User talk:Jimbo Wales

Question re:Arbcom appointments

I have a quick question, just for curiosity's sake. When you're examining the final tallies from ACE2008, do you place more weight on the standings when sorted by net support, %support, raw support (eg. support without considering oppose numbers), or some combination? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have traditionally looked at %support, and looked at the others carefully to see if they indicate anything particularly interesting or alarming. Another thing I have always looked at is %support by admins because if there is a major deviation between admin support and more general support, this could indicate a number of different kinds of problems. (For example: an external campaign by an activist group attempting to influence the election. For example: a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users.) As people often say "voting is evil" so what I am looking for is a consensus. And I'm most interested in a consensus of the thoughtful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever foresee yourself appointing a non-admin who garners a significant amount of support to the committee, or is non-admin status a deal breaker in your mind? To be candid, I ask because in my time here, I've grown to love this project, and would love to some day stand for election. However, I don't have a ton of interest in seeking the tools, so I was wondering if non-admin status was a deal breaker to the final arbiter of who is appointed to the committee. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Regards, ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 20:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not likely to happen, and it would give me pause, but only pause. I don't see any reason why not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it give you pause simply because of the initial level of implied community trust that an RfA offers, or for some other reason? I'm very glad to notice, though, that you're not closed to the possibility, as one never knows which way this project's winds might blow. Thanks again for your time, as I know you must be an incredibly busy person. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It would just be pretty unusual, I think. I'd be curious why it happened. There are plenty of good reasons possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I'm curious how you arrive at % support among administrators,since voters don't identify themselves by status.Woonpton (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Usually someone calculates this for me. It's really easy to find out if someone is an admin or not, so it is easy to compute this. Just FYI, traditionally there have only been extremely minor variations.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine whoever does it uses some faster version of importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js');

, script that detects if particular account has a certain userrights flag. MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is disappointing that votes of users who concentrate on content and who have no desire to be administrators, may not be weighed equally with the vote of administrators. I hope that is not the result of your decision process. If it may be, I urge you to consider the implications of that and the message it sends, and rethink your views. Kablammo (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Now's probably as good a time as any other to put an end to the WP:NOBIGDEAL meme; the notion is becoming more outdated by the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am very disappointed to hear that Jimbo has such a hierarchical view of Wikipedia. I urge him to absolutely disregard adminship as a criterion for the assessment of community opinion. From the ground, the appearance is that the notion of "trust" cuts right across the non-admin/admin boundary. Tony (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

