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 ResearchEditor (talk | contribs) at 02:16, 20 August 2008 (→‎Discussion at WP:AN). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jimbo, yesterday, I have located the copyright law of Kosovo. I am not sure what processes are needed in order for Wikipedia to recognize it. I still need to have the text translated in order to figure out what it says, but any advice is welcome. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, English Wikipedia follows United Statues copyright law. Wikimedia Commons, though, has a policy of also respecting the law of any country that has a local claim of jurisdiction. Whether or not Kosovo would be handled an independent country now (I'm not sure), it may become one in the future. So a translation of its copyright law would be a good thing to have. Commons lists copyright laws at commons:Commons:Licensing. Suggest you open a discussion at the talk page there. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 07:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if we ever had a discussion like this before on Wikimedia, so that is why I am asking the tough question. The Albanian copy of the law is here and while typing the message, the English law is here. It was passed during the UN period in Kosovo, but still enforced as law in Kosovo. The term is 70 years PMA and Article 12 has the works not protected by copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly recommend bringing these links over to Commons and opening a discussion there. These are excellent questions for that project. DurovaCharge! 23:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrote my argument piece at User:Zscout370/kslaw, including sources and citing law. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Wales

Yes, hello, I'm a big fan of yours.

I was just wondering if you liked this new Wikipedia program I started.Wikipedia:The Master's Report. --Master of Pies (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Pies, you need to change "by User:Master of Pies" to "by consensus" or else move it to your user space. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a speedey notice on this wildly inappropriate page and removed the attack on another user. Wikipedia space is not to be used to engage in attacks on other users. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Tabloid The Times is using our FA Michael Jackson article with a few words changed in a career overview here[1]. They are not offering their derivative material under a GFDL license. --Manboobies (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First page of 8 pages of plagiarism is here, btw [2].--Manboobies (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to be making such allegations - and allegations I hope you can back up, given the newspaper you describe as a "tabloid" is considered the de facto British newspaper of record George The Dragon (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I wrote the MJ article and got it to featured states with 3000 edits to it, I'm making the allegation too. Although it's not the end of the world as we know it. — Realist2 00:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't get steamed about it, it happens all the time. Journalists tend to be lazy. GFDL requires attribution, IIRC, but only to the 'pedia. If I'd been misrepresented, that would be an issue, but it's unlikely to arise. --Rodhullandemu 00:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so sensible, the world wants to see Rupert Murdoch v Jimmy Wales in a court case regarding a fluff piece on a disgraced musician! George The Dragon (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh cheap shot, fluff piece (it's a featured article), disgraced (he's still selling more records than you)?. I don't understand what Jackson's standing has to do with this anyway, you under minded your argument a little. — Realist2 00:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "fluff" reference was regarding the Times article, not the Wiki one, for what it's worth George The Dragon (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which, given WP:NPOV, is surely moot here. --Rodhullandemu 01:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example,
The Times: In a collaboration with Lionel Richie, he co-wrote the charity single We Are the World released worldwide to raise money for the needy in Africa and the US. We Are the World became one of the best-selling singles of all time, raised millions for charity and earned Jackson charity credentials.
Us: With help from Lionel Richie, Jackson co-wrote the charity single "We Are the World", released worldwide to aid people in Africa and the US. Jackons was one of many music celebrities who performed on the record. Released in March 1985, the single became one of the best-selling singles of all time, with nearly 20 million copies sold and millions of dollars raised for charity. It was the first time Jackson was seen as a humanitarian
Also while I appreciate your concern, GTD, I am sure this is something worthy of attention from the community at large. I have nothing but concern for our cause of free information and my work on the Jackson article was with education in mind for those that cannot afford costly proprietary books. :)--Manboobies (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The example is, in my opinion, different enough for them to get away with it. They are stating a fact, backed-up by reliable sources. It's either true or it isn't. And it is. Assuming the Michael Jackson article is well-sourced, there is no real way of proving someone hasn't gone to all the same sources and independently produced similar copy George The Dragon (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Times August 15 piece seen here. Take a look at the August 14, 2008 version of the article. It's quite clear. Sorry about the "fluff piece" thing, I though you were talking about our article not theirs. — Realist2 00:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another example:
The Times: During a spectacular fallout with Sony, which saw Jackson successfully leave his recording contract, he accused CEO Tommy Mottola of being a “devil” and a “racist”.
Us: Jackson made allegations in July 2002 that Mottola was a "devil" and a "racist" who did not support his African-American artists, using them merely for his own personal gain.--Manboobies (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not plagiarism either. The only part exactly the same is the mention of "devil" and "racist," as would be expected as they are direct quotes. The comments Jackson made regarding Mottola made headlines across the globe at the time. But anyway, my opinion is just that of one - if you really think the project has been wronged, complain at the appropriate place, there is a process in place for such situations. George The Dragon (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Us August 14: Jackson issued the double-disc album Thriller 25, a 25th anniversary edition of Thriller. The set contained the original nine tracks from Thriller, re-mixes and a new song called "For All Time". Two singles were released to moderate success: "The Girl Is Mine 2008" and "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 2008".

