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 70.91.171.54 (talk) at 02:29, 14 August 2012 (→Editing under the influence?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


(Manual archive list)

What would we need to do to allow the creation and survival of this article?

In 2010, I left a message on your Talk page (though, as an IP. Seems I forgot to login?), titled "Hello, goodsir." After a single response from you, and from others, there were no more responses. The BYOND (http://www.byond.com) community remains without an article. Mostly, due to the fact that every time a user on BYOND has tried to create such an article, it's been deleted for lack of notability, as stated in the previous message, two years ago. BYOND is a community of developers, gamers, and has its own programming language, it's an engine for games - it's been around since the mid 90s. It's never achieved fame, nor much notability. There is apparently a single BYOND game that has an article, NEStalgia created by a BYOND member, using the BYOND engine. Unfortunately, unlike NEStalgia, BYOND itself has never had widespread advertising. Somehow, the lack of the engine being known to the interwerbs has stopped us from being part of the "sum of all human knowledge". If an article for BYOND was created again, and again, with little to no sources outside of the website itself, what would we have to do to stop it from being labeled as 'Lack of notability'? Tako (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made some small tweaks to the NEStalgia article, such as changing out the word "touted." I think it's interesting and worth noting that the game uses small servers to create small, tight-nit communities.

    As for BYOND, we can't create an article on a subject that hasn't been covered by credible, independent, sources. This isn't just about whether the subject has achieved "fame" but our practical ability to create an article based on information from impartial and reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

    In my opinion, this does create a problem with no obvious solution that organizations that pass WP:CORP are the ones that invest in public relations. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 23:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why is BYOND not credible when many independent resources have reported of a creation (NEStalgia) which was created with this engine? 24.147.167.99 (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Cloud_Magic, user of BYOND for 4 years[reply]
      • Kingt0457 said credible sources. The more usual term is reliable sources. If you want to know why humans document one thing and not the other, then the humans who did that are the people to talk to. Go and ask the people out in the world outwith Wikipedia why they wrote about NEStalgia but not about BYOND. That's not something that an encyclopaedia or encyclopaedists can authoritatively answer on their behalves. Uncle G (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As in my post from 2010, I mentioned an article, A+. This article, also on a programming language, has one external link, and one reference. Both are from the same website - the language's own website. I don't see the difference between this article and BYOND, besides for the fact that that A+ is just a language, while BYOND is an engine, community website, AND language. Tako (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You were told the answer to this, by two separate people, back in April 2009, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYOND (2nd nomination). Continuing in the same vein whilst completely ignoring what you were told three years ago isn't going to get you very far. As is complaining here. You're in completely the wrong place. Jimbo Wales doesn't go around reliably documenting heretofore undocumented gaming engines and programming languages. And it isn't within the remit of the Wikipedia project to do so. Go and spend three years talking to people outwith Wikipedia who do document this stuff — who do collect, fact check, write down, review, and publish knowledge in these fields outwith Wikipedia. The world isn't exactly short of identifiable people, with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, who write about computers. That approach to getting yourselves into the reliably documented general corpus of human knowledge will work. (Moreover, it will work even if Wikipedia doesn't catch up later. It might not even take three years, either.) Short-circuiting the entire process by coming straight to the tertiary source end point doesn't. Uncle G (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's all true, but I can't help but notice that the OP raises a good point that many of us deal with every day. Notable topics can be ignored by sources. In the US, the practice of ignoring topics is the highest form of censorship, and our major media outlets have elevated it to an art form. I can give numerous examples, but the point remains, there are notable topics that cannot necessarily be judged by mainstream secondary sources due to a dearth of coverage. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • One only comes to that conclusion by making the erroneous assumption that "mainstream media" and "reliable sources" are synonymous and identical. That's a false generalization made by Wikipedia novices who see so much of our (pop culture) content sourced to newspapers that they think that all content is to be sourced that way. This error from novices comes up with a depressing regularity in AFD, and time and again AFD patrollers explain that it's identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy and credentialled experts writing seriously with peer review in their fields of expertise that Wikipedia needs, and that our guidelines clearly talk about.

