User talk:Jimbo Wales

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

    London meet up

    You have been invited to the 200th London Wikimedia Meetup at the Pendrel's Oak, Holborn on Sunday 14 January, which is also acting as a celebration of Wikipedia's 23rd birthday. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you would be especially welcome as you were at the very first one (pictured)! Andrew🐉(talk) 13:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Would have been great but I was away from London for a week, just now back to normal work!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Historians editing Wikipedia

    I hope Wikipedia realizes how lucky it is to have major historian Rjensen editing. He is able to add to discussions with subject matter expert knowledge and full cites, especially valuable as the U.S. enters its 250th anniversary cycle. My question, to both of you and others, what are good options to "attract" more historians to edit Wikipedia aside from asking in direct communication? Articles in topical magazines, speakers at subject-field conferences, an interview on History TV, etc., are just some quick ideas. Thanks. And, of course, Happy 23rd! Randy Kryn (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've long advocated the notion that Wikipedians are born, not made. I suspect that the way to connect with the 0.5% of active historians who are potential Wikipedians would be for someone like Dr. Jensen to connect by presenting on Wikipedia and its need for expert-written content at a national conference of historians. Just my thought. Carrite (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another group who would probably love to edit but just haven't put their attention on this project would be retired professors. Most care deeply about their chosen field, and Wikipedia would provide a post-teaching outlet. Some just have to become a bit more aware of Wikipedia's openness - as well as to be able to navigate its storms and gullies. Others could be reached by installing full-time Wikipedians-in-residence at large retirement communities, such as The Villages in Florida, and through professional newsletters, podcasts, etc. Tapping into the wealth of knowledge extant among retired teachers and researchers would not only share their experience but continue to enhance it. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy New Year

    In Chinese Wikipedia, editors from Taiwan and Hong Kong have shown different attitudes towards North Korean and South Korean media.

    North Korean Because it is a state-controlled news outlet, it is unreliable.

    South Korean media Even if it is state-controlled media, it is reliable.There is a Chinese word to describe this situation. "Double standard".（双重标准）I'm not involved in the fight, I just want you to know what happen in the Chinese Wikipedia?Editors in Taiwan are trying to list China's most important media as "unreliable reference sources." As I said before, I have no confidence in the Wikimedia project if a reference source is judged to be reliable solely on the basis of political leanings.

