User talk:Jimbo Wales

Editing of own Wikipedia biography

This title should be re name to> controversials —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.132.138 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo in Your appeal

Hello! In your appeal is your photography, which is (c) all rights reserved, not creative commons, or other free licence. I think, it is bad, when you say "Wikipedia content is free to use by anyone for any purpose", "all dedicated to sharing knowledge freely" and give non-free picture to them. Merry Christmas --Wyksztalcioch (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the image is BY-SA. So, it's just that someone erred on the side of caution.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

File description page updated. Cbrown1023 talk 17:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Krimpet/peek Awesome. :D krimpet✽ 21:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there Jimbo Wales, Merry Christmas!

Jimbo Wales,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

wikimedia back up servers

im just wondering, Mr. Wales, does wikimedia store everything on backup hard drives in case the main ones crash? don't all hard drives wear down after a while and break?Herius (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are backups. You could ask Brion Vibber for a pointer to the current details. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

appeal of ArbComm decision

Jimbo, in a recent post, you said : "I will be strongly inclined to overturn on appeal any decision of the ArbCom that did not include a public discussion and vote."[1]

So, I make an appeal to overturn this recent ArbComm decision: "Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought."[2] This ruling was not discussed publicly, and not publicly voted upon (there was however a limited discussion, and rejection, of WP:MAINSTREAM). I consider this ruling a violation of WP:NPOV, a core policy of Wikipedia, and I see "mainstream" as an example of WP:Weasel word. History has shown that no statement, even from what was considered "mainstream" science, is the ultimate truth; no statement should thus be presented as the truth on wikipedia. (Note: this ruling was instrumental in the decision to ban me.)

Thanks in advance for your consideration. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

They voted on it in public...? And Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Proposed decision is where it gets discussed. rootology (C)(T) 20:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If that's what Jim meant by a "public discussion and vote", I don't see what his comment on appeal means: how could one make an appeal on a hidden, private decision ? I understood that he wanted the ArbComm ruling to involve some kind of community discussion. It has not happen on this particular ruling. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been cases where ArbCom handled a case completely privately, voting and discussing on mailing lists, and only announcing the end result publicly. That's what Jimbo is referring to - "public discussion and vote" means "the arbitrators discussed the finding in public and voted on it in public". As pointed out above that's what happened in the cold fusion case. Hut 8.5 11:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

See generally Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Proposed decision; see also extensive discussion and arbitrators' comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop; for my own general approach to the subject, see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Proposed decision#Undue weight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I fully accept the WP:DUE concept. The ArbComm found it necessary to make an additional ruling. That's the one I dispute for lack of community consensus. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In articles on fringe topics such as cold fusion, one cannot discuss the subject only "in line with current mainstream scientific thought" as this ruling seems to indicate. That would be to take the point of view of mainstream science. This is new policy creation by the Arbitration Committee, so perhaps should be overturned on those grounds alone.

However, I actually interpret this statement as the final decision of Wikipedia that on fringe topics it has chosen to write from the perspective of mainstream science WP:SPOV. This would only be a reflection of general community consensus, that NPOV does not apply in these areas. From this perspective, it does not constitute new policy creation. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 21:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPOV is not an active policy, so there is no community consensus that it applies (see its talk page). This is further evidence that the ArbComm decision is contrary to the community decision. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The principle adopted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion was obviously intended to address the problem of people falsely asserting that because a fringe view existed the writing of an article on a scientific subject must give prominence to that fringe view, which is a misreading of the neutral point of view policy. Newyorkbrad's comment on proposed principle 4 (undue weight) is worth reading for context. --TS 21:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not obvious at all, but rather the contrary is obvious. If the ArbCom were not about Cold fusion then perhaps we could interpret it to read "Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of mainstream scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought." However, as it is it can only be interpreted as an injunction to write fringe articles from the POV of mainstream science. Mainstream science deprecates fringe science. Pcarbonn, the general consensus of editors of fringe articles is that they are to be written from SPOV. If anyone wishes to write fringe articles from the position of mainstream science, they can point to this ArbCom, (and they will, with good reason), and say that anyone wishing to write in a neutral tone is POV pushing. I know as a longtime editor in this area that I could do this, and it would work. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 00:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't make sense of that. Science is science, facts are facts. Fleischman and Pons conducted a scientific experiment which was published. Attempts to replicate the experiment have failed, and problems have been found with the design of the experiment and the interpretation of the results. This is what happened. It isn't a mainstream view of what happened. It isn't a fringe view of what happened. It's what happened.

