User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eostrix (talk | contribs) at 15:08, 11 October 2021 (→‎Helo: DFTT, removed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    You made a mistake

    I very disagree with your recent actions on Chinese Wikipedia.Even if those who are removed should be, have you ever thought about who will clean up this mess?

    Many editors in Taiwan Province tried to use this incident to wipe out chinese editorials, and Chinese Wikipedia is in unprecedented turmoil. Is this what you want to see?

    May God be with Chinese Wikipedia. Assifbus (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Explanation regarding above is at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#m:Office actions/September 2021 statement. Johnuniq (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And some articles about it at Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2021#September. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, one of the most important pillars of Wikipedia is neutrality. Editors from mainland China are welcomed, as are editors from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and all around the world. What is not welcomed is organized efforts to push an agenda and silence others - from any side.
    I can understand that the removal of a group of editors for misbehavior and agenda pushing can cause turmoil - of course it does. But it is the first step to ensuring that fair, open, and neutral discussions and debates can be had to ensure that Wikipedia speaks the truth, adheres to reliable sources, and lives up to the values that have nourished and sustained us for all these years.
    It is also important to understand my role here - I don't directly make or get involved with such decisions. I am not the CEO, I am only me. I view my responsibility as mainly to remind everyone - staff, editors, readers, everyone - of our values and to speak plainly about what we are all trying to achieve.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I was passing by and saw this conversation. Sorry, I couldn't help but spread the wiki-love.) To echo Jimbo but also add in my touch of flavor, all of the pillars are important but it starts with civility and ends with civility. Most people associate incivility with aspersions and personal attacks but civility covers a wide range of things and touches on every pillar of our community, one of which is neutrality. If we can not have honest, neutral and civil discussions then what hope do we have of collaborating and improving/expanding the encyclopedia in a neutral way? Maintaining civil discourse is critical to fostering positive creativity within the community. We arent going to always agree but we can disagree respectfully and do so without trying to silence the other side of the discussion. --ARoseWolf 20:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Another passing by) I humbly thank for your reply for being just normal. Yes, normality barely existed in Chinese Wikipedia before the Office Action., and some in Chinese Wikipedia even consider "push(ing) an agenda (or should I say 'agendas' instead) and silence others" as the "real normality", and totally ignore civility. I can't wish that something may be immediately changed to the best status, but I still hope that everything in Chinese Wikipedia will be well soon. Please allow me to apologise for his comment which has some facts ignored and have innocent people implicated. Sanmosa Outdia 12:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ICYDK, even the first comment violates neutrality through directly calling Taiwan editors names that they don't like with a malign intention. Much like Chinese Editors don't like being called Chinese Commies, Taiwan editors also don't like being called as being from "Taiwan Province". As with Jimbo's comment, may I ask if this can be translated to Chinese?--1233 ( T / C） 06:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    wp:Appeal to Jimbo Pavlov2 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope editors in Chinese mainland and Taiwan can coexist peacefully. Instead, some editors in Taiwan regard the Wikimedia Foundation's action as an opportunity to eliminate dissidents, and their methods of eliminating dissidents include trying to dissolve WMC.Does this deviate from the original intention of this activity? I like Wikipedia, and I have devoted myself to Wikipedia for two years.I can't stand Chinese Wikipedia falling into chaos. Assifbus (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I also want to ask the founder a question. When Wikipedia's values of freedom, objectivity and democracy conflict with national laws or international common sense (for example, Taiwan is a part of China, but many editors in Taiwan Province don't like the name "Taiwan "). Is it appropriate to challenge a country's laws and subvert international common sense in order to safeguard Wikipedia's values? Assifbus (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To be precise, many editors in Taiwan don't like the name "Taiwan Province".Cbls1911 (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The environment of Chinese Wikipedia is very complicated, and Taiwan editors don't like this statement of “Taiwan Province” , which I understand. But this is not the reason why some editors in Taiwan used this action to suppress dissidents. My ideal Chinese Wikipedia is that both chinese editorials editors and Taiwan editors can express their views on it. I think the foundation needs to intervene to prevent things from getting worse.

    If Wikimedia Foundation wants to retain excellent mainland editors, it must make a statement: it does not support anyone's dictatorship (including Taiwan editors), and everyone must respect different views. I think this is the reliable way to solve the current problem. (It is very important for Chinese wikis to think that the Wikimedia Foundation has not connived at the behavior of some editors in Taiwan . ) Assifbus (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You may make this statement if and only if you really respect others and their views, but unfortunately I do not see that happens. Sanmosa Outdia 09:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I just don't want some editors in Taiwan to take advantage of this action to destroy Chinese Wikipedia. Their current actions to suppress dissidents have proved that some of them may be more dictatorial than those in China when they are elected administrators. The foundation should intervene to prevent the action from becoming a tool for some people to suppress dissidents.

