User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Consider leaving GoDaddy over SOPA

I am proud to announce that the Wikipedia domain names will move away from GoDaddy. Their position on #sopa is unacceptable to us. (More details below.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy, I understand that you're mulling actions that Wikipedia can take in response to SOPA. Something you could do is transfer the Wikipedia and Mediawiki domain names away from GoDaddy, your current registrar. GoDaddy have come out strongly in support of SOPA. Since a reddit user brought this to light and suggested a boycott, many other site operators have committed to this, including the Cheezburger network and Stack Overflow. Would you consider mooting this with the Wikipedia community? Kyz (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of leaving GoDaddy over this, but, this being Wikipedia, such a change would almost certainly involve getting the community to agree. Perhaps we should have an RfC on this?

The second issue, assuming that the RfC shows a consensus to boycott of GoDaddy, is technical feasibility (obviously if can be done, but perhaps not quickly) and where to move it. I would like to suggest right at the outset that we do not attempt to pick a replacement, leaving that decision to the engineers at the Wikimedia Foundation. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Technical operation of the site is a foundation issue, not a community one. If they choose to find someone else to serve as Wikipedia's registrar, it won't really impact us at all. It would, however, represent a message at least as strong as a potential shutdown of the site. It would also create some headaches for the foundation during such a transfer. Resolute 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Resolute that this doesn't need a community RfC, and should be a matter for the WMF. I strongly support such an action though if it's feasible. (BTW Jimmy, I believe Wikia's domains are registered with GoDaddy, you might want to do something about that too). the wub "?!" 15:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Just so people are aware, there have been a lot of e-mails to OTRS about this, such that there's now an unofficial canned response we're using. I'd strongly support the Foundation moving away from GoDaddy. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do this - anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.19.188 (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the reddit thread about Wikipedia specifically btw :) the wub "?!" 15:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Although we can't do anything directly, there seems little harm in getting consensus for us to send a message to the foundation that we support them making such a move. So: See here --Errant ^(chat!) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This is true, and certainly I support such a move. Go Daddy isn't too concerned with the proposed boycott as of yet, but if one of the biggest websites in the world moves away, that will resonate. Resolute 16:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Words may change minds, but actions can change the world. This is an action, and it can make a difference. I also hope you will consider requesting this of the board. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Please also note the personal pledges from users in Reddit to Wikipedia if you were to move away from GoDaddy - http://redd.it/nnv9l Mitchipr (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Since plenty of people in the press have this discussion page bookmarked, I'd better not say anything until I talk to Sue. So, you know, watch this space. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thank you for listening. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

+1. If Wikipedia, as an organisation & community, opposes this, they should oppose companies that support it. No half measures. Grande (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my support, I agree it's a WMF decision, not a community one, and leaving them would send a strong message. It would certainly show the WMF is serious about its stand against SOPA. --JaGa^talk 17:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I would simply like to note that there is a decently sized ongoing pledge to donate to Wikipedia in the event that the servers will be moved from GoDaddy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.239.236 (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering how many of those folks will actually carry through with their pledges. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Leaving vendors according to their service is ok. Leaving vendors because of the political opinion of their CEO is not that wise.--Neo139 (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure it is, especially if the political opinion of the vendor has direct and dire consequences to your own operations. That said GoDaddy offers pretty sub par service at a cost generally higher then the competition and has actively been involved in predatory business practices. - Ransim (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth I also concur that its WMF's decision but as a member of the community I whole heartedly support a move away from Godaddy. I have to believe that there are more than plenty of providers out there that could offer the same or better service at a similar cost. Additionally, I also agree that it would send a pretty clear message not only to GoDaddy but to others as well that they should consider the consequences of thier decisions to their customers when they support something as dubious and poorly written as the SOPA bill. BTW, here is a link to some interesting info. Not what I would consider the most reliable source but there are plenty of good links and some good commentary. sopa-information. --Kumioko (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't the "political opinion of their CEO", it's a policy of the company. It is GoDaddy as a company that has lobbied for it. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I talked to Sue and we're going to be leaving GoDaddy. She cautioned that since this is a hastily made decision and the staff is REALLY swamped with work right now, and we'll have to choose a new vendor, etc., that you won't see the registrations changing overnight. But we're making the change.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Great news, thanks for letting us know Jimbo! --Kumioko (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an overtly political decision. Poor form. Townlake (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Two thumbs up, three if I had them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

