User talk:Jimbo Wales

I just cleaned this page up.

Hi Jimbo, What's happening with DW? He seems to spend much of his time spreading nasty comments around. I know I can sometimes say 'sharp' things too. But so far recently I've come across deeply outrageous comments abour Deb, Zoe, ErikD and others. My latest receipt is Phonies like you who hide behind a computer can pretend to be anything and there are always enough dummies around to buy your load of crap. On some pages he edits he accompanies it with diatribes against others, including telling people that in effect if the previous version was a mark of their intelligence, they should quit Wiki.

The there is the practical issues of images being downloaded about which there are serious suspicions that he has breached copyright, but about which he simply won't answer queries or give sources for where the image came from, just another rant against whomever raises the question. JTD 01:51 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

That should be "whoever" -- it's the subject of "raises". -- isis 02:10 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not hereto be friends and market myself. It's this little "club" here that is keeping this from becoming a good site. Question: If Zoe is going to patrol around, when she sees a better idea why not refer it to the Wiki whatever group instead of destroying it. Invention and product improvement has never in the history of mankind been achieved by closing down new ideas. But, here, Zoe and others see something being done new, better, and with a genuine real effort and immediately put the blinders on saying "Must Wikify" and change what may be a much, much better approach back to something that HAS NOT worked. And, so far, Wikipedia has not worked even remotely.

So, I come along, do a lot of hard work, and demonstrate a better way instead of begging by a written speech that you seem to condone. Why should I have to beg a little group of self-appointed Gods? In business, we embrace creativity and find ways to work with and expand it, not put it down. It is this narrow mindedness combined with a lack of creativity and insight that has prevented Wikipedia from improving. EXAMPLE, the moment Ortolan88 (a few months ago) referred to my Famous Canadians site as a "MODEL SITE", all the small minds showed up instantly to totally screw that up. It seems to me you et al don't want to surrender power and aren't open to anyone who might show you that are doing things wrong. What it boils down to is a small group of people whose needs in life have never been met so here they can get control. Got a good idea? WE will decide that, by God! (Reference: 12,683 books on psychology.) Bottom line? Get over it, grow up, and organize properly. The heading, labelling and structure of the so-called Wikipedia convention is amateurish, and of such poor design it does nothing but turn away visitors except those who need to join a club....DW, ESQ

Yep, while I’m writing here they are playing the “you and me game” already. And, what kind of an intellect judges copyright when he is not a lawyer, is not trained, and by his/her comments proves they don’t know what they are talking about. Plus, what turns me off is that they see a good, well-done article with a great effort made to ensure there is a photo (golly, gosh, that’s important to marketing -- amazing revelation) and instead of adding or improving my article (as if they were capable) or creating good new ones, they waste my time with notes and stupid queries….DW

I don't understand why DW seems insistant on repeating the lie that I'm messing up his wonderful prose. I haven't changed any content of anything he's written, except to clean up the spelling, grammar, and pronunciaton. All I've done is to make the first line of each of his articles a complete sentence and to move the birth and death dates up to the beginning, which is what the Wikipedia consensus says biographical articles should have. -- Zoe

Except that you have to be careful with copyright in using images. No marketing professional improves graphic design by breaching copyright. If they did, they'd be sacked on the spot by their company. DW has yet to offer any evidence that his pictures aren't copyrighted, aren't the property of someone else, etc. A number of them look suspiciously like stuff that, because of age and the nature of the image are covered by copyright, in which case, they cannot be used unless full permission has been received. Zoe had done nothing but correctly lay out pages according to agreed rules. If DW wants to change those rules, he should initiate a discussion and get a consensus, as I have been doing over naming conventions on royalty. But instead, DW stays silent except for personal abuse of anyone who gets in his way. JTD 04:00 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

This is my final load because "Jimbo" too appears not to be able to read. What’s to discuss? I work hard, have created many, many articles, ALL of which are well done (I even go around fixing links with spelling variations) and I rarely ever sign in because I don’t need praise. I work on new and existing articles on public computers as well. I contribute and only ask to be left alone, just don’t destroy my hard work WITHOUT THINKING. What I suggested was a new approach: rather than Zoe (or similar) going around changing contributors hard work, (and my dyslexia makes it a lot harder than most), stop, look, and analyze. Maybe what is there is better than the so-called Wikipedia consensus. If Zoe thinks it might be better, then consult the group and YOU discuss it. Don’t force a contributor like me to beg you to improve. Be open, look and learn.

