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 Texcarson (talk | contribs) at 00:14, 1 July 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Socionics

You may or may not have heard of it, but I'm sure you've heard of the psychological type idea from which it stems. According to the Russian Wikipedia, ("Соционика") it is bigger over there than communism. And yet, people over here are trying to delete it. One user, Mango, seems particularly focused on eliminating it. I ask this: if you can point to hundreds of sources for a topic from hundreds of authors, then need it even be asked if the topic is notable? Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neda

I realize that commons needs to guard against copyrights infringement, but is it really necessary to delete the pictures of a true hero just because people in Iran have other worries than to divulge their sources. I am referring to the photographs of the brave young woman who gave her life on the streets of Tehran yesterday. Jcwf (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. We are an encuyclopeida with a policy of neutrality and its important to not have images that break US copyright laws. Such images don't help the project; the project and not the events in Iran being our concern. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why Iranians hate Americans at times: they only think of themselves. Jcwf (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Wikipedia servers just happen to be located there. If it's any consolation, many biographical articles are missing photos for the exact same reason. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SqueakBox does not live in the USA, nor is he a citizen of the USA. The same is true for half of our editors. As for me and my fellow Americans (USA-ians just doesn't make it; sorry fellow America-continent citizens)); even with all its faults, the USA is one of the most giving nations in all of world history. Example: Sir Winston Churchill called the Marshall Plan "the most unsordid act in history." WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wake up! "The OECD report shows only seven countries met or surpassed the 0.7% target, with Norway (0.95%) and Sweden (0.93%) topping the chart. Though the United States made the largest donation ($21.75bn), it contributed lowest percentage of national income, coming bottom of the charts at 0.16% [that's much less that half that of the UK]. The US spends the equivalent of $73 per American each year on aid, but $1,763 a person on defence."[1]--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hopelessly POV - the Marshall Plan was devised to stop dem Commies taking over Europe, and was thus politically motivated - not a random act of US kindness. n.b. 'The first substantial aid went to Greece and Turkey in January 1947, which were seen as being on the front lines of the battle against communist expansion'. Little grape (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We already have File:Neda.jpg. I don't think a picture without source info and with clear point of view overtones (and WP:MEMORIAL as well) is needed to replace it. Fram (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Neda.jpg is included as a non-free image; File:Neda the call of revolution iran flag.jpg appears to be a derivative work. I suspect this will be a pretty non-controversial deletion on Commons. Of course, deleting a photo that does not meet the standards of inclusion on Wikipedia or on Commons does not imply a lack of sympathy or respect for the photo's subject! The two issues are entirely unrelated. -Pete (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USA copyright law allows fair use as does the English language Wikipedia. Please don't throw "copyright violation" around so easily. We prefer copy-left content as that is important to our over-all mission, but fair use quotes and images that are deemed appropriate are allowed. Winning arguments with bumper-sticker slogans misinforms the newbies. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: All photographs of Neda at commons have now been deleted. It would seem only anglophones can have such a picture to remind themselves of their sordid history in Iran. Jcwf (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia deleting all Fair Use images of dead people?

One admin said that Fair Use images of dead people on their pages is not allowed according to Wikipedia:Non-free content, and wants to use that to delete Neda images from the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan article. See my talk page and

Are we now going to delete Fair Use images of dead people from their article pages? Many of those pages have no other images of those people. Are we becoming that illogical in our application of Wikipedia:Non-free content? I mean how far do we want to go in encouraging people to give up their images for free use? See:

In particular, an admin wrote the following concerning the only reason they would allow Fair Use photos of Death of Neda Agha-Soltan in her article:

"That means as subjects of sourced commentary on the individual images themselves, as images, as works of photography or art, not the topic they show."

So we would have to remove all currently existing photos and video stills of Neda Soltan from Wikipedia. All of them are being used under Fair Use. How illogical this is....

