User talk:Jimbo Wales

If you are here to report abuse, or to request intervention in a dispute, please first read about resolving disputes, and try adding your request to the administrators' incident noticeboard instead. Your grievance is much more likely to be investigated and acted upon in that forum.

Archives
as of Jan. 16, 2003 Sept. – Dec. 2005 January 2006 Jan. – Feb. 2006 February 2006 Feb. 2006, cont. March 2006 April 1-21, 2006

Time 100

Congrats on TIME 100

Congratulations Jimbo on being named one of TIME's 100 Most Influential People. joturner 16:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Jimbo, you deserve this. 64.12.116.69 22:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations Jimbo! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! this looks like it calls for a big slice of arslikhan all round! ElectricRay 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Have a slice of Jimbo's Time 100 Celebration Cake!

Oh boy, and the first person in that section, to boot! The Soul Reaver 08:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

List of people who have had a slice

1. Ymmmmm Tawker 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
2. I don't like chocolate, but I'll have one anyway. joturner 18:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Fast, fast, only 12 slices! effeietsanders 18:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
4. yummy ! gratz for the eff pioneer award too. --FoeNyx 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
5. I'll have one! Looks delicious.... I'm hungry now. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 20:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
6. I take one instead of dinner. Congratulation Jimbo! KimvdLinde 22:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
7. I'm on RC-patrol and don't have much time to spare, but I'll have a wiki-piece!! Johntex\^talk 23:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Gimme Gimme Gimme --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 23:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
9. That is an incredibly good-looking cake. Yum! Powers 23:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
10. I just took a stab at cleaning up Acharya S. Still needs work, and I need cake. Congrats! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
11. hmmm I think I'll past till its inspected. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 05:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
12. I just tagged 800 untagged images, I sure could use a slice of cake... Congrats on Time 100! --Rory096
13. Just stopping in for a snack while on RC-patrol. I guess I'll settle for a nibble of ems' slice... --Alan Au 06:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

    Foiled by an edit conflict! ...and here I was sure ems had passed on his piece. I'll have to go find some spam to nibble on instead... --Alan Au 06:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

14. Congratulations Jimbo! Great cake! FellowWikipedian 21:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No more left

lol, that's just mean. --Cyde Weys 06:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You should run for office

or have you done so already? Pellaken 14:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for you. JIMBO 2008! --Nintendorulez talk 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

lol--Andeee 11:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for you too. JIMBO 2008! I not shure if Jimbo would run for office? But you never know. FellowWikipedian 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I would vote - but I'm British :( Computerjoe's talk 15:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Jayjg`s neutrality problem in an ArbCom case

Dear Jimbo:

There is currently an arbitration case[1] involving geo-politics that may very well be the poster case for some of the few shortcomings, certainly problems in Wikipedia. One of the arbitrators involved, User:Jayjg`s neutrality in regards to this specific case has come into question, yet he has gone ahead emanating some tilted proposals (objected to by other arbitrators as “over kill ”) against the same editors whom in the past he had obstreperously disagreed with in POV[2]. Despite the diffs showing otherwise, naturally our dear Jayjg does not agree that he should recuse/distance himself from the case (in legal lingo; contributing to “non-statuary aggravated factors ”), and sees his past relations with those editors as irrelevant, but at this point the blocking of a group of well-intentioned editors unjustly, may be irreparable. Jayjg, unfortunately, has had some complaints against him before accused by others as perhaps passionate in his POV[3] edits to the point that his admin status many times presents a conflict of interest in various cases. The positive productivity of Wiki recently been undermined by some bad press. I think their concern was that they saw a trend developing here: Please look into this, since this seems serious enough to warrant your intervention. ThanksZmmz 21:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo:

I just wanted to drop a note and thank you for your quick response via email. If you feel it is appropriate, then I would say that`s pretty much good enough for us. ThanksZmmz 00:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any sort of list of your usernames at other wikis?

