User talk:Jimbo Wales

Request banned user (I alway enjoy my Ice Cream =)......Meow)

Jimbo, will you please ban I alway enjoy my Ice Cream =)......Meow from Wikipedia. This user was blocked for vandalized editing. -- 00:23, February 3, 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Grrrlriot (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wikipedia is run by a Hindu cult. Apparently.

And Cade Metz of The Register is apparently insane.

I spoke to him over the phone about the hoax on Brahmanical See, hoping to see maybe a good article in The Register criticizing Wikipedia's accuracy (since that generally tends to spur Wikipedians to improve this place).

We spoke over the phone for a while and he took notes. He seemed like a nice guy, but I kinda got that "far left-wing conspiracy theorist" vibe, like he reads Noam Chomsky on the way to work, wears Che Guevara T-shirts in the office, and supports the Green party, because all the other parties are "kapatalist." He suggested I read his article on overstock.com and I got the vibe there, also.

Well anyway, maybe I'm just being naive here (Warning: Wikipedia is like hypnotoad!), but I decided to check Wikipedia's article on naked short selling and Overstock.com. I found a fair amount of sources firmly establishing that the mainstream media considered this stuff silly. So, what is Cade, then? He seems to consider himself to be like Hunter S. Thompson, a lone crusader against the corrupt media elites. He's probably a 9/11 truther. His editor lets him do that because, as with all infotainment, it sells.

Well anyway, today, he emailed me with the subject title "story".

"Oh boy," I thought, "The article got published!"

The article is here.

I was disturbed after reading the title, the lead, and the first page, to find that it wasn't anywhere near what I expected. First off, Brahmanical See isn't even mentioned.

What the story is about: Apparently, because there's one admin who has ties to a shady to a religious organization, this automatically implies that Wikipedia is secretly run by a Hindu cult!

• Jimbo Wales links to Time (magazine)
• Time (magazine) links to Time Person of the Year
• Time Person of the Year links to Ronald Reagan
• Ronald Reagan links to Category:American film actors
• Category:American film actors links to Kevin Bacon

Check out these juicy tidbits:

Prem Rawat's religious movement is widely recognized as a cult or former cult

And such sources say that within the movement, Rawat is or was regarded as a divine being.

Editors on Wikipedia named Zenwhat think Cade did or did not do enough good factchecking.

If what Cade says is true, then there is a COI problem, but then again, it's hard to say. Jossi's response seems fair enough.

I guess I shouldn't blame Cade. I mean, he does live in the the SФѴIEТ ЅФCIДLISТ ЯEPUBLIC OF ЅДИ FЯДИCIЅCФ. San Francisco groupthink is pretty much the same as Wikipedia groupthink. That's what it means, I think, when somebody at the Foundation said they're moving to San Fran because of "like-minded individuals." (read: radical and naive communitarians). The result is that, like San Francisco, the economy of Wikipedia is in shambles, we are dominated by political correctness, and we are overrun by people trying to take advantage of the system at the expense of everybody else.

In any case, now I have to apologize to Jossi, since I guess this is somewhat my fault, since Cade wouldn't have leaped on the "Hindu conspiracy train" if I hadn't e-mailed the Register about Brahmanical See. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I find your analysis interesting, but I can now reveal something pretty interesting which more or less proves that Cade Metz is right about everything. You see, Time Magazine has an annual Time 100 party. Current honorees and some past honorees are invited. I have been fortunate enough to attend twice, it is fun. (I usually just stand around geeking out with Mitchell Baker from Mozilla and Craig of Craig's List...) Now, I also was asked to be a presenter at an annual magazine awards show. Interestingly, the magazine awards show takes place in the same space as the Time 100 party. In the green room, I met Kevin Bacon, who was also giving out an award. Get it? Time Magazine, Kevin Bacon? It's all a big conspiracy.

And don't even get me started about Hindu cults, that's even easier to prove. I just last week was in... yep, you got it... India. What else do you need? :-)

It's really time that people realize that The Register is not a serious website, it's a parody... of itself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, You may want to see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Zenwhat blocked indefinitely since some admin found Zenwhat's post above as a violation of a final warning and Zenwhat has since been indef blocked. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

break 0

As I earned a mentioning on User:Jossi/Response:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=prev&oldid=189984883
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat&diff=prev&oldid=189985429

See my edit summaries for these two edits. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your contributions, Francis, but please help with the article rather than reverting to your version of Jan 2007. Since that time the article has been edited by a variety of editors, responded to peer reviews and a GA review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

PS, note that I used your version of the article of 31 January 2007 as the basis for my revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&oldid=104600180 --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the GA failure review: Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23#Fails "good article" criteria. Seems that inadvertently I was on a good way to comply to the GA reviewer's recommendations with the revert, e.g.: "Broad in coverage? - Not broad enough in coverage, criticism section should be standalone section, expanded upon. More information needs to be given regarding conflict/falling out with other members of family. Lawsuits against critics in order to attempt to remove information from the internet not covered at all."

