don't know enough about the specifics of the external link policy, so now is a good time to catch up.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

White Argentine's deletion

Stroopwafels help improve everyones wikimood. Kwiki (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This deletion is outrageous. Your creation is a great idea, but it is full of assholes who do nothing creative and positive, but to destroy somebody else's work. Those are Andy the Grump, GiovBag, Off2riorob, and some others. Now I see why one of your editors, Fred Bauder, created another wikisite; this one is invaded by intelectualoid scum.--Pablozeta (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Um.... Pablozeta, didn't you notice that Jimbo was one of the people that voted for the deletion of the article? Perhaps if you'd paid more attention to criticisms of the article, and less to ranting about what you seem to think is some sort of conspiracy to paint the Argentine population a uniform shade of light brown, you'd have had a happier time on Wikipedia. Personally, I got involved in the article by chance, after noticing an edit-war going on. Given the resistance from you and a few fellow editors to even attempt to justify flagrant breaches of policy, it isn't surprising that people who actually know a little about the subject of ethnicity, and don't try to support it with 19th century theories of 'race', took a stand against your attempt to tell the population of Argentina that they were 'white' whether they liked it or not. As I've already suggested to you, if you can convince them of this, you can provide the evidence, and create a properly-sourced article. Until then, I'd suggest you either find another subject of study, or confine your efforts to Wikis where your viewpoint will be more appreciated. Either way, good luck. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I got a mention - am I going to be in the washington times? Really such comments should be deleted on sight as WP:NPA - but as this one got a reply I will just strike the PA content and leave him a note about personal attacks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

If there was any viability to an idea I am pondering, you could perhaps shed the most light. I hope you will have a chance to comment. I think WMF should expand operations to include functioning as an ISP. If you could operate as such, or broker a deal allowing you to provide reasonable access, as well as perhaps reduced access to the more active participants, not only could this serve to reward those who support this site, it might even be profitable. My76Strat 04:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have the resources to actually create an ISP, and it might be unprofitable. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I can certainly understand the resource challenges associated with creating an ISP, weighed against the potential of negative profitability. From that perspective, I can understand caution. However, it seems that Wikipedia is a large enough group that effective bargaining could broker a contract with a provider like Verizon for example, for discounted services. In bargaining, the sky is the limit, and I can imagine several scenarios where many positive objectives could be met. Then again, there are all those factors, of which I have no idea, so please, know that this idea is respectfully submitted. My76Strat 17:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that a lack of any discussion, from page watchers as well, indicate this as unworthy. I can only say that I believe even I could sell something like this and make it workable. Even more so with support from the Wikipedia side of the house. But I have been called an optimist, and optimism doesn't in itself pay the bills. Thanks Jimbo for your initial response. Cheers My76Strat 07:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd love to hear comments from others. I would suggest that the kind of deal that would be easiest and make the most sense would be a co-branded offering where the actual infrastructure is handled by a partner. But this brings with it significant problems for us because it is unlikely that any partner would be willing to manage things according to our very strict principles. Would we then be implicated in the public eye for actions such as taking part in censorship and propaganda efforts, if our partner were Vodaphone? (click here for background) It's non-trivial to work through these issues, which is one reason the foundation has been very very conservative historically about any and all kinds of partnerships.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
That was a fine discourse, succinct and well formed. Even so, I am grateful that you expressed a curious interest, while stating prudent reservations. In line with the possibilities I imagine, I would not pursue, or even desire a partnership. I would frame it simply as a mutual cooperation, one that can be shown to have benefits for both entities. In the end WMF would need to have the authority to write a contract for internet service which the provider would warrant. I am sure a group could form, who would handle request through an interface, similar to ACC for example. In exchange for exemplary service in that regard, and Wikipedia conduct, perhaps some could even receive free access. I think the pay dirt would be achieved by the perhaps millions who would love to contract for reliable service at what could reasonably be two thirds of the price. And there should be a reasonable expectation of a commission which could garner windfalls for the organization. I don't think blocking a user on Wikipedia would translate to blocking the internet access. That would be the providers discretion, just as Wikipedia modus operandi should not be relevant to the cooperating providers scrutiny. Yes it would take a bit of doing, but I believe when all the Ts are crossed, it would have been something worth doing. And if nothing else, something worth considering. Best regards. My76Strat 02:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
FWIW I have pondered this in greater depth, and the cons are beginning to outweigh the pros. The reality of perceived conflicts of interest negate the potential gains and manifest as insurmountable. From this enlightened perspective, I believe a deal could be reached, but concede it as a tenuous endeavor. I do appreciate the attention given this post. With esteem. My76Strat 17:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, it is the idea of a partnership, or the endorsing of a provider which would most readily prevent implementation. To function as an ISP would eliminate some of those conflicts, and fit within a seamless objective. The resource challenges of such an endeavor would be the only pitfall I would anticipate. If the future holds technology which would allow WMF to operate an ISP at little risk, perhaps then. Or if our stature becomes so great and our resources so abound, (not an impossibility).
I stated a "seamless objective" and intended to imply WMF, as a organization which allows anyone to participate, and provides the access as well, which if you could more stringently guarantee uninterrupted access, particularly during civil unrest as recently observed. Certainly that would be an awesome accomplishment, a stepping stone in the path we are already on. Best My76Strat 18:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply

I was happy that you noticed my question in this morass putatively concerning an article in the Economist. I agree with your clarifying comments. A standing specialized review board would be problematic. Cool Hand Luke 20:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs. wikinews

Generally this doesn't warrant more than talk page discussions, but the ongoing 2011 Egyptian protests was moved only 4 hours after the event where people (particularly in that part of the world where its nearly midnight on a friday) were not given due time for discussion. I pointed out that wikipedia is not wikinews to move a breaking event in such short time but it was moved before the admin explained a discussion. The vast majority of "supports" are merely vote counting vs. WP:polling is not a substitute for discussion.

Please also see the comments after the unilateral posting even from those who supported a move. Talk:Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011#Survey](Lihaas (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)).
Genuine question: What has Wikinews got to do with anything? On this wiki, we decide through consensus. If a decision was closed incorrectly, we have all kinds of ways to appeal it, to discuss it further. If you think the article should be renamed, I suggest you start a discussion on the talk page. If you think the admin was presumptive in closing the previous discussion, talk to 'em about it. If you conclude the admin is out of order, head to AN. But, until you have pursued those many avenues of potential resolution to your dilemma, I humbly suggest that asking for the opinion of one specific editor (Mr. Wales) is unlikely to result in a successful agreement to your concern. With regards,  Chzz  ►  06:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(Gender Gap) ...then you get the women

Hi Jimbo

Re NYT article, I read this article recently:

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/100421_gender.htm

something as simple as a banner with the photo of a girl contributing to wikipedia, its a safe bet that girls are more affected by positive role models than state libraries. ;)

3smeHwp (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

also... keep being awesome! 3smeHwp (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page#Featured_sounds_vote

Just so you know. =) If it passes, it might make a rather good press release. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Wikipedia_talk:Hardcore_images#Reverted_userfication. Your input would be appreciated. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Another money-raising idea

Attach a forum to each article. Wikipedia could become the dominant player in forums, and live off obvious but unobtrusive (ala Google) advertising. I've asked at Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Chit_chat to be pointed to the historical rationale behind the present position on not-a-forum, but no link yet. The only opposition so far, apart from "we don't do that" is concern that it will draw admins away from their real jobs, into dealing with problems at the forum, and concern about the influence of advertising on article content. Neither of which is insuperable.

I understand this is possibly a really dumb idea, but would like to know why, and just want to be sure this possibility has been exhaustively, scientifically investigated, since this project is underpinned by truly creative foundational content and social policy, and so probably has the intellectual resources to implement something like this successfully. That is, unlike the above ISP idea, we'd be dealing with a solution that we (you) have some demonstrated competency in. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, we aren't a forum because that's not Wikipedia's role. We aren't here to discuss subjects, merely to have information on them. Second, your idea doesn't affect why we don't take advertising: we want to be free of corporate influence. We don't want to be beholden to advertisers, and it doesn't matter where they advertise. If they give us money, we're beholden to them in at least a limited sense. Also, by advertising on forums for subjects, we would be giving at least the impression that we tacitly approve of the advertisers, and that's not a can of worms we want to open. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
(a) It's not our role: Correct. I'm proposing we assume an additional role.
(b) We want to be free of corporate influence: Correct. A corporate Chinese wall would need to stand between the entity hosting the forums, and Wikipedia.
(c) We would be giving at least the impression that we tacitly approve of the advertisers: It's probably possible to not give that impression.
--Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The more I imagine Wikipedia with ads, the more it gives me the creeps. So I withdraw the advertising part. The current funding model is fine and, if we were to host forums, the public could pay for that. I really like the idea of attaching forums to Wikipedia articles because Wikipedia is an the index of all human knowledge, and it just makes a kind of unexplainable "sense" to me, to host (hopefully scholarly) debate on a forum attached to each item on the index. I believe it would forward cross-disciplinary as well as intradisciplinary debate; while giving Joe public a look at current thought concerning the topic. A big job, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be appropriate for another Wikimedia project, but I think the idea lies outside Wikipedia's founding goals and principles. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware it would be a radical change for the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
These forums. How would they help us to write a better encyclopedia? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No way! There's already enough problems with (unfounded) accusations of donations being made to "buy" addition/removal of article content. Advertising in any form, even as a single page link to an off-wiki forum, would only feed the fire. David Able 20:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Be ashamed

Header says it all. You agree with the essay but there are other issues you are ignoring. You are now edit warring. If anyone should be above that you should. If you do not like it simply pull the plug. Do not pretend to give something but take it away when it becomes different than you expected. Admins and editors alike would potentially face blocks for your recent action. And you could also use the talk page or see ANI. Of course, you could take methods such as asking the board to put its foot down but this sort of shenanigans is not acceptable if you are attempting to have some sort of community based system. Legal and PR concerns are an issue but stop pretending. Just say "Yes, we will censor images" and this could all go away.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that reverting an inappropriate userfication of an essay against community consensus is edit warring about anything. There are no shenanigans here, only an attempt by some people to shut down a perspective they don't like.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I don't have an opinion on that essay. I do have an opinion that essays in project space should be community essays and not be controlled by any individual - such essays belong in user space. If that essay is now going to be editable by people who aren't "approved", it's fine to stay in project space. So if you label my move as "an attempt to shut down a perspective I don't like", you're ascribing to me motives I don't have. Fences&Windows 23:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I'm sorry I said that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I hope the discussion over the essay leads to a useful outcome. Fences&Windows 01:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
There was wheel warring and you did not use the relevant discussions. That is not appropriate. You also failed to address the ownership issue which was not the primary reason for the MfD so it is a variable you ignored. Care to explain how you did not make any mistakes? The way I see it, you should at least apologize for wheel warring while not using the ongoing discussions then it would be appreciated if you explained why you ignored the primary reason an admin moved it in your edit summary. SO yes, there were shenanigans. You have made it clear how you feel about the images but if you are going to not follow process due to your personal thoughts then at least admit to it. If you think such images are damaging to the project then you are entitled. You are also entitled to abide by a double standard but don't be shocked or attempt to evade the accusation when people call you on it.Cptnono (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Nobody wheel-warred here. Fences and windows moved the essay to userspace, Jimbo moved it back. The "relevant discussion" for userfying an essay is MfD, which should have preceded any move to userspace. If the previous MfD did not take into account relevant issues, then there's no reason why another one can't be started. Complaining that Jimbo undid an out-of-process cross-namespace move as "out-of-process" is a bit warped. 28bytes (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, 28bytes. There was no wheel warring and I didn't do anything out of process whatsoever. I made quite clear that I was not acting in any kind of "double standard" capacity, and I dealt directly with the question of "ownership" and followed best practices in every regard here. Ctpnono: you either don't have all the facts, or you are seriously misunderstanding the situation. Whatever the reason, you are simply wrong here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia vandalism a crime?

I realize that you are not a lawyer, but I am curious what your thoughts are on this. Do you think vandalism of Wikipedia is a crime under the Florida Vandalism Law (since the Wikimedia servers are in Florida)? According to [1], vandalism is defined as defacing, damaging, or destroying something that's not yours without the owner's permission. Vandalism is defacing Wikipedia content, though the "without the owner's permission" part is difficult, as Wikipedia openly gives anyone permission to edit Wikipedia, but clearly states that vandalism is not permitted. Do you think that the current policies and founding principles of Wikipedia give people "permission" to vandalize Wikipedia? If not, do you think that persistent vandals should be prosecuted under the Florida Vandalism Law, or would that violate WP:NLT? Prosecuting vandals would not be an infringement of free speech since one of the founding principles of Wikipedia is that it is an online encyclopedia, not a public forum. Vandalism of Wikipedia would only be a misdemeanor under this law since reverting the vandalism costs no money. Although you are not lawyer, what are your thoughts on this? --Nat682 (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism doesn't damage anything. It just adds unwanted commits to the records. The real-world equivalent would be to say someone should be prosecuted for putting up a poster. It may be annoying, but all you have to do is take it down. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Terms of service says "Terms of service (commonly abbreviated as ToS or TOS)[1] are rules which one must agree to abide by in order to use a service. Unless in violation of consumer protection laws, such terms are usually legally binding." Wikimedia sites currently lack a TOS. Having one might help such things as teachers assigning students the task of vandalizing Wikipedia. (We have http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use; but it only deals with the copy-left copyright licence.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Throwaway85, vandalism can damage and has damaged reputations, as well as putting users' safety at risk. It is not something to take lightly; I can graffiti pretty pictures on a wall or I can graffiti someone's social security number on a wall or libelous material about Justin Bieber on a music store window. Obviously one is more serious than another. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
In this example we're really talking about two different things. The "vandalism" aspect wouldn't be a crime, however when one breaks wikipedia rules on vandalism, one could also break real laws like libel, defamation etc.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
In the legal sense, vandalism is generally interpreted as willful damage to the value of real property (i.e. damage to a material good that incurs some cost for repair or replacement). Internet sites are not 'real property' in the legal sense, and damage to them incurs negligible repair/replacement costs, so it's doubtful any court would accept a vandalism charge as valid. --Ludwigs2 15:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism has to do with damages, and as others have suggested, fixing vandalism has an almost trivial cost. Vandalism which is also libel or defamation is not a crime because it's vandalism, but because it's libel or defamation, as suggested above. Ludwigs' point is accurate on Wikipedia, but vandalizing (hacking) a commercial site could indeed lead to monetary losses, since those sites sell stuff. We just give it away for free however, so there's not much of a monetary loss. Pain and suffering, however--every time I Huggle I cry. Also, how many of you have tried the new Cluebot-integrated, platform independent, rapidly expanding anti-vandal program STiki made by User:West.andrew.g. Quite good interface, and broadening its capabilities quickly.Ocaasi (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a legal debate. I was asking Jimbo Wales what his opinion was (thus the reason why it's on his talk page).