I post articles that I follow up with repeatedly if I notice additional info elsewhere and deliberately use an article to open up a chain of articles. Example: Juliet Bioche led to Three Colors Blue, then White, then Red, then Trintignant, then Jacob, then Kieslowski which led to Powsazki Cemetery to more names in the cemetery etc. etc. etc. What is happening here, is a race to see how many numbers they can chalk up without quality. Seeing the way this site operates, I can guarantee you, that Wikipedia’s little clique has not one person who has run a sizeable, successful business, knows anything about marketing, or has any concept on even who Wikipedia’s market is. (Test me: put up a page that asks who is the target audience AND then ask if Wikipedia is actually targeting them in any way shape or form.) I honestly don’t think anyone here knows the potential and value.

Here is the fact: Wikipedia has been a great success as a study in human behavior but a total failure as an encyclopedia. It does not attract a broad audience or very many people who actually put an effort into making creative “Encyclopedia” articles relative to the Internet market. Example a few minutes ago: H.L. Hunt. Anyone who tunes into this, immediately tunes out. Now that I raised a rukus about quality, a wiseguy does this thinking it’s smart because I had put the name on my page as wanted. That type of behaviour reflects the intellect one must deal with here. And, unfortunately, there are thousands more articles like it yet the “Wikipedia” committee can’t come up with a simple message to clearly tell strangers: Sorry, this is a work in progress. (Credibility)

If you are the one footing the bill for this, then you need to change the approach. You do run a business, don’t you? And yes, ban me, but we both know not really. You change your committee to encouraging ideas and improvement, rather than putting them down. I will not beg you to consider new ideas. That system failed years ago but as long as you continue to allow it, then you will go bald scratching your head as to why you aren’t getting better, more dedicated and innovative participation. Did the New York Times recommend this as a great encyclopedic source for the future? Or, did they protect themselves with generalities.

Change, otherwise, you won’t have to ban me, I’ll leave and then the little clique can chat and be happy keeping things the way they are.

It's interesting how it's up to the rest of us to "discuss" how to do things DW's way. -- Zoe

I'm a relative newbie here, but, from what I've seen of Zoe's edits, she works on the grammar and the clarity, without changing the original intended meaning. No harsh putdowns, or snipey comments, just editing for the better. I recently saw a harsh comment in response to a duplicate article being written. As a site that promotes itself by "come on in, try out the sandbox, and edit immediately" the expectation that all contributors be perfect can be offputting. Not saying that all Wikipedians hold this attitude, but some do, and come across as harsh in the course of editing or commenting on edits. After all, isn't the spirit of Wikipedia based on the "work in progress" idea. Why can't all be welcome, even if they might make an error, or don't follow every rule down to the exact letter? Just my $.02.

If Wiki had so little credibility as a quality source, why do some universities have their post-grads review articles on topics of their area of expertise? Why when I was seeking some information from a couple of press offices of organisations (bigger than anything DW has ever associated with, I suspect) for information for some Wiki pages, were those organisations already aware of Wiki and impressed by it? If DW stopped shouting at people and started working with people, he might have an interesting contribution to make. So far I haven't seen anything from DW that is unique, special, well researched or particularly full of insight. JTD 04:18 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hey Jimbo. Thank you for your great work. But I suggest you let the nasty boy go on. Bitchers like dw don't bother me very much. They merely want attention that they don't really deserve. Otherwise, they're minor disturbances in the force. :-). I almost wish people (unlike me! I was too tempted) would simply ignore the ignorant fools. (and i'm very sorry that User talk:Jimbo Wales has become a forum about this idiot.)

