User talk:Jimbo Wales

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251: 1 days

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Progress in economics by speaking about education?

Jimbo, I don't know if it is or isn't presumptuous, but I was sincere when I wrote this:

I can't stop imagining a world in which you give a Davos speech on the flawed roots of trickle down, so all the billionaires who would have been even more wealthy in purchasing power terms if they hadn't spent so much lobbying for greed can all go outside and burn Okun and Rand effigies in the snow, and then come back inside and pull the strings to get back to whatever [1] would look like if [2] had fewer inflection points. Maybe you can condense it all down to an elevator pitch. I would even go so far as to suggest that the solution is such a win-win that the blue line on this graph need not decrease for the green line to continue increasing past all time highs.

I had been trying to ask you about the effects of finance industry size[3][4] and college administrations[5][6] on the cost of formal education, because it has become the largest and fastest growing component of median family spending.

However, given that you are a sought-after speaker on developments in contemporary education, but not economics, I wonder if it would be better if you were to speak on the extent to which all recent postsecondary education subsidies have been reflected in tuition increases? EllenCT (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo seems to avoid finance questions here, perhaps because there could be many very time-consuming details. For years, WP had lacked articles about general business subjects (MBO, "Management by Objectives", management by the numbers, Management by wandering around), but of course had many thousands of corporate pages. I checked for loan origination topics, as for commercial loans or mortgage loans with the "Federal calendar" or Actual/365 (actual-day except leap day) or Actual/366 (including leap). However, the various econ pages could be updated: macroeconomics, Trickle-down economics, Reaganomics, Voodoo economics, supply-side, tuition increases, lottery funding of education (etc.), and then post questions at the related talk-pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some of my favorite subjects. Because of what were at least in part well-intentioned errors by e.g. Art Okun and Ayn Rand, my ability to edit on the crux of that topic area is affected by what Jimbo says on wiki and in public. If our positions were reversed, I would expect Jimbo to bring this to my attention with solutions, as is my intent here in accordance with what we ask of editors involved in such situations.

Is there a deeper connection to the optimal order of general educational instruction? When income inequality affects postsecondary education, it does so in a way that directly harms its meritocratic aspects, e.g. by tuition increases and subtle elitism. In primary education, we require certain subjects to be learned prior to teaching others, partly to make prior topics of instruction useful for learning subsequent topics, and partly because we want to provide the most useful and applicable skills to the largest number of students. In postsecondary instruction, sometimes those who are unable to grasp certain concepts are precluded from progressing further. What does that mean when any subject of instruction can be offered as an article in an encyclopedia striving for sufficient quality to provide self-directed learning without regard to their current prerequisite skill set? Do postsecondary education credentials become non-meritocratic participation awards for having sufficient money, connections, and patience with a corrupt and outmoded but successfully self-perpetuating bureaucracy? And if so, is there a good reason to require such credentials of those who are allowed access to jobs and thereby additional wealth? Do wealthy people perform better labor? Certainly being well-connected can help salespeople, but does that suggest that the real economy is performing a market function, or simply propping up an inefficient cadre? Should we be rewarding people for secret handshakes, meaningful glances, and Jim Crow discrimination? No! We must restore the meritocracy, and we will. Jimbo can help in a way that will make that goal orders of magnitude easier. EllenCT (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funding the tertiary education sector is a tricky business. It might not be so bad if people took the attitude of Frederick Elder, who after the University of Oklahoma burned down said, "What do you need to keep classes going? Two yards of blackboard and a box of chalk."

If educational institutions see students as customers to be bilked for as much money as possible (and more as alumni) these problems will not go away.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

