User talk:Jimbo Wales

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

Archives

Index

-index-

As of January 16, 2003

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by .

An idea in which you might be interested:

I posted a proposal that would dramatically reduce vandalism and earn the foundation money, all by costing users practically nothing here [1]. Tell me what you think. Regards, Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a lot of value to thinking about "costs" but I don't think actual money is a good way to do this. The way this works in Wikipedia is that users build up "reputational capital" over time and this encourages good behavior because you don't want to squander it. A good reputation in a community like this is worth a lot more than 10 bucks to most sensible people. Still, other than the introduction of cash, I think that your thinking is generally in the right direction: how can we make it slightly more costly for people to engage in vandalism? That's a tough question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe once you seriously start thinking about the money on interest with the funds in trust that the foundation can earn, you might, and I wholeheartedly appreciate you saying that I have the right idea about this, even more strongly feel that this trust fund idea can only redound to not only your benefit, but to the benefit of all wikipedians. Thank you. Bilodeauzx (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Articles on The Simpsons and notability


"Cape Feare"	March 16 2007
"Homer's Phobia"	March 26 2007
"Homer's Enemy"	May 7 2007
"You Only Move Twice"	July 31 2007
The Simpsons	August 14 2007
Troy McClure	August 25 2007
"A Streetcar Named Marge"	September 20 2007
"The Joy of Sect"	November 25 2007
"Lisa the Skeptic"	December 12 2007
Treehouse of Horror (series)	January 22 2008
The Simpsons Movie	January 28 2008
"The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson"	February 4 2008
"The Last Temptation of Krust"	February 23 2008

Jimbo, in an earlier thread at this talk page in a discussion about notability you said The Simpson's anomaly is probably my own personal fault, because way back in the day before I really understood the limitations of the medium, I said something like "We should have an article on every episode of The Simpson's, why not?" Whereas now, if I were voting, I would vote to delete. I am curious to hear your response to Durova's subsequent query - which of those articles would you "vote to delete" ? Cirt (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, either all of them or, possibly, all but a few. For me, were I voting today, I would look for much stronger verifiability as evidenced by reliable third-party sourcing rather than original research. In particular, I would be looking for something to suggest that the episode achieved some wider and significant specific cultural impact. (For example, the last episode of Seinfeld, or of Mary Tyler Moore.) It bears repeating: I am not trying to make policy here, just indicating my current thinking on these matters.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled why you'd mentioned original research. The articles may not be perfect, but OR is not an issue with any of them. Are you referring to the plot sections? It's generally accepted that editors can use primary sources for the plot section, so long as they stick to the basic details. Zagalejo^^^ 15:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jimbo's response to this would be interesting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. I'm also curious as a main contributor to Degrassi: The Next Generation articles. There is only one article about an episode of that show at the moment. I'm not sure if I understand you, Jimbo, when you said, "My increased "deletionism" is very mild when it comes to things like Simpson's episodes - not much harm done. But it is quite strong when it comes to biographies of living persons, where serious damage can be done". Did you mean on a episode-by-episode basis, as in not much harm is done to the episode by having an article about it, or not much harm is done to Wikipedia and its reputation WRT episode articles in general? (Don't worry, whichever way you answer I'm not about to create 146 articles on Degrassi episodes!)

Personally, I'm a little surprised by some of the earlier articles that were given FA status. "Cape Feare", for example. If you take away the references from the BBC (just a summary as part of their episode guide from when they aired the show) and the DVD commentaries, we're left with 10 references for the entire article, eight of which are used in the Reception section. One of those, ref 8 is the opinion of 1 fan that happened to appear in USA Today, the rest all say the same thing: "this episode was one of the good ones" (paraphrasing). Same with "You Only Move Twice". Twelve references, eight primary sources, only four secondary. Three of them discuss a character and say "he is good", the fourth discusses the episode and says "it is good" (again, paraphrasing). I'm not sure if notability has really been established for those two articles. The others are better, increasing as you get towards the bottom of the list, which only goes to show how the FA process is improving over time. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, so you'd seriously delete articles that the community has decided to feature? Now I don't call myself an inclusionist, but there are five volunteers who worked very hard for many months to earn a spot here. I look at this thread and shake my head; to them your post has got to be a punch in the gut. Durova^Charge! 07:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is not a comment on the quality of their work. One could write a beautiful poem that changes the history of English literature forever, and I would vote to delete it from Wikipedia. There are many factors beyond just the amount of quality effort that someone puts into something that determine whether or not it is right for Wikipedia. In any event, I am not suggesting that I would delete anything. I am just giving some context on my current thinking in these areas. Primary research can be great. It just doesn't belong in Wikipedia for a variety of reasons that we understand better today than we did some years ago.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Featured Articles using research from secondary sources from newspaper articles, books, and academic journals in an article about a notable topic in popular culture is not "primary research". Cirt (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related issue, there is a discussion and straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates on whether there should be a minimum length in words for FAs of say 1,000 or 1,500 woords, and other issues. At the moment there seems no majority on this, so we are likely to continue to get increasingly short FAs - the shortest candidate I have seen was 329 words - many on small tropical storms (one reached 40mph for 1 minute) and American state roads (one a 1/4 mile long, outside a military base). The questions start here. Johnbod (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia and Wikipe-tan

