User talk:Jimbo Wales

Birthday gift

Hi, Jimbo! Sorry for being late, but I made you this:

The flag of Wikipedia. Happy Birthday! User:Secret Saturdays/Signature

Less than three hours

I remember when it took weeks for a Wikipedia article to show up in Google searches. Less that three hours after Bonse's inequality was created, it's the second item that appears when the search terms given to google are that sequence of words (with no quotation marks).

(OK, I haven't kept track of that sort of thing. I suppose it's childish to think this might come as news to anyone who cares about such.....) Michael Hardy (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Unquestionably real uptime updates is where its at, Google realise this, fears twitter for being so much quicker, and I am sure Google aim to get new articles to be placed on their search within 3 minutes. This real time is why misguided attempts by some rather 20th Century admins to, for instance, lock the articles of Pope John Paul II and Michael Jackson as a preventative measure immediately after their deaths were announced is so harmful to the project and the more wikipedia sees itself as an up to the moment encyclopedia incorporating the latets advances and updates as they happen in all areas the better encyclopedia it will become. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Being up to date is good. But being accurate, and avoiding additional embarrassment from obviously incorrect statements in Wikipedia articles, is far more important to Wikipedia's reputation and mission. Prediction: Someday, although probably not this year and maybe not the next, registration will be required to edit Wikipedia. Yes, I am aware of the long history of this issue and the strong community consensus. It may take a few major gaffes in a relatively short amount of time to do it, but the principled objections of many Wikipedians to a registration requirement (which I do understand and even sympathize with in principle) will eventually give way, in my opinion. —Finell (Talk) 23:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree about more important, its surely part and parcel of the same thing; obviously we couldn't report Michael Jackson as dead because Joe Bloggs said so on Twitter but when multiple reliable sources say so then if they get it wrong its not we who would be embarrassed; I think being up to date while "being accurate, and avoiding additional embarrassment from obviously incorrect statements in Wikipedia articles" is a better way of seeing it; being up to date does take extraordinary effort. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

At this stage in the wiki-lifecycle I would expect more embarrassment from registered editors than from unregistered editors. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

On locking articles

High profile events will undoubtedly attract new editors, and in my experience, not all with good intent. This is especially so when sources for breaking news are not as we would normally expect as reliable, and rumour is rife. I don't think it improper to wait until the dust settles a little, and if that means protecting an article against poorly-sourced additions, which may well be a breach of WP:BLP, sorry, I can't apologise for that. From my own user page :

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

Not my words - Jimbo's. Being up to date may be desirable, but that does not mean we pander to the rumour mill that follows such events. Relevant sourced material should go to Wikinews, but Wikipedia isn't a news service. Rodhullandemu 01:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is a genuine problem articles about critical events such as famous deaths certainly can be semi-protected and problematic accounts then blocked (even briefly). Michael Jackson's death involved far more real time uncertainty than John Paul's because of his youth and the circumstances being unclear; but the fact that when somebody dies people take an interest and then want to edit the article to improve it is absolutely a good thing, to encourage both new editors and good content; and certainly the John Paul II article was transformed in the days following his death. What is needed in these circumstances is level headed admins policing the situations not reckless ones locking the article to everyone else and then editing it themselves. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I should like to comment that I did not edit the Michael Jackson article once I protected it. Other admins may have done so, but I accept no responsibility for other persons mistakes. Nor do I have responsibility for inaccuracies made by others, I just try to limit or correct them when appropriate. To that end, I protected the Michael Jackson article while the rumours of his death were unconfirmed by reliable sources. As an encyclopedia, I rather feel we have a responsibility toward accuracy over promptness - the information we publish needs to be the same 3 years from now rather than on Google in 3 minutes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% on an encyclopaedia being accurate that's why we should be citing more and showing clear references from credible publications or websites. Not gossip columns or news as it breaks that keeps changing every ten minutes.--BSTemple (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

These things are never black and white. If Michael Jackson were dead in reality and according to reliable sources and we were claiming he was still alive we would be inaccurate. Like it or not the 21st Century is incresingly demanding of real time accuracy and our reputation is dependent on our being able to deliver; because of our policy on reliable sources we are able to deliver, its really just a matter of having the will to follow through. LessHeard, the fact that you locked the MJ article and then don't even know whether other admins were continuing to edit seems like an abrogation of responsibility; you could have policed the article but you instead chose a low energy response that then damaged the project. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There were no reliable sources when I protected - the original source (although it was proven accurate) was not considered reliable, but the plethora of good sources making comments were quoting the original source and (mostly) noting the incident was "alleged" - I thought it reasonable to lock down the article while the validity of "good" seeming references were investigated. I noted in my protection edit summary that it should be lifted immediately in the event of reliable sources being made available, and also gave notice of my actions at ANI; I had sufficient confidence in my colleagues to anticipate that my own further close involvement is not necessary for the matter to be properly progressed. Twenty twenty hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the fact that MJ had indeed died diverts us from the fact that it was not known for certain when I protected the article. This leads us back to the three hour Google take up of content printed here; we now have a very short timeframe in which to ensure that content relating to breaking news is to encyclopedic standard when we publish it and, not being a news service, we should not be including alleged current events since the material will need to be re-edited whether or not it was correct. Wikipedia was not, in my view, damaged by not including the allegations as they were made but rather enhanced by being a reference for reliable and accurate details when they were included. Nothing that was included on that page in the following 24 hours regarding the reports of MJ's death needed to be removed because of concerns over its validity. I am very content with that.

