User talk:Jimbo Wales

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

(Manual archive list)

An appeal of an admin decision[edit]

Hi Jimbo, A few weeks ago, you commented on the ravaged state of the ACIM article in two comments: your first ACIM talk page comment and your second ACIM talk page comment. As I understood it, you said essentially that "It is false or oddly limited at best to say that we only present "what the academic mainstream has found worthy of covering". I have since found what I considered to be a significant and fairly major NPOV policy change that I believe has acted very directly to "ravage" the ACIM article. This policy change first came about via Francis' now official policy change made without any consensus. A brief personal account of my own personal experience of how this recent policy change played out for me, can be found here. I have tried to address this policy change with most of the other policy editors here. By the end of this policy discussion, it became quite clear to me that User:Francis_Schonken had made this significant policy change without any consensus before making the change, and the only reason that the change had apparently "slipped" into current policy, was because Francis had apparently succeeded in using his long experience with handling WP Policy to "slip" the policy change in, essentially while nobody was watching. Also by the end of this three day policy discussion, it was abundantly clear that there still was not, and never had been, any consensus about accepting the policy change that Francis' had managed to "slip in". Based on standard policy protocol, I then reverted Francis policy change here and here. He has now reverted the policy three times (two very recently, and one in July) without without ever making any attempt to discuss his specific reversions in advance and achieve consensus for them, acting entirely on his own, unilaterally. I reported this at the 3RR notice-board here, and was met with administrative "verdict" that Francis policy change was valid. And essentially that I was "culpable" in my behavior. Is this really how policy is now dictated in Wikipedia? Scott P. (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC), A concerned Wikipedian

