User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Someone asked me to be really clear on this

The rules of this election are clear. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates. One of the rules, not written by me, says candidates must "be willing and able to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seat." I am not empowered to make appointments in explicit contravention of policy. Therefore, I will appoint candidates to ArbCom who are eligible for appointment only upon their identification to the Foundation. Any future discussion about this should be focused on whether that policy should change, not on what I should do, because I've already said what I am going to do - I will follow policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates to resolve what I view as ambiguity. Jehochman ^Talk 16:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no ambiguity in "before taking their seat". It's black and white.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Here by way of the RfC… Please, could you explicitly state (with wikilink) which Policy mandates candidates identify? The Candidates page you reference isn't policy—at least, not with a capital P; it may, however, reflect Policy—again though, which? If you're simply referring to that page as the policy, that underlies what you said, in a general dictionary sense of the word, please confirm same for avoidance of doubt. Thank you. –Whitehorse1 20:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this question. I doubt if it has one. Identification has been a requirement for the previous two elections and this one. I have strongly supported it, and still do. It emerged without controversy, as many things do. Certainly, for this election, it is too late to change the policy, and I doubt very much if the policy will be changed in the future, except perhaps to be made a great deal stronger.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, just to check I understand you correctly: You're saying it's de facto policy, even if it ultimately may not be documented as being Policy (local/foundational), and of sufficient strength by its having been accepted in practice for such duration as it has. –Whitehorse1 21:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not taking a strong position on why it is policy. I'm just recounting the history of how it came to be as best I know. I have always strongly supported it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I just wanted to check my understanding of your answer. Thank you for responding. –Whitehorse1 22:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

For something this important it would be best to go through the formalities. As far as I know, that hasn't been done. Jehochman ^Talk 21:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by formalities. Excessive formality is a very bad idea. And some people seem to have the mistaken view that the only valid way we can get to policy is through a project-wide vote. Particularly with respect to the ArbCom appointment process, that's not been true historically, and isn't true today.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Policy can be merely an unwritten reflection of practice. This would be a serious change to how things are done. That it would be a horribly bad idea doesn't matter -- the middle of an election isn't the best time to come up with new rules for the office at hand even if it were somehow a good idea. IronDuke 02:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

←(ec) I personally find it somewhat shocking that the identifying information is discarded. That strikes me as a very shaky way of doing things. Looie496 (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Philippe, the WMF employee responsible for identification, indicated "Once we verify that the identification is for someone who is of legal age we …", FWIW; someone of legal age at one time, remains so. –Whitehorse1 21:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn right! What if the identifying functionary does something horrible and the police ask, Who is this person you trusted with to private information? It will look pretty bad if the answer is, We have no idea who this person is, but we are confident that they are at least 18 years old!. I think the media would have a feast on that one. Jehochman ^Talk 21:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman? How would the police know that the perpetrator was said functionary unless they had their identity already? :) -- Avi (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The police would typically tie a perp to an IP address. Then they'd go to the ISP and get the logs for that IP and see what sort of HTTP queries they were making. The queries would then identify the perp's Wikipedia login. Wikipedia's logs would establish that the perp misused Checkuser to gather confidential info about the victim. Ready to make an arrest, the police ask WMF, "Who is this person, and where do they live." Do you want more scenarios? I can think of a bunch. Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? How did the police get the IP address? That would be done only by a subpoena to WMF to reveal IPs tied to a pseudonym, or by previous physical surveillance of a suspect. Franamax (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the "rules" also say that Jimbo Wales' role is only a ceremonial one, so if Giano get over 50% and finishes in the top 12, then he is an arbitrator no matter what ceremony he is bestowed. 69.155.225.25 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, even in the case where the crime was a cyber crime, so that there is no connection between the perp and the crime other than the IP, how would that conceivable be connected to wikipedia? The only thing I can conceive of being possible would be if somehow, someone, whilst logged in to wikipedia, performed a crime using the wikipedia account, AND that person is a functionary and is ostensibly ID'd to the foundation. That is so remote that I think it is overkill to consider it, but I am not an expert on cybercrime, FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what Jehochman is suggesting is that the authorities have connected the IP to a crime and/or criminal and are examining the sites that were accessed by the IP in order to find more information (associates of the criminal, for example, or aliases and online identities). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So how do we know this IP belongs to a wikimedian functionary, via checkuser? Did someone send a subpeona to the WMF asking that a CU be done? -- Avi (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Under this scenario, criminal activity is reasomably suspected and surveillance has begun. Examination of logs and transactions held by the ISP could reveal the en:wiki pseudonym(s) used on-wiki, for instance in the authentication cookies passed in editing sessions. Very much like what CU data reveals actually, but from the other end. This presupposes that the IP address has already become of interest to a police force. Franamax (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The far more likely situation is of a functionary acting poorly (selling private information, etc), and/or acting illegally and the foundation having no way of holding them accountable. A confirmed identity is a small step to ensure a small degree of accountability. 75.23.47.60 (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it that way at all. I could submit my girlfriend's ID or download myself a whole persona and use that. WMF staff are likely not experts at spotting document fraud, and there are no fingerprints or cheek swabs involved. This is simply due diligence on the Foundation's part to ensure that someone claiming to be eligible to receive private information has shown reasonably acceptable evidence that they are of age of majority. It's very diffcult to hold volunteers accountable for much of anything, instead you just terminate their access. Franamax (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And in general I would say that if you judge someone's character to be such that they would defraud the Foundation by engaging in deceit like that, then don't vote for them in the first place. I think the "faked identification" is a red herring, it isn't the primary concern here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Relying on a faxed ID is an extremely shaky method of verifying anything; with today's technology it would be ridiculously easy to scan a passport, change one figure in the birth date, and fax the result to the Foundation. If we are not interested in an arbitrator's identity (given that this information is in fact shredded, as Philippe said), but only in the fact that a candidate is verifiably overage, I could think of other methods a candidate could use to prove they are overage. One would be a video phone call. Or a candidate could go to a solicitor, identify to them, demonstrate to the solicitor that they are the holder of that Wikipedia account, and ask the solicitor to write a letter to the Foundation confirming that they are overage. Fraud using this method would be more difficult and more expensive than faxing an altered ID, or someone else's ID. Generally, the present method of identification seems very half-baked though, given our history. If we did this properly, we'd have an external background check done on candidates before they are even allowed to stand. Perhaps being an arbitrator should be a modestly remunerated job, subject to a part-time employment or service contract. --JN466 11:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo that this is a red herring for this election. The election rules were posted as requiring ID from successful candidates; the time to dispute that was during this last year, not once voting has begun.

