User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Christmas Card

Merry Christmas

At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Yellow and Red present.gif

Proposal

I was thinking of making a seperate wiki-like "pedia" for elections to focus specifically on the matter. but i dont want it to be a competitive one like the various conservapedia-type sites. would it be possible then to start something seperate as part of the wikimedia group to focus on the issue? i think its better served with a focus as such apart from just wikiprojects.

Awaiting your input, regards, (Lihaas (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).

Elections where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Global elections. like a psephology collection.

the main point being that it would have more oversight. particularly for the bigger elections (the smaller ones seems to work somewhat better here)(Lihaas (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).

I'm not sure this will work. A specialist 'ElectorialWiki' is unlikely to attract the broad range of knowledge that one can find on a generalised one (particularly in a global context), and is potentially more vulnerable to small pressure-groups pushing agendas (not the least of which is the assumption that the Western model of democracy is necessarily an ideal: something that is by no means self-evident). I'd say that if there is a problem with Wikipedia coverage of electoral issues, it makes more sense to try to correct it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think doing it on Meta works fine. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 14:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be in a sense like Wikiversity, which on the surface has overlap with this but with a greater focus.(Lihaas (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).

What about Ballotpedia? It's a quality effort. Wnt (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.rulers.org/. -- Wavelength (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

See http://wikiindex.org/Welcome. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Brick Wall at Meta