Jimbo - Do you think that Wikipedia's invitation "Edit this page" counts as giving people permission to vandalize for the purpose of this law? --Nat682 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the law, so I can't really say. I think most of the arguments about it here made good sense. We don't give people permission to vandalize wikipedia. But even so, I'm not sure that vandalizing wikipedia would count under the law of Florida. And in any event, I'm sure sure that the police have better things to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Because I find this conversation interesting, I thank you that I would like to offer an opinion. To my interpretation and knowledge, the paradigm of Wikipedia vandalism requires each instance to be handled on a case by case basis. Whereas, rudimentary infractions, some spawned by youthful indiscretion and general mischief, are fine to be handled in house. The blocking mechanism allows sufficient consequence for most of these types of infraction. However just as a stone becomes a rock at some point, and then a bolder, an act of vandalism is possible, that not only should be reported to the authorities, but failure to report the incident, can in itself be a crime.
By this example: imagine an editor places a link to some website in an article; upon checking the link you find it to be an advertisement of sorts. You likely would revert the edit and warn the user about spamming on Wikipedia. This pebble would not necessitate police powers. Now if when checking the link, you are taken to a live webcam, and witness egregious conduct like sexual assault against a minor, you would not be blameless for not reporting it, even to the police. We would not be a respectable community ourselves, if we were even willing to tolerate certain conduct.
Most codified law holds that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and equally as many have legislated some form of censure for "failure to report a reportable incident". I anticipate little disagreement when I unequivocally state that some forms of vandalism absolutely should involve the police, and I hope Wikipedia would fully cooperate. Having said these things, exactly what should an editor do if they believe an incident should be reported? Should I call 911 and alert the police as a first step? Is there an efficient way to report through Wikipedia? And last of all, does any of what I have tried to enunciate, even make sense, or seem at all relevant? My76Strat 01:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to be rude, but concision, man. If you can say it in 4 words, why use 57? Throwaway85 (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You say that you are rude, I do not. The fact in this case is attributed only to your ignorance. The thing you do not know, or did not consider, is that in fact I have stated in 57 words that which I could have used 357. not withstanding that I also like to write. I hope this answers your rhetorical question. My76Strat 02:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
"I don't think you're being rude, just ignorant. I could have padded my prose even more. Take that." You don't sound eloquent, just self-important and officious. Knock it off. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
If there is another person, who is offended by any of my recent posts to this page, I do apologize. To any of them, while I do embrace eloquence, I never meant to sound self-important or officious. To my colleague, Throwaway85: I do apologize for having somehow offended you with the content of my initial post. I do not apologize for choosing the word ignorant to ascribe my thoughts regarding your edit, even while being concise. I do not consider you an adversary; only someone who would likely sit on the other side of debate. I am interested to hear your comments on the discussion, especially if you perhaps disagree with the content of my post. Also accept my apology for unintentionally causing this conversation, which detracts from the discussion that was taking place. Best regards My76Strat 03:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, dear Throwaway85, please relax. I try to be concise; I don't mind much if others do not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, this question seems to be going off in multiple directions. The original question seems to be: could a person be prosecuted for vandalizing Wikipedia? The simple answer to that appears to be: It is highly unlikely that Wikipedia would pursue such action. However, whether vandalism or good faith edits, legal issues can arise from libel, copyright infringements, etc... These must be corrected immediately, for they can have real consequences. The last example is more a question of ethics. If something on Wikipedia leads you to discover a "real-world" felony in progress, do you report it? That's an age old psychology question. Zaereth (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I am guessing, but I think a lot of Wikipedians would not support the prosecution of vandalism per se. In the example given for the assault in progress, it is not really the vandalism that is the issue but the assault. The law is a blunt instrument and we want to be careful about employing it. For instance, in Connecticut a law was passed (in response to some incident) that makes it illegal to intentionally destroy computer equipment - and no exception was included for equipment that one owns. So in Connecticut, if you smash your laptop into teeny tiny little bits with a crowbar, like this: SMASHY SMASHY SMASHY SMASHY GODDAMMIT SMASHY SMASHY SMASHY F***EN SMASHY SMASHY... oops, sorry. Where was I? Oh yes. Well, you could be prosecuted for that. However, I think any reasonable judge would say "Wait, he was editing Wikipedia? Justifiable crime." Herostratus (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree with the reasonable consensus that is emerging from this discussion. To clarify my initial query: If an act of vandalism seems to involve criminal activity, what is the best first action for the editor who discovers it. And: If a suspected crime is reported, roughly what action would WMF take? Especially if the reported conduct appears to be a valid criminal complaint. BTW in my example I deliberately chose a form of activity which I have heard WMF enforces a zero tolerance policy. I only ask these questions because I am genuinely curious. I hope it would never happen, but if it ever did, I wouldn't know what to do. Thanks for considering this as well. My76Strat 03:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I suppose where it becomes relevant and interesting would be to ask the question whether persistent long-term vandals of sufficient skill level to create a lot of trouble for the community could be guilty of vandalism under Florida law, and whether this fact would be of any practical use in persuading them to stop. First, such cases do exist but they are rare. Second, it would be rare for the troublemaker to actually be *in* Florida. Third, even if they were, the police do have a fair amount of discretion as to whether or not they go after people, and what with murders and armed robberies and all, I can't see why they would want to make this a priority. Fourth, I think most of the people who are persistent long term vandals are subject to social controls other than the law: at various time well-placed phone calls to a mother or a school principal has worked wonders. So, while it may be an interesting theoretical question as to whether vandalizing Wikipedia (even a little bit) amounts to vandalism under some legal definition, it really is not likely to have any practical consequence for how we deal with annoying people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
So I guess the follow on from the comment about it being difficult to prosecute is whether there is an answer in the civil courts (I think there probably is but my US civil law tends to be shaky). I think the other consideration, though, is in terms of resources. Even if you could take legal action (of some form) against individual vandals would it really make a difference? I don't think that any one vandal is so prolific that their removal would noticeably impact the level of vandalism... and it is impractical to consider taking action against many hundreds of people :D --Errant (chat!) 11:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jimbo here, and I would also extend that claim to Internet service providers. One of the main reason why ISPs don't care about abuse of Wikipedia by its customers is because it's simply not important – not as important as, say, the enforcement of DMCA violations as handed down by the RIAA or other media conglomerates. –MuZemike 14:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
In some cases it presumably will be a crime, depending on the nature of the vandalism it will sometimes amount to conspiracy to a criminal act for example.Rememberway (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments forthcoming?

I was planning to announce today a relinquishment of some of my traditional powers, as I have been doing over a long period of time, however writing that up in a precise manner is proving to be more difficult than I thought, despite my having thought quite a bit about what steps to take next. I will make a further announcement about that soon.

— Jimbo Wales, 19:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

All times are busy times, so there is no really good time to remind you of this commitment from two months ago. If I've missed a statement please let me know. I believe it is in the community interest to clarify electoral process well in advance of the next electoral cycle, and any comments you have would be particularly helpful. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Jimbo, may I ask if this process is limited to Arbcom appointments, as implied by the above siglink, or extends somewhat wider? I ask because I currently have concerns about the governance of this project and lacunae in it; I'm not suggesting you should seek consensus for relinquishment of powers you no longer wish to exercise, but for various reasons, I think some of the more traditional ones should be retained, even if subject to review somehow. If there is to be a discussion on this, or you are going to be amenable to input, I would welcome a chance to contribute. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, for personal reasons I am on a semi-holiday for a couple of weeks, but this remains at the forefront of my thinking. Input more than welcome. I'd really enjoy an email conversation with you about this sort of thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      I hope you have productive email discussions. I am also open to email conversation on this topic (my wikipedia email is enabled).
      However, I am of the firm opinion that it is preferable to discuss Wikipedia-related matters on-wiki as far as possible. I do not participate in mailing lists or IRC for that reason. Attempts to implement the results of off-wiki discussions have seriously backfired in the past. Don't let history repeat itself. Geometry guy 01:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
My Google search for how to delegate reported 11,900,000 results.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Biased !

what kind of admins you have got ?

First they tried not to accept enthiran as the highest grossing indian film , when reliable sources were provided they went on to delete List of highest grossing Indian films List of highest-grossing Tamil-language films

done just to hide the real facts of Indian cinema ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rt sachin (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For information: both of the above redlinks were deleted per Articles for Deletion, and both for lack of reliable sourcing. See here and here. In this situation, the correct remedies are to (a) provide reliable sourcing or (b) take the matter to WP:Deletion Review, although my own opinion would be that sources were insufficiently robust to sustain the validity of either article, and the deleting Admins acted correctly. Sorry, but that's the way it is. If Jimbo declined to intervene, that would not surprise me at all. Rodhullandemu 23:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Above user is the sock of the indef blocked user (for disruption, personal attacks, trolling) User:SyberGod. Has come back for a little more trolling--Sodabottle (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It does seem a shame for us to not have an article or articles about the top grossing Indian films. I'd be interested in an article about that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Did Jimbo just propose List of top grossing Indian films? ;) Seriously, though, en.wiki seems to be the default Wikipedia for developing countries, and it would do us well to drop the colonial attitudes a bit. So what if somebody starts an article on an Indian actor, the sources for which are all Hindi? We have enough bilingual editors that we don't need to be concerned. This reminds me of The Missing Wikipedians. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a complex background to these deletions, I suggest anyone interested check the relevant AfDs before making any assumption about why these articles were nominated. The key issue is that verifiable sources do not exist for Indian cinema box office income, consequently though estimates may be added to individual articles about Indian films, creating a large ranked list article consisting of dubiously sourced estimates of box-office income would fail our WP:V policy. There is an associated issue of the commercial copyright of such tables of estimates based on market intelligence (rather than financial statistics or repeatable models of income) and I would encourage feedback on the proposed draft guideline at User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. I am aware that these articles should be treated sensitively and encouraged due to the natural geographic bias of Wikipedia articles, however this must be balanced with copyright requirements and the need for a good standard of verifiability (particularly as there are a lot of hyped up publications from Indian film promoters that do not stand up to scrutiny, see the long history of Talk:Enthiran). Fæ (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Although I was thinking of it more as an essay (less fuss and bother), I'd encourage feedback on that, too. :) Copyright issues on lists are tricky. I'm attempting to get counsel feedback on the one in question here, since based on the attorney recommendations we've already received it seems that it is not copyright clear. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Most statistics in wikipedia are based on estimations, so i don't see the problem with using that kind of statistics. 190.51.151.235 (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is U.S. copyright law. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I did not get an answer at the removal discussion page from anybody there, so I ask you admins again. Could you explain me in detail why an anonymous source like boxofficeindia.com gets treated as reliable and verifiable enough to be placed in wiki? I understood, that newspapers cite them sometimes, but these newspapers just copy these numbers, because there have nothing else. If I had owned that domain, they would have cited my numbers, too, although I'm a nobody.

These dubious sites give very accurate lakh rupees numbers for the whole gross of a Hindi movie. 1 lakh is merely around 2.000 us dollars. It's a nearly perfect number! This is simply impossible to predict without machines.. in complete contrast to this, the official producers of Endhiran Sun Pictures couldn't get even exact numbers in crore rupees, where 1 cr is ca. 200.000 us dollars. They said, they made alltogether a minimum 375 cr, while others said 400 to 450 cr, a difference of many million dollars! Please explain your decisions..--Wangond (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see no benefit in rehashing on Jimbo's talk page the exact same explanations that were clearly spelt out several times in the AfDs and the list article talk pages. BoxOfficeIndia explains clearly on their website that their numbers are not based on any verifiable accounts nor estimated in any way that the estimates are repeatable by anyone else. It is not uncommon for contributors to confuse apparent precision with accuracy. Fæ (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The last time I spoke to an associate counsel on lists, a few days over a month ago, she said, "Unless you know the criteria involved in creating the list, it is impossible to even gauge the potential of a court finding that it warrants copyright protection. And unfortunately, even if you do know the criteria, it is very hard to predict what a court will say (especially because the courts vary in their opinions in different circuits on this matter) when there is a degree of creativity involved. You are really only safe if the list is purely formulaic." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
who is boxofficeindia? give me names, professions, company details.. you still don't get my question.. you won't give me an answer and ignore it. why? Is anonymous amateurish pseudo-professionalism part of any encyclopedia? I demand an explanation for this. Why don't you answer this question?--Wangond (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
This is boxofficeindia. If you want more details than that, I'm afraid you'll have to contact them yourself. Their contact information is here. If your question concerns why that source is reliable enough to be trusted, I'm afraid you may be at the wrong venue; the reliable sources noticeboard may be better for that. I typically do not mix my copyright hat with other works, and once the copyright question is resolved do not intend to interact with this article any further. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The question went to Fæ. The information given at the about us site is zero, since not even one person is mentioned, who may be stand responsible for the content. And the email adresses are again shrouded in anonymity. I'm not willing to "investigate" the matter like a police officer. That's not my job. That's the job of wikipedia officials who approves these sites in deletion discussions. My question still is denied a proper answer. I don't know why it's impossible for you to understand that. I'm not asking to review the deletion. I'm just asking u guys why such crap is tolerated for Hindi films and a Tamil/Telugu gross collections site with official statements gets deleted ? Why this double standard and bias against South Indians?--Wangond (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Well, I'm not Fæ, but I'll see if I can clarify a bit. The people who administer deletion discussions are not "officials" in the sense that you may be thinking. Administrators do have some extra abilities (such as that of blocking contributors and deleting pages) and they are trusted to close deletion debates, but it is the community that determines these things. That is, administrators do their best to enact the will of the community as it is expressed in these discussions (keeping in mind the provisions of Wikipedia:Consensus). I've worked with the administrator who closed this discussion, User:Stifle, and I believe he does his best to be scrupulously fair. I do not believe he is operating off of any bias, but rather doing what he believes the community requires of him. (It is not his job, either, to investigate the matter like a police officer. Rather, the people involved in such debates need to persuade each other of these points.) Ordinarily, if you have questions about the closure of an AfD, you would begin by speaking politely about it with the administrator who closed the AfD. If you think that the closure was procedurally wrong, you may ask for review of that decision. But I would really encourage you to carefully read and follow User:GRBerry/DRVGuide before considering doing so. Alternatively, if after sufficient time you still believe that the source on which this article is based is inherently unreliable, you may wish to consider discussing the matter again. (I would probably ask for feedback about the reliability of the source at WP:RSN first.)
I'm sorry if you feel that these subjects are being treated unevenly. The discussions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Tamil-language films and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd nomination) went very differently, obviously. I am not familiar enough with the sources of either to really have an opinion on why that happened or whether that was fair. But I've seen articles that I thought were deleted for less than stellar reasons and others that I felt should be deleted which were kept. I know that it can be frustrating, but I do believe the model works overall. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Er, Wangond, I misunderstood the direction of your question. I put the article up for deletion because (as per my nomination) I believe it fundamentally does not meet the policy requirement of WP:V. The fact the the people supplying the numbers in question are anonymous, the numbers appear fabricated on guesswork and the site provides no real explanation as to veracity (apart from unsupported exultations that their numbers are incredibly accurate) was glossed over by the majority of opinions in the AfD because enough Wikipedian enthusiasts would rather overlook policy rather than loose an article they like (see WP:IAR). The outcome is not my doing or that of the closing administrator, it's just how consensus works on Wikipedia which I believe is for the good in the long term. The current issue of copyright is a separate discussion and not something that can be glossed over due to popularity. If you want to see better consistency for this type of list article I suggest you wait for Moonriddengirl's essay on list copyright to be issued and then consider running a request for comment if you wish to reach a meaningful consensus on how it should be interpreted along with WP:V for the dubious sources in question. Cheers Fæ (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Moonriddengirl on wikipedia there are enough people to defend bollywood but not tamil cinema or any other Indian Film Industry ! if the sources were not good the article List of highest grossing Indian films should have been deleted before but when a tamil film hit the top jealousy took over few admins ! Rt sachin (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I really find it quite unlikely that there are many, or any, Wikipedia admins that would feel jealousy about the success of a Tamil film, or even know which films were Tamil and which were not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why these pages were deleted soon after enthiran hit the top ? it just happened ? why no one bothered to delete when hindi movies were at the top ? Rt sachin (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest grossing Indian films I can assure I wouldn't even know the difference between Hindi and Tamil. As I stated quite clearly in my close, we cannot ignore the verification policy. It has nothing to do with the prejudices you imagine in others. It is often the case that a users attention may draw them to nominate several articles that share the same problems in a relatively short span of time. This is not indicative of a conspiracy or bias, it just means someone noticed a group of articles that share the same apparent flaw. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

no , look around , 1 admin had the set of pages under control for so long , on enthiran he denied the links of the producer's site calling it not a reliable source , later when Times of India link proved the gross is the best of all indian films he marked the whole set of pages for deletion !

first he didn't accept and reverted any gross change , when reliable links came up he had no option than to mark the set of pages for deletion ! and forced the delete with a mob ! how was that ? Rt sachin (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears you are referring to me (not an admin by the way) and you are plainly seeing bias where there is none, try and stick to assuming good faith. Your claim about timing does not add up, if you check the talk page archive for Enthiran, the many, many unprovable claims that it had broken all previous records date as far back as October 2010. As for the Times of India "proving" box-office income, I'm afraid it really does nothing of the sort, it is just another unverifiable estimate but has been left in as a quotation from a national paper rather than a statement of fact. All I have ever done with Enthiran and some of the other articles is attempt to apply the verifiability policy consistently for a topic that tends to over-inflation of figures due to hype and spam from film promoters and film fans. As for prejudice, you may want to examine my contribution history and GLAM related interests to see how I am fully committed to encouraging Wikipedia articles about non-English topics to balance natural geographic bias due to comparative ease of access for English sources compared to other languages. Fæ (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

how long these pages List of highest grossing Indian films and List of highest-grossing Tamil-language films were present ? Rt sachin (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Indian list was created on 7 October 2010, the Tamil list on 16 April 2006. Fram (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Holiday

Careful readers will note that I'm going to be on a bit of a holiday for a couple of weeks. I'll still be around now and then doing a little bit, but not a lot of heavy lifting for a bit.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Have a nice holiday. -- 575Revolve Number and Word 13:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
And it would appear that congratulations are in order. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations Jimmy!!! :) Take as much holiday as you need. --Aude (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Have a happy holiday! :D Crystal Linux Talk to Crystal Linux... 18:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Grim situation

Dear Jimbo, please study all contributions of this user. They can tell you how grave is interaction between admins and users. He was treated like vandal, while he was not vandal. 178.63.168.228 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not a vandal, but certainly a troll, judging by the repeated edit attempts to complain at Talk:Main Page. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Not even a troll, but person mistreated by admins acting like automatic bot. He wanted to put some redirect to users not approvable by Wikipedia, but approvable by Wikinfo. Victim even was accused of being nazi extremist, described here in earlier block log. 178.63.168.228 (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
They were dissing wikipedia while spamming here for some other wiki and vandalised someone's signed talk page comment with the misleading edit summary 'rvv' [2] [3] and yet took quite a few edits to be blocked for longer then a week and you say they were mistreated? Um sure... Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeking your opinion

Hi. I'll make this brief, since I don't want to take up too much space. A deletion review is underway here for the recently deleted article about the GNAA. Opinion seems to be brutally divided, and I don't think we're gonna hit consensus (the head count is 8 in favour of retaining the deletion, 7 opposed, and there's still the admins comments to come upon closure). Would you be kind enough to read the DR and add any comments you see fit to, since we're aiming for rounded stalemate right now. Thanks. BarkingFish 02:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong view. It may well be the case that the irony here is that our taking so long to delete their article when they weren't notable, gave them an aura of being notable that led to significant press coverage. I am curious to know whether the *group* is really notable, as opposed to the one guy. But I don't really want to be involved, as I'm not very interested in the subject.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
AFAIK, AfDs aren't votes. It's up to the closing admin to decide who has the stronger arguments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

email

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks--Mbz1 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hacking of my email accounts (for the record only)