That's the content you resisted and still resist (although pretty much of it was in the article a few months before the GA review) — correct me if I'm wrong. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a bogus GA review by an involved user (User:Smee, aka User:Smeelgova, user pages deleted by admin action upon request). The correct GA review is here: Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_23#GA_Review_.28Failed.29 You should contact User:Vassyana as he was instrumental in helping implement the necessary changes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And if you look at the responses at Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_23#Comments_on_GA_Review_.28Failed.29, you would see that his comments were taken very seriously and appreciated by those involved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but apparently rather vacuous lip service: less than a year later, still the same major contributors, succeeded in doing exactly the opposite of what was recommended, e.g.:

More neutral presentation in the article and in some instances sources with better neutrality would be preferrable. From an outside view, this article spends a lot of time on fawning over the subject and his POV. The criticisms section is well-cited, but poorly written. I receive the impression the criticism section was simply tacked on to appease complaints, without balancing the tone and sources for the rest of the article. Also, for such a controversial figure, the overall balance between positive POV and critical views is way off. This is particularly noticed in how the criticism section is very neutral in tone, while much of the article is written from a very positive POV. What is particularly disturbing to me in regards to NPOV is the occasional use of antagonistic sources to support pro and simple fact claims. This seems dishonest to me, to say the least. An editor can state "anti" sources are included to support a claim of NPOV, but this is a dishonest presentation of the use of those sources. By failing to use sources in their proper context, a casual reader is easily mislead. This not only applies to purely oppositional sources, as negative information from other sources used is also notably absent from the article. (bolding added - less than a year later the criticism section was completely gone)

Well, El Reg is bad source and all that, but this was a present on a golden platter.--Francis Schonken (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you may want to check with User:Vassyana before making a judgment based on partial information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, energies will be best invested in working alongside other editors there to ensure we can achieve an article that we can all be proud of. It is indeed possible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I started this sub-thread was that I was mentioned in some bad journalism, while I had indeed tried to prevent with good methods what was a deplorable state of the Prem Rawat article.

I still do the same, but I think it is good for Jimbo to see where the resistance is coming from, directly, not filtered through complotist journalism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I appreciate your input and your contributions to the article. If the article is in bad shape, it can be fixed, this is after all a wiki. There is good work being done there by uninvolved editors, and that bodes well for the article. I will be in transit until Sunday and may not have access to the interwebs during some of that time. You can always email me as I can respond via my iPhone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis, I haven't seen any evidence at all of bad faith edits here. I am indeed taking a hard look at it. I came to this issue for the first time today, prepared to block Jossi as a hardcore POV pusher, etc. But then... I looked at his contributions. I looked at links submitted by critics. And what I found is... a great Wikipedian. So far, I have seen absolutely nothing to cause any concern... but I remain open. The best thing is: show me the diffs. Not a billion diffs. Just show me 1 or 2 or 5 diffs showing Jossi engaging in bad editing. I have seen none so far.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. "bad faith edits here" - neither did I use these words. "Bad faith" is another thing, not what I was talking about.

Re. "block Jossi as a hardcore POV pusher" - straw man argument, neither would I recommend to do that. A topical editing restriction might be in order though. And maybe Jossi would be better to impose that on himself, than that anyone else imposed it on him.

Re. "show me 1 [...] diff": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190040542&oldid=190040070 - this edit removed all criticism from the lead section for the 3rd or 4th time that day. Note also the edit summary: this was a major revert, Jossi was trying to stop reverts... by a major revert - isn't this textbook something on how not to prevent edit-warring?

Anyway, tx for your time, and I hope you didn't feel insulted I said "straw man argument" above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just reviewed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190040542&oldid=190040070 and I disagree with your assessment that there was something necessarily biased with it. It would not surprise me if the totality of Jossi's influence on the article was to minimise negativity, but I see no firm evidence of that here. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't contend "there was something necessarily biased with it". Are we all back in straw man arguments again? I said that revert "removed all criticism from the lead section". Soon afterwards Jossi didn't object to put that criticism back in the lead section [1], so no problem there. He just shouldn't have removed it as part of a strategy to stop reverts. He performed a revert, then two minutes later he went to the talk page inviting to stop the edit wars [2]. And then within half an hour agreed that the criticism he had removed from the lead section could be put back. As a strategy to limit reverts there's a cost/benefit issue there. Not "bad faith", not "hardcore POV pusher", not "something necessarily biased", etc.

As for COI involvement of Jossi, combined with that other allegation of Cade Metz, that Jossi weighs heavily on policy setting (at least, that's the non-tabloid-language translation I offer for that allegation), the situation is more complex: e.g. I referred to a now deleted page (Wikipedia:List of POV forks) at User talk:David D.#Prem Rawat & Criticism. No, I can't say anything meaningful about that in "1 or 2 or 5 diffs" at the risk of losing nuance (which I'd think necessary — we aren't gutter press are we). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, its looking like no one has yet identified actual edits by Jossi that are inappropriate according to COI except for the problems associated with the appearance of unacceptable COI in an involved administrator; which in my opinion is enough all by itself to mean that Jossi should not edit certain articles. How much he should restrain himself in influencing the content (he is an admin), I can't say. We can be sure that if there is a "smoking gun" diff on Jossi's COI, people who hate Wikipedia will be proud to display it. Their free help in managing Wikipedia is appreciated by all us lazy folk who don't want to hunt through the diffs ourselves! About his alleged influencing of BLP and COI. I started BLP, helped start COI, influenced both, watched both very carefully; and my conclusion is that Jossi's influence in both cases was less than many and fully appropriate to the best of my knowledge. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're seriously missing a point here. I've had years of experience of encountering Jossi in all sorts of places, articles, guidelines, policies, essays, etc. Positive experiences of good collaboration, negative experiences of not getting along at all. I couldn't summarize these experiences in a 5 page tabloid article, or condense them in an executive summary, and even less in one to five diffs. Of course I could give a diff of when he called one of my ideas a brainfart, or whatever, but what would be the relevance of that? I could even give the link to our first interaction, back in the days his signature still read Jossifresco (just checked the date: October 2005), exchanging some points we have been discussing about on and of for at least two years (interspersed with encounters in other places that had different types of interaction): on that first topic, when it gathered momentum, I didn't give in much, neither did he, but eventually I suppose on both sides some concessions were made leading to a guideline currently that is somehow doable for the encyclopedia.

