User talk:Jimbo Wales

Community recall

Greetings, Mr. Wales, and thank you for all you have done for the encyclopaedia. You might not be aware of it, but User:Amerique has made a proposal here that users such as administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers and so on have their rights recalled by the community if there is significant consensus that these rights have been abused. I am wondering what your thoughts on the principle of the idea are, and if you would care to share them with us. Regards, Skomorokh 15:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It basically sounds like an expansion of Administrators open to recall. Please don't take this as an attack on your position, but I think that if Jimbo didn't want it to happen, he would have said so. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:24 31 July, 2008 (UTC)

I'm mainly tossing ideas and strategies around at this point... brainstorming, as it were, to develop a fair and equitable process for all concerned. I was going to wait for the ArbCom RFC to reach some kind of finished state before attempting to finalize a version for possible "ratification" as a policy in project space. At that point, my intention is to leave it in the community's hands to decide if they want it or not, and if so, how they want to implement it. But in the meantime, I welcome all constructive comments on the idea, pro or con. Amerique^dialectics 08:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The principle seems clear enough for anyone to form an opinion on: should the community have the right to recall these rights from these users, or is this a privilege to be reserved for the Foundation? Thanks, Amerique for all your diligent work. Springeragh, assumptions aren't helpful, and Mr. Wales is a busy man who can't be expected to notice all the goings-on of the encyclopaedia. Regards, Skomorokh 10:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"The community's hands"? Where are the hands that belong to the community? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that my good faith comment wasn't welcome; however, assuming that I made an assumption isn't really, either. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:34 31 July, 2008 (UTC)

I understand your time and attention are limited, but are we to interpret your silence as tacit consent? If community recall becomes effective, the need for your interventions may become less. Any response appreciated, Skomorokh 13:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think any such process should be voluntary, and that there are some good reasons to be deeply concerned about such processes in general. The problem is that we actually want people in positions of trust (the ArbCom for example) to be significantly independent of day-to-day wiki politics. And I am unaware of any cases in which this sort of process has been needed. Perhaps the pointed question has to be asked of the advocates of making this sort of thing mandatory: who do you want removed, and why? If the answer is "well, no one, this is 'just in case'" then I would suggest that this could be an instance of process-creep. And if the answer is "well, this particular person is a good example" then we might want to look at that case a bit harder and see what went wrong... if anything did go wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We currently lack working processes for "looking at cases a bit harder and seeing what went wrong" when it comes to established editors; whether admin or not. I don't have a solution. But we do have a problem. Research at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia has led me to a preliminary idea that maybe the solution has something to do with ethics consciousness; but I'm just guessing at this point. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have processes that work quite well for the most part. I note that neither you nor the other contributor has stepped forward with any cases where there is an actual problem. It is easy to scream that the sky is falling. It is much harder - and more honest - to note that we have a very sophisticated and functional set of processes. Most of the screaming about those processes comes from people who don't like the outcome... which usually means... don't like that their bad behavior is not unchecked. That isn't to say that there are no problems, but rather to say that there is no particularly dire state of affairs, and a great many things that are going in the right way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we differ about whether Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV represents a "lack working processes" or "processes that work quite well". It is too common for innocent people to be blocked, who then become quite emotional about it. It is too common for established users to be quite uncivil with no consequences. I agree that Wikipedia is very useful and every year more useful. I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that ethical awareness would make Wikipedia even better than it already is. I agree with you that "there is no particularly dire state of affairs, and a great many things that are going in the right way." But we can be better. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Mr. Wales. Me personally, I'm not developing this with any one person in mind... and also, I'm designing it to be ungameable, so recalls would be impossible against members who have the wide support of the community. The process in development, if ever implemented, would allow this support to be demonstrated. Using a high proportion of the inital support "votes" for a user's RFA, RFB etc, to qualify a recall motion achieves this, makes light hearted or "heat of the moment" recalls impossible, and fulfills the WP:CON mandate that: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale." Community recall provides a way of achieving that with respect to trust positions, as current process only allows "suitability" for recall of community-granted positions to be determined by yourself or the ArbCom. Amerique^dialectics 23:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Mr. Wales. It is interesting that you frame the matter as one of politics and process creep; as a proponent I would argue it is a case of accountability deficit – those in positions of power have no incentive not to abuse it as long as they don't step on the toes of their "superiors". It's a question of poor organisational economics; it's relatively easy to earn a position of trust, very difficult to be removed from it. If you have the formal structures of the Portuguese civil service, don't be surprised when you get its performance quality too. Or, to take the opposite view that the positions of trust are "no big deal", it should be "no big deal" to remove abusive users from them also. Regards, Skomorokh 11:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Corruption in management is "behaviour that may involve fraud, theft, misuse of position or authority or other acts that are unacceptable to an organisation and which may cause loss to the organisation, its clients or the general community. It may also include such elements as breaches of trust and confidentiality. The behaviour need not necessarily be criminal." Corruption management is an integral part of good governance and management practice. Executive management needs to be committed to the pro-active prevention of corrupt conduct in a systematic way in order to enhance the operation and reputation of the organisation. Corruption is a major drain on the effective use of resources for education and should be drastically curbed by improving transparency and accountability in education. Corruption "increases transaction costs, reduces the efficiency and quality of services, distorts the decision-making process, and undermines social values." - http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/Overview WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of Free