That is why I am suggesting that when someone asks Jimbo about education, that he hold off on simply reiterating the inherent values and reciting the growing pains of general online searchable encyclopedias, and instead depend more on critiques such as Lucca, David O.; Nadauld, Taylor; Shen, Karen (March 2016). "Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in Federal Student Aid Programs" (PDF). newyorkfed.org. Staff Report No. 733. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Retrieved 5 April 2016. and Gordon, Grey; Hedlund, Aaron (September 28, 2015). "Accounting for the Rise in College Tuition" (PDF). Working Paper No. 21967. National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w21967. Retrieved 5 April 2016. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help), which is a chapter in this book. EllenCT (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just browsed those papers - quite interesting. I'm still unlikely to speak outside my area of expertise, but I'm also a little confused. If you posit in your mind a dreadful "trickle down" person, wouldn't they enthusiastically embrace these results? After all, these papers seem to show that a major factor of the increase in the cost of a University education is government subsidy of that form of education. At least one conclusion someone might draw from this is that reducing subsidies would cause prices to fall, so wouldn't prevent nearly as many people from getting a college degree as we might have otherwise thought.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I was trying to explain with the Asher Edelman, Ron Paul, Nick Hanauer, and Paul Ryan quotes that the political parties have drifted so far to the right of the actual demographic center that the so-called political spectrum has folded in on itself and collapsed. That is exactly why this is an opportunity for you. The people with expertise on the issue are almost entirely all in on the scam. Our tradition is to afford no extra respect for subject matter experts, and upholding that tradition for a few speeches off-wiki would serve everyone well at this juncture.

And maybe I'm wrong to call supply side proponents trickle downers. Wealth has trickled down, it just skipped over the working class in the industrialized world and left them behind. It's not a fundamental error of ideology, just a matter of tuning nations' tax and transfer incidence to obtain optimal growth. Do you remember when growth topped 5.3% in 1983-85 after the Reagan tax cuts? I don't, but Reagan's Joint Economic Committe Director James K. Galbraith sure does. ("When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected.")

In any case, when subsidies aren't being siphoned to bloat the finance sector and postsecondary institutional administrations, "the state receives a $4.5 net return for every dollar it invests to get students through college." Don't take that on faith, just look at how much more college graduates pay in income tax. EllenCT (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EllenCT: Unfortunately this is Mickey Mouse economics. The study takes the income of graduates and compares it with non-graduates, and assumes that the difference is entirely due to college.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
23:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

What are the other factors of the difference, and which studies have controlled for them? EllenCT (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of government education subsidies has changed over the years. Direct subsidies to public colleges have been shrinking, so tuition becomes an increasing percentage of their overall revenue. I'd guess that the colleges would generally be indifferent as to whether their funding comes directly from the state or indirectly via subsidized loans. Seems to me that the big winners in this are the education finance industry, with the students the big losers. We need a political revolution to change that. The high water mark for student-friendly funding was the 1960s, when the children of the WW II GI Bill vets were getting their college educations. Their antiwar campus protests freaked out the upper classes, who feared that there was too much democracy, so they set out to reverse course by lobbying for cuts in direct public college funding. This necessitated more and easier student loans so the colleges wouldn't have to cut tuition and programs. That's my understanding of the issue, though this isn't an area of expertise for me either. Unfortunately the pendulum isn't likely to flip back in the other direction without trauma of some sort to trigger the flip. wbm1058 (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, except I'd quibble that the "political revolution" required to correct the tuition finance situation has already occurred, and only political gridlock -- that Jimbo could blow open himself, by addressing the issue publically -- stands in the way of the needed reforms. The education finance industry (and their university administration bedfellows) are so obviously bloated and abusive that even the rigged plutocracy of the austerity-crazed bipartisan border that tries to pass itself off as centrist is poised to crack down on it. They just need a slight push which Jimbo could supply regardless of whether he has the confidence to try. EllenCT (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One can only hope that The Signpost scoop that he will be the running mate of Donald Trump University is dead wrong. We can only hope that our next president will bring "change we can believe in". You're so right about "almost entirely all in on the scam", so many that the field of potential Democratic VP candidates is very slim. The New York primary is going to be HUUGGGGE! Go for it, Jimbo! wbm1058 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am feeling 😃 😊 ~~😐 😒~~ about this editor.

EllenCT (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC) selected EllenCT (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are two significant issues that I see in the finances of the American tertiary education system, from my distant vantage-point.

One is that the independence of the institutions is affected by receiving federal (and in some cases state) funds.

The other is the confusion between education and running a business, that I mentioned above.

I believe that there is huge scope for cutting the cost to students in the US by innovating - free (as in speech) textbooks would be a start, and perhaps something Jimmy could speak to.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The independence of medical schools, for example, is also affected by the research grants they receive from Big Pharma. They have to get funds from somewhere, and the best way to keep them independent is a good, competitive mix of funding from both public and private sources.

