User talk:Jimbo Wales

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251: 10 days

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Daily pageviews of User:Jimbo Wales

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:

Matthew Gault (8 December 2021). "Wikipedia Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Wikipedia Edit". Vice Media. The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.

Can Wikipedia be edited fully autonomously by ChatGPT?

It seems to me that ChatGPT should be able edit to Wikipedia without much problems. In fact, it may b able to do this better than human editors, so a fully autonomous Wikipedia may end up being superior compared to the present one. We may also consider AI-powered bots in roles of Admins and Arbitrators in the present Wikipedia edited by both humans and ChatGPT systems. Unlike humans, AI-powered bots have an infinite amount of patience, so remedies for problem users can involve measures such as the user being restricted to user space and be allowed to contribute from there. The bot will then be checking and assessing the quality of what is submitted there, giving feedback and copying to article apace what is good enough. Count Iblis (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the really existing ChatGPT: it is pretty stupid and full of bogus statements, e.g. when writing a legal plea, it invented precedents which never existed. Wanna be sure? Ask it for its references, it cannot provide them.

In fact, it is pretty hard for humans to be epistemically responsible, it is much harder for computers. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Chomsky described ChatGPT as "basically high tech plagiarism".[1] The poems are fun though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows what the future will hold? But in late 2023, when people use ChatGPT and other AI programs to try to write Wikipedia articles, the result is a lot like something written by a failing college freshman struggling to write an acceptable essay: Stilted, banal prose, heavy on platitudes, and riddled with factual errors and fabricated footnotes. Cullen328 (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you greatly overestimate the abilities of ChatGPT. Large language models write fluent-sounding but factually incorrect information. They absolutely are not and should not be a substitute for humans. More info at WP:LLM. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky I'm not an admin, I'd indefban chat, or AI of any kind (except our friendly Wikipedia-centric bots), and put their wanted posters on every post office wall. What a horrible invention and concept for editing Wikipedia, which goes against the criteria of "anyone" (not 'anything') can edit. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way. The combination of fluent-sounding text and factual inaccuracies is quite a pernicious combination, in my opinion. ChatGPT-based editing has the potential to require as much cleanup as a WP:CCI. It's very labor-intensive for experienced editors, unless we resort to presumptive deletion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT routinely generates garbage. Plausible garbage, but garbage non the less. The bullshit-bot promoters acknowledge this, but try to spin it as 'hallucination': which is also bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LLMs are pretty good (meaning, better than our typical sub-GA article prose) at summarization and sufficiently loose paraphrasing, but they are terrible at noteworthiness and notability judgments, figuring out where to correctly make changes for updates, and refactoring poorly organized articles. There are already competition leaderboards set up for such tasks, but they're being done apart from the live Wikipedia because of WP:NOTLAB. And you know there are less formal academic experiments going on all the time, which show up on WP:ANI as disruption when they're unsuccessful, but can't be easily detected when they work well. Sandizer (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like ChatGPT should be able to be used efficiently for correcting the English of Wikipedia (and the French in the French Wikipedia or whatever it is called, and likewise for all other languages) which is actually quite important. A lot of the English on Wikipedia is terrible. I have thought for many years that the biggest flaw of Wikipedia, from the point of view of a reader who just wants to read an awesome encyclopedia, is that it is badly written, and therefore a bit of a pain in the neck to read most of the times. I always thought the information was awesome (except in rare cases when there is one of the controversial topics like religion, sex, or politics) but the writing was terrible. Fortunately, my thirst for knowledge always had me coming back for more, despite the pain. Polar Apposite (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but each automatic re-write needs to be carefully reviewed before being included. Loss of intended meaning and hallucinations can both occur when LLMs attempt to simplify prose. Sandizer (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about simplifying prose. Polar Apposite (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What an absurd suggestion. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what ChatGPT had to say about all of this:

In the world of knowledge and information, Wikipedia stands tall, a beacon of innovation. A place where anyone can share what they know, And contribute to a global fountain of growth.

But as we know, with great power comes great responsibility, And editing Wikipedia requires some ability. It's not just about typing what you think you know, But verifying sources and facts, so the information can flow.

So when it comes to chatbots editing this great source, We must consider if they have the necessary force. Can they comprehend the nuances of language and context, And ensure what they add is accurate and correct?

Thank you William McGonagall.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question on the recently released Endowment figures

The recently released Endowment figures (pictured) show a contributions total of $11,549,007 under "Support and revenue" for the 2021–2022 financial year.

But the 3rd quarter 2021–2022 tuning session deck released on 2 May 2022 showed that the Foundation had already raised

$12 million for the Endowment by the end of the second quarter (31 December 2021) of that year, and
$13.4 million for the Endowment by the end of the third quarter (31 March 2022) of that year.

This means the end-of-year figure advised in this month's statement for 2021–2022 is about $2 million lower than the third-quarter figure advised in the tuning deck last year. (The fourth-quarter tuning decks for 2021–2022 were never made public.)

This is counterintuitive. Could you and User:Lgruwell-WMF please shed some light on what happened here? The two previous years' tuning session decks [2][3] match what is in the released statement (once you add the $5 million grants the Endowment received in those two years from the WMF.) Regards, --Andreas JN 466 18:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a precise answer for you, but I can give you an indication. For internal staff/fundraising purposes it's quite natural to consider a gift as agreed at a different date from when the money actually comes in. If someone sends an email saying thanks for the information and I've decided to give $1 million, then assuming that all other signals are good, we will internally assume that money is going to come, and for planning purposes, we know what's coming in based on that. When it actually arrives from the point of view of accounting may be a different time.