I was wondering whether or not this is the real you, or an impersonator. --Nintendorulez talk 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Call me a crazy fool, but I can't imagine why Jimbo would register at Uncyclopedia and create a page like that. Parody? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a notice on Unencyclopedia to help clear up any confusion people may have. GChriss 00:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious to see how long that notice stays there. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 09:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Me too. GChriss 19:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's too serious and not silly. Not very uncyclopedic. --Nintendorulez talk 16:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Spoiler

Template:Spoiler has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chuck 00:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cut Spelling Wikipedia

Mr. Wales, first off you're a genius. Second, I was wondering if we could start a Cut Spelling Wikipedia. Can we please?Cameron Nedland 00:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For those who are wondering: cut spelling. If this gets approved, of course (good luck), it would probably just be a simple algorithmic conversion of Wikipedia—there's no reason to have a separate Wikipedia. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Question about french wikinews

Dear Wimbo, I ask you because of, we are making a vote about the french name of wikinews. You know that the others information web-site of wikimedia association having their name in proper language (Wikinoticias, wikinews,...) so some persons in french wikinews have propose to vote for an over name of the project, a name in french language. My question is if in your opinion, we are in our right? One user (Divol) say that "wikinews" is a copyrighted mark and we can't change it. The web-adress is posession of wikimedia foundation so we can not also change it. Even if the vote is oppose to change, what can you say us about it? And if the people vote for change, what can we do? thank you--Jonathaneo 08:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Different projects often have localized names (although the domain name will always remain in English: fr.wikinews.org, never wikinouvelles.org or whatever). See, for instance, Wikilivres, or Wikiźródła. Thus, I assume there's no problem with it, although Divol's thought about trademarks is reasonable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:BIG problem

Here you said: "The problem we are seeing, again and again, is this attitude that some poor victim of a biased rant in Wikipedia ought to not get pissed and take us up on our offer of 'anyone can edit' but should rather immerse themselves in our arcane internal culture until they understand the right way to get things done. I do not know what is going to change, but something BIG has got to happen and SOON about this issue, because the amount of time it is consuming for some of our best editors is getting way out of control." This is part of the larger problem of too much freedom of anyone to edit at any time has caused adminship to be a time-waster that encourages edit-warrier attitutes and knee jerk banning and reverts. I highly recommend changing the at any time part. Why does that have to be 24-7 for everyone? Liberal use of protection would also help. Why on Earth waste admin's time with babysitting sensitive articles when they can be protected from anyone who hasn't had a username for less than a week? Your time is too valuable to waste like that. My time is too valuable to waste like that. Respect for the time of the volunteers is important too. Who wouldn't get a little edgy battling vandalism hour after hour? The cost in causing warrier attitudes is all by itself enough reason for more liberal use of page protection. While someone waits a week to be able to edit a biography, they can edit something else less sensitive. Yes, anyone can edit. But why sensitive articles 24-7? WAS 4.250 17:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. We take the "anyone can edit" mantra way-too-far. Johntex\^talk 17:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, I think you're saying the exact opposite of what Jimbo said. He was reinforcing the idea of "anyone can edit" by saying that newbies should be able to edit without having to first figure out what the ground rules are supposed to be. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Let 'em talk on the talk pages. WAS 4.250 02:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It looked like he was talking about people editing their own articles, not merely bad editing. I think in the future advanced AIs can fix things like this--already there is the Tawkerbot. For people editing their own articles, this is one person. Daniel Brant (however it's spelled) didn't like his own article and disputed it a lot and was eventually banned. The real problem is it a topic of interest to a group, and people of that group are 99% of the ones who edit the article. So the people who edit such articles put all sorts of misinformation and spin in to make the group look better than it actually is. If the group is considered wierd, they make it look normal. If the group is considered racist or illegal, they make it sound harmless--I've read talk pages of articles about many racist groups and pro-pedophilia groups and there's all this complaining that racists/pedos edit the article to their agenda. And articles about things that belong to say a geek fandom that is non-controversial, likely are filled with spin because nobody challenges them. DyslexicEditor 05:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm someone who was incorrectly labeled a sock puppet, so I see things from a different point of view. I can empathize with the amount of time that administrators put into reverting vandalism, but it seems that you bring most of it on yourself. After being banned, unbanned and banned again (judged only by one mistaken person) after doing nothing but undeniably making articles better, and after going through all of the "proper channels" and having no action taken, I'm so frustrated that an "improper channel" is starting to look quite attractive. Why do I feel like I'm being forced outside the clique when I have so much to offer that could benefit this encyclopedia? David (Pole star) 16:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do, Pole star, is sign up for a new account and start making decent contributions in a way that doesn't make admins think you're out to cause trouble. That shouldn't be so hard. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do, Pole star, is sign up for a new account and start making contributions that coincide with SlimVirgin's agenda, and you won't get indefinitely banned as yet another editor who meets with SlimVirgin's disapproval, and is ipso facto a sockpuppet of someone bad, and therefore deserving of swift justice from SlimVirgin. --Daniel Brandt 68.91.252.16 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's exactly what Jimbo was talking about in the quote at the beginning of this section. I was here for only one week when I was banned. I was banned by judgement of one person because I didn't know about Zephram Stark. I didn't know that we aren't supposed to make an article better when Zephram Stark (or someone suspected of being Zephram Stark) first made the change. Even if I had read your mountain of policies, that bit of information isn't in there. Now SlimVirgin suggests that I create an alternate account to circumvent my ban. Is this an admission that there is no way for a productive editor such as myself to work within existing policy? All I want to do is try to make articles better. I don't care about Zephram Stark or what SlimVirgin thinks he did. If an article is better, it should remain that way and the person who made it better should not be banned or called a sock puppet for doing it. All of this should be legal and I shouldn't be expected to break a policy by secretly creating a second account under false pretenses. David (Pole star) 17:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Bergen?