Textbooks are a natural monopoly in dire need of some reasonable regulation. Students have no choice but to buy the books their professors specify. wbm1058 (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the details right is not trivial: "Take Scotland's recent experience as an example. When the Scottish National Party took power in 2007, it eliminated tuition fees at public universities. As The Economist reported in October, though, getting rid of fees did not markedly increase access for graduates of public secondary schools or low-income students. Critics of the policy have pointed out that funding free tuition for all instead of, say, targeted need-based grants, provides a windfall to the affluent at the expense of the working class. One study found that the free tuition plan essentially redistributed 20 million pounds from poor students to rich ones." EllenCT (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the solution involve the proportion spent on instructors? Per student? Per instructor? More sources: right, left, centrist, bipartisan, subject matter expert. EllenCT (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big state colleges are increasingly dominated by wealthy students "public universities are actively luring these (wealthier out-of-state) students at the expense of those in their state, as they cope with cuts to state funding"... "Because the state contributes a smaller and smaller proportion of UW-Madison’s operating budget, the university administration naturally considers alternative ways of raising revenues, and the many wealthy applicants offer a quick, attractive alternative". As I was saying. The elites don't want too many educated people who can see past their spin, and thus might orchestrate a political revolution. wbm1058 (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Assuming that super-rich investors earn a relatively modest 3% a year on their $21tn, taxing that vast wall of money at 30% would generate a very useful $189bn a year – more than rich economies spend on aid to the rest of the world." Stewart, Heather (21 July 2012). "Wealth doesn't trickle down – it just floods offshore, research reveals". Tax avoidance: The Observer. No. Business. The Guardian. theguardian.com. Retrieved 10 April 2016. EllenCT (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the states start increasing public higher-education subsidies again, they should mandate that the funds go directly towards teaching-professors and other core programs, and limit the amount for administration and research-professors whose work primarily benefits private companies too cheap to pay for their own R&D (I don't know how much of a problem that might be, but watch out for it). wbm1058 (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if the problem of poverty is that it's profitable to other people, such as college presidents? Income inequality is real and extremely deleterious. EllenCT (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imo, Critical Thinking is important to learn and practice especially as a developing child and adolescent. It can be encouraged in school, e.g. essays, or discouraged, e.g. multiple choice and Rote learning. The three Rs, basic science, and objective world history are also crucial. All aspects of democratic societies are almost entirely determined by the critical thinking abilities and knowledge level of the voters. Post high school education is available to those who want it bad enough. The quality consistency of the grade school and high school education is a huge problem in the USA and not nearly as much so in the other advanced societies. The adult illiteracy level was 50% in L.A. as recently as 2004, according to NPR. So, its a real mess. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The projects are known for their high-quality critical thinking. What would [7] look like if [8] had fewer inflection points? EllenCT (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "projects"? Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation Projects like Wikipedia and Wiktionary have their talk pages used as examples of arguments by IBM. Remember the Monty Python skit where an argument required payment? EllenCT (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I think both [9]and[10] are results of predatory and dependency mentalities, both of which thrive in societies where selfishness is widespread. Ironically, Switzerland itself might be a good model with its cantons and referendum based society and I think they see money more as a tool instead of an extension of self. But, I think they are having a lot of social anxieties nowadays too, especially in dealing with the EU and Schengen rules. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by many measures the European countries have the best welfare schemes, and surprisingly (especially to many supply-siders) a strong social safety net can increase the proportion of startup businesses because reducing the risk of failure from bankruptcy without medical care as we have in the US, to merely having to depend on welfare, stimulates enterprenurism very substantially. This is the kind of unintuitive irony that the global transfer incidence imposes on us. In the US, we prefer to deal with falures using a patchwork of regulation, courts, and executive sanction, which is actually pretty close to a command economy in practice. I continue to believe that Jimbo has a nearly ideal pulpit to address these issues in the context of education (as in that last ProPublica link) in a way that authorities will likely see as neutral, authoritative, and persuasive. EllenCT (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nocturnalnow: here is a concrete proposal for an economic solution: "One aspect in the discussions on inequality that I find strangely absent is broader ownership of capital. If one of the drivers of inequality are capital incomes (and 'allied' incomes like those of top management), this is because they are heavily concentrated. 'Deconcentration' of capital incomes, that is much wider ownership, particularly of equities, is then a solution. But it is seldom mentioned," by the producer of that global observed transfer incidence graph, Branko Milanovic.