The guideline referred to is from Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. No matter how obtusely this is justified it does not pass common sense, and I think most people would be shocked if this rule were really applied across all articles about dead people. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The law often has nothing to do with common sense, moreover IP law. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not against Fair Use law to use Fair Use images in articles about dead people where there are no existing free images to use. The Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for setting this policy. I am sure Jimbo has some say in this too. So I ask again, can we rethink this? --Timeshifter (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The policy I know is that non-free images of living people aren't generally allowed since it should be possible to get a free one (just take a camera to their next public appearance). Non-free images of dead people should be ok if we can't find a free one. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The hang up is, so long as there's any hint that a free alternative image of the dead person might be lurking about somewhere, the non-free image, if spotted, will most likely be deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lurking images. :) So if we suspect lurkers, the Fair Use images gotta go. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put that way, yes, that's what happens. It takes a lot to show no free images of someone can be had, how much searching it may take to find them may have a bit of sway, but not a lot. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know how illogical this is, don't you? You can't prove a negative. One can't prove there are no free images. A lurking image is always possible. So we delete the remaining images in hopes of future perfection... --Timeshifter (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under current IP law, fair use is a narrow doctrine to begin with and given the WmF's goals as to free content, en.Wikipedia's fair use policies are even narrower. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well en.Wikipedia's fair use policies (WP:NFCC} as you interpret are not logically based on this:
"An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals."
That is from wikimediafoundation.org Resolution:Licensing policy, and your interpretation of it is incorrect in my opinion. I mean we have many, many fair-use images of album covers, and much more. Thumbnail-size images of dead people are not a problem, and do not violate WmF policy. It is not reasonable to expect too many uploads of free images of people who are no longer with us, and thus not around for more photos to be taken of them. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same thing: As I said on your talk page, there is about zero likelihood that a free alternative to a copyrighted album or book cover will ever show up, not so with people's faces, which in themselves are not copyrighted in public (though photographs of those faces are often copyrighted). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can not reasonably expect uploads of freely licensed images for many dead people. So the English Wikipedia Fair Use policy (WP:NFCC), or your interpretation of it, is not following wikimediafoundation.org Resolution:Licensing policy. In some cases free images show up, and in some cases they do not show up. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anywhere this conversation won't spill? What does it have to do with Jimbo? J Milburn (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the part higher up about wikimediafoundation.org Resolution:Licensing policy. I also wrote: "The Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for setting this policy. I am sure Jimbo has some say in this too. So I ask again, can we rethink this?" --Timeshifter (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Two separate issues apply. One is personality rights and the other is the interaction between legal fair use and Wikipedia's nonfree image use policy. In addition to copyright, personality rights also apply to many images of living people. Those rights have various nuances, but the bottom line is that they usually cease to apply once the person is no longer alive. From the moment onward, a copyrighted image of a non-living person (from most jurisdictions) gets covered in basically the same group as copyrighted images of landscapes, cartoons, etc. Fair use is not the operative principle at Wikipedia user space: our local nonfree image use requirements are stricter than the law requires. This sums up quite simply: if an image is under full copyright, don't use it in user space. It may be frustrating, but the reasoning behind it is sound--it has something to do with the habits of a minority of editors who pushed fair use to the breaking point, and the potential that carries to redirect volunteer time away from core project functions. Sadly, this is one of the situations where a small number of people spoiled it for everyone. On a brighter note, there are other productive things that concerned editors can do to honor Neda Soltan and her culture. I blogged about one suggestion the other day.[2] With best wishes and respect, DurovaCharge! 02:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible solution. 120-pixel-wide Fair-Use photos in articles about the deceased

Currently, all photos of Neda Agha-Soltan while alive and well have been removed from the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan article.

Maybe Jimbo and others can suggest the following policy clarification to the Wikimedia Foundation board. Where does one go to leave comments to be read by the WMF board?

Rather than remove all Fair-Use images from articles about dead people, I suggest only allowing small thumbnail photos of the people. Smaller than what is currently allowed in infoboxes. See examples of 120-pixel-wide photos of people here:

This way we encourage people to find larger, free images. But without depriving deceased-people articles of any images.

Viewing 120-pixel-wide images may irritate enough people to go find those "lurking" free images mentioned previously, and to find and ask some of the copyright holders to free up some of their copyrighted images.

Most of the many, many copyrighted Fair-Use album covers have images of people, and are between 200 and 300 pixels wide. See:

Of course they often have more than just face shots of people, and so the larger size is justified.