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[1] indicates a severe problem at Meta. Single "objections" to any alteration of what we consider a problematic "essay" which has definitely been abused in the past. Perhaos you have a suggestion on how to proceed? The RfC did not show such an objection to be generally held, but Meta does not appear to be a place where one editor can make a difference when entrenched "no change at all"ism dominates (sigh). Thanks. Collect (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC) If the meta page is being owned by a small group (and the user who made the change you linked to seems to have very idiosyncratic views about on-wiki civility), then we should at least stop linking to it from Wikipedia (especially via an explanation-less soft redirect).--Kotniski (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC) I don't think the edit you reference, Collect, is evidence of a "severe problem at Meta" but rather an ordinary content disagrement which can surely be worked out. I agree with Kotniski that Tarc's views on civility are in the minority, but I think the best way forward will be to maintain a fair amount of the text that is there, but with the addition of sufficient caveats that anyone who reads the essay will understand that the behavior represented by some earlier versions of the essay itself (snarky mocking) is itself not ok. One important line I have just added is one cautioning against people linking to it in disputes. That should help slow or reverse the viral spread of the meme, at least to some degree. I would still very much enjoy seeing a nice catalog of examples of abusive usage - I believe that many people (including me) are quite rightly on the fence about how bad this essay is, based on not having sufficient information about how it has been used.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC) There were apparently discussions on a mailing list in 2006 and 2007 about this "essay". More recent uses on editor user pages include [2] , [3]. Article talk pages include [4]. [5] shows use over seven hundred times as a phrase "don't be a dick." [6] shows use in enwikispace linked directly to metaspace. [7] shows it being called a policy by an admin (PMC), and used as a reason for a block. (As some userpages have been deleted, all we have here is the template made by an admin). [8] shows reaction to the inherent incivility of the essay with another incivil essay. [9] yet another example. [10] shows the general tenor of many of the references to the essay. [11] also links to the releated essay WP:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you. Quod erat demonstrandum: It has been abused, missapplied as "policy", been used to call people names, and served as a rationale for other grossly incivil essay uses. WP should have long ceased being a haven for sophomores. And this does not even include discussions about the essay on other wikis at all. Might someone see whether any concerns have been expressed elsewhere, and whether the term used is translated with the same connotation as in English? Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC) I have restored it to your version, Collect (talk · contribs) as of 23:11, 29 December 2010, and have added Jimbo's comments back to it. I'm not sure why the huge change was made, but I did not see a discussion on it's talk page regarding that. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 14:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Would it help to rename the essay (and change all the internal wording) from "dick" to "jerk"? "Jerk" is a lot more common, isn't as crude, and means the same thing. Herostratus (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Frankly, I think we should just remove the essay completely, It does not do anything for anyone at all, it is just another way to call names when someone makes you mad. But, thats just my opinion. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 15:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC) These "dick" essays, whether Wikipedia hosts the essay itself or a redirect to Meta (as in WP:DICK), just make Wikipedia look amateurish and make its contributors (collectively) look like Beavis and Butt-head. Elimination of these would be a sign that Wikipedia aspires to an image of professionalism. Neutron (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Obviously there are differing ideas as to what constitutes "professionalism". Tarc (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC) I think it's not so much a question of how one defines it, as a question of how much one values it. Just my opinion, of course. Neutron (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC) One editor has declined to compromise (not opining on the reversion on the talk page) at [12] by reverting the gist of the edits made. I suggest that a stronger edit ought to be made at that point, any takers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC) I have removed it again, as seen here. I am not sure what this persons issue is. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 15:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Barras has protected the page, with my standing revision. So for now, we are okay. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC) protection is not an endorsement. The thing you are all forgetting is that this is the internet, and for well-discussed psychological reasons (anonymity, loss of non-verbal communication cues, emotional projection, small-group extremism, etc.) it is a world filled with people who (intentionally or not) act like dicks. Even in this thread, we have a handful of editors doing a minor-scale edit war over the phrasing of an essay about being a dick, and the whole reason the discussion is here on Jimbo's page is that people are more interested in gaining a perception of political leverage than in communicating well about the problem, which is... gee, what's the best word for that kind of behavior...???. Please see wikt:irony. as an aside, I think this is all doubly ironic, since I have been recently involved with the OP (user:Collect) on a page where he was acting (from my perspective) in a truly dickish fashion (refusing to listen to reason or to provide sourcing when asked, blathering on endlessly about policy violations while refusing to discuss productive changes to the article, and generally arguing in a frustratingly bureaucratic, circularly POV-centered manner). I am not remotely surprised that he's complaining about how the essay is used, since I have been sorely tempted to use it on him myself and I suspect others have not shown my restraint. But let's not get into that here. We can discuss what this essay should say and how it should be used (obviously). I lean towards 'jerk' myself, since it's less overtly sexual (though, of course, 'jerk' is short for 'jerk-off', a masturbation reference). I'm sure we can make the essay that's more palatable than the one we currently have, but I believe there is a need for an essay like this that can be used to remind people to get out of their own heads (or maybe get their heads out of whatever they have them stuck in) and start focusing on what the encyclopedia needs. Anything that helps keep Wikipedia from becoming just another usenet forum is good in my book. --Ludwigs2 17:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Please consider that many people regard an essay like this as precisely what helps Wikipedia be more like "just another usenet forum". Do we need an essay explaining why civility is important and encouraging people to think in very basic terms about thoughtfulness and kindness as values? Yes. Clearly we do. For example, to make it clear to people why it is not ok to have and refer people to a juvenile and insulting essay like this. What I am saying is that the cure for the disease surely can't be more of the disease. A mature and thoughtful explanation of civility is going to be significantly better.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC) I usually see WP:DICK used by people in the course of being rather uncivil themselves. Derogatory references to sex organs are somewhat indecorous... and those well-known tendencies of people to act like goofballs (ah, a drug reference) only get worse when people are flinging crude insults at one another. "Jerk" is not necessarily a sex reference, it may come from "jerking around", as in jerking someone's chain. And it is reminiscent of a delicious food dish, jerk chicken, which is always a good thing. WP:TROUT is one of the few behavior essays that seems to lighten the mood. If we could make a cute mascot of a jerk chicken, people might actually lighten up when referred to that. And to address Jimbo's concern above, some of these Wikipedia traditions do encourage a shared culture. We could also link it to a more sober essay on civility. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC) (EC with discussion close) Incidentally, here is an archive search for the use of WP:DICK on WP:AN and WP:AN/I. I don't have the fortitude to wade through all of these disputes, but it's clear that people calling each other dicks is a regular subject of conversation there. The causal connection is less clear. If we didn't have the essay would they just call each other something else? I know there's some grumbling over twattery, bollocks, and other terms that seem a lot harsher on the left side of the ocean than the right. Certainly, people calling each other dicks on the noticeboards is unhelpful, as would be the use of the link to scold someone in the context of an administrative warning or sanction. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm closing the discussion here, although I was finding it perfectly productive, but in the interest of moving the discussion over to the talk page on Meta.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

email

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TucsonDavid GOD BLESS THE U.S.A. 13:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from the beachfront in warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Puzzle globe logo

Hi Jimbo. I have a question about Wikipedia's tenth anniversary merchandise. On the "thanks" banner, someone is depicted holding a 3D Wikipedia globe puzzle in his/her cupped hands. Have you ever considered having such a globe mass produced in order to be sold to raise funds for the foundation? I would enjoy having one as a paper weight. Regards, and happy New Year.-RHM22 (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Remuneration and fiscal report to Staff in WCJ2009･2010 and KOF2010

The conference was held by Wikimedia Foundation in Japan. (Wikimedia Conference Japan 2009,Wikimedia Conference Japan 2010,Kansai Open Source 2010)These conferences succeeded. However, the earnings call is not yet done. A fee, a donation, the money of which we paid support are unidentified.The reward paid to you and the staff is unidentified.The disposal of remaining assets, the cancellation of a contract procedure of the bank account are unknown.I demand accountability as the sponsor of the meeting from you.--山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)