Them August 15:To celebrate the 25th anniversary of Thriller, Jackson issued the double-disc album Thriller 25. The set contained the original nine tracks from Thriller, re-mixes and a new song called For All Time. Two singles were released to moderate success: The Girl Is Mine 2008 and Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 2008.

— Realist2 01:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a direct lift in the sentence "The set contained the original nine tracks from Thriller, re-mixes and a new song called For All Time. Two singles were released to moderate success: The Girl Is Mine 2008 and Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 2008.". :).--Manboobies (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Times is in tabloid format. [3]. My apologies for leaving out the word format. --Manboobies (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Us August 14: a nickname conceived by actress and friend Elizabeth Taylor when she presented Jackson with an "Artist of the Decade" award in 1989, proclaiming him "the true king of pop, rock and soul"

Them August 15: The nickname was coined by Jackson’s friend the actress Elizabeth Taylor when she presented him with an Artist of the Decade award in 1989, proclaiming him "the true king of pop, rock and soul".

Us August 14:It is a 2,700-acre property complete with Ferris wheels, an exotic menagerie, a movie theater and a security staff of 40.

Them August 15:To the 2,700-acre property he added a Ferris wheels, exotic menagerie, and a movie theater, guarded by 40 security staff.

— Realist2 01:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More direct lifts? Wow, substantial plagiarism.--Manboobies (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US August 14: Jackson founded the "Heal the World Foundation" in 1992. The charity organization brought underprivileged children to Jackson's Neverland Ranch, located outside Santa Ynez, California, to go on theme park rides that Jackson had built on the property after he purchased it in 1988. The foundation also sent millions of dollars around the globe to help children threatened by war and disease.

Them August 15: Jackson founded the charitable Heal the World Foundation in 1992 which brought underprivileged children to Neverland and sent money to children threatened by war and disease around the globe.

US August 14:Forbes placed his annual income at $35 million in 1996 and $20 million in 1997

Them August 15: His annual income, according to Forbes had reached $35 million in 1996. In 1997, it fell to $20 million.

US August 14: Released in 1997 and premiering at the 1996 Cannes Film Festival, Ghosts was a short film written by Jackson and Stephen King and directed by Stan Winston. The video for Ghosts is over 38 minutes long and holds the Guinness World Record as the world's longest music video.

Them August 15:Ghosts, a short film co-written with Stephen King was premiered at Cannes. At over 38 minutes it is the world's longest music video.

US August 14: He received eight records, among them "First Entertainer to Earn More Than 100 Million Dollars in a Year" and "First Entertainer to Sell More Than 100 Million Albums Outside the United States".

Them August 15: He received eight records, among them First Entertainer to Earn More Than 100 Million Dollars in a Year and First Entertainer to Sell More Than 100 Million Albums Outside the United States.

