User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



(Manual archive list)

Something you Should Know[edit]

User:Jimbo Wales, It is very nice to 'meet' you and to discover that you are the founder of Wikipedia, a source for knowledge and information that I often use, and to which I have contributed during the course of the past year or so. I wanted to take the time to compliment the editors and the process regarding an unfounded report that was recently made against me there by another, now indefinitely-blocked, editor. Having become disillusioned regarding a prior, separate matter, I could have but did not report the editor on Wikipedia (but have done so on WikiCommons, after being inspired by the absolutely overwhelming support that I received on Wikipedia). What occurred is that the editor reported me on Wikipedia with entirely false allegations, quite honestly leaving my head spinning at the very least. The situation was quite like nothing I have ever experienced before in an online setting, what with the false comments by the one particular editor, but also in a wonderful way in regard to the incredible support that I received on Wikipedia at the ANI forum. There are so, so many people (about 30 or more) who supported me that I am quite beside myself because I had really thought that the particular editor's behavior directed toward me and my work here was acceptable, and had been extremely discouraged. I would also like to recognize User:John Carter for making a statement in the ANI discussion that posts were being made at your talk page, otherwise I would never have known to come here and check it out. There are just so many people who have been supportive in this matter that tears are literally coming to my eyes right now; it has all been quite an experience. I'm glad that I reached out for advice and suggestions because I really was unsure about what to do, and did not desire to escalate the situation. So, I just wanted to take a few moments to come over here and let you know that you have created a wonderful resource, and that you have so, so many outstanding editors here. I am really thankful for all of that! Those folks who are genuinely doing the right thing and contributing here in good faith, particularly in my recent experience, are to be recognized and commended for their professionalism, diligence, support, kindness, and good faith. I am going to re-post this on my talk page, also, so that our fellow colleagues are aware of my comments to you. Thank you, again, and God bless, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 04:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Just in case this seems random, it's related to the "carriearchdale" threads Jimbo hatted above the panda ₯’ 00:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
so you want to say that the post is not worth listening to and want to discourage us from doing so?--37.230.26.240 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Um, no, I don't believe I even suggested that the panda ₯’ 00:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, then it's probably a misunderstanding, ... , sorry.
But this is also quite ambivalent - not knowing the circumstances, this could be a user trying to suck up to the max to the administration or someone trying to apply genuine irony/sarcasm!?--37.230.26.240 (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Another "ok", when further reading it seems to be true relief by a user that an intrigue within Wikipedia was debunked as such by the community... Is it?--37.230.26.240 (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"What occurred is that the editor reported me on Wikipedia with entirely false allegations" - this is what is most striking to me about the Wikipedian system: it is possible to do this, make "entirely false allegations" and have a friendly official make a decision regardless of the truth, facts or proves, censoring the matter, before any objective source can even read it.--37.230.26.240 (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo hatted those sections, collapsing them with the explanation that he didn't think.the discussion appropriate for his talk page. He erased and suppressed nothing. Any reader including you can click "show" and read that stuff if they want. So your use of the word "censoring" fails even the most expansive definition of that term, IP user 37. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Refuting false claims has worked at ANI: Even though many people have been victims of false claims at wp:ANI, there are other cases where level-headed users have debunked the false accusations to refute unfounded claims. ANI needs major reforms to require "rules of evidence" when making claims, and divide each issue into fact-finding versus judgment phases, to deter people who dogpile "guilty" before the false claims have been refuted. -Wikid77 12:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if there were a 24 hour clock that started running following a "Motion to ban" before any Ban opinions could be rendered, that would be a step forward. You are right that the greatest ANI injustices happen because accusation and retribution is fast but defense can be slow. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Search Engine Results ( -> Google)[edit]

Why is Wikipedia listed as the top search result among Encyclopedias while all the other Encyclopedias are not even listed on page one, at all?--37.230.26.240 (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not. Assuming you've cleared your History cache. Encyclopedia Britannica is first, Encyclopedia.com is second, followed by Wikipedia, followed by various other encyclopedias. What you are seeing is the result of Google's "personalization", based on what you've been viewing. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
WP outranks Britannica for many viewers: Even when "personalization" is disabled in Google's "Web History" menu, then WP pages tend to outrank Britannica (EB) because EB typically presents a topic as a related-pages list, rather than a webpage focused on the named topic. EB page access is a 2-step process, to first search for topic, then choose among the related pages. Meanwhile the search-engine results are chosen to down-rank a page which includes a topic on a page with a "laundry list" of related phrases, while up-ranking a page devoted to the topic. Consequently, some medical encyclopedias, with dedicated-topic pages, have often outranked WP in searches. -Wikid77 13:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Too bad you didn't read the comment by 37.230.26.240 more carefully. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Depending on topic, WP has more-specific pages to match: Some medical encyclopedias/sites tend to outrank WP, such as Skincancer.org or Mayoclinic.org or MedlinePlus from the U.S. NIH. Because the search-engine target is whole webpages, then for random topics WP is more likely to rank high, with specific pages dedicated to each topic. Surely, no other website has the broad coverage, and WP's emphasis on wp:NPOV-neutral text makes it a safer choice for search-results display. -Wikid77 13:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Monopoly (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)[edit]