Yes, I think Jossi should take care not to impose his views too vigorously, for the wellfare of this encyclopedia, but that's a general impression that I can't, as said, reduce to 5 diffs. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that I'm missing your point. I too have had negative encounters with Jossi, but nothing not fully explainable by the fact that we are both fallible human beings. Assume good faith is very appropriate here. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith, your lecture is a bit inappropriate there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Jossi_and_Prem_Rawat_2. Andries (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"correct me if I'm wrong."

Francis, there is no such thing as wrong and I cannot correct you.

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity.

I think that your subjective opinions are interesting, just as I think Jossi's subjective opinions are interesting. Perhaps you should discuss the matter directly with Jossi and you can build consensus, and come to a reasonable conclusion on what subjective opinions should be included in articles relating to Prem Rawat. If you're suggesting that Jossi is biased, we're all biased, Francis. None of us are objective because there is no such thing as objectivity or critical thinking. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

break 1

My 2 cents is that if we start blocking folks for COI, then a lot of people should be blocked. I wonder if my prior employment (not since 1996) with the National Park Service makes me have a COI when I edit park related articles...see where this is going? I completely agree with you that everything I have seen from Jossi is commendable, and that doesn't mean we have always agreed with each other either. It would be crazy if we start blocking people who edit in areas where they have real life knowledge...even a POV is certainly acceptable...the only time it isn't is when that POV interferes with our requirement to be neutral. I recommend we start blocking editors who are doing the dirty work for banned editors. That kind of aiding and abetting is what makes this website less than what it should be.--MONGO 04:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Along with those editors who digress on a large percentage of discussion topics to include irrelevent comment on their favourite bete noir's. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you're in any immediate risk of being banned...but things do change here fast.--MONGO 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The COI guideline should be nuked. It just causes headaches for everyone. Whether or not you have a conflict of interest, you either follow the core policies or you don't. One man's "exptertise" is another's "conflict of interest." Please get rid of this hypocritical guideline. 65.54.154.116 (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish even ten percent of the people who offer opinions about the COI guideline actually helped run the COI noticeboard. In an ideal world neither would be necessary. In the real world of Wikipedia, they're needed. Have people forgotten the weeks of worldwide headlines caused by the WikiScanner last summer? The sad fact is, people do edit Wikipedia because they want to promote some product or ideology. Not everyone who has a conflict of interest acts against the interests of the encyclopedia, but the appearance of impropriety alone is enough to raise eyebrows and news stories. WP:COI and WP:COIN help the public by keeping the site's articles honest, they help the site by reducing negative press, and they help the editors by providing feedback when people are running enormous PR risks and don't realize it. If there's a problem, better to hear it from a fellow editor or admin than from the Associated Press reporter. Durova^Charge! 05:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There is some truth in it. The article Prem Rawat grew one-sided mostly because it was left alone to warring factions by the wider wikipedia community. Dispute resolution had repeatedly been tried hy me but failed. Eventually one faction got the upper hand. Andries (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need is more emphasis on single issue editors than COI. If someone contributes to a wide variety of subjects, but happens to have a soft spot or POV for an issue, that would be very human, and as long as he can learn to collaborate and compromise, he would be a fine editor. My concern is with people who come here for one purpose, or one topic, and tend to own the related articles. Even there, in theory this could be useful for us, but I prefer the more well rounded editor than the narrow-focused one. Crum375 (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how we would like to view it, this story made the front page of Digg. We can't mold the rest of the world's impression by changing an onsite guideline. The fact that this happened in apparent compliance with our guideline is a signal to us to update our standards, so that productive editors don't get lulled into thinking they're safe from the press and from public opinion. Durova^Charge! 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi is not in fact editing according to the COI guideline recommendation. It recommends not editing articles about subjects one is close to. It warns that one may embarrass oneself and what one cares about. Jossi is now paying the price of ignoring that warning. The warning used to be stronger. Who edited that guideline to weaken its warning? WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

break 2

This might provide a good rough first guess on articles Jossi should not be over-influential on at wikipedia. Let him do his thing at Citizendium, where being too close to something is not a big deal. The contrast between what gets created there and here will help both sites in dealing with the issues. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Importing an outside conflict

User:Jossi/Response contains: "the people [Cade Metz] used as a source, [...] even attempted to subpoena me to disclose the identities of fellow Wikipedians [...]"

Appears the subpoena was filed before Jossi's first edit to Wikipedia, and had nothing to do with Wikipedia. [3] [4]

Don't import outside conflicts in Wikipedia, per WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. If you had a conflict with Marianne over webcontent you produced for Prem Rawat or his organisations (or whatever), don't even dream of implicating Wikipedia in that via your "Response" page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Jossie Fresco has referred to my libel lawsuit in his wikipedia entry. His statement that I tried to find out the identities of wikipedians is completely false. My lawsuit was filed in February, 2004. The libel complaint is based on numerous statements made on the internet which falsely claimed I was involved in illegal activity. The libel complaint details many of the statements, which occurred between 2001 and 2003. Wikipedia is never mentioned. A superior court judge authorized a subpoena to Jossi so he could be deposed about his knowledge, as Rawat's webmaster, of the identities of the people making these libelous claims - again, none of which involved wikipedia."[5]

Perhaps Jossi is referring to Wikipedia editors involved with the subpoena that together with him have helped to maintain related articles??? Just guessing, here. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried not to speculate, I think it's better that way.