Hi Jimbo, what I am going to write next is only for the record because I assume it is the first, and I hope the last incident of this kind on Wikipedia.
In the end of last year my email accounts were hacked. From the very beginning I suspected it was somehow connected to Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia Commons, but at first I was not positive about it.
Then silently watching the hacker activities on my account I knew it was connected to my editing of Wikipedia and Commons.
I hoped to catch the hacker, but eventually I decided just to get read of it, and changed my passwords.
In a few weeks after that I got email from alleged "gmail" services that requested me to email them my password in order to protect my computer from viruses. This email made me to believe that the hacker no longer had an access to my account, and I hoped it is the end of the story except it was not.
On January 12, 2011 I got a threatening email, in which somebody impersonated a member of Arbcom user:PhilKnight, and then on January 19, 2011 I was contacted on the matter of my alleged emails on my Wikipedia talk page. I was really glad, when I was contacted at my talk page because it became a great confirmation of the events that happened before.
I did report the hacking to IC3.
As I said in the beginning this post is only for the record, but if you'd like to get more information, I will be happy to provide it for you. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Me too. I got sent some evidence about this, and it was quite disturbing. Anyone interested is welcome to ask for copies of the evidence from me, or as much as I have. It seems that some people saw themselves as above the rules of Wikipedia, which is rather sad. Anyway I don't see why this is any more relevant on Jimbo's talk page than the nice Japanese meal-tax person, but if others do then they are welcome to discuss it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Goodness. I am very far from the tech side of things, but I hope you both write to Danese Cooper, the CTO, with full details and evidence. I'd appreciate seeing that as well, preferably by email, so that if there is any aspect of it that would allow the culprit to cover his or her tracks, we not tip our hand.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'll send you the whole lot. If the hacker is apprehended then that will help to discourage others from thinking that hacking is an acceptable method of uncovering behaviour that breaks Wikipedia policy.
Mbz1, can I assume you have no objections to my sending Danese and Jimbo all of the screenshots that have been sent to me? Some of them contain what I presume is your full name, but it looks like that appears in some of the files you've uploaded to Commons anyway, so it's not something you keep secret.
I do think the community and the individuals affected should have the opportunity to comment on some of the underhand dealings that have gone on, but I'll make sure not to give away any information that the hacker might use to cover their tracks, when arranging that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Demiurge1000, I strongly object you sending those "screenshots" to anybody. They contain no information on the hacker, and your proxy-editing for the hacker, will only help it to stay in the shadows versus going into open and revealing itself at last.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the screenshots don't say anything about the hacker in themselves alone, but in conjunction with Wikipedia diffs of what the editors involved did subsequently, they are proof that the hacking took place. A screenshot purports to show a banned serial sockpuppetteer asking you to post something on Wikipedia, and the diff shows you posting exactly the words asked for in the screenshot. A screenshot purports to show you asking another editor to post specific text on Wikipedia in order to get a controversial DYK onto the main page, and the diff shows that editor using exactly those words as requested. Since the screenshots show these messages as having been screenshotted by the person signed in to your gmail account, the fact that they match exactly with the dates, text and topics of the subsequent Wikipedia diffs is solid proof that the hacking took place. (It's implausible to suggest that you'd take such screenshots yourself and send them out to anyone.)
On a practical note, may I suggest you send the reference number of the IC3 report to Jimbo and Danese, if you haven't already? From what I can remember of filing reports with IC3, anyone with the reference number can add information to the report. So that would allow WMF people to add anything relevant from information that they have or information they receive.
I do have some additional suggestions concerning what's been said about IP addresses involved, but I'll save comment on that for the email. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

twitter verification

Since I'm posting about my upcoming speech (tomorrow!) in Saudi Arabia, I was asked to verify my account on twitter, which I don't have time to do officially, so I just wanted to say here in a way that Wikipedians can vouch for that @jimmy_wales is me on twitter.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure can, this is Jimmy Wales confirmed at wikipedia confirming his twitter account. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Does that have to be done because of the turmoil in that region?-RHM22 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
As Jimmy's twitter account is not confirmed its more likely just a good faith request for verification. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Still awaiting answer

Hi again Mr Wales, i am wondering what the status is regarding your answer on a project idea, sent from oda....@gmail.com a few weeks ago, please check out site http://www.microvga.com/ when you do, it is relevant to the topic. thank you,

O D. 88.233.13.236 (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I am somewhat on holiday, so very far behind in email.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Inquiry

Are the rumors that you used to be a proffesional boxer true?? Pencilsvspens (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am unaware of any such rumors, but in any event, no. I have never been a boxer, professional or otherwise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

German Article of the day

Dear Jimbo, German wikipedia is proud to present the article of the day: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hauptseite . Really thrilling, really amazing, worth a glimpse: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremdk%C3%B6rper_in_Anus_und_Rektum You might improve your German reading it, there's a lot to learn.

Yours sincerly --12:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnanamonster (talk • contribs)

I suspect that some writer of featured articles in German is working in purpose in the grossest articles it can find, to see if he can have them featured in the main page. Just for the challenge, you know. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't regard this the 'grossest article' to be found, there might come stuff which is much more special interest ;-) --Jnanamonster (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a few ideas about non-sexual topics that would be interesting to see in the main page, but WP:BEANS says that I should firmly close my mouth. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The nice thing about their article is that it both brings forth a new idea, and also suggest where one should put it. Ocaasi (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, someone tell me I'm not the only one to find all of the above discussion in this section to be rather immature. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 03:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

So? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

Ruby-gate

You recently participated in a straw poll regarding the above article. New options have been crafted at Talk:Ruby-gate#New options, and your input is welcome. -Rrius (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Gender gap.

The reason why there is a gender gap in wikipedia is obvious: the percentage of women on MMORPGs is lower than the percentage of men. 190.51.191.211 (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Your name came up...

...in "you and Mr Wales are both guilty of misinterpretting the guidelines" on my talk, so I thought it only polite to mention the thread; I know you're on hols and prob don't care, but still; User_talk:Chzz#Robert Lawrence (was: Thanks). Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers; well said.  Chzz  ►  13:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please help: torsion field article WP:OFFICE

I already sent e-mails but they are only playing with words, i`m not a programmer, i am a simple user and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field it respects no rules, it must be deleted..its atacking people and businesses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I recommend bringing this to the attention of WP:BLPN. The people there will gladly review this for BLP violations.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you delete my topic? Also if it is better to discuss the situations in Wikia unblock me there and i will talk to you there... Slipknot Darkrai (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Please email community@wikia.com for discussion of such issues. Thanks.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

An unusual AfD you may find of interest

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Hutus#List_of_Hutus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 20:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Its been a pleasure

I know that we only interacted a couple times but I wanted to let you know that I still have a lot of admiration for you and for the project but after being drug into repeated discussions based on petty and ridiculous arguments (such as doing to many edits fills watchlists and users being offended when I got WikiProject United States up and rolling again) I have come to realize that there are too many editors more interested in causing drama than those who actually want to build an encyclopedia. If an interest in editing and building an encyclopedia returns I may as well. I am not asking for you to intervene and I am sure that some editors will comment that I am just disgruntled but I am fully aware that the project will go on and be just fine without me, I just wanted to say goodbye and that a veteran editor with over 200, 000 edits and hundreds of articles created was leaving due to the unfortunately frequent Wikidrama. Good luck and I look forward to seeing where the project goes. --Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

New editing bar

Dear Jimbo

Sorry to disturb you on something like this but there is an issue with the new editing toolbar. I don't know if others have had the same problem but I've had problems with the new one in that the buttons that do the automatic coding (the Bold text, the embed file one etc.) do not enter anything onto the page at all. Also the Advanced, special characters and help links all do not work either. I wish to ask if it's possible for there to be an option for you to choose to go back to the old format for editing similar to with the main page format choice. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My preferencs->Editing tab -> scroll down to "Usability features" and uncheck "Enable enhanced editing toolbar". Rich Farmbrough, 19:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC).
Thank you, Rich. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There was a problem where clicking the Wikimarkups sent them into the summary or subject/headline box instead of the text edit area, as well as the ref links doing the same. I believed that was fixed though? as mine seems to be fine two days ago after an annoying couple of days. It may have been related to the last Java update at the beginning of the week and after purging Wikipedia cookies everything seems back to normal. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Even so, I much prefer the old one as you know then that what you click on will appear rather have a hit and miss that the new one does. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Reducing interface complexity  Chzz  ►  19:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Update--Phishing/hacking of editor's email account; outing; community ban?

As was recently discussed on this page, a wp editor had his private email account phished. And then hacked. This incident involves phishing (illegally posing as an internet provider to obtain a wp editor's password), and illegally breaking into, viewing, and copying the wp editor's private emails.

The scope of the matter has now expanded.

A wp editor ("Sol Goldstone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)") distributed over the internet the wp editor's private emails, which had been obtained by phishing. "Sol Goldstone" tried to hide behind a proxy server. But our systems people were not fooled. Kudos to the wp systems staff for ferreting this out. "Sol Goldstone" has now been indefinitely blocked.

A discussion has been initiated as to whether "Sol Goldstone" should be subjected to a community ban (inasmuch as indef blocks are, from time to time, lifted).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a no-brainer to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo...

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

I do not think I have to say more. It's a mess. N419BH 02:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I fully understand that you have better things to be doing with your life right now, but as regards Wikipedia, this is a critical issue, and not just for me. I was going to email you regarding governance before all this happened, but events have taken a different turn. Your opinion, even as a holding position until you can deal with it fully, would be welcome. Regards, Rodhullandemu 02:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletions from Category:American journalists

The ones I removed are in subcategories. Maurreen (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for removal of reviewer rights at en.wikinews

Hi Jimbo, I just thought it would be wise to notify you that a process has been started at en.wikinews to have your reviewer rights removed - a notice was left on your talk page there, but since I don't know how often you drop by, I figured it was prudent to leave a link here for you to reach the discussion. You may find the request here. Regards, BarkingFish 13:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on talk page

You might be interesting in commenting here. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

According to his own article, it says "Jimmy Donal 'Jimbo' Wales". That gives the assertion that "Jimmy" is correct (not even Jim). Additionally, I had a brief e-mail communication during the PC trial, and the e-mail back is also headed as "Jimmy Wales". CycloneGU (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Letter of recommendation

I'd like it if you addressed my likelihood of success in a geoscience field with my ability to do research. For an article, I think I'll put forward Pillan Patera with other on the craters of Io as examples of thoroughness for the amount of material available. I'd also like you to mention the work I put into the Wikinews article] back in 2006 as a character reference. I haven't ever written a letter of recommendation but I'd use this to follow this suggested format [4][5]. The deadline is March 3 for submission of letters of recommendation at scholarships@seg.org. So, I imagine it might go something like...

"Dear Sir or Madam:

In my capacity as co-founder with a vested interest in Wikipedia, I first came into contact with Rachel Bush through her authorship of a Wikinews article. Written at age 15, it concerned self-interested edits from U.S. Senate employees, who removed information from senators' biographies that put their employers in a negative light. Rachel has written an abundance of articles for Wikipedia concerning astrogeology, among them Pillan Patera and a systematic research of lunar craters."

Well, I guess that's the basic text. Thank you very much again! Daniel Bush (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending Changes

Since reviewer rights are being brought up (and how I happened to think of it at the same moment I have no idea), what is happening with Pending Changes? It's been nine months since the start of the proposed two month trial, and while I do not argue to remove it (if it's working where it presently is, leave it), I have not been actively looking at the queue because I wasn't sure if the project was continuing. I never heard news about it, so what is the latest official word on this? Has the project been scrapped? I recall we were supposed to have Version 2 in November. CycloneGU (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you check your watchlist ([6]), you'll see in the Community Announcements section a link to a community discussion on that issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I am fully aware of the Community Discussion page; in fact, I was there first. However, that is merely a community discussion. My question is more along the lines of the newer version of Pending Changes which was supposed to have a November trial. The discussion leading to THAT (and probably insulting a few people incidentally in the process) resulted from a dramafest on this very talk page in September that lasted for a full month. THAT came about after I found a discussion in archive 64, but I noticed plenty of questions still arising, so I manually edited above that discussion (in an unusual archive edit) to redirect to the talk page should anyone have any further questions. Boy, did those questions come fast. Now I am going back to the technical side of it, not the community discussion part. CycloneGU (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Just dump Pending Changes, Jimbo; puh-leeze see your way clear to support this change. Anyone can still edit, they just need to register. Do it and you foil bored school kids on school computers. The day of IP users as editors should end asap, and I predict it will happen sooner or later, and when it does, that vandalism will be cut by a substantial amount. The fastest and most effective solution! Jusdafax 04:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Wishful thinking, Jusdafax, but I can tell you that the dedicated or interested will register to vandalize. And in any case Jimbo has himself stated it's preferable that vandals are on IPs. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 04:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Jeremy is unfortunately completely correct. Vandals will register and we will ban them, they will sock-poppet over and over and it's just more mess for admins. matching them. Using PC lets regular users also watch the anons. and actually takes some of the work off of them on articles. I rather enjoyed helping out where I could.
Let's not have a long drawn-out bit here, folks...I just want to know from Jimmy if this is still being considered. I haven't used it for a few months but it seems some still are, and are noticing huge improvements. I think just having a new trial with strict and set guidelines (is one month enough?) might be able to get some support if changes can be demonstrated before we vote on it, and if approved then everyone can see the changes (myself included), and then we can get a vote on whether to keep or scrap the thing after that - administered by someone from corporate, not just another user. or administrator on the Wiki. That's how I feel would keep everyone civil and respectful on this. CycloneGU (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a very strong supporter of Pending Changes. Here is the latest: [7].--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, with respect Jimmy, I am aware of that page. That is simply the latest community discussion. My question is the technical side. Is the feature still even in development, and is there therefore any sense in having this debate? From your comment, it sounds like it is, so what is the likelihood we can get a fairly run poll done, perhaps by a bureaucrat, to determine whether another trial can be held? By now most tempers should be calmed, except possibly a few, and we can have a civil poll on a unique page to have a new trial agreed to; if that is a success and a new trial is approved, I would be a willing participant in making sure clear guidelines for everything are in place. CycloneGU (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Cyclone. I'll chime in from the other side (as someone who doesn't feel PC is worthwhile) and say that I, and I think many of us, would also support a hopefully final poll, done fairly, or formal Rfc that would lay the issue to rest one way on another. It seems to me that much of the concern on blatant vandalism is based on BLP issues and past snafus in that regard. In an attempt to think a bit beyond this: If the community rejects Pending Changes, or there is still no consensus, and required registration is not an option as it is a 'pillar', what about making all BLP's semi-protected as a matter of policy? It could take some of the heat off the WMF. Thanks, Jusdafax 01:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Jimmy, let me ask a really dumb question - why doesn't the Foundation just step in and say, "this is a part of the service we are providing" and implement pending changes globally? There are certain things that just exist as a part of the software that individual projects can't control. Why not make this a part of it? You are never going to convince "purists" in any endeavor of life. You see it in sports - it took instant replay in baseball forever to come along because the "baseball purists" consider officiating errors to be an integral part of their sport. Well, I don't think that we should consider editing errors to be an integral part of wikis. --B (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for your thoughtful Reading

Dear Mr. Wales:

This is not a request for any action on your part.

And maybe you will read the link content and tell me to get lost because I've been rude.

I have been rude, I admit it. I'm not always nice to people who display a spontaneous contempt towards me because they think they know more about a given subject than I do just because their unexamined opinions happen to coincide to established academic belief (it does not require an advanced degree in the history of ideas to realize how often in the past this has been WRONG). I have an even more difficult time being nice to those who assume an authority that their statements or acts prove them incapable of administering in a genuinely impartial and consistent manner, such that crimes are winked at while jaywalkers like Tupac get beaten up and thrown in jail.

I will gladly be banned from Wikipedia if it means that the page Shakespeare Authorship in its present highly prejudicial form, that has been skewed beyond recognition as a legitimate NPOV document through a long history of bullying, does not appear as a "featured article." I say this because I actually do care about Wikipedia even if I actively hate some of the things recently done in its name. Thank you for your wonderful work in helping to create this (still very imperfect) resource. I have been one of the few academicians I know who has repeatedly in academic contexts (locally anyway) defended Wikipedia from some of the slings and arrows of outraged cultural conservatives who just don't "get it." That makes this communication a cosmic irony. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BenJonson#Discretionary_sanctions

I will read responses but not respond again on this page unless asked to. That is out of respect for what I would regard as true Wikipedia values.