I fully support that edit, and I don't see it as a policy change of any kind but a clarification of existing practice. Note well that this doesn't impact the argument I was making about A Course in Miracles. An article about a book should tell what the book is about. And the best and most reliable source for what a book says is the book itself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jimbo, but just to be clear, which of the above edits do you fully support? It sounds to me like you are supporting Francis' policy change, or are you supporting some other edit? Scott P. (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree that it is a (material) policy change, but yes, the edit to policy is what I meant. Judging from what he wrote on the talk page at ACIM, he appears to agree with you on the substantive issue. I think the edit he made to the policy change is a good one, although as with any such edit there is much worth thinking about. I can see a legitimate challenge to it being posted, but I don't think it leads to the consequences you suggest.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I would be happy to attempt another challenge to this policy if I had reason to believe that I would not again be simply wasting a huge amount of my time and energy, to simply stand by and watch policies that seem to me to have dire consequences being dictated in this manner, being stamped with official administrative approval. I simply do not have the desire, time or energy to go through all of this again, only to be told I am behaving "culpably". Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Scottperry: There is no "official administrative approval". The policy is simply locked for a period of time to prevent constant reverting. Looking at the talk page I see significant support for your position so simply try to clarify consensus and then make an edit request if consensus supports you. --NeilN talk to me 16:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Neil, thanks for the suggestion, but the last time I tried to clarify consensus at that talk page, my edit was blanked out with the implicit approval of all other editors there. No thanks. Scott P. (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Scottperry: If you want a clear process and outcome, start a WP:RFC on the two versions (and try refraining from using "voting" terminology). --NeilN talk to me 17:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Scottperry: Arguments on the content of the matter are most likely to convince me for whatever improvement. I think that goes for most others too, but only want to speak for myself. Discussions about procedure more likely lead not to changes in consensus. Sometimes such discussions are necessary (alas), but they seldomly lead to new insights that bring opinions closer together.
I think that was the first reason how come we kept talking next to each other, and you ending up somewhat disappointed in the "system". Sometimes a bit out-of-the-box thinking can be beneficial, and less prone to losing courage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Scottperry Again, I invite you to take part in content discussions of the changes you favour, at Talk:A Course in Miracles#Synopsis requested, WT:NPOV and wherever suitable. The admin protecting the policy page didn't decide on the content of the change any of us made to the page (see m:The Wrong Version), the only thing that admin tried to make clear is that edit-warring is not a viable method that would result in a stable policy change. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually Francis, I will not be doing any further editing at Wikipedia, if this is how policy is now dictated at Wikipedia, but thanks. Scott P. (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I think Scottperry makes good points, both about this edit and how policies are made. This change seems intended to encourage a deletionist point of view, including multiple attempts to remove material, and rejection of article expansion in proportion to the number of sources available. Yet there is no deletionism when it comes to how the policy is handled -- this edit balloons it with irrelevant material, which is harmful to the cause of getting editors to actually read and follow the important parts. And showcasing "Mel Gibson DUI incident" in a core Wikipedia policy -- what kind of BLP practice is that??? (Note, however, that this particular change was quickly reverted on July 9)
The other part is that yes, it seems like there is a definite in-group dominating the policies, who revert any change good bad or indifferent unless it comes from them, and seem to let through changes from their own number. It is possible that these changes have more consensus than is obvious due to IRC discussions or something, but it has a sour taste reminiscent of any local government meeting where, sunshine law or not, the agenda is a done deal long before you hear about it. Wnt (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
That said, it is also clear that before protection Scottperry tried quite a number of changes that themselves could reasonably be reverted because they also add bulk and instruction creep to the policy. It is clear that in both cases a more open and better-attended discussion of policy changes is required! Wnt (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you kindly Wnt. Having said that I would not be editing further if that is the way policies are now dictated here, I would still be happy to participate in any dialogue relating to working towards implementing a more transparent and fair means of maintaining and evolving the best possible Wikipedia editing policies. I do not fault any particular editors for what seemed like the somewhat rigged process that I just survived. I honestly do believe that all of the editors with which I just interacted probably did do their very best to follow what they perceived as the "standard procedure". But the question remains to be begged, "why did they seem to have a slightly different set of procedures in their minds from those procedures that I was given to believe I was operating under?" Scott P. (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no "standard procedure". Make an edit to policy - if it sticks, great. If it doesn't stick then you've got anything from quick, informal discussions to RFCs to formal mediation. The discussion pertaining to this particular dispute has been for the most part constructive and light years from the battles taking place on other pages. P.S. I have no idea what Wnt meant by "IRC discussions". --NeilN talk to me 15:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, "if it sticks, it sticks", that was something akin to what I just experienced, but still not truly complying with the written statement shown on the front of the NPOV page "Changes made to it (NPOV policy) should reflect consensus." And, considering the apparent status quo of the auto-deletion of any not previously discussed and agreed upon changes (consensused changes) by non-regulars at NPOV, this status quo deletion practice is inherently, and not very transparently, almost rigged in favor of the regulars. Couldn't this process be done with less inherent bias and more transparency? Actually, I still think that the real flaw is that no policy should be allowed to be changed without first achieving a true consensus on the relevent policy page's talk page, including the "weight as mainstream" policy change of July 9th. Scott P. (talk) This comment first posted at 15:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC), last edited: 16:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The fuss you are making over this is baffling. Firstly, on the consensus point WP:EDITCONSENSUS is a pretty basic concept of how WP works. What's the problem? Secondly, the edit in question isn't a change. It's entirely consistent with existing NPOV principles. If there is an objection to it, it's that it's unnecessary, not that it changes anything. DeCausa (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, you may not have yet had to "fuss" with the policy change ramifications as I have. Just take a peek at the recent edit history of the ACIM article, and its Talk page, and you might get a small sample of how I have had to "fuss" with the ramifications of that "small" policy change. Scott P. (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a "small" change, I said it was no change. The position on the ACIM article isn't altered by the "change" one way or the other. DeCausa (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

A great wiggle word: "Consensus"[edit]

