Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 148: Line 148:
::No, violation of the [[wmf:Terms of Use|Terms of Use]], surely. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 14:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
::No, violation of the [[wmf:Terms of Use|Terms of Use]], surely. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 14:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
:::Most don't use trademarks, but WMF legal are very good at getting those who do to stop. [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk:Smartse|talk]]) 14:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
:::Most don't use trademarks, but WMF legal are very good at getting those who do to stop. [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk:Smartse|talk]]) 14:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
:Jytdog, when you say "We all know..." perhaps we don't all know. I'm personally unsure to exactly what you are referring to. If you are worried about "outing" then please do drop me a private email as I'm very interested in this topic.
:In terms of the board discussions - yes, it has been a topic of discussion at various times. The legal issues are subtle and complex. Trademark violations, as others have noted, are easier to deal with than TOS violations.
:Here's the thing - the standard of proof needed for us, the community, to block people for bad faith action is much lower than the standard of proof needed for a victory in court. And the costs to everyone are much lower as well. So the first line of defense, in my personal opinion, has to be us. If it really is true that "we all know the companies and their websites" and if it is also true that we know (or even have solid evidence) that particular accounts are paid advocates for those companies, then we should be blocking them quite quickly and eagerly and vigorously.
:My own view is that our policy on [[WP:OUTING]] is not well written, and prevents open discussion of the problems. In too many cases, speculating that an editor is a paid advocate is a mild example of failing to assume good faith (a real concern, of course) whereas proving it could be treated as a case of outing. That's not good policy.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 16:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:45, 8 January 2017

    Comparisons of Wikipedia to other organizations

    I agree with NewYork Brad that the above discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't look like it will contribute much to do with Wikipedia's goals. But to get back to the original question of whether there are reasonable comparisons to be made of Wikipedia to other organizations (good done vs. amount spent), I should say something about the TED (conference) folks, supported by the Sapling Foundation.

    The Sapling Foundation has about the same budget as WMF, $62 million in 2014 [1]. They also rely heavily on volunteer labor, e.g. the presenters. They have 2,000+ of their shorter-than-18-minute videos on their website. But they have something like 20,000 videos on YouTube, plus another 80,000 or so on TEDx talks on YouTube (all this should be checked). Altogether it looks like an interesting comparison could be made, after carefully checking the facts.

    So there are at least 3 comparisons that look pretty reasonable to make. edX, Khan Academy, and Ted (conference). Can anybody think of another? Somehow a group of 5 non-profits would make a more convincing group to compare among. The only other I can think of is a for-profit Quora. Not that the efficiency of non-profits and for-profits can't be compared, but ....

    Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You might want to look for other websites or organizations in Category:Educational websites. Also, the group of websites or organizations being compared might be suitable for a new article in Category:Online services comparisons.
    —Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to consider these websites.
    —Wavelength (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some other websites for consideration.
    —Wavelength (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WebCite is quite similar to the Wayback Machine. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of these websites will generate a significant amount of revenues via advertisements, e.g. on YouTube where the videos start after a commercial, and there are typically always indirect links to other commercial activities for these so-called "non-profit organizations". Count Iblis (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone has compiled a list of the "top 100 nonprofit organizations" at https://topnonprofits.com/lists/best-nonprofits-on-the-web/.
    —Wavelength (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to all of you. I'm slogging through looking at most of these websites and hadn't imagined there's so much stuff (good and bad) on the internet. Keep more suggestions coming, especially if they are about large websites that distribute educational material (broadly defined), are nonprofits, and reach a mass audience. Budgets between $10-$100 million wouldn't hurt either. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You can cast a wider net with these links, and then you can use your own methods for narrowing down your search.
    (Incidentally, some editors may find that editing articles about non-profit organizations can be more satisfying than editing articles about big corporations.)
    —Wavelength (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC) and 00:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    DuckDuckGo has search results for "most cost-efficient nonprofit organizations".
    —Wavelength (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    DuckDuckGo has search results for "most cost-effective nonprofit organizations".
    —Wavelength (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you can try variations of the two aforementioned searches, by using different search engines (Category:Internet search engines) or different search terms (for example, "most good for your charitable dollar", "most beneficial charitable organizations", "charities that give the most value for money").
    —Wavelength (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You can investigate microfinance and related topics and categories.
    —Wavelength (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The company iFixit (https://www.ifixit.com, archived at http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.ifixit.com) provides free online manuals for fixing things, so it has economic and environmental benefits. (Maybe the Wikimedia Foundation can use some of its money-saving, earth-saving manuals. Maybe it has done so already.) The article "iFixit" is categorized in categories where you can search for other organizations.
    —Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This article discusses comparisons of altruistic organizations.
    Which parts of Wikipedia do the most good to society, and how can the Wikipedia community encourage editors to concentrate their efforts on those parts? How can the Wikimedia Foundation promote the aspects of other Wikimedia projects that do the most good to society?
    —Wavelength (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC) and 17:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some additional leads.
    —Wavelength (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comparing charities for different causes is like comparing apples and oranges. An apple farmer and an orange farmer might have a friendly discussion about the relative values of an apple and an orange of equal weight. In comparing Save the Arctic, Save the Children, Save the Elephants, and Save the Rhino, we need to identify the goals of each organization and the amount of good accomplished in the pursuit of those goals. Then we need to decide the relative values of the different accomplishments. For example, if one elephant has the same value as two rhinos, and if each respective organization saves 1,000 members of the species each year, then Save the Elephants has accomplished twice as much good as Save the Rhinos. If the annual revenue of Save the Elephants is twice the annual revenue of Save the Rhinos, then we might decide that the two organizations are equivalent to each other in the amount of good they accomplish in proportion to the money they receive.
    —Wavelength (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some additional links.
    —Wavelength (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Lose Your Wikipedia Crutch: 100 Places to Go for Good Answers Online | Distance Degrees.com is inactive, but is archived at Internet Archive Wayback Machine.
    —Wavelength (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Scientology tax status history

