User talk:Jimbo Wales
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
![]() | He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is Maggie Dennis. |
![]() | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
(Manual archive list) |
Community-sourcing, NOT Crowdsourcing: A blog post I hope Jimmy will appreciate
Hello Jimmy and all. Due to our shared disdain for likening Wikipedia to crowdsourcing, I wanted to share a blog post that I just wrote for the New Media Consortium titled, "Why You'll Never Hear Me Call Wikipedia Crowdsourcing." I speak a lot about the nuance of crowdsourcing and its role on a wider spectrum of Open Authority. (This is a term I established through my graduate research, and it was inspired by Wikipedia. I'll be speaking on it at Wikimania.) This blog was written within my role as a contributing editor for the New Media Consortium, an organization that aggregates information on ed-tech in schools and museums. Enjoy! LoriLee (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- [Once in paragraph 5 and once in paragraph 6, your blog post has the word "asks" where apparently the word "tasks" was intended.
- —Wavelength (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC) and 15:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)]
- Nope, I mean "asks." You're making "asks" of the community. Sometimes these can be tasks, sure. I do appreciate the feedback! LoriLee (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Traditional thinking will get you killed, Wavelength. Ha! Seattle (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, I mean "asks." You're making "asks" of the community. Sometimes these can be tasks, sure. I do appreciate the feedback! LoriLee (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Quality from Deletists Point of View
there ru:Обсуждение проекта:Добротные статьи#Фил Вечеровский и притча о недополняемости ДС discussed a proposal from a deletists' leader (who has a medal from other deletists for "improving" quality of Wikipedia by deleting junks) that Wikipedia must have only full articles and all stubs must be deleted and not allowed to be created as low quality "junk"
Jimbo, what do you think about that tendency? (Idot (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC))
- That is a matter for the Russian Wikipedia, not us. The English wiki does not have a bias against stubs just because they are stubs. Tarc (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not so fast Tarc. I had the great pleasure of meeting Sue Gardner at a London meetup. Even back in early 2010 an excessive concern for quality was apparent to the Foundation across all the different languages. Sue suggested this excessive concern may have originated from English Wikipedia, and to an extent, from Jimbo himself.
- If I remember correctly, her exact words were "Once Jimbo began siding with the deletionists on grounds of quality, this sent ripple effects out to the satellite Wikipedias across all the different languages. Projects that were once relaxed and welcoming to newcomers and new content began adopting the same over strict approach as we see on the English wikipedia" Here is Sue addressing similar themes in one of her later death spiral videos. It might have made sense to focus on quality before 2010, when the trade offs were less apparent. With hindsight, it would be most interesting to see whether Jimbo might favor a return to a less critical, more inclusive and tolerant approach? FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't watched that whole long video but at the beginning anyway she does not say that a "focus on quality" is driving newcomers away, but bots leaving templated warnings and instructions on their talk pages. Are there really people who think that quality is not something to aim for?Smeat75 (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sadly, yes, there are. Resolute 15:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't watched that whole long video but at the beginning anyway she does not say that a "focus on quality" is driving newcomers away, but bots leaving templated warnings and instructions on their talk pages. Are there really people who think that quality is not something to aim for?Smeat75 (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the idea that stubs should be deleted because they are stubs is nonsense. The stub template exists because stubs have a purpose. There is a difference between non-notable stubs and notable stubs. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- The bias towards destroying stubs is maybe a side issue. It does seem to exist however even on English Wikipedia. Checkout this search for the word "permastub". Often deletionists give being a permastub as a reason to delete even when the subject passes GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with FeydHuxtable. I've seen even many PRODs with the reason "too short". --cyclopiaspeak! 15:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- The bias towards destroying stubs is maybe a side issue. It does seem to exist however even on English Wikipedia. Checkout this search for the word "permastub". Often deletionists give being a permastub as a reason to delete even when the subject passes GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, her exact words were "Once Jimbo began siding with the deletionists on grounds of quality, this sent ripple effects out to the satellite Wikipedias across all the different languages. Projects that were once relaxed and welcoming to newcomers and new content began adopting the same over strict approach as we see on the English wikipedia" Here is Sue addressing similar themes in one of her later death spiral videos. It might have made sense to focus on quality before 2010, when the trade offs were less apparent. With hindsight, it would be most interesting to see whether Jimbo might favor a return to a less critical, more inclusive and tolerant approach? FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Review
If a few editors could review this FLC candidate, that would be great. Seattle (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- And if anyone wants to take a look at the Harlem Riot of 1943 that would be great too. Seattle (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
German Admin banning users with self-proclaimed "Hyper-Light-Velocity"
Administrator called Itti from the German Wikipedia is stating on her page that "she" "deletes and bans with hyper-lightvelocity".