There are Neda images here:

The Neda images seem to be getting out semi-anonymously, "family friend," etc.. I am not sure, but I don't think it is allowed on Wikipedia to use them as anonymous-source images. Even if they are released as free images. How does one verify they are free? Do we trust CNN or the BBC if they say the family friends released them as free images? I don't know what the policy is. That leaves only Fair Use for now. It may be years before family and friends in Iran are willing, or feel safe enough, to put their names to some photos of Neda, and make them free images. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be so bad? It is not actually necessary to see a picture of her to understand the article, so we can wait a couple of years until we get a free image. Unfortunately the English Wikipedia allows a huge number of non-free images (like album covers in articles where the album cover isn't discussed), but there exist good and completely free encyclopedias in some other languages. Kusma (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people prefer illustrated articles over non-illustrated articles. Also, the outpouring of emotion, and the historical significance of her death is based on the photos, videos, and video stills. Her death would not have become notable otherwise. Wikipedias in other languages are using Fair-Use images in their articles about her. Turkish Wikipedia, for example, according to a comment on the English article talk page.
Also, some admins interpret WP:NFCC to delete all Fair-Use photos from some articles about deceased people. Fortunately, they haven't deleted the Fair-Use photo of Emmett Till. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd say that a link to the LOC's collection of related images would be sufficient until it is clear that one of these images is no longer copyrighted (dewiki uses one of those, but I'm not certain that they are allowed to do so), but I won't do anything about this. As I think that our current lenient policy (allowing non-free images) is very bad, I don't take part in any admin work in that area. In support of wikiveganism (let's make this a free encyclopedia), Kusma (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I've long thought that carrying external links to stable sites carrying non-free (or not known to be free) images and other content is enough, so long as those sites aren't themselves blatantly astray of IP laws. Likewise, I wouldn't want to disrupt the encyclopedia by deleting every NF image I see here which runs astray of the NFI policy, even if half or more of those I see indeed do. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although interesting, this is one of the stranger proposals to deal with this issue. It's like saying BLP vios are okay, if only done in small font. The images themselves are a significant part of the issue, and covering the event without using the images is incomplete. We can make a conscious decision to sacrifice encyclopedia quality for the goal of free content, and in so doing diverge from most every other information source int he world, but if so that's what it is. Wikidemon (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If one has the outlook that the world will be going through many and sundry upheavals in IP law over the next few decades, getting from here to there with free content all the while will indeed seem weird now and then. I don't agree with the BLP analogy, ELs to smears or what would otherwise be taken as BLP vios on en.Wikipedia are most often forbidden and at most, strongly frowned upon. As for free images and other media content, en.Wikipedia is already rather bountiful and it seems this will only grow. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow. The current policy (non-free images are okay in restricted circumstances) is what is like allowing BLP violations in small font. Kusma (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good link, Kusma: the LOC's collection of related images. It is a good idea to link to that from Emmett Till. They are posting those images there at the Library of Congress under Fair Use rights. I note that they are using 120-pixel and 150-pixel-wide Fair Use images. We can put one or two of those images in the article at 120-pixels-wide and link to more.
I have a question. Are there any narrow banners that request a free image? Banners that can be added to the top of articles. We could adapt it to add it to articles with non-free images. Something like "Do you have a free image for this article?" It would link to a page with more info. Or we could add a link that is labeled "(Do you have a free image?)" at the end of the image caption. Linked to a specific help page explaining that we need a free image to replace the the Fair Use image, and that we may need help from a copyright owner in releasing a copyrighted image to attributed free use. They would still be the copyright owner under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.
The discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 23#File:Neda.jpg is fascinating. The contrast between the photos showing Neda Agha-Soltan (photos are here for now) with and without the scarf cause all kinds of comments from people around the world who are showing up. Those comments illustrate WP:NPOV ramifications and systemic bias at so many levels. So rare to see this kind of dialog. If only the news media could hear and cover this. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is nothing to do with NPOV or systematic bias, and your continued insistence that it is is frankly a little strange. This is about our non-free content criteria. In response to your other comments, we do have image placeholders, but some people hate them for some reason. Personally, they seem a brilliant idea to me, and I have used them in my own articles prior to finding free images. J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn. From the "Statement of principles" section of User:Jimbo Wales:"Doing the Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty." Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 23#File:Neda.jpg covers the NPOV angle already. Many there agree with the NPOV and systemic bias concerns, including some admins. If the images weren't non-free images, then there is little doubt that the article would have images of her with and without the scarf in order to meet those concerns. Your non-discussed removal of the image with the scarf as you did (leaving only the image of her without the scarf) would not have been justified, and would have been overturned. Only WP:NFCC interpretations about minimal use justified its removal, and I see that even though that image meets every angle of interpretation of NFCC, there is still a strong unwritten, vague policy of extreme parsimonious use of Fair Use images. That is why I came here for further clarification. I have gotten some clarification from Jimbo Wales. I leave further revisions of this WMF policy in the hands of the WMF. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever seen such an utterly bizarre policy suggestion as this. It's like saying that it's OK to break our WP:BLP policy, as long as we aren't too nasty about a living person in their article. We have placeholders for this type of thing, and the fact that fair-use photos of Emmett Till appear in his article are simplya red herring - they comply with WP:NFCC. If we merely plastered any copyrighted image - at 120px or any other size - over every article we could think of, most would probably fail and be removed. Black Kite 10:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is only for articles about the deceased. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should they be any different from articles about anything else? Either images pass all the criteria or they don't. If they do (like the ones in Emmett Till), then fine. If they don't, then they'll be removed. We can't have some strange half-way house of "sort-of-acceptable" images - we'd have to actively change Foundation policy to do that. Black Kite 11:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Neda images pass all the criteria in my opinion and in the opinion of some others, including some admins. See my previous replies and the image deletion discussion. But they don't pass the unwritten rule of extreme parsimonious use of Fair Use images. I understand that rule, and the reasoning for it. I may disagree with it, but at least now I understand it more clearly. "Clear as mud" actually, ;)
I agree with you that it would require policy revision by the Wikimedia Foundation. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say "Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia except for deceased subjects" perhaps for a pertinent reason. By the way; Hi Jimbo and sorry to clutter your talk page with this. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it in the hands of the Wikimedia Foundation to value people more than album covers. That is my simplistic summary of the issues. There seems to be no problem at all over Fair Use images of album covers. Many contain images of people. They usually contain more than that, and so 200 to 300-pixel-wide Fair Use images seem to be the unquestioned norm for Fair-Use album covers on Wikipedia. We don't demand that music companies eventually release a small, 200 to 300-pixel-wide, free version of their album covers. We could be that strict concerning album covers if we chose to be. It seems that some European countries may be expanding the right to Fair Use in their countries. So maybe things are loosening up more broadly. Discussion can continue at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter, I'm really getting sick of you misrepresenting my actions. Of course the two images would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that they were both non-free- the more the merrier, within reason. The reason I removed the image of her with the headscarf was not because I was part of some secret cabal trying to force the idea of headscarves out of Wikipedia, but because that was the extra one- the other image was the one used in the infobox. This would have been a standard, uncontroversial action, apart from the fact that this was a current event. Of course, everything about a current event has to be controversial, including policy enforcement. The fact we still have two images of her in her own biography is alarming. If the biography is kept, which it shouldn't be, one should be kept, if any. It doesn't matter which one, really. You're free to argue about that all you want. Using both of them is clearly an abuse of our NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not misrepresenting your actions in the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan article. In the talk section farther down, #How many Fair Use images are allowed in an article?, you say "There is no number." And: "Articles are not entitled to a certain number of non-free images, nor is there an arbitrary number of which they cannot have more." In your above reply you say "that was the extra one" concerning your deletion of the image with the head scarf at Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. As I said already, I came here for clarification, and Jimbo gave some clarification, and there is no need to repeat everything that is already discussed at the image deletion discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many Fair Use images are allowed in an article?

