User talk:Jimbo Wales

User:Karmafist banned for administrative vandalism?

I'm curious about what kind of "subtle vandalism" did User:Karmafist engage in (administrative? editorial?). How would someone "subtly" vandalize Wikipedia? And what articles did he vandalize? I don't know who to ask, so I post this on Jimbo's talk page, I assume someone else other than Jimbo would respond, since it happens in most of the times. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He didn't vandalize any article using this account but through sockpuppetry using many others, as stated on user page. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then why blocking his main account? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This was a chronic, serious problem, including an arbitration case, in which I think the ban was really a last resort. The ban has always made me sad, because he gave me my first "welcome" message which is still on my talkpage, but at some point he became so unhappy that he just couldn't get along here any more. Newyorkbrad 18:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? You think people can avoid all the consequences of their vandalism merely by doing it under alternate accounts? That's nonsense. Blocks and bans are handed out on a per-person basis, not a per-account basis. You vandalize under sock accounts, your main account gets blocked for it too. Pretty simple, really. --Cyde Weys 18:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nickname Policy, please

Hello Mr. Wales, I have had a problem with the Wikipedia entry of Archimedes Plutonium. It just so happens that Wikipedia has some irrational policy over nicknames, and yours of "Jimbo" is a case in point. You may not feel that Jimbo is deprecatory, but to a scientist, these sort of things touches sensitive nerves. Scientists don't want nonsense but want seriousness. There is not a scientist that I know of in Encycl Britannica who is encumbered by some dumb and stupid nickname. Nicknames are fine for sports figures or entertainment, but for scientists nicknames smack of mocking. Arthur Rubin is a Wiki editor who insists on retaining this deprecatory fanname "Arky". The source which that was found is a deprecatory source in the first place and not a biography source. The people who discuss my ideas on the Internet have largely used the nickname AP. Nicknames are different from fannames. And a person has a say over what his/her nickname is. Others cannot give me a nickname which I reject. Arthur Rubin is acting like a bully on this nickname issue. He has never posted the full Wiki policy on nicknames, which leads me to suspect there really never was a policy and that the insistence on "Arky" is a form of mockery which the Wiki editors are delighted over.

I do not believe you have a policy for nicknames and that you do not have a definition of nickname versus fanname, nor does Wikipedia have a steadfast rule for nicknames as witnessed by scientist versus sports entries. So the evidence indicates Wikipedia is acting arbitrary on nicknames.

-- Archimedes Plutonium —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.16.54.196 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

OMG it's Archie Pu! Do you remember me? I don't suppose you do, but anyway whilste I don't accept that you have a say in a nickname given to you by many of your "fans" never the less I don't see the issue is important enough to fight over. You do know that you are not really a scientist though? Honestly you are not. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And for this very reason, why isn't the man's bio (Archimedes Plutonium) tagged for speedy deletion? Looking at the TALK page, I see this was tried, but failed. Partly on grounds that if everybody else was doing it (Kibo lives in part to make fun of Archie), then why shouldn't Archie? Here again we see BLP being used as a dumping ground for bios that NOBODY else would print. Wikipedia is (among other things) a museum of collected previously-lost trivia about living internet cranks, crackpots, and eccentrics. I can do nothing about it, except to continue to point them out, until you all just cave in from embarrassment regarding what your own petrified BLP policies have created. Gag me. Jimbo, some serious bad karma is building up, here. Your BLP policies remind me of the slime explosion from Ghostbusters II. Eventually, when it all goes up or comes down, everybody who aided or abbetted keeping BLPs of people like Archie, are figuratively going to look like they've been hit with 10 buckets of dinosaur snot. Fair warning. SBHarris 22:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are proven wrong by how scientists names quarks those stupid, silly names. SakotGrimshine 08:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki ads...

http://requests.wikia.com/wiki/Ads ← The proposal.

I've created a proposal that I believe has the potential to be a large revenue source for Wikia, and in turn, Wikipedia. Should I just go ahead and start the site myself, or would Wikia be an appropriate framework? --Remi 00:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, you do realize that Wikipedia has nothing to do with Wikia? That you're posting this on entirely the wrong site? --Cyde Weys 01:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, you do realise that this violates Wikia's terms of use? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

Dear Jimbo, I am writing concerning the entry on Archimedes Plutonium. He is a figure who, according to the opening of the entry, is "widely noted for his varied contributions to Usenet and his claims that the entire Universe is a single plutonium atom." The entry has been the subject of two AfDs, but has survived both. The subject of the entry requested in March that the entry be deleted (see here and here, and also see this). It is very clear that the subject of this entry is not notable, and that this entry exists only because some editors consider its subject to be a figure of fun, if their motives are not indeed more malicious than that. I feel that the subject of the entry may not be in a strong position to defend himself, and I therefore request your intervention in deleting this entry. Thanks. FNMF 04:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"The entry has been the subject of two AfDs, but has survived both." Clearly the community thinks he's notable enough to warrant an article, I've certainly read him before, so what exactly is the need so pressing that this article requires being brought to Jimbo to be deleted against the community's wishes? I fail to see it... FeloniousMonk 05:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, the Archimedes meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 05:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

An example of the content of the entry is the following: "Others defended him on the grounds that anyone who dubbed himself "The King of All Science" while talking to Nobel prize winners about pumping water from the Pacific Ocean to the Moon via a giant hose using osmotic pressure, more than made up for any perceived lack of academic credentials for the sheer entertainment that such things gave to the world." He is an utterly non-notable figure, and the entry is not only non-encyclopaedic but insensitive and malicious. Furthermore, the subject of the entry has requested deletion, and this request is entirely reasonable. If this kind of abuse of the defenceless is permissible on Wikipedia, it reflects poorly on the editorial culture. FNMF 12:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you intend to respond to the fact that he meets WP:BIO or not? JoshuaZ 12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned he's completely non-notable, as I've mentioned in both of the comments I've placed. FNMF 12:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So explain how he's no notable. We have multiple (6 at least) independent reliable sources which focus on him. Nor is this a 15-minutes of fame situation but the articles are for a variety of different things in different years. Notability is not simply your being uninterested in the topic. JoshuaZ 12:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any sources that establish anything like encyclopaedic notability. FNMF 13:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The "The Dartmouth Murders" has an extensive discussion, there are at least two articles in The Dartmouth which are dedicated solely to discussing this topic and he is the subject of multiple others. He is extensively discussed in the Discover article ""Notes from Another Universe" as well as being discussed in Dartmouth Alumni Magazine for October of 1992. If you would bother to actually look at the article you would have realized this. We have many, independent, non-trivial reliable sources. Stop being disruptive. JoshuaZ 15:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, you may well feel certain that Archimedes Plutonium is an important and worthwhile ornament to Wikipedia. I disagree, and I have given my reasons. You ask me to address your criticisms of my position and I have done so, though obviously not to your satisfaction. On the other hand, I have not seen any response to my claim that the entry is non-encyclopaedic, insensitive, and malicious. However that may be, please do not accuse me of "disruption" merely because you are frustrated that I do not agree with your position. FNMF 17:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

FNMF: ths is really not the proper place to discuss events that have followed Wikipedia process to the T. If the article has twice survied AfD, it is (as FM stated) clearly because the community feels it should stay.