          I'll say it again: The world isn't exactly short of identifiable people, with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, who write about computers. That does not mean just newspapers sold at the tabac/presse. There's everything from Ziff-Davis publications to Communications of the ACM, with a whole lot in between. Despite the facts of our presence on Jimbo Wales' user talk page and of the existence of Seth Finkelstein, there really is more in this world than The Guardian. ☺

          Uncle G (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

          • I'm not sure what you're on about, but reliable sources are mainstream by definition, so you're wrong. Ziff-Davis is a mainstream publisher as is the Association for Computing Machinery, but their publications may be oriented towards specialists and specialist topics rather than a mainstream audience. While it is true that specialist (niche) sources may also be considered reliable, reliable specialist sources in wide use on Wikipedia are for the most part considered part of the mainstream. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the mainstream media means newspapers, but that's a mistake on your part. There are quite a number of niche market publications that may also be considered reliable, but the criteria for usage is much narrower. In any event, none of this has anything to do with my comment which concerns the lack of coverage of certain topics by mainstream sources and how Wikipedia deals with it. For example, there are notable books written by notable authors that have received little coverage, making it difficult (but not impossible) to write about them. There are also notable events that have received less than optimal coverage. This does not imply that they did receive coverage in specialist sources as you erroneously inferred. It means, that they did not. To summarize, there are notable topics that have little mainstream coverage. For example, the longest serving Independent member of Congress, Bernie Sanders, wrote a book in 2011 called The Speech. The book is basically a transcript of an 8.5 hour speech he gave in 2010. While the speech did receive a little coverage, his book received almost none except for one or two blurbs here or there; it was virtually ignored. Whether this is because he is branded as a socialist or if it is because he has come out strongly against the corporations who fund the media reviews, nobody will ever know, but if one were to attempt to write about this book (which does in fact cover a notable incident) it would be very difficult because the mainstream media made a decision to ignore it. Viriditas (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Facepalm Facepalm "notable events that have received less than optimal coverage" is a simplistic fallacy; coverage is what makes an event notable. I'd also take a dim view on something that is only covered in specialist/niche sources, as that is essentially what WP:PORNBIO was all about for several years until recent tightening, that the porn industry handing out the obscurest of awards was all that was needed to justify a starlet's article. If you want an article on an event or group, then you're going to have to find some actual reliable sources that cover it, otherwise it simply isn't worthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • That is simply not true. The event received "optimal" coverage, but the book did not. The book documents the event, and the author and publisher are both notable. There are lots of examples like this, particularly when it comes to products such as video games, recordings, books, etc. A dearth of coverage does not mean a topic lacks notability or cannot be included. Viriditas (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • A dearth of coverage means precisely that. This isn't 2006, where "keep, I like it" was more than sufficient enough of a vote to retain an article at a deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • When you have to use a "facepalm", you've already lost the argument. We have notable topics that lack mainstream, "optimal" coverage in every facet of this encyclopedia. From books to films, from recordings to historical events, we consider these topics notable based on different criteria. The community who inhabits AfD has consistently chosen to keep poorly sourced articles because the bar for inclusion is set very low. Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • An "argument" implies equal sides that had a reasonable chance at coming out on top, but I'm afraid you never did. This section was begun by a user who like thousands of other users over the years thinks that the Thing He Likes(tm) is special, and he is disconcerted to find that others out there don't quite see it that way. If there are reliable sources out there to support BYOND, then find them. If they cannot be found, then the article stays deleted. Simple as that. Pointing out that there are many current poor articles with poor to no sourcing doesn't exactly create a persuasive argument for retention of this article, but rather just highlights the fact that we still have a lot of clean-up to do around here of non-notable, trivial fluff. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are confusing things, if an event is notable (i.e significant coverage in reliable independent sources) we can use the book as a primary source about the event. The book itself though (or any source) has no claims to notability if no one has been bothered to write about it (it is not worthy of note as evidenced by the lack of sources discussing it in any detail) to satisfy WP:GNG etc. If only the author is notable then there may be some sources which mention he wrote the book. Significant coverage isn't required for article content itself, just due weight (although what is required varies article to article). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Significant coverage isn't required for article content, but events and things have a very low threshold for inclusion. Historically, a "dearth" of sources has not led to a round of deletions on AfD, and we have thousands of poorly sourced articles at every level. In the example of Sanders that I raised, reliable sources have mentioned that he published the book, but to my knowledge, except for one or two sources, there are virtually no book reviews and little mainstream coverage of the book after it was published. However, the event the book refers to is notable and has coverage. Essentially, it is a primary source and could be used in an article about the event (which has more source coverage), but it would be difficult to support creating a separate article about the book, even though the author, publisher, and topic are already notable. Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the book should be notable just because the author and topic are notable; sometimes notable people write books that just have zero impact. Also, bear in mind being non-notable doesn't mean mentioning the book in the authors article is undue, it just means an article can't be made which is dedicated to the book. Notable scientists write many articles and books; we don't expect them all to be notable, or even necessarily any of them. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find that non-mainstream sources often have the deepest and most academic content for creating a comprehensive and neutral article. Unlike Wikipedia, the media is paid by the click, which provides incentive to be sensational and they have to churn out many stories a day quickly, which leads to over-simplification of complex issues. But, for small organizations looking to muster past the WP:CORP criteria, media is the most likely source and PR is the most likely way for them to achieve such sources.
This is somewhat problematic, because it creates a favoratism towards companies that do PR. The notability criteria asks for sources "without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." However most media coverage, especially for smaller organizations, is "influenced by people connected to the topic." A reporter doing 5 stories a day will basically re-write the press release and slap in a couple quotes. This isn't representative of the type of independent investigation we expect based on the criteria for reliable sources. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 16:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by mainstream. For example, monograms and other peer reviewed academic sources such as journals are considered mainstream sources for notability; they are just select in their audience. I think the issue in this particular case (the one by the original poster) is that there is a complete lack of reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Complete lack of reliable sources, outside of the website itself, yes. The problem is that the website has never had advertising outside of forum posts, and being spread by word-of-mouth. No one documents the website's history besides the users of the website. I'm pretty sure the most of BYOND that exists outside of BYOND that'd be 'notable' would be being listed on http://www.stroustrup.com/applications.html, Bjarne Stroustrup's list of applications written in C++. Oh man. The guy who invented C++ knows us. Does this constitute Notability? If not, what the heck does? There are articles that shouldn't exist on Wikipedia, and yet still exist, but, we can't have one, because BYOND doesn't exist outside of itself. Tako (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a one line mention. I think it's a bad idea if we lower the bar and allow people to stitch articles together from forum posts, blogs etc. Why not just create your own wiki on wikia etc? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think it'll hurt Wikipedia to just let it have an article? I don't understand why it's such a big deal. BYOND clearly exists, everything that was in the article, before it was deleted, was verifiable. Why can't the website itself be used as a reference? Tako (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again!

