Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 199.125.109.64 (talk) at 21:05, 15 April 2008 (→‎Here we go again...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A star for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
You get so much shit, crap, and flak hurled at you by vandals, et al. that I want to give you something to balance it out. You deserve a lot more of these. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  18:40 8 April, 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again...

I know that this proposal is old and currently out of favor, but as I've gone through the trouble of creating two essays (1,2), two userboxes (1,2), and two user categories (1,2) regarding the opposing views and their rationale, I thought I'd revive discussion of this topic, so here I go "gulp": What if Wikipedia were to require account creation for all users? Even though I edited anonymously myself before creating this account, I've begun to see things differently and now I believe that Wikipedia will benefit as a whole from requiring users to register an account (read the second of the above essays for my rationale). I know that many view just the opposite, and to try to be objective, I've also created an essay, userbox, and category documenting the opposite view. And, just for the record, could you please state your view on this, regardless of what it is?--Urban Rose 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jimbo made his view pretty clear in the past, he created Wikipedia so that anyone can edit, if he wanted only registered users to edit, he would've only enabled registered users to edit. I think we might benefit from it, but there are a lot of IP users that would be scared away and we'd loose any chances of getting drive-by typo-fixing as often happens. This is never going to happen, possibly stricter IP control, but requiring registration, not gonna happen. The DominatorTalkEdits 23:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also my my post on the village pump. I know that Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but does that mean then that page protection and not allowing anons to create pages go against that principle. Apparently not, whearas somehow requiring account creation does. I just don't get it. Basically I want to hear Jimmy Wales say either "anons should" or "anon's shouldn't" be allowed to edit, not more of this "it's the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" stuff again. Then we can link to his post any time this debate comes up again and the issue will be resolved.--Urban Rose 00:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I think I can predict his answer, if he's going to answer. The DominatorTalkEdits 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sure hope he does.--Urban Rose 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked that question before reading m:Foundation issues. Based on that page, the question is answered, so I have a better question. It's cleat that, while requiring account creation in order to edit all pages is a violation of one of Wikipedia's core principles, restricting the ability of anons to edit some pages is not (per page protection and the inability of IPs to create new pages). What I want to know is where do we draw the line between restricting and allowing anon page editing in order to be in harmony with Wikipedia's core principle. Would semi-protecting all articles about living people be a violation of this principle; would only allowing anons to edit the sandbox be a violation of this principle? As the creator of the site, it's up to you to draw this line.--Urban Rose 15:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Rose, you misunderstand. Being free is the core. Everything else is about making that a reality. Therefore when copyright laws began restricting information and creation of culture, copy left was born. When the internet was created, it became possible for free culture communities to be born. Jimbo Wales then tried to become a part of this with his Nupedia, which failed. He tried again, only this time "allowing anyone to edit". This was Wikipedia and has succeeded beyond everyone's dreams. "Anyone can edit" is not a core value; it is one of the magic ingredients that helped make Wikipedia a success. We tamper as little as possible with it for practical reasons, not core value reasons. When we have practical reasons to limit people's ability to edit, then we do so. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which... Someone please remove the protection from User:Jimbo Wales, which says "See that link up there that says 'edit this page'? Go for it. It's a "wiki world"! — Jimbo" - NOT. In my opinion there are two pages that should never be protected - Wikipedia and User:Jimbo Wales. And a few others, but it would be too hard to come up with a list. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Mr. Wales,

I haven't been long with Wikipedia. But in the few weeks I have been here officially, I am at odds with some of the policies of Wikipedia. I am lead to believe based on my study of the laws of my home state (It's New York, horse racing central in late summer) that some policies may be contrary to free speech and civil rights laws and the constitution of New York State. Some of the reasons I've seen people blocked seem either unlawful or just unfair. I don't mean disrespect, to you or anyone else. Too bad you don't visit where I live, we'd be able to meet at the race track and watch a few races even though I don't gamble. Just in closing, don't worry about me staying, I've decided to retire. Good fortune be with you sir. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The laws of free speech do not apply to Wikipedia in the way you believe it does. Metros (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Metros, good to meet you. Hope to see you soon. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People do not have a right to edit wikipedia, it is a privilege that can be revoked. Wikipeida is not a vehicle of Free speech, nor are we required by law to provide you with a forum to do so. Free speech applies only to government censorship, if wikipedia does not allow you to post what you want, you _do_ have the right to post it elsewhere. However, if someone has been blocked in error, you can request for the block to be reviewed in #wikipedia-en-unblocks or on the unblock mailing list. ffm 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google's "knol" encyclopedia