Essentially, in refusing to accept the voice of the community and in continuing to try to fan the flames of a dead fire, you are being disruptive for disruption's sake. Let it go, move on to another topic, another article. Look, I don't think most of the school articles belong here, but since the community supports these articles, I'll be damned if I'm going to bang my head into a marble wall in protest. It's best to just move on, and keep ones credibility intact. •Jim62sch• 20:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My belief is the following: there is no clearer case that I know of where a Wikipedia entry has the potential to cause harm to the subject of the entry. I understand that editors aware of this entry have twice chosen to retain it. I nevertheless believe this is an unnecessary and potentially harmful entry that is also insensitive, malicious, and non-encyclopaedic. By coming to this forum, I was not attempting to initiate a dialogue on the entry with those who wish to defend the entry. Clearly there are editors who believe this entry is justified. Of course, if the entry has been through 2 AfDs, then obviously I'm not the first one to object to the entry. Whether Mr Wales chooses to act in relation to this entry or not is his business, and I trust him with this decision. But nothing that has been printed in objection to my initial post convinces me that the Archimedes Plutonium entry has any place in this encyclopaedia. FNMF 21:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The latest comment by the subject of the entry is this. FNMF 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The even latest-er comment by the subject of the entry is this This situation is unpleasant and unnecessary. FNMF 07:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, there's a source, a book by Eric Francis. Seems to me that if Archimedes Plutonium has an issue with the source, he needs to take it up with the source. We just report, and given WP:NOR can't really engage in our own research to verify that the source was telling the truth (i.e., investigative reporting à la the media).

If you feel that the article needs cleanup, why not tag it and edit it? •Jim62sch• 19:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's in a book somewhere, do we really need to list as his "nickname" something that he clearly doesn't like to be called? Perhaps, if there must be some mention of that name, it ought to be clearly noted as a name that was applied to him by others, not the name he chooses to be known as himself. (The legal threats and silly assertions by him are still ridiculous, and actually harm his case more than helping it, given that they make people angry who might have taken his side if he had been more reasonable about it.) *Dan T.* 19:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I understand what you're saying, but I would add this: the book, as far as I can tell (I admit, I haven't read it), is not really about Archimedes Plutonium. Rather, he appears in it briefly in the context of the book's theme, which is unrelated to the subject and unrelated to the subject's purported notability. In short, I don't see that the book establishes that the entry is encyclopaedic or notable. As for editing the entry, I can't see how to edit the entry to address the problems. The real issue is the existence of the entry, to which the subject has objected. And the real problem is that where editors are determined to retain the entry on grounds such as the existence of the book you mentioned, and in spite of the lack of notability of the subject, and in spite of the subject's objections, neither editing the entry nor yet another AfD seem avenues likely to address the real problems. FNMF 23:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Another contribution by AP. FNMF 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And, just now, this. FNMF 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the Wikipedia community from the top down has little interest in dealing with this malicious and non-encyclopaedic entry. Oh well. FNMF 00:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the Wikipedia community from the top down has decided that there is no problem with this entry. JoshuaZ 01:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And if that is their decision, then it is a decision which, in my opinion, reflects poorly on the community and the project. FNMF 01:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

interwiev Mr. Wales (Spain)

I am a Spanish journalist. I want to contact with Jimbo Wales -o with their press office - to make him an interview via e-mail, for a Spanish newspaper A greeting, ÁNGELES LÓPEZ <snipped to prevent spambots>

See Wikipedia:Contact us and Foundation:Press room. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Slurred Nicknames and Wikipedia getting into trouble

Newsgroups: soc.history, sci.lang, misc.legal From: a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> Date: 10 May 2007 14:47:20 -0700 Local: Thurs, May 10 2007 4:47 pm Subject: Wikipedia insistence on giving ethnic slurred nicknames to innocent people

Wikipedia delights in throwing darts at innocent people whenever they can find something negative about a person they delight in pinning it on the person and then they justify it by saying it is their rules.

For example, I am a scientist but the only scientist pinned with a nickname and a ethnic slur of a nickname. My real nickname is AP, but since the hatemonger Eric Francis wrote "Arky" in his book, Wikipedia wants to laugh alongside Francis by trying to pin AP with that ethnic slur in Archimedes Plutonium's Wikipedia page.

Arkie / Arky (U.S.) similar to Okie, except from Arkansas instead of Oklahoma.

http://www.search.com/reference/List_of_ethnic_slurs#A

I keep telling Wikipedia that a person owns his or her nickname and has control over it. And that a person has to *want* a nickname before it can be used in an encyclopedia.

But the Wiki editors are too obtuse for the most part and too much into gathering laughs than to have serious and objective pages.

So I ask the question. Is the word "Arky" a profanity in some foreign languages. I know it is a ethnic slur in USA.

And I ask if Wikipedia continues to saddle me with a ethnic slur of a nickname that it is a civil lawsuit in the making?

Thanks for any answers.

P.S. I am thinking of contacting the State Attorney's Office and send a letter of reprimand to the Wikipedia foundation for the harrassement of private citizens. That Wikipedia just does not have their act together when it comes to nicknames. And that the Wikipedia organization has too many obtuse editors looking for laughs and not for the TRUTH.

P.S. post this also to Wikipedia discussion pages to Mr. Wales and to the Archimedes Plutonium entry.

Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.16.55.1 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

• Do people from Arkansas constitute an ethnic group? Nigel Barristoat 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• That sounds like a No Legal Threats violation. *Dan T.* 02:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This edit, where xe is clearly employing legal threats in an attempt to have editors stop editing an article, is an unequivocal violation. Uncle G 09:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

the usage of wikipedia-only/non-commercial purpose materials in Wikipedia

Hello Jimbo.

I am a humble member of Wikipedia community participating mainly in its german part I write to you, because as far as I know, this prohibiting guideline comes out directly from you, so you are the only appropriate person to talk on this topic.

So, I consider this guideline to be a huge mistake, and I'm sure that many authors are agree with me. It is absolutely clear that a permission is needed, to use diverse materials, otherwise it would be unlawful.
But using the materials in question, we can make it available and useful for everyone, at least inside Wikipedia. Because of this rule nobody can use it, also those who are you caring of. You don't help them in any way by such prohibition, but it harms Wikipedia from my point of view. --Prandr 16:02 CET, 11 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.142.137.24 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Joe's page

I'm sure you're too busy to handle something as insignifigant as this, but if you get a chance, could you tell me if my user page has too much personal crap so that I can avoid a block?—Joe Jacard

I'll handle this one for you Jimbo, your userpage is absolutely fine - in fact, I like it! You really don't need to worry about a block, they don't get handed out willy nilly, it's only for very serious problems and as a protective measure for the encyclopedia. Keep up your great work :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 20:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It does

There is no reason that the article should not be sourced, however the removal of the information was done under false pretenses given the citing of BLP for a deceased individual. The protection of the page under the reason of "Edit war" seemed a little brisk too, considering by no objective viewer could that situation be considered an edit war with only two reverts total. When you are debating someone citing one policy, when there are violations of other policies in doing so, which policy trumps the other? If the answer is to ignore all rules then neither policy matters. My only aim on that page was to re-insert information removed because it was obvious it was removed without the person having read the article itself as evidenced by the citing of BLP for a dead man, why the page was locked after not even remotely reaching 3RR is beyond me.

So in conclusion I agree the article needs sourcing, I disagree on the methods taken to force the sourcing and strongly disagree with the protection of the page over a non-existent edit war. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are wrong. --Jimbo Wales 01:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to see which part is wrong, I agree with you that the article needs sourcing but disagree with the quick protection and methods that lead to the protection. I know your view on article sourcing, which is a point we agree upon, but I am unsure of your opinions on the protection or the methods that lead to the protection due to your vague replies, can you be more specific? –– Lid^(Talk) 02:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty simple. If someone removes random crap from an article like that and asks for sources, cramming the crap back in is the wrong approach. Arguing that the guy is dead, and therefore BLP doesn't apply, is really a stretch. Quality matters. --Jimbo Wales 03:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I only did it in this case because of that stretch, although I will admit originally I saw it as detrimental and may have reverted at that time (though I felt justified in that during that period the editor in question was believed, and was also blocked for a period due to this belief, that they were a sock of a previously banned editor) I have since not ham-fistedly re-inserted information of this status back into articles excluding this single case. The quality does indeed matter, but also actually paying attention to what you are doing is just as important and I saw someone justifying their reasons with Biography Living Persons on a biography of a deceased person as simply ill-conceived. I won't re-insert the information, and in fact have no willingness to do so, I do however feel that the full protection should be lifted as there is no real dispute between the removal of the information, simply the reasons for the original removal of the information. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You wrote to an old conversation!