COMPLETELY support this decision to move away. First of all, most Wikipedia users really should not care about this from a technology perspective. GoDaddy, as a registrar, does nothing to enhance the site's service. Registrars are pretty much only used for DNS servers to decide which server is authoritative re: the IP-to-domain mapping. After that, DNS takes over. Also, for all those who are pushing back based on poor political form, what the heck are you talking about? GoDaddy supports something that is the antithesis of what Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia stand for - so then, they should obviously refuse to do business with that entity - it's not politics, it's common sense.Aleding (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I happen to be a domain registrar\reseller - please consider talking to me about this move - will not charge much at all to make this happen.Aleding (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• GODaddy have changed their views. A total reversal. fredgandt 19:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hardly a total reversal. They've publicly claimed to drop support. Have they fixed the damage they've done in congress? Did they not, in the very press release intended for our satisfaction, claim they did no wrong, that DNS filtering is acceptable, that SOPA ought to be regarded as good? Djeikyb (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That didn't take them long; it was what, one day after the movement was initiated that they dropped support? I hope that, despite Go Daddy's abrupt reversal of position, Wikimedia will continue with their decision to move to an alternate service. The damage already done through their support for SOPA and PIPA in Congress is, in my view, untenable. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A month ago they filled a long statement to House in favour of the bill. I recommend reading it. Then they affirmed that position on the blog 22 Dec; the post is now deleted. They wrote:

"Go Daddy has received some emails that appear to stem from the boycott prompt, but we have not seen any impact to our business."

Now they change opinion? It might be not sincere. --77.253.78.203 (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Item on Reddit

Top item on Reddit at the moment. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we'll make more in contributions from dropping Go Daddy then on all those Personal appeals I see all over the site.lol. Who knew that would be our best 2011 fundraiser. --Kumioko (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

GoDaddy just dropped support for SOPA --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha, a little late for that. Obvious PR move. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

GoDaddy's reversal would be more impressive if GoDaddy hadn't already declared their support in a submission to a Congressional hearing, or if the GoDaddy political action committee hadn't already given thousands of dollars to candidates who brought forward SOPA. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You reap what you sow. If Wikimedia and other organisations attempt to force GoDaddy to change their mind, not by the strength of argument, but by the economic blackmail of "we'll take our business elsewhere", then what you get is a commercial decision to change stance to retain businesses, but with absolutely no conviction in the new corporate stance. What do you expect them to do? See the light with a commercial gun-to-the-head?--Scott Mac 21:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a good idea to stay with GoDaddy due to their reversal. It would send the wrong message if we switched immediately after they shifted their stance to match ours. In a future event similar to this no one will take our "threats" seriously if they know we will go along with the threat even if they comply. With that I would OPPOSE a change in domain service provider. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What "threats"? No ultimatum was issued. This is a "You did something of which we disapprove, so we're taking our business elsewhere." situation, not a "Comply with our demands or we'll take our business elsewhere." situation. As noted above, GoDaddy is engaging in PR, which doesn't negate past actions. There are plenty of better domain registrars that haven't supported SOPA. (And when I say "better", I'm not referring strictly to this issue.) —David Levy 00:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No, of course not. This isn't about convincing GoDaddy's management to "see the light". It's about not supporting a company whose principles conflict with those of the Wikimedia Foundation. —David Levy 00:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh? So, only do business with people who agree with you?--Scott Mac 00:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be irrational to 'do business' with a company that was acting directly against Wikipedia's interests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

False dichotomy. It's neither feasible nor desirable to "only do business with people who agree with you". In this situation, a specific issue and the existence of viable alternatives (keeping in mind that each domain has one registrar at a time) render a particular business arrangement undesirable. —David Levy 00:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

We do not live in such an ideal world where we can only do businesses that act 100% inline with our interests. Do you agree with the business policies of your local super market 100% or do you prefer them because they are cheaper than local stores that are at the verge of bankruptcy? This is like saying you will not use your car because you do not support ideologies behind oil producing countries. Nash equilibrium applies to smart business models. GoDaddy simply saw that by siding with SOPA their internet-based business (their lifeline) would be significantly hindered and decided to change their stances. I would feel more comfortable working with companies whose decisions are influence-able by their customers. Furthermore, switching away form GoDaddy could introduce vulnerabilities to all Wikimedia sites. I'd imagine it would be far more difficult to DDoS attack GoDaddy's domain servers than smaller companies whose views would be "more inline" with ours. I realize the servers in question are in all cases ICANN owned probably but the idea is to illustrate the potential threat and I do not want to list more credible threats so as not to give bad guys ideas. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

We do not live in such an ideal world where we can only do businesses that act 100% inline with our interests.