I've recently come across the news here that google aims to launch a rival encyclopedia to wikipedia. Could you fill me more in on it Jimbo or anybody who knows of it (or email me if you don't want to talk about it in plain view here). I doubt we should be quivering in our boots just yet but the idea seems a daft one to build a different encyclopedia other than wikipedia; obviously they are after more money. Can anybody see it becoming successful and a threat to wikipedia in the future? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No freat. Google can't do anything right. – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't see it as a big threat, launching competition against anything as successful as Wikipedia has little chance of succeeding at this point, especially if it's a for-profit against a not for profit. The DominatorTalkEdits 14:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would the existence of another encyclopedia have any effect, good or bad, on Wikipedia, much less be a threat to it? 71.246.31.82 (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one it could become more popular than Wikipedia and deemed more reliable therefore making Wikipedia look worse, but in my opinion this is unlikely. The DominatorTalkEdits 15:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They wont get many volunteers for an encyclopedia whose primary aim is to make money for google and its the volunteer labor that makes wikipedia so effective. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree SqueakBox, not many people are going to volunteer to make Google money, but there could be a few, mostly opposers of Wikipedia and Google employees, I mean what makes people volunteer for Wikipedia? To build knowledge, their encyclopedia would do the same except it would also make money for Google, and if you think about it, they would have a multi-million dollar company backing them. The DominatorTalkEdits 16:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the presence of another Wiki-ish encyclopedia is assumed by so many to be somehow bad for Wikipedia. Competition is good. For all concerned. —Chowbok ☠ 04:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems a bit pointless to me to even consider building a different world encyclopedia from scratch. Unless they plan to pay their contributors it will never beat the wiki. Me thinks the googlers are wishing they had started wikipedia now to get their greedy hands on more money through advertising. As if they aren't rich enough huh? Power to the Wales for starting a free encyclopedia I say. I and the white cat salute you sir ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 09:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they launch it and advertise it a lot, then it fails miserably, it'll make us look really good! The DominatorTalkEdits 13:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the press made this into a Wikipedia competitor. As far as I have been able to determine, Google does not think of it in that way. It's more of a blogging platform, or something like about.com. And it also doesn't even exist yet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"doesn't even exist yet": that's a good point :) The DominatorTalkEdits 04:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

Hey, Don't you find it weird, how a user like me edits more fequently in the mainspace then the creator? Then again your might be working on MediaWiki: or Wikipedia: or other stuff a lot. – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not even slightly strange. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo does far more good for Wikipedia in the real world than he could possibly do by writing in the mainspace. Hut 8.5 16:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is sort of funny. :) But I try to mostly stay out of mainspace editing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand. :) It's a battleground out there that I even enter only reluctantly. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  19:48 12 April, 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of wikipedia is a 'free online encyclopedia', so maybe we should write one instead of writing 500000000 rules and write more then 2 articles. There's more Wikipedia:, Project:, Help: and Category: pages then articles. – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't 2 articles, there's 2 and a half million, and the rules are essential to making this encyclopedia. That's like saying "the purpose of having a country is to give people a place to live, so let's do that instead of making laws", you are making very little sense good sir. You criticize the founder for not making many mainspace edits? Are you surprised? I'm sure he's a very busy man, and I'm sure that if he wasn't, he'd want to stay out of trouble with the media as much as possible. It's one thing when somebody complains about Wikipedia's content, it's another when it's the founder who put the undesirable info in the article. The DominatorTalkEdits 13:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certain editors reaction to the creation of Mzoli's is a point in hand as to why Jimbo appears not to have the same freedom to edit as your average unknown editor, that would have been enough to put nayone off editing. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy

Can I copy a few things?

  1. The style on your user page, i like it.
  2. Your monobook.js

Thanks. – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agh, hell with it, i'll use them anyway. – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jimbo, do you know about WP:FRINGE"?

