User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Template:Fix bunching  

New Export formats

Exuse me for my bad english. I am a User from it.wiki, and I own an eBook reader. I do often download some wiki pages to read them offline, but it seems to me that .pdf download is not that useful. Will it be possible to download wiki pages in .epub extention? 87.8.127.128 (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not know. Perhaps someone who reads this will know, or you can ask the Wikimedia Foundation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum (neologism)

I'm posting here in hopes of attracting more discussion.Should Santorum (neologism) have an image of the spreading santorum website? For those interested, see Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Please_re-add_the_Website_image.Smallman12q (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say that as long as the article continues to pretend that this is a genuine neologism, the website should be excluded. After all, the article is allegedly about a word. On the other hand, if the article is moved and rewritten so that it is made clear that this is a googlebomb attack, then showing the website could begin to make some sense, as it illustrates how vicious the attack is and therefore helps the reader to understand the situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

True, the crude image is more relevant to the political activism than to the underlying subject. But the distinction between a "genuine" neologism (whatever that means) and a fake one is beside the point. Somebody promoted this, it may or may not have gained significance beyond its promotion, and we're left with the question of how to cover it all. The significance goes far beyond the attempt search engine optimization, and to denigrate it as such misses the point. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dan Savage is responsible for the It Gets Better Project, aimed at gay kids who are bullied, including in cyberspace, by those who think they're wrong/different/whatever. That project got a lot of deserved support. Now Savage is bragging about the success of his efforts to cyber-bully Rick Santorum because he's wrong/different/whatever. Hello? Bullying is wrong. Period. If you don't agree with Santorum's views, and many (I would hope most) of us do not, surely there is a better, more rational, more adult, more respectful way to point out that he's wrong. At Wikipedia we're expected to Assume Good Faith and not resort to nasty attacks. So why should we be party to an activity seeking to glorify the opposite through cheap and sleazy SEO tricks? The category the article belongs to is [[Category:Cyber-bullying]], and the article name should reflect that. In that sense, I agree with Jimbo. I would also suggest the article do a 'compare and contrast' of the two Savage projects. Flatterworld (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

While I heartily agree with all of that, I think it gets into original research/synthesis territory, unless there are sources out there that have analysed Savage's agenda in the context of bullying. Tarc (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you (and everyone else) read Dan Savage's own 24 September 2009 column, third section. It's not referenced in the Wikipedia 'neoologism' article, but imo it certainly makes a compelling case for showing Savage's determination to continue and increase the cyber-bullying in connection with the 2012 campaign. And back in 2009! (I just found the article through googling - I was trying to find Savage's more recent statement that if his website didn't stay at the top of Google results, he/they would have to Googlebomb it again.) Following is a clip, bolding mine: Flatterworld (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So I'm looking for a few folks who want to torment Rick Santorum by following every twist and turn of his sure-to-be-disastrous run for the White House on SpreadingSantorum.com. (I may dip in every once in a while and post myself.) It would be labor of love—read: a nonpaying gig—but you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you're driving Rick Santorum and his supporters absolutely batshit (batshittier?).

I think by 'genuine' neologism, Jimbo means one that comes into use by people without being pushed/promoted onto them. Truthiness was a clever word, and it got out there without Colbert having to start a campaign for it. 'Viral', 'tweet', 'Google', 'email', 'workaholic', etc. Clever neologisms help us describe things when there is a gap missing in our ability to communicate a concept. We hardly had a pressing society-wide need to describe what Dan Savage originally pushed. The funny thing is "shorthand for social conservative/-ism" is a sense used more (with the double-entendre of it meaning shit also). So out of a forced neologism comes a real neologism. Interesting thing language is. -- Avanu (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I won't have time to work on this for a few days, but I'm hopeful that we can find a different name and focus for the article soon. There seems to be little argument that this is actually a neologism (except in a very highly attenuated sense) and that it's actually notable as an attack, not as a new word. The article will make more sense if it focuses on the event. I think this discussion should be entirely separate from deletion debates or debates about whether or not the content in the Cirt-enhanced form is excessive - those are totally separate questions that should be addressed in the context of "what is this article really about?"