See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 23#File:Neda.jpg. The woman, Neda, was killed while wearing a scarf. But she also has photos of her without the scarf.

WP:NFCC does not say how many Fair Use images are allowed in an article. It says "minimal". If the policy is only one is allowed, then it would say "one" and not "minimal."

The Emmet Till article has 2 Fair Use images. He is notable because he was murdered. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no number. I can't see why you expect a number to just appear if you keep asking. This is a matter of editor judgement- if those advocating more images are able to provide a decent reason as to why the two present information that is needed and could never be presented by one or a free alternative, then two will be used. If not, one or none could be used. Articles are not entitled to a certain number of non-free images, nor is there an arbitrary number of which they cannot have more. Articles can have as many as they need- normally, a lot fewer than some would like. J Milburn (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about your personal opinion

Jim, I know (1) you don't generally get involved in content disputes and (2) have encouraged Wikipedians to e-mail around to secure free media for the project. Still, FWIW, I'm simply curious what your personal take would be wrt an issue addressed too-lengthily a few posts up on your talkpage.

Yeah, a **free** pic of its now-iconic subject in conservative/formal Iranian dress would be great. (It's doubtful the dresscode at Islamic Azad University, where "Neda" studied religion and philosophy, allowed for the "colorful-scarf-haphazardly-falling-down-to-the-back-off-the-crown-in-public" look otherwise in fashion among underground pop-chanteuses, which just so happens to have been our late subject's aspiration as well.) But she's dead, the few best-known pix of her iconic; and her family, who had previously released the image to the LATimes have since then been required to move to a different residence by the athorities and have been requested to avoid speaking with the foreign press during these difficult times of unrest in Iran. What would be your quick, general take on this, Jimbo? Do you think this situation presents special circumstances? ↜Just M E here , now 15:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two separate questions here: the photo of her death, and other photos of her.

I do think that this situation does present special circumstances, one of which is a concern for the human dignity of the deceased. This is also quite clearly a case of WP:BLP1E, and should be considered from that angle as well. (I see the article is in the process of likely being merged with an article about the incident, and I think that's good.) I think that the image of her death is iconic, historically important, and relevant to the article about her death. That the image is haunting and emotionally moving is something the reader needs to see in order to understand in part some of the reaction this created.

For the other images, among the factors to be considered here is replaceability with free alternatives - as she was a college student there are presumably many pictures of her whose copyright is owned by friends and loved ones - perhaps if they have one that they like or think accurately captures her spirit, they will wish to donate it... however, this may not happen for some time, and may never happen. Using a "fair use" picture in such a circumstance strikes me as undesirable, but there is a complex judgment call as to whether it is nonetheless something we should accept, although undesirable to some extent. I have no very strong opinion about it.

I do think, as is well known - and this is just a specific case of the general principle - that we should be quite diligent about seeking out photos under free licenses. Wikipedia is quite famous and important and generally admired all around the world, and I think people will generally be happy to help us make it better. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, and for co-founding Wikipedia. I guess this part sums up your opinion about using additional photos besides the video capture photo of her dying:
"Using a 'fair use' picture in such a circumstance strikes me as undesirable, but there is a complex judgment call as to whether it is nonetheless something we should accept, although undesirable to some extent. I have no very strong opinion about it."
It also seems to summarize some other admins' current interpretation of WP:NFCC, except that they seem to have very strong opinions against additional non-free photos besides the death photo. Some other admins think photos of her alive (with and without the scarf) are necessary in order to emotionally understand the relevance and impact of her death to various people, and also to show the full picture concerning her death and life.
Traditional Muslims worldwide are particularly moved by the photo of her in a scarf. Liberals (Muslim and otherwise) are particularly moved by her photo without a scarf. I am moved by both. There have been pro-fair-election articles and demonstrations worldwide organized by both types (conservatives and liberals). Some articles and rallies concentrate on one type of photo over the other.
For those Wikimedia Foundation members and others who happen to read this; here is a photo and video summary: See the YouTube video of her earlier in the day showing her wearing a black scarf, baseball cap, and long black top before she was shot. She turns around and looks in the direction of the camera at around 9 seconds. One can pause the video there. She is next to her music-teacher friend in the blue shirt with white stripes. CNN discusses this video and her clothing. See the Youtube shooting video to see her still wearing the long black top after she was shot and on the ground. The black top is laying on the ground behind her, and is closed at her waist. The black scarf is behind her head. It is not clear if we can link to the videos, since they are anonymous. They aren't copyright violations though at YouTube.
The only authenticated photo of her wearing a scarf is this Los Angeles Times photo. It will be deleted if it is not used in the article.
I believe the Wikimedia Foundation licensing policy and WP:NFCC need to be rethought and rewritten in order to avoid much frustration in my opinion. Many previous discussions have occurred about their vagueness concerning non-free and/or anonymous photos and videos. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically needs to be rethought, and why? This whole post is somewhat vague. Further, what does it matter whether some find one picture more moving, some find another more moving? What if we had no free images of Audrey Hepburn? Would it be reasonable to include several, as some people find her prettier on one, some in another, and some in another? J Milburn (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To self: "Hmm, maybe I should supplement the many pix of Hepburn as a starlet on her bio with a fair-use one from her later life when she did also-notable work as the UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador -- !" ↜Just M E here , now 16:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, I think it's true that bloggers/reporters/editors striving for sterile objectivity at times somewhat neglect the issues of human dignity you've mentioned. I've just come across the following reaction to media coverage of the "Neda" story, posted by "Fatemeh" at Muslimah Media Watch: "[...S]he was young, slender, and pretty, and so Western media images are obsessed with watching her die[;...but it's her foreignness that] helps explain the fact that Neda is represented as a corpse just as often as she is represented the way any murdered American woman would be: alive and smiling, usually in a picture given to the media by her family or friends." ↜Just M E here , now 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Bookbound barnstar
To Jimbo Wales, for his kind and expert,
scalpel-quick opinions often granted
to the users of Wikipedia . . . . . . .
(and also for happening to have created
such a prime vehicle of the new century's
citizen journalism).
 — Justmeherenow 17:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson and Realist2

