User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:33, 13 April 2018

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.

Is this a political issue that we want to take a stand on?

I am generally opposed to Wikipedia taking a stand on political issues, but I make an exception when something has an effect on us as an encyclopedia. Is the following such a case?

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think deliberately abetting copyright infringement is the place for Wikipedia to make a political point, no. I don't think an attempt to change copyright law here would be useful, either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link (EFF) is about supporting Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), which is just saying that research supported by US taxpayers should be published openly so that US taxpayers (and the rest of the world) can access the results. That's not "abetting copyright infringement." I've never understood what Elsevier and the other journal publishers do to justify the large profits they take out of academic publishing. They don't do the editing or reviewing. I support FASTR and think Wikipedia and the WMF have good reason to support open publishing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have an article on this: Rent-seeking. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"...rightsholders will not be able to waive the right to be compensated under the Link Tax. That means that European creators -- who've released hundreds of millions of works under Creative Commons licenses that allow for free sharing without fee or permission -- will no longer be able to choose the terms of a Creative Commons license; the inalienable, unwaivable right to collect rent any time someone links to your creations will invalidate the core clause in these licenses."

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

China to rival Wikipedia with own version of online encyclopedia

"Unlike Wikipedia, the new encyclopedia project, which was approved in 2011, will be entirely written and edited by professionals. Wikipedia can be written and edited by laymen. Over 20,000 scholars and academics have been enlisted by China to roll out the project, which aims to have more than 3,00,000 entries, when it launches in 2018, according to AFP."[1]

That "3,00,000 entries" look like a typo to me... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard usage of commas in India. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well it certainly wont be "free" by any means, those "professionals" are either written as they are told or they get imprisoned for life. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Trump–Russia dossier article allow any space for the POV that Trump might not have conspired with the Russians?

Apologies if I'm being presumptuous by posting a content dispute on your talk page.

The article on the Christopher Steele dossier predictably gives a lot of space to people opining on the various claims made. Since there are plenty of published viewpoints in reputable outlets disputing the claim that Trump colluded with the Russians, shouldn't some of them be mentioned? In my opinion, allowing a lot of material that presumes or implies Trump guilt, without anything in response except some odd statements from Trump's lawyer, tends to present a picture of guilt that I don't think is warranted under NPOV.

Separately, this same article includes extremely lengthy quotations of numerous accusations from the dossier, slathered with citations to (1) low-quality partisan blogs; (2) an inexperienced "political writer" for Business Insider, a business-focused website founded in 2009; and (3) unusually sensationalist news coverage by a couple Guardian writers that doesn't seem to be buttressed by any serious discussion in American sources.

Should the dossier allegations be laundy-listed in great detail simply because they exist, or is this a gray area wherein WP:EXCEPTIONAL counsels us to limit our discussion to claims that have been discussed or at least repeated in multiple high-quality sources? If some of the more serious accusations—Trump paid the Russians to hack the DNC, it was Carter Page's idea to dump the documents to Wikileaks, the "golden showers" tape was motivated by Trump's hate of Obama, etc.—are not discussed anywhere but partisan blogs, are they really encyclopedic material?

Cheers. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That article is a shit-kabob that I avoid as much as possible, but I'll comment here. I don't think there's a need to go into great detail about this on the dossier article (and I remind people that "dossier" is simply the French word for folder, and doesn't imply secret government knowledge). The general topic that many of the claims of the dossier are disputed must be mentioned, but it's not an article about "all the Trump-Russia noise". The piss-tape in particular, despite the limited credibility of the claim, has enough coverage that it must be discussed in some form. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should not have included that reference. The pee tape was indeed widely mentioned. The claim that Trump arranged and paid for the DNC hacks himself... not so much. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 The article on the Christopher Steele dossier predictably gives a lot of space to people opining on the various claims made.  Since there are plenty of published viewpoints in reputable outlets disputing the claim that Trump colluded with the Russians, shouldn't some of them be mentioned?  In my opinion, allowing a lot of material that presumes or implies Trump guilt, without anything in response except some odd statements from Trump's lawyer, tends to present a picture of guilt that I don't think is warranted under NPOV.
-Separately, this same article includes extremely lengthy quotations of numerous accusations from the dossier, slathered with "citations" to (1) low-quality partisan blogs; (2) an inexperienced "political writer" for Business Insider, a business-focused website founded in 2009; and (3) unusually sensationalist news coverage by a couple ''Guardian'' writers that doesn't seem to be buttressed by any serious discussion in American sources.
+Separately, this same article includes extremely lengthy quotations of numerous accusations from the dossier, slathered with citations to (1) low-quality partisan blogs; (2) an inexperienced "political writer" for Business Insider, a business-focused website founded in 2009; and (3) unusually sensationalist news coverage by a couple ''Guardian'' writers that doesn't seem to be buttressed by any serious discussion in American sources.
 Should the dossier allegations be laundy-listed in great detail simply because they exist, or is this a gray area wherein [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] counsels us to limit our discussion to claims that have been discussed or at least ''repeated'' in multiple high-quality sources?  If some of the more serious accusations—Trump paid the Russians to hack the DNC, it was Carter Page's idea to dump the documents to Wikileaks, the "golden showers" tape was motivated by Trump's hate of Obama, etc.—are not discussed ''anywhere'' but partisan blogs, are they really encyclopedic material?
@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 : {{tps}} That article is a shit-kabob that I avoid as much as possible, but I'll comment here.  I don't think there's a need to go into great detail about this on the dossier article (and I remind people that "dossier" is simply the French word for [[File folder|folder]], and doesn't imply secret government knowledge).  The general topic that many of the claims of the dossier are disputed must be mentioned, but it's not an article about "all the Trump-Russia noise".  The piss-tape in particular, despite the limited credibility of the claim, has enough coverage that it must be discussed in some form. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 03:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
+::Yes, I should not have included that reference.  The pee tape was indeed widely mentioned.  The claim that Trump arranged and paid for the DNC hacks himself... not so much. [[User:Factchecker_atyourservice|<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">Fact</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">checker</span>_<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">at</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">your</span><span style="background-color:black; color:white;">service</span>]] 04:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)