Anyway, I'd abhorr the idea that Mike Godwin, on Wikipedia's behalf, would need to intervene to protect the identity of premies sought for outside the context of Wikipedia, but of whom Jossi now revealed they're Wikipedians too. That would not be money well spent, and Jossi should have done better to avoid the slightest chance of that ever occurring. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WAS, Francis, you could have asked me via email about this, rather than here. You do not have all the information, the subpoena was served to me while I was actively editing Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove "They even attempted to subpoena me to disclose the identities of fellow Wikipedians (etc)" from your "response" page. It was entirely inappropriate to bring that up on a Wikipedia user page. Our comments were in the same medium as where that was brought up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I did. Now, you could consider investing your attention to maintain some basic talk-page discipline, by refactoring blatant personal attacks, such as [6] and others. I am not fair game, neither that article is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There are also BLP violations on that page by that user and others. Neither that article, nor me, are fair game, in particular as I have done no wrong. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For PA's I prefer to keep to WP:NPA#Initial options as long as possible. "Refactoring", which is in no way an obligatory option, (See WP:NPA#Removal of text) is almost never done by me (just the wrong guy you're asking). But to show I was annoyed too, and not of bad will, I posted this remark [7].

I would have expected at a minimum a {{uw-npa2}}. I guess I will need to place a request at WP:/ANI so that someone else can warn that user about our policy of WP:CIVILITY ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As you might remember, I tend to dismiss things that might be perceived as personal attacks with slightly out of place expressions like "over the hill", and leave interpretation to others. That was my attitude then, it is still the same. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, and I may be learning from you some of that :) Does it work? We shall see, I guess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it worked, as you also know. But indeed it works all the time. I consider myself a pretty controversial Wikipedia editor. Nonetheless I'm almost jealous of never having been at the center of some media attention. Lately I was thinking that might be caused by leaving endless lists of people saying not-so-nice things (intermingled with compliments) on my user talk page, neatly archiving these messages afterwards. ;) --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. "as I have done no wrong" — you say we don't have the evidence about that, so that assertion is empty, and irrelevant. Aka: Verifiability not truth. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My judgement is that within the context of the Prem Rawat article Jossi Fresco has exerted authority in an unfair way. To judge Jossi favourably because one can't find that he has done anything wrong seems short-sighted. What you might might want to look at is what he hasn't done that he should have. Like...over a period of years, turning a blind eye to the weasely editing of the Rawat article by fellow followers and ignoring their patronisation of other editors, whilst liberally dishing out warnings to the latter. Let me put it this way, as a critical former follower I wanted to edit this article to better reflect the truth which I see as being heavily revised. It is hardly encouraging to have Rawat's very own henchman residing over this article in an apparent position of authority. Worse to find that he is writing the rules and influencing every possible other connected article on an apparently full-time basis is extremely off-putting. One really feels that there are insurmountable ramparts around that article and most non-partisan editors have fled in frustration. As a result you now have a highly biased article. It that simple fellas.PatW (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)PatW (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of intent

Please see User:Jossi/Response#Declaration_of_intent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Sounds like you have no intention to leave Rawat articles for others then. You intend to refrain from editing these articles 'directly for now' but you still intend to report people whose behaviour you deem inappropriate. If I were you, as a matter of common sense and conscience, I'd make that a very long 'for now' and when I did return (if I ever did) I'd be at great pains to demonstrate impartiality about that Prem Rawat article and I'd allow other more impartial people to take over. As a matter of fact that's what I have actually done myself. As I see it, one of the main problems with the Prem Rawat article is that premies make all these obsequious noises when caught being partisan, promise to take a break, but return to promptly revert everyone's edits when the hubbub has died down. Like everyone says you are apparently missing the gist of what people are telling you which is: Because there is notable objection to premies effectively 'owning' this article and also some furore over your perceived COI it would simply be polite and considerate to let others finish the job. As you know, I am a former premie and critic who stopped supporting Rawat and was drawn to this article because I objected to dishonesty and a policy of revisionism from him and his organisation. Even I can see that it is even best that I do not edit that article and stick to arguing my points on the discussion page and I have noticed that the other so-called 'ex-premie' critics generally do the same. Frankly I think that once opposing factions have laid out their cards on these types of controversial articles, the time naturally comes when they should both reasonably withdraw and let non-combatants take over. Both 'sides' should stick to arguing on the discussion pages and bow to the judgement of the public. How Wikipedia can encourage and put this into effect is another thing.PatW (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pat. I have done my part, despite the lack of evidence that I have edited improperly or that I have abused my admin privileges. I did that as a demonstration of good faith, and to avoid further drama. What would have helped a lot would have been that you refrain from using the talk pages for things that prompted this warning. These type of comments are most unhelpful, and yes, if I see that happening and there is no response from these that have the article in their watchlist, I will indeed let other editors know so that they can take a look: The principle of WP:CIVILITY is one of the basis of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we do anything about this?

I just found this on my talk page:

[...] Jossi’s accusation about people colluding to disrupt the Rawat articles is patently false and sheer fantasy. [...]

The "accussation" is at Jossi's "response" page (in the drop-down box of User:Jossi/Response#My response to Cade Metz article in The Register):

[...] disaffected former students [...] have also colluded to disrupt Wikipedia [...]

Per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX I'd propose that unless Jossi can substantiate such claims in a verifiable manner, he'd better remove such assertions from any page in any namespace of Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Francis. I understand your concern, as bringing to the project off-wiki disputes is never a good thing. I can email the Jimbo or the arbCom with the required evidence if needed be, but I will reflect on your request to remove that statement first. I can email you some material, in confidence, if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have refactored that comment, Francis. Thank you for pointing this out. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You wrote yourself at a certain time that every editor work at Prem Rawat was independent. There was only some exchange of sources as far as I know. If your accusation was true then how come that a certain time nearly all criticial material had been removed? Your accusation is false and insulting. Please also remember that the ex-premie forum is the only open forum discussing Prem Rawat on the internet. I had request a more neutral forum but that was not available. [8] [9]Andries (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Hello Mr. Jimbo Wales, I hope you're fine. Just a minor question about starting of Wiktionary. We read in the article of Wiktionary that: "Wiktionary was brought online on December 12, 2002 following a proposal by Daniel Alston." This sentence is lacking a source. I think you know how was it starting. Can you help with keeping (If it's right) or deleting (If it's wrong) this sentence (Or tell me and I'll do that). Thank you!--OsamaK 16:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's prime commodity - Agenda/time/groupism or Information?