A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market--37.230.26.240 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a question that you should take up with Google, not Jimbo or Wikipedia, as they design their sophisticated search algorithms, not us Wikipedians. As everyone knows, Google is a profit-making business, and prominently displays content from paying customers. Because Wikipedia pays Google not a single penny, it seems that something else is at work. Perhaps it is because Wikipedia offers vastly more free, high quality original content than any other website? Perhaps it is because hundreds of millions of readers regularly place their faith in Wikipedia, trusting us to provide good introductory coverage of millions of topics, in every major language? Those are my guesses, but you would have to ask Google. They may choose not to answer, though. Business secrets, after all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Wishful thinking, based on a lack of understanding of Google's personalization. (I would further guess you didn't bother to try to replicate the results.) See above. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It's obviously not a case of monopoly, which is where there is a single seller in the market place. Wikipedia does not sell its product - in fact it gives it away, makes it available for anybody else to give away, and will even supply the software to give it away. I'd be interested to know what other encyclopedias there are that the IP thinks are possible "competitors" or "replacements" for Wikipedia? I know there are some local topic 'pedias, and a few things like the Austrian Economics 'pedia. I haven't looked at the Encyclopedia Britannica lately, but doubt that it is worth paying for if WP is available. Doesn't the Chinese government sponsor its own online pedia?
Unlike a monoply, there is competition in this "market", even if the product can be freely copied in many cases. There is a competition for readers - if they don't trust the contents they'll go elsewhere - and there is competition for writers - if the community understands that readers are avoiding their content, then they will likely go elsewhere. I know wikipediocracy tried to create something like its own pedia, but they obviously didn't understand this "market". Why would any reader trust a pedia that is advertising products to them undercover?
Probably the biggest force that has a similar economic effect on us as competition would, is "potential competition." We should understand that if we don't produce a product that readers want, another editing community could be formed, include extra features (or excluding certain aspects of WP such as edits from anons) and our readers will be drawn away. About 80% of WP content could be uploaded, no problem. So you'd have a pedia with 3.4 million articles instead of 4.2 million. What would it cost to do this? I'd guess less than $5 million to start it and maybe $5 million per year to run it. If the WMF can raise $50 million per year, it's pretty likely that a "competitor" could be self-sustaining.
We should certainly take the threat of competition very seriously. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I assume the "monopoly" assertion refers to Google, which has all the power on this point - we will have no warning if they ever decide to stop listing Wikipedia in favor of some in-house extract or some other site. (I imagine if auto-translation gets good enough a Google-Baidu merger becomes inevitable) Google is enough of an official monopoly that governments put regulations on Google (plus Bing) as their means of regulating what the public searches. However, if we do not allow deletionists to casually delete "extra" sources and "less interesting" details, Wikipedia could provide some degree of competition against Google as a means of searching the net. And I believe that a better-designed Wikipedia can compete against itself and freely share infrastructure with other encyclopedias. Wnt (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
In recent years, about half (~50%) of all pageviews have come via Google hits, but I don't know if those people read more of each page than people seeing a page via a wikilink from other pages or Bing/Yahoo. Also Google, Bing (MSN Search) and Yahoo Search have all promoted WP in search-results lists, but the page-ranks have varied somewhat. -Wikid77 12:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to say that a non-profit has a monopoly on what is essentially a philanthropic effort. CorporateM (Talk) 19:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we need some serious competition. In practice we do have a sufficient virtual monopoly because of the extent of our use and our general acceptance in the world, that , despite the feasibility of reusing content for another free encyclopedia, it would be very difficult to get sufficient editors for another encyclopedia with the same scope as WP. There is however room for one with either a more scholarly approach, or possibly one with a more inclusive approach. For a while it seemed possible that Citizendium might meet the need for a more academic approach, but it didn't happen (initially because of the decision not to make the licensing compatible with WP--for a few years it's been the same, but their format still requires complete rewriting before they will accept even good WP content. I think it's time for another try at this., possibly following the lead of some of the medical editors who are arranging for peer-reviewed versions of WP articles in their field. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Just keep improving Wikipedia pages, by the hundreds and thousands meanwhile, but we need a "Micropedia" version in WP to show short blurbs about each major subject, compared to articles which span 17 or 25 pages of rambling text while wp:Data hoarding the excessive details. -Wikid77 12:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the "more inclusive" ones still exist? Deletionpedia or something like that? Have they been popular? I guess not... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Directories of conferences[edit]

Conference directories can be used for (a) advertising Wikimania and (b) researching topics and resources for Wikipedia articles.

Wavelength (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC) and 17:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)