User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
:::::::I also want to add that if it adds to the controversy, Jimbo could get involved in it. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 02:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::I also want to add that if it adds to the controversy, Jimbo could get involved in it. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 02:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
:*shrug* If they can come up with something useful and usable, more power to them... and if not (and it will be very clear if not) then [[WP:ROPE|they will clearly demonstrate why the article needs great attention from experienced editors]]. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 03:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
:*shrug* If they can come up with something useful and usable, more power to them... and if not (and it will be very clear if not) then [[WP:ROPE|they will clearly demonstrate why the article needs great attention from experienced editors]]. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 03:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
::The article at Wikia couldn't be worse than the one here that's guarded by 5 guys burger and fries. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 05:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:01, 13 November 2014
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) |
Hi
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please reason with @Ryulong: about this. You have clearly commented on the article many times. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is a huge leap between commenting on an article or subject and being "involved" in an arbitration case. With such a low bar to participation, you might as well list every single editor who worked on an article as being involved in a case request. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
banned editor on his usual topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Jimbo, don't you think the One Young World article could use some improvement? For example, it mentions the Dublin 2014 event as if it is still in the future. Also, there is not a single word of criticism about the organization. Do you think that reliable sources have never critiqued the organization or its programs? - Stylecustom (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Why did you encourage Gamergaters to write their own version of the Gamergate Wikipedia article?
[1] What is your end goal with this? Integrating it into our article? KonveyorBelt 01:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Err yeah, gotta admit that doesn't look good. An explanation would be good. Were you being sarcastic? serious? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I can think up some positive reasons but the troll potential and the possible bias among editor's opinions outweighs them all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Probably to see how they'd phrase some things, and the possibility to add to the article currently here if found within wiki policies/guidelines. When you've spent all the time looking at the article on Wikipedia, and not having any attempt to see what the other side would've characterized certain events as, you get a skewed perspective. I'm happy with Jimbo's decision to do such, as it has the benefit of offering the other side the way to contexualize and centralize what happened, and Jimbo a way to see if there are any legitimate things that could be added to the wiki page. Additionally, Wikipedia is fragrantly complicated and convoluted. Wikia very much isn't, especially the newly created wikias, and would probably lead to broader participation as a result. The semi protection on the GamerGate talk page also probably doesn't help. Tutelary (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I doubt that 4chan isn't going to take full advantage of this. Its a good idea yes but can have some bad results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just strikes me as incredibly divisive and polarising. Oh well, let's see what happens. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I also want to add that if it adds to the controversy, Jimbo could get involved in it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just strikes me as incredibly divisive and polarising. Oh well, let's see what happens. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I doubt that 4chan isn't going to take full advantage of this. Its a good idea yes but can have some bad results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Probably to see how they'd phrase some things, and the possibility to add to the article currently here if found within wiki policies/guidelines. When you've spent all the time looking at the article on Wikipedia, and not having any attempt to see what the other side would've characterized certain events as, you get a skewed perspective. I'm happy with Jimbo's decision to do such, as it has the benefit of offering the other side the way to contexualize and centralize what happened, and Jimbo a way to see if there are any legitimate things that could be added to the wiki page. Additionally, Wikipedia is fragrantly complicated and convoluted. Wikia very much isn't, especially the newly created wikias, and would probably lead to broader participation as a result. The semi protection on the GamerGate talk page also probably doesn't help. Tutelary (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I can think up some positive reasons but the troll potential and the possible bias among editor's opinions outweighs them all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- shrug* If they can come up with something useful and usable, more power to them... and if not (and it will be very clear if not) then they will clearly demonstrate why the article needs great attention from experienced editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Err yeah, gotta admit that doesn't look good. An explanation would be good. Were you being sarcastic? serious? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- The article at Wikia couldn't be worse than the one here that's guarded by 5 guys burger and fries. --DHeyward (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)