But in general, Jayen, I agree with you, and I hope we can sort it out for next year. I know of one person who stood for ArbCom (not this election) who had already given what appeared to be a false name to various people in an attempt to gain CU access, so the chances are high that, had he been elected, he had a false ID ready to use.

Ideally we need two things. First, that the Foundation find a way to retain the ID securely, so that, if it turns out someone used fake ID to gain access to private data, at least there's sufficient evidence to consider pressing charges; if that's known in advance it would be a major deterrent. Secondly, there's the issue of real ID that rings no bells. Someone with knowledge of the English Wikipedia's issues (e.g. Jimbo) should have access to the IDs. A lone Foundation staffer can't be expected to know what's going on. Poetlister gained CU access using a real ID, and an editor was appointed to ArbCom a couple of years ago using a different account, but presumably real ID. Letting it be widely known that Jimbo (or someone on ArbCom) has access to the IDs might be another deterrent—and what we want here is prevention, not cure, so the deterrent factor is important, but currently entirely absent. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's correct that the eligibility criteria for this year's election were posted clearly, and required willingness and ability to identify to WMF. Given though that this topic currently has the community's attention, and probably will retain it for a few more weeks, this is a good time for a wider discussion, to ensure that a better system is in place by next year – requiring more solid identification and background checking, and/or allowing alternative ways of providing proof of age, without identifying by name to the Foundation. An RfC or poll perhaps? --JN466 13:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

An RfC would be good, but it would have to be kept simple and succinct, or it'll become unreadable. There are several issues: (a) whether to require identification for ArbCom per se; (b) whether ID can and should be securely retained by the Foundation; (c) who should have access to it. Regarding (b), we would first have to ask the Foundation what is possible, in terms of their security and legal concerns, because there's no point in an RfC asking them to do something they can't or won't do. So that will take a bit of research. And we definitely shouldn't start anything before the next ArbCom is declared. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Jimbo, would it be possible for you to explain specifically how identification is verified as far as ARBCOM goes? I think that would be very helpful. The Eskimo (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC) :Because it obviously has to do with legal problems. I know in some instances (regarding photos, usually), an editor submits a photo with a sign saying "I am so-and-so." So I wonder if, in the case of ARBCOM, it is something similar, or if a credit card authorization is required, or if it is a 1-800 # voice prompt, or a personal visit by Wiki-legal, or something else. The Eskimo (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that. If you could just answer the question, that would suffice. The Eskimo (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

[1] --JN466 12:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what I can say is that I agree very much with Jayen466 and Slim Virgin in that identification for the purposes of ArbCom should be strengthened to be more meaningful. It is too early right now, but I think we should be moving in the direction of understanding that as the highest community dispute resolution group on English Wikipedia, there is a serious responsibility to the public, and that real names are a critical means to accountability and transparency. Keep in mind that English Wikipedia alone has more traffic than many of the major newspapers in the world combined. There are some very valid reasons why some people prefer to keep their real names quiet, and I respect that very much. But there are no valid reasons to keep real names from me, fellow ArbCom members, and the Wikimedia Foundation.