...He just said that he double checks it in case there's some kind of confederate group who is trying to sway the vote in favour of an undesirable candidate. He never said anything that came near to stating that he gave more weight to admin votes.--Koji† 01:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your interpretation of Jimbo's comments above is entirely accurate. I do assume good faith, and give him the benefit of the doubt. Tony (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. Jimbo specifically mentioned checking disparaties between "admin support and more general support". Why not disparaties between content contributors, long-term contributors, non-automated main space contributors, and others? (Or why not treat all qualified votes equally, which is certainly the presumption underlying a vote?) And to what extent will there be an inquiry into, or suppositions made concerning, the motivations of qualified voters? Kablammo (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I just re-iterated that. He said it was in the event of a large group of disruptive editors voteing in a manner intended to sway the %'s. Editors likley to do that would probably not have been made Admins by the community, and thus the abnormal % of admin support vs. regular support would make Jimbo say "Hey, maybe there's something going on here." and he would check. He never suggested that he would appoint a candidate and outrule regular editor's support just because the admin % was higher.--Koji† 01:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your edit summary, I am not joking. I suggest we let Jimbo speak for himself on what he meant. Kablammo (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course I did not mean that admin votes count more. I do not have a "hierarchical" view of Wikipedia. Koji's interpretation of my remarks is correct. Indeed, even in my original post, I indicated that one thing that might be indicated by a significant divergence between admin votes and non-admin votes would be "a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users". What I had in mind there was a situation in which the admins are for some reason becoming removed from the interests and needs of good editors who are not admins, in which case I might very well choose to dig deeper and look at candidates for elevation to ArbCom who got *high* support from ordinary editors but *low* support from admins. It is impossible to say in advance. And, in fact, as a practical matter, my checking of this figure has always been unnecessary - historically the deviations have been quite small.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but why not just say it like it is. We have a large group of users who are quite obviously either being canvassed or collaborating off-wiki to rig the outcome. Many of these people are either directly or indirectly under ArbCom sanctions yet they are allowed to vote anyway. This isn't about admins vs. non-admins. It's about us declaring defeat when we let people game the system and don't sanction the (civil) POV pushers. What happened to the crackdown on those who keep good faith editors from editing mainspace by driving them off the project with theit exhausting tactics? You've promised on several occasions that there should be a zero-tolerance policy towards these things but very little is happening. What is happening now is the result of that inactivity. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I presume that's a reference to the off-wiki campaign by Armenian and Iranian nationalists against the candidacy of Jayvdb, currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. That's the immediate reason for my post but the underlying issue is much broader than that. Ethnic disputes are more visible and have more administrators such as yourself working on them but many equally troubling disputes don't. Some affected areas such as the economics articles are plauged by simular POV pushing and off-wiki coordination problems but recieve less attention. I assume that might be due to the difficulties that administrators encounter when trying to figure out what the dispute is about and that's understandable. Admins are not expected to be experts on any given subject. However, the point of my small rant above was that these people aren't simply lunatic vandals that can be reverted, blocked and ignored. They are intelligent and highly organized people, especially on the Internet. That's why I'm once again trying to raise Jimbo's awareness of this broader issue. I was hoping that the severity of the current situation regarding Jayvdb's candidacy was enough to make him take some time off and look into these issues because they affect large and important topic areas on Wikipdia including topics that aren't related to ethnic disputes. There's a consistent pattern of behaviour among these people and more support from above (such as Jimbo) is needed. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, a couple of days ago I noted a stark difference between this year's and last year's ArbCom elections. Wondered if you have a comment.

Last year two arbitrators ran for reelection:

• Rebecca (after a hiatus from the Committee) finished with 65.08% support.
• Raul654 (seeking immediate reelection) finished with 64.96% support.

Although neither finish was quite enough to gain reappointment, both were respectable showings.

This year three arbitrators have run for reelection:

• Sam Korn (after a hiatus) withdrew after one day at 51% support.
• Charles Matthews (seeking immediate reelection) currently at 20% support.
• Jdforrester (seeking immediate reelection) currently at 18% support.

Since Charles Matthews and Jdforrester currently tally a respective 157 and 170 opposes, it appears unlikely that a sudden surge of popularity will change the current trend significantly. What catches my eye especially is the tenor of the comments at their candidacies. As I blogged a couple of days ago when the pattern emerged, this might arguably be read as a referendum on the 2008 ArbCom.

It's true that being an arbitrator means making some decisions that will leave parts of the community unhappy, yet that doesn't account for the dramatic drop in support for returning candidates between last year's election and this one. And although some community members cite unseemly arbitrator conduct as a reason for opposing this year, one of last year's returning candidates garnered 65% support despite having accrued the only edit warring block on a sitting arbitrator in site history.

A long time ago I remember you characterizing ArbCom as the expression of community consensus. With both of the 2008 Committee's returning candidates garnering 4:1 opposition, do you still hold that view? Durova^Charge! 03:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Such is the nature of democratic elections. If people are unhappy, they vote for change. By chance, I had the opportunity met with Jimmy Carter today. He was voted out of office, extremely unpopular. He's shown himself to be a great man nevertheless. I think it is perfectly possible to lose an election with dignity and honor and go on to continue being great. Assuming current trends hold, I am sure that James and Charles will do the same. What I hope, too, is that the incoming Arbs have a good idea about just what the community wants, in terms of change, so that change can happen quickly and with great energy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo—thanks for your note. I think we're at one all round; I especially like your clause "so that change can happen quickly and with great energy"! <smile> Tony (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, Jimbo. Allow me to observe, though, that Carter's 'extreme unpopularity' still tallied 41% of the popular vote. There must be a better analogy for 18%-20% support--perhaps the Socialist Unity Party of Germany of late 1989? Durova^Charge! 18:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This comparison is fallacious. The United States uses a "first past the post" voting system, whereas we are using a traditional wiki vote. I don't think the percentages can be directly compared at all in an attempt to determine how popular or unpopular any given candidate is. A closer analogy (though still quite imperfect) would be Jimmy Carter's "approval rating" which dropped as low as 25% [1].--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(butting in) hey, given we're talking about change and all, one of the statements I have made a few times is that I would hope I have time to keep on writing material and "mucking in" with the community. I believe this is a great way of (a) keeping one's finger on the pulse, and (b) fostering positive relations outside the somewhat sober atmosphere of arbcom (which may lead to a better sense of camaraderie and morale. Thus I would hope that maybe if there were a few candidates really close together, maybe and extra appointment or two may be considered...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Frustration trying to learn to do things right