Did you read the message to which you replied? Again, that's a false dichotomy.

Do you agree with the business policies of your local super market 100% or do you prefer them because they are cheaper than local stores that are at the verge of bankruptcy?

I don't have to select a single supermarket at which to shop. But if I did, all else being equal, I'd pick whichever one acted more in line with my principles.

As noted above, each domain must have a single registrar at any given time. All else being equal, there's no reason not to select one that hasn't supported SOPA.

This is like saying you will not use your car because you do not support ideologies behind oil producing countries.

No, it isn't. In your analogy, the car represents a domain registrar. Either way, the Wikimedia Foundation will continue to use one.

I would feel more comfortable working with companies whose decisions are influence-able by their customers.

"Being influenced by customers" and "never supporting SOPA" aren't mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, switching away form GoDaddy could introduce vulnerabilities to all Wikimedia sites. I'd imagine it would be far more difficult to DDoS attack GoDaddy's domain servers than smaller companies whose views would be "more inline" with ours.

You appear to have confused the concepts of "domain registration" and "web hosting". This has nothing to do with the servers on which the websites are hosted.

And as noted above, many of GoDaddy's competitors reputedly provide superior customer service, sometimes charging less money in the process. (So while I wrote "all else being equal" above, some alternatives actually are better.) —David Levy 01:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if GoDaddy's competitors are superior, switching now sends the wrong message. Also, the overworked engineers at Wikimedia really don't need the extra hassle during the holidays and so near to year-end. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What "wrong message" does it send?

Having transferred domain names on multiple occasions, I assure you that it isn't a laborious process. And I don't see anyone advocating that the task be rushed. —David Levy 03:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

My worry is that people will not take the foundations remarks/threats (whatever you want to call it) seriously if the foundation goes through with them regardless of compliance by the parties we are in disagreement with. Lawmakers, companies and people in general would disregard any future remarks knowing they needn't bother as it will not change anything. If we are going to switch to a different domain registrar (which is fine), it should not in any way due to SOPA as GoDaddy has changed its views already and we should do so at a later time not in the middle of the heat involving SOPA. Mind you nothing prevents GoDaddy from supporting SOPA again if they realize their unhappy customers are lost for good and their remaining ones have no problems with SOPA. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

My worry is that people will not take the foundations remarks/threats (whatever you want to call it) seriously if the foundation goes through with them regardless of compliance by the parties we are in disagreement with.

It isn't a matter of what "I want to call it". Jimbo factually made no public "threat" or request for "compliance".

Lawmakers, companies and people in general would disregard any future remarks knowing they needn't bother as it will not change anything.

On the contrary, they'll know to consider their actions more carefully in the first place. Conversely, backing down would send the message that it's okay for companies to support (and even "help craft") dangerous legislation and say "whoops, never mind" when things hit the fan.

If we are going to switch to a different domain registrar (which is fine), it should not in any way due to SOPA as GoDaddy has changed its views already and we should do so at a later time not in the middle of the heat involving SOPA.

As discussed above, GoDaddy has not "changed its views". It's changed its stance from "we support SOPA" to "you guys aren't on board with SOPA yet, so we'll shut up for now". This doesn't magically negate the company's direct involvement. —David Levy 18:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with David Levy on this one. Lets remember that GoDaddy isn't just a supported they are a major contributor and one of the primary architects of the bill. Thats why they spoke to congress. Because they are very deeply involved. --Kumioko (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Reddit user here... Just donating $5 as i said i would . wutsgudhomz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.56.96 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Really ironic considering they alone caused a 1900% jump in IPv6 usage, when IPv6 was supposed to promote the uninhibited growth of the Internet.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Did they change though?

Looking up some information on this "pledge" of no longer supporting SOPA, i'm finding information that says that, regardless of their pledge, they have yet to actually remove themselves from the Congressional list of groups in support of SOPA. When asked about removing the company from the list, Adelman said, “I’ll take that back to our legislative guys, but I agree that’s an important step.” When pressed further by the press, he then added, "We’re going to step back and let others take leadership roles." What does that mean?

Until GoDaddy actually removes themselves from the list of groups in support of SOPA, at minimum (preferably also add themselves to the list in oppose), their PR stunt of removing support is just that, a stunt.