Hi Jimmy,

I'm Sudharsan SN from Canada and we have met before in the Wikipedia Unconference in Chennai, India. I just wanted to report an annoying trend that has been happening in edit wars.

I was a very active editor of Wikipedia and my edit history speaks for itself. However, I notice that there are just three things required for 'twisting' an article in one's favor: lots of time, a small set of people with lots of time, a complete agenda driven presence. In simplistic terms, a person who is a member of an organization, with two or three regular 'employees' under him, smart enough to use Wikipedia, can basically write lots of nonsense and get that to stay. If that user or team gets to protect that article for about a month, then it becomes a benchmark article.

This goes beyond the paradigm of just edit wars and there are several agenda-driven admins who willfully assist in this operation. I have had many such unpleasant experiences here with regard to edit wars. All it takes for a cited article, verified by an admin and 10 other independent editors, to get deleted or cleaned up is just 2 admins and 15 dedicated destructive editors.

Reporting this at the WP:AN or just anywhere gets lost, or leads to a literally unending chain of events which does not have a solution. I am reporting this to you to, perhaps, consider some policy level framework that fixes this anomaly. Wikipedia is, now, the greatest source of information on the Internet, however this framework is being misused. Wikipedia in itself is a representation of the whole human paradigm of diversity but essentially, this can be regulated or perhaps a framework change done for better accountability and accuracy.

The one-line summary would be to consider Wikipedia-level framework changes that would fix this system anomaly of agenda-driven individuals with lots of time, literally, controlling Wikipedia. Information, not agenda, should be the prime commodity in Wikipedia.

I would really appreciate your suggestions. Thanks for your time and patience. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is quite literally old news that Wikipedia has issues with quality and some of that is related to conflict of interest editing. Jimbo knows, I know, you know, the whole world knows. But what to do about it? See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiquality. Add an idea. Write a grant proposal. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not just Conflict of Interest (COI). Genuine subject-matter-expertise gets labeled "WP:COI" here quite frequently. And subject matter experts get pounced on and driven away here regularly, too. And get called "meatpuppets" when they are joined by their colleagues, who tend to have similar ideas. Yes, this is done sometimes by non-experts with time-on-their-hands (usually because they're editing from school or their room in their parents' home..). "Look, Timmy tweeks the old prof on Wikipedia!" Now, the real world (or those parts of it which are required to deal with reality), have dealt with the problem of experts-with-little-time, vs. nonexperts-with-time, long ago. By having acknowledged experts who are, well, acknowledged. That's how the real world decides who gets to stand in front of the university class, or who gives the orders in the operating theater or the military theater or whatever. Wikipedia has decided to dispense with this step, and make everybody "equal" with regard to assumed knowledge. And now, here we are with the expected result. Wikipedia looks a bit like the American legal system, where time and money trump knowledge, does it not? Is that the way you-all want it?

FYI, Larry Sanger didn't come up with this idea of expert review. Just because he noticed that this is how the world (already) works, but Wikipedia doesn't, don't make the idea evil. It actually predates Larry by half a millennium at least. Wikipedia works as well as it does only because it has a few experts willing to take the pain, for no gain. They don't last long, usually. But there's a large supply, and Wikipedia hasn't yet run out of them (yet). In academia a very similar thing happens "using up" postdocs, to do teaching at University (the difference is that Wikipedia has no tenure even to act as a false brass ring). SBHarris 02:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Farrell

He hate it.

Since when does Mike Farrell get to write in an OTRS ticket and say he hates a high quality photo of him that is not ultra-touched up, and it gets taken down and replaced with an ultra-touched up 9KB Mike Farrell shot? If he wants to release a high-quality, Michelle Merkin-esque photo of himself for GFDL, great. But since when do notables get to write in and simply ask that work we invest in obtaining GFDL high-quality images can be taken down simply because they don't like the way they looked that day, or whatever gets replaced with junk? Is celebrity vanity really going to be what dictates our media? Is this really a function of OTRS? David Shankbone 04:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this the image he supplied? OTRS? Author/copyright holder? The description page is incomplete. --B (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that - you were right, it was incomplete. Better? DS (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