Hi Jimbo, I gather that you are coming to Bergen, Norway in a few weeks. Is your lecture at the university something you think I ought to listen to? Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs

"Statement placed here by Jimbo Wales at 18:01 UTC, 20 February. Do not remove or modify wording without good reason It should be noted that use of such userboxes is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time."

Do you have something against people expressing their beiefs? Dudtz 5/5/06 4:57 PM EST

Yes, of course. I am deeply opposed to free speech. Now, given that this is obviously silly, why did you even ask me the question? The userbox problem is not about expression of belief, but about factionalism and general stupidity.--Jimbo Wales 21:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok,so you are opposed to factions,you probably have your reasons,but how is it stupidity. Some of the belief userboxes probably are silly,but you should not remove the whole lot. Dudtz 5/5/06 5:17 PM EST

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

Bureaucrats Users with "bureaucrat" status can turn other users into sysops (but not remove sysop status), change usernames, and flag and unflag bots accounts. Bureaucrats are created by other bureaucrats on projects where these exist, or by stewards on those who don't yet have one. Sysoppings are recorded in Special:Log/rights or Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log for activity prior to December 24, 2004. Sysoppings by stewards are recorded at Meta:Special:Log/rights but the few stewards who actively sysop users on the English Wikipedia do so using their local bureaucrat status, making this distinction rather academic.

Why is there a position called "bureaucrat"? Dudtz 5/5/06 5:31 PM EST

Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, but if some users want to call themselves bureaucrats anyway, what's the harm? Jimpartame 01:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason that the second-highest level of privileges is called "steward". Those that Wikipedia gives more power to are supposed to have no more authority, and they are therefore generally not given names that would imply superiority. (Admins are, of course, the glaring exception.) A "bureaucrat" is someone who enforces laws and policies, not someone who makes them, so it's more appropriate than most alternatives. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with you here - the term "admin" refers to an administrator, which in a office or university is considered to be the lowest rank of work as they spend all their time with paperwork. THe term has acquired a different meaning on the Internet, but in essence it is still the same. Having SysOp over SysAdmin is an excellent idea. --Xyrael ^T 10:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Not just on the Internet, but with respect to technology in general. An administrator of a computer generally has full access to the computer, among the highest permission ranks if not actually the highest. An administrator of a website (which Wikipedia is) is typically someone with the ability to directly edit site files to some degree. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A bureaucrat is a person of bureaucracy.Dudtz 5/7/06 9:49 PM EST

• Mostly, the term bureaucrat devolved to find a term which would imply serving and following the will of the community. Bureaucrat is a rather odious name, but it implies exactly that. The reason for bureaucrats' existence is that different projects can, and do, hold different criteria for granting permission levels; stewards cannot possibly know every single procedure in every single Wikimedia wiki out there. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy now? Or is it just a non-bureaucracy with some members who like to act like bureaucrats? (Not that there's anything wrong with that :-) Jimpartame 01:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg is becoming a problem

Wikipedia has a member of the arbitration committee who is falsifying CheckUser reports. Jayjg is very passionate about his work, but this isn't the first time that his passions have needed to be reigned in for the good of the project. I feel strongly that Wikipedia must let him continue contributing only as an editor. Here is proof that he has lied about CheckUser results.

Jayjg claims that I am Zephram Stark based on CheckUser results and other unspecified factors [4]. As you can see here [5], my IP number is 4.231.20.95 or similar. My home service is through Level 3 Communications Inc. and I live in San Antonio (something you can verify through ip-to-location.com).