Best regards.--BenJonson (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am aware of the situation and will continue to monitor it. The debate has sparked a personal interest in the Shakespeare Authorship question, a topic about which I know very little. However, my initial inclination is to point out to you that "established academic belief" is what generally ought to priority over original research by Wikipedians. If you think that established academic belief is mistaken, you may wish to seek to influence that debate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
There is an interesting review of James S. Shapiro's book on the Shakespeare authorship question which can be seen here. The review includes (see text I have underlined at end): "But if the already well-known fact that Oxford died in 1604, disappearing from the scene well before the composition of King Lear and The Tempest, hasn't deterred his followers, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that Nelson's far fuller documentation has likewise failed to thin their ranks, currently carpet-bombing Wikipedia." Johnuniq (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
To BenJonson - to paraphrase Jimbo; Wikipedia does not concern itself on whether the best, peer reviewed, reliable sources are correct, only that they are the best references available. Those are the ones that hold sway, and the project is perforce required to reflect that orthodoxy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Information lock down Raymond Allen Davis incident

Are we again under lock down like here: Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia? The whole US media is following a US government censorship request and is repressing information about this case. I would be just naive to think they did not ask Wikipedia as well in this case as the did in Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia. Recent editing activities might support this theory. Dawn is a reliable source and US media is clearly censored. This information is based on a reliable source nevertheless it gets continually cut out like many other important information as well. What do we do? Could you please tell us what information the US government wants to include? Did you and other editors already help to censor certain information? This all strongly reminds me on Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia. IQinn (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued censorship continued - IQinn (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No one from the US government or anywhere else has mentioned this to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
They could have put you under a Gag order anyway :)) so that is fine. Nevertheless the cutting out of information that is based on RS continues Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia style. IQinn (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't regard orders of that type to be constitutional, and so I would very publicly fight such a thing in court. I absolutely do not agree that this is "cutting out of information that is based on RS" - it looks like unconfirmed (by anyone else) speculation (rather than hard reporting) by a dodgy news source. Even if you don't agree with that assessment, please acknowledge that the people who are arguing against inclusion aren't doing so in any sort of unusual way. It's a wikipedia debate, not a conspiracy!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
"It's a Wikipedia debate, not a conspiracy." Widespread recognition of this would eliminate half the drama around here.  :) Deli nk (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you just explain or provide references why Dawn (newspaper) is a "dodgy news source"? That seems not to be the case. IQinn (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Large scale cut out 2 of any connection to a found GPS chip and the possible connection to the Drone attacks in Pakistan continues despite this information is verified by multiply reliable sources Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia style. This is highly damaging our reputation. Leadership needed. Time to come out. IQinn (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
People just keep removing information where reliable sources are easy to find for and keep deleting Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia style. Hmm what is going on Jimbo? IQinn (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this article is subject to a perfect storm of indefensible Wikipedia practices. First, it concerns a living person, meaning that editors are requested to look over even well-documented statements in the media, mull them over, and remove anything nasty-sounding that they don't personally think seems to have more "important" sources favoring it than disagreeing. Next, sources must be reliable, and by definition a Pakistani newspaper is not a reliable source (I thought say that was rhetorical excess on my part, but it's actually the general consensus of a discussion at the article's talk page). Now suppose you somehow find sources reliable i.e. American enough to write a BLP - well, the person making the censorship can argue he's following WP:BRD, which means that you're supposed to spend days or weeks arguing with him on the talk page as he names a long series of irrelevant policies and in the meanwhile nothing you add goes in. Even if you strike down every single one, he finally can take refuge in WP:NOTDIR and say that "not every detail belongs in Wikipedia", which means it's up to him to arbitrarily decide what goes in and what stays out. (Deletionists will do this even for the least important article on Wikipedia, and certainly for anything with political ramifications) Wnt (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there are reliable sources in Pakistan. Seems a bit racist to claim the opposite. Pakistani reliable sources are not reliable sources? And that is based on what? Your personal opinion and a link to a discussion that is just part of the systematic removal of information we speak about and where there is NO consensus at all that all Pakistani sources are not reliable. Quite an unusual claim against general consensus and policies and that follows exactly the argumentation that was used by administrators who helped Jimbo during the Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia black out were information was repeatably removed by our own people. What is going on Jimbo? IQinn (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
What it looks like is going on is a routine discussion about reliability of sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews

Duly letting you know of this conversation on your Wikinews talk page. Regards, — μ 20:53, March 4 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Servers in Florida

Yo, Jimbo (or talk page watchers). Any particular reason Wiki-servers are based in Florida? Was in for financial, leagal, or convenience reason....a combination...or something else? I have a feeling this has been answered before, so if some helpful in-the-know editor could point me to a prior discussion of this, I would be very interested. Thanks! -- David Able 05:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

When Wikipedia started to get big, and I made the first big order of 8 new servers (we had been running on 2-3 older servers before), I was living in St. Petersburg, Florida, and it was convenient for me to install the servers close to me for maintenance purposes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please contribute one minute of editing this specific locked down page.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Monthly_donations/en

Please delete the Please help us reach our 2010 goal: $16 million USD box at the top. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You lost me there. Why?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps because it is already the third month of 2011? The message possibly projects the image that either "we" are careless in the maintenance of the project, allowing apparent old messages to remain visible, or that we have still failed to achieve a year old target - either way it does not promote a positive image. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I don't have anything to do with that wiki, but I just requested a password.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Which MUDs Influenced Jimbo?

As a former MUDer myself, I was very curious to learn from Jimmy Wales that you were a MUD enthusiast. Which MUDs influenced you in particular? (I'm mostly just curious but it might be something worth adding to Jimmy Wales).

Blelbach (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Like most trivia, it is not worth adding anywhere. I was a big participant in TinyTIM for awhile.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

New arrival?

Meanwhile, what has happened there? I hope everything is OK, and our thoughts are with you. 86.178.29.76 (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews

I've left a loooooong message for you on your en.wn talk. I hope it goes some way towards straightening things out, and I also hope you find the positive possibilities that have emerged interesting. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

direct link — μ 14:37, March 6 2011 (UTC)

De-sysopping question

Trivia aside, you should now be more than fully aware of the controversy that has resulted as a result of my de-sysopping. A cross-continent move of dwelling to settle with a new partner, and a new child to boot, are all demanding in themselves. However, if you are here to deal with trivia, I would hope than you could set aside even a little time to take a look at this, and maybe even express a holding position. But you haven't. I know the demands on your time are manifold, but somehow, I still trust your judgement, should you consider that trust worth having. Meanwhile, I'm not happy about being dangled like a puppet on a string until my ultimate fate here is determined. You could, if you liked, step in and say "this is how it is", and I would accept that, since I have nowhere else to go in particular. If it means that I leave Wikipedia, I might find something else to do; but I would prefer not to have to do that, because I am comfortable with what I've done here. Rodhullandemu 00:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Your de-sysopping seems fully justified to me, I'm sorry to say. Your threats to ArbCom convinced me only all the more.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
So you have effectively deprived me of one objective avenue of appeal. Disgusting, and you could at least have had the courtesy to express that in private. So much for Ayn Rand's libertarian philosophy, which is at least based on the Aristotelean model of the "good citizen". I'm out of here, since you do not appear to appreciate the value of committed contributors. Rodhullandemu 00:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
While Jimbo didn't elaborate, you do realize he's privy not only to the public threads, but to all of Arbcom's email, right? Unlike everyone else who's commented on email they haven't seen, he actually has access to what he terms "[y]our threats to ArbCom". But while your appeal here may have been unfruitful, no one has taken away your right to appeal to the community for resysop'ing. Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to add that I would not have responded publicly, except that I was asked publicly. I deeply respect contributor privacy, and had the request remained private, I would have only commented privately.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • it scarcely matters any more. When the ultimate arbiter here expresses a prior opinion without a proper review of the evidence, there can be no confidence in that decision. The ArbCom discussions did not involve any meaningful input from me, and therefore are arbitrary, biased, and apparently final. That is why I want to have no further input into this project, since it is fundamentally flawed as regards its governance. Jimmy can fix this, but he isn't going to do so, as far as I can see. Cheers, and goodbye. Rodhullandemu 01:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you forget a truism that attacking the judge in his own courtroom will very rarely make him more amenable to your position? You have now done this both to the entire Arbitration Committee and to Mr. Wales. Which may set a record. Collect (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought he would be above that. Sadly, I was mistaken, "feet of clay", and all that. Rodhullandemu 02:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Jimbo cannot bypass the concerns of the community and their elected representatives on Arbcom, especially when private evidence further supports the actions of Arbcom. Turning to Jimbo as an ultimate source of authority who can fix all problems is deeply misguided: it asks too much of him, and too little of the community. Wikipedia no longer operates like that. Geometry guy 01:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems quite clear to me from this case that the concerns of the community are that Arbcom did something wrong that many of us are utterly offended that they refuse to acknowledge. Reading the various statements in the case request seem to make that blatantly clear. SilverserenC 02:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Geometry guy: We specifically allowed an appeal to Jimbo (Kirill and myself specifically, don't have diffs at hand), so, please do not think that RHE was doing anything wrong with this request. SirFozzie (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Isn't that advice a bit...misguided? What is the point of appealing to someone who for all intent and purposes really can't (no offense) do anything about it? Tarc (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, considering that he has access to the Arbitration Committee Mailing List, I would say that he is very much in full possession of the facts. Ronk01 talk 02:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Access does not equate to interest. In recent weeks, it is fully documented that Jimmy has had other, more personal issues on his mind. I dispute that he is in full possession of the facts, and given that although I have forwarded emails to him I haven't been afforded the courtesy of a reply; no matter, perhaps, in the circumstances, but his use of the word "threats" isn't helpful, and I expected better of him. I've always considered Jimmy to be something of a gentleman, but at present, I do not see it. Sorry about that, but if anyone can cut the crap, he can, and it's not my fault if he chooses to sidestep that obligation, although I understand why he may feel unable to do so right now. In the cold light of day, he should realise who is trying to keep this encyclopedia within the model he envisaged for it, and who isn't. Rodhullandemu 03:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I will gladly review the case in detail at an appropriate time, i.e. when the case is fully complete. I have heard RHE's complaints here and regret saying anything at this time. He asked me publicly, so I responded with my thoughts. The point is: I generally take a much harder line on admin conduct and civility issues than even ArbCom.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Does that hard line include questioning whether ArbCom process is working? I meant that as a suggestion but not argumentatively. Perhaps ArbCom and the editor in question could just punt at this point and look to you or someone else for guidance, not with arguments about what should have happened or how things were handled, but about what to do now. Sometimes a private resolution by a trusted person in authority is the surest and best respected outcome. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Creating Wikipedia

When you thought of the idea of Wikipedia di you think it would be this successful? -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 20:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There have been many, many, many stories published about the genesis of Wikipedia. I'm sure that if you read some of them you will find your answer there.--*Kat* (meow?) 21:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

interface

KISMF 190.51.153.150 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Blatant Bias in Shakespeare Authorship Question page by Majority Editors

Dear Sir;

The majority group editing this page, Stratfordian in loyalty, seeks to make the authorship page a permanent fixture in Wikipedia by achieving featured article status. Tom Reedy and Nishidani are the prominent editors with this stated goal. In effect, the Shakespeare Authorship page will serve as a permanent propaganda bastion for the status quo position. This is unacceptable use of Wikipedia pages.

As an indication of their biased use of sources and/or unjustified emphasis, either of which should disqualify the page from featured article status, I present here a typical paragraph and will demonstrate its unacceptable scholarship.

"In 1602, Ralph Brooke, the York Herald, accused Sir William Dethick, the Garter King of Arms, of elevating 23 unworthy persons to the gentry. One of these was Shakespeare's father, who had applied for arms 34 years earlier but had to wait for the success of his son before they were granted in 1596. Brooke included a sketch of the Shakespeare arms, captioned "Shakespear ye Player by Garter". The grants, including John Shakespeare's, were defended by Dethick and Clarenceux King of Arms William Camden, the foremost antiquary of the time. In his Remaines Concerning Britaine, published in 1605 but completed two years earlier, Camden names Shakespeare as one of the "most pregnant witts of these ages our times, whom succeeding ages may justly admire".[86]"

The clear import of this paragraph is that William Shakspere of Stratford obtained his family coat of arms in 1596 by bribery, for which Dethick was notorious, as indicated by the number of other frauds. He was not merely accused as the paragraph temporizes; he was successfully prosecuted. (Gervinus, Shakespeare Commentaries, p. 467) Camden, Dethick's superior, was not implicated although he signed the 1599 confirmation. (Brooke, Shakespeare of Stratford, pp. 32-4) The Shakspere coat of arms could not be retroactively withdrawn. The "father...had to wait for the success of his son" infers that Shakspere's becoming a famous playwright facilitated the approval. This is an unfounded inference, without supporting references. Four of the five sentences are unfootnoted. Three of five contain errors.

The paragraph is written in such a fashion that no connections are attempted between evident criminal activity, the unproven Stratfordian Soul of the Age cited in it, and the Shakespeare canon, wherein honor as a characteristic of chivalry is featured 690 times. Nothing fits but the absence of fit is ignored.

The unbiased facts are that in 1569, when John Shakspere originally applied for gentleman status, his claim was rejected, non sanz droict, meaning "no, without right". (E.K. Chambers, Life of William Shakespeare) Shakspere's long rejected application thirty-four years later succeeded by corrupt practice, his son's William's.

Camden's statement above ["one of the most pregnant witts..."] had nothing to do with Shakspere of Stratford or the coat of arms controversy. It was praise for, among several others, the playwright Shakespeare whose identity is the very matter in question in the Wikipedia page. The majority editors' sleight of hand transfers honor given the "Shakespeare" playwright to their claimant, assuming but not proving him as that playwright. Footnote 87 is a diatribe against anyone's reservation regarding the claim. It is shameful as scholarship.

Camden never praised Shakspere, as claimed above. He was schoolmaster, tutor, and friend to Ben Jonson, who famously ridiculed Shakspere as the pretender Sogliardo; who bastardized his heraldry; and who satirized his identifying motto, the latter an anomaly never once used by the family. Jonson switched Shakspere's "Not Without Right" to Sogliardo's "Not Without Mustard" in 'Every Man Out of His Humour'.

Camden later commented on suppressed freedom of expression in his time as the work of "those who think the memory of succeeding ages may be extinguished by present power." He added, these were “things secret and abstruse I have not pried into.” (W. David Kay, Ben Jonson: A Literary Life, p. 70) Jonson as a dramatist could lampoon, but Camden as an historian could not tell what he knew. The paragraph distorts what he did when an official and what he said as an historian.

Footnote 86 has nothing to do with Camden’s praise for the playwright Shakespeare. It is a non sequitur reference to James Shapiro's undocumented general work, 'Contested Will', an acceptable Stratfordian source.

In answer to the obvious question, why did I not present these arguments in the editing process, I regret to respond they have been presented in the past. Each and every objection by me or any Oxfordian editor has been rejected as a matter of policy. Something is always wrong, no matter how well documented. But Reedy alters the page at will. He buried the significant fact that the U.S. Supreme Court justices who ruled against clear and convincing Oxfordian evidence in 1987, later reversed this judgment and a number of others doubt the Stratfordian thesis. They are characterized as celebrity endorsers, not professional experts on probative evidence.

Wikipedia featured-article status will install a multitude of such falsehoods, each and all slanted towards the status quo interpretation of the Shakespeare legend. There is no contrary scholarship allowed, which ensures the Wikipedia page will be a joke to the knowing and misleading propaganda to the many, as more of the truth emerges elsewhere without editor suppressions. Zweigenbaum (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As Jimbo knows, this has been exhaustively discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Should have checked Zweigenbaum's talk page first. Posting here violates a three month topic ban placed last month. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Why do people get worked up over things like this? I would guess that the average person doesn't give a crap about the SAQ. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Why do I feel that your username somehow answers your question?--Kotniski (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Zweigenbaum now blocked for 55 hours, this is his second block for violating his topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Kotniski: The persuit of knowledge is one thing. But getting so worked up about something that requires bans and blocks is quite another. You know, some topic areas I undersand can be contentious (Abortion, Mass killings under communist regimes, Palastine, etc.) but Shakespeare? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Because he is the Greatest Writer Ever, and when the True Story of his life and work is discovered, it will Transform the World. You don't believe me? Read the writings of these ideologues. Also it will prove that the outsiders are right and professors are wrong, wrong, wrong. Paul B (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I have no problem understanding how one can get quite passionate about Shakespeare. I mean, it's Shakespeare! No, what I have trouble understanding is how one can, in all seriousness, make the argument that because all of academia and the mainstream support the traditional attribution and dismiss as meritless all alternative attributions (which complaint, you'll note, is oft repeated on the relevant pages) it is critically important that Wikipedia allow them a platform for advocacy, even after repeatedly being pointed at WP:NOR and “Verifiability, not truth”. The Escheresque knot of logic required to consider that reasoning valid is, I fear, beyond me. Anyways, the editor in question is at present unable to participate so it is probably best if we refrain from further comment here (and I'm sure Jimbo wouldn't mind a moment's peace and quiet on the social club formerly known as is his user talk page). --Xover (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Is Wikipedia hiring? B-Machine (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It says here that the Wikimedia Foundation (of which Wikipedia is a project) is hiring staff for a variety of roles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Love the Story Teller job! Bielle (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Other question

DId you unblock me on wikia? If you did then Thanks a bunch dude :D. Slipknot Darkrai (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I am User:Noob saibot red. Users block me because I made 2 accounts. I created alot of accounts because I wanted not to blocked. I regret the things I've done. So can you please help me? I create 1 more account to talk to you.

I make helpful edits and still get blocked... So can you help me? You the reason everyone's here.

Answer me at User talk:Noob saibot red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Jerb (talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked.[9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh No. The Hidden Dangers of WYSIWYG Editing...