Hi Jimmy - Raul said that the Michael Jackson article got more hits (5.9 million) than the main page. Can you confirm if that is a record for most viewed article in a 24 hour period?

It's worth mentioning one of the main editors of that article, Realist2. He's heavily associated with it, bringing it to featured status. I wrote about him when I dedicated a photo to him. Editors like Realist2 save this site and its community a lot of headaches and bad headlines. The MJ story is clearly the news event of the year, and the media has been looking for any angle on it. Editors like Realist2, through diligent work and effort on a topic that is important to him, spare us headlines about ghastly vandalism that wasn't caught or embarrassing mistakes. He's pretty broken up over Jackson's passing (as you can see from his talk page), but we all owe him and editors like him thanks for their hard work. -->David Shankbone 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second that. He dedicated himself to that article, making sure no nonsense was added to it, and as a result I'm sure he's improved Wikipedia's reputation in people's minds when they turned it after the death, and found such an informative page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I read the article only minutes after the story broke, I recall asking myself, "Why haven't I cringed, reading this?" Now I know. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A matter of principles

Dear Mr. Wales,

I have come here to ask for information about the very pillars that suport the entire Wiki Movement, in order to prevent some spasms of confusion and madness from negatively interfering in the normal course of the Wiki Process, in my native language's Wikipedia. Amen! Actually, it's not that grave. But, in the name of the Wiki Culture, I want to defeat it in the most coherent way possible.

What happens is that the (rather schizophrenic) Lusophone community is discussing, again, some of the worst things that could ever be discussed in a Wikimedian environment. And the one I am talking about is to deny anonymous users the right to edit.

Could you give me some orientation about the status of this right? I would be most grateful if you pointed me some official policies or founding principles (and discussions related to these, if posssible) in a way I can have solid data to base my positions on. As you like to write around here, "this comment in a nutshell": what are the relevant pages related to anonymous edits that can be used in a debate?

Faithfully yours, Vinte e Dois (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're looking for the "Founding principles" page on Meta. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 04:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, almost (I wanted something richer in content, but it seems that's all there is to it). I apologize for my impulsiveness, and thank both Mr. Wales and Nihiltres for the help provided. I'd just like to confirm if those rights are irrevocable. Vinte e Dois (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small question

I just wondered about the validity of this blog post; has everything been represented accurately, or is there some information that was inadvertently left out? NW (Talk) 12:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, not sure how to answer that question. There's always tons of information left out of any blog post or news story. That particular post looks like a pretty decent repeat of the New York Times story, but I can't vouch for any part of it that I don't know about. Did you have a more specific question? :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't scanned over the NY Times story until and hour ago, so I felt that perhaps I wasn't getting the whole picture. There is still probably some details missing, but on the whole, I think I understand what went on. Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

