User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:16, 21 January 2020

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251: 2 days

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Holocaust denialists

I know that legal-reports@wikimedia.org is the snitch line for child grooming. Please provide an e-mail as snitch line for Holocaust denialists and make sure that if good evidence gets presented they get a Foundation Ban. I think you should speak out against Holocaust denialists and other nationalist lunatics, same as you once did for WP:LUNATICS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post diffs to meta:Talk:Community health initiative. If you prefer to send privately, they rotate inbox duty at meta:Community health initiative#Prioritization of work. EllenCT (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting point. However, child sexual abuse is illegal in virtually all countries, while the laws against Holocaust denial vary from country to country. The biggest problem with Holocaust denial is that it is a tiresome denial of verifiable historical accounts rather than being illegal. In my own country, Britain, a person can end up in prison for Holocaust denial.[1] Alison Chabloz did this over and over again on social media until the courts became sick and tired of her.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone espousing a false view is attacking their readers' reputations, and doing so in knowing contravention of the reliable source criteria is against the Terms of Service. EllenCT (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point wasn't about being illegal, it is about WP:NONAZIS, I wish that Jimbo releases the hounds against Holocaust denialists, first at hr.wiki, then at all WMF servers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be the hound you wish. EllenCT (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the Croatian language and I cannot globally lock editors. I am not even an admin. Somebody else will have to present the evidence and lock those editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

attacking their readers' reputations? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

If I lie to you and you repeat it as truth, those hearing you repeat it without knowing why will think less of you. EllenCT (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Real Life™ is much more complicated than that, but I take your point. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

praise for you

hey there Jimbo, from the bottom of my heart, I praised you for created Wikimedia Foundation and making the perfect encyclopedia like Wikipedia

--the special girl is me (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Wikipedia in Turkey

According to WP-article, block is over. Is the article correct? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Just a bit ago I heard an anecdotal discord report from a Turkish user that it was unblocked. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently so. Graham87 05:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup: Turkey Restores Wikipedia After More Than 2-Year Ban Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://boingboing.net/2020/01/15/wikipedia-ban-lifted-by-turkey.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-wikipedia/turkey-ban-on-wikipedia-lifted-after-court-ruling-idUSKBN1ZE0BX?il=0

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

status of Jimmy Wales statement of Wikipedia principles

Hey jimbo, I made the template below. I hope you like it. Please think of it as my own small token of esteem and my own online thank-you card to you, and everyone else who works so hard to build this project.

Hope others here like this! please feel free to use this, if you want. thanks! cheers!

this is my first little attempt at templates by the way. just trying to learn a little and dabble in new things. I hope this is of some enjoyment to others here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales Statement of principles:

Source: User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles

Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty.
Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us) should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny". "Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other. For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community.
"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.
Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by the Wikimedia Foundation, in full consultation with the community consensus.
The open and viral nature of the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License is fundamental to the long-term success of the site. Anyone who wants to use our content in a closed, proprietary manner must be challenged. We must adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the licenses.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward, not inward at Wikipedia itself.
Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way. Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. We must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk.
Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I'll treat you the same way.

Very nice, Sm8900. I am assuming for the sake of discussion that these are accurate quotations from Jimbo, but you should provide a link to the original source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen:, thanks!!! truly appreciate your reply. re a link, no problem, here you go. glad if my little post here has raised the visibility for this eloquent set of principles and idea. thanks!! Here's that link. User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is something you already know, but @Sm8900 if you post that anywhere it needs to be crystal clear that it's almost 20 years out of date, to ensure no good-faith new editor thinks it's any kind of statement of current principles and gets themselves in trouble trying to enforce them. They represent the values of one particular editor (albeit the one who at the time was the most important one) back when Wikipedia was an obscure bolt-on to an obscure online encyclopedia which in turn was an obscure bolt-on to an obscure "guy-orientated website"; at the time they were written we had 202 registered accounts (only 130 of whom were active), consisted of 12000 pages (2800 of which were less than 200 characters long), and the entire database size was 20 MB. Most of them no longer apply, if they ever did; I'd say only 1, 8 and arguably 5 & 7 could be said to relate to Wikipedia as it is now. ‑ Iridescent 20:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think all of the listed principles apply. Wikipedia remains a freely-license wiki encyclopedia run by an open community. --Yair rand (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yair Rand. From that page: “This is a statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. The original version of this page was published on 27 October 2001.[1]”

so all of these are values that are still relevant, but implementing them depends on the specific situation, in my opinion. Sm8900 (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yair rand, nope. Page protection, for example, is vastly more common now that getting your opinion reflected on Wikipedia is a high stakes game. Guy (help!) 00:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to see this. I think Jimbo got it pretty much got it right back then, but it should be clear that things have changed a bit, e.g. the GNU License doesn't have much relevance now as far as I see, historical relevance - sure.