Dear Sir,

Perhaps you may not realise it, wysiwyg is more bad than good. You know about wikia yes? Well wikia has a too large share of immature child editors who are drawn to it by the simple editing. Maturity on wikipedia is declining we do not need more children. Also WYSIWYG is a nightmare on slow Internet connection, the long page, the bad browser, the old computer, the JavaScript deficient Browser. Also it lowers productivity. Template editing is painfully slow with Wikia RICHTEXT Editor. As is formatting. As is cstegory work. And it has a tendency to break pages. On Wikia I have to turn off RtE EVERY TUME ILOAD AN EDIT SCREEN. if you make a wysiwyg that can only be disabled thru preferences I will leave for citizendium or conservapedia as will many others

Also what theheck happened to Readableness? The font size for wiki on my computer has dropped from 9 pt to 6.5 pt and I have not changed any Settings...

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.168.192.27 (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh I can answer that last one: when you hire a “designer” (and without intending any slight to the interaction team, I here use that term loosely) the first thing they will do is reduce the font size to 80% and then double the line spacing (really, just keep an eye out whenever some traditional web site gets a redesign). They do this because it makes the page, visually, look more balanced; and they justify it by claiming it improves readability (it doesn't, generally). However, unless a few mainly aesthetic visual glitches do not bother you, most web browsers allow you to adjust the base font size or minimum font size (easier in some than others, but it's usually possible if you want it badly enough). You can probably find more people able to help you with this on the Village Pump. --Xover (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
If you create an account, you can use an alternative skin to view Wikipedia. In May last year the default skin was changed from "Monobook" to "Vector", at the time of the change many users reported a decrease in the text size. Although I don't know whether this was fixed (I dislike Vector for a variety of reasons and so don't use it), it is possible that this is (related to) your issue. See Wikipedia:Skin for screenshots of the alternatives, including ones that should work better on older computers, and instructions on how to change your skin should you desire. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please address the problem of liberal/atheist bias in Wikipedia

This discussion has spiraled out of control. I'm disappointed in everyone whose points in this discussion were any variant of "It is ok to be biased if it is my bias, since after all my side is in the right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Jimbo, First my must be apologizing for my poor English which is not my first language. Secondly I am here to bring to your attention a much serious problem of the liberal left-wing bias in Wikipedia. I understand that self sellection bias causes this but it is not acceptable. The article on creation is located at Creation myth if I am correct but the evolution theory is located St evolution. Theyboth should be listed as "theorys". In addition the Obama article is apologetic and white washed while George W. Bush looks like a court hearing. Also on global warming the article is a highly defensive piece that promotes the theory and deflects any properalyreferenced alternate views or criticism of the theory. Much Thanks for your time. 184.168.192.27 (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reread creation myth - it's not about Creationism; rather it's about ancient cultures' mythologies. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 05:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. The IP editor may also find Genesis creation narrative to be of interest. LadyofShalott 05:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps Conservapedia would be more to your tastes. Like beauty, bias is often in the eye of the beholder.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Given that Wikipedia is about co-operation and verification, it will never appeal to people of right-wing and/or fundamentalist religious views. Bevo74 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
This kind of bigotry only supports the original poster's position. Deli nk (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, that is a knee jerk reaction and doesnt look good on the poster.Thelmadatter (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to take issue with directing the OP to Conservapedia. They don't think too highly of furriners there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I am quite disappointed with the reactions to the ip stated concerns; it is closed minds, and not the particular political allegiance they subscribe to, that restricts the breadth and diversity of input that is going to provide truly neutral articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • It's the same BAWWWing that goes on with the "OMG LIBERAL MEDIA", "OMG LIBERAL ACADEMIA", etc... Being "truly neutral" doesn't always mean that both "sides" of an opinion get equal facetime. Otherwise the lead of the Barack Obama article would have to note the birther/Muslim conspiracies. Tarc (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Why doesnt it? Especially after the fiasco of the Hawaii governor's inability to come up with the proof he promised? Im not saying that it should have any definitive answers, just that the questions are there.Thelmadatter (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Lulz. That you label that a "fiasco" pretty much proves my point. Tarc (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
How so... the guy swore he was going to put the birth certificate question to rest and couldnt produce anything to do so.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's because some interested party are not interested in letting it rest, regardless of evidence. And some are not letting it rest even now, when the issue is obviously moot.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Nothing is proven when documents are hidden from view. It's not moot because of the question of re election. It'll be interesting to see what comes of the laws that various state's are in the process of passing requiring proof of a candidate's eligibility.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, accusing Wikipedia of liberal/atheist bias has become something of a routine for the religious right. My comment was not intended to WP:BITE, but to point out that accusing other people of bias is usually seen at Wikipedia as a failure to assume good faith. Evolution is one of the issues where the religious right is never likely to be in tune with Wikipedia's way of doing things.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
        • 'Bias' is clearly in the eye of the beholder: try adding anything negative to the Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck articles and see how the 'liberals' react there... On a more serious note, I'd have to suggest that compared to say mainstream US politics, there may be a slight leftward bias on Wikipedia, but that is purely a reflection of the fact that this is an international project, and the remainder of the English-speaking world is on average well to the left of the US. . As for any other causes of systematic bias, I could only suggest that those on the left are more likely to contribute their time for free. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Those on the other side of the pond need to understand that we rule the world. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Which side of the pond are you posting from? Fainites barleyscribs 22:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
no, we just let you think you do ;) @Fainites; his user page says the US. --Errant (chat!) 22:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
What interestes me here is that there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding about the definitions of the terms "theory" and "myth." A theory is defined as: "n. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." This definitely describes the theory of evolution. I agree with the IP that articles about theories should be labeled as such. It is quite a bit better than a hypothesis, but is definitely not a law: "n. A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity."
A myth, on the other hand, is defined as: "n. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth." There should be nothing offensive about this term. The story of Genesis does not qualify as a theory or a law, but definitely falls under this description of a myth. It is a simple category that all religions fall under.
When I was in high school, a class was taught called "The Bible as Mythology." Nobody complained about "separation of church and state" issues, because the Bible was being studied as a work of literature. No fundamentalists complained either, because the Bible was being studied. Zaereth (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As a liberal atheist I often come up against what appears to be right-wing/conservative-religious articles with heavy focus on "that side of things". Then I see "liberal-atheist" content that seems overly polite to the opposite side of the spectrum. It is probably adjustment bias, the right almost certainly sees the same articles and thinks it is being too nice to the left, or is too left wing. This is the issue with having a diverse range of people writing articles. In contentious areas things muddle around until they emerge somewhere in the middle, or in rare cases with a reasonable level of bias (if you have a strong editing contingent from one side). This is basically representative of human society, but in text. FWIW I think some of our more contentious areas are quite well done; evolution vs. creationism arena in general tends towards the "scientific method" objectivity style. The problem, I suppose, is such methodology is more in line with liberal agendas than anything else. --Errant (chat!) 22:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that a problem here is that the original poster has mixed up two very different things, and that has tended to make the following conversation less clear than it might have been. He basically gave three examples, which to simply were:
  • Creation given as "myth", evolution more as "fact".
  • Global warming, lack of balance.
  • Obama article vs. Bush article.
Well these are all very different. As to first, this is not a liberal-vs-conservative issue and it's a disservice to conservaatives to cast it as such. It is more an issue of "people who, at the end of of the day, would probably be happier simply not reading Enlightenment-based works such as encyclopedias" vs. the rest of us. As to second, this is also not a liberal-vs-conservative issue and it's also a disservice to conservatives to cast it as such. It is more an issue of people who are polemecists and/or just reject the scientific method in general vs. the rest of us.
However, the third example, Obama article vs. Bush article, is quite different and could be a true example of liberal bias. The questions I would ask about this is:
  1. Is it true? (That the articles differ significantly in tone or emphasis, that is.)
  2. If it is true, is it indicative of a general situation?
  3. If it is indicative of a general situation, is that a problem?
  4. If it is a problem, is there any reasonable way to address it?
I haven't checked, but for various reasons I wouldn't be surprised if #1 and #2 are true, and those are true it certainly is a problem in my opinion. I can't think of any reasonably effective way to address it, though. Herostratus (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The IP probably has a legit point about the Obama article. I once made a suggestion to improve the article on the talk page and was immediately attacked by the editors there. I didn't come back. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Quest, it's a legit point on almost every contentious article, except it has nothing particularly to do with liberalism or atheism. each contentious topic area has its own cadre of editors who are de facto in charge of editing - who that cadre is varies from topic to topic, and is usually determined by whomever manages to suppress other viewpoints by harassing other editors off the page or getting them blocked or banned outright. For instance, I personally am constantly running up against a cadre of science editors who show a poor grasp of the principles of science but have a slick machine for getting editors they have identified as 'fringe advocates' in trouble with administrators. Wikipedia is a lot like Afghanistan that way - weak, ineffectual centralized authority laid over a system of strong regional tribal units who guard their respective turfs zealously. It actually works better than you might expect: more extreme ideological positions usually lose the battles for control of a page to cliques which are aggressive but hold more moderate positions (due to a few different factors), but such pages never actually achieve neutrality, they just become prejudicially mainstream. sad, really, but not something that's going to change without a dedicated effort. --Ludwigs2 00:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I hang out at the Obama article, and to a much lesser extent Sarah Palin's - and I rarely patrol the Bush article. Is it biased that I've tried to deal with the legions of sockpuppets and troublemakers in one instance and not another? The Obama article was the subject of concerted attacks a bunch of single-purpose editors, some externally organized and advocated, before and for several months after the presidential election. It was a constant drumbeat of what you see on some of the attack blogs: why don't we report that he's a Muslim, not born in America, stole the election, communist, fascist, racist, terrorist sympathizer, fake academic credentials, affirmative action baby, etc. Much of this was very determined battleground editing, ranging from sockpuppets to procedural games designed to harass regular editors. We went through article probation, a poorly handled arbitration case (to disclose my bias about that - I got dragged into the mud there). I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for accusations of whitewashing, liberal bias, and all that nonsense, in the context of complaining that the Obama article doesn't include enough disparagement. It's true of course that everybody has a bias, and even the most neutral factual project cannot help but get caught up in questions of perspective. But the best way out isn't to set up everything on a balance scale and try to even it all out... where would you say the balance should be? Obama is 50% bad and 50% good? That's an exercise in bias, not an exercise in neutrality. It's better to simply stick with some rules about how to present information and try to work it out. Even biased people can do things in a neutral way. Neutrality of the effort and process is sometimes a better yardstick than neutrality of the result, because who is to say what the truly neutral outcome is and judge whether the actual outcome lies to the left or right of it. The sentiment that there is a conspiracy among the media to lie about history, and that it should be corrected by subterfuge and advocacy on Wikipedia is, for whatever reason, coming disproportionately from people in a camp that is often identified as conservative. The sentiment that we should just present the facts and let them fall where they may seems to be more of a liberal-identifying thing. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
What do you think of this discussion here?[10] An IP makes what appears to be a good faith suggestion to improve the article. The IP gets a couple reasonable responses, but the discussion is closed down before it finishes. I'm not sure that's really the way to welcome newbies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Talk about offering a new editor a nice hot cup of Shut The Hell Up. Herostratus (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you serious? I wouldn't have closed the discussion so quickly or in that way, but there was no viable proposal to improve the article, just a perennial proposal made at least 100 times already and covered by the article FAQ. The editor was treated with dignity, engaged, and consensus explained. They were starting to advocate for something that had somewhere around zero chance of gaining consensus. There's no way all those proposals to highlight fringe theories and political smears on Obama are going to get a full hearing every time they get brought up. If the editor is truly a newbie, advocating against consensus on important high conflict articles is not the best place to get started. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
When we close down a discussion like that, we're basically telling the IP that we don't care about their opinions. A newbie is not going to understand that their proposal had almost zero chance of being implemented or the difficulty in gaining consensus. The best you can do is to patiently explain it to them and hope that they stick around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Tarc, the editor who closed that discussion, is participating here. Perhaps a nod to decorum and avoiding biteyness? There's nothing to indicate this new user is anything but sincere. Some of the article's most prolific sockers and agitators have learned to adopt that tone too ("I'm a liberal and I voted for Obama, but don't you find it strange that the cabal that runs Wikipedia won't let anyone mention [insert fringe theories, astroturfing, and anti-Obama talking points]"? The lesson here, something Jimbo embodies and that many admins would do well to learn, is that it doesn't hurt to be dignified, open-minded, and courteous even while being firm about process. So what if you're polite to 20 trolls and sockpuppets in the course of being polite to 5 sincere editors they're trying to impersonate? Coming full circle on this, America is its own political island at times but a significant part of the population, including those that use and comment on Wikipedia, are convinced that like the rest of the media it's run by a bunch of liberal operatives. Funny, because I don't sense that Jimbo or WMF are particularly liberal or political at all. The editors are probably more liberal than average, most people who write a lot in public forums are. And to some degree people who complain, game, and sabotage public forums seem to be leaning towards the conservative opposition. These are all perceptions. I don't know what you can do about perceptions, but in terms of maintaining an encyclopedia you really do have to get all this liberal/conservative stuff out of your head and just look at writing articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is atheist biased? then thank goodness. Check out the real world, religion isn't all it's cracked up to be. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
With regards to the above statement "creation presented as myth, evolution as fact," that's because Biblical creation is a Bronze Age myth, just like the Egyptian ones, except for the fact that this one somehow survived a little longer. Evolution is a fact, and is treated here as such. Ronk01 talk 02:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Assuming good faith with the editor I believe he meant "creation theory", not the various creation mythologies. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 03:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. Experimental science deals with the acquisition of facts (indisputable observations). Theoretical science deals in degrees of probability based on those facts. While I believe that the Theory of Evolution is the closest thing we have yet, science has proved time and again that, with each new discovery, these theories are always in a constant state of change. Just like religion, theories fall into the category of a belief. In this case, a belief that the degrees of probability, as we currently understand them, represent some underlying fundamental truth. ("Based on the evidence, I think this is how it happened.") A "truth" that is often mistaken for for a fact. What I think is important is to present the theories and religions both, but never to advocate the belief. Zaereth (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
So are you stating that we must treat Pastafarianism on equal footing with General Relativity? Both are hypotheses, but one is based on evidence, and is infinitely more credible. The other is, like every Religious myth, the invention of the Human mind. Ronk01 talk 03:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Pasta exists, in its inherent noodly goodness. I believe in relativity, but I've never seen it ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
No. There are also other guidelines I would follow besides what can be verified as factual, such as significance and relevance to the particular article, and notability. I never said that all theories were on equal footing. Zaereth (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Ahem, scientific theory is a commonly mis-characterised thing; and certainly does not classify alongside belief :) The mistake, Zaereth, is in seeing the words "Theoretical Science", conflating that with scientific theories and then assuming that none of it is empirical. Evolution is the classic example of this mistake in practice; the theory of evolution is a scientific framework based on observable phenomena. Experimental/Theoretical Science is not about fact vs. theory; that is like comparing Apples and Skyscrapers :) Generally speaking, in this age, the scientific method is held to a higher standard than belief - particularly where they overlap. Were Wikipedia written 150 years ago (perhaps even 100 years ago) it would have been different I am sure. --Errant (chat!) 09:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I think you're misunderstanding me. A common misconception among many of those who are not involved with science is that the theories are fact. From Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method: "Public pundits, not only the public, drastically misconceive what science is, what it means to be scientific, and the relationship between science and technology. Scientists themselves, moreover, and science writers hold many of the same misconceptions." Theories are based on fact, and the good ones have been tested repeatedly against emperical evidence, but they are still ideas (notions, beliefs, opinions, conclusions, or whatever synonym you like...). From the book Theory of Scentific Method: "In order to do this we must reconsider, in a more definite and precise shape, the doctrine that has already been laid down; --that our knowledge consists in applying ideas to facts; and that the conditions of real knowledge are that the ideas be distinct and appropriate, and exactly applied to clear and cetain facts. The steps by which our knowledge is advanced are those by which one or the other of these two processes is rendered more complete; -- by which Conceptions are made more clear in themselves, or by which the Conceptions more strictly bind together the facts. These two processes may be considered as together constituting the whole formation of our knowledge; and the principles which have been established in The History of Scientific Ideas bear principally on the former of these two operations; --upon the business of elevating our conceptions to the highest possible point of precision and generality." Zaereth (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Sort of, but it is important to remember that "notions, beliefs, opinions, conclusions" are all very different things, indeed they are different forms of an idea. A belief, for example, is an idea that generally does not gel well with the scientific method. Indeed any theory based on belief is not generally scientific. At the opposit end of the spectrum you have the "theory of evolution", which is a model based on empirical evidence. I do see what you were originally saying; but in this case it is not a good example because the theory of evolution is not really a theory, at least not in the way most understand "theory" to be :) --Errant (chat!) 19:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I kinda thought we were talking from different sides of the same page, which was why I wanted to clear up any misunderstanding. Yes, different word have differnt connotations depending on context. On both the religious and scientific sides of an argument, there are fundamentalists, (people who believe that their favorite idea is the gospel truth), and will often defend that theory visciously. I think it is important to present both scientific theories and religious beliefs in their appropriate places simply as differing ideas. We should present all of the facts, but should not portray the ideas themselves as fact. Some people believe the science while some people believe in the religion. Some people believe in both. (Personally, I've never seen anything in the Bible that contradicts evolution. Much like in Copernicus' time, nothing in the Bible actually said that the Earth was in the center of the universe.) I just think we should take care not to trample on each others beliefs. Zaereth (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, even as someone who identifies as "liberal", when I look at Obama's article it certainly looks like it was written mostly by Obama supporters, and when I look at Bush's article it certainly looks like it was written mostly by Bush opponents. It therefore doesn't surprise me that there is a thriving Conservapedia, but no thriving liberal equivalent. Sandboxer (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In other news, the Winston Churchill article looks as if it was written mostly by supporters of Churchill, and the Joseph Stalin article looks as if it was written mostly by Stalin opponents. The simple fact is: Right-wing Americans are spoilt by a media that believes balance consists in identifying two opposing sides and then treating them as if they are both equally right, no matter how detached from reality one of them may be. That's not how balance and fairness work in the real world, and it's not how it works in academia. It's also not how it works in encyclopedias. Hans Adler 17:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure that we want to base the argument that we display no bias on the analogy that Bush=Stalin? Sandboxer (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Spot on, Hans. (And the poster immediately above misses the point entirely if he thinks your post equates Bush and Stalin.) This isn't limited to left-right political issues; we have similar problems trying to cover scientific and medical topics. When talking about the safety and efficacy of vaccinations and their role in public health, the U.S. press gives equal time to scientists and Playboy models. The media generally try to avoid any judgements about what is and is not true in their reporting, preferring to "present all the sides" and "let the viewer/reader/audience decide" (totally ignoring their responsibility for framing and contextualizing the information). There is a reason why I quote Okrent's law on my user page: "The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I think there is definitely some institutional bias. My view is (1) legitimate concern about institutional bias is often drowned out by disruptive trolling users who are just seeking to push a POV. It's unfair to lump those with legitimate concerns in with the racist trolling SPAs at the Obama articles. (2) It's not nearly as it used to be - look at some articles about conservatives from 3-4 years ago and they were thinly veiled attacks. (3) There is a lot of the bias is in sources considered "reliable". Opinion pieces from left-leaning sites (Salon, Huffington Post, Media Matters) are treated like gospel by some. (4) It's often much harder to get bias/innuendo/attacks removed from conservative articles than from liberal ones. For example, several years ago, there was a left-wing column that attacked Fred Thompson for doing a commercial for LifeLock. It was all innuendo and the column was roundly criticized in the media as a hit piece. This was actually in a BLP and had people defending it as appropriate: "Thompson has urged people in radio commercials to contact a company that says it fights identity thieves and that was co-founded by a man accused of taking money from consumer bank accounts without permission."[11] It was like pulling teeth to get that ridiculous nonsense out of a BLP and it shouldn't be. --B (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, reality has a well-known liberal bias, at least from the point of view of rednecks. Both evolution and global warming are scientific, not political topics, nearly anywhere in the world. And for both there is nearly unanimous support among scientists and the informed part of the world population. Of course an encyclopaedia that prefers reliable and academic sources will reflect this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Clearly even though I mentioned neither evolution nor global warming, that is what I was talking about. I'm unclear how the scientific consensus point of view on evolution and global warming justifies making articles about conservative politicians into attack pieces. --B (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a slightly liberal bent and denying this is just fooling yourself. It does not have a radical left leaning, though. Wikipedia is not neutral. Look at the Obama article and the talk page and it is quite clear. That's life. Trying to change would be like trying to overthrow the government of Canada...just won't happen. Trying to deny it is typical of the establishment, in this case, the Wikipedia establishment. Lettertojw (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