This ("Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia") was well done. Congrats! -- Noroton (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, having thought it through, I think this was within BLP policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wise and mature.
This is hilarious though: one New York Times' reporter asking another for an interview through wikipedia. :-) Abecedare (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I bet someone got a chuckle in the newsroom over that one. (And nice job, Jimbo.) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is hilarious. For the record: I had no idea at the time that a New York Times reporter had edited the entry, and didn't know who it was until I talked to the reporter after it was all over.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a really hard time with it if it had.” I take it then that you would have supported keeping it out even if there were reliable sources? What about if it was widely reported? J Milburn (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been widely reported the question would not have arisen (keeping it out of wikipedia would have been pointless). Since it wasn't, and since the New York Times wanted to protect David Rhode by not making it public, this was absolutely the right thing to do. Very responsible (and almost a case for Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if it was not widely reported, but we did have reliable sources? J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The case is unique and it is hard, perhaps impossible, to answer such a question in the hypothetical because one would have to weigh the quality of the sources, the extent to which the information was 'public', the freedom of wikipedia, the danger to the individual involved, and the immediacy required in making a decision. In that sense the question is moot--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's right. Our BLP and NOR and RS policies are naturally well suited to dealing with a case like this. We can imagine all sorts of interesting edge cases that would be tough calls, and the nature of such tough calls is that they are tough calls and it is not possible to come up with "bright line" rules - and doing so is actually a bad idea. Imagine a scenario in which a major and respected news source carried the story (let's say, the BBC), but everyone else declined to do so. In such a case, I believe that we would have no choice but to let the information into Wikipedia, and when I say "have no choice" I am not even reaching the moral question at all. I'm just saying that the fight to keep it out would itself generate huge amounts of discussion, any huge discussion on such a question would be noticed by bloggers, journalists, etc., and the whole thing would simply become a huge story on the spot. For those concerned that I could somehow suppress legitimate, widely reported news - well, I think experienced Wikipedians (and even those with very little experience) can say with certainty that it would be impossible.
In this case, I assumed at the outset that the New York Times would fail in their embargo within a few days. I thought we would end up removing blog speculation for a day or two, and then some major outlet would run with the story. That never happened, and I am as astonished as anyone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source Notice Board you might want to pay attention to:

You might want to watch or participate in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pajhwok_Afghan_News. Hipocrite (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia

As far as I can tell, no one has drawn your attention to the above-mentioned proposal and related RFC on the talk page. –xenotalk 19:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is much too premature for this proposal, and it seems to mix several different issues. I am very open, as always, to making changes, and support a general movement to refine processes over time, but I think a much more comprehensive discussion is needed before an actual proposal like this is put forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record What do I want! modest incremental change. When do I want it! in the fullness of time after due consideration and reflection. So we're probably on the same page there. Will you give a view as to how you see your future role with respect to Arbcom and what contingencies are in place should you be unable to fulfil the role? Thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good question. I think a very useful model of a modern constitutional government with checks and balances, and a healthy mix of respect for tradition, stability, and democracy is that of the UK government. We have today a very different sort of system, as suits our needs, but there are many ideas in that system which we do not have here - many of which do not need here. Admins are in some ways similar to the House of Lords, in the sense that they are in office essentially for life unless they do something pretty egregious. We do not have a House of Commons, though perhaps we should. The ArbCom is something like the Law Lords, although again, not in every particular. I would hope to see some useful ideas generated over time, in collaboration with the existing institutions, which are working pretty well but have flaws. Having a single institution - a fully elected ArbCom with absolute sovereignty for example - would be dangerous for the obvious reasons. Having me with completely unrestricted power in all things, which we do not have and I do not want... I want less power over time, not more - would be dangerous for the obvious reasons. Having everything decided by day to day popular votes also has clear problems.
One way in which our system does mirror the British system is that we have admins, elected directly by the community, being something like Parliament (though being more like the Lords in some ways, and the Commons in other ways). And ArbCom being something like the government. And me being something like the monarch, with a customary veto which is rarely used (actually, essentially never). And other odd bits and pieces.
Institutional design is a complex matter.
On a more personal level, and I believe that the ArbCom members past and present will back me up on this, I serve the ArbCom in terms of providing some institutional and "spiritual" memory and reminders. I try to make myself useful to them, and I generally have I think. I raise questions and try to pose challenges and help encourage a spirit of thoughtfulness. I don't have to do much of this, because the sorts of people who are elected to ArbCom in our current system are not the type of people generally inclined to partisanship and bickering, but to reflection and deliberation.
There are risks in change, but still, we should always look for change. Orderly, thoughtful, and productive change.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And contingencies? --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure things would work out ok without me. Lots of good people here. How about this: in case of my untimely death or inability to perform my capacities, the ArbCom is hereby authorized to figure out what to do, subject to ratification with a 50%+1 vote of the community. In the interim between them coming up with a ratified proposal, the status quo is to be considered as much as possible. I will admend this succession plan from time to time upon the recommendation of the ArbCom and Community, until such time as we figure out a more longterm and binding way of dealing with it.
I promise to do my best to stay alive so that this is nothing more than a cute speculation, too. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, Mr Wales. You describe part of your power as "a customary veto which is rarely used (actually, essentially never)". Perhaps this is why the French and German WPs—actually, every other WP—seem to do fine without such a role? On your UK governance analogies, I find the House of Lords analogy for admins to be odd. Tony (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Leave ... Jimmy D. ... alone!" --- CHRIS CROCKER (link) ↜Just M E here , now 04:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and probably something that is relatively not very well known, Jimbo's actual involvement in ArbCom business is, essentially, inexistent. He occasionally sends something our way that was addressed originally to him but doesn't require his intervention, or asks for our input on the very occasional matter that is on his lap, and we occasionally poke him for "philosophical opinion" when we consider matters of a more "constitutional" feel.

To give a sense of perspective, out of the approximately 16000 emails that have been on arbcom-l in the past six months, Jimbo has around 70 to his name, nearly half of which are on topics more social than Wikipedian. Rumors of his still ruling Wikipedia with the iron fist of an eminence grise are, at best, misguided. — Coren (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Rohde

Hi Jimbo. I've rewritten David S. Rohde pretty much from scratch; I think you'll find it's in much better shape now. Kudos on your actions in this matter - I think you did exactly the right thing. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't think it's right (and I speaking as a subject of the article, not as an editor of Wikipedia) to headline part of it as "Wikipedia controversy" - as far as I can tell, there is very little controversy about it at all, and certainly if there is a controversy about it, the controversy isn't a part of David Rohde's story.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've taken it out. Actually, there was less coverage about it in reliable sources than I originally anticipated. That may change, so I can't guarantee that the subheader won't return if it does turn into a major controversy. But hopefully it won't. By the way, if you need an article like that one to be revised in the future, please feel free to get in touch - I write for a living, I have a lot of research resources to hand and I'm used to short deadlines. To be honest, I could have made it a much better piece well before this news broke; there's a lot in reliable sources about the good work that Rohde's done on behalf of the Bosnian Muslims. I don't know if there was some reason not to add such material to the article but I would have thought the material I added at David S. Rohde#Srebrenica and David S. Rohde#Detainees would have counted in his favour. Just a thought. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1st Wiki - in - Portuguese dissertation defense

Mr. Wales,

I would like to let you know that I just defended my dissertation on Wiki-pt. I was approved! The title of my dissertation is "Nos bastidores da Wikipédia Lusófona: percalços e conquistas de um projeto de escrita coletiva online" ("Behind the scenes of Wikipedia in Portuguese: Pitfalls and conquests of a collectively written online project"). I believe this is the first dissertation of its kind, in the Portuguese language.

Thank you for your vision and, if I may divulge a bit, I remember when you came down to Brazil (São Paulo) last year. Some said that Wikipédia hadn't achieved or reached a phase worthy enough to be studied as a social phenomena. The successful defense of this dissertation demonstrates this outlook concerning Wikipédia is at least not true and indeed maybe completely false.

My very best regards,

Telma Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.164.255.201 (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I'd like to get the rollback feature for my account. Texcarson (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=299600515"