I work principally on Mexico-related articles and put a lot of time and effort researching them, trying to write good articles, never mind featured articles. I find the process really frustrating. I have submitted articles for peer review and good article status but I get conflicting, incomplete advice. I also get condescention by some editors as well. For example, I submitted Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral for both peer review and Good article status. The second process is on hold, for reasons the reviewer stated on the review page. Some of the reasons are valid and I have started to address those, but some seem to be really nitpicking. I have read the requirements for good article, and I felt the article fit the description. But after reading the review, I feel like an idiot... not a comfortable feeling for one who works in academia (though I admit I am not a historian or architect). I have read lamentations here about how few articles have good or featured status and after dealing with some of review processes I have to wonder if part of the problem is that Wikipedia makes it harder than it has to be. I mean, for Pete's sake, this is what the page looked like before I started seriously working on it.[2] Thelmadatter (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia (partially) blocked in the UK

Wikipedia:AN#Major_UK_ISPs_reduced_to_using_2_IP_addresses. Prodego ^talk 16:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh. That's interesting. Not sure I understand it yet. Could someone give me an NPOV summary?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The IWF (Internet Watch Foundation) finds an album cover used on Wikipedia (specifically that of Virgin Killer) to be child pornography and has, thus, redirected all UK traffic through transparent proxies and blocked access to both the image and the article in the UK. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Theres no evidence its that image, is there? rootology (C)(T) 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The page the image appears on is not accessible from affected Uk IPs (through it does display as normal in a navigation pop-up). DuncanHill (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I, and many other users of certain UK ISPs, recieve a fake 404 error message attempting to access the URLs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg. Accessing the same pages through other URL forms works fine. -- Gurch (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The http://www.iwf.org.uk/ UK Internet watch program, has flagged the WMF for hosting inappropriate content. Specifically, "The UK Hotline for reporting illegal content specifically: Child sexual abuse content hosted worldwide and criminally obscene and incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK" their site says, and then ISPs in the UK I think are compelled to restrict access as this stuff is illegal in the UK. rootology (C)(T) 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

How can I confirm this for myself? Does it say so on their website?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They do not inform hosts nor reveal any part of the list to anyone by the looks of things, so it is just a guessing game, GDonato (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)From the discussion in the thread linked above, it appears that it is their policy not to confirm or deny any blacklisting, nor is it their policy to inform website owners/operators. I do suspect, however, that an approach by you or by Mike Godwin (who is aware of the problem) may be helpful, especially if you point out the serious problems with blocking of innocent editors which has resulted from the action (and which is what brought the situation to light). You are a very significant figure in the internet world, and I think they would be unlikely to ignore a reasonable request for clarification from you. DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Given their job is to block access to what they call child porn, they are hardly going to advertise where "child porn" is hosted, are they? Not publicly, anyways. Seems the WMF will need to deal with this situation. My worry now is that any UK-based Wikipedians using those ISPs will have their details passed to the UK Police due to surfing for child porn GTD 17:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If they actually wanted to remove child pornography from the internet then they would contact hosts to request that offending material is taken down. Instead, it appears to be their policy not to do this. DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could direct all UK users through the secure server? That works fine. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The secure server probably isn't capable of all that traffic. The image is not sufficiently notable to justify blocking editing from a whole (English-speaking) country, in my opinion, GDonato (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, is that image actually illegal in the UK? The last time I heard about this, there was a claim apparently by the record company, perhaps in an effort to boost sales that the album cover was "banned in the United States". As far as anyone was able to tell me at the time, this only meant that the record company chose not to publish that album cover in the US. I was under the impression that it was published in the UK.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that if the image was illegal in the UK, and the police were involved, that Mike Godwin would already have been approached by them. DuncanHill (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly still up on Amazon, who I'd imagine would react very quickly to any genuine legal issue. – iridescent 17:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Question of context? As a record sleeve, perhaps. But as an image in its own right? There may well be a difference there GTD 17:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You could probably contact the IWF, however I want to stress that it has not been confirmed that it is the IMF list Wikimedia is on. All we know is that several UK ISPs are blocking that image, and routing all their traffic through transparent proxies. Prodego ^talk 17:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is confirmed. This is the 403 on the image via Demon Internet:

Access Denied (403)

We have blocked this page because, according to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), it contains indecent images of children or pointers to them; you could be breaking UK law if you viewed the page.

What To Do

If you were directed to this site by an email or another site, then you should consider reporting the email or site to the Internet Watch Foundation. Visit their web site (http://www.iwf.org.uk) for details about how to do this.

This blocking service is provided solely for the protection of our customers. We have not recorded that you attempted to visit this site, nor will we be taking any further action. You can find more information about the IWF list of URLs to block here: http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.148.htm.

Demon is a brand of THUS plc

-- Arwel Parry _(talk) 02:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That Virgin Killer image is now up for deletion here. rootology (C)(T) 17:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(ecx3) Since it's obviously just a basic block of a single URL, why not move the article to another location, such as Virgin Killer (album) until this mess is resolved? Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? :S My concern is the IWF (if they are the ones blocking it) may then decide to block access to all of Wikipedia if they think WP is trying to evade. GDonato (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Escalating a dispute as a gut reaction is highly likely to be a bad decision. Patience. WilyD 17:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking the image isn't our problem. Our problem is that millions of people now share 1 IP. Prodego ^talk 17:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I was referring only to the suggestion that we move the page to allow UK users access to it. 60 Mpeople across log(IP) ~1 is an enormous problem. For this, I have no solution, I am only here to consul that individual users not try to escalate the situation while (hopefully) the front office is trying to smooth it out. WilyD 18:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, can you or someone from the Wikimedia Foundation ask these ISPs to use XFF headers so that we can attribute edits to the underlying IP addresses, as we did for AOL? Kristen Eriksen (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

< - echoing the 'fwiw' thread at the noticeboard - I jsut thought I'd highlight that work on a Wikipedia:Sexual content proposal pre-dates this controversy, and will hopefully move towards sensible guidelines for editors and readers alike - all help and input most welcome :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is not Wikipedia's hosting of explicit content, the problem is, there are literally thousands of sites that host much worse content than Wikipedia does that are not blocked. Hell, even Amazon and eBay (the freaking spam filter won't let me post a link, but just search for "Virgin Killer" in the Music category...) host that image, so why aren't they blocked? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

oh you're totally right on that front, J - seems an odd double standard... I'd say that it's harder to stay positive pointing out that than it is to point out positive work that is going on in a related area. This'll all come out in the wash in due course, no doubt.... Privatemusings (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Upon reading the proposal, it seems to have been rejected almost universally (and with good cause I might add.) Privatemusings this looks like a mighty big crate of Borax you are standing on. L0b0t (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