Jayjg also claims to have CheckUser verified that Pole star is Zephram Stark [6]. As you can see here [7], Pole star's IP number is 67.150.222.251. According to ip-to-location.com, that IP number is registered to PAC-West out of Seattle, Washington.

Jayjg also claims that SR Bryant is the infamous "banned user" Zephram Stark [8]. As you can see here [9], SR Bryant's IP number is 4.249.57.71, placing him in the vicinity of Reston, Virginia.

I don't know what criteria Jayjg is using for his accusations, but it isn't a CheckUser. He is lying about that. --Kaspersky Trust 03:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This planet will know peace when all of its children have a homeland. Jayjg should not be expected to apologize for seeking this peace. --Dotan 15:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Kaspersky Trust is banned User:Zephram Stark, whose use of IP addresses from all over the world is well known. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Dotan is him too. Zeph, what you have to understand is that long before anyone had check-user access, we had to work out who the sockpuppets were based on posts alone. That experience has produced exceptionally well-honed linguistic analytic skills. I'd give it up if I were you. :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

WOW, can you teach me your advanced linguistic analytic skills so I can be super smart just like you? Jorgegorom 21:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's Truthiness that counts. - Xed 04:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

poetry on your user page

On your kind invitation to edit your page, I moved the poems to a sub-page [10][11][12] because I felt that many of them were not exactly showcase material (if anyone who wrote them is reading this, I trust they won't take it personally). Someone has partially reverted me [13], leaving an situation where they now exist both on the main page and on the sub-page. Given the difference of opinion, I think it's best to refer it back to you and ask you to either complete the revert or undo it as you prefer. Thanks. Arbitrary username 20:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a couple of the poems dedicated to Jimbo Wales. Which ones do you think are "not exactly showcase material"? Don't worry, I don't take it personally, I just want to know what you dislike about the poems. Jimpartame 21:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think it's helpful for me to discuss them individually. Rather, I just wanted to flag that there is difference of opinion about them collectively, and so it's best for Jimbo to decide. Arbitrary username 21:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're saying there's difference of opinion, it's important to find out what your opinion is. I wrote "Cyberspace sometimes is scary," "Jimbo Wales is really couth," and "All over the world, people cheer." I really don't mind if you don't like something about those poems, because getting feedback is useful for me. I'd like to know why you don't like my poems so that I can do better in the future. Jimpartame 03:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

About the origins of the catalan wikipedia

Hi and sorry for my English. I'm a member of the Catalan Wikipedia and I wanted to improve our article of our own wikipedia but, looking for information, I realized that it was the second wikipedia to be created. There's a contradiction because our administrators say that the French Wikipedia was created before, but some users of English Wikipedia told me that the Catalan Wikipedia was created on 1. March 2001 and the French Wikipedia on 15. March 2001. Moreover, I'd like to know why did you choose the catalan wikipedia to be the second (or third) wikipedia to be created because I think that it reveals the politics (all the knowledge in every language) of he wikipedia, but I'm not sure, because I've also heard that the creation of the catalan wiki has something to do with the avaiable space in the servers. These suspicious contradictions make me ask to the founders, that's to say, you, when was created the catalan wikipedia, why did you choose this language to be the second wikipedia and what did you want demonstrate with its creation. I know that my petition isn't easy to understand, so if you have any question, ask me. Gangleri2001 (Talk to me)

Wikipedia's Integrity: Does Anybody Care?

Jimbo,

Over the last few months I have worked hard to raise a red flag about extremist groups using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. I have now brought the issue to the attention of those at the very highest levels within the Wikipedia community.

Now that I have gone through all of Wikipedia's bureaucratic hoops, what steps are being taken to correct the problem? How are policies being changed to prevent advocacy groups from using Wikipedia to disseminate propaganda?

There is widespread agreement that "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is not an impartial article written by impartial people, but nobody cares enough to fix the problem. Is leaving the same group of editors in charge of the same article supposed to produce different results somehow? How long will it be before the article claims a correlation between natural disasters and Protestantism again? Now that this has been brought to the attention of the powers that be, what mechanism has been put into place to prevent that from happening again?

Can it be that nobody in the Wikipedia community, yourself included, cares about the integrity of Wikipedia? I have suggested several approaches to help prevent this kind of misuse of Wikipedia in the future. Is Wikipedia going to adopt these approaches, or will you continue to ignore the problem and discipline whistleblowers instead?

We all know that ArbCom knows how to give users the boot - they do it all the time - but who is going to actually fix the problem?