The word consensus comes from the latin phrase: "consensus gentium", which literally meant, "agreement of the people". In my view, there are a few different possible definitions of the word. One would be the "apparent agreement of the people", or what I might call an implicit consensus. Another might be the "explicit agreement of the people", or what I would call an explicit consensus. I've seen other definitions of the "consensus" process in Wikipedia, but so far WP:EDITCONSENSUS is clearly only the "implicit consensus" process. In fact, the Wikipedia article on consensus itself outlines the "explicit consensus" process, not the "implicit consensus" process. I would say that for most articles, Wikipedia's "implicit consensus" process seems to work, but for policy changes, a new higher standard of specifically requiring an "explicit consensus" process might be helpful. Scott P. (talk) first edited at 17:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC), last edited at 17:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression you weren't aware of WP:EDITCONSENSUS until I pointed it out to you above. If so, that explains some of your stance on this. Your proposal is a big change, and should be put forward on the WP:CONSENSUS talk page. I would be surprised if it gets any traction though. WP:BRD normaly works pretty well already. DeCausa (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
You are quite correct. Throughout the entire recent process, I assumed that Wikipedia's use of the word "consensus" complied with its own article's definition of the word, not with the Wikipedia editing process' rather unique and novel definition of the word, of which you were the first to inform me of. I might expect that I may not be alone in my misunderstanding there. Scott P. (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
A small bit of background... I'm a Quaker, long familiar with the "explicit consensus" process, and blindly assuming that the Wikipedia use of the word was supposed to somehow be the same. My mistake. Scott P. (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
You can get some comfort from this part of WP:CONSENSUS: "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others." So, this is what you would change for your proposal, making starting at the talk page mandatory rather than effectively just best practice. DeCausa (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, as you know, "best practice" often translates as, "least used practice". I would make "starting at the talk page" mandatory only for changes to Wikipedia policy meaning, as it seems to me that Wikipedia policy is too core and essential to be subject to the whims of merely "who is friends with who", and all changes to its meaning deserve to first have a full, careful, written and public discussion before being altered. Simple punctuation improvements or obvious clarifications that do not in any way change the actual meaning might not require such a high level of scrutiny, but why not require this higher level of protection for any changes in policy meaning? What would there be to lose, vs: gain? In other words, I would write a policy that would require "explicit consensus" especially for Wikipedia policy changes to policy meaning, but would not change the "implicit consensus" that obviously already works well elsewhere in Wikipedia. Scott P. (talk) this comment first edited at 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC), last edited at 19:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, as obviously the Wikipedia consensus process is unique to Wikipedia, it might be helpful for new editors to be advised to specifically read up on the unique Wikipedia consensus process. Scott P. (talk) This comment first edited at 21:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC), last edited to remove discussion of "Wikipedia sub-world" at 07:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. The current practices have worked well for over a decade. --NeilN talk to me 04:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Our definition of "consensus" and our other content policies and guidelines have enabled us to create a free encyclopedia of 4.6 million English language articles and tens of millions of others in well over 100 other languages (I have lost count). We are consistently about #6 in worldwide internet rankings, and far and away #1 in publishing original educational content. Why should we rock the boat because you, as an individual, Scottperry, have a hard time understanding our definition of consensus? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, although you may have missed it, WP:EDITCONSENSUS is pretty well known because newbies tend to bump up against it very early in their editing. It is such a basic mechanism in the way WP works. I think I remember coming across it (having it pointed out to me) more or less the first time I made a change to an article and whined about it being reverted. I'm not sure how've you missed it since you've had your account a long time. DeCausa (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how giving additional encouragement to newbies to learn about Wikipedia consensus would rock any boats, but perhaps I must be the exception to the rule, I know it would have helped me. Specifically what would have helped me would have been the caveat, "If you're a Quaker and you think you know something about consensus, please carefully read Wikipedia's definition of consensus, because boy oh boy are you in for a surprise", but somehow I don't think that would quite fit into the Five Pillars. 😀 Scott P. (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. "WP:BRD normaly works pretty well already" (DeCausa) — I have my doubts about that, which I expressed when someone proposed to elevate it from essay to guideline recently (discussion still ongoing). WP:EDITCONSENSUS is the better (and more official) version of the same, less prone to edit-warring. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: - Just so you're aware, your comment is offered as support for the NPOV policy change within an RFC I recently created on this topic point. At the moment, the change is opposed by a majority of editors discussing it. So I thought you might want to review the concerns and see if you still hold the position ascribed to you. Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RFC_-_WP:BALASPS. Thanks Morphh (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It sounds like a good and robust discussion should be had. I like the edit, but could be persuaded otherwise. I do view it as relatively minor, but wordsmithing to improve it further is surely possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I was actually quite surprised to learn that Scottperry sees such a big difference between "in real life" consensus and Wikipedia:Consensus. (If I had sensed that earlier, I'd have acted upon it, and maybe would have had more success in preventing the situation at WP:NPOV to go so out of hand at a certain point). For me it has been always quite clear consensus (in Wikipedia as in real life) is not the same as majority vote, nor absolute majority in its political sense. Or is that due to years of assimilation to Wikipedia's ways? If so, tx Jimbo, I actually learned something from the project you initiated.