For more info: GoDaddy CEO: “There Has To Be Consensus About The Leadership Of The Internet Community”, read that. Silverseren^C 01:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I just came here to quote the same article. This is very important to realize. Despite its posturing, GoDaddy remains an official supporter of SOPA. —David Levy 02:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

GoDaddy has not changed their position. Read here [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.11 (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is pretty much the state of things. They refuse to talk or elaborate on the press release and they're still on the congressional list. Silverseren^C 20:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Blackball organisations that hold different opinions from you. Force them to recant, and demand they entirely renounce their heretical views. That's how to fight censorship. Way to go Wikimedia.--Scott Mac 00:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Scott, the persistently shrill tone of your remarks isn't winning any converts to your view of the matter. You might want to lighten up a bit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Light or not, I doubt there's many converts to be won from the cult of true believers.--Scott Mac 00:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks are similarly nonconstructive. —David Levy 01:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, stop using providers that are supporting legislation that can hurt your company's website. That just seems like common sense to me. Silverseren^C 00:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? So any companies supporting this measure because it is good for their particular business should logically refuse to do business with Wikimedia, since it's position may hurt them? Sorry there is simply no logic to this, unless you are trying to punish or deter people from taking the opposite position to you.--Scott Mac 01:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That's their decision, I suppose, though the bill not passing would, arguably, not hurt them, as it keeps the status quo. Truthfully, there are a lot of cheaper and better domain supplies that we should be switching to anyways. Silverseren^C 01:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, no demands have been made. Jimbo didn't ask GoDaddy to alter its stance or threaten retaliation for its failure to comply. This is simply a decision to refrain from doing business with a non-unique service provider whose principles directly conflict with those of the Wikimedia Foundation (to the extent that the former has assisted in authoring and formally filed support for proposed legislation that the latter opposes). Are you suggesting that the WMF is morally/ethically obligated to do otherwise? —David Levy 01:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There is simply no logic to this. Its principles do not "directly conflict" - in the balance betweeen the need to protect copyright (which the WMF apparently supports) and the desire to allow a free internet (which even the WMF can't see as an absolute good) BigDaddy has reached a different view from the WMF. If you are not attempting to change that view by economic pressure (which is, I would strongly suspect why BigDaddy is backing off a little), what are you trying to do?--Scott Mac 01:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, GoDaddy is officially on record with the U.S. Congress as a supporter of SOPA. The Wikimedia Foundation opposes SOPA on the basis that it would cause substantial harm by undermining fundamental principles that enable the free dissemination of information online. How, in your view, does this not constitute a direct conflict?

The WMF can either continue doing business with GoDaddy or switch to a different domain registrar. Given the context, the former could be interpreted as an implicit endorsement of the company and its practices, an inference best prevented (given the fact that GoDaddy provides no service that cannot easily be obtained elsewhere at a similar or lower cost). —David Levy 01:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

How does the saying go? "You vote with your wallet." If a company does or supports something you fundamentally disagree with on the strongest terms, then it only makes sense that you don't support said company. Don't tell me you've never done this. :) --Conti|✉ 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I do it in order to make a point, and put consumer pressure to bear on the company to change its stance. I boycotted S.African goods during apartheid, and Israeli goods over their form of it, but in both instances the intention is clear - if enough people do it the message may get through that there's a cost to these unacceptable policies. However, apparently that's not what wikimedia is doing. Apparently this is not a threat aimed to change minds. So, short of if being a childish strop, I still see no-one giving an actually, effective, logical reason for doing this. What is it supposed to achieve?--Scott Mac 12:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not? I have to admit I did not read every single line of this thread, but my impression was that the move away from GoDaddy was done precisely for the reason you described. Looking at the thread again I still haven't found any other reason for the decision by the WMF other than sending GoDaddy a message and getting them to change their minds. --Conti|✉ 13:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion. Of course there's a message: the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't align itself with SOPA. The association with GoDaddy upset many people, who then urged Jimbo to pursue a change. Some were so impressed by his announcement that they donated money to the WMF. The controversy had the potential to sully the WMF's reputation, but it was turned on its head by a commitment to rectify the issue.

And yes, this also sends the message that supporting SOPA has negative consequences, thereby contributing to an environment in which not supporting SOPA is a sensible business decision.