Lou franklin 15:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's job is to create an environment of transparency and communication. He has done his job very well. According to the teachings of Ayn Rand, this should enable the rest of us to cause conflict with society and persevere to achieve our goals. Those who persevere without physically imposing their ideas on others will eventually find consensus. To the extent that the environment maximizes the effectiveness of objectivism while minimizing the effectiveness of physical force, it promotes useful growth. Jimbo has succeeded in creating a Randian environment that far surpasses anything this world has ever known, and we have the useful growth of Wikipedia to show for it. The Wiki engine has taken us as far as it is going to. Further growth at Wikipedia is up to us. It depends entirely on whether or not we buy into the hierarchical system that so many administrators are trying to push. By coming here and petitioning Jimbo to fix your problems, you are giving him and the rest of the hierarchical system the power to do so as they see fit. Such hierarchical power cannot create a consensual resource. The goals you seek of integrity and impartiality can be won only through individual pursuit of rational self-interest.

If you believe that a dictate from above can create impartiality, it won't matter how great of an environment Jimbo creates for us. --Team Shocker 19:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Individual pursuit of rational self-interest" has created this article: [14]. This article is controlled by a group of gay advocates who claimed in the article that "damage from natural disasters correlates with Protestantism". This is a group of editors who compared ingesting semen to taking vitamins... in the introduction!

Claims are added to the article, not for the benefit of the reader, but for the purpose of "convincing the people in the center to change their opinion" and "changing voters' minds". (Those quotes come directly from the talk page where strategy is devised to craft the article "from the gay rights advocacy point of view" - another direct quote).

This environment has not "maximized the effectiveness of objectivism". It has allowed a group of a dozen gay advocates to use a supposedly neutral encyclopedia to promote their agenda.

I am not saying that Jimbo has not "done his job very well". I am saying that the system is badly broken and needs to be fixed. And yes, that will require "a dictate from above".

There is currently no mechanism to prevent a group of extremists from controlling an article and using it to push propaganda. Until there is such a mechanism, we don't have a neutral and high-quality encyclopedia; We have this: [15]

Lou franklin 03:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I take offence of being labelled an extremist. KimvdLinde 03:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks for an attempt to create a new and very bad policy by the means of edit waring and voting. WAS 4.250 17:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you want people to create policy? There's either discussion and building consensus on the talk page, or bold editing of the page until a version everyone agrees on is arrived at. -- SCZenz 17:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:How to create policy WAS 4.250 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexually explicit remarks towards me on Dutch Wikipedia

Dear mister Wales,

Very recently two users used very sexually explicit remarks towards me concerning my transsexual past. Also two users are explicitly mobbing me and want me to leave the project completely. Only the first accusation was answered with a two-hour block, the following three were not followed by a block at all - not even by a warning.

I wonder where this stops: death threats, rape threats?

Sunday 21st of May there'll be a Dutch Wikipedia meeting, and I promised to be there. I wonder if I'll be safe there, or just if I'll be treated with respect and honour.

Could you please take any action in these matters, as Dutch moderators seem to lack the initiative to do so? Verrekijker 20:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't know Dutch, you realize. How is he supposed to read all the discussion that doubtless occurred, especially since you didn't give links? Furthermore, he's exceptionally busy. Stewards who can understand Dutch include m:User:Oscar and m:User:Walter; while I'm pretty sure they can't unilaterally interfere with the local operations of a Wikipedia, they would at least be able to bring the matter up with Jimbo as known reliable sources if they felt there was a real problem. (They are, as it happens, also bureaucrats and admins on the Dutch Wikipedia.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Grammy's law: If a user posts on User talk:Jimbo Wales about a dispute, that is a strong indication that the user in question is a) inexperienced or b) wrong.'[16] 65.74.249.90 22:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki used as a source for SVT...

I don't know if you collect material of all significant press articles that mention Wiki, or other kind of press material, but the Swedish Public Service television wrote an article published on the net and on teletext tv, that used Wikipedia as a source. The article talks about one of the last surviver from the Titanic. The article ends with the paragraph:

Enligt nätencyklopedin Wikipedia finns två kända överlevande från Titanic kvar i livet. De är 94 och 95 år gamla och bor i England.

Translated: According to internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, there are two known survivors from Titanic still alive. They are 94 and 95 years old and live in England.

I think this is cool, because a Public Service TV used Wiki as a source; that same tv usually use credible newspapers and Reuters as a source for their news. Thought I would let you know... --Candide, or Optimism 04:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)