Anyway Jimbo, I'm wondering what you think about this new way to get rid of Vandalism (technically). By creating a page that's MEANT TO BE vandalized. Only that page is allowed to, much less encouraged, to be Vandalized. Thanks, --Jayemd (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have that. It's called the Sandbox. Looie496 (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

Instead of advertising, why not ask people to visit an alternate site when they want to make purchases through certain online companies? You could have affiliate links to numerous companies and products. If everyone reading Wikipedia were to do this just once a year, you would have more than enough money to fund your operation. Wikipedia remains free of ads and you still get to benefit from them. What could possibly be wrong with this?74.100.47.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to understand concretely what you are suggesting. Ask people how? What sort of alternate site? Which online companies? Affiliate links implemented how? Looie496 (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's just another form of advertising, and would prostitute and compromise this project just as badly as if we had enormous "Upgrade to Windows 8 Immediately!" banners across the top and bottom of every page. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might attract trouble like bees to syrup: Although a separate website seems like a safe alternative, I wonder about a slippery slope, where once Wikipedia is seen as offering some type of adverts, then marketing people might expand efforts to influence readers by modifying articles to remind users of the related advert system, or more people might actively lobby for even more ads ("camel's nose under the tent"), because the current allowed adverts might then attract greater pressure for more adverts, or "add 6 side-menu options to connect with the advert website". Remember, few other websites allow the users to write "sourced text" about any notable product or company that might appear in the related ads. Google Search still works because it is nearly impossible to flood the Google-Search results with more than 6 lines about any product. Perhaps compare with other websites which allow writing about the displayed ads. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article "Camel's nose".—Wavelength (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July editors return after June drop

The active-editor data for July 2012 is still showing a base of nearly 34,000 active editors (33,680 >4 edits), with a core of 3,410 highly active >99 edits/month. After a slight seasonal drop in June (vacations?), the editor-count levels returned back in July near the May levels for the first time in 4 years. Typically, July usually loses over 1,300-3,000 editors lower than June, not return back with 158 editors less than May (33,838 active, 3377 busy in May).

Again, something big is happening out there, similar to the analogy of waves at sea losing the high up/down levels, as when passengers on the R.M.S. Titanic reported the sea was so calm, they could see the stars reflected on the ocean's surface. Later sea reports of the massive, surrounding field ice explained why typical waves could not move past the regional ice. The broader area was surrounded by other icebergs and field ice. With Wikipedia editors, some big factor is causing editors to remain at current levels, rather than leave by the thousands. The seasonal pattern had been thousands fewer editors in May/June/July, to increase later in August/September, but for over a year, the seasonal reductions have been less of a drop, and now only 158 fewer editors lower than May 2012.