During the arbitration case it emerged that pcarbonn had written an article in an advocacy journal saying:

"I'm pleased to report that the revised page, resulting from the mediation process, presents the topic as a continuing controversy, not as an example of pathological science."

Presenting failed scientific experiments as "a continuing controversy" is very poor writing and incompatible with the neutral point of view policy. You're entitled to your own point of view, but not to your own facts.

Without going into this matter in depth I've reviewed the lead section of the article as it stands at present, and it seems to be in keeping with our neutral point of view policy. To describe a neutral presentation of the known facts as "scientific point of view" is not necessarily helpful. Our governing policies here are enough to dictate and support this kind of presentation. --TS 03:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A failed experiment is not an example of pathological science. However, the continuing experiments are often regarded -generally regarded, probably- as pathological science, by mainstream scientists. This is the point of view from which we now write the article- the SPOV view, that is to say "in line with current mainstream scientific thought." That's not NPOV, because any time you write an article in line with any stream of though at all, you automatically don't write it from the NPOV. That is true by definition. The specific stream of thought advocated for all science articles by the Arbitration Committee is mainstream science, that is to say, SPOV.

FloNight explained "To be an useful reference tool Wikipedia needs present information on science topics as presented in the current prevailing textbooks and review journals." That is again to say, that WP writes from the POV of mainstream science.

Sam Blacketer goes on to make it even clearer "The role of an encyclopaedia is to principally represent the mainstream view, and then to describe the challenges as such, and not as 'alternatives'."

That is, WP represents the mainstream POV, whereas it describes the alternatives.

Wikipedia is SPOV, and has rejected NPOV in science articles. We can now write the articles in a scornful manner- that's the mainstream POV "Enthusiasm turned to skepticism and ultimately scorn as a long series of failed replication attempts were weighed in view of several theoretical reasons cold fusion should not be possible,..."

Because it's a fact: the mainstream POV is often scornful of the fringe. And now we "principally represent" rather than merely "present" mainstream science. And that's even in articles on fringe topics. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 05:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a conflict between neutral point of view and the practice of representing mainstream views as such, and fringe views as such. In fact, I would say that the neutral point of view dictates that we should do so, and not misrepresent the non-mainstream views as in any meaningful way an equal alternative to the mainstream view.

On the science, it's obviously failed science. Absence of replication alone would be enough to establish that. Attempts to misrepresent the facts are necessarily pathological. There are endless opportunities here to muddy the waters, but a failed experiment is a failed experiment.

The notion that there are topics in science that are "fringe" and by virtue of that we can act as if contrafactual and unsupported views were as valid as those supported by evidence, is extremely toxic to Wikipedia's concept of the Neutral point of view. NPOV does not mean that falsehoods and speculation are the equals of facts and evidence. In that sense, there is no fringe. We don't relax the neutral point of view in favor of fringe views, ever. --TS 14:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

After all these postings, I still don't see any evidence that there was a significant discussion on a policy to present mainstream science at the expense of significant scientific minorities, let alone a consensus. WP:NPOV says that neutral point of view "is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." and that "The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.". An exception for science is thus not acceptable. Wikipedia is a NPOV encyclopedia, not a mainstream one. I thus maintain my appeal of the ArbComm decision. (As a side point, many reputable sources, such as the DOE, present cold fusion as an ongoing controversy, despite what "most scientists" and TS think). Pcarbonn (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV vs Mainstream debate