We should be careful about the current version of the page. Jimbo only edited the page once, the oldest version. As things gradually changed on Wikipedia hundreds of other edits have been made, but (without a character-by-character analysis) it looks like the current version is pretty faithful to the original User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. We could do much worse for a "statement of principals" than this. I am particularly impressed by the 1st principle - which I'm tempted to rename "Do the right thing.

"This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty."

Not many Wikipedians talk much anymore about "do the right thing", but this is a subject that actually should come up fairly often, mostly regarding those cases where we fail to do the right thing. Concerning that topic, Jimbo, could you see the YGM notice below. Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Smallbones! as you may guess, part of my purpose was to spark some healthy discussion on the points above, along with highlighting the points themselves. if we spark some healthy discussion, then that's what Wikipedia is all about too. I'm glad to see some views being exchanged here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks to go before we reach the "14 years of discriminating against the blind" milestone

On 03 February 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our CAPTCHA system discriminates against blind people. See phabricator T6845 and phabricator T241921.

This appears to be a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and leaves Wikipedia open to the possibility of a discrimination lawsuit.

In particular, National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it.

So why, after 13 years of inaction, do we not have a set of software requirements (including a testable definition of "done") and a schedule for solving this?

And no, I will not accept any proposed "solution" that lacks the name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that says how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

I am left with these known facts:

For 13 years the WMF has failed to assign a single employee or contractor the task of fixing this problem.

For 13 years the WMF has failed to budget a single dollar towards fixing this.

For 13 years the WMF has failed to provide any estimate of how long it is expected to take to fix this.

For 13 years the WMF has failed to create any requirements for fixing this. (Note: "Requirements" is geek talk for "please define what 'done' is and tell us exactly how how we will recognize that whoever is working on this is done").

For 13 years the WMF has failed to make a plan for an independent third party (which in this case means "someone with a visual impairment accessing Wikipedia with a screen reader") to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

Again, for me to consider this to be something that the WMF takes seriously, the solution needs to include:

The name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this.
A budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this.
A deadline that says how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this.
A plan for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether this has actually been solved.

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 04:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
+== Two weeks to go before we reach the "14 years of discriminating against the blind" milestone ==
+On 03 February 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA CAPTCHA] system discriminates against blind people. See [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T6845 phabricator T6845] and [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T241921 phabricator T241921].
+This appears to be a direct violation of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990] and leaves Wikipedia open to the possibility of a discrimination lawsuit.
+In particular, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_the_Blind_v._Target_Corp. ''National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.''] was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it.
+So why, after 13 years of inaction, do we not have a set of software requirements (including a testable definition of "done") and a schedule for solving this?
+'''And no, I will not accept any proposed "solution" that lacks the name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that says how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.'''
+I am left with these known facts:
+* For 13 years the WMF has failed to assign a single employee or contractor the task of fixing this problem.
+* For 13 years the WMF has failed to budget a single dollar towards fixing this.
+* For 13 years the WMF has failed to provide any estimate of how long it is expected to take to fix this.
+* For 13 years the WMF has failed to create any requirements for fixing this. (Note: "Requirements" is geek talk for "please define what 'done' is and tell us exactly how how we will recognize that whoever is working on this is done").
+* For 13 years the WMF has failed to make a plan for an independent third party (which in this case means "someone with a visual impairment accessing Wikipedia with a screen reader") to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.
+Again, for me to consider this to be something that the WMF takes seriously, the solution needs to include:
+* The name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this.
+* A budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this.
+* A deadline that says how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this.
+* A plan for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether this has actually been solved.
+--[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 02:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)