    Template:Formerly

    I am revising the heading of this section from Just a question as a reader (attitudinal information) to Scientology tax status history (topical information), in harmony with WP:TPOC (• Section headings). This discussion is about Scientology tax status history. Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.
    —Wavelength (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

    I'm watching Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath and got curious about the history of Scientology and their tax status with the IRS. Looking in Google under various plausible search terms and clicking around some apparently relevant Wikipedia entries, I don't find the history cleanly laid out anywhere. I haven't done a thorough search yet so I'm still convinced that it's here somewhere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This may need to be pieced together, as there have been multiple court and regulatory cases dealing with different incorporation of the church, and differences between state and federal taxing authorities. Here are some references that your talk page watchers may be able to start incorporating to an article. <ref>{{cite web|last1=Franz|first1=Douglas|title=Scientology's Puzzling Journey From Tax Rebel to Tax Exempt|url=http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/09/us/scientology-s-puzzling-journey-from-tax-rebel-to-tax-exempt.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=6 January 2017}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|title=Mo. Church of Scientology v. State Tax Comm.|url=http://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/1977/59551-0.html|website=Justia Law|accessdate=6 January 2017}}</ref>. — xaosflux Talk 04:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    DuckDuckGo has search results for scientology tax history. The snippets from cs.cmu.edu appear to be especially relevant to your curiosity.
    —Wavelength (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC) and 22:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am always staggered that people genuinely believe in this cult, given the incredibly cynical reasons that Hubbard created it. I mean, if you basically tell the world that the way to get rich is to found a religion, then you found a religion, that's pretty blatant. Especially when it is an open secret that the whole rationale was to provide Free Exercise protection for his quack e-meters. Jim Humble has tried the same with far less success, of course, and Serge Benhayon too. Guy (Help!) 01:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is worth taking seriously various allegations about "new religious movements" and spy agencies. For example, the Unification Church in Koreagate was accused of working closely with South Korean intelligence [2], and in general was long known as a hard core "anticommunist" political player, even when it came to backing the Contras. So when you consider how Scientology was able to break into IRS offices to steal its own files, then get a tax exemption, or consider the Stargate Project, where Scientologists worked their way into the project both as subjects and experimenters in bringing, it is claimed, real intelligence observations to the project (via claimed remote viewing), I think it is worth bearing in mind that L. Ron Hubbard always claimed to have worked in naval intelligence. There would have been some pretty obvious advantages in having a NRM with a global mission and a "Sea Org" in international waters when it comes time to infil and exfil agents; if their sacred services tend to closely resemble interrogations under a lie detector with archived transcripts of all sessions, well, that has some obvious applications as well. Wnt (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Question for Jimbo re paid editing and WMF redux

    repost, now that you are back, from this.

    Hi Jimbo

    I am interested to learn if the WMF board has discussed taking legal action against companies that offer services to edit Wikipedia and that have no on-Wiki presence disclosing their edits here, per the Terms of Use. We all know the companies and their websites, where they use the Wikipedia name, etc. I have looked and never found disclosure by any of those companies in WP. I have looked and found no public evidence of WMF legal engaging with these companies, other than Wiki-PR.

    Two questions:

    Has this been discussed, and if so, what has/have the outcomes been?

    Also, is there budget for WMF legal to take action against such companies?

    What can you tell me? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be interesting to know what cause of action there might be. Trademark misuse? Guy (Help!) 01:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, violation of the Terms of Use, surely. Looie496 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Most don't use trademarks, but WMF legal are very good at getting those who do to stop. SmartSE (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, when you say "We all know..." perhaps we don't all know. I'm personally unsure to exactly what you are referring to. If you are worried about "outing" then please do drop me a private email as I'm very interested in this topic.
    In terms of the board discussions - yes, it has been a topic of discussion at various times. The legal issues are subtle and complex. Trademark violations, as others have noted, are easier to deal with than TOS violations.
    Here's the thing - the standard of proof needed for us, the community, to block people for bad faith action is much lower than the standard of proof needed for a victory in court. And the costs to everyone are much lower as well. So the first line of defense, in my personal opinion, has to be us. If it really is true that "we all know the companies and their websites" and if it is also true that we know (or even have solid evidence) that particular accounts are paid advocates for those companies, then we should be blocking them quite quickly and eagerly and vigorously.
    My own view is that our policy on WP:OUTING is not well written, and prevents open discussion of the problems. In too many cases, speculating that an editor is a paid advocate is a mild example of failing to assume good faith (a real concern, of course) whereas proving it could be treated as a case of outing. That's not good policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=758981429"