David, if this is the way you are going to act, maybe we need to remove your name from the images you have taken to the degree allowed by GFDL. Honestly, we have gone way overboard allowing you to promote yourself. And I did not have a problem with that until you wrote the above. Rethink yourself bigtime. Really. You name it Mike Farrell by David Shankbone. We allow that. But now you want to fight for that image. Would you fight as hard if we took your name off the image's name? We can you know. What part of free culture and WP:NPOV are you not getting? This is not your playground for you to promote yourself. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You know Was, you're not Jimbo Wales so why do you seem to feel you are the self-appointed person who answers for him the most? What's the deal with being combative with someone who has contributed a lot more content than you have over the last year and a half? This doesn't come down to self-promotion, it comes down to having the highest quality photograph up. I didn't complain when my Sean Combs photo was no longer in the lead; nor my Al Franken, nor my Kerry Washington. What's the "we" crap you talk about. Are you speaking on behalf of Wikipedia, in addition to speaking on behalf of Jimbo? Wow, WAS, you have really self-promoted your own standing on this project. Well, with all due respect, speak for yourself and use "we" only if you are siamese twins sitting at the computer terminal.David Shankbone 14:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it was me that appointed 4.250 (as I have always referred to him) as the person who answers on behalf of "Jimbo The Most". FourPointTwoFive may have misunderstood slightly, since Jimbo The Most is a rather oversized Pink Elephant that frequents my life after a few too many beers - but it is unlikely since I never actually got round to telling him that he had so been appointed. Under the circumstances, your original point may have indeed been correct... What was it again? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, a larger version of the pic has been uploaded (107KB vs 9 KB). Farrell supplied it to us in a friggin' HUGE.pdf, so it had to be shrunk down, and I guess it was shrunk down a bit too much. (Also, I don't think we really need a photo of Farrell in a bikini, do you?) DS (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's better. For those of us who understand free culture and actually spend a lot of free time and money creating a great deal of it (as opposed to those who sit around on people's talk pages responding to every thread), the issue is keeping our images of the highest quality, and when an image trumps that criteria, it displaces a previously-existing image. But the free culture idea does not end there: many other venues use our media off-wiki, and this is an excellent manner for Wikipedia to be a place where people go to obtain free content. Of course, for free content in the form of images and other media need to be large enough for graphics departments to use them. This is why there are no space limits, generally, for uploading good images to the Commons. Our media is used by small-town papers who can't use Getty Images, authors writing books, television news stations, etc. It makes Wikipedia relevant to the lives of quite a few artists who need images, making it essential the highest quality images are placed prominently in articles. Unfortunately, some people think images are a charity ("Why can't I have my image up for awhile?") or they think as long as its large enough for a thumbnail on an article it's fine. It's not. We need files at least 2.5MB, often, for graphics departments in other media to make good use; or even for an artist to create a poster out the image. --David Shankbone 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And to address one more issue raised by an uninformed contributor in this thread, not only has the apparent decision been made to include photo credits in captions on the articles now (verify that user is correctly doing so?), but community consensus also long gave a resounding defeat to the argument that credits in file image names are self-promotion. But most of us who consistently spend time on here knew that already. --David Shankbone 18:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiNews is inventing "news" now - posting headlines before the fact

Jimbo, your "Anti-Scientology News" has hit a new low with this article prominently displayed on the front page: Wikinews international report: "Anonymous" holds over 250 anti-Scientology protests worldwide. With two protests off "we" post a past-tense story that that are 250? Here they are taking the story live at 05:19 UTC, looking more like they want to drum up support for upcoming rallies than anything else:

"The Internet group Anonymous today held over 250 protests, critical of the religious group Church of Scientology and marking what would have been the 49th birthday of Lisa McPherson, who is claimed to be a victim of the Church of Scientology's practices."

I have said before that there is no jounalistic integrity over there when it comes to Scientology and they just proved my point with a bang! Carry on. --JustaHulk (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the English Wikipedia? Lawrence § t/e 08:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a communication from me to Jimbo, on a page he reads. If you are not interested then you are free to move on to something else. --JustaHulk (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Jimbo has an email address, which is the perfect way to communicate from 'you to him' on subjects that aren't related to building an encyclopedia. Repeatedly using this (high-visibility, high-traffic) talk page to bring up non-Wikipedia topics might be seen by some as soapboxing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not noticed that on the Main Page of the English Wikipedia, we have links to and headlines from Wikinews. If they are making up stories there, it is showing up on this project's most public face. I would suggest that is a darn good reason for English Wikipedia to take an interest in what is going on there. Risker (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am on a soapbox - the soapbox that perhaps the captain of this ship, and perhaps some experienced and intelligent editors over here, might want to take a bit of responsibility for a sister project whose excesses reflects on this project, too. I see that my correction of the title of the aforementioned article, in which I removed the partisan crystal-balling in a neutral fashion, has been reverted and labeled vandalism by one of the main partisans, an admin there that says: "I am currently a candidate for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees."

"Please do not removed sourced, true information from articles. That is considered vandalism. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)" n:User talk:JustaHulk

"I am currently a candidate for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees." Scary stuff, that. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And for those that would say "sofixit", well, I did (good thing someone with some "common sense" checked in over there - I could use some help with that). Let's see if it stays fixed. On a side note, it is interesting that WikiNews reports 800 at Sydney while a "reliable source" says 150. I will leave that alone as doubless the "reporter" will stand by his "reporting". --JustaHulk (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm so glad that the "Church of Scientology" is teaching us how to be unbiased. Just don't sue us, OK? You'd think with all your money that you'd build a soup kitchen or something, but I guess posting here about that story is just as good. I never knew that stating plain facts qualified with such adjectives as claimed would be bias, though. But, I'm sure Jimbo will take time out of his day to delete those facts for you. So, despite what some people may think, your post made a difference and we all appreciate you taking OUR time to discuss it.--The Smartass (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews does original research with a variably-reliable editorial process - that's why wikipedia can't in general use them as a source. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Too bad all this reporting is verifiable. So find another excuse. This one is old already. DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Verifiable?" Really? How about you show us just one reliable source that supports the statement you posted this morning with only a few protests in Australia/New Zealand off (note past tense below):

"The Internet group Anonymous today held over 250 protests"

and that you continue to push as the headline (albeit with a vaguer tense). That someone as clueless about the difference between reality and partisan wishful thinking as you evidently are (and as willing to champion the latter as you are) would be considered for a Trustee is truly stupefying. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we allow Anonymous editors on Wikipedia. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that intended to be a "provocative" statement (so as to not use another term)? :) --JustaHulk (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether you liked the source of the 250 protests or not is not my problem. It was and is sourced, properly. Your POV of a source does not make is unreliable. So prove us wrong instead of violating policy all the time. DragonFire1024 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

DragonFire, really! Are you and I even looking at the same WikiNews?? That 250 headline disappeared long ago (I disappeared it for the second time and that time it stuck). I later corrected the body with reliably sourced material that was already available in the references (any reason I have to be the one?) I asked you for the source of the 250 number (as in a link), not more doubletalk and unfounded attacks. Do you have the link? Do you have a source? And that is not to mention your other excesses, like the snide and unprofessional photo, that I removed, here ("Careful WikiNews! The Church of Scientology is coming to get you!"). PS - you would not care to back this charge of "violating policy all the time", would you? I do appreciate you coming over here, though, and talking to me though I would still like a straight answer to my questions - and that goes for your cohort Brianmc also, another WikiNews admin and bureaucrat(!), who accuses me of "lied to either Wikinews or the en.WP ArbCom" and "wildly conflicting stories" because he "discovered" that I was a Scientologist (see n:User talk:JustaHulk#Interview). When I go over to WikiNews, it is like I chugged a vial labeled "Drink Me". Wheeeeeeee --JustaHulk (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You opinion as the founder of the Wikipedia project on WP:FICT issues.