It looks like we could not prevent us from starting the debate, although this is not the place. However, it does illustrate some of the key points of the debate

So, what exactly is the alternative? We put non-science and fringe-science on the exact same footing as well-accepted science, and become the laughingstock of the encyclopedia world? This is hardly the first time Arbcom have passed such resolutions, and every time, we get the usual Martinphi leaving Wikipedia in protest (Never sticks) and all sorts of whining - then next time such things are passed, we get the whole damn thing again. What we ought to do is agree on the principle and make it stick, not overturn a case because a couple fringe theorists cry out "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In any society, there are rules to protect minorities. NPOV is such a rule on wikipedia. It does require the majority and minority to be presented as such, and as I said, I fully accept that. The latest ruling of ArbComm has been driven by a majority who, yes, under the mantle of "mainstream" science, feels authorized to suppress minorities. Since its passing, many well-sourced arguments in favor of cold fusion have been removed from the cold fusion article. This is a disservice to our readers, who "should be allowed to form their own opinions", as NPOV says. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

We've been here before with the holocaust deniers, the creationists, and whatnot. It isn't a new argument. Falsely giving the impression of an ongoing, live debate on this subject would be a misrepresentation. --TS 15:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A Mainstream policy is a killer of all minorities, even the significant ones. Unlike for the holocaust deniers or creationists controversies, there are plenty of reliable sources saying that the cold fusion controversy is not resolved scientifically (see here for examples) It's normal human nature that "most scientists" like to dismiss it (see cognitive dissonance). We should not fall into that trap. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as Pcarbonn says, we have chosen to be a mainstream encyclopedia instead of a NPOV one. The mainstream does not treat the fringe in an NPOV fashion. Shoemaker says we do not put fringe on the "same level" as mainstream, and he's right. But that's preference, not NPOV. I agree with Shoemaker, "What we ought to do is agree on the principle and make it stick, not overturn a case because a couple fringe theorists cry out "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" Wikipedia is lying when it says it is NPOV. This is our opportunity to stop lying and say we are SPOV. The ArbCom has confirmed it. That is where WP is till otherwise noted by the ArbCom. Pcarbonn, we are not in society. WP specifically rejects civil rights. What we need to do is stop lying about NPOV, not try to fight the majority of editors who are SPOV. However, you are right about there being an ongoing debate with Cold fusion. TS, for NPOV there is no reason to give the impression of an ongoing significant debate where there isn't one. That's not what anyone is saying. For SPOV, we eliminate much of the other side of the argument as not worth coverage. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 20:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered that we do not put mainstream on the "same level" as fringe because it isn't on the same level? Neutrality demands that points of view be represented according to their respective prominence. If something is marginal, then it will have marginal coverage. If something is widely accepted, then it will have the bulk of coverage. NPOV doesn't mean that all points of view are equal, it means that none should be given unwarranted coverage. — Coren ^(talk) 20:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You're getting mixed up between articles on mainstream subjects, where fringe is marginal, and articles on fringe, where fringe is central. I have no opinion- the cases are individual. Obviously, fringe would never be proven right if it were not sometimes on a higher level than mainstream. Usually, it is lower. However, you opinion is my point: we are SPOV, not NPOV. If we put it on a higher level because it is more true, rather than merely reporting the sources which express the opinion it is more true (per WEIGHT), then we are SPOV. The ArbCom decision, since it's about Cold fusion, is about the way we write articles on fringe subjects: we cover it from a particular perspective, the mainstream's perspective. What you say would be NPOV for articles on mainstream science. What the ArbCom said would be SPOV for all articles- it takes a POV regardless of the weight of sources on the article's subject. It gives the greatest weight/space to the mainstream even when the subject is fringe to make it "in line with current mainstream scientific thought." ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 21:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Fringe is not central, anywhere on Wikipedia. That's what "fringe" means. If I write an article about flying saucers I'm writing about a fringe subject, but it would not be neutral to represent the fringe viewpoint (that they're vehicles from another world, or whatever) as anything other than a fringe viewpoint.