Maybe it was also due to having learned some Latin a long time ago: con-sensus — "con" meaning together, and "sensus" meaning feeling, in other words: feeling the same about something, quite the opposite to the divisive tension associated with being beaten in an election and/or winning one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sensus, the Latin word being also very different in meaning from the Latin word Census, "survey" (which is closer to the "voting" idea) --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Lamest edit wars" appropriate?[edit]

I finally actually read Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars and while I agree that arguing about Mr. Wales birthday is a lame use of time, I think it is a sad commentary on what editors consider important; and not in the way the page is meant to be taken. The page is there to... shame?... those in the edit wars for spending time on... "unimportant" matters. In reality the page shows me that some editors seem to be care more about what they care about, and anything else is declared "lame". At least 50% of those "lame" edit wars, to me at least, show dedication to getting to the facts. Should they have edit warred and been uncivil? No. But should they have had the discussion and was the discussion important to an accurate factual encyclopedia? Yes. And had the discussions not occurred the encyclopedia would be all the worse off. The problem with the "lame" edit wars is not that they occurred, but in most occasions it is "lame" that one group didn't say "oh yea, I see your point and it is better than mine"; which in most cases I do see that there can and must be one CORRECT answer, no matter how hard that answer may be to be found (I may not know the correct answer, but I can tell if one could exist or not, and can listen until I hear the evidence of it existing). So, my question for Mr. Wales, if he's still reading after all that, is- What is your view on calling an edit war "lame" and do you find it appropriate, or just insulting and needless shaming?Camelbinky (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And the page itself implies some one edit warred to include that Tesla was Jewish... surely no one did that. At the very least that may be a typo and instead of "Jewish" the editor meant "anti-Semitic", which Tesla was more likely to have been than to have been Jewish. I would edit that entry, but then I might be starting a lame edit war by doing so.Camelbinky (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
'Surely'? I think you underestimate the capacity of some 'contributors' to add things to articles for no obvious reason whatsoever - the Tesla article certainly stated at one point that he had Jewish ancestry. [1] As for his antisemitism, there is evidence that by our standards he was an antisemite - but then so were most non-Jewish central Europeans. And as for lame edit wars, needless to say the Tesla article has been more of a focus for the endless Serb vs Croat historical revisionism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
And I agree that Serb vs Croat is the main topic of the edit warring there, but there is a correct answer. What that answer may be, may not be popular or meet a consensus, but there is a correct answer. My answer, which may not be the correct one, would be he was Serbo-Croatian though that term is anachronistic, or just mentioning he was a South Slav would at least use a broad term that would have been used in his time. We can debate whether Croatian and Serbian as separate ethnic groups really exist and if it really matters what you call them, if anyone wishes they can come to my talk page and I'll give a history lesson as to why they don't exist. A difference in religion and alphabet; an ethnic group does not make. But my point in this thread is that by calling it a lame edit war, is that not just a way of trivializing a very important research into the truth? (And by truth of course I do mean truth as long as it is backed by citation in reliable sources and not original research, of course)Camelbinky (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Ethnicity is a social construct - and as such, as long as the people concerned believe and act as if Serbs and Croats are separate ethnic groups, they are, and nothing more needs to be said on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
You've confused ethnicity with nationality it seems. Ethnicity is not a social construct. Perhaps you need to read more books and published articles by Jared Diamond.Camelbinky (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no need to read Jared Diamond, having studied anthropology for three years at a leading British university, and come away with a first class honours degree in the subject. In future, if you wish to advertise your woeful ignorance on a subject, I suggest you find a more appropriate forum than Jimbo's talk page - I very much doubt that he appreciates seeing your vacuous blather here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Ill believe that when I see your degree. I am more than willing to have a debate with you on anthropology or any other topic in person with no time for research. Come to the USA anytime and I'll be happy to pay for it to be filmed and put on youtube and vimeo for all to see. I will put my bach's in political science and master's in history and "vacuous blather" up against whatever you think you know any day.Camelbinky (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no intention of outing myself to a pathetic little troll like you - I will however provide the necessary evidence of my degree to any mutually-agreed person (assuming of course that you are prepared to do the same). Would User:Maunus (himself an anthropologist) be agreeable to you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Ethnicity is indeed a social construct since in anthropological usage it means "identity of belonging to a cultural group". IN the US common parlance uses the word ethnicity as a euphemism for "race", but since race is itself a social construct it is a social construct in any case and by any standard. Jared Diamnond by the way is a geographer and has no particular expertise in the study of ethnicity however it is defined.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Another entry for WP:Lamest debate challenges? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Bad idea, if added to WP:Lamest debate challenges there might well end up being a discussion on Jimbo's talk page about appropriateness. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Dude, it's a Humor page. Lighten up. Laugh at the parts you think are funny and skip over the ones you don't. Don't take everything in life seriously or you will go crazy. Nyth83 (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought the page was hilarious, especially that recently discovered art-work that someone had uncovered actually depicting an ancient Greco-Persian edit-war, but then again I might have missed something. How on earth they might have known about Wikipedia back then, I can't imagine? Scott P. (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This whole thread's pretty amusing. pablo 09:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The idea that race is a "social construct" with no biological connection is a lie pushed by endogamous anti-White Jews like Boas and swallowed by morons. (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