    Good luck with reality and a happy new year. Assifbus (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Surely you realize it's a lot more complex than this?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we met in real life, I would buy you a cup of coffee.Assifbus (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean the exact same thing happens on English Wikipedia. Voice of America and Radio Free Asia are considered to be reliable sources, as are most of the corporate media in the US. On a totally unrelated note, most enwiki editors come from anglophone countries. So, I'm not sure what your point is. Sagflaps (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify a little bit, the determination of whether a source is reliable is generally biased based on the norms of whatever countries the majority of editors happen to be from. Also, the topics that are chosen to have articles written will be biased based on language as well. This is a fundamental flaw of Wikipedia. I am American editor with no Chinese ties, and generally speaking the issue I notice is that many American editors naturally assume that whatever the western perspective is, that must be the global perspective on the issue as well.
    The fact that many other editors here have accused you of being a CCP shill or propagandist is proof of this. To be honest, your points are reasonable, and I wish people here would engage with you civilly instead of trying to shut you down immediately. If anything their responses are just proving your point. Sagflaps (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point about US state-owned broadcasting is valid. VoA and its sister programs are arguably propaganda (even if it’s our propaganda) and it seems to me to be a systemic bias issue.
    Something editors don’t always keep in mind is that a big chunk of WP’s readers (but rarely editors) are from post-colonial Anglophone countries.
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RadioactiveBoulevardier: Well the idea of having Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources in general is a flawed idea. For any citation added, consideration needs to be given to the biases of it, and who funds the source and who owns it. To have editorial standards is not enough, because at the end of the day CNN/MSNBC/CBS/FOX, they are all there to make a profit at the end of the day. This means that if a major advertiser were to threaten to pull funding, these networks will feel the pressure. Similarly, state funded sources are accountable to their governments first, and non-profits to their donors.
    However, editors are more than willing to crutch off the idea of a reliable source to avoid critical analysis. Also, when editors like Assifbus come by, their edits get far more scrutiny, and people invoking Cold War era fear rhetoric about them being a communist (or in the more modern sense, a wumao or CCP shill or Uygher genocide denier). Usually this attracts little scrutiny, because in the places like the US such things are so deeply entrenched, that it has become normalized. Literally speaking, that's not WP:CIV nor WP:AGF. But yet, the community mostly accepts it. Sagflaps (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    VoA and its sister programs are arguably propaganda.... I'm inclined to disagree. Those programs are designed to counter deliberately biased propaganda from despotic and dictatorial regimes, along with casting American opposition to them in a positive light, but while doing so with a strict adherence to western journalistic standards of accuracy, editorial oversight, and independence. It might be helpful to review some context about the place of the US Agency for Global Media companies in the propaganda sphere. Not all state media are created equal.
    state funded sources are accountable to their governments first, and non-profits to their donors. When an organization chooses to support itself by voluntary donations, the point is to sever accountability to any one person or group. For example, there is a lot on Wikipedia which may be so offensive to all of the top N corporations and governments that any one of them would be likely to pull support over it if they were sole supporters. But they are not, so large companies keep giving no matter how large their critique articles grow, and as far as we know they don't go after the authors. Doing so would be foolhardy and would likely backfire with a Streisand effect.
    when editors like Assifbus come by, their edits get far more scrutiny, and people invoking Cold War era fear rhetoric about them being a communist (or in the more modern sense, a wumao or CCP shill or Uygher genocide denier.... I'm skeptical that this happens more often than not. Can you point to some examples you thought were particularly unwarranted? Sandizer (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandizer: There is an implicit assumption in what you are saying here, which is that the pro-America perspective is the unbiased one (and therefore VOA/RFA just exist to counter biased propaganda sources), which really if anything just proves what I've been saying all along about how enwiki editors view the world. Sagflaps (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe bias is a matter of extent, measured as distance from accuracy, not a binary property. Sandizer (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bias is a bit more complicated than you have described, but there are always the Wikipedia articles on its many forms if you want more information. Sagflaps (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    19. 20, 21, 22, I devoted the most beautiful years of my life to Wikipedia.
    I hope that people in the future will not engage in wars or struggles due to different political tendencies. Assifbus (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Assifbus: I would like to learn more about this: Editors in Taiwan are trying to list China's most important media as "unreliable reference sources." Where is that discussion?
    As I said before, I have no confidence in the Wikimedia project if a reference source is judged to be reliable solely on the basis of political leanings. The reliability of state media sources are often easier to judge on the basis of objective accuracy than private sector outlets, which lack certain advantages; not least being the ability to use force and the threat of punishment to squelch criticism and require agreement. Leveraging such advantages, however, rarely goes undetected internationally. If this is the case, as it has been in most if not all the critiques of Chinese state media I have seen, then the basis is not political but epistemological.
    Here is a relatively sympathetic take on the challenges faced by autocratic enforcement of state media perspectives from Singapore, concluding that, "although China's media have been professionalised over the years, the level of professionalism continues to be low as they have been compelled to act under the constraints of the Chinese party-state [so they] are not competing on an even-playing field with other transnational media companies." Sandizer (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are proficient in Chinese, you will easily find that page on Chinese Wikipedia. Assifbus (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, I am not proficient enough to think asking you for the link would be less efficient than looking for the discussion to which you referred. Sandizer (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello everyone, do you feel it good to argue about politics under Jimbo's talk page with others? Why not discuss with them on their talk page? -Lemonaka‎ 10:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least their comments don't just disappear like mine did. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Counterfeit Purses: It was oversighted by Primefac. Sagflaps (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A cup of coffee for you!

    Hi, Jimmy Wales. I greatly want to thank you very much for finding Wikipedia along with Larry Sanger. Wikipedia, is a good website where you can learn, read, discover, have fun with, create, edit so many things that I love this website. When I had to see any information on Google, you guys were the first to appear with your information. I started to read articles and just in matter of weeks, I became so much with in Wikipedia. Any information, there is Wikipedia. Binge on reading something new or interesting, there is Wikipedia and so much fun you can have on Wikipedia. Not only that I love Wikipedia's wonderful community always there for better and for everyone. Now, I use Wikipedia like everyday and I never get bored. And not just Wikipedia but your sister projects like Wiktionary, where there is definition for almost every word from every language. Wikimedia Commons , where there are so may images and videos. I am a new Wikipedian (didn't had any account for years until now, so I guess not new) and my goal here is to make Wikipedia the best place for information like as the phrase says, Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia. In all I want say, thank you very much for making this website and I don't think I'll be the only one who loves Wikipedia so much, there are like millions of people just like me loving Wikipedia so much. You and Larry Sanger are truly the G.O.A.T's for creating this website 23 years ago. 
    RushingGold (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Should Foundation Board of Trustees members be allowed to read oversighted revisions and deleted pages?