I think the wikimedia foundation should create a 30-minute bi-monthly anime webcast show available on wikimedia commons. It should feature the Wikipe-tan with the power to master syntax, which she uses against her enemy, the wiki-troll. She would scower the globe for information to put in articles and be given barnstars by administrators for thwarting the efforts of vandals and spammers. --Ipatrol (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good concept. Make it multiple trolls to make it more exciting. Try using more of the wikiFauna. Work on a couple of good story lines. Take care! Last king of Frisia (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are better uses of voluntary donations. Hut 8.5 09:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Can i redirect from Jimmy Wales to User:Jimbo Wales or User:Jimbo Wales to Jimmy Wales ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.29.28 (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh..no. One is an article in the mainspace. The other is a userpage.--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 16:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Jimmy Wales is a GA! :-) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I can just hear the media now insisting that WP is corrupt for saying an article on its founder is "Good". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what would they say if this was an FA and put on the main page for his 40th birthday? lol. There is always 45 and 50 to shoot for. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor Welcome to Wikipedia.If you want to test please test using the Sandbox.Please go through the welcome message I gave in your talk page. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo

Just wondering here, but seeing as you are the almighty-final say in everything power on wikipedia, what do you think of something like this where the guy gets piled on for the answer to a question, opposed for being a wrestling fan, and told off for not answering an optional qustion about his age evn though the oft agreed lower limit is 12? (I was 13 when I first had an RFA and noone pulled me up for it (I phailed anyway)) PXK ^T /_C 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

process & precedent for explicit image type

This relates to commons:Image:Anal Creampie.JPG, recently placed on MediaWiki:Bad image list after being used for vandalism. A couple years back, you deleted Image:Creampiesex.jpg, used in Creampie (sexual act), with the edit summary "Image would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements." (It appears that the image and log has since been oversighted, but I wrote down the incident at Wikipedia:Pornography#Jimbo Wales on obscenity.) Given how similar the images are, I wonder if you could clarify whether your previous deletion was a one-off and the stance of the higher ups have changed in the meantime, if you reserve summary deletion of these types of images for yourself, if admins have authority to do out of process deletion for these types of images as well, or if you wish this image to go through normal deletion discussions? Thanks, Banyan Tree 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All images which would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements should be deleted on sight, and the uploader blocked for simple vandalism. If anything has changed about my stance on this in recent years, it is a significantly lower tolerance for trolling us. I do not think it is out-of-process to delete such stuff on sight, and if it is, then the process needs to be changed to make sure it happens.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. - Banyan Tree 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus or verifiability?

Dear Jim, First, please check out the history of the Henotheism page.

You are perhaps already more aware than I am that there are abusive users on Wikipedia. There is no doubt about it. What is sad is that even admins abuse their special privileges regularly without any "checks and balances". All this just to go with "consensus" instead of basing decisions on "verifiable" facts. This is violation of the very mandate of what admins are for and waste of time for good faith editors. In the long run, this will keep poor contributors in and sway away good faith editors. While I was a target of abusive editing practices by others, I was blocked by User:YellowMonkey from arbitration (as a punishment for my notifying an abusive admin to arb)!!! All this instead of User:YellowMonkey issuing some sort of warning to an abusive admin User:Dougweller or asking him to refrain from abusive practices in the future. The disputed content was discussed at Talk:Aditya. Anyway, while watching the history of the Henotheism page today (as it is I'm blocked), I noticed that another person User:ADvaitaFan also seems to have run into the same issue i.e. continued forced edit reversals even after that good faith editor added links so others can verify the corrections he (or she) had made. The edit reversal again in this case done by admin User:Dougweller~! Doug's last rv note says "it is clear there is no consensus for this edit" and nothing about "verifiability" of facts discussed on the Talk: Henotheism page. All this goes totally against Wikipedia Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines. I am wondering why Wikipedia would make such people as admins! Even long-timers like User:Dbachmann also seem to playing the edit reversal game just to go with the flow of whatever the admin likes. With the current approach, this great project is bound to fail, especially if nothing changes. The content will most certainly not be high grade if "consensus" instead of "verifiability" is used as the yardstick. The smart people of Wikipedia need to figure out and fix this "bandit ring game" for good. What's really disturbing is even long-timers dabble in mindlessly just to look good within the circle of favor (especially to admins), and admins can't seem to separate wheat from shaff, while also ruthlessly pushing their own POV!!! This again goes totally against the Wikipedia:NPOV principle. At minimum, a neutral hidden committee (arbitration not comprising of admins) should monitor all admins and keep score of their actions secretly. Wikipedia needs to look closely at their stats and seriously at rules on admin monitoring. If admins themselves engage in Wikipedia:Edit_warring, this goes totally against the very foundation of building a great encyclopedia. Better still if admin monitoring can be done programatically instead of this current affinity-based approach. Where we are today, further degradation of content and even more POV content is almost guaranteed. I'd love to hear back from you if Wikipedia is already working along these lines or what your planned next steps are. Be well. VedicScience (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VedicScience, this is stupid. And you don't strike me as a stupid person, so I don't know why you're doing this. Keep it up and you'll be banned soon, which would be a shame, because you can make good edits. You have absolutely no case here, and you need to let it drop. I think a part of you knows this. Please let go of the vanity. Moreschi (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]