Perhaps the current editors represent a more worldwide, global balance, so that local vacation seasons have little impact on editor totals, or perhaps more people are editing Wikipedia during vacation trips, or something. The June drop was more typical, as down 1,176 (33,838-32,662), but the large rebound gain in July is a total shock, compared to the typical July drop of 1,300-3,000 in the 3 prior years. Of course, the upcoming August levels should reflect higher activity for the 2012 Summer Olympics, yet I do not see that as a reason to explain 3,000 more active editors in July than typical, but perhaps so. Anyway, the August active-editor data will provide more insights, regarding the Olympics articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we are seeing a consistent pattern here, the size of the editing community is broadly stable, perhaps with a very gentle decline. Most indices are positive - in terms of readership we are growing faster than the Internet. As far as I'm aware there are very few really troubling indicators, apart of course from our steadily declining number of active admins. So far this year we are down 38, and the number of new admins looks set to follow the pattern of dropping by a third year on year. If the community was stable you'd expect to get an ever increasing proportion becoming admins - if anything the reverse applies. ϢereSpielChequers 17:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping someone does something with WP:RFA2012. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not complicated. As more interesting, creative, editors are driven away by bureaucracy obsessed rule-tards, editing patterns will become more and more dominated by the type of person who believes 61mph in a 60mph limit deserves a dangerous driving ticket. Consistency of mediocrity will be the result. :) Egg Centric 01:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2012 ready for RFC?

Jimmy, do you think the time is right to refactor WP:RFA2012 into one big 60-day RFC with all its different proposals up for discussion with the understanding that any resulting set(s) of conflicting proposals winning approval would face each other in a subsequent run-off RFC to decide among them, and another RFC six months down the road to decide whether to return to today's status quo? There are lots of great ideas in there but without someone senior such as yourself opening a community-wide discussion on which of them to approve, I doubt anyone will. 70.91.171.54 (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does running for office confer automatic notability for an article?

I have seen a recent increase in bio articles about candidates running for office, especially now that many states have wrapped up their primaries, or presumptive nominees are locking up their chances ahead of time. Is it standard practice that someone whose article would never have been created, let alone pass an AfD, be allowed to stay based only on the fact that they are running for an office? And what happens if that person loses? At what point do we say that having run for a congressional district in rural Utah in 2012 is not a notable enough reason to be in Wikipedia? (the year 2020...2040... when the person dies?...)97.88.87.68 (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POLITICIAN. --Tango (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any such articles created should be redirected to the article for the district election, e.g. Kara Anastasio currently redirects to Ohio's 7th congressional district#Election results because she has done nothing to satisfy the general notability guide. Tarc (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But let's be clear on what WP:POLITICIAN actually says on the subject: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". So a candidate who has not held a significant office previously may be notable anyway, and therefore merit their own article. Some people like to go around before elections blanking and redirecting almost any "candidate" article they can find for deletion; sometimes its warranted, sometimes its not. Neutron (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible, but uncommon. When I have sifted through these sorts of articles on occasion, I've seen a few candidates who were notable for, say, being a noted leader in an industry, or a prominent and covered business owner. Tarc (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is too uncommon, consider Jimmy McMillan of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party. He is only notable for running for office. When it comes to candidates, they should be judged based on GNG. Some may be notable only for running. The important aspect is making sure the coverage isn't trivial. Many candidates will get a lot of trivial mentions, fewer will get in depth coverage. Ryan Vesey 23:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

help

jimbo user Electriccatfish2 has been hacking on to me and my friends accounts please block him asap. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshecarroll123 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, can you give us some examples? You seem to have been inactive for a couple of months before raising this issue and I don't see any reprehensible activity on Electriccatfish2's part. AutomaticStrikeout 19:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? Electric Catfish 20:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks like there aren't any examples. Just someone throwing around accusations. Catfish, do you remember this name at all? AutomaticStrikeout 20:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see where EC put up a vandalism notice on this user's talk page. Methinks that might speak to Moshecarroll123's motivations. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that goes back to June, so I'm not sure why he waited this long. AutomaticStrikeout 20:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that the editor didn't log in again until now, then saw the message and didn't understand that anybody could edit his talk page. Ryan Vesey 21:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the warning. Electric Catfish 21:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing under the influence?

Howdy Jimbo,

I'm about to pop off to bed but I seem to have been in the pub in my apartment building. I was just wondering if you ever edit under the influence of drugs, legal like alcohol and tobacco or illegal like... well, all sorts of things! And furthermore, what your view on chemically aided editing is?

Ta,

Egg Centric 01:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When this question came up some years ago on IRC, there was wide agreement that Wikipedia servers don't count as heavy machinery in the pharmaceutical warnings sense, a clear majority of editors claim to prefer editing under the influnce of caffinated beverages, and several editors agreed that a few alchoholic drinks make much of the drudgery associated with bringing citations up to Featured Article status more bearable. Excessive impairment is likely to manifest in grammar mistakes, and somertimes various forms of uncooperative behavior. 70.91.171.54 (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=507309847"