You say that the arbitration committee is asking that on scientific subjects we "[take] a POV regardless of the weight of sources on the article's subject." That is a false statement. The weight of sources is what defines "mainstream" and "fringe". The views of cold fusion advocates on the subject are the fringe. The fact that they support the notion does not give their views more weight. --TS 03:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• I followed the Pcarbonn/Cold fusion process the entire time. I was mightily impressed with the ArbComm process. Everything was done out in the open where it had to withstand the sanitizing light of public scrutiny. The process should serve as a paradigm for other organizations to model theirs after. The ArbComm findings of fact were correct and their decisions were wise and sound. Pcarbonn has been the beneficiary of more man-hours of Wikipedian time than I ever imagined might be devoted to just one of millions of users. It is time for Pcarbonn to accept the will of the community with grace and dignity. Greg L (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Fringe as it is used on Wikipedia is not used in reference to Wikipedia at all, but to "describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." Those ideas then may become Wikipedia articles if notable enough. Martinphi and Coren are right: "You're getting mixed up between articles on mainstream subjects, where fringe is marginal, and articles on fringe, where fringe is central." and "If something is marginal, then it will have marginal coverage. If something is widely accepted, then it will have the bulk of coverage. NPOV doesn't mean that all points of view are equal, it means that none should be given unwarranted coverage."(olive (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC))

"Fringe is not central, anywhere on Wikipedia. That's what "fringe" means." That's my point here: SPOV is the consensus of Wikipedia, confirmed by the Arbitration Committee. A fringe view doesn't even get to be central in its own article. And that's what SPOV means: seeing a view held by a majority as a minority view because it is a minority view of.... reasonable people? Skeptics of flying saucers? Well, in whatever group it's a minority, that's the group where WP edits from.

That's again my point, that you believe that we edit from a POV. We don't, under NPOV. We do under SPOV. Under NPOV we would write the UFO article not as a "majority view" or "minority view" but as a view held by "X number of group Y[source]." That's NPOV. Under SPOV, we write about it as a "minority view" held by those who don't know what they are talking about, whereas the Majority view is.....

Nope, I'm not a believer there, either.

On Cold fusion, Pcarbonn says sources have been censored because of their POV. Under NPOV that would be appropriate in an article on fusion (per WEIGHT), but not in the cold fusion article (also per WEIGHT). Rather the cold fusion article is the place to fully describe the views of cold fusion proponents, as well as any notable mainstream views. Mainstream views gain their prominence per sources, not because they are mainstream. Under SPOV, censorship comes in, mainstream gains its prominence from the fact that it is mainstream, and the article's tone is POV.

As I said before- you're right that we don't present a fringe viewpoint as other than a fringe viewpoint. But neither do we write from a mainstream POV- unless we are an SPOV encyclopedia. SPOV advocates sometimes don't get this, and sometimes just disagree. Whatever the case, the general consensus is SPOV, and the ArbCom has confirmed it, and it is policy. There is no more argument. I've been deeply involved for years, I know the topic of fringe versus mainstream very well, and I know what it is to "represent the mainstream" as opposed to "describe the mainstream." ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 05:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Under SPOV, this is a minority fringe view. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 06:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. It's an excellent source to support the assertion that more than half of Americans believe in guardian angels. Note the subtle but critical distinction here: this is most assuredly not a source supporting that guardian angels exist, only that the majority of one particular population of the world, according to a statistical sample, believe that they do. — Coren ^(talk) 06:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Look Coren, I'm talking about facts on the ground here. There seems to be a basic disconnect on the order of the ideals of religion versus their practice between you and me. I'm talking about what Wikipedia IS, you're talking about what it's supposed to be. I do not think we have any disagreement on what it is supposed to be. I'm telling you: 1) Wikipedia is SPOV 2) that SPOV is the consensus of editors on non-scientific or pseudoscientific subjects 3) the ArbCom has just confirmed this, as I explain above 4) because of these things, Wikipedia is being dishonest. That's what I really hate, that it's being dishonest about where it is coming from.

