User talk:Jimbo Wales

Instead of a "jury" of editors ...

Might the WMF furnish research funds to (say) Columbia School of Journalism for studies on how well or poorly Wikipedia handles controversial news and biographical topics with regard to the stated policies of Wikipedia, and with regard to proper uses of journalistic writing standards, and to other groups for studying specific categories of articles which may or may not have problems (Medical articles, for example, might be a study for a JAMA grant, NatGeo might be able to vet how we handle articles on geographical topics, and why not get OUP to actually study Wikipedia, etc.). The aim would be to gain critical perspectives on the successes and failures of the current systems, and might also furnish insight into what WMF might wish to accent for the rapidly ascendant "mainly mobile user" contingent. (I am pretty certain the results will suggest that some of the more rambling articles be cut down <g>). Collect (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It sounds good to me, but of course there would be some difficulties. For example, if we went to CSJ and said please study how well Wikipedia's journalism works and print it in the Columbia Journalism Review, they'd almost certainly say that their coverage can't be bought. We'd almost have to just give them the money (starting at $50-100k), say give us a freely licensed copy and then do whatever you want with it. BTW, you won't be eligible to do this again for say 30 years, but we may do it again at places like Medill School of Journalism or at one of the Annenberg Schools. Probably the best way would be to put out a call for proposals, to be judged by a third-party. I don't think I'd ask National Geographic to judge our geography articles and I'd even have 2nd thoughts about asking the AMA to judge our medical articles. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The WMF could not "demand publication" for sure - but the funding of actual research without strings otherwise is precisely the correct procedure. And the examples I gave were not intended to specify which places would have to be used, only as examples of the types of organizations which would likely give up the most impartial results. And I would trust that such impartial studies would show both the good and bad results of the current system. I think your cost estimate is low if we want any truly comprehensive studies - probably $300K per study would be nearer the mark to at least pay for 3 person-years to do any research of value, and more likely $600K per study to get significant value. I shudder at how much the WMF paid for the recent "survey" with results compiled by mechanical collating of statistics and not by actual consideration of the views of the participants. Collect (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If its not broke, don't fix it, and if you want something done right, do it yourself. I think we're looking for trouble by asking for any sort of professional analysis. All of our issues have to do with execution, nothing to do with structure. Even the jury of editors is an obviously bad idea, imo, simply because it is complicated, i.e.KISS principle, and naive in its expectations of the capabilities of a random selection from today's general population (even of our editors). I think a lot of us. like me, just need to do more editing and less chatting and perhaps, I can't say, the admins can execute better and with more time efficiency? If there is an absolute need to make some big structural changes, so be it, but if so, I think we should do all the work internally. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If, as you say, there is nothing wrong, then a study would confirm that claim. On the other hand, if something is wrong, then declining to seek that information out would be silly. As for "do(ing) all the work internally" - that would be fine if WMF has a group of trained journalists in-house to do the analysis - but I am fairly confident that such a group is not currently on staff within the WMF. I would love to be proven wrong on that hypothesis, of course. Collect (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

KISS principle at Wikipedia? LOL. Understanding WP:PAG + the essays that go with it, almost requires a degree. Simply trying to make a proper response on the talk page of an article or one's own talk page (or doing a ping correctly) without ever having been exposed to HTML is quite an undertaking for a novice. A jury would not be that hard to implement in comparison. That said, perhaps brand new users probably should not be on juries, confessing total lack of experience would be a good excuse to get out of duty. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You've changed my mind Collect. It's a great idea and now I see your point; now that I think about it, once again it is the process which has to be gotten right. For example, I do not accept the premise that the majority of today's trained journalists or journalists in training or professors are very good or have anything to contribute and I absolutely do not give any automatic importance or credibility to any opinions they may have. Even the older trained journalists seem to have fallen into ego and/or partisan driven activities and thought processes. Just check out some of Carl Bernstein's recent conversations and analysis, likely there are many on youtube. So, I suggest that, with processing your idea, the first step is to try to identify one or more people who have already graduated and are working as trained journalists, whom the community, or at least the editors here, agree we could look to for constructive analysis. Then, once we identify them, then those exact people are the ones we should ask to have a look at our product. This is just my opinion, of course, and I absolutely see now that if we can identify such people, which we probably can, that their opinions would absolutely be worthwhile for us to have. I also am optimistic that such people would be happy and even proud that we had come to them for such help. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have decided that my overall inexperience with and knowledge about everything to do with wiki, as well as my impulsiveness with expressing undeveloped opinions, make my opinions, especially initial opinions, in matters such as this of little use. So, please ignore my comments above and I plan to stick to editing articles and off Jimbo's talk page unless I have something to add that I am very confident will be of use and that I have thought through. I'm making this change because I often see things more clearly when I first wake up, and this AM I realized that both the random jury and the journalistic school ideas have tremendous merit. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Wikipedians who frankly don't care about Jimbo's beard

• Also nominated: User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Shave the Wales and User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard

User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Wikipedians who frankly don't care about Jimbo's beard, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Wikipedians who frankly don't care about Jimbo's beard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Wikipedians who frankly don't care about Jimbo's beard during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Liz, I don't see any evidence that Jimbo either created or made any contributions to any of these pages. 94.192.182.71 (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That's right. @Jimbo Wales: do you want this page deleted? It seems to me that the choice is really yours. Coretheapple (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

For deletion discussions involving user pages, Twinkle informs both the creator of the page and the editor whose user page it is. This was an automatic notification. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy International Women's Day! Google just alerted me with a video and link to our article. Shouldn't we be looking at how Twinkle is programmed? It shouldn't be telling editors who have had nothing to do with a page that they have created and/or edited it. 94.192.182.71 (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sausage Fest and Robot Chicken Shit

