Talk:Jimmy Wales

If you need to contact Jimbo about something, please do so at his talk page, not here. As Jimbo explains... "People who are trying to leave messages for me will likely be more satisfied if they leave messages on my user talk page than if they leave them here. This is the talk page for the article about me, not a place to talk to me. I rarely read this. --Jimbo Wales 06:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)"

Wales wades into porn debate

Wikipedia's Parent Company Starts Purging Porn From Its Websites

Dispute brews over pornographic images on Wikimedia

Jimmy Wales wades into Wikipedia porn debate

Here are three articles open to discussion for inclusion. I think it is best to talk it over before adding any of these to this or other articles. QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Commons:News regarding the sexual content purge, which is the only list I've seen so far that's at all useful or comprehensive (though it doesn't claim to be such). --Simon Speed (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

None of these should be added here, as the topic is not really relevant to a personal biography. Criticism of Wikipedia is a better venue. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

These seem relevent to this page and other pages too. For example, Co-founder Jimmy Wales has given up some of his site privileges following protests by contributors angered that he deleted images without consultation. On Sunday, in response, Jimmy Wales voluntarily revoked many of the "permissions" given to him as Wikipedia's founder, to delete and edit "protected" content on Wikimedia Commons. Wales's status has changed is relevant to this page and the History of Wikipedia page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what Tarc is getting at is that the article is not a suitable place to criticize its subject. Editors should take their time, remember BLP rules and if they're feeling angry, just back off and leave it. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales status has been changed. So if editors feel like ignoring my comments, just back away and leave it. QuackGuru (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We report facts from reliable sources. Those media stories are only just out and are either sensational tripe or just report that there's been a row. It is not at all clear what's actually happened to Jimbo's status, he's agreed to give up some stuff but could take it back any time he wants: everything is very fluid. If you are concerned about the issue then please get involved in the debates and consensus building at the Commons. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We agree to report the facts from reliable sources. All the sources meet V. Your personal opinion of the reliable sources is irrelevant. If you are concerned the sources don't meet RS there is a RS noticeboard. QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If newspapers are fully reliable when they're sensationalizing breaking news, how come what they report later is often so different? I'm just urging caution on a BLP and keeping feelings out of editing. I'm also urging everybody to get involved on the Commons: the issue has not gone away. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC News is a reliable source. I am urging a little cooperation. Please say what BLP concerns you have about using any of the sources if you have any concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm concerned about reflecting either the moral panic or the Wiki-anger. I think that if you say no more than is accepted by the range of sources and use the least emotionally charged language available, you should be OK. --Simon Speed (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Co-founder Jimmy Wales has given up some of his site privileges following protests by contributors angered that he deleted images without consultation.

It is not clear whether Mr Wales's support for the removal of explicit content was in response to Mr Sanger's concerns, pressure from Fox News, or something else.

On Sunday, in response, Jimmy Wales voluntarily revoked many of the "permissions" given to him as Wikipedia's founder, to delete and edit "protected" content on Wikimedia Commons.

Here are the main points from BBC article. This can be summarised but it must be from a neutral point of view and meet BLP concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How about Following controversy over the deletion of sexual images, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his founder status. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy is vague and founder status is not accurate. Proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: "Following the deletion of sexual images without consensus, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status.[1]" QuackGuru (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that, but I still think "controversial" is better: nobody outside Wikiland will understand the significance of "consensus". --Simon Speed (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: "Following a complaint about obscene visual representations of children on Wikimedia Commons reported to the FBI by Larry Sanger, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete was done hastily, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status.[2]" QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a terribly inaccurate summary. Sanger's report to the FBI was in regards to blatant child pornography (his words) being hosted on Commons; Wales began deleting pornographic images on Friday, fully aware (or so I believe) that it would take him days to delete them all, while opposition was building to speedy deletion (see my timeline of events here); and Wales gave up his founder privileges when it became clear the media was not going to cover the issue fairly. The main point is that BBC News made a conscious decision not to do their own investigation. Ottre 22:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is a very accurate summary of the BBC article. It is verified according to V, not your personal interpertation or original research. A Signpost is a primary source. The main point is that the BBC article meets V. We explain what the source determined why Wales gave up his privileges.

"He later clarified that his concern was not about photographs of children, but "obscene visual representations of the abuse of children", which can include drawings and sculpture."[3] QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Small legal point - I'd say "illegal drawings of children in sexual situations", instead of "obscene visual representations of children", that better captures the key law in English description. And Sanger's overall objections (not FBI report) encompassed both allegations of illegal material, and complaints about non-educational sexual material in general. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In a message to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing list he said this was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted". Here is more information from the BBC article that verified the proposal below.