From the position of SPOV, the above kind of thing about angels is a "minority view" and is to be treated as such in terms of WEIGHT etc. Also, you don't seem to notice that SPOV editors look at things in terms of reality. If a majority of scientists believe something they represent that, rather than present it. Under NPOV, the belief should be presented, in the same way that the belief in angels should be presented. SPOV editors don't get that such a neutral description is more convincing anyway.

You're talking about the ideals of NPOV. I'm telling you that unless you and others do something really major, that what you are telling me is wrong is going to continue to be the fact of Wikipedia. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 19:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Martinphi that there is a lot of doublethinking on wikipedia, like "WP:MAINSTREAM is NPOV", or "WP:SPOV is NPOV", and I wish that to stop. On the other hand, the cold fusion controversy is a purely scientific controversy, not a controversy between science and non-science. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Coren, here is an example of the hateful SPOV pushing debunker atmosphere which recently made me leave all article editing:

1. Keep. An interesting read. He seems to be concluding that it shouldn't be difficult to include facts about proven reality, and it should be difficult to include fringe POV as if they were reality, which makes sense. If fringe POV pushers want to edit here, they should have a hard row to hoe, and shouldn't be allowed to make life difficult for pushers of reality. "Advocacy" of nonsense is forbidden here, while advocacy of reality isn't forbidden. The push may look the same, but it's allowable to push for reality, but not allowable to push for nonsense. That type of "advocacy" is forbidden. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We don't allow OR here, and opinions need to be sourced and attributed, but undeniable facts don't. Those who are so far out in left field as to not understand reality or to consider nonsense to be reality should have a hard time here. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Keep This essay is a crystal clear message that fringe POV-pushers are not welcome, and should not be welcome, on Wikipedia. Martin, thank you for reminding us why you will not be missed. Skinwalker (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

From here. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is non-negotiable

The debate above shows that the NPOV vs Mainstream issue is about the protection of significant minorities on wikipedia. A community discussion of the topic may pit the majority against the significant minorities, and the significant minorities may lose. ArbComm may be tempted to follow the majority, especially during a re-election. I'm becoming convinced that only Jimbo can protect these minorities by reasserting the non-negotiability of NPOV, if he so wishes. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking WP:NPOV for some kind of "equal opportunities" scheme for fringe viewpoints – see NPOV: Giving "equal validity". NPOV means giving due weight to majority expert views, and applies to all articles, including those specifically devoted to a subject held dear by minorities. . . dave souza, talk

No, I'm not mistaking WP:NPOV for equal opportunity. On the other hand, you seem to be mistaking NPOV for WP:MAINSTREAM. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. There is a large overlap between WP:NPOV and WP:MAINSTREAM, and WP:MAINSTREAM has many statements about NPOV with which I fully agree. My issue is with every statement that use the "mainstream" word, a weasel word describing non-verifiable and/or non-reliable sources. Such "mainstream" sources have a simplistic, black-and-white view of a controversy, dismissing significant minority views. See here for more details. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So. Good discussion. I have been mulling this over. NPOV is non-negotiable, yes. But NPOV requires us to take a thoughtful and nuanced approach to determining questions of how and when to include extreme minority viewpoints. A random crackpot web page seriously claiming that the moon is made of cheese is not worthy of mention in an article about the moon, not even in a section about cultural myths and stories about the moon, etc. On the other hand, a legitimate scientific controversy is a different matter, of course. I have not seen any overall trend towards the suppression of minority viewpoints in Wikipedia, nor have a seen any overall trend towards the kind of extreme relativism that would have us treat all views as if they are equally plausible, regardless of the source and manner in which they are promoted. We strike a balance, and a pretty good one for the most part.

