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)
  • I am not opposed to paid editors. I am opposed to paid advocates. There is a huge difference. I do not think it would be workable or a good use of donor money to pay Wikinews editors at the present time, but this is not due to any sort of abstract opposition to people being paid!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, sorry about that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:41, 25 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)
    • I don't think there is any evidence that is needed. Studies in specific areas have shown wikipedia to be up to a decent standard: Reliability of Wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
      • You seem to have overlooked the word Wikinews being liberally sprinkled over this section. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on a (very) recent experience with WikiNews; I think it is an expiring project anyway. Participation is low; for example it took two days for one article to appear - that's not very "new" :) Add in that there is, on average, one or two new articles per day (at the moment mostly about Australian sport - due to one prolific contributor) and under 200 edits in total per day (around 3-4 daily editors - perhaps 25 regulars in totas). Sadly, I think it lacks critical mass. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I have long held that what might be best *for Wikinews* is for it to be spun off into a separate organization. One of the problems is that the Foundation - for very good reasons - has never had the ability to devote real resources and talent to helping it along. Therefore, it was allowed to languish. A few earnest contributors with mistaken ideas about community management finished it off.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have long felt that Wikinews, at least the US version, can't compete with the 24 hour news cycle that already exists. The limited number of editors cannot compete with the number of editors on a conventional news site. In fact, information on the Pinta Island tortoise exists on Wikipedia, but not Wikinews. There is no article on Ashton Eaton on Wikinews, in fact there isn't even an article on the election of Mohamed Morsi. The n:Newsroom is currently fairly bare, but when I did a stint of Wikinews work last year, I can remember it being filled with unreviewed requests. Many of which were never published because they were finally declined for being outdated. My only idea is to possibly modify Wikinews so that instead of documenting recent events, it becomes a source for past events. Where an article on Wikipedia may fail WP:NOTNEWS, it could be contained on WikiNews. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is; we do have a huge number of people who, when a big news story emerges, arrive here in droves to cover it. Which isn't really the point of Wikipedia. If we could find an effective way to channel that enthusiasm into WikiNews it would take off, I am sure. This benefits Wikipedia as well because our coverage of high profile events is traditionally poor until some time after the fact - we often fail in being a venue of record and become a news outlet. Ideally there would be a moratorium on recording events on Wikipedia and WikiNews would become the place to collaborate on current events, eventually building to encyclopaedic content. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So perhaps a standard outcome - a common outcome, even - for articles that fail WP:NOTNEWS could be to transwiki them to WikiNews? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Except, all of the things Ryan pointed out above are significantly outside of NOTNEWS and are extremely relevant for WIkipedia to cover, so that wouldn't really help much. The stuff that fails NOTNEWS is generally minor general interest news, which wouldn't be all that helpful to Wikinews. Silverseren^C 21:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Fire departments often have both volunteer and professional staff. How do they decide who to pay? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 06:49, 26 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)

I personally agree that the extradition treaty is unfair and needs to be changed on the British side but I'm hopeful we can avoid dragging the encyclopedia into it this time. I also liked the Guardian's characterization. Although Jimbo called on spirits from the vasty deep on SOPA to vote for the lockout (i.e. IPs who have not edited the site before or since), this time I don't think they will come if he calls them.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please don't perpetuate this myth that the SOPA vote was carried by IPs. Go do the analysis.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

True, true, newly-established accounts did play their part. I wonder what the result would have been if the page had been semi-protected? Remember also, there is such a thing as the bandwagon effect which would not have taken place under such circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you admit what you wrote above was misleading?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not in the least. I do not see accounts registered by partisans as something which boosts your cause. That being said, I personally agree with your personal stance on the O'Dwyer case.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is misleading because you imply that regular users voted against the SOPA action, and it only carried due to anon ips or newly-established accounts. Go do the analysis!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I said the bandwagon effect is also an issue. That means people don't like to vote against the flow of the stream, even if such stream is a few hundred one-off users. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go edit an article. I recommend it. Highly.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Positing that a form of groupthink took place as a result of manipulation by IPs and new accounts seems an extreme claim to make considering you bring no evidence (and exceptional claims require exceptional evidence). As a result there is no basis for insinuations or incivility (there is never a basis for incivility). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Bandwagon effect. Thank you for your advice however, and I have struck part of my comment that I did not feel, on consideration, was necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

However, I would find the claim that the entry of hundreds of IPs, who came because of off-wiki solicitation, had no effect on the vote of members of the community, as extraordinary if not more.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not in the way you might think. I've noticed the Wikipedians are resistant and sometimes slightly hostile to campaigns by "outsiders". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Such as which campaigns?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Choose virtually any controversial article primarily of interest to one group. But in any event, I'm glad you seem to have retracted the most extreme and false version of your claim. I'd encourage you to rethink the position that people outside the community ought not be allowed to participate because they might actually influence us, though. Losing a vote and then complaining that the vote was somehow wrong because it allowed a voice for the general public is... well, it isn't the kind of project I think we should strive to be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Characterize it as you will. There's only be one claim made, and no retreat has been made: that the vote was heavily affected by outside people who have no other interest in the Wikipedia community, and that the heavy IP vote affected the community vote. Companies don't let customers vote at the shareholder's meetings unless they've bought in. And these, as far as we know, were not even customers.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