Slightly changed proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: "Following a complaint by Larry Sanger to the FBI later clarified as illegal drawings of children in sexual situations being hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete was done hastily, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status because he explained that he'd rather focus on the real content issues, rather than about him and how quickly he acted.[4]" QuackGuru (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Allow me draw your attention to the part of the article where it states "It asked whether the donors were aware of "the extent of sexually explicit content" on Wikimedia Commons." ("It" being Fox News) - this is a different subject than the alleged illegal material (no offense meant in tone, just trying to fit what we know to be true now, into the V of the BBC article) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think we can merge it with perfect V, as "Following a complaint by Larry Sanger to the FBI later clarified as illegal drawings of children in sexual situations being hosted on Wikimedia Commons, and a news report of "the extent of sexually explicit content", Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already set out my stall on this, and Jimbo is already aware of it. In my opinion he acted in one sense quite properly to reduce the potential legal liability of the Wikimedia Foundation, by removing those images he considered to be illegal, with the proviso that they could later be restored after due consideration. Unfortunately, images, once deleted, are unavailable for rational comment, and that is perhaps, putting the cart before the horse. That leaves the question whether nominating the images for deletion, and opening up the debate, would have produced a different result. I'm not convinced it would have done so. Methodology aside, I dispute "later clarified as illegal drawings of children in sexual situations". Who has prescribed this? It's an unsourced opinion. The FBI has conspicuously failed to take any action.
A different point is that Commons has been used to host multiple pornographic images with no obvious encyclopedic value, and most of those images are not used in any encyclopedic articles. In one sense, Commons is a repository of free-content images, yet it falls within the WMF free-content purpose, which overall seems to be educational rather than tittilational. Accordingly, there seems to be no reason why images not used in encyclopedic articles should not be deleted as redundant, and Jimmy was quite correct on that dimension; we are not Flickr. Rodhullandemu 00:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, triple negative alert. "there seems to be no reason why images not used in encyclopedic articles should not be deleted as redundant". I am assuming he is arguing for deletion. I don't think I could construct a more convoluted way to say "delete the images". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The more that is said, the worse this proposed edit gets. The kiddiporn allegations are allegations or maybe less than that innuendo: nobody has confirmed any such thing, though it's all free for the authorities to view. The press reports this fact but puts as salacious a gloss on it as they can and you have to read the articles carefully to realize there was no kiddiporn. Also the theorizing about underlying motives varies with the Guardian blaming Apple! The more that gets added to this the greater the danger of slurring both Wales and the Wikipedia. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this proposed edit does seem to be getting worse as more people chime in. It is not worth including anything if you don't explain that Wales gave up his privileges in the face of hostile media coverage. The fact that the BBC of all media outlets chose to parrot the Fox News allegations is remarkable. Ottre 02:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say in the BBC about Wales gave up his privileges in the face of hostile media coverage? We can't add your interpertation to the article. OR can't trump V. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a primary source to verify what is in BBC about a message to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing list. This did not mention anything about hostile media. QuackGuru (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: Following a complaint by Larry Sanger to the FBI that he later clarified as obscene visual representations of children in sexual situations being hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete was done hastily, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status. He wrote in a message to Wikimedia Foundation mailing list this was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted."[5] QuackGuru (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Now turning into a novel and it's not getting better as it gets longer. Even mentioning the prefix "pedo" can switch off all reason (hence the pediatrician who had her house burned down), this is what Fox has been trying with the kiddiporn "allegations" and I suspect it was why Wales panicked. A cursory reading of the new proposal would give There was kiddiporn. Wales tried to delete it, but the nerds objected and he backed off. This is libel!!! It's what Fox will try to insinuate without actually saying: we should not do the same. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse my interjection, but why do you repeatedly use the non-word "kiddiporn?" It strikes me as a diminuitive euphemism, almost a "pet name," for child pornography. I'd be more inclined to accept you as a neutral voice if you were not trying to relabel child pornography. Bustter (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not using the Fox News source but editors are adding misleading text, one unreliable source, and the Fox Fews source without the clarification Sanger made to the Larry Sanger page. Two editors think it is notable at least for the Larry Sanger page. What is unsourced with this proposal or not NPOV according to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think recent press coverage should be used as source. The name of Fox is finding its way into the headlines, because they had a large hand in creating this story. I do not see, in the circumstances how anything from Fox or repeated uncritically like the early BBC report did can be considered properly sourced. Even with the latest stuff, the speculation should be ignored. Press engaged in moral panic creation are not a reliable source. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to libel the subject of the article of anyone else. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