Notice how Jackson won 8 awards yet Wikipedia and Times isolated and picked out the exact same two. — Realist2 02:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem to be a serious case of extensive plagiarism. :(--Manboobies (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo is generally easygoing about this sort of thing, but generally speaking plagiarism is a very serious matter in the journalism world. People have lost jobs and careers over it. DurovaCharge! 07:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure Mike Godwin, our legal consul, is also notified of this topic. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will be interesting to see what happens. I've had images of mine used without credit which is in breach of the license terms but still hard to fight. If it had of been an an Australian media outlet Media Watch (TV program) would have had a field day with the plagiarism. Bidgee (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a serious issue in some ways, the only name I can see as an attribution is "Zoë Blackler", but I swear that Zoë Blackler did not write this material, I did. All the info from her piece is found at Michael Jackson from August 14 or before, she's just trimmed sections (often leaving out pro Jackson parts). Even with her trimming I have shown that a number of direct lifts and near direct lifts have been made. I can see my own work a mile off. This will affect me as an editor greatly, thing's I write are likely to be used elsewhere and often not in a neutral manner. Zoe Blacklers article had a lot of cherry picking in it. I've heard people say that wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source, yet the Times is prepared to copy us. If people knew our work was being used maybe we would be taken more seriously. — Realist2 07:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to spoil the indignation party, but if you look up any famous person on the internet you will see lots of web pages that copy Wikipedia articles completely. These sites have advertising on them, which they earn from, even though Wikipedia doesn't. This is a free encyclopedia, which means they are allowed to do it. (Anyone can alter or copy free-use photos as well). I was also shocked in the past when I read something about Mimi Smith that was a 100% copy. The only good thing about this is that that particular newspaper can not complain about the quality of Wikipedia anymore, can it?--andreasegde (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a crucial difference: under GFDL downstream uses are acceptable as long as the source is credited. The distinction between copyleft and plagiarism is a very serious one in the world of journalism. DurovaCharge! 23:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should also say that "cut & paste" has been used for years by people writing cheap books, and by journalists in articles. The question is, how do we get the information to put in the articles? I paraphrase books all the time, as well as web pages. We're told to do it, as original research is a no-no. I know it's shocking, Realist2, but be proud that some hack journo thinks your work on Jacko is better than he/she could do themselves. Ever thought of a career in journalism? :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, everything on Wikipedia comes from somewhere else, as per WP:NOR. I'd also recommend all involved brush up on WP:OWN and, indeed, the basic ethos of the project George The Dragon (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a case of OWN at all, if the Times is going to go around just copying us, without even saying, how can we continue to use them as a third party source, it's effectively a mirror image. I've seen bad sources copy my work on other subject matter, but I don't expect to see it passed of in a major publication. I under stand the ethos of the project entirely, if everyone just copies us we have no reliable third party sources, just a bunch of mirror images. On the other hand we should be proud that we were used, I'm tired of hearing complaints about wikipedia, yet this supposedly good source copies us without crediting us. Try to avoid person attacks against me and BLP comments about the subject. — Realist2 15:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Realist, I recommend that you follow the advice at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process in order to get the Times to change their ways. Jon513 (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not the first time that plagiarism has happened by people who should know better not to. Uni chief lifted text from Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a free encyclopedia. Bite the bullet, or get a job as a journalist, and copy your own work. It's sad, but true.--andreasegde (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is supported by volunteers -- largely underage -- uploading dubious content for free. Considering how often Wikipedia itself plagiarizes other material and the fact that its founder is a supporter of copyleft, why should anyone be upset when Wikipedia itself is plagiarized?
More people should ignore copyright law if they can get away with it, not less, because copyright is theft. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A polite note to the editor of the Times would seem to be a reasonable first step. Most editors are genuinely shocked and upset to find out that one of their staff has plagiarised material from Wikipedia (or anywhere else, for that matter). A courteous approach and a bit of patience on our part will usually lead to apologies and full credit to Wikipedia; the article may also be withdrawn. (Be clear, concise, and friendly in your approach, and in your explanation of the problem and preferred solutions.)
Gross plagiarism can lead to severe sanctions, up to and including termination of the reporter. I was involved in the discovery of a case of plagiarism by an entertainment reporter a couple of years ago (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-16/Tim Ryan dismissed) where the journalist in question was ultimately fired. (While the single instance of plagiarism might have gotten by with a warning, other Wikipedia editors investigated his other work and discovered a number of other cut & paste jobs from other sources.)
Remember in all cases to document your claims carefully, be utterly civil, and to be aware that – even though you're not an official representative of Wikipedia – your actions (good or bad) will reflect on all of the rest of us here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A situation involving your name

Hi,

Just wanted to let you know that there is currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names about whether User:Jimbo online needs to change his username because it is too similar to yours. Since this concerns your name, I thought you might perhaps want to give your view of the situation. Is he back? (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:AN

I hope this is the right place to ask for help around this issue. A topic ban is being proposed around my editing at here because it is thought I am not following WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and other arguments presented at the AN page.

I believe that I am following all of wikipedia's guidelines. What I need if possible is a neutral party to look at the issue and carefully research the Satanic Ritual Abuse page and corresponding talk page and any other pertinent pages. It is very difficult to find a neutral editor to look at this issue. The other editor's edits involved at the SRA page would need to be looked at also, since I believe they have caused a large part of the problem at this page.