My answer then, may not be very satisfying in the short run, but in the long run I think it is the only answer that can satisfy us all in a deep way: we need to continue to have serious and respectful dialog, as this one has been, feeling our way forward thoughtfully towards boundaries that make sense, and acknowledging that we may not get our way in every single case.

The argument that ArbCom may be inclined to follow the majority doesn't quite persuade me in this particular case, although I do think there is value in the ArbCom being - to a degree - insulated from the WikiPolitics of the moment, whatever those may be. The reason I am not persuaded in this particular case is that my sense of it is that the majority of Wikipedians prefers a degree of protection and kindness towards minority views, even those views which the majority of us might find to be silly. I've seen no broad tendency towards people wanting to exclude minority viewpoints, even quite odd ones. WP:TIGERS and all that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What we're actually talking about here is just a few articles- you're right, there probably is no broad tendency, and you're right that the majority of Wikipedians are not into debunking fringe views. I've been trying to call people's attention to a group of perhaps 50 to 150 articles on alternative medicine and the paranormal which give rise to sentiments like I just posted in the section above "The push may look the same, but it's allowable to push for reality, but not allowable to push for nonsense." That sums it up well, POV pushing is OK if it's true. I assure you this is the opinion of a LOT of the editors in this small problem area. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 01:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Calça arriada

Está de calça arriada, hein, Jimmy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.78.102 (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is your heir?

Hi Jimbo, this is a hypothetical that has been biting at the back of my mind for the past few days. As the situation stands now, the ArbCom board is appointed by you, with an advisory vote from the community. I'm sorry if I'm putting this indelicately, but we are all human, and therefore mortal. Who would appoint the ArbCom, and who would act as the ultimate decision-maker, in case something happened to you? Are there already contingency plans in place for this? In a related question, on other projects with Arbitration Committees, who appoints those members? Is it all you, or do other projects do it differently? Sorry to hit you with this during the holiday season,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that the community would have an emergency vote on one of the members of the WMF board. Just my guess though, don't take it to the bank. Actually, in this economy, don't take anything to the bank! Sam ^Blab 13:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That last part actually made ma laugh a little. ;-) ayematthew @ 13:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Foundation has virtually nothing to do with it, although they might want some input into the matter. I would suggest that in such an eventuality, the ArbCom itself might wisely set down a procedure for their own replacement.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Arbcom has repeatedly demonstrated their inability to regulate themselves this year, actually: The Orangemarlin incident and the Arbcom RFC are notable examples of, firstly, the Arbcom making a bad decision then managing the fallout badly, and, in the second, refusing to take community feedback (Months after the community said "No new policy from Arbcom", they opened up a year-old case so they could create policy.) 67.165.48.217 (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the other wiki projects make up their own process on how to do it. Most if not all I believe hold straight elections, and if their ACs get access to private information (Checkuser, Oversight) the individual members still need vetting by the Foundation in any event. rootology (C)(T) 15:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This wouldn't be much of an issue unless Jimbo became incapacitated right before an ArbCom election. Any potential assassins should keep that in mind and wait about a year before striking if their goal is to cause maximum chaos. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

...never read WP:BEANS, eh? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Jimbo... gettin' old..... ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 05:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How about a "How To Do It" wiki site?

Surely this has been suggested before (and if so, I'd be curious as to why no one thought to follow up on it). How to change the oil in your car. How to boil an egg in a microwave. How to do well in an interview. How to deal with depression? How to raise chickens. With its topical entries limited to those published about for a general, non-technical audience (although once that hurdle would be met, techical sources could buttress assertions); with preference given to entries dealing with basic life skills and with its presentations necessarily emphasizing practical applications over theory; and with an effort to make its directions as easy to understand as possible (which, in the case of many manual writers, is something that's somewhat difficult to do). Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 00:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikihow. Majorly talk 00:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There's WikiHow. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Fail Julian :P Majorly talk 00:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, indeed I do. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• The Wikimedia project for how-to guides is Wikibooks. It has an articles on how to boil an egg and how to raise chickens. (Not necessarily in that order). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes the eternal conundrum! And don't forget that [[b:]] is the interwiki link for Wikibooks. – ukexpat (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No no-follow restricted interwiki for wikihow? rootology (C)(T) 15:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, wikiHow is not an official sister project; Wikibooks is. GlassCobra 16:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The code for WikiHow is, for example, "[[wikiHow:Foo]] according to the interwiki map. Graham87 16:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Developer support for parser function

Jimbo, I’ve run the gamut with the volunteer developer community on a template that requires a special, character-counting parser function that shouldn’t take too much time for an experienced developer to produce. The response from the developer community was that—while they were sympathetic to the cause—they felt that producing the character-counting parser function would “set a precedent” that might encourage more requests for special parser functions. Accordingly, I come to you in hopes you know of an even more sympathetic developer.

For a very succinct overview of the template I am talking about, please see this thread on WT:MOSNM.

This template was originally called by the name “Delimitnum”. It’s functionality is largely described here: here on WT:MOSNUM archive 94.

It was extensively discussed and voted upon here on WT:MOSNUM archive 94.

The template was well received here on WT:MOS archive 97 where its appearance was tweaked.

A bugzilla covering this is #15677, here.

Please note that this has languished since Feb. 15th in the form of Bugzilla #13025. So I believe I’ve demonstrated a reasonable degree of patience and diligence in trying to find some way to get this done without the need to approach you of all people.

Please note also, that I should think that a character-counting parser function—something that ‘bites off and spits out’ a specified number of characters from a string—should find wide utility in a variety of other templates and magic words. I think such a parser function would prove a valuable addition to the suite of parser functions we currently have.

In advance, thanks for looking into this. Greg L (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's really interesting. Can you give me an example of the rounding error, and some rough estimate of how often it might happen? I do agree with you that there can come a point at which, well, if no volunteer developer wants to do something (which is of course totally fine! they should do what interests them and they should be concerned about accepting requests that might lead to a flood of other stuff), it could make sense to have someone on staff do it. Totally makes sense. I don't know if this is such a case, nor am I in anything like a position to judge how much of a priority it should be. Probably you should talk to Erik Moeller or Brion Vibber. But in the meantime, keep me posted, and let me know more about this, if for no other reason than that I should stay informed about such stuff as best I can. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Jimbo, averaged across a wide variety of numbers, the rounding problem occurs perhaps about 10% of the time; often enough that our MOSNUM guideline cautions editors as follows: “Note that {{val}} can fail to correctly handle numbers with too many significant digits.” Some editors feel that this is too often to release the template “into the wild.” Nevertheless, it has been released due to the fact that MOSNUM now advises of its availability. If you would like to see some extensive, real-world use of {{val}}, see this portion of Kilogram.

  To see the error ratio yourself, please examine this 3960-count progression sandbox. The sandbox is for a similar template known as {{Delimitnum}}, which uses the same math-based technique as {{val}}. As you scroll down the sandbox, you can see that the problem occurs a troubling percentage of the time. Here is a link to another area of the same sandbox; scroll upwards to see the hit ratio. These rounding errors are all a consequence of the math-based technique that template authors currently must resort to. It can occur with modest-precision ones like this:

  {{val|0.55007|e=6}} → 0.55007×10⁶

  Note too that in my recent post on WT:MOSNUM, I originally tried to use an example of proton mass but encountered the rounding error. So I settled for using the value for electron mass. Accordingly, my real-world error ratio was one out of four yesterday. Here is what happened with that failed attempt using proton mass:

  {{val|1.672621637|(83)|e=-27|ul=kg}} → 1.672621637(83)×10⁻²⁷ kg (note the ending 6 v.s. the expected 7)

  The above number is a real-world value selected from the NIST here.