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzerin:Itti
This obviously doesn't meet any general standard of obligation for executive care.
Furthermore there is at least one person every day that feels annoyed or even stalked.
P.S.: Any recommendation to take it to the German Wiki oder Admin board is useless, as "Itti" is deleting any complaint before anyone there is able to read it--37.230.13.58 (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- This is an issue for the German Wikipedia's community; you will have to follow their processes, including appealing any bans or blocks their community has set on you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- First off, this is not about me, personally. I've been following this user's conduct for a couple of weeks and there's a whole bunch of (unbanned) users constantly filing complaints on her talk page, which "she" then deletes within seconds (!). In addition, following German Wikipedia's processes is useless, as I already stated, as "Itti" is stalking anyone and any complaint, even by active users, is erased with "hyper-lightspeed". And surprise, surprise, my info on her talk page, that she was mentioned here, was erased in the same minute (!) -probably to prevent one of the over 400 users having her on the watchlist to take notice and come here.--37.230.13.58 (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Don't mind this, nonsense. -jkb- (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- User -jkb- is a personal friend of the mentioned German admin called Itti, therefore his input is not valid or to be taken seriously. But let's see whether one of the users feeling annoyed or stalked shows up here...--37.230.13.58 (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
It is also interesting that Itti bans entire ip ranges in turkey, where "opposition members risk their life to overcome internet bans". https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzerin_Diskussion:Itti&diff=131425250&oldid=131425075--37.230.13.58 (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? The User/IP you mentioned is blocked after CU [1]. --Alraunenstern (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- First off, you are the one who reverted the information on the mentioned admin's page that he is discussed here. https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzerin_Diskussion:Itti&diff=131666862&oldid=131666849 And your reason is obvious: You want to prevent those users who regularly visit that abusive user's page and regularly complain about him to take notice about this. That is clear.
- On a second note, whether the OP adding the original info that the mentioned admin has banned entire ip ranges in turkey, has been banned or not is irrelevant. The problem is a German Admin is jeopardizing the physical health of tens of thousand of people in turkey, where free speech is suppressed and oppositionals jeopardize their life to overcome internet bans.
- If you want to say that getting one member banned on the German Wikipedia - where a whole lot of admins show xenophobic tendencies and which may be the reason why this user has been blocked, btw - justifies blocking entire ip ranges when the users inside this range try to fight a dictatorship and try to illuminate their country over Wikipedia what their government is all about, then you and this administrator and all his friends probably should either forbear of using ip range blocks to single out a user or give up on Wikipedia, completely, cause this is obviously not only the wrong place for xenophobic views but also for risking people's lives and chances to elucidate their fellowmen about dictatorships while trying to circumvent ending up in a Turkish prison cell.--37.230.13.58 (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't discuss with someone who accuses me of xenophobic tendencies and surmises "where a whole lot of admins show xenophobic tendencies and which may be the reason why this user has been blocked". EOD --Alraunenstern (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Who said I have interest discussing with you? You revert justified complaints from friendly user's pages, so who cares about people doing things like this? Besides, I have witnessed enough examples of xenophobia on the German Wikipedia and will not let you turn things upside down telling the opposite. And what is sad is I highly respect the German culture and I know loads of educated and tolerant people from this country, but what I see on the German Wikipedia, especially when it comes to foreigners or orientals trying to make articles or edits, often makes me shiver. --37.230.13.58 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't discuss with someone who accuses me of xenophobic tendencies and surmises "where a whole lot of admins show xenophobic tendencies and which may be the reason why this user has been blocked". EOD --Alraunenstern (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to say that getting one member banned on the German Wikipedia - where a whole lot of admins show xenophobic tendencies and which may be the reason why this user has been blocked, btw - justifies blocking entire ip ranges when the users inside this range try to fight a dictatorship and try to illuminate their country over Wikipedia what their government is all about, then you and this administrator and all his friends probably should either forbear of using ip range blocks to single out a user or give up on Wikipedia, completely, cause this is obviously not only the wrong place for xenophobic views but also for risking people's lives and chances to elucidate their fellowmen about dictatorships while trying to circumvent ending up in a Turkish prison cell.--37.230.13.58 (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Does the German Wikipedia have a version of our WP:ANI? If so it would be a better forum than this talk page to complain about the actions of a German Wikipedia administrator. On our ANI, a baseless complaint may have an undesired effect. Edison (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- As I said, complaints on the German's ANI are highly likely to be deleted by user's with "hyper-light velocity"...