I believe that the proposed topic ban is in essence a way to control the content of these and other pages related to the child abuse issue. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This matter requires no attention.
This post is:
  1. A pretty clear violation of WP:PARENT (WP:AN, WP:NPOV)
  2. Ignoring that the admins who supported the topic ban were uninvolved with the SRA talk page and
  3. Ignoring the numerous reliable sources that explicitly demonstrate RE's interpretation of the current discussion of satanic ritual abuse is undue weight and POV. When I say "explicitly", I mean five sources that say the emphasis on satanic ritual abuse in the 1990s was excessive and the moral panic is now over. Some even say that ongoing interest in SRA is only maintained in a minority of scholars, which makes it unambiguously a fringe topic. No paraphrasing or interpretation required.
Of course, it's also a clear indication that the cabal of satanic rouge admins is functioning properly. All hail the forces of darkness. WLU (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above party is directly interested in outcome of the above matter. His edits are the main ones that pushed the extremely skeptical POV that does not allow any additional information on the page to counter a couple of sources promoting the extreme skepticism of the idea of a panic. There are many (30 to 40) reliable sources that counter this idea. Yet, most of them are not allowed on the page and the page is written as if they almost never existed. The reliance of interpreting the writing of the entire page on the basis of a couple of sources is ridiculous. I am asking for a full evaluation of the process that occurred the last month at the SRA page. How some editors were intimidated into not posting on the talk page and how only one POV is allowed to stand on the page itself. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble looming with MyWikiBiz?

There appears to be an article-in-vitro brewing at User:Neil/mwb. Are you going to allow an article about MyWikiBiz in Wikipedia, after all the trouble that MyWikiBiz has given you? - Wet Floor Sign (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this is Mr. Kohs speaking. As he should know, whether an article appears in Wikipedia is decided through editorial processes that do not include posting here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad is right. I will have nothing to do with it. Indeed, although I have not kept up recently with whatever Mr. Kohs has been doing, I suspect he should be allowed a fresh start in Wikipedia. I would hope that eventually he can make his peace with the community and all will be well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since he's still actively evading his ban (to say nothing of attacking numerous Wikipedians offsite) I don't think that would be a terribly good idea. I also don't think it's entirely fair to expect volunteers to trail round after him checking for the bias in edits he is being paid to make. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might I note this thread. Tiptoety talk 19:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would note that the MO of this requester, with a user page in the usual style to create a bluelink and the very next post being more drama whoring, means that it is almost certainly either Kohs or someone pretending to be Kohs in order to create drama. Neither is welcome. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering a recent WR thread discussed in detail our article on wet floor signs, I would concur with JzG. MBisanz talk 22:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a slightly different version of your userpage

Hey, I've made a slightly different version of your userpage. It is located here. Tell me what you think about it. – Jerryteps 04:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Editorial Council

I thought you might be interested in my proposal here. Thanks! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say cheese!

SwisterTwister (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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

- --SwisterTwister (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin, 2008-10-03

Hi Jimbo, my english is very bad, sorry. You are in Berlin because the "Quadriga-Award", i have the idea, to take a meeting of german Wikipedians at the evening: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Berlin#Termin_LIV - naturally only, if you want. greetings Ralf Roletschek (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProjects

Hi. I am Emir34 and I just started 3 new WikiProjects:

  1. WikiProject Cape Girardeau
  2. WikiProject American Dad!
  3. WikiProject Ames

I was wondering if you would want to get involved. The cities may not be interesting, but maybe you like American Dad!. So, I just informed you if you are interested. There is only 1 member in 1st and 3rd WikiProjects (which is me). There are 2 members in 2nd WikiProject. I am trying to get members because they may like some of WikiProjects. It's just a message. If you would like to join, it would be AWESOME!!! Emir34 (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Projects

Jimbo, I've been looking around other projects for some time.

I still believe this project is one worth trying to make something of.

However, imagine my surprise when I saw, over on Simple Wikipedia, a user trying to become an admin without knowing about the basic rule of WP:OWN. Given only a few people over there make decisions, could you please bring yourself to read the RFA and the talk page and do something about this blatant violation of the Wikipedia ethos. Kind regards George The Dragon (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the best will in the world, individual Wikis within the WMF umbrella have their own rules and standards, subject to WMF policies and guidelines. WP:OWN is a policy of application here but may be differently couched in other Wikis. Whether a candidate for an RfA on another Wiki is in breach of that policy is ultimately an issue for that Wiki, not here. Even if the wording of the policy is identical, it is (IMO) a matter for the contributors there to determine whether it is relevant to the candidate's RfA, and to what extent. That is one of the essences of this project, that even though there may be few contributors, consensus is the key. My reading of Jimbo's role and function is that at this level, even an advisory input might be outside the scope of that particular project, and even be seen as unnecessary. Of course, if Jimbo wishes to say otherwise, that's his prerogative, but I see it as a scoping issue in that Jimbo cannot, and should not, be the ultimate recourse for issues that could be solved locally. --Rodhullandemu 23:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cake

I really like it. Ilikecakealot (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=233029597"