User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Should Wikinews pay volunteers and/or professionals?

Would Wikinews be more successful if it paid reporters and tried to hire professionals? Would it be more successful if it were divided into continental bureaus? 75.166.206.120 (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Except that would be the exact opposite point of what Wikinews is meant to be. It is meant to conglomerate news sources and report on current already reported on news. Just like Wikipedia works off of already published information. In a sense, you could say Wikinews is meant to be the encyclopedia of current news reporting. Silverseren^C 20:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, but how is that opposite and not orthogonal to my questions? Would you prefer reading an encyclopedia of current news reporting which pays its workers, or one strictly based on volunteer work? Because as well as the volunteer model outperforms for the general encyclopedia, it seems to be doing that much below average for news organizations. 75.166.206.120 (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That is not correct. News summary is just one of the two things that Wikinews does. Another is original reporting. See n:Wikinews:Introduction#What Wikinews articles are and n:Wikinews:Content guide for the on-wiki explanation. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was going to say this myself. Original reporting is occurring at Wikinews. Unlike mainstream media, sources and notes are transparently provided to the reader, which is very cool in my view. The problem with "paid volunteerism" is the opportunity cost. Namely, you can expect the number of people willing to volunteer without remuneration would sharply decrease. This is why the WMF won't fund needed work unless it believes, and volunteers will believe that the work could not be done without that funding. How do we make Wikinews more successful? I personally believe the best approach would be to work with universities running Journalism courses. If students all over the world can get course credit (and valuable experience!) writing Wikinews articles over the course of a full year, we might see Wikinews become a huge success. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there some way to use a sliding scale to solve that problem? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope Jimbo has an opinion on this. 71.212.226.91 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think he has expressed very clearly in the past that he is against paid editing in general. Wikinews is not supposed to rival professional news organizations but to summarise their news in a wikiformat.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What if we only paid the neediest volunteers with a good track record, and one professional in each geographic region? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ethereal being

There is an ongoing AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethereal beings in which various experienced editors have taken opposing stances as to whether the article is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR (which is usually a clear-cut case) and whether such a topic can exist. Perhaps you, or one of your many watchful minions would like to participate?Smallman12q (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"watchful minions" meaning what exactly?--ukexpat (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF :-) it probably means "editors who are watching Jimbo's talk page". --Enric Naval (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Like Penemue I guess ;-) Dmcq (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I will steer clear of this one. I would !vote Strong delete if I were voting. This is a classic type of article that I have seen many times in the past, in which someone has a new idea to lump together a bunch of related things under a new name, and tries to justify the existence of the article by noting all the valid references to the underlying related things. The problem is often that to a casual reviewer, the sourcing looks good.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I made a very similar, but not identical, argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innocent prisoner's dilemma. Uncle G (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • That topic is one that has concerned me for many years and it applies in many contexts not just parole boards. For instance I only recently describe a problem in the way unblocking is done on Wikipedia with reference to that article. I am glad the consensus agrees with me and not you. Dmcq (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Consensus may agree with you, but scholarship and the source that supposedly underpins this do not. This is one occasion where a consensus of people who just thought that the sourcing looked good, and apparently didn't even read beyond the title to the abstract, let alone the actual content of the source, came to the wrong conclusion, as you too have, and now we have a superficially plausible article on a topic and propounding a thesis that Wikipedians made up. And yes, Penyulap created that article, and its copy in project space, to make a point about Wikipedia, too. It's a poor show when you sacrifice encyclopaedia quality and accurate representation of legal scholarship for the sake of the Village Pump. Uncle G (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I often get this idea I'm right and everybody else is wrong too. I hardly think it is a good idea to bring up such cases as any sort of example that'll convince anyone else of anything much. You just used this discussion as a WP:COATRACK. Dmcq (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be very little in policy on notability and when synthesis of separate topics into a single article meets the criteria. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I've stated at the AFD, the "ethereal being" article can be salvaged, albeit with some work. A lot of work. It needs to be renamed to Immaterial being, because "ethereal" means nothing. It needs to be pruned of New-Age-y sections and passages. Its sources need to be checked, with lots of {{quotation requested}} tags. Etc. -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC) PS: The argument of SYNTH has some merit, but in this case, the article is trying to be a simple overview of the many and varied conceptions of immaterial beings that are out there. I agree though that its poorly conceptualized, and that has allowed a lot of rigorous handwaving into the article. -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The sources don't exist, even though sources demonstrating the non-OR nature of the topic have been requested on numerous occasions in the AfD, no person has responded with any sources in the whole discussion, not even ones that give a simple overview. Also, from what I can see there is no simple overview in the article, just a list of disconnected topics. If the sources don't exist, we can't have an article. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There are over 200 citations in the article, are you saying that they all fail verification, or that they are all faked in some way? Theres a reason why AGF is referred to often, its because people often forget it. Now, it seems that one of the main issues, as Jimbo noted above, is that the title is rather sketchy: Nobody uses the word "ethereal" and hence there are no sources to substantiate its use. Thats a valid point. But the essential idea behind the article is genuine - that there are concepts of beings which don't have material bodies - for example God. God, for those of us who believe he exists, has no material body, hence he qualifies as some other, less materialistic, type of being. The idea of a non-material being is valid, and serves as a sort of reflection on our own human being - the essential idea behind many religious beliefs is that we transcend our material flesh. I can understand though that if I were an atheist I might find it easier to trash the article, but that would reveal a bias wouldn't it? Perhaps I too have a bias for eventualism and saving articles which attempt to deal with spiritual ideas.-Stevertigo (t | c) 00:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No we are not saying that the sources fail verification. They each verify a specific fact - but the main fact - the idea that there is such a topic as "ethereal being" that all of those minor facts have any relation to is entirely unsourced and unsourceable. The source to use for that would be 1. another encyclopedia that has an entry on "ethereal" or "immaterial" beings, 2. a book written describing a concept of such beings ad how all the different minor topics relate to it. 3. a review article reviewing the literature on ethereal beings. In absence of anything like that the article is merely an expressioin of someones opinion that certain ideas are similar and could be treated together as "immaterial beings".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

