User talk:Jimbo Wales

Wei Wenhua

For posterity:

• User talk:Jimbo Wales, blanked for 24 hours - 13 January 2008
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Statements of support

Is MyWikiBiz a "spammer" site?

There is a discussion (nearly an edit war) going on with User:Calton here and here. Basically, User:Calton thinks it's really important to deny MyWikiBiz an external link from a hardly-ever visited page about artist Liz Cohen. Although the linked-to website page is the only one-page source on the Internet for licensed photos, a licensed interview, and a re-sampled video of the artist's work, User:Calton insists on calling it a "spam" site, operated by a "spammer". User:Calton is not an administrator. Two different administrators, however, have told User:Calton to stop removing the link to MyWikiBiz, since it does add unique value to Wikipedia. Keep in mind that MyWikiBiz.com has about 15 external links from Wikipedia, while Wikia has about 12,000 and Amazon has about 50,000. In your opinion, is User:Calton correct to call MyWikiBiz a "spam" site operated by a "spammer", and is he correct to be trying to remove this link from Liz Cohen, in defiance of two different Wikipedia administrators? -- Shelborne Concierge (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is policy that Wikipedia is not a battleground; because treating for-profit sites like Mywikibiz and people like its main operator, Greg, (who has a beef with Wikipedia) as enemies hurts Wikipedia content and the community social dynamics. Treat encyclopedia content choices strictly according to "what choice best helps to create the best encyclopedia we can write". WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's spam. Treating spamming as if it were spamming is not "treating WP like a battleground" -- unless you stretch the meaning and spirit of that sentence to its breaking point. And the above brand-new user has, shall we say, a familiar argumentative style, reminiscent of a certain long-banned user. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a good resource and useful link to me. Tyrenius (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The key difference between Wikipedia and MyWikiBiz is that in the latter, blatant spammers and POV-pushers (advocate POV instead of NPOV) openly acknowledge what they're doing. On Wikipedia, it isn't the general rule, though it happens frequently and when it does, it's an open secret. WikiBiz isn't in and of itself a spam-site, but basically does Wikipedia a good service by unloading spam-cruft onto their own site, which Liz Cohen profits from. The fact that they try to pretend that this is not what they're doing is hilarious.

And by "spam-cruft," I mean stuff that isn't blatant advertising. Just subtle advertising, like Bawls.

(The note above was brought to you by the Acme Corporation. "Acme: For fifty years, the leader in creative mayhem.")

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have counted no less than four different administrators who feel that the link should be maintained in Wikipedia's article about Liz Cohen. I count one non-administrator who feels that the link should be removed. I am not a new account, and I think what User:Calton is standing on his head about involves far more portion of revenge than it does of encyclopedia-building. On the basis of the 4-to-1 count, I am restoring the link to the article. I am no less certain that Calton will revert it once again. -- John Russ Finley (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to stumble across this discussion; I am not usually involved in discussing these sorts of things. I did follow the links, however, and the striking thing to me is how non-notable the subject of the Liz Cohen article is. An AfD, if successful, would solve the whole issue of what should be linked from that article, because there would be nothing to link from. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution License

Jimbo, this e-mail says that submissions for presentations, workshops, panels, posters, open spaces, and artistic artifacts for the July 17-19, 2008 Wikimana in Alexandria, Egypt must be dual licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 or later and the Creative Commons Attribution License. Maybe it is time to say at the bottom of the edit boxes that WikiMedia uses that all NEW material submitted must be dual licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 or later and the Creative Commons Attribution License. Should we create a transition period between now and when the Free Software Foundation updates its GFDL to be compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License? WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA would be closer and no. We do not need to confuse things further. Best to let things be sorted out by the merge. If the merge does not take place then we should then consider further action.Geni 09:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Request banned user (I alway enjoy my Ice Cream =)......Meow)

Jimbo, will you please ban I alway enjoy my Ice Cream =)......Meow from Wikipedia. This user was blocked for vandalized editing. -- 00:23, February 3, 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Grrrlriot (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

it.wiki and non free logos

Hi Jimbo, I'm sorry for my English. I'm an admin on Italian Wikipedia and a OTRS volunteer. On it.wiki, I strongly believe that there is a savage use of non free logos (trademarks) on templates, despite our EDP states that non free content must use only in main namespace. This is an example, but there are many, many others. I believe that using non free content on templates is opposite WMF licensing policy. I think that a very large use (not exceptions) of non free content in templates is not the way to have a minimal use of such material. I tried to explain my point of view, but many wikipedians told me that this view is exceedingly rigid, and that it.wiki should not apply licensing policy in this way (not like, for example, en.wiki or fr.wiki, that forbid use of non free content in templates). What do you think about? Thanks--Trixt (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A good leader.