Hi,

I am trying to write something that will define the meaning of "Free" in "The Free Encyclopedia". See the discussion here: Talk:Main Page#The meaning of Free.

Knowing what was your intention as the founder will help move this discussion forward. You user page is also somewhat ambiguous on the matter - it mentions GFDL, "write and give away a free encyclopedia" and "free speech".

It makes me wonder whether it is intentionally ambiguous. And then maybe you really want to keep this ambiguous, although i would disagree.

Your input is welcome. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading what Jimbo already wrote on this subject (here). Jon513 (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this is helpful. I added it to the essay i started, Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia.

Now how do i make it into a policy?.. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Thanks for Wikipedia

Levent Abi (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny picture

Jimbo the Whale

Hi Jimbo, just wanted to know if you like this picture? I think it's quite funny! SingWale (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I love it. Is there a bigger version I could use as my desktop background?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Ivins

I notice that you just checkusered Jimmyflathead (talk · contribs). Did the account edit from Frederick, Maryland? Cla68 (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no information in checkuser, presumably because he had not edited for a long time. Why do you ask about Frederick, Maryland, though? I just wanted to be ahead of the curve in case this turns into a story, but it seems that there really isn't much of a story here. At Wikipedia, he was focused almost exclusively on a women's sorority, and never edited anything about Anthrax. I just wanted to make sure he didn't also have any sockpuppets, etc., but then I realized it was silly for me to be checking since he had not edited since a long time ago.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The court documents on The Smoking Gun which JayHenry astutely brought to the Signpost's attention [1] state that Ivins, who lived in Frederick, was probably Jimmyflathead since that was the same name as a Yahoo email account that Ivins used. The significance of the sorority is that two of the Anthrax-laced letters are believed to have been mailed from a postal drop box located about 100 yards from a Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority storage building near Princeton University. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy birthday!!!

Happy birthday!

I have a birthday this day, too, but I, now, have only 10 (* Mostar, 7th of August 1998-). --Vatrena ptica 09:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Only the happiest birthday to you, Jimbo. :) Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy birthday, Mr. Wales. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Now I know why I liked you...We share a birthday...Also my 34 year old son,

Happy Birthday to US,

Happy Birthday to US.

Just answer my chat or

I'll make a BIG FUSS!!!!--Buster7 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My present to you is the Jimbo Cabal entry at the Cabal site. Hope you like it. (You DO have a sense of humor, right?)--Buster7 (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What was the point...?

If you can use your Founder (I presume that is the status with that option) status to provide yourself with Checkuser when you wish to use the tool, why remove it subsequently? The access to the tool is now apparent, even if you just need push a couple of extra buttons, so why not have it listed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that it's something like sudo. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to believe it's so we know Jimbo is not habitually using Checkuser, and we know as and when he does choose to use the tool. A good development. Neıl ☄ 14:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't consider myself "a checkuser" in general. This was a very unusual circumstance. I believe in a very libral use of checkuser in general, and so it is probably better if I don't use it often. It would seem like a Very Big Deal if someone were to be checkusered by me in most cases, and I believe in minimization of drama. In this case, this was about a potential press situation where I might find my phone ringing off the hook with journalists asking for information, and I felt a need to be prepared. As it turns out, his Wikipedia edits aren't that interesting, I didn't find any socks. I just thought, hmm, what if a checkuser showed that this guy was editing articles about Anthrax or whatever... no way do we need the disruption of claims like that surfacing without me being prepared. Fortunately, I found nothing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There's only one Jimbo Wales (sung to the tune of "There's only one Jimmy Connors")

I am guessing that life at the top is a tad lonely; when you need a chat come to my wartorn talk page. :) Abtract (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)