User talk:Jimbo Wales

Jimbo, let's talk about equality.

1. Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses:Sensitive due to public relations implications
   If you block an IP address in any of the following ranges, you are required to immediately notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee. These ranges are allocated to major governmental organizations and blocks of these organizations have political and public relations implications that must be managed by the Foundation's press relations team.
2. Wikipedia:Equality:Treatment of an editor must be based on the behavior of the editor, without any regard to the editor's status. On the English Wikipedia project, all users, from the IP user to admins and others with advanced tools are afforded the benefit and respect of our fundamental policies of governance. All users should be accountable to these policies and guidelines, and no users should ever be exempt from them. Policies apply equally to registered or non-registered users, regular or occasional editors, administrators and bureaucrats regardless of tenure, and regardless of 'rank'. Should a situation ever arise where the question comes up: "Is this user exempt from the community-established and accepted policy in question?" the answer will be simply "No."

What is your take on such conflicting information? Thanks. Life is short so let us live it to the fullest! (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly there is no conflict. The top one isn't a get out of jail free card. It just says the those ip's must be dealt with by a specific department and not that they are exempt from sanctions.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Two separate issues. The first one just stops admins from issuing blocks and defers it to the foundation. AntoineHound (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't prevent any admin from blocking those ranges if appropriate. It just says you should give a heads up to the comms team if you do, as there may well be press interest that they have to deal with. the wub "?!" 11:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated to the question that was asked (perhaps), but that's a very narrow list of "major governmental organizations", it's not a policy page and I don't recall seeing any other Wikimedia projects with a similar statement. Are we sure it is actually a requirement from the WMF and not just a request?QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is just common sense. If one of these ip's is misbehaving, block them exactly as usual, but then immediately notify the WMF because such blocks often result in press attention (most of which is usually confused about what is going on). I don't know if this is a requirement from the WMF (unlikely) or something put into place wisely by the community (very likely).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your view! I think that before I post my reply, I would like to ask first Can I share my dissent here in response to this is just common sense.? Jimbo, can we have a free and open debate on this issue? Thanks. --Life is short so let us live it to the fullest! (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo, I have felt so inspired by the remark I support freedom of expression. A lot of people I disagree with also support freedom of expression. If that's controversial, then someone will have to explain to me why.. In addition, I have found that we are of the same mind on the ultimate goal that every Wikipedian strives to achieve when I saw Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language. Asking whether the community comes before or after this goal is really asking the wrong question: the entire purpose of the community is precisely this goal. as well as The primary issue is how seriously we take our chosen obligations to people in the developing world...Wikipedia as a readable product is not for us. It's for them. It's for that girl in Africa who can save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around her, but only if she's empowered with the knowledge to do so.... It is these beautiful dreams that we as Wikipedian all share that makes me feel that there is nothing we cannot do and there is no mountain we cannot move. So please? Life is short so let us live it to the fullest! (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Catalan Wikipedia 20th Anniversary

I am currently secretary of Amical and we want to thank you once more for the support you gave to the Catalan community. The Catalan Wikipedia is about to celebrate its 20th anniversary and we would really appreciate having a short video from you (10 to 15 seconds) telling something about the Catalan wikipedia(ns) and ending with "bon aniversari" and/or "per molts anys (Viquipèdia), filmed horizontally and sent to viquipedia@wikimedia.cat before next Wednesday. Thanks a lot in advance. We wish you all the best! Best regards.--Sorenike (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jimmy, I hope you and your people are doing fine in these troubled times. There is still a short window of time to send your video; you probably did not notice the previous message, we would be pleased and honored to have you among the people who wish a great anniversary to our wikipedia and our community. Thank you! Have a great Sunday! Claudi/Capsot (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Worshiping the founder

Just thought I'd drop by and worship the founder a little. Love you Jimbo! Joe (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That's very kind but really it's the community who matter. I'm only here to remind us all what we are here for.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Should User:Jimbo Wales be unprotected?. Thank you. The main issue is that the user page has been indefinitely semi-protected, but it still says "You can edit this page!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

How resilient is Wikipedia to paradigm shifts on policy questions?

Hi Jimbo! I hope you agree the 2003 version of Wikipedia was more malleable in at least some respects on policy questions and related topics than the more developed (and improved in essentially every other way) Wikipedia of today. I would like to understand the difficulty of correcting flaws associated with relatively infrequent paradigm shifts. Can you entertain the possibility that [1], [2], and [3], for example, have caused or may soon cause something of a paradigm shift in economic policy, shifting strict austerity (and related ideals with which your pre-Wikipedia career may have overlapped, by the way) from the mainstream towards the fringe? Whether you agree that is the case or not, how equipped is Wikipedia to address the plethora of economics articles, and economics sections and topics in vital and popular articles, which treat the idea of strict austerity as a top-one or -two mainstream idea, as opposed to more of the fringe it may soon become if it isn't already? 2601:647:4D00:2C40:D527:C9CE:C43A:A41A (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:RELIABLE sources. Wikipedia will reflect what the reliable academic sources say. Heiro 22:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is the ideal for which I hope all editors strive. But as a practical matter, if the academic literature shifted from pro- to anti-austerity, how long would the English Wikipedia take to catch up? 2601:647:4D00:2C40:B4BE:6882:BEC6:3E57 (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