When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"

— Tao Te Ching, Chapter 17

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I always believed it was four to six short, well constructed sentences laying out a premise and possibly a resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

NYT checks fact with Wikipedia

Wikipedia should of course rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking like—for example—the The New York Times, who it seems have just checked a fact with, um, Wikipedia.[1] Here's what they read and here's the rapid rewrite as a result (but too late for them). The article still lacks any references! Tyrenius (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's how Wikipedia generally works, which is why any and all criticism of Wikipedia is a good thing. A lot of users have an emotional investment in the Wikipedia project, so they take it personally when it's criticized. Because of this, it's been shown over and over that when Wikipedia is criticized, it gets better. It's precisely for this reason that I argue on WP:FAIL that comparisons between Wikipedia and Britannica are so inaccurate. There has been so much in the media about, "Which is better? Britannica or Wikipedia?" This has driven Wikipedia editors to work very hard towards developing the articles on Wikipedia which are also found on Britannica. Based on this, though, it is misleading to argue that Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica, since correlation doesn't imply causation. After all, Wikipedia's current policy allows users to cite Britannica itself and other encyclopedias as a source for information. [2] According to the scholastic method, that places Wikipedia below the reliability of an encyclopedia, since Wikipedia doesn't rely solely upon primary and secondary sources, while Britannica does. Despite any empirical uncertainty about Wikipedia, it's difficult to put forth a theoretical argument for the Wikipedia model when no regard is given to reason, to experts, or the scholastic method. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the main point here is the irony. Tyrenius (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since the average article in Wikipedia is more accurate than the average newspaper article, it does make sense for them to look it up here. But since we are less accurate than many other sources for many things, it makes sense to try to find a better source for anything a newspaper wishes to print as a fact their readers can rely on. Everyone makes mistakes, and no single source can be trusted to not have a typo or a bias or some other error. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that newspaper articles are often used in Wikipedia as verifiable and reliable source material, despite complaints from many of us that they often simply represent little more than what one journalist has written which gets by one editor in time for tonight's print deadline, and after which has been transferred to dead trees corpses under the rubric of a fancy masthead. None of which succeeds in transmogrifying into anything special. As compared with something in Wikipedia which may well have passed without change for months or years under the eyes of hundreds of skeptical editors, many of whom are acknowledged subject experts, but who have no way of proving it, because Wikipedia has been structured deliberately as to make it as free as possible from anybody needing to take personal responsibility for anything. So the crappy newspaper wins. And there's your irony. SBHarris 06:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The reporter was completely careless, the phrase "where poderida meant powerful" that was found on the original Wiki entry is complete nonsense, "poderida" is not even a word in neither ancient or modern Spanish, the correct term for powerful is poderoso (a), Wikipedia can't take the blame if a reporter doesn't make a quick check on a dictionary before posting content on a newspaper. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, do you have a source for the claim that Wikipedia is more reliable than the newspaper? This one case of carelessness by the New York Times doesn't prove it.

Sbharris says is right. Also, please notice: Even with that re-write, the person still used Spanish Wikipedia as a source. I fixed it. [3]

Also, Caribbean~H.Q, the New York Times editor claimed to use Wikipedia as a source for the term, to double-check it at the last minute -- not the other way around. Wikipedia's article on it has claimed the "olla poderida" term for a while now. [4]. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many many sources for how inaccurate newspapers are and how accurate compared to encyclopedias we are. We are better than newspapers, but not yet as good as the best encyclopedias. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks cheap publicity

You are provoking a lot of peoples in the name of knowledge. What a false image of Muhammed (peace be upon him) has to do with Islam. But you have it their because you know that Muslims will not like it and you will get some publicity on the expense of people's sentiments.