  Note too that the math-based technique completely chokes with very-high-precision values. The {val} template at least recognizes this fundamental limitation and provides an alert flag to editors that it can’t parse the value. Though this high-precision limitation occurs less frequently, they do arise with some regularity in real life due to the very high precision that physics and science is generating today.

  As for “priority,” scientific notation, as you know, appears all over Wikipedia. The current {{e}} tool is quite limited and produces very unsophisticated, non-delimited output like 1.672621637(83)×10⁻¹². The {val} template is looked upon with great anticipation and—notwithstanding its current shortcomings with occasional rounding errors—still became the recommended tool on MOSNUM. I think the cost/benefit ratio of having a staff developer work on this is very much worthwhile; the developer would need make only the parser function, nothing further.

  Important: I’d like to avoid working cross-purpose here (a “right foot not knowing what the left foot intends” problem) if I can. I would think a parser function which spoons out a specified number of characters from a string (something template authors can ask Are there five or more digits remaining in the string(?), if so, feed me three more characters.) would be very, very useful for many other purposes besides this template. I think it would be great if a professional staff developer produced a well done parser function because a huge army of volunteer editors specializing in magic words and templates could then produce some fabulous tools once given a bullet proof parser function. Leverage. If you are interested in giving this to a staff developer, please advise. If you would prefer that I first approach Erik Moeller or Brion Vibber to see what their reaction is, please advise. Greg L (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple English projects

Hallo Jimbo, seasons greetings to you. This will probably not concern you right now for a few days but I wonder after the period if you or any other general staff might throw some words of wisdom at the recent and ongoing debates on meta calling for the closure of all Simple projects [3]. Almost 100 persons have made some sort of vote by now and are continuing to appear daily. Most of the debate seems to ask wether there is such a thing as "simple" or wether all wikis should be established traditional languages. Happy new year to you. ~ R.T.G 14:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have often thought that Simple English Wikipedia has suffered from confusion about it's standards and purpose, but overall I think the best solution is for that community to figure it out over time. The idea of a Wikipedia written with a controlled vocabulary and style specifically designed to be easier for non-native English learning adults sounds useful and interesting to me. I'm not an expert in that area, though, so my input would necessarily be limited.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk entry on dewikinews

Hi, i'm an admin on dewikinews. Some anonymous user left the following message on a misnamed page which he probably suspected to be your user discussion. FYI i will copy the message to here before i remove it on dewikinews. -- Kju (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Hello Jimmy Wales!

I just read your article about the donation to keep wikipedia alive.

At first i have to say that i'm a big fan of the wiki-cyclopedia. When i search for something, i look here at first to find the answers for my questions. But there are two things i want to remark:

1. Quality always has it's price. So i don't understand, why wiki shouldn't be paid by advertisement. Even if so many people use it to get some knowledge about things they are interested of, its a big chance to evolve and to develop new possibilities or features (and btw. to collect some money to do that without donations). In my opinion wiki is globally used, not only by the donators, so it should be globally paid for it's service. It's no human act to provide such a website, it's the current and future need of mankind and it will be substituted by another site if wiki smashes by the lack of money. ;o)

2. I somehow miss the entry site of this database. In my imagination knowledge is like a pie, every part of science is a piece of it and it branches into a tree down to the border of knowledge. Nevertheless it's also relational, what means there are still cross-relations to other parts of a subject. Think about someone who wants to know something about a mathematical or physical case (for instance). At first he got to understand the basics and after that hes going deeper and deeper into the theory until he gets the answer he needs. I think this is the point to make wiki a platform to learn something, not only to get answers of a current question, subjected by a specific search term. What i want to say is, knowledge has a structure. To discover and to document this structure is the mission of any cyclopedia.

Please take what you need to get this wonderful idea of a global knowledge base that far.

Friendly Regards

Matthias

Hi Jimbo

Just wanted to say hi. Hi. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That is easily one of the creepiest things I've seen while just randomly browsing a user's talk page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)