ALSO. Vast majority of an editor is liberal. Must commence effort to join many many conservative editor. Plus articles on socialism nanny state etc are very leftward bias. Thank you much for read this Sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.168.192.27 (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. Unfortunately no matter how hard I try, only my feet have ever really been conservative. I managed to make my knee conservative once but it didn't last long. So the vast majority of me is liberal :-( Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Bias is a fact of life. It is impossible to avoid bias, either as an individual or an organization. Read that last sentence again, then read it again. The "individual" means that even if it were possible to produce a perfectly neutral encyclopedia, one's own personal bias would still skew what one read therein. The "organization" part means that even if one were perfectly neutral as an individual, one would still be unable to escape being influenced by bias as part of the group. The fact that neither a perfectly neutral encyclopedia nor a perfectly neutral individual is possible means that it is all an inescapable muddle. Learn to live with it. Revcasy (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It is impossible to avoid bias, either as an individual or an organization. So you say, but are you sure that this is not just an opinion towards which you are inclined? --FormerIP (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Ha! Well played sir. Revcasy (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just by reading the comments here, I would say many, if not most, editors are liberal... given the disparaging ad hominem remarks against conservatives. I just loved the "reality has a leftward bias" comment. Maybe his reality does.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't have much experience with international projects, do you? "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" is a good description of the situation in the US. Internationally it's not true, and that's not just because of the strange meaning that the word "liberal" has acquired there. (I am not aware of any other country that uses the word in this way, except maybe Canada due to US influence.) From my point of view as a German who has lived in the UK, Wikipedia has a number of strong biases: e.g. for treating religiously motivated pseudoscience with more respect than it deserves, for using the word "liberal" in an odd way, for using American units of measurement, for unnecessarily stressing people's ethnicities, and for scientific and moral relativism that comes close to postmodernism. Editors from other countries will notice yet other biases. This project is based in the US, but it is not meant to be culturally dominated by the US. There is a very strong US influence here, but to some editors that's not enough. I wonder why they don't simply go to Conservapedia. Hans Adler 18:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Canada uses similar terminology, but with a multi-party system, the word "liberal" isn't such a boogeyman, though "conservative" tends to be. The notation above that reality has a "liberal bias", I think is fairly apt when describing much of the western world's views in comparison to American views. For instance, in Canada, I am considered very much a conservative politically, yet translated to the American sphere, would probably be viewed as left wing. So for those Americans who are conservative minded, the appearance of a bias would definitely exist. The thing is, I've not seen a reason explaining why there is anything wrong in this regard. Resolute 18:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Compare apples with apples. Compare Noam Chomsky with Thomas Sowell. Glenn Beck with Markos MoulitsasThelmadatter (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, you got me. I, for one, am very liberal, and very atheist. I should be ashamed for agreeing with myself. No ad hominem from me, but still. On the other hand, the original poster basically came in and poked the ant's nest with a stick. It is hard to have a constructive conversation when you are a busy little ant, just chillin', hanging with the homies, doing constructive little ant things and some bloke comes and pokes your home with a right big stick--things tend to degenerate right from the ol' get-go. Revcasy (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as politics in the U.S. goes, it seems like nothing but white-liners versus yellow-liners to me. Although the terms may be reversed, (I used the common motorcycle term), history does seem to have a way of repeating itself. Zaereth (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that in general, the facts are liberal. Compare a heavily footnoted Noam Chomsky work versus a vague Glenn Beck diatribe that cites a few sources and deliberately misrepresents each one of them. Wikipedia's liberal bias results because it includes a lot of facts. Liberals tend to be more inclusionist, knowing that covering both sides provides a net advantage, while conservatives hold a hard line and revert everything, usually with great success, because they never, ever give up on taking out information. It's almost as if someone were paying them... But so long as any facts remain, there is still a so-called liberal bias. Of course, this is only approximate, as the terms are approximate, but it's how I feel. Wnt (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Do we have a Liberal/atheist bias? Perhaps the political part of that depends on where you stand on the political spectrum and how the political spectrum where you are differs from elsewhere. I'm a Brit, so I find the US political spectrum way to the right of what I'm used to. One of my friends who has been an elected politician in the British Conservative party was an Obama volunteer in the US presidential election.... But then there are many countries outside the developed world where European ideas such as the welfare state with its pensions, social housing and universal healthcare would be considered outlandishly leftwing. So Political NPOV is not going to be easily defined. We've talked about various individual articles where the local consensus may be slanted in some way, but for a general feel for Wikipedia concerns I'd suggest looking at an active page such as RFA that gets a broad cross section of editors. I have participated in or at least read hundreds of RFAs. I've seen several RFAs where candidates have been opposed for atheistic user boxes and at least one for perceived or alleged leftwing bias. I don't recall any editor being opposed for being religious or for having right wing views. I'd also point out one group of editors here who do tend to be rightwing at least as far as frequently being homophobic - that would be our vandals. Perhaps if there is any general bias here it is a conscious or unconscious association amongst our volunteers who cleanup vandalism that homophobes tend to be Conservative and homophobes do a lot of vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 13:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's probably more a matter that, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia naturally has a strong — and quite proper — bias towards empirical data (as opposed to "faith based") which is generally associated with what Americans call "the left". Add to this demanding verifiability as one of our foundational principles, and you unavoidably get something that the more religious will feel is biased against them. Neutrality doesn't mean that faith needs to be given equal standing to verifiable fact; a misunderstanding that led to the creation of Conservapedia. — Coren (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I see a common theme arising here. The left is logical and based on fact while the right is just a bunch of superstitious vandals and censors with stereotypes about homosexuals. That seems a bit stereotypical to me. Is the world really that black and white? While I think it's worthy to have a cause, I also think we should be careful not to imbibe the prejudices and hatreds of that cause. I've seen alot of these prejudices and hatreds coming from both sides, and I would be ashamed to associate myself with either. We as humans have an amazing capacity for self-deception. Take the myth of the electric car. Thought to be a savior of the environment, in reality, it takes the same amount of energy to run it whether using a gasoline engine or a big, coal fired generator. The drawback is, that electricity is an extremely inefficient energy source, where more than 55% of the energy is lost converting the fossile fuel into electricity, and 10% of that is typically lost in transmission. It's easy for us, as humans, to feel content in our own little worlds, without ever considering the entire equation. Or, maybe it is that I'm just being stereotypical. Zaereth (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You overlook that big powerplants operate on the same physics than small car engines, but typically have a much better thermodynamic efficiency than small car engines. The major energy loss is in the transformation from heat to motion, not the conversion from motion to electricity and back, which is extremely efficient. And you overlook that it's much easier to scrub the exhaust of large powerplants. And the fact that we can produce electricity in many ways that do not involve fossil fuels, but that are not directly suitable for small mobile applications like cars. Consider the entire equation, indeed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that was probably not the best example, as conversion efficiency is typically about the same, except at low speeds where electricity tends to perform better. Ethanol would've been a better one. Zaereth (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely, there are a decent number of zealots on both sides. And even good faith members of each side who still have fairly extreme biases.
The philosophical question at that point is: "who is right, and who can possibly begin to judge such a thing".
I don't think it is a question WP should be considering, let society in general figure that one out and, ultimately, we'll probably reflect it in the end. --Errant (chat!) 20:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
It will be interesting to see how such hotly contested articles such as GWB and Obama and global warming will morph in the future, as new information and perspective is gained. Someone will do some Wiki-archeology and write a thesis about it!Thelmadatter (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

But yes of course I agree both sides should calm down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.29.64 (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes RFC

Not sure if you have been following Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011‎, but FYI it was "restarted" today with a different format. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Argh. Despite my attempts to move conversation in a forward direction some users are obsessed with obstructing all forward progress. Part of their objection is that they feel you have decreed by fiat that PC will remain indefinitely. I'm sure you are probably even sicker of this than I am and I know you have a new rugrat on your hands, but if you could make some sort of statement on this matter it could be very helpful. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It is the idea that all change must spring from some mythical "consensus" that stifles any forward progress. This has been discussed for years, with no result. Perhaps it's time to try something different from endless community discussions. Kevin (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Jimmy has said many times that he believes community consensus is a must have for PC. I suspect he still feels the same way, but I'll wait to hear from him. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) - Jimmy already recently commented on request that he supports the tool, as I understand Jimmy.s recent position is to reduce any perceived and actual authority on this project. Discussion is ongoing and the wheels are not dropping off, if a majority wish to affect any change then , as usual, be bold. Off2riorob (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm May 2007 - Feb 2011, I see now that things are going great, and that discussion has certainly advanced the issue. Kevin (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it's mythical--the mythical ideological foundation for all of our decision making. Or maybe the fact that we have not reached consensus means that there is no consensus to implement PC, and never will be. It could be countered that the failure to accept "no consensus" as a valid result is what causes the process to drag on endlessly. Revcasy (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
A really tire of this debate its been at least 4 years of this. Can We come to a "this is it" vote with the next Arbcom Elections? I dont have strong opinions either ways just tired of the debate either... we have it or we dont. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 04:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I hear you. I dropped out of this debate several years ago myself. I assumed my personal involvement was not needed and eventually someone else would do it and I could look somewhere on Wikipedia and find a definitive explanation of what PC is and when we are supposed to use it. Sadly, that's not the case. I sincerely hope that that this is the "do we do it or not?" discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I have made my proposal at the page to end debate on the topic with a definitive proposal be made and either approved by the community or rejected. I doubt my suggestions will obtain enough support to be implemented in 9 months but its worth a shot. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 23:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is why pending changes is needed. An IP user added this horrific vandalism and it sat there for two weeks. This is unacceptable. --B (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In my experience pending changes would be unlikely to pick up that as vandalism, I expect it would simply have been accepted. As I pointed out numerous times on the PC talk page, there is no guideline for people checking material to fact check it, indeed stipulating they do so was resisted strongly. --Errant (chat!) 15:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to believe that most Wikipedians would recognize that as a rather extreme claim and would verify it before approving the diff. But without Pending Changes, they don't even have that chance - the libelous vandalism instantly becomes a part of the article, which is then submitted to search engines and mirrors. If Wikipedia is serious about curtailing libel, pending changes is a necessity for lightly-watched BLPs. I'm becoming convinced that it isn't going to be particularly useful for heavy vandalism targets - for example, I tried it on Tiki Barber and honestly, all it did was create work for someone to revert vandalism. But for articles that few people watch where libel can often go unnoticed, it's needed. --B (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with B, here. That's a very very good example of vandalism which would not have gotten by anyone serious. Easy to spot, easy to stop. We have the tool, we should use it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
With the best will in the world; I'd probably have scanned that and not seen it as a major piece of content or really called it into question. It seems sensibly written, and ostensibly has a source. Only by checking the rest of the article and then the source would I have rejected it. The problem is that the vast majority of articles I have on my watchlist that had PC didn't get that sort of treatment. The consensus (and it was quite strong) when I raised this problem was that PC was not intended to address this form of vandalism. The problem I had with PC at that point is that it ends up lending weight to hard to spot & smart vandalism. I'm still as yet unconvinced that this helps us catch *more* vandalism. --Errant (chat!) 20:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
But if we tailor it specifically to BLP pages, then we can tailor the instructions to a higher level of scrutiny--not for traditional content review and minor NPOV violations, but for general Verification (especially of negative info), subtle vandalism, and other BLPVIOs. Ocaasi (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Open letter to Jimbo

There is a big problem in Wikipedia.

One is the lack of civility.

The other is the juvenile behavior of administrators, when unable to provide an explanation, will suddenly accuse people of being socks. In the 50's, if you couldn't present a good argument, just call the other guy a communist. In Wikipedia, call them a sock.

I used to edit here but was sick and tired of the above 2 problems. I now edit in another website which is more reputable. It is a technical website and doesn't have the wide exposure here, but it is very reliable and they act civilized there.

Jimbo, I urge you to try to solve the above 2 problems. Think hard. I am sure you could come up with a solution. One possible thing to do would be to have no policy on sockpuppetry so that people couldn't start calling people socks went they are too juvenile to think of a rational explanation about their opinion. Trusted users could then help solve editorial disputes, keeping in mind that logic, not voting, counts. Another way would be for administrators to be experts, not just juveniles voting for themselves (and say they want to vandal-fight). These 2 suggestions may not be perfect but keep thinking, Jimbo!

Another problem are the people that can do checkusering. They snoop and violate people's privacy. They keep the results, in violation of WP policy. Not much different from the secret police. I have seen people who make comments on ANI and they are immediately blocked. Sometimes, they are disruptive but other times the checkuser is disruptive in that they snoop every time they don't like someone. It is this immaturity that harms Wikipedia.

As a show of good faith, I am not listing some bad editors/administrators. The point isn't a specific issue or a specific person but rather the problems listed above. Good luck, Jimbo. Lettertojw (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Lettertojw, unless you are willing to share with me specifics, it's difficult for me to investigate. For what it is worth, I have seen some cases recently of what I view as overactive sock accusations (for example, someone being blocked as a sock even though the checkuser results came back negative, on the slimmest of evidence) - but I have seen no evidence that the problem is widespread, and indeed the community reaction against it was appropriate. Second, I'm unaware of violations of WP policy with respect to checkuser, but take them very seriously. You'll need to tell me what you're talking about, though, before I can help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as checkusers, it is common knowledge that they have access to data for a few months. However, they sometimes decide on cases months old, which means they privately keep data. Alison is one of the bad apples that violate the privacy policy. Don't ask me who because I don't keep running tabs on Wikipedians, I just look at Wikipedia every few weeks. BTW, there is no reason that you should run a checkuser on me and anyone who does should be reprimanded. I do not seek unblock of any user. Lettertojw (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who reads ANI sees this many times, i.e. don't like someone, call them a sock. On occasion, you see someone complain and they get blocked using the excuse of sockpuppetry, but their complaint appears valid.

I am not a lawyer and do not wish to take on clients. However, I remember a few months ago there was a user with a name similar to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. That user is an administrator. I think the name was Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect or something like that. That person was accused of being a sock but the checkuser proved innocence (actually, everyone is assumed guilty and they will never say they are innocent). Anyway, that insect character was blocked anyway. The reason I remember was because the name was so memorable.

