User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:21, 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]

(edit conflict) Check for more balance re Trump-collusion page when "Clinton email controversy" clearly explains she handled most confidential documents in hard-copy format or had assistants post replies via ClassNet. Try wiki-search: Special:Search/Clinton hard+copy. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are welcome to find and suggest RS and content based on those RS. That obviously includes views by those who doubt the allegations against the Trump campaign. We already include some strong statements of doubt.
Complaints won't get us anywhere. Actual content suggestions, with the RS which back them up, that's what we'd all like to see. Some suggestions have been made, and some rejected, but that's a matter for the article's talk page. Better suggestions might succeed, but so far suggestions seem to be rooted in conspiracy theories found in unreliable sources. If content suggestions can be based on RS, then we can all make progress. We can even document these conspiracy theories, if they have received attention in RS.
Forum shopping this content dispute to Jimbo's page is not helpful.
Wikipedia does not cater to what Jimmy Wales calls "lunatic charlatans",^[1] nor does it allow advocacy of fringe points of view, so the fact that fringe believers don't like these Trump-Russia-investigation articles shows that we must be doing something right. While his words were directed at quackery and pseudoscience, they apply just as much to fringe political POV and conspiracy theories. Instead of allowing your thinking to be influenced by the Daily Caller, InfoWars, and Breitbart, get your information from RS. If the information they present becomes the subject of RS coverage, then, and only then, will we present it as sensible content, and not as fringe content with little mention. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear about what's happening here. Those who object the most are editors who refuse to accept the RS-based conclusions that the Russians did interfere in the election, and that the Mueller investigation is a corrupt deep state plot to unseat Trump. To them it's all a nothingburger without evidence. To them, Breitbart, Daily Caller, InfoWars, Fox News, RT, Sputnik, Trump, and Putin are the only arbiters of "truth", and they use Wikipedia as their battlefield to fight for their "truth". Their efforts are literally an extension of Trump's real world battle against all forms of information and journalism which dares report anything negative against him. Wikipedia is not free from such efforts.
They also believe that accusations against Russia and Trump are all a conspiracy theory concocted and sold by the mainstream media, which they consider fake news. They believe it's all a witch hunt against Trump and his campaign, not serious journalists doing their job, which includes documenting Trump's myriad self-inflicted wounds. They believe that the FBI, CIA, James Comey, and Robert Mueller are totally evil, corrupt, and engaged in a coup against Trump. This is the extreme right-wing view.
These are the types of editors who object and obstruct the most on all our Trump-related articles. They are fringe political editors, many of whom should be topic banned. They operate with an ad hoc, policy-violating, "Trump Exemption" mentality, which means that anything negative about Trump, no matter how reliably sourced and notable, is fake news and must pass a much higher bar for inclusion than for any other public figure, politician, or president. This is the reality on these articles, and much of their argumentation is actually IDONTLIKEIT wikilawyering.
It's rare that they actually make substantive attempts to present actual edit suggestions. They just complain....endlessly, and now it's spilled over to here. Mind you, there are a few Trump supporters who make serious attempts to edit collaboratively, but they are few, and they actually succeed in getting change because, rather than just complain, they use RS and follow policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're unlikely to get any consensus to balance the article, due in part simply to how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia articles about current events (especially related to Trump) are simply collations of news articles. There is no scholarly analysis present in such articles. Since there was a lot of reliable source coverage (a lot of them just said things like "Buzzfeed is reporting about a Dossier"), then naturally that's what the article will say. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans:
Quote: "No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't." — Jimbo Wales, March 23, 2014

Net neutrality

I'd like to brainstorm a bit and talk to people about net neutrality by email. Let me know if you're interested.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[lunatic-1] Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans:
Quote: "No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't." — Jimbo Wales, March 23, 2014

[1]

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 * {{ec}} Check for more balance re Trump-collusion page when "[[Clinton email controversy]]" clearly explains she handled most confidential documents in hard-copy format or had assistants post replies via [[ClassNet]]. Try wiki-search: [[Special:Search/Clinton%20hard+copy]]. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 05:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 :* Editors are welcome to find and suggest RS and content based on those RS. That obviously includes views by those who doubt the allegations against the Trump campaign. We already include some strong statements of doubt.<p> Complaints won't get us anywhere. Actual content suggestions, with the RS which back them up, that's what we'd all like to see. Some suggestions have been made, and some rejected, but that's a matter for the article's talk page. Better suggestions might succeed, but so far suggestions seem to be rooted in conspiracy theories found in unreliable sources. If content suggestions can be based on RS, then we can all make progress. We can even document these conspiracy theories, if they have received attention in RS.<p> Forum shopping this content dispute to Jimbo's page is not helpful.<p> Wikipedia does not cater to what [[Jimmy Wales]] calls "lunatic charlatans",<ref name=lunatic >[[Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans]]:<p> '''Quote''': "No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't." — [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]], March 23, 2014</ref> nor does it allow [[Wikipedia:Advocacy|advocacy]] of fringe points of view, so the fact that fringe believers don't like these Trump-Russia-investigation articles shows that we must be doing something right. While his words were directed at quackery and pseudoscience, they apply just as much to fringe political POV and conspiracy theories. Instead of allowing your thinking to be influenced by the Daily Caller, InfoWars, and Breitbart, get your information from RS. If the information they present becomes the subject of RS coverage, ''then'', and only then, will we present it as sensible content, and not as fringe content with little mention. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 05:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
+::* Let's be  clear about what's happening here. Those who object the most are editors who refuse to accept the RS-based conclusions that the Russians did interfere in the election, and that the Mueller investigation is a corrupt deep state plot to unseat Trump. To them it's all a nothingburger without evidence. To them, Breitbart, Daily Caller, InfoWars, Fox News, RT, Sputnik, Trump, and Putin are the only arbiters of "truth", and they use Wikipedia as their battlefield to fight for their "truth". Their efforts are literally an extension of Trump's real world battle against all forms of information and journalism which dares report anything negative against him. Wikipedia is not free from such efforts.<p> They also believe that accusations against Russia and Trump are all a conspiracy theory concocted and sold by the mainstream media, which they consider fake news. They believe it's all a witch hunt against Trump and his campaign, not serious journalists doing their job, which includes documenting Trump's myriad self-inflicted wounds. They believe that the FBI, CIA, James Comey, and Robert Mueller are totally evil, corrupt, and engaged in a coup against Trump. This is the extreme right-wing view.<p> These are the types of editors who object and obstruct the most on all our Trump-related articles. They are fringe political editors, many of whom should be topic banned. They operate with an ''ad hoc'', policy-violating, "Trump Exemption" mentality, which means that anything negative about Trump, no matter how reliably sourced and notable, is fake news and must pass a much higher bar for inclusion than for any other [[WP:Publicfigure|public figure]], politician, or president. This is the reality on these articles, and much of their argumentation is actually IDONTLIKEIT wikilawyering.<p> It's rare that they actually make substantive attempts to present actual edit suggestions. They just complain....endlessly, and now it's spilled over to here. Mind you, there are a few Trump supporters who make serious attempts to edit collaboratively, but they are few, and they actually succeed in getting change because, rather than just complain, they use RS and follow policy. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 14:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 *I think you're unlikely to get any consensus to balance the article, due in part simply to how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia articles about current events (especially related to Trump) are simply collations of news articles. There is no scholarly analysis present in such articles. Since there was a lot of reliable source coverage (a lot of them just said things like "Buzzfeed is reporting about a Dossier"), then naturally that's what the article will say. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 13:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 {{reflist-talk}}