I am also disappointed in your response to mine; your inaccurate comment that the admin (me) responsible for protecting also edited the article while locked down was not acknowledged, but only referred to regarding you then castigating my lack of further involvement. I did not wish or require an apology over the claim I had edited the protected article, simply a confirmation that the comments were wrong - and I think it mean spirited that you should then disparage my admin actions in not interacting strongly in the matter once I had protected and advised the community. If the claim I edited the page does not stick, then accuse me of not OWNing the protected article. I usually see a far more considered response by you on matters, and am sad that this does not appear to be the case here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded like I was attacking you; that was not what I meant, I was trying to talk more generally and my comments werent aimed at you specifically; I have seen this locking happen time after time on articles of the really notable recently dead; its always a sign of fialure of other methods at critical times and never lasts long as there is never a community consensus for it; let me assure you the Michael Jackson was locked for nowhere near 24 hours. I know admins arent supposed to edit at these critical times but they can never resist it and that gets everyone off on the wrong foot. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 07:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why protect the Main Page and about Wikipedia itself?

Hi there. I was browsing Wikipedia the other day and I was trying to edit both the Main Page and the article about ourselves (Wikipedia}. It's not the Wikipedia:What is Wikipedia? article but the casual, public article itself. I tried to edit both articles, and all I recieved was "View source" on the top of the page. Why are these pages semi/protected? Who made the protection? With regards,--ROT9 (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is semi protected due to traffic and vandalism levels. Main page is protected due to traffic levels and the fact it doesn't need to be edited due to all the content comeing in from templates.©Geni 08:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

For the Wikipedia article look at the History tab to see the history of vandalism. From there you can look at the 'Logs' to see who changed the protection level and their rationale. William Avery (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is only semi-protected, and you will be able to edit that page once you are auto-confirmed. Darrenhusted (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Dramaonly

Hi, Jimbo Wales! You are invited to participate in the Great Wikipedia Dramaonly, an effort to end arguments and discussions, and fight vandalism! It is intended to stop discussions from interfering everyone's work in the article namespace. Please sign up here! Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 10:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 00:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not the first

I am fairly certain that I am not the first casual user of wikipedia to find themselves captivated by your photos. You are quite handsome. Peace. Derekbd (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

O_O iMatthew ^talk at 03:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• And what else is new here? *scratches butt* --Dave1185 (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Derek but I feel a little embarassed. I think the photographer gets the credit really, for that main headshot of me that people tend to like so much.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, who's your photographer, and can he do the same for me for $20? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, have you seen District 9? The main character, Wikus, looks like your clone. (Yes, his name is WIKUS. That's almost WIKI. Coincidence? I think not.) 8bit (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the words of Craig Ferguson on The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson: "Remind you of anyone?". --Dave1185 (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

About communist propaganda inside Wikipedia

Hi Jimbo. I am one of those supporters of your gift to all of us: Wikipedia. But I am afraid your creation is in danger: it is being manipulated by groups of communists related to the ex-KGB in the Baltic States. They use "promoters" of their ideology, like for example user:DIREKTOR, inside Wikipedia. Direktor is a pusher of diktator Tito communist ideas inside en.wiki, no doubt about it. I want to repeat what user:Sir Floyd wrote, because I agree with him totally about this medicine student and the way he promotes his croatian nationalism: "While I can’t express my opinion on the all of the disputes between DIREKTOR and the Wiki World, he is definitely pushing his POV. It seems to be very similar to that of the old Communist Party of Yugoslavia (as well as their tactics).Info from M. & Media-18th October 2005 “Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online work”. One of the quality problems is, if I may express myself, that an editor or a group of editors can learn to work the system and then push his/ hers or their POV. I’m afraid Mr Direktor has taken this to new levels with abuse, reports and inappropriate deletion." Furthermore, I want to pinpoint that en.wiki will be better if Direktor is banned, because a lot of fighting (with Serbs-Bosniaks-Italians-Montenegrins-Albanians et al) will disappear. His discussion page is full of these fightings and his edit page is a clear evidence of this reality, just read it from the times he showed up in en.wiki ! He is supported by members of the group of communists related to the (KGB) hackers disrupting western websites (like user: Miacek and his crime-fighting dog). He is always helped by admin & check users with slav roots and supporters of communist ideology inside wikipedia (like user:Spellcast). You can verify it easily, and so try to save your creation (that otherwise can become a useful instrument of the communist groups centered around ex-KGB members). Sincerely.--Formyopinion (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)