The bottom line is that I am an expert contributor but lost my enthusiasm months ago because of juvenile behavior on Wikipedia and the trend for juveniles to ban people by calling them a sock. Wikipedia should develop editorial guidelines and stick with those instead of resort to juvenile sockpuppet reasoning. Lettertojw (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Chase me Dinosaurs[...] was blocked because the name violated the username policy, which forbids usernames deliberately intended to impersonate or sound similar to that of another user. In addition, CmD... was accusing Chase me Ladies... of being his sock, a blockworthy personal attack as it's not true. Please learn as much as you can about a situation before you speak of it. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 23:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? The person complains that Wikipedia is arbitrary and unfair and Jeremy CONFIRMS this! ha ha. Chase me dinosaurs is different from Chase me ladies. If the user's name was Chase me ladies, I'm the Calvary instead of Chase me ladies, I'm the Calvery then that is ok. Or if the person is asked to change their name. I have no interest in the fight but the response given actually proves the original poster's complaint! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.111.56.147 (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing was, Chase me insects... was doing his utmost to try and make it appear as if Chase me Ladies... was related to him. I actually read and commented on the threads about the situation. I don't know how my statement could be used to support the OP's claim. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 10:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

US Gov editing

The US Army has stated that want to

Speaking to the general's character, current and former U.S. military officers who worked with Caldwell said he is an example of a modern Army officer who was trying to bring the Army's "strategic communications" into the 21st century, encouraging the units he commanded at Ft. Leavenworth, the Army's premier training facility, to use social media, blogging and Wikipedia as part of their efforts to shape their message.

Would you support such efforts by the US military? (Also see related)Smallman12q (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/24/petraeus-orders-probe-claim-army-official-wanted-manipulate-senators/#ixzz1GAFiw2bH

(talk page stalker)The allegations, if true, would not only be violations of our own rules (WP:NPOV in particular), but also of the Smith-Mundt Act, passed in 1948 to prevent the use of propaganda techniques against U.S. citizens by Federal agencies. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Apparently Smith-Mundt only covers the Executive Branch; my bad. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:NPOV and likely WP:COI! I wonder if we can identify one of these "army editors". NickCT (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. But I feel that we would have found one by now, considering the numbers of pagewatchers or relevant articles. We could search using WikiScanner though. Ronk01 talk 04:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah... Wikiscan em... Just glancing, I thought this guy was interesting. NickCT (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, not that interesting. Only occasionally edits. NickCT (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
He would fit the pattern if the edits were more frequent though. (Wikiscanner seems to be down) Ronk01 talk 04:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
This entire range is DoD. Interesting to browse through it. I wonder, does internet traffic from Afghanistan get routed through a US ISP? NickCT (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Note also: WP:VPM#US military propaganda? and WT:MILHIST. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 15:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Its easy to over do it here. Would this outrage apply to the average soldier who edits military related articles following all the 5 Pillars? Just because its a military IP address doesnt mean its part of some grand conspiracy.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
@Thelmadatter - Certainly I agree. I imagine the vast majority of GI Joe's (or Jane's for that matter) contributing over military IPs are doing so in a constructive, neutral manner. It's just fun to search for the rare few that are part of some kind of psych OPs team... NickCT (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised by how unconcerned most of the editors here are about this. I think it may have something to do with most our editors being Americans. Would the reaction be different if it were announced that the Armed Forces of China were about to launch an organised WP editing project? As a response to this, one thing to consider is creating a new wikiproject for the purpose of countering American government bias in military-related articles. Nanobear (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Such a project would be futile...though amusing.Smallman12q (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
? Why on earth do you assume I'm not concerned about this? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The US Army is part of the Executive Branch. Corvus cornixtalk 06:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, the US Army can do what it wants. But they're going to have to answer to the coca-cola company the Wikipedia COI guideline. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Does the WMF have some sort of "official" stance towards such editing?Smallman12q (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
At this wikipedia we have WP:Policies and Guidelines to help with new users and groups of users that sometimes come together on multiple accounts or IP addresses, basically I think the policy is to welcome them and help them to edit and contribute in a policy compliant manner to the benefit of the article content and to the Wikimedia Foundation aims and ambitions in general. Off2riorob (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Female editors on wikipedia low

I have overheard that the female editor population on wikipedia is just 13% and I am just wondering if this was true and if so any ideas on encouraging more women to edit here (more women editors would be nice and would benefit wikipedia). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There's an article at the New York Times.Smallman12q (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think the bottom line is that there is no way of knowing; the stats I've seen are those based on established editors (i.e. those who have registered accounts) who have self-identified as women. It may well be that some female editors would prefer not to be identified as such, because of the risk of unwanted attention, and thus some will retain a specifically gender-neutral position here. So it seems that we are talking about a "hidden population", which although I understand, is unsupported by any figures I've seen, and that is perhaps the problem. In the case of some fan edits to "pop-star" articles, it seems persuasive from their nature that they are female, but cannot be a representative, defensible sample. So, on balance, I don't think that the available evidence is reliable enough from which to be able to draw statistically valid conclusions. Maybe some sort of anonymous, off-wiki project might throw light on this, but so far, I don't see the case being made for such an effort, valuable though it might be. Make no mistake, my experience here tells me that there is little difference between male and female editors; both are capable of great things, and also failings. Rodhullandemu 01:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There is at least one important difference between male and female editors. The male editors are male and the female editors are female. And there are significant differences between men and women. --FormerIP (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you intended to say here, because it implies a cultural difference which may not be supported by any evidence. I could, if I liked, set up two accounts, one editing articles from a "male perspective" and the other from a "female perspective", but in either case, I could also use both accounts to edit from a gender-neutral perspective and I would challenge anyone to reliably and incontrovertibly distinguish my sex (not gender, that's a continuum, not a dichotomy) simply from the edits I make. I just don't think that it possible. Rodhullandemu 01:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not I am able to determine your sex (or gender) does not really answer the question of whether you have one, though. I imagine that you do. Are you trying to make an argument that gender imbalance does not matter on Wikipedia so long as it remains theoretically possible that there are more female editors than our best information tells us there are? --FormerIP (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Since I am a person, with both gender and sex, that doesn't address the question of whether it is discernible here; as it happens, it's obvious to anyone who cares to take a look, unless I have been lying about myself here for the last four years or so. Other editors are not so up front, and we should not read between the lines and try to see things that are not there. To meet your last argument: there's no need for any editor here to give out such personal information, and if they choose not to do so that it up to them. That, in itself, means that if female editors do not wish to make a point of that, it isn't up to others to require that they do so. Rodhullandemu 02:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so an editor's gender may not be discernible and no-one is obliged to disclose their gender. So...? --FormerIP (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
So studies that claim to establish gender-differences in editing Wikipedia are necessarily limited to (a) registered accounts and (b) those registered accounts that self-identify with a gender. That's in no way the full picture, and I, for one, do not regard it as a reliable sample for empirical purposes. Anecdotal, it may be, and perhaps even indicative, but as it stands, in no way authoritative. And that's the big mistake. Rodhullandemu 02:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that there are limitations, as there are on almost any occasion when statistics are considered. So, what we have is merely a very strong indication. Pedants may object and the Pope doesn't appear to have signed in triplicate. Theoretically, perhaps unregistered users are overwhelmingly female and perhaps there is a hidden majority of female editors who are too embarrassed to admit to their crime. But do we have any reason to make either of those assumptions? More to the point, since neither of those assumptions can be strictly excluded, does that give us an implacable ostrich-head licence? --FormerIP (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of cogent evidence, we're stuck with what we have, and it would be dishonest to go outside that, in research terms. Theories are all very well, but unless there is empirical evidence to support them, they must remain as precisely that: Theories, unproven. That is outside any scientific method, and therefore objectively unacceptable, especially on Wikipedia, which principally relies on secondary sources. Anything else should be taken to Wikiversity until it is accepted by mainstream, peer-reviewed authorities, and then, and only then, is it worthy of inclusion here. That's not just me, it's policy. Rodhullandemu 02:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
You've got the logic exactly backwards. There is not an absence of cogent evidence. The cogent evidence we have is that the proportion of female WP editors compared to male appears to be low. This may be open to theoretical objections and such objections can probably never be removed. Ask yourself: do you seriously believe that the apparent gender imbalance on WP is illusory and is likely to disappear once unknown unknowns are taken into account, or are you merely holding this out as a theoretical objection? And are you seriously suggesting that we establish a peer-review process (presumably we will need to identify some academics specialising in Wikipedia studies who are willing to carry this out) before we can consider any statistics regarding the project? --FormerIP (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Years ago we used to say "There are no womens in the internet", and anyone self-identifying as female was most probably a Troll (Internet). There was nothing in the Internet that appealed to women. Wikipedia was founded about that time.
Now computers are more generalized, there are websites like facebook where women decide to register out of their own will (actually, there is social pressure to get everyone registered, male or female). Websites have content targeted to women or to little girls (flash games websites have categories for "girly" games, many times I see my niece playing them). Those little girls will grow up and become adult female computer users who might decide to edit wikipedia.
So, there are lots of women out there in the internet who could be editing wikipedia right now. The statistical data available right now is full of holes. So, I seriously believe that the percentage are probably wrong. No, I don't think that there are many women editing wikipedia, but there should be a lot more than what these stadistics imply. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Years ago, you guys were wrong. :) I've been on the internet for a long time[vague], and I'm not a closeted male. FWIW (which is not really much, I know), I do know a couple of female editors on Wikipedia who edit under gender non-specific names who encourage the misperception that they are male to avoid mashers. I've run into a couple of those, so I understand the impulse; there have also been a few unpleasant episodes where my being female offered an easy target for vandals to lash onto it, but vandals will go for the easy targets regardless. I'm sure that most men on Wikipedia who've been targeted have been accused of being gay, as though that's some kind of crime. Of course, there's a ton of variation among women, just as among men, so there's probably not one solution if a balanced representation is desired. But I myself suspect that the aggressive disagreements in the back channels of Wikipedia may not be as comfortable for women in general as for men. I guess I'm persuaded by sociological theories that women are by and large more comfortable with cooperative modes of negotiation; interest-based rather than positional. Cultural factors probably push me even further in that direction. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Previous discussions here on this: [12][13] Siawase (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
So in other words this is going around in circles? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Very circular indeed. A lot of talk on this matter. Few practical solutions offered. No real action taken.... NickCT (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, this isn't really the right place for it anyway. There is a working group and mailing list to craft genuine proposals for the Foundation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, and haven't we had this conversation like several gazillion times within recent months? And I don't think it really matters. Most of the female editors I know on wikipedia edit articles as fair minded as I do and their gender really doesn't make a blind bit of difference.. There seems to be a stereotype that female editors will only be interested in stereotypical feminine topics. Some might, perhaps but the majority of the female editors I know edit articles no differently to male editors so their gender is irrelevant. Although I must say that in my experience female editors tend to be much neater and better organized than us brutes!...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My two cents is that affirmative action is not needed here. Im a woman and I find it unnecessary. Yeah, I avoid contentious pages as I dont like them, hell I even stay away from the Mexico City page though its atrocious because I dont want to spend all my time defending my edits. However, there are plenty of articles and opportunities to contribute to WP and avoid that unpleasantness. The focus should be on content generated, not who does it.Thelmadatter (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Very easy solution. Since there's no way for us to force women to edit, we need to control what we can control. Set up a bot to randomly indef block accounts of male editors till the ballance hits somewhere in the 45-55% zone female-male editors.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

@Thelmadatter - re "s is that affirmative action is not needed here. " - I used to take that position, but I've since reflected on the stunningly out-of-whack ratio of males to females. I mean 2 or 3 males for 1 female, might be OK. Even 4 to 1 wouldn't be so bad, but 9 to 1? That strikes me as a little excessive. NickCT (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The ideas that usually come up for improving things are in the general categories of: (1) cut the unpleasantness; and (2) make the interface easier to understand. Doing these things would seem to be a positive way to go anyway, regardless of whether they would have any significant effect on the male-female ratio - they would presumably bring in more of the right sort of editor, both female and male. And though the second issue depends quite a lot on Foundation investment, both of the two issues are things that we as a community can do a lot about, if we have the willpower (and the patience to out-argue the loud voices who see rudeness and institutional complexity as positive parts of the wiki experience...) --Kotniski (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
"...make the interface easier..." for women. Surely, that would entail a format requiring a female to complete three or four different processes at the same time, while simultaneously planning ahead for the tasks to done and reviewing thoses previously completed, while ensuring that any offspring are being suitably guided for their internet surfinging and reminding any male partner what their password is and how to navigate to their favourite site. I am not sure that such an interface can be produced by todays technology, or even effectively devised by male (linear) programmers. Even if it were, how would the disenfranchised gender be supposed to operate it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Who said "make it easier for women"? I said "make it easier". For everyone. --Kotniski (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe if we made the editing interface pink with ribbons, and small icons of My Little Pony? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

@NickCT; the thing is that such figures are actually damn good compared to most online communities! To increase those figures is a wider problem than WP alone. --Errant (chat!) 19:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Glorious!

I've complained about some things here before, so I ought to give Wikipedia credit for putting up L. Ron Hubbard as today's featured article. No whitewash, no timidity, lots of things I never knew. Even major media used to be timid about publishing anything against Scientology, and to see so much of the truth laid out here so clearly, despite ArbCom-level controversies, is just glorious -- and a service to the public with substantial real financial value. All Wikipedians should be proud today. Wnt (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I know little about L. Ron Hubbard beyond randomly absorbing a few things over the years, but the article does seem to be informative and well-balanced. It's important to note that not only does the article have the characteristics you praise it for, "no whitewash, no timidity," but also it is not a hatchet job full of every random negative thing anyone could find.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules"

Hello Jimbo. Posting on your talk page feels strangely intimidating; like writing a letter to the President, or something. Anyway, I left some comments at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules. As I know you feel strongly about this policy, I wanted to invite you, assuming you have the time, to respond. It's amazing how genuinely complex something so seemingly simple can be. I disussed IAR's role in helping Wikipedia to become the amazing work that it has, why it worked well at the time, and why I feel it is no longer viable in it's current form. You are quite obviously a busy man, and I'm sure you are regularly bombarded with requests, so I will certainly understand if you are unable to follow through with my request. But, as they say, "if you don't ask, the answer's always no." In any case, while I am here allow me to thank you for starting this absolutely amazing project. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't agree with you and in fact I think the points you raise just illustrate why we need to return to our roots a bit. If we have a culture in which people feel that they can't make good-faith edits to improve Wikipedia without first learning a huge ton of rules, on penalty of getting hollered at or threatened with a block, then we've moved in the wrong direction. WP:IAR is as much about how we should respond when we see someone doing something not-quite-perfect but with a good heart: our first responsibility is to remember that particularly newbies aren't required to learn every single one of our detailed rules before they pitch in to help us. So we should respond with kindness rather than throwing the rulebook at people. WP:IAR is not primarily for you or me; it's for them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems you're not the only one who disagrees with me! But respectful disagreement is healthy, and the points you make are certainly worth noting. I appreciate you accomodating my request, as well as your feedback here. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Attention of taxation business declaration

It advises. The taxation business declaration time limit in your Japan is up to tomorrow. If the taxation business is not declared, it is a tax evasion. I have been advising many times for one year. --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And I have told you repeatedly that this has nothing to do with me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
And, I advised many times. In laws of Japan, you have the legal liability as long as you do not voluntarily declare the proof of facts to Japanese citizen and tax authorities in Japan. If the taxation business declaration time limit is passed, it is a tax evasion. --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Monthly_donations/en

Well, it's better. But "2010" needs to be "2011". WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I still don't have a password for that wiki, so I'm not sure what to do next. Can you email Zack at the Foundation? He'll know what to do. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Profiles of operating corporations