For this election, I am not going to invent novel policy. I try to keep my role at the moment of appointments as minimalist as I can, consistent with my real responsibilities to the project. Therefore, I will follow the policies set down at the outset of this election. And for next years election, I think people should anticipate that I will be much more likely to strengthen these requirements, as usual upon the conclusion of a thoughtful community discussion and a period of reflection away from the issues of the current election.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• We've had a long discussion and everybody had a chance to state their views. A year from now we'll be in a much better place. While we may disagree about the current situation, this is a temporary disagreement. Let's all accept what's going to happen, and try to smooth the appointment of new arbitrators, rather than shouting and yelling about the results. There is no way to make 100% of the people happy. If you didn't get your way, (I didn't) please be gracious. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed, though with the caveat that we must return to this well before the next arbcom election, or we'll still be in the same place in a year's time. Perhaps we should put something in our calendars, or agree a date now. --JN466 16:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Dear Jehochman, as you initiated the RfC, which evidenced much discussion and viewpoints from both platforms, and now that we've more or less discussed considerable points related to the RfC, do you think this might be an appropriate time to archive/hat-hab the discussion? Your call. Regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I really just wanted to know if they have to fax you a copy of their ID with some sort of PIN # verified through e-mail or something. I also suspect there is a "terms and conditions" agreement, but that's just speculation on my part. Anyway, I understand if you can't elaborate on the specifics. For what it's worth, I think that people should respect the existing rules (and the available methods to change those rules, if they so desire) rather than trying to circumvent them to make a point. Anyway, thanks for replying :) The Eskimo (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jimbo Wales. You have new messages at Scieberking's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Scieberking (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Galaxy: Exploring the Milky Way

This book has almost everything known about astronomy. Seriously, it is 1.5ft x 1ft x 2in.! I need to know where to start. Which astronomy article is most in need? Preferably ones concerning planets, moons, asteroids, comets, dwarf planets and such, because there is a lot more on them in the book. I might even take multiple months to transfer everything. I cant find much on a list or something, and since your really good at this stuff (you created wikipedia after all)... HELP!
Before I forget, How do I transfer photos? I had a photo I was gonna transfer, then I couldn't make it work, and now I lost it. But there is huge photos in the book, I'm positive I have access to a scanner, and if i don't know how to upload then I can't upload the pictures.
Mocha2007 (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you chat with the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy. And it is really important that you respect copyrights.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Repetition variation

Is the WMF applying repetition variation to their fundraiser banners in order to make them more effective?Smallman12q (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Skin

Im guessing you were the first user on Wikipedia. What was the first skin used on Wikipedia??? A Word Of Advice From A Beast: Don't Be Silly, Wrap Your Willy! 00:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beastly21 (talk • contribs)

There wasn't a skin as such at that time, but Wikipedia looked like this. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles#Archived copies of Wikipedia articles from early 2001. Graham87 03:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

How we handle cyberbullying

Please would you take a moment to read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#When_we_see_cyberbullying... contributing if you wish. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I left a message there. Thank you for your thoughtfulness and work on this important issue!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has developed in a highly positive manner very recently. I have taken the step of creating a very rough draft at User:Timtrent/Cyberbullying for all interested parties to discuss and add to. I'm very grateful for your note of support. There are substantial issues here, ones that may prove surprisingly contentious to resolve. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Research on writing in Wikipedia

I'm interested in a particular research question and I'm posting here in the hopes that someone can point me in the direction of previous work on the question.

I'm interested in thinking about how to assign "credit" or "blame" for what is in particular Wikipedia pages, with a view towards matching up the resulting data with data on pageviews, to get a fresh perspective on "who wrote what the public is reading on Wikipedia"? I have no particular objective in finding that out, nor do I think it is an accurate way of thinking about who is valuable in the community: I'm just thinking about whether it is easy to determine.

I assume something like Wikipedia:WikiBlame is relevant. But I wonder what work has been done in this area that I should know about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty is that there is no way to tell which part on an article a viewer is looking at -- and for major articles, my impression is that the great majority of page views are pretty superficial. It's reasonably straightforward to assign credit for viewership at the article level, but I don't see how it could be done at finer levels of resolution. Looie496 (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in the following external links, which are related to the reliability of Wikipedia and of wikis in general.

• Main Page - WikiTrust
• Main Page - The UCSC Wikipedia Trust Project
• YouTube - How (Much) to Trust Wikipedia (time: 53:39)
• Home Page - Luca de Alfaro
• Luca de Alfaro - personal home page ‎(Luca)‎

You may also be interested in the following internal link.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-08-31/In the news#WikiTrust may be added to Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

User:AaronSw (Aaron Swartz) authored the article Who Writes Wikipedia? (Swartz 2006).

—Wavelength (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia will complete 10 years

In little over a month, Wikipedia will complete 10 years of existence, since January 2001. I want to congratulate you and thank you for founding Wikipedia. Another thing: I read rumors saying that Wikipedia will become a paid service. Is this true? I hope he responds. Happy Holidays! - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no truth to those rumors at all. Where did you read that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Trading Card Game

In case you want to see it, we are now working on designing your card; it isn't perfect yet, butI thought you might like to have the link so that you can follow its progress. You can see it here. I hope you like it! ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Some good press

Not sure how often this happens, but I'm happy to report that I got the project some good press in the Albany, New York area. [2] upstateNYer 06:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And I did not come up with the term "wiki-legend", for the record. :) upstateNYer 07:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)