My religious beliefs or lack thereof have no bearing on this AfD. Please stop saying that editors are biased against the article when there is no legitimate reason to think so. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We all have biases, and I was simply admitting to having some myself. Now, regarding the article, do you agree or disagree that "ethereal immaterial being" is a valid premise for an article? -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not a matter of agreement or disagreement but of producing sources that supports the notion that it is valid topic. Which source you would base such an article on? What other source describes a topic of "immaterial beings".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't actually registered my feelings about it but I got the distinct feeling the article was more of a list than a discussion of a specific topic. Sort of as if we had an article about the monuments in London or the alumni of a university. It feels like there is some topic there but it would be a much smaller article. Dmcq (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Some rather nice illustrations though... The gnostic cloudscape photographed in Rochester, Minnesota [1], looks really encyclopedic atmospheric. According to the caption, Storm clouds in the devic kingdom are more than an atmospheric event but also a product designed and directed by angels and sylphs. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Mammatus clouds is what I'd call them, you can see a few more at that article if you like those. Freud would have something to say about that but I don't believe in commenting on what strikes peoples' fancy :) Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

By contrast, there's some good, encyclopedic gallery illustration, imo. (But maybe ethereal beings should get a look in here, lol?) —MistyMorn (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Maunus wrote: "It is not a matter of agreement or disagreement.." -It is a matter of answering my question, because it is the question I asked, which related to the simple but important matter of the article's premise. The title is important because it indicates the articles premise, and conceptualizes what the article is about. "..but of producing sources that supports the notion that it is valid topic. - A valid point. What I am suggesting is a kind of article reboot - renaming the article means re-conceputalizing the article, which means doing a thorough top-down pruning of the article of material which doesn't fit the premise. So before anything else, we have to ask (again) 'is the concept of an 'immaterial being' a valid premise for an article? This naturally would include beings who are described in various ways which are definable as "immaterial" - this includes but is not limited to "spirit" and "ethereal." Regards -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Steve - sources. First sources then conceptualize. Please...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Maunus wrote: No we are not saying that the sources fail verification. - I'd like to hear Bloodofox answer that. He appears to be making a blanket criticism of the sourcing in the article as invalid in some way. ..but the main fact - the idea that there is such a topic as "ethereal being" that all of those minor facts have any relation to is entirely unsourced and unsourceable. - You seem to be dismissing the very premise that an 'ethereal' or 'immaterial being' is a valid topic for an article, based on an argument that the idea is (your term) "unsourceable." I understand your point, that we need something to back up the basic premise of an 'immaterial being.' That is a valid point, but when we create articles, we don't always start with a source - sometimes we start with an idea - in this case, the idea is a generalization of various ideas about beings without material bodies. God, angels, spirits, etc. It should be clear that this is a valid topic on its surface alone, without any pre-determined sourcing - sources can (and often do) come after the idea for an article is conceived and stubbled. But I do indeed agree with your point that the article needs some general sources to support its basic premise. We now just need to agree on what the basic premise is, and I suggest "immaterial" because its accurate and neutral, and stays as far away from theosophy as we can get, without being off-topic. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