Post on my talk page a month too late!

Govvy, you are absolutely wrong in this. I will block if you continue to push this agenda. "At any time you shouldn't remove large amounts of information from bios even if it is wrong" is incorrect. The correct answer is "At any time you MUST remove large amounts of information from bios if it is wrong." Period. Wikipedia is not Myspace, we don't need shoddy crap. --Jimbo Wales 01:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, you just said you would block me "for pushing an agenda"! I have no agenda, I follow etiquette and rules. Firstly saying you would block me, is considered a threat. Secondly I was trying to get some etiquette from Burntsauce, who continues to never cooperate with the Wikipedia Wrestling Project. Removing of large amounts of data with no explanations is vandalism. Burntsause never posted on the Project, so every time he does so without explanation I consider it vandalism. I made the point several times. I am not going to repeat myself to you, you should of read more. Like so many people on Wikipedia, the communication level is terrible, you should inform a project if a large scale of information is wrong. Hence, he has failed simple etiquette rules, hence, why I was upset. Now for you, please do a little more back tracking before you start running your mouth. Thanks. Govvy 13:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat my warning to you.--Jimbo Wales 22:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

legal internships/externships (copy from meta)

Jimbo, does the foundation have any legal intern/externships? If I understand correctly, Brad left, and I'm not sure who to ask in the legal department: I emailed juriwiki-l. I'm a 1st year law student at American University, Washington College of Law (a top 50 school). I've worked in law firms for years from a file clerk to a research assistant, and I'd love to help you guys out. Also, conveniently I'm located in Florida (for the time being until I go back to D.C, though I spend my summers in Palm Beach Gardens), and I'm somewhat familiar with florida statute. Most importantly, I have quite a few contacts in Tallahassee from prior internships, lobbying work, and extensive family relationships in the legislature. I recently testified in front of the house commission on veterans affairs, and I've worked in the capitol as well. I hold a B.S. in political science from F.S.U. and a minor in communications. Let me know if this sounds like something you'd be interested in. I don't need to be paid, my family has plenty of ability to support me, and I'm financially stable. I just love Wikipedia and want to help it beyond my ability as just another en administrator. Credentials and information at my userpage ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I answered on meta. (Hi Jimbo) Anthere 21:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Award

Golden WikiAward I, User:ISOLA'd ELBA would like to award you the Golden WikiAward for creating Wikipedia.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ISOLA'd ELBA (talk • contribs) 22:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical remarks on a case instructive regarding the concept of "consensus"

Please excuse me as these comments are informal, though I have done a bit of thinking regarding these issues over the last weeks. My thoughts are still somewhat inchoate, so I hope clarity succeeds at least. I certainly don't expect and don't ask for an opinion regarding the facts of this case, as I feel that would be inappropriate. But I hope to hear anything you might have to say regarding these phenomena; or correct me if I'm ignorant about something.

This website's policies are largely governed by consensus. This is wise for a variety of reasons. Also let me say that, as regards the subject of this note, the article for a nice woman named Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, my sentiments against its existence have been made clear and detailed, shall I say articulated, in the relevant discussion pages.
With that out of the way, I present for your observation my thoughts on what I think is a misapprehension of the concept of "consensus" that I witnessed in many users' comments during the AfD and deletion review debates for this wikipedia article. I stress that I characterize the problem pejoratively not because some users did not agree with me -- I can accept people who disagree with me, and enjoy writing detailed notes to and fro with users of different persuasions. But I feel this project would only benefit from a clearer statement of what constitutes a consensus-based decision.
I've characterized elsewhere my ideal: a decision made by an admin which is, poetically speaking, half himself and half his audience. In other words, it's a desire for stronger admins. Is it because I dislike indecision? Partly, but what I dislike more is emotional-decision making, because such rationales are very often inarticulate, and therefore inaccessible to debate -- which easily breeds edit wars, acrimoniousness, and like.
Now, when I read the article I've cited, I feel as if there's no reason to have it here -- one's man's opinion, of course (if shared by others). The various article deletion/review pages, which you can find on it's talk page, ended on a note of "no consensus."
I can certainly imagine instances when, in the face of genuine differences of opinion, an admin may step back and recognize it would be wrong for him/her to decide on a matter of sheer opinion -- but I think that, before one gets to such a point, and this would require the admin know Wikipedia policy (as it currently stands) backwards and forwards (as they supposedly should/do), before one gets to such a point it is necessary to dismiss out-of-place, erroneous or inapplicable rationales used in argument. In such an ideal procedure I think we'd all find genuine matters of "no consensus" are exceedingly rare.
To take the instant case: I submit to you that a decision of "keep" would be impossible in the face of no rationale for such a decision. And likewise, by the understanding of "consensus" I am arguing against, a ruling of "delete" is also impossible, because of the lack of "consensus". But this lack, or this difference of opinion, is a sham controversy. The most usual abuse is seen when users treat discussions like votes. This is the reason legal matters are decided by judges very well versed in the law -- because opinions must be educated, which is demonstrated in the text of the rulings judges arrive at.
Admins must have the necessary spine, to put it bluntly, to cast aside the clamor seen in emotional debates such as regard the article in question, and keep the discussion entirely policy-based. The widespread misunderstanding of consensus, as it stands, creates a circumstance where articles cannot be judged either "delete" or "keep", and exist by virtue of a sham "no consensus". Anything is preferable to this kind of non-ruling ruling, because an articulated decision keeps the debate, the dialog, going; whereas the "no consensus" adjudication ends with great uncertainty, and therefore stifles and invalidates, the discussion. On a public forum such as this, isn't keeping dialog going simply paramount? Pablosecca 07:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, or an appeal to popularity. 100 people citing WP:FRINGE derived references versus 1 person citing recognised impartial authorities (do I need mention Flat Earth vs. accepted scientific authority?) will result in the consensus going with the one. No consensus will result if both parties find good authorative sources to back their contention/interpretation. Unless an admin or 'crat can find a third authority which has already weighed the two arguments and has come up with a definitive answer then that admin/'crat must come to the verdict of no consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, then WP:NPOV demands that both viewpoints, properly referenced, should be included in an article. Where the existence of the article itself in debate, and an admin cannot decide on the consensus, then it probably needs to be taken to whichever area of dispute is appropriate and examined there. Again, this may not bring about a definitive result but that is always a possibility with a wiki. In the end, take issue to every forum possible until the processes are exhausted. If there is still no consensus then there is unlikely to be one.