That is almost impossible to assess in advance; and the how-long-until question not only varies among, but also within topics. How long does it take for a paradigm shift to be recognized as such within the academic literature, broadly speaking? And when has that point been reached? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There are inertia effects, but I do not understand them. 2601:647:4D00:2C40:B4BE:6882:BEC6:3E57 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick clarification question, is "strict austerity" different in any important ways from the general economic concept of austerity (which I agree is obsolete and a challenge for economics article editors)? 107.242.121.53 (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Does "strict" mean a balanced budget amendment as in, for example, https://sites.google.com/site/amendmentact/ section 8? 2601:647:4D00:2C40:15DB:6094:61B5:CB40 (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I see it a little differently. I don't know WP in 2003, but WP in 2006 when I joined was astonishingly naïve about reliable sourcing, and would often accept anything that sounded good even from a poor quality academic source quoted out of context. It has the amateur traditional worship of Those who Ought to Know, despite being officially hostile to experts. Part of what I and other librarians have tried to do since then is to raise awareness of the variations that need to be taken into consideration. We've improved to the extent that sometimes people will actually analyze carefully. But very often people generally use whatever sources they can quickly find on the that seem to support their positions. (I can't discuss the economics issues per se--there seem to be reputable academic publications in support of almost any position) ) . The first instance of true censorship in WP was the scientology case in 2008/9 , and it was affected by the general distaste most of the community felt towards Scientology--as well as their proponent's transparent attempts at forcing content and their reputation for ongoing attempts to control what was published about them. However justified here, it has proven an unfortunate precedent. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not as dramatic as a paradigm shift, but we have something maybe somewhat comparable with name changes. Meaning, a Wikipedia article on a certain subject exists (the article title being the name of the subject), and, so to say, "overnight" the name of the subject changes – how long does it then take the Wikipedia article to change to the new name? There's some guidance about this at the WP:NAMECHANGES policy, but I'd like to cite here two examples given at the WP:NCP guideline (copied here as currently written):

• Although several decades have passed by since his adoption and consistent use of a new name, Cat Stevens has not been moved to Yusuf Islam, as it seems impossible to predict whether his new name will ever become as popular as his former stage name.
• Minutes after the announcement of his new name, the biography of Jorge Bergoglio was renamed to Pope Francis, as it seemed unavoidable that the former cardinal would immediately become primarily known by his papal name.

So, speaking in general for paradigm shifts, which also come in different shapes for different domains, it is fair to say that a preliminary assessment (without particulars about the one we're talking about) is that such a shift will be implemented in Wikipedia in a period that varies between a few minutes and never.

Having said nothing about the economic theory, I think what you present as a (new) paradigm shift in that domain, is, in fact, a pendulum movement that's been going on for at least a century, compare e.g. Keynesianism, which was the pendulum's farthest point away from "strict austerity" in recent history, afaik. So, as they say, nothing new under the sun. What you're talking about is not so much a paradigm shift, as the continuing battle between several visions on economics, now one coming out somewhat more on top, and then another (other ones having lost nothing of their vigor, and ready to take over the next minute ...or decade ...or century). For clarity, I don't think what you talk about is all that ready to come out on top in the near future, and even if it does, all Wikipedia economics related articles still have to report about the "austerity" period before it: nothing of that is up for removal, as if Wikipedia would blot out history. You present it as if Wikipedia would delete a WP:BLP when the subject of an article dies: we don't, we change "is" to "was" (and similar for other verbs) and that's about it. It's not because in the current world planned economy is not a leading paradigm in English-language societies that English Wikipedia would not have an article about it, explaining its pros and cons. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the battle metaphor, but the rest of your argument seems sound. 107.242.121.23 (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the Cold War was a "war", the strife over economic models was surely one of its "battle"grounds. Less metaphorically, and in a less distant past: a few days ago, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 came into effect (which is a step towards what in the OP is indicated as "paradigm shift"). Some two months earlier a real battle, with casualties and all, tried to prevent such step – or did you think the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol had nothing to do with disagreement over economical models? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly suspect the original questioner is a banned user who deceived many people for a long period of time through sock puppeting. I'd suggest that the question is not necessarily a question about paradigm shifts in general, but that's just a coatrack to advance certain economic pet theories.

So rather than address the economics question, which is outside my expertise and not something I'm interested in, I think it is safe to say that Wikipedia will deal with paradigm shifts about as well as quality sources do, which is to say: pretty well, eventually, but obviously there is often a situation in the advance of human knowledge where a major shift in thinking begins and is met with strong skepticism from established authorities which is gradually lessened as further evidence comes to light, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

What would drive someone to do that, to willingly destroy their reputation among you and your peers, to ask about pet economic theories? 107.209.157.145 (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)