To include on Jimbo's user page or no?[edit]

Halloween cheer![edit]

ebola,,,,,,,,,,trusted news[edit]

Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information ,,you might be interested in this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to edit your bare link. But I did find it an interesting article. Nyth83 (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Doc James does the acclaimed work. Thanks again to our anti-vandals who made Wikipedia in recent years has (to) become a more trusted source of information . --The Herald 12:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo is right[edit]

The recent super-mega-epic edit war on Jimmy's user page over the prefix co- in front of founder got me curious about what the big deal was so I had to see what this Sanger guy is all about. I read his Wikipedia BLP page and my summary is that he has basically washed his hands of Wikipedia. This led me to the Citizendium page which I found rather interesting. Being one who likes to read the original source material whenever possible, I went to the Citizendium web site to see what all the boasting about quality over quantity was about. At the home page, I clicked on the link for Random Page and the first article I got was Battleship. A brief read through and I thought that it was not bad, but would not qualify as a featured article on Wikipedia. I did a comparison to Battleship on Wikipedia and was startled by the stark contrast. So much for that elitist approach to writing an encyclopedia. Just compare the number of references in both articles. And what is with the under development and unapproved disclaimers? Was I not supposed to read the article? Why even make it public. This says a lot for Wikipedia's fundamental approach to allowing anyone to edit. Above all the background noise of vandalism, edit warring, and sometimes passionate, sometimes petty, bickering, stands a very high quality, very broad, trustworthy encyclopedia. This is the big picture here and I feel it is always a good thing for everyone to occasionally step back and see that. I would challenge anyone to random article link from any other on-line encyclopedia and compare to the same or equivalent article on Wikipedia. I doubt very much that you will find many higher quality, better sourced, articles anywhere. Nyth83 (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Compare Halloween to Halloween. Too funny! Nyth83 (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The failure of Citizendium is very interesting. How much of that is structural? How much is inevitable because Wikipedia's size and Google "juice" has sucked all the oxygen out of the room? How much is attributable to the culture of anonymity vs. real names and mandatory sign-in? Lots of key questions. It seems to me that Citizendium repeated the same errors of Nupedia — attempting to adapt the Encyclopedia Britannica one-article-one-expert-and-review model to the internet; it was never a free-flowing Wiki. I also think the problem faced by any underfunded fledgling challenger to the established WP is insurmountable and CZ ran into that. As for the "co-founder" question, the way I conceptualize things is like this: Jimmy Wales owned the lot, Larry Sanger drove the backhoe. Both of them ran around the worksite supervising, but neither one of them built the house. In actual fact, WP didn't really take off until circa 2005, long after Sanger was gone. But both of them are entitled to be described as "co-founders" for their contributions at the creation, I think. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I am sure that this has been endlessly debated elsewhere, and while I agree that from a strictly technical, legalistic point of view that co- may be appropriate, but it also has been argued that Mr. Sanger can get little to no credit for where WP stands today, so where does that leave Mr Wales? The sole spiritual equity owner in my view. I'm just glad he didn't name it The Howardpedia. (See Clear History if you don't get the joke.) Thank you again Mr Wales for the world you created for me. (NoYes, that is not a reference to The Truman Show LOL). Nyth83 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Sole spiritual owner? I'd say the thousands who actually created all the content over the years have the strongest claims to being co-owners (spiritual or whatever), and I'd hope Mr W would agree with me. Neatsfoot (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't misquote me. Leaving out the word equity changes my meaning of owner. Nyth83 (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, apologies, I misread you. Neatsfoot (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Accuracy vs. popularity[edit]