What didn't occur was an ultimatum (i.e. "Drop your support for SOPA or we'll switch to a different domain registrar."), contrary to mistaken assertions above. GoDaddy's involvement runs deep and cannot be undone via a press release. (As noted, GoDaddy "helped craft" SOPA and has not withdrawn its official Congressional support.) —David Levy 21:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo is right on this issue. Wikipedia is entitled to participate in a political boycott, but this is a more practical issue than that. A DNS registrar that supports SOPA might be expected to lead the pack in taking advantage of provisions of the bill which as I understand it (IANAL) would allow companies to remove, on their own initiative, information about sites they consider to be infringing, which might be Canadian pharmacies and The Pirate Bay - but it could also be some local chapter of Wikipedians abroad who might have a few museum photos they plan to upload under the PD-Art tag. By moving the registration to a like-minded DNS now, Wikipedia can make sure that GoDaddy, a private corporation, can't choose thet time and circumstances to pick some fight like that and single out Wikipedia for attack without even having a complainant or a legal theory. That's just prudent management, even apart from any political implication. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The WMF can say whtever they want and do whatever they want. The political repercussions in the long run will be increased by any "boycott" of anyone or anything - the proper position for the WMF as I wrote earlier is to engage people within the legislative process (which, amazingly enough, it looks like GoDaddy has done) to shape the legislation rather than rail against those who worked on improving it. Count me with Scott Mac. Collect (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. WMF's increasing tendency to try to crowdsource activism is a source of concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Organization G officially supports proposed legislation. Organization W opposes the same legislation, which it believes would harm its ability to operate effectively.

A controversy arises because organization W does business with organization G. Members of the public bring the issue to organization W's attention, urging it to end its business relationship with organization G (thereby affirming its opposition to the proposed legislation). Organization W complies with the requests.

Where, in any of this, are you seeing "crowdsource activism" on organization W's part? Since when is it required to do business with a company that it believes is acting against its interests? —David Levy 21:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

See also http://news.yahoo.com/daddy-really-screwed-152315768.html . Wnt (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

systematic bias in wikipedia. More non-internet editors.

How can you claim neutrality when there is a systematic bias against the point of view of people without Internet. La Valeria esta con Jimena Perrini (talk) 16:42, 24 Decesmber 2011 (UTC)

Gee, that'd mean more if we didn't use non-internet print sources fairly often. Ian.thomson (talk) 1. 6:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Those without access to computers can read Wikipedia and also edit, with limitations, using mobile phones. I am commenting here using a Droid X smart phone, and have made thousands of edits that way. The Wikimedia Foundation is working hard to improve accessibility worldwide, and your ideas would be welcomed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

«Those without access to computers can read Wikipedia and also edit, with limitations, using mobile phones», you are either joking or completely off... - Nabla (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not joking, and am editing with a mobile device right now.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

cross posted at my talk page, moved it back here:

That's how you characterized my comment on Jimbo's talk page about reading and editing Wikipedia using mobile phones. Since I am not joking I will leave it to you to explain how I am "completely off". About a third of my 15,000 edits have been made with my Droid X smart phone, and it is a fact that such phones are much more common in many less developed countries than personal computers. I attended the Wikipedia in Higher Education Conference in Boston this past summer, and Wikimedia Foundation folks made it clear that improving accessibility through use of mobile devices in less developed countries (the Global South) is an outreach priority. To the extent that the new user (who I've welcomed on their user page) was raising that sort of concern, then the response should be serious and friendly, rather than one based on sarcasm and mockery. That's my opinion. Note: this edit via Droid X. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed... Can you prove your statements? Mobile phones with internet access are more common than 'regular' computers with internet access in less developed countries? If so I am surprised but I'll admit I was off. Note that whatever you use is irrelevant, you are a sample of one person, plus I presume you are not even from a less developed country (from the USA, right?) So you are actuality a sample of zero dimension. - Nabla (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's an excellent overview from the New York Times of the impact of cell phones on the poor and disenfranchised, although its is somewhat out of date as it was published in April, 2008: Can the Cellphone Help End Global Poverty?. Yes, I am an American and recounted my own personal experience only to make the point that it is increasingly practical to edit Wikipedia with today's mobile phones. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's another from Reuters - less detailed but a bit more up-to-date: Mobile phones help lift poor out of poverty: U.N. study

Thank you. Too much text to read on-screen in a go, so I skimmed through and will read on later, but it might be that *I* was off... My appologies, then. - Nabla (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Well this will always be a problem and it cannot be solved. It also applies to people who cannot read, people who don't write books, people whose religion doesn't permit literacy, places without libraries. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Amusing, but we are obligated to provide encyclopedic coverage of the fragments of preliterate societies that remain. We ought to be the information resource for places without libraries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I was saying; you seem to be operating under the premise that a) everyone on this planet today either has a computer or a cellphone (see above) and b) everyone on this planet today can read and write. Neither statement is true. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