Arthur 11:22 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

---

COPY of my note to ZOE: Oh Great Godess, controller of heaven, the earth and Wikipedia. What kind of moronic, idiotic, stupidity did you use to remove the name of the portrait of Amedeo Modigliani. Is this kind of ignorance part of the "Wikipedia Consensus" that you ONLY do because they tell you to? Don't think so. As I already said, you are going around screwing up articles posted by people who know what they are talking about. I repeat: Please stop. What you in fact did to Modigliani, and others I suspect, is in fact vandalism !...DW ESQ cc: Jimbo whoever

Mr. Wales: Is this how you want Wikipedia to work? Why would anyone work so hard as I did on Modigliani (and all my other many, many Montparnasse related articles except for the 2 or 3 lousy ones by other people that I was going to fix) if you are going to AUTHORIZE a committee of people to tear down extensive, VALID hard work? Modigliani is one damn good article. If others grew up, stopped playing games and trying to get control, Wikipedia just might attract people who will work hard to create valid articles. But, they sure won't if their hard work is destroyed by appoved ignorance....DW

---

DW, take a deep breath and relax. I am very open to new ideas, I don't want you to beg and plead for anything, I welcome innovative new approaches, and I actually think that most of your suggestions are good. There is just exactly ONE problem: your rudeness is completely unacceptable.

You're trying to convince me to change, and yet you write, on my user page, that "Jimbo, too, appears not to be able to read." Jeez, come on man, that's just mean, and for what purpose?

Again, I say to you: you have a lot to say about marketing, and I think your ideas about that are important and relevant. But if you wish to see the results you want, if you want people to act, then you need to think about how you are marketing your ideas. If you market them in a way that turns rational and thoughtful people off, then you won't succeed. And what's the point of that?

I invite you to join the mailing list and air your grievances there. And I invite you to continue with innovative and thoughtful work on the wikipedia. But, if you keep insulting people, I will ban you and that will be that.

Do not insult people. Period. It's a very simple rule. Follow it, and everything will be fine. Fail to follow it, and we'll have to part company in sorrow.

---

"Do not insult people. Period. It's a very simple rule. Follow it." Darn. What a good clarification. You should add it to the main page. I'll (from now on) follow it (although I've not always done so before). Arthur 14:52 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hmm. is this a bug? I just edited Talk:Jesus Christ and found the article empty before my addition. The history link, however, implies that there was text there before my editing. I deleted nothing however, and hope no one thinks i did.

Arthur 15:21 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

---

User:Tarquin has posted a defamatory per se remark about me on Talk:Juliette Binoche. I have demanded a retraction from him, but I also ask that the Wikipedia post a message dissociating itself from his tortious conduct and, thus, from any legal action it may engender. I would think the Village Pump would be the place for it, with a link from the Binoche talk page, but that's merely a suggestion. Please believe I will NOT hurt this project, no matter what I may do about Tarquin, even if it doesn't make such a disclaimer. -- isis 02:39 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm not sure what all this is about. -- Tarquin 14:10 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

From his latest message to me on Talk:Juliette Binoche, Tarquin has apparently decided to try to bluff his way out of the bind he has put himself in, but what he's doing is digging his hole deeper. I would really prefer to settle this dispute (and I mean a formal legal settlement) than have him goad me into suing him, so would you (or your lawyers) be willing to take a crack at explaining to him why he would really like to find a more reasonable position that trying to prove (in court here in Delaware) that "all photos are copyright"? I'd really appreciate it, and I respectfully suggest it would be good for the Wikipedia for users to understand what kind of consequences can result from ill-considered postings here, as well as clarifying that there are few, if any, photos that can't be used in articles without infringing any copyright. -- isis 11:46 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)