Hi Jimbo, as a follow-on to our recent discussion about the accuracy of economics topics, I have another question. I've noticed that Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting very frequently points out major errors in what are often considered impeccably accurate corporate news sources (here is a recent and typical example.) has a far better accuracy track record than the larger for-profit organizations that they frequently critique for falling victim to COI issues, as shown by the number of corrections, retractions, apologies, and ombud agreements they achieve regularly with their critiques. Do you believe it is possible for the mainstream news sources to be less accurate in general than the secondary sources, and if so, how is this issue best addressed on economics topics? EllenCT (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"what are often considered impeccably accurate corporate news sources". I'd be surprised if there is any news source which any clueful Wikipedian would regard as impeccable. For most news sources, particularly those in the USA, they are only reliable in certain contexts and this is generally recognised in any discussion at WP:RSN: hence the mantra of context matters. "how is this issue best addressed on economics topics" I don't know the specific context, but have you checked the academic literature, rather than relying on flawed media reporting (unless it's the bleeding edge of news)? If I was tyrant for a day I'd scrap news sources altogether .... Second Quantization (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
My feeling is that we should regularly consult media watchdog organizations for corrections of errors. I don't think we should pay too much attention to non-profit versus for-profit in our evaluations but we should look at overall track record, journalistic process, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Snowman drawing.svgHappy Yuletides! Snowflake.svg

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)Davey2010(talk) 04:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC) .

One can always wish.... KonveyorBelt 16:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Halloween cheer![edit]

Notification of a TFA nomination[edit]

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that the outcome of that discussion is rigged in favor of the article appearing. I don't mean that pejoratively at all, just descriptively. It's an entirely legitimate effect of how the TFA process is set up, and after all the outcome has to be rigged some way.
As a general rule, it is very hard to get anything done on the Wikipedia, but it's also very hard to get anything stopped. The TFA process is more a less a machine that spits out one TFA per day -- and thank goodness it does, it's an extremely valuable service to the Wikipedia and the editors there word hard on it and do it well, and if that machine ever breaks down we're in bad trouble. But it is a machine that's hard to stop.
The "vote" right now is running 19-16 in favor of running the article, a statistical tie (and AFAIK neither party has a clear upper hand in strength of argument, so we fall back on headcount). If the question was framed "Shall we run this possibly contentious article as TFA?" it would almost certainly not be run. But (as a practical matter) it's framed as "Shall we not run this possibly contentious article as TFA?". The article is going thru, I'll warrant.
It's an interesting question: if an article is flagged as possibly contentious using the reasonable man criteria, should it be be run (unless it's so horrible that the community really rises up against it) or should it not be run (unless it turns out to be not very contentious after all)? The answer is a matter of opinion.
It's also an illustration of how, if you want something done here, you have to try to frame it as "Shall we we be prevented from doing X"? That's hard to do and usually can't be done but it can be done sometimes. Not here though. Herostratus (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

From an anonymous user: "Volunteers have the same rights to be free of a hostile work environment as paid employees."[edit]

I have received the following via email in the context of the current Arbcom gender case, from a user who wishes to remain anonymous. I am posting the first paragraph here without comment. A longer version has been posted to the case page. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