/me steps down and hands the soap to lobot :) - your input is most welcome there, of course, and my feeling is that discussion there could help alleviate possible negativity elsewhere - your call of course, and I'll bow out here.... Privatemusings (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's probably a job for Jimbo and the UK ISPs or the IWF that they are delegating this to. "IWF blacklists largest encyclopedia in the world, for hosting illustrative image on a well known music iindustry controversy". Could go either way. Maybe point out that we do host non-censored material, but we never do so gratuitously and only when there is good cause to believe it has been cited in other reputable media. Members of the public trust Wikipedia for information on all areas of information, including such controversies, and largely these are handled responsibly and with considerable thought, by a wide range of uninvolved parties who examine each case individually for encyclopedic merit. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how the different laws apply to Commons vs. en.Wiki, or children vs. adults. Where does this fit in (private schools may want Wikipedia behind firewalls for pages like this, but I'm unclear on the different legalities wrt public schools, etc.). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the query - the partial blocking is being applied by ISPs in the UK to all their subscribers. Schools in the UK routinely use filtering systems to restrict or prevent access to certain materials. DuncanHill (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the Virgin Killer image is in fact blocked on UK Amazon, assuming I did everything right.--Tznkai (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• For anyone who's not aware, IWF has just issued a press release on this. – iridescent 20:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, What a load of authoritarian doublespeak. Orwell is rolling in his grave. L0b0t (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If we insist on hosting such a blatant blp violation (we do not have permission from the girl, who is doubtless still alive, and her permission could not have been given at the time) then we should expect bad consequences. Closing the ifd after 24 hours was hardly helpful. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the girl was once interviewed, and said she felt fine about the image - it was brought up when the image was discussed at WP:AFD a few months ago. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 20:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A fact that SqueakBox should remember quite vividly, as he was actively involved in those earlier IfD discussions. The pro-deletion have tried various tactics, from non-free to OMG p0rn to BLP. None have worked, all have been rejected. This is just the latest kerfuffle, and will soon blow over. Tarc (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean we have submitted arguments to the ifd from months back and then accepted the decision of the community. Calling reasoned arguments tactics is typical of the OTT reaction of some discussing this case those months ago; I have yet to see any evidence the girl (now woman) really said what you claim. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo

Thanks for making the place. ;) —Ceran^thor 03:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Kerala conference's "keynote

This will be a memorable flop of your career, unless somebody wants to press criminal charges on you for keeping an extremely derogatory article on the Father of the Nation at uncyclopedia hosted by Wikia which makes money for you. This is also a pointer. 59.91.254.86 (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Continous trolling by a banned editor User:Jobxavier. See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jobxavier ,Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jobxavier , Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jobxavier and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jobxavier -- Tinu Cherian - 18:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tinu. What's he on about?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I can think of a few things he might be on. (Ba-Dum TISH -_-)--Koji† 19:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec, re to Jimbo) He's taken exception to this. He's already banned for POV-pushing on India-related articles. – iridescent 19:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. With his strong anti-xian POV pushing, he was/is really a headache with his scores of sock usernames and IP edits -- Tinu Cherian - 02:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's actually Kuntan, but a banned troll regardless. Khoikhoi 03:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, Tinu is wrong. I used to be Kuntan who got banned by Hindutvavadi admins ganging upon me. I love Wikipedia because of User:Dbachmann, User:Fowler&fowler, User:rudrasharman, the underlying philosophy conceived by Larry Sanger etc. PoV? I am against all sorts of nationalism and religious fervour (particularly against Hindu revivalism, since I belong to India). Dishonouring Gandhi is a crime in India. See [3] and read this, and |this. Anybody can approach a magistrate and get a warrant for you for hosting that article, that image etc. I am not going to travel 400 k.m.s to do that and I don't have anything that strong against you, although your claim of being sole founder goes against the grain of my sensibility, but beware, there are fanatics here who are keen on such matters. I know of a sorry incident in my vicinity when a few people had to languish in jail on remand for a period for displaying the flag (a sticker iirc) in a butcher shop. 59.91.253.191 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Associated press

Looks like the AP has gotten hold of the current story [4]. DriedOut (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

They did a great job, too. :-) I predict this will all be sorted within a couple of days... and not the way the IWF hopes it might.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they did, unlike The Register's article. This may result in a lot of bad PR for the IWF, which is fine by me. In my opinion, all censoring organizations simply hurt the world and projects like Wikipedia. Hopefully this will be resolved in a good way for WP :) _David^WS _(contribs) 22:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Although you are working on the somewhat dangerous assumption people will read past the first paragraph. Any article with the words "Wikipedia" and "child pornography" linked in any way is not good, not good at all GTD 22:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how many UK tabloids will run with some variation of "Wiki-paedos" for their headline? the wub "?!" 22:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Register piece does a better job of explaining the situation, it just happens to be shot through with the usual Cade Metz bile. It has been recently updated though, and it looks like these bits have been written by someone with less of a grudge. the wub "?!" 22:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images of children