Admins are part of the process, and not an entity that decides upon it. Being more or less brave is not part of the remit.LessHeard vanU 08:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

concern from a photographer (regarding english Wikipedia not accepting non-commercial photo licenses)

this is with reference to the article posted here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fastfission/Noncommercial

i understand the concerns of wikipedia to a point, but i think if a NC-type license could allow commercial distribution of a media containing the work, it would be acceptable to wikipedia. as long as profits are not made by selling the content (i.e. intellectial property, in that case, photos), i would have no problem releasing my photos with such a NC license.

my concern is that if i license my photos with the "attribution" CC (i.e. allowing commercial use), magazines will be able to include my photos in any article that they publish without having to pay me any royalties for my work.

this is why i will not license most of my photos with GFDL license. to me, NC is acceptable and i would have no problem releasing many of my photos under NC license for inclusing in wikipedia. GFDL is not acceptable, since it means that all my work is free for all and i cannot make a living anymore.

this argument has not been mentioned in the article, and it is a very valid argument for photographers. Wikipedia seem to consider that photographers do not need to pay their rents and should work for free. that's not the case.

of course, there will be some photographers who don't care about money and will release their photos with GFDL, but the average quality of those photos is likely to be much lower compared to those from "professional" photographers.

i was contacted by the author of the Wikipedia article on the Semana Santa in Sevilla (spanish version), who wanted to include my photos of the event in the article, as he considered that they were among the best he had seen on this subject. i had to decline, unfortunately, because doing that would open a pandora's box for me, i.e. any magazine or post-card publisher would be able to use those photos without paying me any royalties for my work. in the end, i personally prefer making a living from my photography work rather than having my photos in Wikipedia.

the same situation arised ealier about the article on "dog meat" (i.e. eating dog meat). i have an excellent series of photos illustrating this subject, but i cannot release them with GFDL, since they are published by magazines who pay me royalties. in that case, my series of photos is linked in the external links (under the fair-use rule?). but apparently in the spanish wikipedia, it is not acceptable to even link an external website containing photos unless that external website have only GFDL photos, so the author of the "semana santa in sevilla" article refused to link my photos, claiming such an external link was against the rules of spanish wikipedia even though they are linked in the english version of the article.

in this article "User talk:Fastfission/Noncommercial", the author(s) only consider cases where the Wikipedia content might need to be involved with some commercial use. but what concerns me is that my GFDL photos could be used independently of any Wikipedia article, i.e. they could be lifted from the Wiki Commons and used with a completely different context (e.g. a magazine, or postcards), without me getting any royalties when it is used commercially. this situation is definitely not fair for the photographer. i would love to donate some of my photos to Wikipedia but this licensing policy prevents me from doing that, or robs me of the value of my work, if it gets used commercially by others than Wikipedia.

-tristan - www.loupiote.com - tristan@bok.net

Personally I share your point completely. I think it is wrong that all authors are being forced to release their works under GFDL licence. And you have brilliantly explained why. That's one more reason to take out this rule (see also my post on this topic above). Let us see if Jimbo is going to ignore this too. --Prandr 12:58 CET, 13 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.142.156.76 (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Just as a note, but many photographers do release their images with free or GFDL images. One of such users is User:Diliff. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Use of a free license by Wikipedia is intentional, and a central part of our project. If you don't want your material to be used outside Wikipedia, don't expect to upload it to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 12:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally quite chuffed at seeing photographs I've uploaded being used in publications, despite neither Wikipedia nor myself being credited.--Alf ^melmac 12:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning you put forward, tristan, is absolutely sound, and you should not donate your photos to Wikipedia if doing so robs you of their commercial value. It may be possible to donate a low resolution copy if that suits you, but generally to meet its objectives Wikipedia has to make do with photos that are available on a free license. Some of them aren't bad, but in every case the photographer has to decide if any pleasure of seeing their photos used outweighs the commercial value of the photographs. Inevitably that tends to mean that professional photographers will not wish to supply pictures, quite rightly. ... dave souza, talk 13:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You write: "you should not donate your photos to Wikipedia if doing so robs you of their commercial value". But it seems that Wikipedia requirements on photo licenses practically forces photographers to give-up any future commercial gains from the photos that they donated to Wikipedia. This should not have to be that way. For example, the license required by Wikipedia could cover only the use of the photos by Wikipedia, rather than a broad GFDL license. Or there could be a NC-type license that covers the commercial distributions where someone would charge for the media. Of course i agree that one solution is to release only low-resolutions images with GFDL (e.g. less than 500-pixel, just large enough for web use but not enough for print), and keep the full rights on any higher resolution photo. But this seems to be a workaround needed because there is no better solution given the Wikipedia requirements. You write: "if any pleasure of seeing their photos used outweighs the commercial value of the photographs". Pleasure is fine, but it does not pay the rent. And the reason why i would give some photos to Wikipedia is not because of pleasure to know that it is used and seen by many. It might just be because i think doing so would be a positive contribution to Wikipedia. I know that IP (Intellectual Property) donated to Wikipedia will not bring any revenue from Wikipedia, but Wikipedia should not make it unnecessarily hard for contributors to get other revenues from contributed IP, when those same contributed IP are used by other sources un-related to Wikipedia. -- Tristan Savatier May. 14, 03:43:29 UTC

Alf, if you are not credited, then both GFDL and CC-BY allow you to sue. :-)--Kim Bruning 13:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Tristan, Prandr: Wikipedia is intended to be a copyleft encyclopedia, with all the advantages and disadvantages of such. This is a conscious choice, which we are unlikely to reverse in future. One of the big advantages is that it means wikipedia can be distributed and shared by all, including (famously, among others) the OLPC project. One of the disadvantages is that it means we sadly cannot always accept all content. --Kim Bruning 13:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read this at first. --Prandr 16:02 CEST, 13 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.142.156.76 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I note that the GFDL may suit your needs better than you think. The GFDL is intended as a "strong copyleft" license, which means that you cannot use a GFDL work as part of an another work without also making the combined work, such as a magazine article, free also. Many commercial publications aren't willing to do this, and you still hold the copyright to the images to make other arrangements as you would like -- several photographers who contribute work to Wikipedia also sell their photos.

The idea of strong copyleft is that you make your work free as a way to get others to create more work that is free and increase the amount of material available for the public to distribute and use, but only if they are willing to do that.

Many other copyleft licenses, such as CC-BY-SA which Wikipedia also accepts, have similar properties. However, many people from Creative Commons interpret BY-SA as a "weak copyleft", which allows you to use the work contained in works that aren't themselves free, so long as you keep the work itself and to a certain extent, its derivatives, free. To what extent its derivatives have to be free is not always clear. Larry Lessig takes the position that CC-BY-SA does not obligate a journalist to free a newspaper article where a CC-BY-SA photo is used in this post, though he is wrong about the FSF's position on the GFDL recently clarified here. However, he also takes the position that setting video to music should be considered a derivative work.

Depending on your needs and goals, you can license your works under a combination of licenses; many people who upload their own works use a "dual-license", or even "multi-license" under a variety of free-content licenses so that people can use them in a variety of ways. The most popular combination is probably GFDL and CC-BY-SA. You also still hold the copyright to your work and can offer it elsewhere however you would like. If you upload to Wikimedia as GFDL, you must allow anyone to use it under the GFDL. However, if you want to give permission for some uses or to charge for some uses that are outside of those terms, you are still free to do that. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 19:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I just see this as bizarre. It seems a tad restrictive for Wikipedia to force someone to give their work unconditionally. Sure, I might agree with Wikipedia's use of the image, but the GFDL means that anyone can use it, for any means. I am like many unwilling to put good work on the Wiki, knowing others can simply take it and use it without authorization. After having a photo I created stolen and credited to a staff photog in a magazine, I can attest that this is simply bad policy. "Weak Copyleft" doesn't cover it all. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

David, is this a response to my post or was it written beforehand and posted after edit conflict? GFDL is not "unconditionally". (Actually, the usual complaint is that the conditions are too restrictive...) And under any license that requires attribution, having your work stolen and credited to a staff photog is not acceptable, and you can and should contact them about their violation of the license. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

After edit conflict, Mindspillage got there before I did. Having your work mis-credited to a staff photographer is not on, and I don't quite think that that's quite permitted under the GFDL. ;-) --Kim Bruning 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC) thinking of a certain "Weird Al" Yankovic song

From my point of view, nobody looks in the question deep enough. The supporters of this restriction claim that Wikpedia must be usable for everyone. But using the materials in question, we can make it available and useful really for everyone, at least inside Wikipedia. Because of this rule nobody can use it, also those who are you caring of. It doesn't helps them if we don't use them, IMHO it only harms Wikipedia --Prandr 13:32 CEST, 13 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.142.156.76 (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

But that is not a choice we make. That's the choice made by the photographer.