I'm not exactly sure you'll even bother to read this, but I, along with many Wikipedia users, wonder what your stance is on fictional topics on Wikipedia. The users you've entrusted your project to have essentially done nothing but babble back and forth for months now on what should or shouldn't be included as content on this encyclopedia, while infamous users such as TTN have been going on crusades deleting, trimming and merging hundreds, or possibly thousands of articles citing these controversial guidelines as rules set in stone. Many of these deleted articles are episodes of popular television shows and fictional content, some being formerly Featured Articles such as Bulbasaur or ones that were constantly on the top 100 viewed articles. Most of these article deletions are cited as "okay" since the content is sometimes moved over to horribly maintained and obscure external Wikis such as Wikia. I myself have long stopped being truly involved with Wikipedia because of this mindset that so many "powerful" Wikipedians share, but would still enjoy hearing your opinions or seeing a little intervention. - 4.154.237.192 (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been noted by many, that general fiction and cultural-trivia and fancruft collection is the one thing that Wikipedia does better than any other source. Not that Wikipedia isn't a good information source for other things, but cruft-collection is where it really shines. All of which makes the cruft-killers here on WP a bit bizarre, except for the existance of Wikia, the cruft-hole-that-makes-$. So NOW there's a conflict of interest in getting cruft moved from HERE to THERE. One which has been DEFINED not to be a conflict of interest. Hmmm. SBHarris 18:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The cruft is GFDL-licensed. It can be moved or copied anywhere that complies with the terms of that license—Wikia included. If you'd like to copy the cruft to someplace else as well, you're more than welcome. Heck, ad-supported sites have been mirroring Wikipedia content for years(see WP:FORK). You can even take the stuff straight from Wikia; you don't have to catch content while it's on Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, the cruft-killers on Wikipedia are not owners of Wikia. They just want the cruft out of the encyclopedia. Whether or not one agrees with their editorial stance is moot—they don't have a conflict of interest, and they don't stand to personally benefit from Wikipedia content being copied to Wikia. Don't mistake – or worse, misrepresent – a content disagreement for a conflict of interest. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't mistake my argument. Many of the cruft-killers may not stand to financially benefit, but if they want it out of WP, they stand to benefit by the argument that it has another place to go to. If it didn't, it would make their job harder. Meanwhile, the people who do run Wikia have a reason not to stand in the way of it disappearing HERE and reappearing THERE. The copy issue is irrelevent if it's not available in one place, but is in another. You still have to go to the other place and look at the ads to see it. And by the way, not ALL the cruft disappears to GFDL places. Go see Memory alpha for an example of cruft which disappears to a black hole place from whence no commercial re-use is ever allowed. And who profits from that move?

Now, again, don't mistake my argument. I'm sure all Trek fans are happy to have that stuff there, and cruft-killers here are happy to see it gone. BUT, the problem is that once this kind of thing is set as trivia killing precident, we set a bad precident for killing "cruft" or trivia that actually has no place else on the web to go to, because fewer people are fans of it. Once gone from wikipedia, it goes back to whatever newpaper microfiche or musty library stack it came out of originally, and is now unavailable to the rest of us. I saw that happen to bios on supercentinarians, and even some of the people who wrote them were effectively banned. Not good. Especially when we have to suffer through lists of Grand Dukes of Luxembourg and their next-in-succession (groan). SBHarris 20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Material from Wikipedia cannot be copied to a Wikia project that doesn't use a GFDL-compatible license. (If the author of the material on Wikipedia chooses to relicense his contributions, he is welcome to. If you would like to invite such authors to contribute their material to other sites as well, you certainly may.) There is no provision for Wikipedia administrators, editors, or staff to transfer material to a site with, for example, a non-commercial-use-only license.

Okay, I see we're going to need a specific example. There once existed on WMF an entire Klingon Wikipedia, just like the English one. Except Wiki articles were written in Klingonese. I kid you not. That entire Klingon Wikipedia has since been moved to Wikia. [10]. Now, I reject that the entire Klingon Wikipedia was the work of one single author when it was hosted by Wikimedia as a Wikipedia, but you're free to argue this, if you have info. Otherwise, the thing you said could not happen, obviously did here. Please explain. And by the way, how would you feel if this had happened to the Esperanto Wikipedia, another constructed language Wikipedia still hosted by WMF [11]? SBHarris 18:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As for material that 'has no place else on the web to go'—well, we're not the humane society. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a blog or webspace provider, nor a file repository. In any case, I'm not sure what the potential loss of some material from the web has to do with your apparently groundless accusations of a conflict of interest. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well WP:NOT also mentions that WP is WP:NOTPAPER, either, so there’s space for all kinds of information that is verifiable, even if somebody made it up, like fictional works, articles written in Epiranto, or articles written in Klingon (except the latter have been hijacked, as noted). Your “indiscriminate information” is my discriminate information. It’s totally dependent on interest. I have mentioned the painful Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg with its dependent List of Grand Dukes of Luxembourg and Line of succession to the Luxembourgian Throne. All of this existing here because (to borrow a quote from Shrek) royalty makes some folks here, hotter than July (“Ewww…”). The rest of us, to whom royalty is a joke at best and pox on the history of the mankind at worst, just have to roll our eyes. Eww, indeed. But, different strokes for different folks.