Wikipedia:Profiles of operating corporations appears to be an attempt by a seemingly "new and inexperienced" user to equate corporations with living people a la our BLP policy. I have no legal background, so I don't know if his "fictitious person" angle is feasible or not. The problematic part for now is that he wants to add the {{POC}} template to active article talk pages as part of his "test", having already done so earleir today, and he was asked to remove them by an admin. - BilCat (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the page is deleted now, so this may be a moot point, but I just wanted to say that BLP policy does apply to groups of people, indirectly, and companies are just groups of people. Now, having said that, how to apply the policy to companies is of course a very interesting and complex subject (as most useful subjects are), but the broad principles are clear. If you write, without a source, that Company X is guilty of criminal practices of some kind, then you are, by direct implication, accusing people at Company X of committing crimes. That's a BLP violation. Sourcing standards of BLPs apply here.
I have no opinion about what the page said, since I didn't read it. I don't see how the legal concept of a 'fictitious person' really says anything interesting beyond the obvious things that I just said. But I could perhaps be persuaded. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The essay wasn't just suggesting that corporations should be protected from allegations of 'criminal practices' (as you say, libel laws etc already apply here anyway), but attempting to extend policy to make them effectively immune to any criticism unless they were breaking laws. Somehow, I doubt that this would be in the spirit of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
BLP policy is, and should be, much stricter than simply "avoid libel", though. I don't agree with shielding corporations (or anyone) from legitimate criticism, of course. But I do think that it is wise to look at articles about companies through a BLP lens.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to have a look, its been userfyed here User:Herostratus_/Wikipedia:Profiles of operating corporations - Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, that seems over-broad; among other things it forbids discussion of reputation issues unless the company has acknowledged it or it has been in court over it. On the other hand, with some modification I think it could be fixed up to be quite a nice and thoughtful bit of guidance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like if Herostratus tweaks it up a bit it could make a useful essay/ helpful guidance article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't really see any particular logic to applying special protection to corporations as 'groups of persons' that one wouldn't apply to any other such group (a political party? a religious organisation? ...). If there is to be such a policy, we need to make clear why we think it is necessary and/or desirable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's my thinking. The overall principles apply equally to all types of articles on organizations. However, different types of organizations face different types of problems. Political parties, religious organizations, and businesses are typically beaten up for different types of things. So I can at least envision a useful overall page for all types of organizations, but also useful pages giving thoughtful advice on specific issues relevant primarily to specific kinds of organizations.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the earlier comment they are basically covered already through BLP, I was thinking that the essay would make a good help page for company officials wanting guidance and pointing in the right direction. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I asked to have it userfied to User:Herostratus_/Wikipedia:Profiles of operating corporations because I thought it was interesting and wanted to take a closer look at it. I don't agree with it in essence, and I think there might be legitimate slippery-slope issues (slippery-slope is overcited but might apply here). It also has some issues re powerful entities and our commitment to providing accurate information without fear or favor. And probably other problems. But it's not idiocy and he has an interesting argument. But if someone who is more favorable to the point wants to take it off my hands and develop it, please by all means do so, I don't really want it. Herostratus (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I've long expected this other shoe to drop for some time - consider McLibel and SLAPP suits, for example. And yet, as those examples show, this is not without resistance. And corporations indeed are not the only groups of living persons, or the only other group with laws to crack down on critics. For example, the food libel laws under which Oprah Winfrey was sued for saying that eating mad cow beef makes her nervous. So I suppose that fanatics will eventually delete any coverage of health claims against foodstuffs, as a natural extension of BLP. Negative coverage of the Church of Scientology or the Ku Klux Klan (even, I suppose, in ancient history) naturally would be ruled right out. And for moral completeness, I suppose that coverage of the Tian'anmen Square Riots should be trimmed to match official coverage, discounting unsubstantiated fringe allegations from foreign detractors against the living people of the Chinese Army. Perhaps the PRC government could assist us in keeping the article neutral. In the end, any topic involves living persons, if only as the source of your knowledge, so every article becomes BLP. But that isn't the Wikipedia I support. Wnt (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
All topics on Wikipedia should be compliant with the core content policies. If BLP is extended to apply to any conceivable article that could involve living people then it loses much of its power. In addition to already mentioned businesses, political parties, and religious organizations, living people are also involved in theatrical and musical productions, nations and municipalities, ethnicities and sexual orientations, philosophic and scientific endeavors, and nearly every topic we write about. All of these should follow the same standards as Wikipedia articles that don't directly involve living people. Otherwise we might as well do away with the BLP policy and just make its provisions applicable to all Wikipedia articles.   Will Beback  talk  02:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You both make good points to which I am basically amenable. I have also been expecting this for some time. I just want to reiterate: I'm not in favor of the arguments on the page (nor necessarily against either - I haven't done more than quickly scan it) and I do not want my asking it to be userfied to my space to be taken as indication that I support the idea. I have enough freaken problems without being further identified as the guy who wants to apply BLP to corporations. I'm not in favor of the idea - what I am in favor of is interesting issues cogently presented for fertile discussion. Which this appears to be. And if someone would take it off my hands that would be extremely OK with me. Because I am not going to develop it. Herostratus (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Given the controversy this has caused and the fact that it was written by a blocked editor, and judging by the reactions here, I'd suggest that it might be best just to delete it, and leave the issue for a more considered approach with a clean slate. The issues raised may be relevant, but the essay is clearly no solution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
If Herostratus has had it userfied and doesn't want it he should request deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh very well. I have enough on my plate. I think its worth discussing - if, perhaps, only that a solid logical, moral, and political framework to refute it may be crafted. But since I don't have the time or interest now for this, I've requested its deletion. Herostratus (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved from Passionless talkpage

Hi, I emailed you a few days ago, but so far you have not replied which is why I am now posting a message here while I would have prefered to keep this private as the claims of Battlefielding will continue. Anways, you took the time to take a look at the case against me at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Passionless, I've replied to your statement at the AE, at the AE, and I am still interested in how you feel now that you have read my reply which shows the links between the source and everything I wrote in the criticism section. I do not mean this as a threat, but I feel what has been done to me by HJ Mitchell is well described at Wikipedia:The motivation of a vandal#Former Wikipedians - "Part of this problem seems to be coming from treating in various conflicts experienced Wikipedians the same way as random trolls or vandals are treated. For instance, it is recommended not to talk too much to/about a troll as this "feeds" them. Differently, refusal to talk with contributors that have been initially fair may turn a Wikipedia friend into a Wikipedia enemy, especially when socially sensitive (for instance, religious, national independence, political or similar) topics are involved." While I admitted several times my first edit to the adoption page was flipping from one POV to the other, I've never done that before or will again, it was just a poor regretable moment of "how dare you write something so POV, I'll show you". Other than that I only meant to reduce POV/OR and show other's opinions on the adoption of iraqi children by foreigners, I do not feel that I should be treated like a troll. HJ Mitchell blocked me for "edit warring, POV pushing, using articles as a coat rack" but as I described in the ANI I brought against him for abuse of admin tools, these reasons are either false or misrepresented. The ANI seems to have irritated him and a few other editors and led to User:ברוקולי starting a case against me at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Passionless, asking that I be banned from israeli-palestine articles under WP:ARBPIA even though that topic ban is completely unrelated to the diffs he listed in the case. Rather than joining the ongoing discussion like many editors, admins, and you and I had, HJ Mitchell took unilateral action to block me indefinitely with the claim that I am "obviously incapable of editing in a collaborative editing environment or in compliance with core policies like NPOV and BLP" but this goes against my history of editing on Wikipedia, where I have taken part in many long discussions with much civility and collaboration with other editors. Some editors however are fortunately supporting me, or at least against the actions HJ Mitchell took against me, as can be seen here, where they show that I never did edit war-contrary to what HJ Mitchell claimed I had. And yes I do have two previous recent blocks, both were for 'breaking sanctions' on me, but both blocks were found to be incorrect/inappropriate/a misunderstanding by the blockers and each undid their block.

Sorry for the long message, but can you please reply to both my reply at the AE and both blocks in general that Mitchell placed on me.

Thanks, Passionless -Talk 01:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)-still not a troll

hello jim, thanks

hi jim, I was kind of "amazed into" becoming a novice editor for your site here, and I must say that the experience has been marvelling. which of course has its pros and cons. it might help to have things be clearer, but to be honest I'm having fun experimenting and learning this.. kind of free and libertarian system of your site here. I'm a bit ADD but I promise to focus and write some articles for wiki. I like meta wiki a lot. In addition to making some editings of my own on current pages. this is fun and thanks for the opportunity to be a part of this, steve Stip arnholdo (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

MSN Canada home page

Congratulations JW, you've been featured on MSN Canada's home page. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It refers to him as co-founder, it just doesn't say who the other is. Reach Out to the Truth 19:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales in Japanese Wikipedia

Jimbo used the authority of Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales in Japanese Wikipedia[14].Semi-protected was executed by Jimbo instruction. However, there is a doubt.The authority abandonments other than English had been declared to you the other day.You were declared that the management authority of Japanese Wikipedia was handovered to Japanese sysop. Your behavior is an authority abuse. --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy gave no instruction, just a comment by way of good faith advice, what they do with it is up to them, your claim of authority abuse is completely unfounded and mistaken. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I gave friendly advice based on my long experience in helping communities think through difficult issues, and the advice appears to have been taken. (The advice was that rather than fully protecting a blank article on the earthquake/tsunami, that if there was a problem with trolling on the page, it should be semi-protected. This is rather ordinary advice which would have been given by a great many experienced Wikipedians.)
I see that 山吹色の御菓子 has now been blocked. Ordinarily, I wouldn't support a block for simply asking annoying questions on my talk page, but in this case I do, as the history here is getting to be quite lengthy and 山吹色の御菓子 keeps accusing me of things falsely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an expert, but I'll chime in anyway. Perhaps there are cross-cultural issues here. I believe that in Japanese culture, a "friendly suggestion" from a person who could be seen as in authority can often be interpreted as something much stronger. Your comment was obviously intended as one thing, but possibly interpreted by commenter in a very different light. Ronnotel (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
You could be right, but 山吹色の御菓子 seems to be looking for every opportunity to make ridiculous allegations about Jimbo. I'm surprised he's been as tolerant as he has, and there have to be limits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Not only that, he's ignored every explanation given him and persisted in trying to make his discredited point. It was this precise behavior that got him indefinitely blocked on his home wiki, if memory serves me right.
(Yes, I am aware the link above takes one to ja.wp's Main Page, but I can't read, much less write, Japanese. If someone knows where his block log there would be located, please feel free to replace the ja MP link above.) —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 03:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You can find the relevant ja-wiki links in the AN/I thread. But at this point, he's blocked and the disruption has stopped, so it's probably best to just let the threads (here and there) archive. 28bytes (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Google Translate is less intelligible than Japanese kanji and katakana to me. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 04:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia pages as unacknowledged sources by an academic: Children of the Camps: Japan's Last Forgotten Victims by Dr Mark Felton

I was appalled to find a book published in January 2011, Children of the Camps: Japan's Last Forgotten Victims by Dr. Mark Felton of Fudan University in Shanghai has clearly used both the Wikipedia Batu Lintang camp page and the Tatsuji Suga page as the main source for his information on Batu Lintang and Colonel Suga, without acknowledging this use. I started both these pages and am the main editor contributing to them.

  • All the information that is in his book is already in these two Wikipedia pages or can be extrapolated from them.
  • Some of the speculative and interpretative information that he has added in his book is incorrect, presumably because he misunderstood the Wikipedia information. Some of the errors are basic and show he had not fully researched the subject.
  • All fourteen of the quotations he uses in his book are in these two Wikipedia pages. He even uses the misquotation of a passage that I misquoted. Bit of a smoking gun that.
  • The basic layout of the relevant passages and the phraseology in Felton's book very closely echo the layout and phraseology I used for the Batu Lintang and Tatsuji Suga pages.

I have been researching this camp for eight years, and so know it pretty well by now. I am not claiming 'authorship' in any way. I based the Batu Lintang page I made in 2007 on many different sources, not all of which I cited. Felton publishes the information from these uncited sources, yet only cites Ooi Keat Gin, Southwell and Firkins as his sources: he wouldn't be able to cite the other sources as he wouldn't know what they are. I summarised many sources to create the Wikipedia Batu Lintang page; Felton has clearly used the Batu Lintang page and yet cites the sources I used as his main sources, rather than acknowledging his massive debt to Wikipedia.

I feel sure this is not an appropriate way for an academic to carry on. What comeback does Wikipedia have? I understand that text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; but surely there should be some way of flagging up its inappropriate, large-scale and unacknowledged use, especially by academics? By not acknowledging Wikipedia, he is passing off other people's research and hard work - it took me a bloody long time to put those pages together - as his own. Jasper33 (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(Rather tangentially, the promotional material for the book says things like "this whole episode has been overlooked" which seems a bit inaccurate considering well known books and films like Empire of the Sun, and the documentary material that accompanied it.)
I too would be interested in Jimbo's views on this, although my personal initial thoughts are that this might be relevant for the Signpost, plus maybe you should approach non-Wikipedia media to see if they want to discuss it with the author's university. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Has he used text directly from the page? If he has then it does become an issue that could be raised more seriously. Otherwise; take this to the academic community and expose his poor research, undermining poor scholars is the best way to help foster a better academic environment. --Errant (chat!) 16:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
He has paraphrased. However, I wrote the Batu Lintang page in April 2007 and haven't substantially updated it since then, even though my research has advanced to such an extent that I know some of the information on the page is incorrect (sorry! never got round to correcting it - and besides, some of it was OR). When I wrote it the sources seemed to suggest (vaguely) that there were boys over 10 years in the men's camp. I now know there was only one boy in the men's camp, for three months in 1942. Felton writes 'The Japanese policy of removing young boys from their mothers at around the age of ten years was rigorously enforced at Batu Lintang. The lads were shifted into the men's civilian compound where many were reunited with their fathers.' This is absolute rubbish, presumably based on what was in the Wikiepdia article said ("other sources state that Dutch boys over the age of ten were sent to the men's camp rather than being placed with the women, as the Japanese considered them men at that age. The total number of male children held in the men's camp is uncertain.") and unsurprisingly there is no cite for it - because it never happened. The oldest boy in the camp turned 10 a few days before the Japanese surrender and so was never moved.
He publishes (proflifically) with Pen and Sword Books, a military publisher. They are aimed at a more general than academic readership, but he does use his university credentials in his publicity material, so I'm not sure what the response from the university would be.
I'd like to know what external media you'd suggest I contact. I am absolutely steaming about this. My grandparents were in the camp and I started my research to try to understand a little of what they had been through. To have my research hijacked in this way disgusts me. Jasper33 (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Before you start contacting media, you really should try to get Mr. Felton's side of the story first. There might be a perfectly good explanation and I think he deserves a chance to defend his work and reputation. Good luck. Ronnotel (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ronnotel. Honestly, I doubt that there is a good explanation, but as matter of courtesy/decency, you should at least give him the chance to explain. Feel free to keep us (or me) updated on the situation. I'm curious as to how this turns out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. ".♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with others - approaching the Professor himself for an explanation may be a valuable first step. After that, if his answers are unsatisfactory, an approach to the University might be considered. You may find interesting the story of zu Guttenberg - a wiki was used to highlight and expose his plagiarism and his academic degree was revoked and he was forced to step down as Defense Minister of Germany. Please do keep us all posted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for all your suggestions. Next stop: a letter to Dr Felton. Will let you know what transpires ... Jasper33 (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The question "why not include these?" in this edit summary has two separate answers.

The link to the the "CNBC.com profile" was removed when the "Official website" link was added based on an interpretation of the "Minimize the number of links" portion of WP:ELOFFICIAL, since the former link can be accessed from the latter, albeit in two hops – the official site links to her Facebook site, which in turn links to other related sites, including the CNBC one. And, although not part of the original reasoning for deletion, the CNBC site doesn't really seem to present any additional useful information beyond what should be included in the Wikipedia article itself. Is that not a valid interpretation?

The Twitter link was deleted by a bot, which pretty much explains everything right there. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the CNBC link is nice for people seeking to confirm information in the article, but I accept your argument. It doesn't matter much.
I'm not sure what you mean about the twitter one. :) Do you mean it should stay removed because a robot thinks so, or that its removal was a mistake by an overeager bot.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I meant the latter, being a tad sarcastic/sardonic (I get those two confused). But the way policies and guidelines, and their exceptions, are spread out, it takes a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out whether the removal was appropriate or not. In this case, the decision is complicated by the fact that the Facebook page I mentioned above also has a prominent link to Twitter, but close inspection reveals it to be a different Twitter account... Fat&Happy (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, I hope I haven't gotten the wrong one. I think we should (often) link to active twitter accounts that have been confirmed in some reasonable way as valid. And I agree with the dim view you take of policies that require a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
No, the one you re-inserted over the bot is in her own name, seems active and appears to be relatively new. The one linked from her official site (not Facebook, I mis-typed above) is for CNBC Closing Bell, and is mostly re-tweets from other sources. I was just saying it would be easy for someone deciding whether the link should stay to look at the official site and say "Oh, her Twitter account is already linked..." – Zap! Fat&Happy (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#IAR: Non-free image on ITN

Considering the very unusual circumstances, I proposed a wp:IAR for running File:Fukushima I 14 March 2011 satellite image by DigitalGlobe.jpg on the main page on the In The News section. Since this is a delicate subject, I think it would be nice to have your input. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be super easy to get that image released under a Creative Commons license. Why not just ask them, and let them know that it will likely appear on the front page of Wikipedia if they do? Ask if they have other images they could release as well, to enhance the article? We aren't a tiny weak little project anymore such that a company would react negatively to such a request - it would be a great honor for them to be featured in this way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I emailed them and, to my surprise, they said we can use their images on the power plant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not surprised, but did they agree to appropriate free Creative Commons licensing or just say "sure, Wikipedia can use them?"--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nominating new article

Dino D-Day. 04:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrill Stubing (talk • contribs)

So have I [15]. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The 'article' is crap - basically content free, and horrifically overrun with references from iffy websites, but the game itself will undoubtedly be a success, and no doubt merit an article. Nazi dinosaurs! How big, fierce and extinct can you get? The article needs more UFOs and nudity though. (P.S. shouldn't that hyphen be an en-dash?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You say iffy but that is mainstream gaming press. I can't do nudity it offends me. Merrill Stubing (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Are the dinosaurs wearing clothes? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
That likely depends on how anthropomorphic the dinosaurs are. I have never seen or played this game. Natural realistic animals are naturally without clothes, except for occasional uses such as a horse with a horse rug. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to say, this is the first time I've actually wanted to say in an AfD, "To heck with the guidelines, this is simply too awesome to delete." By the way, why are we discussing this on this user page? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea, but it's the most entertaining discussion on this page. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_72&oldid=1143528184"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy