User talk:Jimbo Wales

If you are here to report abuse, or to request intervention in a dispute, please first read about resolving disputes, and try adding your request to the administrators' incident noticeboard instead. Your grievance is much more likely to be investigated and acted upon in that forum.

Archives
as of Jan. 16, 2003 Sept. – Dec. 2005 January 2006 Jan. – Feb. 2006 February 2006 Feb. 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006

By Permission Only Images to be deleted

I Do not understand other admins interpretations of your decisions. [1].

This seems to be talking about how if you can find an alternative you should replace the image, However, I have seen this Policy being applied beyond when a free alternative is impractical and Offends the Copyright holder even more.

Specifically in the UserSpace Zone in combination with fair use. Please see the talks of these images for examples.

Image:User browser firefox.png as a replacement for Image:Firefox-logo.png

and Image:Uncyclopedia_logo.png When a free alternative is not practical and

Is their some policy about misinterpreting what you say?

I feel Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy for this very reason. I am sorry to involve you in this issue but I can't stand when people keep quoting everything you say and claim it means something unrelated. You are a reasonable person, however some of your followers will take what you say unconditionally with the least respect to the our community. I am approaching you because this is about what you said. I can't reason with somebody who say Jimbo say this or Jimbo said that. It seams Impracticable to involve you in every dispute. Can you make some statement so we can free the minds of people who are encapsulated by the belief that you have the final word on everything. PS. Don't you also own Uncyclopedia? (outside of the sense that everybody owns the wiki)--E-Bod 03:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

None of the images you link to are {{permission}} or {{noncommercial}}. The Listserv post you quote is totally irrelevant to them. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

They cannot use the template because they are uploaded after May 19, 2005. And yes. That is my Point. "The Listserv post you quote is totally irrelevant to them" however admins are assuming this is the rule. I need a statement from Jimbo because i was told

Wikipedia does not accept specific permission to use images (Jimbo has personally intervened on this matter), so it is only usuable under fair use. ed g2s • talk 01:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Quoted by --E-Bod 04:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My Point is that this Listserv post is being misused and only Jimbo himself can tell Ed this. Image_talk:User_browser_firefox.png May be a bad Example but Image talk:Uncyclopedia logo.png uses this list server as evidence and refuses to discuss the issue because he believes Jimbo said XY & Z. Personally i do not believe a Listserv is a policy. I totally agree with you. This issue is irrelevant and that is exactly why I need Jimbo to make some statement about misusing his listserv. I don't think their is a template to allow special permission for use on user space. I will be more than happy to make one but I need some grounds to defend the template or else people who remove fair use from user space will jump all over me.--E-Bod 04:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am really upset with Ed now. He holds others to higher standards than he hold himself as i will talk about on User_talk:Ed_g2s#Fair_use_Disgrace I Might regret this latter I do regre this i am pponting to an old issue several yers ago but Numerous people have had issues with this user removing fair use images in questionable situations but now i find out he still hasn't removed all fair use images from his userspace after i told him about it(and I was blocked for WP:POINT without a warning or a notice i was blocked by a arbitrator who met him at a wikimeeting in real life). I have not yet given him a chance to respond yet so my opinion is very one sided. This user is very bad at confronting fair use violators yet is is one of the biggest Fair use Violators to date. This is unacceptable and i think he should lose admin privileges. He has received numerous complaints already. I take back my first statement. This is the only User I have heard miss quote your e-mail.--E-Bod 02:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Permission to use an image only on Wikipedia is not sufficient for its use, nor is permission to use an image only for noncommercial purposes (yes, even on userpages). The relevant permission for Image:Uncyclopedia logo.png is (currently) "I'd like to allow the logo to be used for Wikipedia userpages, userboxes, etc. - in other words, as "decoration" for Wikipedians." That's {{permission}} and thus unacceptable; unless it's released under an acceptable license, it can't be used except under fair use. Likewise for the Firefox logo, etc. I don't understand what your difficulty is.

I misspoke when I said the Listserv post was irrelevant. It's entirely relevant, insofar as it indicates that the images must be fair-use. I just glanced at them, saw that they weren't {{permission}}/{{noncommercial}}, and figured it wasn't applicable; I was incorrect. It is, and I'm not sure why you think it's not. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets put this whole episode in historical perspective.

On 5 January 2006, the Policy tag was added to the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria page. There was no debate about this. The one user who added this vaguly mentioned he did this because of a conversation with Jimbo, but when pressed, avoided the question and provided nothing. This one user did not follow: Wikipedia:How to create policy#How to propose a new policy.

The first debate, to my knowlege, about fair use was with TSBY regarding Time magazine and fair use images. He took an email from Jimbo and overstepped the bounds of the the email, deleting the images without using the normal channels. This caused a firestorm and a RfC found here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2.

Then there is the case of Ed. Ed began deleting images from user's userpages. When I asked him to provide where he was getting this authority to do this, he ignored my question.[2] At least TSBY had an e-mail from Jimbo (albiet he was interpreting wrong). Ed doesn't even have this. It is as if admin one day decided to delete thousands of images with no consensus and no direction. Ed is creating discontent and anger on wikipedia.Travb (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry For the report on ed. That actually was an out of date report. Back to the issue. I have not seen on any policy page that we are not allowed to obtain permission. Infact most pages just say it would be a waste of time but does not forbid it. secondly this this quote from Jimbo is the only place i can find the issue please point me to it and this quote says (This is a standard photo of the Mission District in San Francisco -- getting a free alternative will be simple.) If you fallow the spirit of this post and not the rule I interpret what Jimbo is saying as When a free alternative is easily obtained their is no reason to use an image with permission.

However I infer that when an alternative is not possible to obtain then permission can be granted for the use of the image past fair use. I can't make an alternative Uncyclopidia image because it would have to have the same rights as the origin because it would be a derivative. an image. When the user says we can use it and the spirit of the rules do not forbid it there is not reason for use to get caught up on the technicalities of rules that are not addressing the issue.--E-Bod 21:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the bigger picture. Images that only Wikipedia have permission to use is not compatable with the GFDL license Wikipedia is released under. We simply can not accept content that is more restrictive than GFDL with regards to who can use it for what (that's my understanding anyway). Aparently (properly used) fair use content can be compatable with GFDL to some extent, but not always wich is why we have a fairly strict fair use policy too. Your permission wold make the image legaly free to use on Wikipedia, sure, but Wikipedia is not a project to build a great website, it's a project to make free content available to anyone, this Wiki is just the tool we use to make this content, and in that context it makes no sense to add content that can only be use on the Wikipedia website, and I don't see why it would be worth complicating our license situation by starting allowing it either. --Sherool (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You are the First person I have encountered to actually address the issue I am bringing up. However Your Legal concerns do not address the 2 instances I am talking about. My particular Issue is For use on User space. The issue is that Images listened free for Non Commercial Purposes [3] are not allowed on Wikipedia Despite Wikipedia being a Nonfor profit image. I am talking about General Permission that would apply to sight beyond Wikipedia. For instance The Uncyclopedia logo has permission to be used as decoration and is licensed uner [4] so we have every legal right to use it. Now if your concern is if we or somebody else wanted to sell the Encyclopedia then we may have problems, however Userspace is not going to be included on a sold copy of this encyclopedia. The Issue Is that the image is licensed for me to use it a certain way. I want to use it that way. If it wasn’t licensed I could still make a Fair use Claim. The user has Given permission. And the only thing stopping it is this That Wikipedia has put additional restrictions past the legal ones saying it won’t use Images licensed for non Commercial use and so the image is put into the Fair use category. I can’t make my foar use claim because we won’t allow it on userspace and I have permission to use it but we won’t accept that ether because People are Quoting Jimbo saying we can’t obtain permission but we fail to quote the whole thing that continues to add when No free alternative is obtainable. We are 100% legally allowed to use it. We just Have People who will not take the spirit of the rules into consideration. The problem is that several rules that should not apply to all circumstances are baing miss applied. Of one of these rules were clarified I would instantly be able to use the image on my userspace--E-Bod 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"People are Quoting Jimbo saying we can’t obtain permission but we fail to quote the whole thing that continues to add when No free alternative is obtainable." Jimbo never said that. He said "As of today, all *new* images which are "non commercial only" and "with permission only" should be deleted on sight. Older images should go through a process of VfD to eliminate them in an orderly fashion, taking due account of "fair use"." No provisos, it's unconditional. It happened that the two examples he gave could be easily replaced by free images, but that's not a requirement.

User pages are licensed under the GFDL as well and must be just as free as articles. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have since found something that Does not Quite work as an alternative but is a temporary fix until this fair use Thing gets clarified User:Yskyflyer/save My clam is that this Image is used for Identification purposes. Mirror sights would still be allowed to use the image--E-Bod 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick clarification of image commerciality

If we receive permission from, say, Mozilla to use the Firefox logo for any nondisparaging purpose that does not compete with Mozilla merchandise, is that a "no commercial" license unacceptable for our use (outside fair use), or is it a free license? It would mean that in the context of any kind of mirror, reproduction, modification, etc. of Wikipedia, the image would be usable; you'd have to actually do something like print it onto a T-shirt and sell it to violate the terms of use. Should we use that or fair use? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And how would we enforce the bit about "nondisparaging purpose"s? The policy as I understand it is that such permissions don't matter; it's still an unfree image, usable only under fair use. Yes, that means that combined with the strict fair-use policies, you can't use them on user pages. Yes, that has deeply hurt many people's feelings. I'm not sure why they don't get some free web hosting space to build the home page they really want, but that's just me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this a userpage or a Village pump? My question was about not allowing permission. Your' telling me I am not allowed to use images with permission is exactly what I want Jimbo to Clarify. I asked Jimbo as a last resort. I expect him to answer.--E-Bod 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would I want to talk about

1. Relevant wikipedia articles
2. How I edit wikipidia
3. Where I have a Conflict of interest when editing a wikipedia article

on a free web hosting space. My userspace is to help me use wikipedia. I can't edit wikipedia on a free web hosting space. Anyway this is the wrong place to talk about this issue. I know what WP:NOT and your comment is irrelevant.--E-Bod 05:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want I can Explain how I can use Permission company logos in each of these examples. Don't take one policy and claim it says something different. That is the point i am bringing to Jimbo about a point he made that may be misused by admins. You are simply a user with tools. Policies should be stated outright without room for interpretation or lack consideration for unaddressed issues.--E-Bod 05:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely Jimbo will answer you. He doesn't answer most talk-page questions. Mostly, yes, this is a village pump.

Anyway, on consideration, I've retagged the image as {{logo}}. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

hello jimbo i need help

kevin1243 is not leting me put a criticims part on the tommorow book series page it is his favourite series and he will not let me put the criticisms on everytime i do he deletes them vandalises my user page or makes up stories to try get me blocked please help jim

The truth about the tomorrow series must be heard

please reply to user talk: carbine (post made by User:Smugface the untrustworthy dwarf)

Tdxiang's song!

My song, sir! Hope you guys like it. :D-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD reform

Hi. I don't believe as many people review Template:Cent as they do this page, so I'm using it to bring attention to my proposal for AfD reform. El_C 12:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Free wiki host stole wikipedia logo

I'm not sure if this is the right forum to present this information, but the free wiki-host ElWiki uses the Wikipedia Globe logo combined with the text "ElWiki Knowledgebases" as the default Wiki.png file on new wikis. Basically, they're taking the copywritten logo and not attributing it to Wikipedia or Wikimedia. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

For reference, here's a direct example of what he's talking about. Garrett^Talk 22:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If that wiki changes the logo, I can get a copy... which reminds me: I really should change my ElWiki logo about now. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Reported to the Trademarks committee. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement on elimination of anon voting?

Hi Jimbo, I have a question for you. On Talk:George Washington, someone recently suggested the article should be permanently protected from unregistered users due to persistent vandalism. Terence Ong mentioned that people have suggested protecting the entire Wiki from anonymous editing, but that you had "said no" to previous attempts.

The only reason I raise the issue is because Kaiwen1 has a poll going on whether to ban anon editing, the results of which he's planning to forward to the Board of Trustees. I'm still pretty new here, so I don't know exactly how much authority you, personally, wield over issues like this. Is Kaiwen1's vote a waste of time? I'm curious as to what you have said in the past that Terence Ong remembers so clearly. I asked Terence , but he never replied.

(Full disclosure: I'm against blocking anon editing, and voted so on Kaiwen1's page.)

Kasreyn 23:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Similarities

Between your talk page and Fraggle Rock#The Trash Heap are uncanny! Just an observation... Cheers -- Samir धर्म 03:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria being policy

Do you approve of the current Wikipedia:Fair use criteria being policy. I know you are busy. A simple "yes" or "no" would be great.

Thank you for your time, Travb (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A simple "yes" would be great if that's your answer, but if your answer is "no", it would be nice to know why not. (For example, do you think the policy is too strict, or too lenient?) Angr (t • c) 16:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Also A clarification On Images used with permission when a free alternative is not possible to obtain as in the case of logos. Any free alternative would still be a derivative.--E-Bod 21:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Game guides on Wikibooks

Given the harmless nature of such guides are you sure that they should be banned from Wikibooks? They are contained in their own section, the distinction between games such as Doom and Chess is debatable and, in the last couple of years it has become possible to actually trade inside games see Business week story. The users at Wikibooks are definitely uneasy about the ban. My userid is RobinH at Wikibooks.

Drawing the line seems very easy to me. There is a simple question: can you point to a course at an accredited institution which uses this sort of thing as a textbook? I think there are college courses on chess. I think there are not college courses on Doom. Simple. Some people may not like that Wikibookians do not want Wikibooks to be a dumping ground for whatever doesn't fit in Wikipedia. But we have a charitable mission, and we need to respect that. --Jimbo Wales 21:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you totally boss.(Considering I don't edit on Wikibooks), but your statement there might get met with controversy, as there ARE some college courses based on pop culture, like video games. All I'm saying is I don't want that to be another CSD T1. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!}) 21:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there are courses, then there can be textbooks. :) --Jimbo Wales 22:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Your note on the Staff Lounge has clarified this debate. I, for one, had not understood that there were legal constraints. Cheers. RobinH

We have the Doom Wiki with plenty of room for Doom strategy information. And if there isn't a Wikia about your favorite game, you can go there and start it. As much as I like games, game guides just aren't part of Wikimedia's mission. Fredrik Johansson 23:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the b:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, which I put up for deletion? Gerard Foley 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I imagine it would depend. Are there classes that would use an annotated look at Harry Potter? If so, it would be valid. If not, it may need to go. On a side note, we gonna ask Jimbo on every book we put up deletion? ;-) --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a major change to Wikibooks, I don't think it's asking too much to get a few examples of what's OK. Gerard Foley 01:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, as was discussed on WP:CVG, "the StrategyWiki team (including myself) have made preparations to import all suitable videogame guides. This is not going to be a half-hearted history cut-'n'-paste like transwiki bots do either, instead the authentic full edit histories will be imported directly from database dumps thanks to the excellent MWDumper." (Comment was made by Garrett). I think that this would be an ideal situation. If at some point in the future colleges do start to give courses teaching students to become "professional gamers" or something, they could always be re-imported using a similar technique. jaco♫plane 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Details of 501(c)(3) are given at: Tax exempt status for your organization. The charter for Wikimedia is at : Bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. Please could you point to where these exclude documents such as game guides, or have I missed a crucial document? Robinhw 09:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Idea

Jimbo, I'm testing out an idea and I'd be interested in your feedback. Wikipedia has many great and long articles. Many vistors to the site however may simply be looking for very short snappy summaries. I've created an infobox called synopsis which could be placed near to the table of contents, to contain a two or three line synopsis of the article. For example

Any opinions on the idea? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what the lead section is supposed to do? --Carnildo 01:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. On most pages here the lead paragraph is merely an introduction before delving into the topic, rather than an overview of the topic. Take a look at Pope for instance. In this case the intro is a good one, but it certainly doesn't cover everything below it. It doesn't even tell who the current Pope is! Garrett^Talk 11:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the lead section should be fixed. Fredrik Johansson 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortuntately all too many fixes produce edit wars from those who think their rambling openings are OK. In addition many articles are (correctly) written in a detailed style that younger users mightn't be able to follow. The infobox can be written deliberately in simple language as an opener for young users, to tell them in simple language, in one or two sentences, what the article is about. for example, Template:Infobox synopsis Template:Infobox synopsis FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what we have simple: for. I'm against this. —Nightstallion (?) 13:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

quv!

There's your name written in a Klingon typeset. tlhIngan Hol 'oH HoS, rur SoH! vIHHa' SoH SoQ tlhIngan Hol Wikipedia! :P Computerjoe's talk 20:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Apropos of your note at Talk:Jimmy Wales

For what is it worth, I think it is in my rational self interest to care about what happens to kids in Africa, and far from being destructive of my self-interest, it is beneficial to my self-interest. Even as "destructive of" isn't likely the locution I'd have employed, I must commend you for having made a point so often overlooked by those who criticize objectivists (or even, in some cases, libertarians), viz., that one may, for whatever reason (inculcation by parents/society, apprehension of religious obligation, preternatural disposition, etc.), find pleasure/relief in helping others, such that he/she may act in a fashion consistent with his/her self-interest but ancillarily (or even primarily) be concerned with acting salutarily vis-à-vis others. I take as axiomatic that humans, as all living creatures, act wholly self-interestedly, but I also believe that humans (perhaps unlike some other living creatures) sometimes derive joy from helping others, such that an individual's self-interest may correspond to the interest of another. (I realize the point of your post wasn't to illustrate this, but I was happy to see it in any event; your criticisms of the article were, to be sure, accurate as well) Joe 21:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have digged through your comments, fact checked and changed accordingly when I think the facts where not supporting the claims in the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The best response is no response?

It seems that every time i try to talk to anybody around here, things end up deleted or changed. Chronic problem. At least this time it was actually apparently you who did it. Nice change. Are you just going to delete and ignore the people who are trying to get you to see the problems that exist? How about fixing the problems?