To which I say IPs are human too. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. So are fishermen in Bangladesh. Also the English football team, very much so.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

From that essay: "They should register for an account (e.g. if they want to participate): No. You need to accept their contributions, heed their suggestions and participate in consensus building with them. There is no requirement for anyone to register for an account before they can participate in the building of this encyclopedia. There is, however, a requirement on you that you behave." Also, by criticizing the vote as being heavily influenced by IPs that don't have a real interest, whether that assertion is true or not, you're assuming bad faith on the part of those IPs that did participate. Therefore, you must demonstrate conclusive evidence that they did participate in bad faith, or you are violating WP:AGF. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. It is my opinion that they don't have a real interest. If they don't have a real interest, then they are voting in perfect good faith, but it behooves us to ask for a reasonable franchise if Jimbo goes for another lockout. Say the franchise we require for ArbCom elections, or for RfA. Nothing arduous. IPs vote from time to time, in utter good faith, at RfAs. However, they are indented because the community requires some commitment in order to pass on those in authority on WP who are subject to election. Forcing all editors off the site qualifies, in my view, as such a decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Many of the IPs voting may well have been regular users of Wikipedia rather than editors. Surely they have as much of a say as the people who edit? After all, the encyclopaedia isn't just for editors, it's for everyone. --  M2Ys4U ^(talk) 21:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. I watch the Olympics, but they don't let me sit on the IOC. Anyway, I made my point early on, but carelessly allowed myself to be baited. Back to the uncompensated grind. Feel free to carry on. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, suffice it to say that the blackout wasn't popular with everyone. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia. I don't think anything has ever been popular with everyone here. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Personally I tend agree with Jimbo in many respects with regards to the O'Dwyer issue. The US continues to attempt to play the role of "world police enforcement" without regard to the sovereignty of other nations. That we would send our law enforcement after a young man that didn't host or post anything wrong - just links to sites which did - is a very Owellian fright. Amazing the weight that the privledged few in Hollywood can bring to bear (with their (m/b)illions of dollars) down upon some poor kid /outside/ the USA. Too bad our "officials" don't put that kind of effort into shutting down all the malware and scareware garbage afloat on the Internet.

Now - I'll also say that that Jimbo (and others) seem to have gotten a bit defensive in a rather harsh tone with Wehwalt here as well. Our (Wikipedia's) SOPA actions were not as universally "loved" as some would like to portray. And the fact that a lot of IP addys, SPA accounts, and out of the woodwork newly registered accounts posted "support" for the black-out is simply that ... a fact. Were they the majority? Did they turn the tide in consensus? To be honest, I don't know. I know it wouldn't be acceptable in a RfA, or XfD though. Personally I did support some sort of banner or click-thru in regards to SOPA; but it amazed me how that built into the unstopable juggernaught which shut the site down for a day. For a day, Wikipedia stopped being a resource of free online information, and transformed into a political lobby group. Sorry - that's just simply "truth" - and I'm pretty sure we can find WP:RS to WP:V that as well. Yet I admit - we were hardly alone in that one as many other sites offered their own protestations as well.

Getting back to O'Dwyer however - I'd ask Jimbo if he is contemplating bringing the weight of the Wikipedia website to bear in this matter. It's one thing for Jimbo to say as an individual that "X" is wrong, and "Y" is right; it's quite another to swing the "founder" hammer in those matters though. I've seen many posts, threads, and articles which profess that Jimbo has stated that Wikipedia is "your" site, "our" site, a collective rather than [his] individually run website. However, if every 3 or 6 months you (Jimbo) use your influence to make political statements, lobby for what is "right", then use Wikipedia as a platform for that - then we must forfeit all claims of NPOV, and you personally will likely face claims of the hypocritical nature. I am NOT making an accusation here in the least - simply offering one view to consider. And if you'd care to clarify your position as something seperate from Wikipedia as a whole, perhaps that would assuage some of the concerns as well. I have the utmost respect for you and what you (and the community) have accomplished with this project; but the "who" you are, Jimbo, is always going to be a very influential part of what is said. There are those who will follow you blindly. Equally, there are those who will oppose you, and just as blindly. Your words carry heavy weight sir. Just IMHO — Ched :  ?  00:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur emphatically with Ched, and in full.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, not commenting on most of the above post, but I don't think Jimbo was being "harsh" to Wehwalt, rather he was simply shooting down a proposition which he senses as false. Nothing wrong with that. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Is intentionally profiting off copyright infringement wrong?

You say "creators ought to be able to release their work under traditional copyright and have legal recourse against those who are illegally profiting from it". Okay, but that's pretty circular. If course it should be illegal to illegally do something.

More to the point, and without getting into the specific details of any particular incident, do you think it is wrong to profit by intentionally facilitating the copyright infringement of others? Note that I'm not talking about Google, or Tivo, or Betamax. I'm talking about knowingly, willfully, intentionally facilitating the copyright infringement of others. Incu Master (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line between facilitating infringements and not being able to tell which content is licensed or excepted under e.g. fair use law? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

you got a minnow from lake wikipedia

Plip!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Windows.dll (talk • contribs) 23:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Userpage move

Excuse me, could I have this moved to User:68.173.113.106/Wikipedia: HTML5 edition (no redirect)? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Voila :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the wikipedia :)

Benvewikilerim (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)