Whatever the case may be, we're only paying over a million dollars per year to host fully free content.

Knowing that, if we have a choice between spending some of that money on hosting for instance a non-free photograph of a pretty flower (something we can also make ourselves, eventually); or if we spend some same amount on some like say ... the collected works of William Shakespeare (now in public domain); we can only spend the money once. Which should we choose? --Kim Bruning 22:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You have probably misunderstood me, because what you have written has nothing to do with what I had said. I was talking about that Wikipedia refuses to accept materials released for non-commercial/Wikipedia-only purposes. Prandr 01:07 CEST, 14 May 2007

I did, and expanded on that. This is the choice of the photographer, not of wikipedia. Photographers are free human beings and can do whatever they like. If that doesn't happen to correspond with the mission of wikipedia, wikipedia is equally free to choose not to use that work. :-) --Kim Bruning 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite this, you didn't understand me (now it's absolutely clear), so you're talking about very different point.
I said, that this rule was introduced for wrong reasons.Prandr 02:14 CEST, 14 May 2007

You're saying that because of this rule, no one can use the content, because the photographer won't donate at all, right? --Kim Bruning 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I say that we can still use them, independent whether "at all" or not. P.S. I am going to bed so good night. ;)Prandr 02:27 CEST, 14 May 2007

Guten Morgen. :-) Why can we use these pictures, according to you? --Kim Bruning 13:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

???Strange question. Because we have then permission for that.Prandr 16:06 CEST, 14 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.142.135.174 (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

We don't. We cant distribute them in print, and we can't distribute them via OLPC. That sounds like a bit of a limitation to me. --Kim Bruning 20:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's better than nothing.Prandr 23:23 CEST, 14 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.142.135.174 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

In theory, that would seem to be correct, but IRL we've seen that it can really really hurt a wikipedia, because all non-free content needs to be filtered out in some applications... and then it turns out that stuff you thought was done... actually isn't. :-/ --Kim Bruning 23:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So you admit that I am right? Because you don't try to defend the original reason (that wikipedia must be usable for everyone) for the rule any more, but trying to invent something else.Prandr 03:09 CEST, 15 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.142.135.174 (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Well, I'm pointing out that if you allow pictures that aren't usable for everyone,then the wiki isn't easily usable for everyone anymore. --Kim Bruning 01:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I see we are going to start from the very beginning ;)Prandr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.142.138.82 (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Firstly, many professional photographers do release very high quality photos to wikipedia, and also to commons, which is even more restrictive (or less restrictive, depending on how you look at it). I presume that they find a balance between profit and pleasure, just as many programmers code for a salary during the day, then go home and work on open source projects. So there are many options. You might consider uploading just some of the photos you have. You might consider downsizing the photos. Some of the licences effectively prohibit commercial use by making anything they are used in equally free, as discussed above. Lastly, and this might address your concerns the best, under some circumstances it is possible to upload photos to wikipedia (not commons) as WP:FAIRUSE which means that wikipedia can use them without any giving away of copyright. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it prevents commercial use by everyone except the really cool companies ;-) --Kim Bruning 23:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ben, we don't permit people to upload photos to which they hold the copyright under a claim of "fair use". Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've realized one thing: we may duscuss whatever we want and so long we want, but until Jimbo himself understand, that he is wrong, nothing is going to be changed. He ought to understand, that if an encyclopidia is free (GFDL etc.) but content is sh*t (ok, I'm exaggerating, but that's the point), there is no use of it. And he wouldn't like to favour us with a piece of his attention.Prandr 03:31 CEST, 15 May 2007

Prandr, have you ever looked at the featured images and quality images on commons? If you want to call those "shit", that's your business, but I think that would be a rather inaccurate judgment call. And all of them are free content.

There are plenty of free-of-charge works available online. If that's all you want, Wikipedia may as well close up shop; others have already done that, and some of them even take user submissions. But that's not Wikipedia's only purpose. Wikipedia exists to allow a body of free-content work to be developed. It is a donation of your time and effort, the same way every word of text and every hour of editing and proofreading is also a donation, for the public good of having encyclopedic information easily available to use and distribute.

There's nothing wrong with getting compensated for writing or photography! No one reasonable is asking you to give up your livelihood. But what about the shots that you're never going to sell, where there's no market, or where they're no longer timely? What are you going to do with them? You could hope maybe someone will buy it someday, and leave the rights reserved, or you could release it under a free content license and see it become useful to many people, even if you never get paid for it. (Though it might still happen: my partner gets paid for his photos when the publisher does not want to use it under the terms of the license.)

The license is as broad as it is because there are an awful lot of good things you can do with the content that require that broad a use: creating DVD versions of the content, textbooks and curricula, edited and adapted versions, translations, multimedia presentations...

Even the restrictions on the content act to further the goal of giving access to the information to as wide an audience as possible: you must keep the resulting work free so that others have the same access to that information as you have. You are benefiting from others giving their work to you freely, and if you can take that work and have it not be free it stops the free flow of information that you got it from. Which doesn't seem very fair!

And maybe you don't believe in that goal, maybe you don't think the idea of having a reference work free to use and reuse for any purpose is a good one, and that's fine—but I think there should, and not to put words in Jimbo's mouth but I'm pretty sure he thinks there should. And to have one requires a lot of effort from a lot of people, who generally aren't going to get compensated for what they do here. Most of us do this in our free time, and we're here because we believe the goal is a good one. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, English isn't my native language so I used expression that has fallen to me.

Aahh, you have misunderstood me slightly. I meant materials, which are already released for non-commercial/wikipedia-only purposes.

You see, I am writing an article about a band. I succeeded to get a permission to use photos from their Website in Wikipedia- and I must be happy to get any. Since it lawful, I uploaded it to Wikipedia, and was surprised, that I am not allowed despite that. This photo would be good illustration for my article and I consider it's better to use it with some restrictions than not to use at all. Because in first case, you can at least see it, in the latter you get noone use from then.

In addition I generally agree with what you had written. So I suggest to leave the rule to use free materials as strong recommendation. But I suggest to allow non-free photos if there is no free alternative. As soon as it appears it could replace the first. I think it would be good compromise solution.Prandr

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.142.138.82 (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

but what if i want to donate some photo to Wikipedia *only*, i.e. i want to donate them with a license that allows Wikipedia (and only wikipedia) to use then for free? there is no way to do that! if i want to donate something to Wikipedia, i am forced to use a much broader license. i understand that the reason for that is a religious choice (i.e. something that cannot be discussed, since it is based on fundemental beliefs, not reasonning). i know that this will not change, and i find it sad. i'm pretty sure that there were other licensing schemes that would have preserved more of the photographer's rights on their donated work, without putting any strings on what Wikipedia can do with the donated photos. i am quite familiar with GPL for software, and i understand the analogy, i.e. Wikipedia wants all its I.P. (intellectual property) for be free (i.e. anyone can use if they keep the GPL-style license attached). i understand the idea behind that religious choice, since i have contributed GPL and LGPL code. i just think that is is very hard to enforce when it comes to photos, and that in many cases photographers would have their work used illegaly (and commercially) once it is posted (in hi-resolution) in the Wikipedia Commons, as was described by several other photographers in this discussion. this does not encourage giving more work to the project, at least in hi-resolution. Tristan Savatier 08:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think GFDL is a rational choice, rather than a religious choice. However, if you choose to "respect our religion", that's a good start :-)

If several photographers are getting their copyrights violated, then I think it's about time we start talking with the violators somehow, don't you think? --Kim Bruning 13:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) NC, All Rights Reserved, wikipedia-only, or GFDL; if someone uses content contrary to the wording of the license-agreement, they're still in violation each time. I think these people might well be lazy and try to get a free lunch, regardless of license.