Alas, the favor is not returned, for the deletionists have all kinds of rationales for deleting information that doesn’t interest them. Example: Hemoglobin used to have a subarticle created by me, discussing hemoglobin variants about the many genetic polymorphisms of alleles. This medical information was damn well more notable and important to humananity than the line of succession of Luxembourgian Grand Dukes. It got deleted and redirected to the original article before it had time to grow. Now, somebody’s on the hemoglobin TALK page, wondering what’s the difference between tetramer varients and allele varients, and I have no place to direct them. This is/was a case of encyclopedia damage, not failure to find a puppy shelter.

If you want a more whimsical example that I had little to do with, I recently made my one and only (small) contribution to Bokononisms, refering to sayings from an artificial religion created by Kurt Vonnegut for Cat’s Cradle. Somebody noticed this, and proceeded to gut the article, saying the content wasn’t referenced. When I restored it, pointing out that it was, they deleted again, saying it was copyright infringing. When I reverted, they said the material had not only infringment but had notability problems. Basically they just want it GONE, and if one reason won’t do, another will. That’s the battle we fight all the time, here. And if you’re wondering what’s the connection is, to stuff disappearing to Wikia for profit, like the Klingon articles, the answer is that ANYTHING like this, ends up “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” The enemy being people thinking to write an encyclopedia, yet who really cannot empathize with anybody else’s special interests (!). SBHarris 20:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

To claim that wikipedia merely does cruft well is to grossly underestimate wikipedia. If I see a problem it is underselling wikipedia, after all 6 times out of 10 its a better search engine than Google or Yahoo. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No way. Wikipedia's search engine per se, sucks. It can't even deal with spelling errors, half the time. To really search Wikipedia well, you need to USE Google. They are complimentary. Why do I have to tell you this? SBHarris 20:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, I think you are missing my point, it is the content of wikipedia that makes it so valuable, and, as someone with a tremendous intellectual curiosity, I don't see any real competitors. Though wikipedia clearly does have knowledge holes. If you are criticising the search feature, well, as I said, I think the foundation underestimates what a jewel it has (we've never seen such a user generated product before), and would do well to fortify itself through investment in order to actualise its product in the best way possible. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox , I think I agree with what you are trying to say but are slightly mis-stating. Please see if this is not your intended meaning:

It is the community that creates the free to copy anywhere content of Wikipedia that makes it so valuable, and, as someone with a tremendous intellectual curiosity, I don't see any real competitors. Though wikipedia clearly does have knowledge holes. If you are criticising the search feature, well, as I said, I think the foundation underestimates what a jewel it has (we've never seen such a user generated product before), and would do well to fortify itself through investment in order to actualise its product in the best way possible. Thanks.

I would add to that, that deleting content and moving it to Wikia is an attempt to motivate the community that created that content to abandon wikipedia and contribute elsewhere. People will not stay here at wikipedia and edit articles they don't care about if the articles they do care about are moved to Wikia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and see the talk page of Wikia for some interesting conversation. The latest Wikimedia financial audit written by Wikimedia and approved by an audit firm states that Wikimedia and Wikia share hosting and bandwidth, but that Yahoo used to provide bandwidth as a donation, but no longer does. What the heck is going on? The audit goes out of its way to make clear that Wikia and wikimedia no longer share office space, but on the subject of shared bandwidth and hosting, uses the present tense and says not word about it being discontinued. Further, the report was just finalized and approved a couple days ago, so its not like it is from last year. This is very disturbing. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think the entire drive by a minority of editors to feverishly delete or get rid of all the episode articles is just over the top, stupid, and petty. It's a classic example of "I don't like it, or think it has value, so no one will have it." I'd weigh in but that's such a bitter, rancorous pool, like the spoil mess, that I really don't need the aggravation. Lawrence § t/e 17:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with LC, above. . .it's why a lot of editors don't weigh in more often. R. Baley (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

WP Logo

Mr Wales,

The Wikipedia Logo has the wrong Hindi alphabet. I think this issue has been brought up before. When will it be fixed?

Hope to make Wikipedia better Σαι ( Talk) 12:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There was an article in the New York Times about it. According to the article the person who made the logo lost the original computer file and is too busy to start from scratch. Jon513 (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If a well-known gramatically incorrect logo cannot be fixed after nearly a year of Wikipedia being aware of it, what hope can there be? Hope is the driving force behind Wikipedia failure. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Zenwhat, stop trolling, ok?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

LoL. Zidel333 (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman

Do I understand correctly that you still retain the ability to dissolve the present ArbCom and hold new elections? —Random832 15:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe so, yes. I think the ArbCom would support me in that notion as well. However, the chances of me doing that are vanishingly close to zero. It's a useful safety valve in case of a major major problem, but not something I have any interest in doing. The power of our traditions rests primarily in them being sane, and their use being sane.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Traditions. How horrible!

Judeo-Christian tradition should be ignored in American and European politics. Islamic tradition should be ignored in the Middle East. Buddhist tradition should be ignored in Asia. Not just religion, though. American tradition, European tradition, African tradition, all traditions should be ignored.

And Jimbo-Walesean tradition should be ignored in Wikipedian politics. Because justice and The Truth is far more powerful than any man-made tradition.

Random832: Do not do anything and ArbCom will dissolve itself. If you try to act, you will be dissolved by the community.

Jimmy, a valve is useless if it develops rust.

And on sanity:

In a mad world, only the mad are sane.

— Akira Kurosawa

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trolling.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)