How does an article about a Sausage fest (gathering) get redirected to some Robot Chicken Shit? What does that have to do with a gathering or the other widely known meaning of a Sausage fest. I will admit the term isn't up to mentioning among the Church Lady but at least she has her own page. There are plenty of sausage festivals held around the country with ample source material so why do the wieners get recognition while the sausage festivals do not? Does the term make some males feel insecure or uncomfortable? Well at least attend a sausage fest before you knock them. Some also do not like that good O'l Wikipedia has been referred to as a Sausage Fest. Well it is and nearly everyone here knows it. Embrace the truth, do something about if you must but do not deny the reality. 172.56.13.253 (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Tx for the entertainment value of your contribution. In the recent edit-warring at the (currently page-protected) redirect you mention there was some mentioning of block evasion here – Can you enlighten us as to what might be meant by that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't the IP who alleged edit warring, it was GeneralizationsAreBad. 94.192.182.71 (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: The user appears to be obsessed with sausage as a metaphor for maleness; accuses those who revert him of vandalism, incivility, sock-puppetry, censorship, wiki-lawyering, or male insecurity; and has recently ventured into "pointy" editing and user-space trolling (this section on my talk page; this section on his talk page copied from my sandbox).

This is my list so far of his IPs (and sole account):

• Kurdish Keith (talk · contribs)
• 172.56.12.251 (talk · contribs)
• 172.56.13.10 (talk · contribs)
• 172.56.13.253 (talk · contribs)
• 172.58.137.140 (talk · contribs)
• 172.58.152.204 (talk · contribs)
• 2607:FB90:288:BCB5:0:19:C09B:CE01 (talk · contribs)

 Rebbing  talk  14:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Tx for clearing that up, I mean, that they are a he, I was starting to suspect a severe case of sausage envy, in which case Wikipedia would cause an irresistible attraction, since its founder declared "[Wikipedia is] like a sausage"! --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm...the presidential campaigns have lit up WP

Case in point: Donald Trump (Last_Week_Tonight). For some reason, I thought WP:Recentism would have trumped it not being a standalone article, not to mention WP:SOAPBOX and the polemic implications of a single episode created as standalone article which brings in WP:Content forking. Also, per GNG#When to create standalone pages, see the examples provided which suggest that it belongs in Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016 not as a standalone. The same would apply to similar standalone articles if they exist for Rubio, Cruz, Clinton and Sanders, etc. with regards to their current presidential campaigns. We're opening the doors to having forks everywhere - all recentism originating from TV episodes, news and skits from the likes of NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX News commentators such The O'Reilly Factor, a 60 Minutes episode, a Chris Matthews report, a single Saturday Night Live parody and so forth. Yikes. It opens our doors wide to political advocacies and I find that extremely disconcerting. Atsme^📞📧 19:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A good discussion to have. I don't really have a strong view on this one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

• News and notes: Tretikov resigns, WMF in transition

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: Brawling

• Recent research: Wikipedia and paid labour; Swedish gender gap; how verifiable is "verifiable"?

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation details requests to alter or remove content in new transparency report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

What is a "legal" threat?

@Jimbo_Wales, if I feel that there might be some sort of bias, whether true or not, and then for whatever reason some bans/blocks and what nots happen and then I say "I will contact the ADL" and I get banned. Is that correct? Are we really now banning editors for sharing that they feel a perception of something a bit off? You can see my talk page for a sampling of 90% of the editors disagreeing with the blocking admin's views. I hope you can see that the chilling effect is the opposite. You are silencing me from sharing my opinion. I have already been silenced because I was told that I couldn't share my opinion at AE/ARBCOM because they found it troubling that I shared my opinion and since I shared my opinion (and I have to be vague) they were going to extend my block. But why is it that gender bias is allowed to be discussed out in the open and just the contrary, if you deny the gender bias, that is not allowed? I don't want to make waves, but it is 2016 and things do need to be discussed out in the open and people should not be getting banned for sharing what they are feeling. And I hope someone watches my page because I really hope I don't get banned for this comment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be useful if you provided links to the various discussions about this. In general, I find that people concerned about having been blocked tend, on average, to present their case in a rather one-sided fashion. But given that caveat, I would say that "I will contact the ADL" is not a legal threat, but it is a completely unhelpful comment in what should be a civil discussion about potential bias in an article, and would be one factor to consider in asking ourselves whether someone should be blocked or not. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to engage in flame wars. While I agree that in most cases people "should not be getting banned for sharing what they are feeling" that remark sort of misses the point - we should be discussing sources and how to improve articles, not our own personal opinions or feelings about broad contemporary social topics.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• The blocking started after this comment (which BTW also contained a rather frivolous Argumentum ad Jimbonem)
• 24H block → discussion → then this
• indef block → discussion → removal of inopportune material (that is: inopportune material regarding second block; the inopportune material leading to the original 24H block hasn't been touched yet afaik)
• Block restored to original 24H → further discussion primarily at User talk:Sir Joseph#March 2016 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: American politics (that last one having started before the blocking began). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the first comment (that led to the 24H block) I'd like to add here that it seems to me there is still some misapprehension in the wider editor community how Jimbo and Bishonen get along nowadays. If I'm erring about that, maybe time to start clearing the sky. No reason to be heavy-handed about that, just follow official protocol. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

perhaps just look at the Bernie Sanders talk page. I don't want to say more because that might violate my topic ban.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)