Hi Jimbo, I just wanted to write you a personal note to see what you think of the Wiki Project known as "WP:FRINGE"? I feel it is the single most dangerous aspect of Wikipedia with the greatest potential to get really out of hand. Its entire purpose seems to be to game the explicit wording of the NPOV policy. Mainly the brainchild of a sysop called DBachmann, the "Fringe noticeboard" attracts the most intolerant sort of editors who like to appoint themselves to decide what everyone else should not be hearing about or accepting - just because their have decided these are wrong ideas in their opinion. This is precisely equivalent to the Spanish inquisition deciding what beliefs held by the populace are to be proclaimed Heresy, and going after them torches in hand, proceeding to expunge every trace from the record. In fact, when an anonymous newcomer recently questioned why the "Kurgan hypothesis" should receive such a favored endorsement over all other hypotheses which are openly ridiculed, and then when he sarcastically suggested that a better name for the project might be WP:HERESY, he was reverted and immediately blocked without even a single warning. If you are not aware of the type of tactics these sysops routinely employ, that is one thing, but if you are aware, that is something else. 70.105.27.58 (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of the most valuable projects within Wikipedia and I fully support the concept. As with any area of Wikipedia it is of course possible that an admin will block someone more quickly than necesssary (although I don't know if this happened in this particular case). It is very important that we carefully monitor to make sure that all hypotheses are given appropriate weight (including, at times, a labeling as a minority or unscientific hypothesis), NPOV demands it. I know nothing about the "Kurgan hypothesis" so I am speaking here only of general principles.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then the next question becomes: -Who- is it here who gets to decide, what authors' conjectures are to be treated as "fringe", and what authors' conjectures are to be pushed? Is it really "a consensus among editors", who gets to decide this? No -- it is a "consensus" among only those editors who have not been banned for dissenting from the favored conjecture. 70.105.27.58 (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know of no evidence that people cannot engage in civil discourse about where to draw that line without being banned. Yes, it is true that editors who have been banned do not get to participate but merely "dissenting from the favored conjecture" has never been grounds for banning. Continuous ongoing POV pushing through bad behaviors is a bannable offense, and should remain so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure everyone has worked out, the IP making this post is the same IP that was blocked for disrupting the noticeboard with severe personal attacks. He started off OK, I commented that his logic didn't quite seem to cohere in the arguments he was making - and then he completely lost it.

As regards the Kurgan hypothesis, there are respectable alternative theories (as well as very fringy alternative theories) but the Kurgan hypothesis remains the mainstream theory regarding the location of the Indo-European homeland (assuming there ever was such a place). Wikipedia, naturally, is supposed to reflect academic consensus. Moreschi2 (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi and nice to meet you. I'm Barkjon. I'm really glad that you made Wikipedia, like all the other editors. I have one question: Can bureacrats demote other user's sysop status? I'm wondering that because I'm a bureacrat and webmaster of the Club Penguin Wiki. Please reply on my talk page if you have an answer.-- Barkjon  16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the answer is that yes they can, though normally only with community consensus. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is actually no. Bureaucrats cannot, on Wikipedia or Wikia, demote sysops or other bureaucrats. Only staff (on Wikia) or stewards (on Wikimedia projects) can demote users, and only with a good reason to and community consensus, with some exceptions (for example, an admin requests to be desysoped before retirement). --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 18:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally Wikia questions should be asked at Wikia. :) Ask Angela to help you there?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll's Assume Good Faith challenge

User:Filll has been listing some anonymised situations admins might find themselves in, and is asking everyone how they would respond. In part this is an exercise to allow people to learn for themselves how they would respond to tough situations, and in part he also wants to use the answers in scientific research. I like the questions a lot, so I've used some of them in a recent lecture (Wikipedia:Lectures, lecture 2)

I'm actually rather curious how you would answer the questions. They're quite fun to do!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great User Award

Jimbo Wales,
A user has nominated you for a Great User Award and it was passed by SimpsonsFan08. You can now place either one of the awards below in your user page.

Template:GoodUserAward {{GoodUserAward}}
Template:GoodUserAwardBig {{GoodUserAwardBig}}

Congratulations, SimpsonsFan08 talk contribs 14:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=205875328"