No, instead, I am operating under the premise that mobile phones are increasingly common in undeveloped regions where widespread access to personal computers and conventional internet access remains relatively uncommon. My premise also includes the fact that folks like journalists, anthropologists and historians produce reliable sources about topics of interest to illiterate people and those who have no internet access in such regions. I believe that it is better for 20% of people in such a region to have access to Wikipedia than 2%. Those 20% talk to the 80%, and answer their questions. Is all that so bizarre? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Not bizarre, but misses the point. Illiterate people don't produce books. Therefore we won't have anything to cite. Therefore, we can't include their point of view. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Anthropologists and other scholars produce books based at least partly on observations of and discussions with illiterate people. That allows us to reflect their point of view if we try. Isn't that how we have articles on Diné mythology, for example? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not theirs, it's what others write about them. Good example you bring here, those books are full of bullshit. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia only allow living people to edit? How can it claim to be unbiased when people who are dead or not yet born cannot edit? It's clearly a totally biased site! Ian.thomson (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

One corrective measure might be to write or expand a well-referenced biography of a notable dead person. This is something I have already done quite a few times, recently with George Meany for example. Not everyone can edit, but we can edit on their behalf, even those who are dead. See WP:CRYSTAL regarding those not yet born. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

*points to earlier comment regarding non-internet print sources.* I still stand by my defense that this site is biased against unborn editors, just as it is biased against editors who do not have access to the internet, and just as the Romans and the people's front of Judea (or Judean people's front, which are we again?) are biased against the man's right to have babies. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it not possible, Ian, that sometimes the best response to sarcasm is a calm and serious one? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

For that matter, I think Jimbo and Sue need to reach out to non-humans as the statistics show that 100% of our editors are of one species. Resolute 02:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely you are aware that bots edit Wikipedia all the time? We already have a decent article on the Search for extraterrestrial intelligence, and on related topics as well. We'll do the outreach when (and if) contact is made, but I'm not holding my breath. On another matter, I see that I am the only participant in this thread who has welcomed the new user, La Valeria esta con Jimena Perrini, on their talk page. Why is that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyways. In response to the OP: we don't claim to be neutral in the absolute sense of the word. We aim to be neutral about available sources. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think NASCAR is biased against people without driver's licenses. Tarc (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't actually need a drivers license to race in NASCAR. Though you do have to be able to drive. Prodego ^talk 23:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There has been a NASCAR driver too young to have a driver's license source. In a coincidence, the article cites Wikipedia.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you guys just advertise?

I'm just an everyday wikipedia user. I do enjoy using it and hope that ti remains available. With that in mind I'm asking, why don't you jusy advertise? Yeah if everyone donated $5 you could stop the fundraiser. You could also stop it if you put a mentos ad in a sidebar. The fundraiser is getting to be as annoying as the damn ads would be. Is it just that you don't want to feel like sell-outs? It seems to me like a pretty easy choice. People aren't going to pay for something that could be completely free if the owners would bite the bullet. You're providing a valuable service. Feel good, make some money, and stop whining.

Paul199.48.24.10 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And how much could you trust our articles about Mentos, or the conglomerate multinational that makes and sells them, if we were sponsored by them? We decided a long time ago that in order to preserve our independence, we would not take ads. This has been re-hashed hundreds of times over the years, and nobody has come up with a convincing argument to make us change our minds. The fundraising banners are merely annoying. Sponsorship/advertising would be fatal. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Basically, I think "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." is better than "Wikipedia, proud sponsor of XYZ." Moreover, there's also not to mention that we have quite a few around here who dislike capitalism, let alone having that manifest here. --MuZemike 21:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Because it makes sense, and we can't have that here. AQFK (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if the previous post was stating that to advertise "makes sense" - if so, then he\she is 100% incorrect. The current model seems to work well and if Wikipedia users have issues with seeing the pitches re: donating then guess what, go somehwere else. Besides, if that is really your complaint, then how is seeing a pitch re: donations any worse than seeing an advert which is, when you boil it down, the same exact thing but instead, it's for a product. Not everything is for sale and I love the fact that Wikipedia chose to go the route they have - keep adverts and companies out of the free information business - if it ain't broke, don't screw with it - leave it as is and everything is fine. – Aleding (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't Wikipedia carry advertisements? Because it doesn't need to. --FormerIP (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is the process of adding images to our articles so complex and difficult?

Jimbo, I am a relatively experienced wikipedian (since 2006) and am technically proficient; having 16 patents to my name and been a research scientist who did technical writing for decades, I am not exactly a dolt. Yet, ensuring that proper licenses are used for images has been the most frustrating and trying process of contributing to Wikipedia.