    Recently I participated in a discussion here before I saw that parts of it have been oversighted, and then I remembered that Jimbo was stripped of his permissions to read oversighted revisions when the Founder Flag was removed.

    In my opinion, Jimbo should be allowed to read oversighted revisions and deleted pages, simply because he's basically the top corresponding Board member. I'm considering an RFC on Meta, or an IAR appeal to rouge bureaucrats or something, but I thought I would post here suggesting it first. Sandizer (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sandizer is there a particular problem you are seeking to fix? If Jimbo needs access, he can advocate for himself in general, and or...ask any person with access to share what he needs for his work. Let's save an academic discussion for a more urgent topic ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a Foundation official is likely to be asked questions which require review of deleted material as part of their expected duties, which in this case pertains to Jimbo's opinion of how his talk page is being edited without being able to see how. A Wikimedia Foundation in which board members can't see their full talk page history would have lost an oar. I want board members to be able to read deleted pages and revisions without having to ask anyone, because without such ability, I do not believe they are truly able to fulfill their obligations as board members. On the other hand, I am willing to entertain opposition speculating that board members should not be able to see their talk page history, just to keep this convertible to an RFC with a neutral question if need be. To me, this seems extremely obvious, to the point of substantial while humourous vulnerabilities if the issue is left unaddressed. Sandizer (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the attack vector I have in mind, but it is both valid and amusing. Sandizer (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In any professional organisation, mechanisms are in place for board members or senior staff to be given access to confidential information held by the organisation. It's not necessary for board members (for example) to be able to retrieve the information themselves. Besides, this is a high-profile page; all sorts of junk gets posted here and most of it has nothing to do with Jimbo personally, much less the WMF board. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimbo has access to everything through global founder right, doesn't he? It's fair to assume he can get database access if he really needs it. WMF grants us rights. We can't pick who in the WMF gets rights. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, his perms were stripped. I will spare you my opinion of the rectitude thereof. Sandizer (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No help at all. He's still a founder[1]; it still includes everything under the sun[2]. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    25 out of over a hundred boxes are checked? If it were up to me, Jimbo would have permission to get all the dumps sent to him by carrier pigeon whenever he wears green in public. Sandizer (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, those are checkboxes, that's what I was missing. Do you know whether board members, or at least Jimbo, can get database access when they need it? Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    First thing to note, "Updating at Jimbo’s request to improve overall site security" - the removal of certain technical rights from this account was a request from me. If I ever needed, as part of my board work, to see oversighted revisions, I'm sure that could be facilitated by Trust and Safety or the legal team. But, that's never come up, and in general I don't think board members have any need or desire to see oversighted revisions - they are usually quite uninteresting to be honest.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    While I respect you, your perspective on this situation, your works, and what I know of your general outlook, I find it had to believe that you've never looked at a deleted page as part of gathering information pertinent to subsequent board member actions, even if merely formulating opinions on desired appointee profile characteristics. But if this is the way you prefer it, I drop my request. I can still think of attacks this situation enables, none of which I feel like I should mention in public, but which I can communicate in a more closed venue. I think T&S should prepare a risk analysis of hiding deleted revisions from board members before the US primary elections conclude. Radio static is boring until someone goes to the trouble of transmitting something.
    P.S., On reflection, I have to admit my interest is unduly driven by curiosity about whatever Counterfeit Purses said in the discussion of whether Chinese state media is reliable that Primefac felt was so abhorrent as to be oversighted instead of hatted or elided remaining in the talk page history. Those comments were oversighted before I joined the conversation or knew they existed, and because of my curiosity about the topic in general, I doubt they would be uninteresting to me even if they are to you. Let me drop this by asking Counterfeit Purses to put a summary of their comments on my talk page? Sandizer (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, well, I think it would be unwise for the board to operate at that level of detail. Board meetings are only so long, and we have to rely on briefings from the Trust and Safety staff and legal teams, who do review such things in detail. I thank you for your kind words and trust, and of course if you'd like to email me for a more private discussion that'd be great. (But I forewarn you, my inbox is a zoo so it might be slow or get overlooked so you might have to poke me here if I haven't answered in a week or so!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=1200513004"