Your social experiment can't work under the weight of political warfare. Abuse is rampant, the abused have no real recourse. Gaming the system is too simple, and enough people are doing it that it is now part of what is simply required to be here. You don't have a creative or collaborative encyclopedia; You have a psycholigcal war zone.

What are you going to do about it? My suggestion, as an Expert in Sociology, Psychology, Systems Theory, Communications Theory, And Political Science is that The problem stems from the sheer quantity of ignorant pov warriors versus the smaller number of available experts, and the techniques and tactics that can be employed against reason, fact, knowledge, ot sense. I see the same problem Larry Sanger Saw, But i know that the solution isn't to become elitist, it is instead to create interactions that are meritocratic instead of based in pack psychology and mob or riot group movements.

LOGIC, which is what ANY serious educational or informational service has to eventually use, is the only solution to your problems. Logic ends most of the tools used by pack psychology, ends psychological warfare tactics, exposes ignorance and lies and misinformation, as well as bad reasoning, and levels the playing feild enough so that an Expert has a chance to actually confront that mob.

Unless you ban me, or I am blocked, I'll continue to attempt to talk with you about this problem, and it will start to pop up in as many places as i looks like it needs in order to get the attention it deserves. Avoidance isn't going to solve the problems, and, to be truthful, blocking me is only getting rid of the one thing that could have bailed you out; A lucid whos Agenda is to help you write the best encylopedia ever; who nonetheless understands the facts of the entropy you are experiencing and who knows how to deal with it and what the solutions to those problems are.

It will be better for you, and for everybody concerned, if you adress the problems, and work with those who are capable of being lucid relevant to those problems to solve those problems. Unless your goal is to have entropy and pack psychology dominate the world, and to be yet one more example of how politics and pack psychology enforce intentional ignorance and doublethink propagandas.

Lets start with square one. Knowledgable experts ought to be able to as much as float an outline on a talk page without having it deleted by pov warriors whos agenda is to keep the conversation in drama. People who are seriously abused by others ought to have realistic and swift recourse regarding that abuse. People should not be allowed to stack RFCs with their freinds. People should not be allowed to stack votes for deletion with their freinds. People should not be allowed to attack others and then cite them for personal attacks if they as much as respond with a simple mirrored reflection of the original attack. Pov warriors should not have pet rogue admins blocking people on trumped up charges to silence them for making noise about serious abuses. Wikipedia should not be psychological combat. And Yet, it is.

Since it vanished into the ethers, lets recap the more angry and to the point message you failed to answer.

---

Wikipedia IS evil [23]

It is host to the same big political groupthink game that goes on in all of the rest of civilization. It is a battleground for propaganda warfare, a lawless game in which anything can be said as long as its in "neutral" language even if its a propagandists lie, and even if it exists only to dispute a known fact. It is a place notable mostly for what it conspicuously lacks. There are in general thousands of articles which tell us about as much as a High Schooler might, and which then devolve into factoids and rhetoric. The expertise of depth knowledge is missing. No expert would submit themselves to a situation of patent pack psychology informational riot. Wikipedia is Evil. And You, Jimbo Wales, are the guy who created it. Maybe you should try some Formal Logic in the mix. Maybe this "Randian" Environment could use some controls on its chaos vectors. Maybe even a realistic and functional methodology for dealing with abuse might be in order.

Nice graphic box at the top of the page says to go post at the admin desk,. Funny, i tried that, and got less than no result. Abusiveness is rampant and the organization is headless. I can tell Wikipedia in fifty places what its problems are and how to solve them, but wikipedias nose is in the air, and the God king doesn't seem to read his talk page. What you have here isn't an encyclopedia, and in pretending, all that it offers a legitamate participant over the long term is abuse. The admin desk won't help you if you are being attacked and baited with ad hominems; they don't even know what one is. They aren't required to pick up any education to become admins; they come with the standard prole "opinion" fully intact, and no knowledge to back anything up.

Good luck with your evil science social sciences project. Let me know if you want any help to fix it. Prometheuspan 00:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Larry Sanger has the same diagnosis that i do. I have more to offer in terms of how to solve the problem. But not whilst being blocked by trolls and their pet admins for making the effort.

---

"Wikipedia has, to its credit, done something about the most serious trolling and other kinds of abuse: there is an Arbitration Committee that provides a process whereby the most disruptive users of Wikipedia can be ejected from the project.

But there are myriad abuses and problems that never make it to mediation, let alone arbitration. A few of the project's participants can be, not to put a nice word on it, pretty nasty. And this is tolerated. So, for any person who can and wants to work politely with well-meaning, rational, reasonably well-informed people--which is to say, to be sure, most people working on Wikipedia--the constant fighting can be so off-putting as to drive them away from the project. This explains why I am gone; it also explains why many others, including some extremely knowledgeable and helpful people, have left the project.

The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise. There is a deeper problem--or I, at least, regard it as a problem--which explains both of the above-elaborated problems. Namely, as a community, Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist (which would, in this context, mean excluding the unwashed masses), it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated). This is one of my failures: a policy that I attempted to institute in Wikipedia's first year, but for which I did not muster adequate support, was the policy of respecting and deferring politely to experts. (Those who were there will, I hope, remember that I tried very hard.)

I need not recount the history of how this nascent policy eventually withered and died. Ultimately, it became very clear that the most active and influential members of the project--beginning with Jimmy Wales, who hired me to start a free encyclopedia project and who now manages Wikipedia and Wikimedia--were decidedly anti-elitist in the above-described sense.

Consequently, nearly everyone with much expertise but little patience will avoid editing Wikipedia, because they will--at least if they are editing articles on articles that are subject to any sort of controversy--be forced to defend their edits on article discussion pages against attacks by nonexperts. This is not perhaps so bad in itself. But if the expert should have the gall to complain to the community about the problem, he or she will be shouted down (at worst) or politely asked to "work with" persons who have proven themselves to be unreasonable (at best).

This lack of respect for expertise explains the first problem, because if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, they would have long since invited a board of academics and researchers to manage a culled version of Wikipedia (one that, I think, would not directly affect the way the main project is run). But because project participants have such a horror of the traditional deference to expertise, this sort of proposal has never been taken very seriously by most Wikipedians leading the project now. And so much the worse for Wikipedia and its reputation.

This lack of respect for expertise and authority also explains the second problem, because again if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, there would necessarily be very little patience for those who deliberately disrupt the project. This is perhaps not obvious, so let me explain. To attact and retain the participation of experts, there would have to be little patience for those who do not understand or agree with Wikipedia's mission, or even for those pretentious mediocrities who are not able to work with others constructively and recognize when there are holes in their knowledge (collectively, probably the most disruptive group of all). A less tolerant attitude toward disruption would make the project more polite, welcoming, and indeed open to the vast majority of intelligent, well-meaning people on the Internet. As it is, there are far fewer genuine experts involved in the project (though there are some, of course) than there could and should be.

It will probably be objected by some that, since I am not 100% committed to the most radical sort of openness, I do not understand why the project that I founded works: it works, I will be told, precisely because it is radically open--even anarchical.

I know, of course, that Wikipedia works because it is radically open. I recognized that as soon as anyone; indeed, it was part of the original plan. But I firmly disagree with the notion that that Wikipedia-fertilizing openness requires disrespect toward expertise. The project can both prize and praise its most knowledgeable contributors, and permit contribution by persons with no credentials whatsoever. That, in fact, was my original conception of the project. It is sad that the project did not go in that direction.

One thing that Wikipedia could do now, although I doubt that it is possible in the current atmosphere and with the current management, is to adopt an official policy of respect of and deference to expertise. Wikipedia's "key policies" have not changed since I was associated with the project; but if a policy of respect of and deference to expertise were adopted at that level, and if it were enforced somehow, perhaps the project would solve the problems described above.

But don't hold your breath. Unless there is the equivalent of a revolution in the ranks of Wikipedia, the project will not adopt this sort of policy and make it a "key policy"; or if it does, the policy will probably be not be enforced. I certainly do not expect Jimmy Wales to change his mind. I have known him since 1994 and he is a smart and thoughtful guy; I am sure he has thought through his support of radical openness and his (what I call) anti-elitism. I doubt he will change his mind about these things. And unless he does change his mind, the project itself will probably not change. "

---

It isn't the people per sey, its the way that they manage to interact, the simple lack of Logic and the defensibility of ignorance in a vaccuum. Prometheuspan 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Prometheuspan, have you tried filing an RfC or and RfAr against whatever or whomever has offended you so? Coming to Jimbo with a long rant may not be the best way to try and advance your cause, so to speak. Repeatedly posting long comments such as "Wikipedia is evil" and "Good luck with your evil science social sciences project" is hardly trying to find common ground and "it will start to pop up in as many places as i looks like it needs in order to get the attention it deserves" reeks of WP:POINT. Thanks. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Be Brief. Your first six words, The best response is no response, were great. After that, the good points were lost in a massive pile of verbiage. We all get angry at the foolishness here (such as the pointless and unneccessary "Userbox War,") but it's best to not let it get to you. - Nhprman 15:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell:

Wikipedia's anti-elitism discourages contributions from experts. Experts are not recognized or acknowledged, and often have to defend themselves against non-experts.

There are people in Wikipedia who gang up on others, such as by voting together in an RFC, or have pet rogue admins who ban people who oppose them.

It is very difficult for victims of the ganging-up to seek help at Arbcom or Meditation.

Wikipedia is too tolerant of disruptive edits.

DISCLAIMER: I am simply summarizing the above user's points. These do not reflect my personal beliefs or opinions, although I agree with some of the points.--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Music chart information in relation to fair use

I've never written here before, and I apologise if this is the wrong place to bring up this issue, but I was curious about how "fair use" guidelines may apply to the many articles on (mostly contemporary) songs and albums. Organisations such as Billboard magazine and Nielsen SoundScan collect and publish chart and sales information, but to access such information you would need to pay for subscriptions. (I'm confident the same can be said for similar organisations outside of the U.S.) However, a lot of Wikipedia articles end up replicating such information in sufficient detail that somebody would not need a subscription to find what they were looking for. For example, I'm Not Dead provides SoundScan sales figures and Billboard chart positions for every week since the album's release, Hung Up has week-by-week chart trajectories for more than half-a-dozen different countries, and Check on It lists no less than fourteen Billboard and six UK charts (some of which are simply used to calculate the larger ones).

Aside from the viewpoint expressed by many editors that such excessive coverage of chart performance transforms articles into "indiscriminate collections of information" (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts), there's a potential problem involved here in that this level of coverage could easily be interpreted as a copyright violation, or at the very least straining the boundaries of what constitutes "fair use" on Wikipedia. I may be wrong, but doesn't adding a week-by-week Billboard chart trajectory to an article essentially have the same effect as uploading a photo that originated from an organisation such as the AP without scaling it down? Because the information is on Wikipedia, people will be less likely to pay for it, and while this may increase the popularity of this site, I doubt the same can be said for those organisations like Billboard and Nielsen SoundScan. I believe this is also the same reason we avoid quoting wholesale from song lyrics or any other texts. Note http://www.napster.com/terms.html states, "All Billboard chart data are the copyrighted works of VNU eMedia, Inc. Billboard chart information may not be published, broadcast, displayed or redistributed without the prior written agreement of VNU eMedia, Inc."

Again, I apologise if this is the wrong place to be leaving this message, but your (and anybody else's) opinion on the issue would be much appreciated. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that chart information is based on numbers and fixed formulas, it constitutes facts, and facts or collections thereof cannot be copyrighted. --Carnildo 23:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Deletion/Recreation Policy

A certain article about a person with the last name of Merkey was deleted and restored with very little information -- certainly none of the items of controversy which interested the people who created the article in the first place. The stated reason was that the previous article was "unpleasant", not that it was inaccurate, had original research, etc. This deletion followed months of editorial discussion, changes, disputes, arbitration, sock puppet modifications by the subject of the article, etc.

If the article can't contain any "unpleasant" information, I do not believe it should exist because it is an inaccurate reflection of the subject being discussed.

Jimbo, is there an official policy here, or was this a special-case situation?

Thanks.

71.145.157.217 04:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Unpleasant" is a euphemism, and not the only reason I gave. The problem was that the article was inaccurate, had original research, etc. All those months of editorial discussion produced an article with glaring errors and omissions, unsourced opinions, etc. So, a fresh start seemed warranted, and I have tried to bring the article to wide attention of good editors. The article is also semi-protected temporarily, in hopes that we can keep down the trolling while experienced editors rebuild the article. The process seems to be going well!--Jimbo Wales 17:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I will file suit

I will if my freedom of speech is denied! 24.131.63.39 04:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Because, of course, we must remember that the First Amendment provides that Jimbo shall promulgate no policy abridging the freedom of speech of any user, even where such speech is disruptive and even where the website on which such speech occurs in privately-owned and -operated. Joe 05:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC) My sardonicism wasn't particularly disruptive, but I don't want to bite the new user, so I'm striking it out; the user appears to be editing in good faith. Joe 06:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The user has apologized on their talk page. Mak (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats are a indefinately blockable offense. Can someone please explain the seriousness of it to the user before he shoots self in the foot with a rocket propelled grenade?--Cat out 00:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html

Dear Mr. Jimbo Wales:

Why aren't people allowed to discuss http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html within Wikipedia?

--Markhacker 19:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been added to a spam blacklist due to a history of linkspamming to that address. -M^ask 20:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Read http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1422&st=20

Evil behavior

WAS 4.250 20:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

For more data about evil by these same people read Philip Sandifer. WAS 4.250 21:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the mighty wikipedia spam blacklist, otherwise known as the "censorship list of death". http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist 128.100.31.152 23:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should links from a website basicaly dedicated in harrasing wikipedia users and administrators should be allowed? Tell me one logical reason. --Cat out 00:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Earthling, Jimbo:

Greetings Earthling, Jimbo:

I do apologize for calling you on your cell phone while you were eating dinner with your parents. I promise not to call you again. I didn't know you had a talk page. I didn't know I had a talk page. I would just like to make four suggestions.

1. There should be a Wikipedia FAQ that new Wikipedia users can't miss. In other words there should be a flashing hypertext link to it in a very large font all in a box on Wikipedia's home page. This FAQ should explain everything about Wikipedia. It should explain the Wikipedia process. It should tell users about advocates, mediators, and arbitrators. This would save everyone a lot of grief.

2. Some editors revert anything a new contributor adds to an entry. They do this unceremoniously without comment. They do this even if the contributor substantiates their claims on the article talk page. This appears to be against stated Wikipedia policy. New editors are often patronized, berated, insulted and sanctioned simply because they do not understand the Wikipedia process. New editors should have some simple recourse to hostile treatment, and this information should be included in the FAQ.

3. No one should be allowed to edit an article unless they have registered with Wikipedia and sign in with a password. Their email address should be confirmed. This would lessen vandalism and free up administrators to do more constructive things.

4. Wikipedia would greatly benefit from a web site map. Wikipedia is a labyrinth.

5. I am sure there is a fifth suggestion I would like to make, but I just can't think of one now.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael D. Wolok

PS. If you ever find yourself in Miami and need any kind assistance please feel free to call on me.

Tolerance in the Wikipedia community

Tolerance in the real world is a principle I feel very strongly about, and it is my opinion that standards on Wikipedia should be at least as high. There is an unfortunate conflict between this principle and the aggressive campaign against permitting user boxes that suggest that a user has a viewpoint. This conflict has been made apparent to me because I chose a userbox that indicated my personal preference for using green energy, (a little piece of information that helps to create a picture of me, influenced by 14 years of work aimed at improving energy efficiency in buildings in the UK and Europe), only for this userbox to be deleted by someone who thought such a preference was "inflammatory". (By the way, I find the separate argument that user boxes use a substantial amount of server resources difficult to believe - are there statistics on this?).

I see two possible consistent alternatives. One is to forbid any material on user pages that expresses any degree of personal opinion about anything. The other is to tolerate any such material, except where it is generally agreed to be offensive (confrontational viewpoints, for example), and to suggest that user pages should be designed so as not to alienate those who read them. The problem with the former policy is that it is intolerant in a way that reminds one of totalitarianism. User pages are not articles (although they have some attributes of articles by a user, about that user). Many users who have contributed a resource worth many thousands of dollars to Wikipedia for free have spent a small amount of time creating a picture (sometimes slightly whimsical) of themselves on their user page. There is a balance to be made between an idealised desire that all Wikipedia editors have no personal views (so, in reality, should hide them), and the freedom of expression of users in a space away from articles and discussions about them.

The main argument I can see for the aggressive policy against certain userboxes is that it has a tendency to characterise a certain user as being motivated by pushing a certain viewpoint. I would disagree with such a attitude by a user, but I do not think opposing the use of certain user boxes has a significant effect on this phenomenon. It is worth noting that in many cases, a statement or a user box on a user page that expresses a viewpoint performs a useful service to Wikipedia by declaring an viewpoint of a user to other users, even though such a viewpoint should not be allowed to influence the content of contributions. Elroch 01:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You've missed the main opposition point on userboxes, actually. Userboxes are templates, but templates were designed to help write articles (and as such need to be NPOV). --Cyde↔Weys 01:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I would state the same point as Cyde, but slightly differently. The problem with userboxes is that people really really ought not to be using their user pages to advocate for or against green energy or anyone else. We actually are extremely tolerant about this, and I see no reason for us to change that. However, the issue with userboxes is that they are templates, and as such, they are categorized and easy to replicate and easy to use for campaigning and so on, and so they turn individual advocacy behavior, which is bad enough, into group campaigns. The pages which list userboxes, in the template namespace, make it seem as though putting these things on userpages is a normal and accepted community behavior, when in fact it is not.

There is a middle ground, I agree. The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results.--Jimbo Wales 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is zero conflict between your ideals and Wikipedia guidelines and policies. See Wikipedia:Divisiveness. The solution is to expand your free speech rather than limit it to a bumper sticker slogan. Express yourself! Please! Just don't blindly label yourself with some divisive unthinking slogan or category. We are all complex enough to deserve better than that. WAS 4.250 02:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)