Here that is quoted in a book about "social wealth funds," which is presumably some kind of market-based approach, but The Economist says there are caveats. What do you think? EllenCT (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Economist is right at this time. Worker ownership is great when we have sustainable and non debt-dependent businesses which are being managed with very long term vision, but right now we are in a wild west type business environment full of scams, accounting misrepresentations, and businesses set up to borrow and then go bankrupt. How can an honest business selling widgets compete with a fly by night business that gets government insured loans, pays the owners huge salaries, sells the widgets at less than cost and just keep borrowing more and more and paying the owners more and more until finally they go broke....how can an honest business sell their widgets when the crooked widget maker is selling the widgets at 30 % less? How can any labor intensive business succeed long term when it has competition in China or Bangladesh where labor costs are 1/10th the price. The other big issue is the possibility that the company will be taken over by crooks, e.g.Enron was a good example in the caveat scenario. So, for manufactured goods and dot.com businesses, employees are very exposed to getting screwed; e.g. Nortel and Blackberry. Or they might luck out. Its just plain gambling. The businesses where employee ownership works best are local and necessity based; e.g. organic food close to a big city where there are lots of smart people who want to buy and eat "local"...at least that's my opinion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the minimum proportion of excess labor extracted by employers required to be returned to labor should depend on the prevailing inequality? If so, by what measure(s)? EllenCT (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, do you agree that the disagreement is not due to anyone's fundamental error of ideology, but a question of tuning nations' tax and transfer incidence to obtain optimal measures such as maximizing years of productive life? EllenCT (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, supply- and demand-side concerns are both equally valid, but the incidence shown at [11] should be flattened by international agreement? EllenCT (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have neither the expertise nor interest to express any public opinion on such matters at the present time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SecurePoll at Persian Wikipedia

Hello Jimbo,

The Persian Wikipedia community decided to hold the ArbCom elections using secret ballots 6 months ago. We formed an investigation committee to select the most suitable voting method for our community. The committee has not reached a decision yet but leans towards Schulze method which was being used for the Wikimedia Board elections until 2011.

At first, we filed a bug at Phabricator to configure SecurePoll for Persian Wikipedia locally. User:Jalexander-WMF showed up and claimed the task but told us that we had better to hold the elections on votewiki. We decided to give it shot and see if the office really takes us serious, coordinates with us, makes the PGP key to deposit in a safe, etc. Unfortunately, our suspicion proved to be true. We sent James Alexander several mails regarding this issue. We posted on his talk page. Despite initial promises, he didn't reply back and simply ignored us.

Persian Wikipedia is a promising project. It has about half a million articles and is already larger than any Middle Eastern projects including Arabic, Turkish, and Hebrew. All of these achievements have been accomplished without any Chapter help. Now we want to hold our elections using SecurePoll and we expect the Wikimedia Foundation to support us or at least talk to us frankly.

Thank you, 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @4nn1l2:, Jimmy is, sadly, not really going to be able to help you on this. I'm sorry for the delays in trying to get this set up for you to test on. Other work has clouded it and made it difficult to get together but that's not ok and it's all my fault that it got lost in the mess SecurePoll is not entirely set up for your expected use case but I'm still hopeful we can get it to work and we want to help with that as much as possible. I'll followup by email. Jalexander--WMF 21:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jalexander-WMF: Thanks for the quick reply; what is the best way to set up a realistic timeline that we can all stay honest to? huji—TALK 06:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huji: For this particular case probably Phabricator which has a tendency to remind well. So much of my work is dealing with crises that I'm still finding the best way to ensure that these longer term things don't get lost in the cracks. I've already created some tasks for this in our internal task manager as well to make sure I keep on top of it. The aim is to have all of you created on VoteWiki, a test election set up, and voteWiki set to default to Farsi (making it easier to run an election on it) by Thursday morning pacific (the patch to do the last bit should get pushed out at 8am). Jalexander--WMF 07:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive citations from my book Wormwood Star.

I'm writing to you on the suggestion of one of your Wikipedia editors, with whom I'm currently in dispute with. It centers on what I consider the excessive use of citations from Wormwood Star, my biography of the American artist Marjorie Cameron for her Wikipedia page.

Though I welcome the contributions from the Wikipedia editors, close to 110 citations have now been plundered from my book for that page, which is a huge amount to draw from just one source, and they include many intimate personal details/revelations/spoilers. As a result, I have a serious concern that the sharing of these contents freely online will have a detrimental effect on the sales of this book, which I rely on as an income stream.