--37.230.13.58 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sure we have. But this IP is an incident by itself, that's the problem. -jkb- (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Wait a minute, aren't you the admin who likes to permanently ban foreign users, after they have made an article that contains a few mistakes, rather than try to correct these? That is an incident, by itself.--37.230.13.58 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If a user is travelling faster than light, there's nothing to see here. ;-) Jonathunder (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hiho, here I am. What a funny post here. You made my day! Regards, the devil of the night. By the way, could anybody stop this IP, the postings are more than abusive. --Itti (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Done. He's evading an indef block on his account here, anyway. Choess (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- What did the edit summary mean? "This, too, is probably Ernest Shackleton's fault". Ernest Shackleton didn't travel faster than light in Antarctica. Did the sockpuppet travel faster than light? What did a heroic explorer have to do with this? I have missed the point. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is this thread that can travel faster than light, as no information is being conveyed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- What did the edit summary mean? "This, too, is probably Ernest Shackleton's fault". Ernest Shackleton didn't travel faster than light in Antarctica. Did the sockpuppet travel faster than light? What did a heroic explorer have to do with this? I have missed the point. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Choess, merci :-), @Robert McClenon, this IP belongs to a multiple indef blocked user on dewiki. We call him "Südpolarforscher". Here is a list of his accounts and IPs. He hates Shackleton and all time he tries to bring his POV into artikel over Shackleton an artikel arrount the exploration of the South Pole. I´m Admin and Crat on dewiki. Thank you and have a nice day. --Itti (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you can find him and capture him, take him to a few miles away from the South Pole, where there are no visitors, and freeze him. Then he can be eaten by Amundsen's sled dogs. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Amundsen's sled dogs prefered obviously seals and penguins not puppets :-) -jkb- (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- First, while Amundsen's dogs preferred seals and penguins, with ample blubber, there were no seals in the interior of Antarctica, and any penguins would have to be shot first. The dogs were not that selective. Amundsen's dogs also ate Amundsen's dogs (after Amundsen selected which dogs were to be cannibalized). Second, I didn't mean to take the sockpuppet to Antarctica, but to take the banned user to Antarctica. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Amundsen's sled dogs prefered obviously seals and penguins not puppets :-) -jkb- (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
More Yank Barry lawsuit questions
As is usually the case in such situations, commenting publicly on ongoing litigation is strongly advised against. And in this particular case, I am not personally a member of the legal staff nor a member of staff at the Foundation at all, and so I have no direct role in dealing with this kind of thing. I do have some strong opinions about this case, but I fear I must keep them to myself for the time being. Having said that I can say that I am strongly in support of the Foundation aggressively defending members of the community where appropriate and am proud of our track record in these matters. Carrite asks "What I myself do want to hear — and I am not alone — is a statement of some sort whether, speaking in general, malicious prosecution in a SLAPP-like manner of individual good faith Wikipedians attempting to render a POV biography of a living person to an NPOV state will be provided with substantial assistance by WMF." In my own personal opinion, the best answer to this lies here: Policy on defense of contributors in this passage: "Such an undertaking may be possible in cases that raise significant issues relating to free speech and that advance the mission "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."" If WMF staff determines that a lawsuit appears to be a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), i.e. an attempt to intimidate contributors to prevent them from writing an article that complies with all our usual policies, I strongly support that we should act. Do take note, though, of the importance always of good behavior and doing the right thing on the part of all of us - we can't expect the Foundation to defend people who really are engaging in libel. Determining which cases to intervene in, and which not to intervene in, has fortunately been a very rare situation indeed, in no small part because the community effectively bans people who violate BLP. But making that determination is still necessary and still requires serious work on the part of the legal team and other relevant staff. I respect that and trust that, per our long history, they will tirelessly work to do the right thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The lawsuit filed by Yank Barry was mentioned a few days ago, but I have some more questions on the general issues involved. To avoid arguing the main case, I won't address the apparent contributions of Richfife, NatGertler, Nagle here, though it appears (to a casual examination, which doesn't rule out potential editing after the fact) that most of the edits referenced in the suits seem attributed to them in the archived version. My main interest is how John Does 1 to 50 and one other named editor whose account isn't obvious could be involved. To begin with, I looked through that list of 31 quotes listed in the lawsuit. Apart from the three authors I'm excluding, these seem to be:
Now some questions. I'm not a lawyer, so please understand these are pretty ignorant:
|