Please see the latest morass I stepped in here on my talk page. I created the solid model depicted in that image and made that screen capture. When uploading, I was asked if I was the creator of the image and I selected the suggested Creative Commons cc-by-sa-3.0 license.

But I fouled up. Again, apparently.

We can’t expect wikipedians to have so much proficiency with copyright law when uploading images. There needs to be better automated guidance shepherding contributors through the process of choosing a license and there needs to be some boilerplate fair-use rationale for the more common situations so we don’t put Wikipedia in the position of expecting legal t's to be crossed and i's dotted by 16-year-old wikipedians taking a break from their homework. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If it turns out that the Creative Commons cc-by-sa-3.0 license I used was the correct one after all and there are no other problems with the licensing I used there, then (that’s conditional on the “If” at the beginning of this sentence) I would submit that there needs to be a better process for tracking down, flagging, and correcting shortcomings in image licenses on Wikipedia. If my understanding is correct, absolutely anyone can go hunting for image-licesing issues and engage the uploading editors about perceived copyright violations. Greg L (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that a bad thing, necessarily, to have anyone able to make sure that our media is properly licensed? I mean, this is a volunteer project; we AGF in that most people are able to competently make sure that our media meet our standards for both free and non-free use. The same applies for any other maintenance task here. And I hope you made a typo in your condescending statement about your typical tagger, as the person who tagged your image is in fact 61 and not 16. --MuZemike 22:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. In your eager rush to find something in my above post to which you can take offense, you overlooked the two main points I was making:

1. The process of getting the correct license and fair-use rationale is incomplete and overly abstruse, and
2. It may be wise to require special permission for volunteer editors to ensure they have the knowledge of image-licensing before allowing them to flit about engaging others.

And, no, it is not a bad thing to ensure our media is properly licensed; the question is whether the process for ensuring this is the case so is up to the challenge.

As for my “condescending statement”, it wasn’t a typo and I wasn’t suggesting that the person who tagged my image is 16 years old. Read it again please. No reasonable interpretation would draw such an inference; I was suggesting that the process for guiding uploading contributors was so abstruse that it is unrealistic to expect the younger contributors—like 16 year olds—to understand the intricacies while uploading. My statement made no conjectures whatsoever about the age of the volunteer from England who thought my Creative Commons cc-by-sa-3.0 license is insufficient.

As for “AGF”, it is about assuming that contributors have good-faith intentions; AGF has nothing to do with assuming everyone is competent at everything they try their hand in. That issue is covered by Wikipedia:Competence is required. Moreover, I am not necessarily saying that the tagger is not correct; he or she may be correct about how the 58 top-most pixels of this image require that the whole image be declared to be someone else’s work—which defies common sense.

What is precipitating this whole thread is the image I now placed in this thread. I personally created that solid model, which is central to what that image is about. If following the directions for uploading that image, where one is guided through the process of selecting the correct Creative Commons license for self-generated images, isn’t sufficient, then the process needs to be improved. It may also be time to consider just who is allowed to run around looking for copyright and licensing concerns because the *quality* of the imaging-licensing tagging I’ve seen over the years has varied from perfectly satisfactory to just abysmal. Greg L (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sure it was just a good faith tagging. I was wondering, you have created the screw thingy in the program but do you have a right to claim ownership of the screenshot that shows details of a copyrighted program or are screenshots of programs free of copyright? See this screenshot of windows is non free media..? Copyright is quite complicated in general and remember is one of our legal related policies and we have a few users that are prepared to work in that field and do so mostly extremely well for the money, we are grateful to them, and especially the added responsibility there is when you consider making judgments on legal issues has its own possible repercussions. IMO - to comply with CC release, and erring on the side of caution, you should crop the program details from the edge and re upload. I also recommend if you are uploading anything under a commons compatible license that you upload it to commons. - Youreallycan (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec four times in a row) Yes, I’m sure it was a good faith tagging too. As for the seeming problem with the copyright notice(s) or lack thereof, you are taking the words right out of my mouth. Those 58 pixels at the top, which show user-interface elements of a program may require that two things be done when uploading images like this: Give a Creative Commons for the “screw thingy”, as you say, and generate a fair-use rationale covering the 58 pixels at top—such language as There are some visual interface elements showing in this image to enable the reader to discern that AutoDesk Inventor is being used to export the original solid model. AutoDesk’s rights aren’t infringed when simple visual elements are illustrated because there is no accompanying output code or source code. Displaying such basic visual elements to show something is considered fair use in order to offer an encyclopedic treatment and critical commentary of the software in question and how it accepts solid models from other programs. The current uploading process expects contributors to show facility and competency in generating boilerplate fair-use rationale like this and that is an absurd expectation. I’ve been around the block a few times, just generated that xt-text myself, and have no clue it is sufficient. Just copying copyright notices from other places is no good at all; the previous time I got tagged was because I had done precisely that: springboarded off someone else’s copyright notice which proved, years later to be fatally flawed. This fiasco all points to how the process greatly needs improvement, which is my point #1, above.