I brought this matter up for discussion with two of the editors involved, and asked if a reasonable and fair balance could be struck, and have suggested some of the most intimate revelations that could be left off of Cameron's page, so that someone who has actually purchased the book could enjoy them. Unfortunately, they are currently unwilling to heed my suggestions, though one of the editors has suggested I contact you about this. I do appreciate how busy you must be, but if you could look into this matter for me I would be most grateful. Regards, Spencer Kansa, author of Wormwood Star: The Magickal Life of Marjorie Cameron. 88.145.18.67 (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The talk-page is: "Talk:Marjorie_Cameron#Excessive citations from Wormwood Star.". That page, "Marjorie Cameron" has over 102 cites from the book by "Kansa 2011" but not 100 direct quotations, and so there is not an obvious copyvio problem, unless the related text at each cite could be considered a "close paraphrase" of text in the book Wormwood Star, as a reason to condense the text and remove excessive detail and cut cites. Perhaps discuss other options on the talk-page there. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2016, revised Wikid77 (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed this in any detail, but 110 citations from a single book doesn't strike me as normal or wise. I doubt if it would make sense for a judgment to be made that "some of the most intimate revelations" be left out to help with book purchases, but it strikes me as a poor approach to a biography to cite so heavily from one book. Per what Wiki77 said above, I'd personally be concerned that so many cites could suggest a "close paraphrase" - worthy of investigation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the foregoing matter, and craft an opinion. It is important when you choose to do such, still. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has indeed helped craft an opinion about other article details for many years. In a murder case where a suspect drank juice at the scene, one source noted it was fruit juice which could appear in luminol tests as if blood stains, and Jimbo advised omitting details listed in only one source unless there was a crucial reason. That strategy could be used in the article, to omit details not widely noted as significant, and avoid what I call "wp:Source scraping" as scouring a source for all minor details. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@88.145.18.67: There is something very alarming about the sort of belief you express in that discussion, "The fact that the film Wormwood Star was shot in Edward James house should not be included, neither should her time in Joshua Tree with Burt Shonberg and George Van Tassel -- all of these are details meant only for the book and not general information that should be shared publically." When you wrote your biography, I assume you cited some other sources. Did you really check with the authors of every book you cited information from to see whether each detail you mentioned was "public" or something that only those who bought those books would be allowed to know? The problem is, if Wikipedia editors couldn't just cite information when we read it - in our own words, that is - then how could we have a decent article about any topic at all? I'm sure the CRC Handbook could make the same kind of complaint every time we list the melting point of a chemical. Jimbo Wales is right that relying too heavily on one source is problematic, but this is a concern rooted in Wikipedia's own standard, WP:BLP - quite frankly, editors need a broader range of sources to know whether your biography is fair or not. In general, if editors only have one source for salacious detail about someone's life, there is too much risk that they will end up reprinting a hatchet job about someone sooner or later. Besides, I think your concern is misplaced - you've written a key work about some fascinatingly bizarre American history with tie-ins to everything from Scientology to the Manhattan Project, but almost nobody knows about it. For every reader Wikipedia costs you, I bet it is bringing you three more. Wnt (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for losing money- bollocks! That would have stopped bringing in what big bucks it was going to four years ago. "lol," etc. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Imperatrix Mund, as you are the author of several published books on which you worked for years and which you depend on for income (I assume you must be, or you wouldn't have made your observation -- only a cad would have done that), your opinion is noted. 18:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice Ad Hominem. I refer you to Cory Doctorow, who has sold far more books than you ever will and who pretty much shares the opinion of Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi above. Cory Doctorow's literary works are released under Creative Commons licenses.[12] Perhaps you may wish to reconsider your business model.[13]. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I like your opinion but I think you should be more compassionate about it. Cory Doctorow's article basically tells authors to suck it. While I think Kansa's fears about Wikipedia per se may be misplaced, there is no doubt that authors are feeling the squeeze from the vast torrent of free content against which they compete for your and my eyeballs. Unlike something from Springer, which can hold results of the only publicly funded experiment ever done on a question for ransom, the book Kansa wrote is not really a must read - nobody has to know what happened in a particular house in the 1950s, no matter how exciting he makes the story sound. Why pay money for the book when you can watch ISIS videos or debate Gamergate for free? And even if you really really want the book, the first place to look is still Pirate Bay. So yeah, he's feeling the crunch, I absolutely believe it. And he doesn't deserve to, because he really did put in a lot of work and talent to write the book. The problem is, copyright itself is broken; it's an approximation that worked fairly well when books were really expensive to print and now has no connection to reality. And you can run around trying to expand it by telling people they can't say what another source says, by demanding a right to spy on private communications, by increasing penalties higher and higher, but none of it is going to work. What we need to talk about instead is directing an income surtax to fund independent funding organizations, chosen independently by each taxpayer, which reward quality writers, among whom Kansa should clearly make the cut. And ending copyright. That way Kansa makes at least as much as he would have otherwise, and we all have the right to click on the manuscript and just plain read it. Wnt (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 11 meeting in London