I second what Kim said. First of all, people using your work illegally is probably going to happen if you put them out on the web, no matter what license you use, some through ignorance and some because they don't care. And even if you have specified a free content license, you are still able to and encouraged to do something if people are violating the terms! (The same way people can still take action when others violate the GPL: see the Software Freedom Law Center.)

And yes, GFDL is a rational rather than a religious choice. It is because there are so many other sites where they have control of the content but no one else does that Wikipedia fills a different niche. Creating a free content reference work, rather than one that is simply free of charge, is what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia set out to be something different because no one was doing that yet, and it seemed like a good idea.

I also don't see why this is so different for photography than for writing, or music, or programming. (As for myself, I am a terrible photographer—but I've written many articles and recorded several pieces of music. My partner is a good photographer and a good programmer who freely licenses his work, so between the two of us we've got most of the areas covered. :-)) We all contribute our work under the same terms for the purpose of creating a reference that is available to anyone to use freely. You don't have to agree that this is a good idea, but in order for it to work, everyone has to agree to the terms for the work they contribute. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

fair use

we don't permit people to upload photos to which they hold the copyright under a claim of "fair use" -- Kat Walsh (spill your mind?)

Are you sure about that? Obviously, fair use doesn't mean "use this anywhere on wikipedia but nowhere else". But under the very precise circumstances in which fair use does apply, I don't see that the copyright holder should be less able than anyone else to upload a fair use image. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images, users are expected to release theyr own works under a free license if they want them to be used on Wikipedia. Derivative works (such as photos of non-free statues and what not) are not considered user-created works in this context since the user doesn't have exclusive rights to the image in such cases. --Sherool (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sherool is correct. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"all user-created images must be licensed under a free license (such as the GFDL and/or an acceptable Creative Commons license) or be released into the public domain (no copyright)."

If this sentence overrides fair-use then that would imply that no-one can upload a fairuse image that they have taken themselves. Clearly that's not the case. Fair-use and User-Created are two different types of uploads. I don't see why we should hold potential contributors to an all or nothing position, and not just because we have no way of enforcing this rule. If someone wants give us something, I don't think we should reject it as good, but not enough. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking pedophile editors who are making trouble

Whilst an admin strutted in and blanked a huge (and sometimes worthy) discussion in which many editors opposed WP's banning of all self - identifying pedophiles, the one comment left by Jimbo in the remainder (accusing trolling) remains invalid and way-off regarding the good faith of the blocked editors (as pointed out by an admin who has experience with them).

I request that Jimbo makes it quite clear - that he endorses the banning of self - identifying pedophiles, regardless of their edit content. Otherwise, he should - by mandate - reverse an unethical, weak-mineded and discriminatory policy which states that for publicity reasons, various editors are not allowed to express what they are. Jim♥Burton 23:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not again, isn't this supposed to be taken up with ArbCom directly by email if you have a problem? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It has already been taken up, privately. Although I cannot disclose my sources, I have good reason to suggest that no decision is being made by the WP hierachy, regarding this issue. All I am doing is refusing to bury this issue, and requeting an opinion that has not thusfar been disclosed. Jim♥Burton 23:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well might I suggest you do this privately with Jimbo if you wish to, this isn't the place for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Other Wikipedians might be curious about the answers, if any. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's been on long enough for Jimbo to decide to not comment on it, members of the arbitration committee have made it clear that this should be done privately. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For my reference, can you point me to where the ArbCom's said such things? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, this is an ethical issue regarding the present and future policies of WP. Such a simple 'yes' or 'no' issue should be discussed in public. I will not allow a civil rights issue to be dealt with in private. That would be an insult to those claiming rights. Jim♥Burton 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

From the lack of official response and what I have been privately told was a refusal to state any principle, it seems that private discussion has not and will not yield any results - even with the members concerned. All I want is a public statement of principle by Jimbo, and naturally, this simple action should be fulfilled in public. Jim♥Burton 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Heres one response [1], all pedophillia issues go straight to ArbCom, or Jimbo - they can do the work, it doesn't need to be made public. This is something that the community isn't able to decide on - it's a potential legal issue for the foundation, hence - all issues go directly to the top. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The 'top' is sending any discussion of pedophilia right back down to the bottom, and attempting to (or unintentionally(!)) bury this controversial issue with a great deal of censorship, time and failure to comment. A short private discussion, followed by a public decision would be fine, but this is just crazy. Jim♥Burton 23:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that Jimbo needs to make an explicit statement. This sort of blanket blocking of pedophile editors should be either endorsed or rejected by an edict, either by Jimbo or ArbCom. It is an issue that may affect the future of Wikipedia as a community, it's a decision that we the Wikipedia community as a whole shall choose between open-mindedness and intolerance, between whether our goal is to write a better encyclopedia or be engaging in bitter discord. This decision has to be made. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I can completely see it from the 'top's point of view, if indeed these are close to the real reasons they're using or the real circumstances of this subject (I haven't been following it but am interested in the official reaction or lack thereof for other reasons due to unrelated policies). There's no good press to be had from anything related to just or unjust or fair or unfair treatment of matters related to these topics. There's no way to respond to the topic in a way that will be seen as a good light. The simple fact of the matter is that it's unfair to everyone to even have you asking the questions and making a point of it. Of course this means it's not fair to you either, but that's really the point of the whole exercise. I wouldn't look for any kind of public statement, because if I were Jimbo or the Board or the ArbCom I sure as hell wouldn't touch it with a 40' cattleprod, especially not in public. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the size, richness, corporate power of WP, Jimbo should make a public statement on this issue, for the sake of ethical principle if anything. This is an issue where publicity should play second fiddle to ethical principle. We should endorse the free - speech rights of self - identifying pedophiles. --Jim♥Burton 00:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has "free speech rights" on Wikipedia. The only pedophile editors that have been banned are those who posted disruptive notices or otherwise harmed the project. The ArbCom and Wales have both made it clear that they will handle inquiries about this via private mail. Pushing this issue further would verge on disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and that's a bad thing. -Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a sensitive topic since it has been misshandled from the start and no one is willing to accept the fact that there was wrongdoing and take responcibility for it. On the other hand, if Jimbo goes out to say that he allows open pedophiles to write on wikipedia then the press would hang him, and if he goes out to say that he doesn't then he would lose the faith of many of the liberal users so its clear he won't do either, which Malcom already pointed out. I think the only possible solution is to look at it from a more general point of view: sexual orientation and simply state that wiki allows anyone regardless of their sexual orientation to edit on wikipedia. Then you can avoid explicitly "advocating" pedophilia, to avoid any bad press. V.☢.B 06:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I assure you, we are already keenly aware of this situation as it is developing, and so can the entire civilized world be in short order using today's meadia, just stay tuned... Jimbo now has to make a clear choice ASAP, between on the one hand, his beloved pedophile friends and those 'liberal' users who would be offended for their sake, and on the other hand, the rest of the civilized world. If he really values his liberal child molestor friends so much, he can have them - but not the civilized world. He can have one or the other, never both. The rest of the world deserves to know "whose" platform this is turning into. Our watchdogs are now watching most interestedly and we are waiting anxiously for a response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.145.113.129 (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I've got a suggestion. If you're here to improve the encyclopedia, go and improve the encyclopedia, and in a year's time, everyone will support you putting whatever you want on your home page. But if your primary reason for being here is to agitate for your 'right' to state that you have pedophillic desires, I will point out to you again that we don't need a specific rule banning people who cause disruption by announcing that they want to abuse children, we already have a rule banning people who cause disruption. We don't have and don't need a different version of that rule for every type of disruption that can be caused. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Two points to the original post; the entire discussion is still available via the History, and isn't silence in itself an answer? Jimbo posted on some other topics on this page while the first discussion was ongoing, so he evidently saw it and chose not to answer (as he did with other topics, again). If indeed the matter is ongoing elsewhere then it is perhaps better to wait. Certainly badgering folk is not going to help, and may be counter productive.