To Neotarf's point about "hostile work environment", the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to building an encyclopedia. They work with other organizations and commercial services in distributing their product,[8] an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. People who build the content are volunteers, and while they may leave at any time,[9] there have been a few court rulings in the USA, whom have legal jurisdiction over the Florida incorporated Wikimedia Foundation, that explicitly demonstrate that volunteers have the same "employment" rights to be free of a hostile work environment that their paid employees have a right to.[10][11] The right to be free of a hostile work environment extends beyond the person being subjected directly to the behavior. [12] As Wikimedia has become more professionalized with students completing coursework, semi-professional editors working on community and content development as part of their employment, grants from the Wikimedia Foundation supporting work that leads to content development and community growth aimed at new content development,[13] open tolerance of harassment of women (and other groups such as people with different sexual orientations, of different nationalities, people with disabilities, etc.) is just that with increasing potential to demonstrate real damages.[14]

While I have no formal opinion on the legal situation, from a moral point of view I obviously agree. I've been speaking more and more about this recently and don't intend to stop.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Not all the points in that email extract are as clearly moral as the appeal for inclusiveness. Professional ethics are not entirely suitable to an amateur project. The word amateur is derived from the Latin word for lover. Love forgives and trys to understand. Content writers can face a level of stress over and above what others have to deal with. A conscientious writer can spend over 100 hours researching a controversial topic just to get a grip of what a NPOV presentation should look like. Then they have to wrestle with conflicting demand like clarity v precision , avoidance of OR v avoidance of plagiarism. And after all their work, someone can revert at a flick of a button, and then to save their work going to waste, they might have to enter into stressful negotiation with someone of unknown relevant knowledge and intentions. Much as I agree with things like automatic month long blocks for use of the C word, failing to recognize that serious content writers might have more need than others to occasionally let of steam does not strike me as entirely moral. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Mobbing harms the community. We should learn to recognize relational aggression and confront it when we see it. Policy and guidelines should be formulated and interpreted in a way that permits this. -Boson (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Tick tock says the broken clock[edit]

Can we block the sock and change the lock before they flock to

the rock that mocks us?

We have less than a week to go before the deadline ;)
We are anonymous
We are legion
We do not forgive
We do not forget
Expect us — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Possibly related - Even a broken watch is right twice a day: Not an un-charged Apple Watch (The Register). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
So, an unspecified threat made with an IP address through poetry of questionable quality is it? That's some seriously weak sauce. Please, show some respect and proudly stand up for your beliefs in your own voice. Jimmy did when he made his Wikimania speech. If you're going to post to his page, I suggest you also find the courage to make a point instead of pointless threats like this one before you hit Save Page. -wʃʃʍ- 04:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
JIm-Siduri, you aren't anonymous (you've already outed yourself on Wikipedia), and you certainly aren't legion. Your imaginary friends are just that, and nobody gives a toss about your juvenile threats to do whatever impossible thing you think of next. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's Jim-Siduri again - his Church of Siduri apparently has some nonsense scheduled for Nov 5 (and the only thing that seems to be legion about him is his socks). Neatsfoot (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer as a matter of style and courtesy that we avoid personal attacks like these. It's more amusing to be more graceful, I believe. Well, in any event, I suppose this must have something to do with some comments I've noticed on twitter, such as this one. I have been unable so far to comprehend precisely what is being asked of me/us, but I'm sure that is my own failing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, OK, I've removed a few words. The fact remains that this is a serial disruptor trying to use Wikipedia and Commons to promote his new religion - and alluding to threats if he doesn't get his way. I think that Tweet is referring to a video he uploaded at Commons but which fell foul of copyright - and instead of listening to what he was being told and doing the copyright right, he turned to his usual sock-farm approach of making accusations and demanding justice. (And no, I don't think your understanding is at fault - I don't think anyone who has been following Jim-Siduri really understands what he's talking about most of the time). Neatsfoot (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the commons deletion discussion. Neatsfoot (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it really true that Jimbo no longer has control over Wikipedia?[edit]

Kinda like the Monster destroying/consuming its Creator? (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If Jimbo was ever under the illusion that this lumbering beast created from the recycled parts of other entities was under his control, I'm sure he has long since realised that once it was given the vital spark it broke its chains, crashed through the castle doors, and lumbered off of its own accord, beyond the control of any single mere mortal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
See also WP:JIMBO.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Use the Force, Luke.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
"...destroying/consuming its Creator?" Hmm Jimbo seems to be OK to me. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)