Purportedly, you were slated to give a talk at a London meeting whose subject was the UN Commission of Inquiry on human rights in North Korea. It is said that you did not attend. Was there an interesting story behind that, or just something mundane? - 2001:558:1400:10:48DF:CED:D421:2122 (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely mundane. We (Jimmy Wales Foundation) were invited to participate, and Orit responded that I was keen to participate, but that "However, he feels that currently he is not yet proficient enough about the subject in order to feel comfortable to speak about it. He would like to attend the session to learn from others who have more experience working on the North Korea issue. Mr. Wales is happy to have a brief but more ceremonial speaking role, inspiring people about the topic and giving a sense of hope that technology will eventually have an impact, if you would find that in any way useful." They liked the idea, and made a specific request "If he is happy to do so, I'm envisaging a 10-minute slot around 3.30 on the day." Our response was that "Mr. Wales would be happy to give a short speech about the role technology can play in improving human rights. However, he is unable to confirm his participation on that date at the moment due to constant changes on his schedule." They responded "Wonderful. Many thanks for your help. With regards to deadline, if Mr Wales can confirm no later than the day before the conference (March 10th), then that would be fine." Unfortunately, as the date approached it was not possible for me to attend, and we notified them accordingly.

North Korea is an interest of mine and in particular the difficult question of how to effectively get information to the North Korean people. We are part of a coalition led by the Human Rights Foundation and Orit participated in an event aimed at pressuring the South Korean government to pass the North Korean Human Rights Act [14][15][16]. I am proud that the effort was successful: [17]. (To be clear I claim no credit for the good work of the many heavily involved activists who worked on that.)

I intend to attend some future events of EAHRNK.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding with detail, kindness, and introspection. - 2601:42:C104:28F0:D5F0:9E2E:81A9:9941 (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updating related pages: Looks like we need to update page "Censorship in North Korea" for more details about their computer access, and who and how they get unlimited Internet (beyond ballooning flashdrives over the border). -Wikid77 (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm not a big fan of the ballooning flashdrives except as something very much like "political art" - it's a good stunt to raise awareness, but I am not convinced that it helps. In terms of real access, I get conflicting reports even from 'experts' - this may have to do with some of the experts being escapees whose knowledge is now outdated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been suggested that smuggling pen-drives into this county might help. [18]. Surly we can afford a drone (Sergey Brin might support this) to drop all our old pen-drives on NK with a Korean version of Wikipedia. Also, what about all our old unwanted smart-phones (probable made just south of their border by Samsung). Imagine, each one floating down on a little parachute (with the the WP logo printed on it) and all ready configured to accesses a helium balloon cell-phone base station moored in Southern Korea. It would also help North Korea's balance of trade deficit because tourists would then flock there to avoid Mobile phones data roaming charges. Its a win-win. We get rid of our obsolete stuff (with a clear conscience) and they get Wikipedia.If Kim Jong-un objects, we could impose a Danegeld type ransom upon him. Either he donates billions to the WMF or we bomb him with Wikipedia. --Aspro (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This HTTP page in The Telegraph, from back in 23 Dec 2014, "Internet in North Korea: everything you need to know" covers much of what has been noted commonly in the U.S. reports, about North Korea's intranet (1,024 IPs) "Kwangmyong (intranet)" or one nationwide fiber-optic Internet cable from China, or cell-phone access near the borders. I think in restricted nations, changes are typically very slow. Ancient Egypt would adapt and discuss new techniques in multiple newer languages, because the Egyptian hieroglyphic language stayed standard for 1,600 years with few new words. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WMF ought to be much more effective in this cause. As I and others have suggested, WMF should promote a project for open engineering and defensive publication. In this instance, we should have a place where a preexisting community of volunteer inventors can look at the problem of getting information past North Korean censors and propose a solution that is not encumbered by patents.