1. if you start writing an article based on an idea without a source then you are doing it wrong, and you should be writing for something other than an encyclopedia. 2. I am not dismissing the idea that "ethereal beings" could be a valid topic for an encyclopedia but I am stating that in accordance with our core policies whether that is the case is entirely dependant on whether reliable sources consider this to be a topic that can be written meaningfully about. None of the sources in the article are about "ethereal beings". 3. the notion that God, Angels, spirits can be describe as constituting a class of immaterial beings is entirely your own personal idea. Such an idea may be good for writing a lot of things but not an encyclopedia.4. no topic is valid on its surface alone - only sourcing determines whether something is a valid topic. You need to read up on the core policies Steve. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We start articles without sources all the time. What matters at that point is that the concept the article represents is valid, and source-able. So if we want to start an article on Stan Lee film cameos, would we need a source that explicitly listed all the cameos he's been in, or could we give a list, and cite each one separately? Would it be SYNTH to create an article about such a topic, and composed in such a way? I submit that it would not be. -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Steve for crying out loud. You really do live in a world where wikipedia is as it was 11 years ago. You really are showing yourself to be a dinosaur without a basic grasp of what wikipedia is today. I am seriously beginning to doubt your competence.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Steve is correct. The Verifiability and sourcing policies don't require a source for every citation UNTIL someone challenges it. So in a practical sense (ala Maunus), why would you spend time making an article without sourcing it when anyone can come along and say 'prove it' and wipe all your work out? -- Avanu (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense. I am not talking about an article that has no sources, but A TOPIC FOR WHICH NO SOURCES EXIST. An article for which there are no sources should not be written and should be deleted on sight. An article for which there is no sources has nothing to do in an encyclopedia and is explicitly probited under the inclusion criteria of WP:V and WP:NOT. The problem is exactly here that someone tried to build an article by sourcing single statements but without having a single source to support the existence of the topic. An attempt to legitimize basic OR by copious use of sources. This stuff shouldn't even be AfD'ed it should just be deleted on sight.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

So, in looking at the actual article link, I would just say it is equivalent to an article on mythological beings or ghosts or spirits. These are well-documented in literature and are the subject of many fantasy books and sci-fi type shows. I guess I need to go back and read more of what the actual argument is here. -- Avanu (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles on wikipedia are meant to be notable, it's a basic requirement. No reliable independent source discusses supposed entities not made of ordinary matter as a distinct topic. The lack of sources is why, for example, there is no consensus about the title Talk:Ethereal_being#Ethereal_being_.E2.86.92_Immaterial_being, as there are no reliable sources to defer to that actually discuss this as a topic. Also, the Etymology section is actually just the etymology of Ether/Etereal and Being synthesised together. The topic also confuses fringe modern beliefs with Legendary creatures and actually appears to posit that they exist.

The article is not about Mythological creatures, read it. The article is also written in a way that indicates that these are not myths but actual beings (subject to WP:FRINGE). For example, Under the interpretation made by writer Carlos Castaneda, even living in another dimension of perception, nonphysical beings are some sort of intelligent alien beings or energy beings, and so terraqueous as men are with further on These entities have only self-interests while others can help the sorcerer to gain power. He calls these last ones as "Allies". This is done throughout. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The possibility of a site-ban (if not also a global ban), for the user:Nipponese Dog Calvero, a cross-Wiki vandal and an Internet troll.

SIR, — It is purely symoblic, semantic and academic of course, but would you, Mr. Wales, Sir, care to entertain and consider perhaps in the possibility of the placing of a ban, either locally or globally, or both, upon the User:Nipponese Dog Calvero, a known and a most notorious, and may I dare say, most annoying and irritating indeed as well, Internet Troll and Cross-Wiki vandal, mainly and originally of the Chinese-, the Japanese- and the Vietnamese-language Wikipedias, being currently blocked indefinitely, but not as of yet banned as such? Yours, — KC9TV 12:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the situation really that bad? I believe that bans should be used only as a last-resort measure. And Jimbo doesn't care if you use the kind of formal language that you included in the above post - he never reads them, anyway. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This is also something that is typically discussed at the administrators' noticeboard, though there's certainly no rule against discussing it here. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Heavy abuse on many projects? That would meet the criteria at m:Global bans (though that is not in effect yet). There are several users who are considered to be de facto globally banned even if they don't meet that criteria, though I won't name anyone per WP:DENY.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

advocacy re Richard O'Dwyer

As someone who strenuously opposed the political advocacy pursued by the Wikimedia Foundation early this year (I note that today the Guardian called it plainly saying that in January "With other senior editors, Wales set aside for the first time Wikipedia's vaunted principle of neutrality...") I commend your decision to take action on the O'Dwyer case as Wikipedia founder and respected opinion leader as opposed to (additionally) trying to light a fire under the editing community. Leading people from all walks of life as opposed to leading "Wikipedia's people" will of course mean that many Wikipedians will also follow but they will be the most motivated and interested in getting involved and those who aren't so motivated need not be concerned (this time).--Brian Dell (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; spectacular. 71.212.226.91 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)