As for cropping, I anticipated that this would be thrown out as a suggestion. Absolutely not. There is no reason to because there are ways to generate a fair-use rationale that perfectly well covers this. Moreover, that’s the whole point of including those interface elements in the image: to demonstrate that the solid model is coming out of that particular program. What is so terribly unfortunate is that there is so much conjecture about the true nature of the problem with the licensing that I still don’t have a clear answer as to what is required to fix the licensing (other than to start cropping). Your suggestion just proved how absurd this image-uploading process is. Greg L (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What's absurd isn't the upload process, it is the difficulty of understanding copyright laws. A couple years ago, I saw a cartoon I liked, so I contacted the cartoonist, and paid a fair amount for the original cartoon, which I now have hanging in my office. It's mine right? Well, yes, and no. I own the original artwork, but not the copyright. I can display it in my house, but I cannot take a picture of it and post it; the cartoonist retained that right. My point isn't an objection tot he law, my point is that the law is complicated, and not always obvious. The process for uploading have to be as complicated as the law it tries to follow.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

((ec}} - I don't see anything absurd about it. I don't think you can release part of the picture under a commons license and add a fair use clause for the border. If you insist on including the copyrighted portion then I suggest you remove the commons license and add a screen-shot non free rationale. Also Greg, please stop enlarging your picture on this talkpage, it's unnecessary to the discussion and the upload has copyright issues at present. Non free files should not be posted on userpages as I understand it, there is a bot that goes around removing them. Youreallycan (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Youreallycan, you and I are just going to have to admit that neither of us are copyright attorneys. With such exceedingly small and superficial amounts of the program author’s I.P. being used and with so much of the image overwhelmingly dominated by my contribution, those two images seem to me to rightly be a derivative original that properly required only the Creative Commons cc-by-sa-3.0 license. This all just proves my point again: the uploading process and the guidance for determining what license is required is insufficient for circumstances like this. BTW, the tagger and I seem to be on the same wavelength. He was indeed thinking that fair-use stuff needs to be added to cover the user-interface elements. I think that is overkill for what seems clearly to be a derivative original, but that base has been covered nonetheless. This was far too much hassle for what may well have been overly sensitive judgement call by one of Wikipedia’s many volunteers who enjoy doing this sort of thing. The system needs improving. I’m done here. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Foundation resolution on controversial content

Hi. A while back I asked for your understanding of the applicability of the above to this project [2]. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Workshop doubts have arisen about the meaning of your response. I wonder if you would consider clarifying your answer for us? I don't think we're asking for you to speak for the board here, just a clarification of your understanding of the resolution. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

As the editor who raised that concern, I'd like to ask as subsidary question. I would take that part of the board resolution as calling on either Commons or on all projects (whichever it is) to ensure that it exercises due care (as ought to be the case anyway) in ensuring that its content is appropriate to its mission and does not set out to shock without reason. I would not take it to suggest that any existing policy of en.wp is overridden or given a new interpretation. Is my reading correct? For my part, I am asking not just for your opinion but for the opinion of the board as far as you are able to communicate it. --FormerIP (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

In an issue as complex and fraught as this one, I am very reluctant to say much about the "opinion of the board". I can say with some confidence that detailed tea-leaf reading on the exact wording of the resolution is probably not the right approach. We crafted the resolution carefully, but not with layers and layers of analysis and opinion from lots of people; resolutions simply can't read in the same detailed way that Wikipedia policies (which are subjected to layers and layers of analysis and opinion from lots of people) can. I would say (speaking for myself) that the substance of the resolution is intended to apply to all Wikimedia projects in all languages, and that commons was singled out mainly because they have the biggest problems in this area (for various perfectly good reasons). In particular, the resolution mentions religious content and urges consideration of educational use and principle of least astonishment. Insofar as current policies do not adequately address those issues (which, by necessity, is up to us in the community to decide) then I think, contrary to FormerIP, that the resolution does imply overriding or reinterpreting (or, best case: rewriting) policy.

All of that was speaking generally without reference to the specific issues in the content debate at hand.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)