To give an example of what I'm thinking of, above and in the Jerusalem Online source people mentioned using balloons to drop pamphlets or flash drives. People may dismiss this since balloons are hard to control. But are they? The idea of a altimeter on a chip is long since patented (yet another missed opportunity for free culture). In theory, just as with hot air ballooning, a small balloon could release helium to descend, or drop water ballast to ascend, for some finite number of course corrections. If it has a GPS sensor to tell where it is and a radio receiver to pick up detailed information about wind direction at various heights broadcast on shortwave or something, then it might be able to navigate just as in hot air ballooning to a very precise position to drop its supplies. (GPS is kind of iffy since the North Koreans have jammed it lately and might appreciate an excuse to do it again; ideally it would have a small camera and navigate by sight, and upload its video to its creators after it drifts out of NK airspace...) Just creating a forum and encouraging people to have bull sessions over such ideas ought to tick off the NK regime to no end. Paranoia is their profession, and it gives them more work. :) Wnt (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I am in theory interested in the kinds of ideas that you are talking about, I don't think the WMF is well situated to directly get involved in such things. There are good people working on it and doing a good job. Indeed, as I have understood the situation, the best way that I can help such efforts is to learn as much as I can from the people who are working on it, and when they have a clear idea, I can reach out to people I know who would be interested in funding the actual work.

But keep in mind that while the idea of dropping things from the sky may sound quite romantic, there are some real problems with it, and there may be much better avenues. One of the ways the Korean economy keeps running at all is through a significant degree of "under the table" black market trade (smuggling) across the border with China. Truckloads of goods come in and out all the time. Some reports from some experts I have met (not all concur, by the way, but it is hard to tell who actually knows anything so I'm left with a lot of question marks) say that the elites (and the children of the elites) are the only ones with computers that could read a flash drive anyway, and they have access to the black market as well. I have not come to any conclusions, but some critics of the balloon drop concept say that it's just not the best way in, that there are easier and cheaper and more reliable ways.

Keep in mind that on the black market, people don't care about copyright. The biggest "sneaker net" (shared flash drive) content is South Korean movies and television shows. If we can make sure that Wikipedia is included in the channels that movies and tv shows go in, then if people (students) find it useful, it will get shared.

I'd like to re-iterate what I said to the folks at the conference - I'm in learning mode. I don't have the answers here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree the WMF can't directly get involved in smuggling to North Korea; I just wish we had a pool of editors at some site like "invent.wikimedia.com" with an ongoing mission to encourage people to brainstorm and post their inventions to make them publicly available. Such folks would always be into some mischief or other, and mischief loves the North Korean royal family. Wnt (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to order and set up your VPN before traveling to North Korea. TA for CTA101 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helping Canadian First Nations

@Jimbo:, I initiated contact with our Prime Minister's office today after seeing this most recent awful example of epidemic despondency among our First Nations youth. I am thinking that if they could become engaged as Wikipedia editors that could give their lives more meaning and fun. They might also want to expand the encyclopedia's content concerning the 634 tribes/bands. I am sure lots of the youth in more isolated bands/locations do not have personal internet access and I am going to suggest that some of the enormous amount of money our new Liberal government just budgeted for First Nations be used to provide I-phones to each of the youth and establish high speed access in all locations. Even if they just use them for games, Facebook, and communicating with people outside of Canada, it could help relieve the boredom and absence of a future that many are living with. Ideally, some will want to get engaged as active editors. I do not know how far I will get with this, but would it be ok if I suggested to someone in Justin Trudeau's office that they could contact you to discuss wiki possibilities for these youth? Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be fine. I was just in Canada yesterday and looked into how our recognized regional language versions of Wikipedia are doing - the answer is that there are only a few small projects. I'm sure that lack of Internet access is a major reason for that. If this is an issue that you'd like to take up further, and I apologize for not knowing how involved you've been with it in the past, there are a lot of people in chapters around the world who could likely advise on what has worked (or not worked) in their areas to assist with connectivity and/or participation in smaller or more economically depressed areas.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Argentina and Wikimedia Finland immediately come to mind, they've done outreach work with minority languages in their countries. Keegan (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]