For now I added your proposal with the clarification about co-founder status. Your proposal is a good start but it is vague. It needs context on how the sexual image debate began. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the subject has been covered. The only facts that haven't been covered concern allegations: some of the later press reports do at least include denials of these. I think if you want to include an allegation you should include the denial. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, its not worth including at all, it is in the critism article, its nothing notable about wales, he had nothing to do with the addition of porn he simply deleted some sexy p[pictures, its all about sangers issues. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wales' role is notable. Simon Speed, the reference does not have a specific denial by Wales but it does have this: He wrote in a message to Wikimedia Foundation mailing list this was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted." This is about Wales' role. QuackGuru (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wale's role in this is not a notable issue at all, Sanger is the person you want to add this, Wales deletes some porno, so ? It is a storm in a tea cup and is only important regarding Sanger reporting the pictures to the FBI there has been no investigation no action nothing, Wales has not released any of his main role at all, and in fact Wales has and is in the process of moving away from any of his so called powers . Stop stuffing it in, see if you have consensus. I think it is little to do with wales and given undue weight to a minor issue in his life by adding it to his BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We report what the source says. Your opinion is original research in evaluating the source. The source thought it was notable to cover. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No it does not, just having a citation doesnt mean it is notable to include here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There has been many press coverage surrounding this incident. There is consensus to include. I added it as compromise instead of the detailed version. It was a proposal by Simon speed. This is very short and does not violate WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming as a Consensus, you and editor Simon Speed? Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion and Simon speed did not want the detailed version so I compromised with the very short proposal. Suggestion: Please start a RFC for this specific sentence if you want to delete the compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus at all just you wants to add something about it. The compromise as you call it and have repeatedly reverted to include has also BLP issues, it is unexplained, what powers has wales given up? Who uploaded the dirty pictures, wales? Has wales had to give up power because he uploaded porno? that is the problem and then the explained version is undue weight. It does not belong here, and there is no consensus to include anything about it as you claim either. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The text is well sourced and meets V. If you start a RFC maybe editors can expand it and include more details form the source and other sources. I hope you start a RFC soon and seek consensus to delete or new editors may want to expand it. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The entire event is of such small importance, it is not sensible to include it at all. It's just recentism to include a new paragraph everytime the media gets incorrectly excited about something. Quackguru, as is well known, camps out here only to disparage me, and seeks to use every media event of every kind to write something negative about me here. Frankly, he should be banned from editing this page as a clear POV-pusher, but that's another story for another day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, isn't it, how Jimbo can just step in and end any debate unilaterally. I don't mean this personally, you understand. I just find it to be an interesting reflection of the system that whatever Jimbo has to say on the issue is automatically considered WP:The Last Word, even if that wasn't his intention. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 15:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

History Channel

Jimmy was on the shows America: The Story of Us but it isnt mentioned in his article. Why? Spongie555 (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Because you didn't add it? 99.24.202.140 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing coordination for political ends

Dear Mr Wales, I noticed this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups . Does Wiki have a policy for resisting group attempts to skew its pages? If it does would you provide a link please. Thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You should try User talk:Jimbo Wales. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Two notes

1. This article is one of the few on wikipedia that is describing itself (there's AFAIK no policy against this):

In late 2005, Wales edited his own biographical entry on the English Wikipedia.

Funny!

2. I wish better sources for Wales'es objectivism (Rand) and libertarianism. They're kind of fundamental. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Darn! My requests are unheplfully reverted, and I cannot get access to the subscription site that "best describes" his objectivism. When people are unhelpful, one have to do it by oneself. Here a blog link. I challenge to a competition in altruism! (If that isn't wasted here). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Again! Thank you for nothing, everybody! I'm adding it on another encyclopedia then. Is this topic really sensitive? He's combining Objectivism with OpenSource, and I'm wishing to know how it works. (Like f.ex. Eric Raymond). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding disruptive content to the article is not the best way to find out information; you may be looking for the reference desk. Skomorokh 10:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting my intent. There's nothing disruptive about my additions. And I disagree with your personal interpretation of WP:LEADCITE. About the ref that you claim is sufficient: I cannot access it. The ref I provided I can access. It can be objected that its quality is inferior, but WP:LEADCITE is not the hit-head policy of choice here. Also take a look of WP:OWN. The case here is not of me being a POV-pusher (except for finding "objective" sources): Wales is (IMHO) a good man, the philosophy he uses has (IMHO) flaws, but he does (IMHO) something right to make it work anyways, and I want links that provide me with the relevant links that explains how exactly he combines it with OpenSource. The topic is important, but not the sensitive/political matters that outsiders make it per Ludwig Wittgensteins acceptance of erroneous philosophies, as long as it doesn't generate errors in practical acs. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record (and due to the inappropriate reference to WP:OWN above), I endorse Skomorokh's edits. Further, this article is heavily watched, so the current version can be assumed to have significant support. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For addition

Lifestyle-oriented interview. Skomorokh 13:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

==Report for the Off2riorob (talk) and Terrillja (talk) regarding no justification of deletion for the article Harvest Tradings.

Iam the wikipedia member from the last 2 years almost and make contributions for wikipedia. i have also recieved a award from wiki news a best writer. i have gone through the detailed article of subject, accordingly i have made my normal contributions but some groups of memebers wants to destroy with out any specific reason. i have seen your contribution as well. one user send me threats with out any reason i have told me first discuss on talk page then put tags. below is crosspodence under for your consideration and help me out to resolve this and put due to this company have made a lot of contribution for people of pakistan especially in 2010 pakistan floods as well as in exports. The above users give me threat for blocking my user name with out any further notice. please take serious action on this and put ur involvement and save this page. the above article make remarkable contribution in 2010 Pakistan floods for pople of pakistan as well support the governemt in exports. These above users group have violate the importance & policy of wikipedia.Azamishaque (talk) 2.54, 13 Septemeber, 2010 (UTC)