The principles at work here are well-known from our extensive work on WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK cases. We rename BLP1E's for (at least) two reasons: one, because it makes clearer what is actually notable (the event, not the person), and two, out of an appropriate concern for human dignity. We do various things with WP:COATRACK articles because we don't want to have an article that purports to be about one thing, in order to fulfill some other purpose.

What might be hard is to come up with a new name with consensus, but a good faith discussion ought to work well enough, and blind resistance to it might make much more clear to those on the sidelines that continuing as we are is allowing a platform to continue the attack.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, someone pointed out that Dan Savage has an anti-bullying campaign titled "It gets better", where he advocates against bullying. Although he and Rick Santorum don't agree politically, it seems like Savage doesn't mind being a cyber-bully if it furthers his cause. I doubt that redefining a person who happens to be gay in defamatory language would be well received by Dan Savage, so I would hope that if he truly believes that bullying is wrong, he might change his tactics and be an example in this way as well. Too many people in politics are hypocrites already. -- Avanu (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, do you have any view on the merits of the ongoing request for arbitration? --JN466 23:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Trending towards a merge. Hello, just some random Wikipedian who wandered in looking for something else on Mr. Wales' talk page. Observations: I recall the not inconsequential news coverage of this. The event, its coverage, and its significance, can be documented abundantly. However, as good as the article's writing appears, this is essentially a rehash of the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. Take that away, and as Mr. Wales suggests, you're left with a coatrack. I recall something Jimbo said years back: "Wikipedia is not here to make people sad." I think treating this particular "neologism," which is an attack term covered in an article that mainly covers a wider controversy, as an independent topic - and one that only crops up when the former Senator is in the news, and then only peripherally - is the result of a tendency to look to the media sources for guidance, in place of better judgement about the balance of coverage for the encyclopedia. Of course, the media also regularly declined to get into certain specifics that the article will for the sake of completeness, in an instance following its own rules for civility in discourse. I perceive the editorial decisions that allowed some to even broach the topic would have not been agreed upon in many newsrooms; as the questions would have been similar to ours: Does Mr. Savage get to piggyback his cause onto the media and the former Senator's name by mere dint of responding to a certain circumstance and with special disregard for civil norms? Does the former Senator get a pass from being taken to account by a member of the specific interested group that his words have impacted? I would be in favor of a stance for Wikipedia which also comes down in favor of civility in discourse, but the first step is to separate the overall Wikipedia strategy from those sources' handling of it (though it's instructive) and the circumstances, i.e. Savage's anti-bullying campaigns, original criticisms, etc. which only elevate this term's visibility for little value to the reader. I think most, if not all, of the comprehensive coverage from the article in question could go into the aforementioned controversy article, while the main Santorum article may perhaps be tweaked slightly, but I think is essentially correct. The controversy article, as well as the former Senator's Wikipedia article, could certainly make allusions to the (ma)lingering tenacity of this term, but only the controversy article really needs to define the term. Edwin Herdman (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We have other articles that promote or describe ongoing cyberbullying projects. ED is one example and some might argue the WR is another. If there's a consensus that supports a new approach to covering cyberbullying topics on Wikipedia I'd support it.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, you're in a unique position to address two things that have come up in this whole debate; would you consider making a statement on them?

1. One argument made for altering the title or content of the article, or for having or not having links, is the meme that these things affect our Google PageRank and therefore allow SEO manipulation of the topic. First, to the extent that anyone outside of Google can tell us these things, could you ask the Wikipedia web wizards if this is even a reasonable argument, or does Wikipedia use methods to prevent linkspam, etc. from affecting our rank? That is, is the SEO argument moot on technical grounds? If it isn't, how do we differentiate "SEO tactics" from normal article promotion in a way that a newbie can know to do the right thing?
2. I know issues like this will have partisanship, but it seems like there's a persistent subset of editors who are compelled to take an "us vs. them" mentality—"if you don't agree with me, you must be One Of Them". It's hard to build consensus when one is accused of being a shill, a conspiracist, or just plain too stupid to be allowed to edit. How can the community address this effectively, and keep it from turning a merely contentious debate into a perilous one?

// ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Conference in Turkey

I heard that you will come to Turkey for a conference at 5 October. Do you think any meeting with Turkish Wikipedia members? Have a great day. --Duke ^{ϡ»» ileti ^^} 23:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would love to do that if there is time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin Abuser Barek

A wikipedia administrator named Barek(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Barek) kept banning me from wikipedia without warning or reason. I changed the the page armour to american english and it got reverted. I changed it once more and received a warning for doing so. I stopped immediately after, but still got banned for a day with a warning on my page. I blanked my page after the ban as the warning was redundant. Barek reverted the edits so I blanked the page once more. Then he proceeded to ban me again without a single warning. I've been banned 3 times by him so far and every time without a warning or reason. WP:BLANKING clearly states it's only against the rules to delete sanctions that are in affect. I just don't want to continue using a website with poor administrators. I hope something can be done about this. Thanks --70.186.166.251 (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to mention your block evasion and IP hopping. Whoops. I notified Barek of this discussion for you. --64.85.214.184 (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. I didn't mention it because you're wrong. This is exactly what I'm talking about right here. My complaint will remain here until I get a real administrator to deal with it. --70.186.166.251 (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

IP took it to WP:ANI. If the IP keeps removing talk page comments and the ISP template they will be blocked again. Hopefully they will stop now. It's pretty clear that a page with the title 'Armour' should use British English, if the IP wants to change this they need to use the talk page to change the title. Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... it doesn't matter anymore. I'm just going to change my IP again. This is the last you'll hear from me on this IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.166.251 (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"You forgot to mention your block evasion and IP hopping." "I didn't mention it because you're wrong...I'm just going to change my IP again". Thanks for playing. DMacks (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear IP number,

I know how you can stop being blocked. Stop doing what you are doing. Get an account, log in, and post reasoned discussion to the talk page of the article explaining why you think the page should be rewritten in American English. I don't think you will get very far, though, as the page is obviously fine in British English.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

^-- Yeah, what he said! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What he said, and I would add this reference - IP-number not only changed the spelling, but removed the alternative AND the link! Flatterworld (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: If you look at the edit history on Armour (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch, there were two IP addresses and a named account that were all either the same person or coordinating their disruption together. The other IP even stated on my talk page "About that warning ... It's okay, I'll just change my IP address. :)" The IP that brought the notice to this page as well as the named account were also actively removing the shared-IP tags and warnings from the other IP's talk page, indicating a clear knowledge of that account. There's no question that at the very least this is a case of meatpuppetry, although there's also evidence of possible sockpuppetry and block evasion. No need for an SPI here, as the WP:QUACK test is more than sufficient in this case. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Point made to Trevmar

This is great advice to nearly anyone. Coy answers are a frustration of many people who try to engage in a socratic dialogue. Any chance you've written it up somewhere official or have an essay tucked away in the bowels of the project? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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.

Trevmar (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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.

Trevmar (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

I seek your Solomon-like sagacity per a Request for Comment here: Talk:Camel toe#Requested move. I realize the Wikipedia is not censored, nonetheless, sometimes topics that are particularly slangy concerning sexual topics are covered when they probably should not be, at least in their present form. For example, at the recent AfD for the article "Moose knuckle"--having to do with "Weinergate"-like sexting poses--the community wisely !voted to Delete. However, in the more ancient AfD for, well, "Camel toe", the community !voted to Keep. Mr. Wales, would you be likely to hold that a version under the catch-all rubrics of either, say, "Visible outline of genitals through clothing" or "Visible vulva through clothing" might be more appropriately encyclopedic in tone (if not in its parameters)...according to wp:DICTIONARY: which guideline's lede begins with the bolded sentence, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide"? or would an even more innocuous article under, say, "Crotch (fashion)" be the most appropriate? or would the entire topic be best left uncovered on Wikipedia at all?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)