The reason I am not giving this as a precise answer is that I haven't (and won't) go back and look into all the specific details here. Lisa might, as she's closer to the day-to-day numbers than I am.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Given how low the 2022–2023 Contributions total was (just $6.5 million, the lowest ever), it would seem somewhat unlikely that it included $2 million from the 2021–2022 year. Perhaps someone promised a donation and reneged? Regards, Andreas JN 466 01:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is due to the period of the fiscal years shown in the table - Tides has its fiscal years end on December 31, so the fiscal years shown in the table are January - December, as opposed to the Wikimedia Foundation fiscal years which are June - July. Tides confirmed that revenue for FY 21/22 was $13.1M, in line with the tuning deck for that same fiscal year. Please note the table inadvertently noted that the fiscal years for Tides shown were ended June 30, but that has been corrected in the table. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Julia. But I don't see an update to the table, which still speaks of "Years ended June 30, 2023 through June 30, 2016" – where was that update made? The Commons description page, too, only shows a single version in the File history. Regards, Andreas JN 466 09:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andreas, the file on Commons has now been update. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amharic wikipedia

The Amharic Wikipedia was brought to my attention through a YouTube
It’s disgustingly horrible no sources. 1 word articles. Conspiracy theories im wondering what should be done about it •Cyberwolf• 14:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Wikipedia's STRANGEST Language? According to List of Wikipedias, the Amharaic Wikipedia is am which was started in December 2002 and has 58 active users (56 users and 1 admin according to am:Special:Statistics although the contributions for that admin seems to show nothing). Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the read. Sadly one cannot prod a whole wiki. Jesus! Ripoffs of chatgpt coupled with low-quality translators could do better than what's there. Even the article on Ethiopia has had no citations... since '06. JayCubby wants you to check out his vIsUaLlY aPpEaLiNg uSeRpAgE. cHeCk It oUt! iF yOu aRe BoRiNg, cLiCk (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC) 03:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i found the worst. Jokes on it •Cyberwolf• 16:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look. While I can’t read Amharic, it looks horrifyingly like a start-class Fandom wiki. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an insult to Fandom Babysharkboss2 was here!! 14:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Google Translate is correct, over 20% of all the articles on that Wikipedia (3500 out of 15,000) fall into Category:Myths and Parables. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to propose it for deletion? It goes against all that Wikipedia stands for •Cyberwolf• 14:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

most likely. I don't see a reason it should exist, with it's contents. Babysharkboss2 was here!! 14:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok on meta wiki we can propose deletion •Cyberwolf• 14:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely no reason to provide even a bare minimum of information for inhabitants of one of the most war-torn countries in the world; I can think of no worse violation of Wikipedia's purpose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

okay, might want to re-phrase that. Just because the country is war-torn, doesn't mean it's being removed. It's being removed due to lack of info. the war-torn nature of it means nothing. Babysharkboss2 was here!! 14:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't be removed, because quite frankly, agitating to remove a Wikipedia in a language difficult to type from a country where 20% of the population is hungry is an absolutely abhorrent exhibition of Western systemic bias. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that shouldn’t be an excuse for the obvious horrible pages •Cyberwolf• 15:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's not bias, it's the fact that there's little info on it. Babysharkboss2 was here!! 15:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And half the pages dont even have facts on it •Cyberwolf• 15:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And so we should prevent any chance of more information being added? Because that's what Wikipedia stands for, apparently. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you do propose the Amharic Wikipedia for deletion, do go ahead and also list the dozens of other Wikipedias unlucky enough to not have over 60 active editors? Or maybe you could just see that they exist, which I suspect you haven't. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the articles on there? Also i already did •Cyberwolf• 15:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i did. I read the big Mac article, it was two paragraphs. not good Babysharkboss2 was here!! 16:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Were you planning on improving it? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really not possible •Cyberwolf• 00:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! Anyway... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how is that relevant? Babysharkboss2 was here!! 17:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not be an ass hole? @AirshipJungleman29 •Cyberwolf• 17:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assholes one word 🤓 Babysharkboss2 was here!! 18:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol •Cyberwolf• 18:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

Arbitration report: Admin bewilderingly unmasks self as sockpuppet of other admin who was extremely banned in 2015

In the media: UK shadow chancellor accused of ripping off WP articles for book, Wikipedians accused of being dicks by a rich man

News and notes: Board candidacy process posted, editors protest WMF privacy measure, sweet meetups

Opinion: An open letter to Elon Musk

WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2023

News from Wiki Ed: Equity lists on Wikipedia

Recent research: How English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades

Featured content: Like putting a golf course in a historic site.

Wikidata: Evaluating qualitative systemic bias in large article sets on Wikipedia

Traffic report: Cricket jumpscare

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this interesting

You are being discussed, at least peripherally, at WP:ANI#Legal threat issued by IP. Cullen328 (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More amusing than anything else. :-) I did get a traffic ticket in Italy once, but I paid the fine and as far as I know, the Italian government is pretty ok with me now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]