Might I invite your participation, here? TerriersFan (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have failed already... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; but the talk page includes a much better alternative formulation than I came up with. The problem is that we have no editorial policy against which to test doubtful images. I remain confident that later, if not sooner, Wikipedia will need to produce a policy. TerriersFan (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

We've already got a fine policy, thanks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

BBC

Hi, just to let you know the current IWF problem has made the BBC news website Wikipedia child image censored. DuncanHill (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you do talks at universities?

Dear Jimbo,

You have many admirers at Indiana University in Bloomington who would like to invite you to come to give a talk on any subject. If this is a possibility, how should we proceed?

Jeff Hart, Professor, Indiana University http://mypage.iu.edu/~hartj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartjeff12 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Email me? --Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the VK album openly sold in the UK?

Someone told me this, but I would love to have direct confirmation from people we know and trust. I am not sure where to ask to get this question the widest audience, but I suppose people who watch my talk page will have some ideas and get the word out that I'm wondering. Best would be a huge set of images (posted, I suppose, to flickr) showing the album for sale.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, I can't help but feel you are missing that this is a question of context. If the UK police raided my house and found the VK album in my record collection, I'm sure I'd be fine. If they found it among my pornography collection (assuming I had one!), then it would look less innocent and I'd expect to be arrested. The album cover on the album isn't really an issue. I'd go so far as saying the album cover on a Wikipedia article of "VK album cover controversy" (with a better title) would be fine, as that is the subject of the discussion. But given the majority of the albums sold around the world were probably sold with the alternate, non-naked pre-pubescent girl cover, it's hard to justify using that particular fair use image on the article about the album GTD 15:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's all very interesting and I understand what you are saying, but that's not what I am asking. I am asking if the album is openly sold in record shops in the UK. It's a question of fact: is it or isn't it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the album was released in 1976, I'd be surprised if that edition was still sold as new in the UK. It appears that the album was most recently released by BMG Japan in 2008 (according to Allmusic), and the BMG Japan catalog listing for it shows the alternate cover with the band members. On this side of the Pacific, Best Buy doesn't even have a cover image, and Wal-Mart doesn't sell it. Tower Records used to sell the version with an explicit cover, released as an import in 1999, but they don't sell that any more. I have no idea what you'd find in stores in the UK, but given the state of music retailing, I doubt you'd find the original album in any stores other than the largest megastores that have a sizeable import collection. Realistically, most mid-sized music stores in the US are most likely to have only the greatest hits collections by bands that were active in the 80s. They need the shelf space to stock 100 copies of the latest Beyonce or Britney Spears album. I know my comments won't exactly rock you like a hurricane, but I'm just pointing out probabilities. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have verified that there is a 2-CD album available in the UK with cover art based on the original photo. If you get reports of sightings without photos, I recommend asking explicitly whether it was with a colour photo. I sent you the details by email. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

By checking around, and with the help of one of my real life friends, I was able to find three places in the UK selling the album with cover art at least based on the controversial image. I also emailed you the details. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You might also try the Reference Desk. They're usually quite enthusiastic about tracking down the obscure and unusual. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.co.uk at least sells the In Trance/Virgin Killer box set which indeed includes the original cover. (See here) --217.228.56.26 (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the Channel 4 news broadcast on the subject, their correspondent was able to purchase the album on High Street. Avruch ^T 21:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And according to the same broadcast (which I imagine meets WP:RS) the album they brought did have the artwork on the CD which is the specific I guess Jimbo is after. Pedro :  Chat  21:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And clearly not Jimbo alone. A clearly intelligent question which has needed to be answered. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And why VK alone and not Blind Faith, Nevermind and Houses of The Holy? --217.228.56.26 (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)