    Everything I do is to make Chinese Wikipedia stable. Assifbus (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What I mean for "you may make this statement if and only if you really respect others and their views" including not assuming anybody trying to "destroy Chinese Wikipedia", and I must point out that your comments above are in fact destructive to community co-operations and the stability of the site. Sanmosa Outdia 05:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please understand that this is because I am afraid of being implicated by this action mistake, and that some editors in Taiwan will expel me from Wikipedia by this activity, so I made improper remarks on my user page. A Taiwan editor has made a kind move to me today. He stressed that he has never targeted anyone who has targeted chinese editorials with this incident. I hope he is not lying to me.

    I don't think I can communicate with user:Sanmosa in a friendly way, so let's end this topic. Things are still going on, and time will test everything. I hope my idea is wrong.

    May God be with Chinese Wikipedia. Assifbus (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You are still abusing bad faith. It is totally weird to explicitly express anything implicit, and I think that the Taiwan editor had felt terror (or vexed, maybe) and thus can do nothing but explicitly express those things you mentioned above. It would only happen in places with abnormal norms, where some implicit concepts (like patriotism) need to be explicitly expressed but can still be doubted. I can't see the need to explicitly express anything if I have done nothing related to that before (presumption of innocence), although some Chinese mainland users may still consider it (presumption of guilt) essential. Sanmosa Outdia 15:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can abuse the policies and guidelines because Wikipedia is open for public editing with few exceptions. I am not on the Chinese Wikipedia but on the English Wikipedia WP:AGF is non-negotiable, as is WP:CIV as it is one of the pillars of the community and encyclopedia. I believe it is just good practice to live like this. We all have more in common than we have differences. One day I hope we can realize this as the human species and move past our minor differences. I can respect the cultural differences of others without having to force my own beliefs on them. It's okay to be different. But don't let those differences outweigh the overall commonalities shared between us. --ARoseWolf 16:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I must point it out. The biggest consequence of this incident for Wikipedia is not only the withdrawal of outstanding mainland editors, but also the possibility that the Chinese government will block Wikipedia in Hong Kong and Macao. Assifbus (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope God will save the souls of those who made this action decision.

    I will not attend the hearing of Wikimedia Foundation on this action, because I predict that the hearing will be dominated by some editors who oppose the Communist Party, and it is impossible to hear different voices on it.I can predict what wikipedia foundation will say. They will reiterate the justice and necessity of their actions, and some editors who oppose the Chinese government and the Communist Party of China（CPC） will express their support at the hearing (live broadcast on the Internet).

    I hope you can spend an hour to understand that the actions of Wikimedia Foundation have been abused by some people, who think that they can use this action to fight against dissidents, and they actively create an atmosphere of "being close to China is guilty" or "being close to the Chinese Communist Party is guilty" in Chinese Wikipedia.

    The practice of Wikimedia Foundation favoring Taiwan independence forces and Hong Kong independence forces has caused irreparable cracks in Chinese Wikipedia.In the past, I thought it was wrong for the Chinese government to block Wikipedia, but now I think the Chinese government's approach is very correct. The free encyclopedia should not be an encyclopedia that violates the laws of a country.Wikipedia should abide by the laws of other countries as well as the laws of the United States.

    Perhaps in the eyes of some staff of Wikimedia Foundation, "Chinese Wikipedia" should be "Taiwan Wikipedia". Assifbus (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Wikimedia Foundation

    According to this template, Wikimedia Foundation has 5 current "people." Is that good/clear enough? If you (talkpage reader) have an opinion, please join Template_talk:Wikimedia_Foundation#Who's_in_and_who's_not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 26 September 2021

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Archiving

    I notice that this page isn't archiving like it used to. I wonder if someone can help me remember how it used to be and help me figure out why it stopped?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like Lowercase sigmabot III last archived your talk page on the 27th - what seems different? (and I'm sure it's nothing to do with the 247-odd archive pages!) ~TNT (she/her • talk) 13:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well look at the top of the page - a friendly "Here's some green tea" message from 8 September, quite old!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps because the bot is configured to archive minimum 5 threads at once. There are only 5 threads (excluding this one), and the most recent is 11 days old. Clog Wolf Howl 14:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which means now that this is #6, that should get archived on the next pass :D — xaosflux Talk 14:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Clog Wolf! That's almost certainly the solution. We'll see soon. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimbo Wales and all, seems like I misunderstood. Looking at the configuration code again, I can confirm that the bot is not configured to archive minimum 5 threads, but to make sure at least 5 threads are left in the page before archiving. As I already mentioned, there aren't enough threads for the bot to archive. Should the minthreadsleft parameter be changed? Clog Wolf Howl 09:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the bot would archive the top thread under the current configuration (as there are now six threads) but it's down at the moment. Graham87 08:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The configuration code has been changed by Wales himself, so the bot should archive the top 3 threads once it is back. Clog Wolf Howl 08:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=1049385807"