As for the admin blanking the discussion; it was a act made in good faith. I would have continued the debate if it still existed, but I recognise that it was becoming far more than a discussion relating to the original concerns. If you cannot agree that it is time to move forward and insist on bringing up the same points then it does indeed appear that you are only on WP to promote a cause. I would like to think that this isn't the case, and that you are keen to improve the encyclopedia (specifically in your areas of interest). In the meanwhile, I suggest patience. LessHeard vanU 12:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about the press? A.Z. 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I do, and I think we all should. They don't get to decide what happens here, but we don't want to ignore them either. They can make our job quite a bit easier or harder if they decide to do so. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How many times does it have to be said? This site is not an exercise in democracy, and no one has any "right" to put anything on their userpage or anywhere else. It is a privilege extended to users to be able to make personal statements about themselves, and it is subject to the requirement that they exercise discreet judgment and not include material that tends to bring the project into disrepute. If your employer wouldn't let you wear a badge at the public counter saying "I'm a pedophile", I don't see why Wikipedia should let you make a public statement about it using its servers. Much the same reasons apply. If you want to be loud and proud about your minority sexual predilection, take it somewhere else. The internet has zillions of fora for debate about such things. This is not one of them. Metamagician3000 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia software bug reports

With apologies for approaching you directly, but please, where should I send any reports of apparent programming bugs in Wikipedia software? Anthony Appleyard 12:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ ↔NMajdan•talk 13:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're not sure that it is a software bug you might want to ask on the village pump first. A lot of stuff that you interact with in wikipedia is part of the content and not our software. --Gmaxwell 13:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Racist announces plan to "destroy Wikipedia"

I don't actually know where people knowledgeable about this kind of thing hang out, so I'm posting this here and at the Village Pump.

I doubt I'm the only Wikipedian to read Respectful Insolence, but I might be the first one to talk about this topic, so here goes:

Bill White, Commander of the American National Socialist Workers' Party, apparently annoyed that he can't edit Wikipedia pages to conform to his racist views, proposed a strategy for "destroying" Wikipedia. Apparently, according to white racists, Wikipedia is full of "Jewish bias," whatever that means.

White's strategy is the following (his own words, quoted here):

Write a dialer that interfaces with the broadband service. I am not as familiar with cell phones and other wireless devices, but I'm sure there is some way to have those devices' operating systems' switch IPs. Set it up so it dials in, loads Wikipedia, starts indexing links from a page, opens them, then vandalizes the original page, and repeates for each open page. Essentially, build a vandalism spider, a la the kind used to hack, say, the major forum software packages.

When the spider detacts it is loading a blocked Wikipedia page, have it disconnect the dialer, then redial. It will be assigned a new IP, and it can start its crawling vandalism again.

Most Wikipedia pages are small and load quickly so I don't see why a properly equipped machine couldn't vandalize all 1.7 million Wikipedia articles in a relatively short period of time, and do so repeatedly at a rate that the human users Wikipedia relies on to correct vandalism couldn't respond in time to find all the histories needed to revert the pages and ban the user. Given that one would only lose a few seconds reconnecting to the wireless network and getting a new IP, Wikipedia could be taken down forever.

Having done a little MediaWiki administration on my own sites, I can think of several ways to stymie this sort of trickery, but I'm not sure what would work best. (The solution would no doubt depend upon the sophistication of whatever war-vandalizer White and his friends manage to cook up.)

Anville 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've heard threats like this before. They've never amounted to anything. I'm more likely to laugh my head off than cower in fear. Good luck to him, because he'll need it since his plan sucks. --Deskana (AFK 47) 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure people were aware (given that other people probably have the knowledge necessary to judge this better than I). Memo to self: when I am an Evil Overlord, I will not explain my plans on my blog for all to see. (-; Anville 20:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And it looks like this was already discussed at the relevant discussion in WP:ANI. Anville 21:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for the warning. My comment is that there may be cause to raise awareness of a potential risk, and that is that the individual chose a public forum to disclose a method to attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. Since it is likely the writer knows his words would be reported I believe that it serves two functions; i) that his message (including his bias) will get more widely circulated (and this post is a case in point resulting perhaps in some anxiety, and ii) misinformation. If he was planning a vandal attack (the possibility of which must be recognised) then misdirection is a classic tactic. My response is, vandalism is vandalism - so lets deal with it as and when it occurs, and not worry ourselves unduly if they are behind it. LessHeard vanU 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The great thing about modern racists is that they are total frickin' morons. So, you know, whatever. Brion Vibber versus 100,000 Nazis? I know who my money is on. :)--Jimbo Wales 00:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The nazis right? Becuase brion doesnt have a second to waiste on nazis rather than working on mediawiki. He would be lynched by a mob of bug hating wikipedians if he allowed such distrations. :) -- Cat ^chi? 00:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already got my "Brion's Number One!" foam finger. Sean William 00:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Godwins law, Jimbo Loses! ;-) --Kim Bruning 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Though Brion might do rather well ;-)

At least they aren't Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois nazis. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, please see WP:NPOV and WP:CIV. Your comments are very insulting to people who think they're better than everyone else because of a few genetic traits -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 01:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View does not apply to a person's opinions as expressed on a discussion page. If anything, Jimmy Wales knows the policies better than anyone because he watched all of them be born. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I meant to link WP:NPA. My fingers are just trained to follow certain paths on my keyboard, if it starts with NP, it ends with OV. Same reason why I almost always type bitchday instead of birthday -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh... that statement reminds me of what I did to Évelyne Thomas once (though it was eventually discovered and reverted!) 71.253.130.61 11:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo basically created those policies so... If people think they're better than everyone else because they're racists, they deserve to be insulted. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

did he create those policies before or after he wrote the 1.7 million articles? ;) daveh4h 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol he is not the first or the last trying to undermine wikipedia. And being someone with an extreme minority POV he aint going to have the success of Daniel Brandt, who, while arguably being our worst antagonist, has in some eyes strengthened (BLP etc) rather than weakened wikipedia. The idea that some rascist or paedophile coul;d undermine this project is laughable, SqueakBox 22:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the guy's original post (my first mistake). Just another one of the "vast Jewish conspiracy" crackpots. Thankfully, if you ignore those, they usually go away. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DENY, SqueakBox 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ich habe die deutsche Version des Potals Biografien gemacht!

Hi Jimbo! Ich habe die deutsche Version des Potals Biografien gemacht! Wollte nur hallo sagen!

Grüße!

Benutzer Graf (Germany)

[2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.73.140.62 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy on Dating?

Having seen a lot of sports sections, I thought perhaps a policy was needed on the use of dates when linked to events. For example, 1950 British Grand Prix and World Snooker Championship 2000. Perhaps, to make everything tie together, the year can go either all before the event, or all after the event? Does this sort of policy already exist? Alex Holowczak 11:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians are allowed and actually even encouraged to date, despite the damage that it does to our productivity.

Oh, you mean, like putting dates on things. ;-) Better ask someone else, I am sure there is a style guideline somewhere.--Jimbo Wales 12:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How can you say it damages our productivity? I've sometimes come here to learn about a subject so as to impress a date, and ended up improving the article. JamesMLane t c 12:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke, as in "to go out on a date", rather than putting a date on an article! :) Alex Holowczak 14:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, not the fruit then? :P LessHeard vanU 17:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Time interview

• I just read your interview with Time (a month too late, I know ^_^). Just wanted to say you were eloquent and well-spoken. GJ :) JuJube 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unregistered users - a question

I am curious about exactly why you let unregistered users edit Wikipedia. Of course, it takes less than a minute to create an account, and it doesn't even require an email address. No doubt you've heard this argument countless times before, but I am honestly curious about your reasoning behind your philosophy that this is worth the fight against vandalism.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak for Mr. Wales, but Infinite monkey theorem is a way to look at anonymous editing. Sean William 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised at the amount of good work done by anon. editors. See also WP:PEREN#Editing. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One way to look at it (and a lucky survival of an old featured article), but not perfectly valid in any sense. Firstly, the monkey theorem assumes that the monkeys in question are just typing random characters; whereas with vandals, they are deliberately entering unconstructive information.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Much vandalism is reverted by anon accounts, i.e. readers who know how to bring up the previous edit or just hit the edit function and remove the vandalism. Nearly everyone with an account did their first edit as an anon. LessHeard vanU 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll comment in a civilised manner (see edit history for my rant). I honestly think that unregistered editing is a problem with Wikipedia, although I'm sure you'll find a reason to convince me that this isn't the case, as this has been done before. Maybe we could find consensus somewhere that users must be registered. I'm on Jimbo's page because I want his opinion on it - I want to know exactly why we should let unregistered users edit (I apologise for my previous rant in the edit history here) Wikipedia.

At least one anon is in the top 300 editors by edits. Anon is also a non-sequitur, we know more about anon editors than about editors who open an account and reveal nothing about themselves, SqueakBox 21:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

But why is this anon in the top 300?-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it is an ISP that many thousands of editors edit from...why does it even matter? --Iamunknown 21:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

An IP is not an ISP and many IP addresses belong exclusively to one computer solely used by one individual/family. The IP is in the list because of the number of edits they have made, obviously, SqueakBox 22:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. What I was saying is that the IP belongs to an ISP and is used by many, many individual people. And many of those individuals choose to edit anonymously. So blocking it would be silly (in my view). --Iamunknown 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to get a last opinion from Jimbo himself. I await Jimbo's response. I do understand that the featured articles are not protected so that anyone can edit them, as a lure towards to contributing positively. Is that all it is, though? Could we not make the signup process much easier?

-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I standc orrected. These ip addresses are now removed by hand. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, SqueakBox 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A Google of Wikipedia?

I must admit, I do find this hard, but I speak with respect towards you even with this argument.

Do NOT, and NEVER, create a search-engine version of Wikipedia! It will turn into the same F***ed up place this hell has become. Of course, there will be kind, sensitive, and truly great people, but there will be people like this to run everything for everyone.

I beg of you, do not do to search engines what you did here.

Please take what I have said into consideration, and thank you for your time. I shall be going now. ♥ Fredil 23:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

While you're at it, get rid of Wiktionary, Wikiquote, and Wikisource. Who needs wikis anyway? Seriously, though, I don't think the world needs an open-source search engine. Placeholder account 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to refrain from creating wikis due to vandalism, why have wikis at all? Not doing this for these reasons would be like saying "Oh, take down Wikimedia, it's pointless." Personally, I don't think a wiki search engine would be useful, since everyone uses google anyway, and it's not like an open-source search method is helping anyone. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of open-source search engine, but the issue is how to prevent vandal programmers from inserting malicious codes? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeking comments on proposed user guideline to personal security practices

I and others have developed this as a "proposed guideline" for improving the personal security of users on WP, but there are questions on whether it could be "actionable" in an administrative sense, or necessarily "followable" among editors. My intention in proposing it for a guideline was to get links to some version of it included in welcome messages to newbies, so as to provide fair warning regarding any possible negative consequences of sharing personally identifiable information, as well as outlining a course of action for dealing with incidents of stalking or other harassment involving personal information with minimal further exposure to victims through the encyclopedia. User:Radiant! thinks its worthwhile as an essay, but I think it needs to be somewhat more "official" without being "actionable" or "followable" in a sense that would affect editors who are ok with posting their real information or using real identities, etc.

I'm posting this here so Jimbo is aware of it, but I am not seeking an overt intervention towards making this a guideline... still, I'd like more constructive input on the issues behind it, perhaps towards dealing with them in a way that wouldn't involve an explicit "guideline" per se, if a "fair warning" message re: personal information could be included on the "welcome page" that appears when a newbie first opens a WP account. Regards,—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is strictly necessary. I am sure people are aware by now that such dangers exist on the world-wide web and do not need to be warned as such. Besides unless you are a dick and abuse others, you won't likely be stalked; and if you are a dick and abuse others, the chances are that you will be outed by enemies/critics outside WP anyway! Perhaps minors need to be warned as unlike MySpace, there are no age restrictions in WP. Then again maybe it is the ordinary folk who need to be protected from minors in WP, rather than the other way around :-)Ivygohnair 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, people working the anti-vandalism patrol get harassed all the time... this doesn't have much to do with "behavior" per se, except in connection with personal information, for which it outlines a discrete course of action. The processes it describes already exist, it mainly puts already available information on one page. Dicks (or minors!) wouldn't be affected more than any Wikipedian, the idea is to popularize knowledge of what current practice is regarding these issues.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't look at it from this angle: you may have a point. But surely people working in such patrols will be admins or experienced editors who are well aware of the pitfalls you are warning about.Ivygohnair 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I am mainly concerned with "nipping the problem in the bud" and making sure newbies are aware of personal information issues before they do things like go on anti-vandalism patrol. There is nothing that can realistically be done for those who have already had their personal information exposed here or elsewhere, or don't care that it is, so this project is not concerned with them. (Except as WP:OVERSIGHT may be concerned.) Thank you very much for your comments, though.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 18:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Haines City Auto Supply, Inc.

The page I created Haines City Auto Supply, Inc. was put up for proposed deletion yesterday (Tuesday), and when I got on today the page was gone. That's Administration abuse if you ask me because it had not yet be 5 days and even so there was an objection!!! That's what I have to say I hope you set things straight!!!--Hornetman16 04:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You can contest a proposed deletion at deletion review. (And will take some comments to the editor's talk page.) Tony Fox (arf!) 04:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

it was deleted under 'db spam', meaning it qualified as an Ad under WP:SPEEDY. if it is a page about your own business, please do not recreate the page, as it is a violation of WP:COI. If it is not about your business, please rewrite it in a neutral tone, citing reliable sources, and you might want to read the pages on creating a new article, although I don't remember them right now (use the search function!) -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 07:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To be a part of the encyclopedia, it will need to meet the notability guideline for companies. The company should be the subject of multiple reviews from reliable sources, and these should be used to create an article with no original research. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

ALso, it appears as though the article made no assertion as to why it was notable, another important part of wikipedia articles, especially about companies or organisations. It appears to be a very valid speedy deletion to me. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)

To help keep an article you create from quickly ending up on any of the deletion forums, make sure you list all of your secondary sources used for the article's text, preferably before hitting "save page" for the first time. Cla68 23:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfair Delition

I would like to inform you that my user page,temples,userboxes,barnstars,etc. was delited by Shazaam. I feel that this action is unfair. Shazaam claims that my userpage needs to be simple but I find that I need a advanced userpage to help wikipedia in a more advanced way. I have gave a warning to Shazaam for the unfair delition.

                       Cordially,
                        --ISOLA'd ELBA 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this here? Go to WP:DRV instead. Sean William 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)