User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 70: Line 70:
:[[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">[[User talk:Smallbones|smalltalk]]</font>)</sub> 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
:[[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">[[User talk:Smallbones|smalltalk]]</font>)</sub> 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
::I prefer at the present time to define "paid advocacy editing" pretty narrowly to avoid wasted time talking about borderline cases - a classic rhetorical tactic of those who oppose reasonable measures to deal with the worst abuses. Having said that, I think best practice clearly frowns on edits of that type, and that if Mr. Kessler really did make that edit, it was inadvisable at best. (Note well though, the possibility of a [[Joe job]]).--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 15:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
::I prefer at the present time to define "paid advocacy editing" pretty narrowly to avoid wasted time talking about borderline cases - a classic rhetorical tactic of those who oppose reasonable measures to deal with the worst abuses. Having said that, I think best practice clearly frowns on edits of that type, and that if Mr. Kessler really did make that edit, it was inadvisable at best. (Note well though, the possibility of a [[Joe job]]).--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 15:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
::Addendum - I have removed a typical insulting and uninformative comment from Mr. 2001/Checking the checkers because it was nothing more than insult and ranting. I did not say, and have no opinion without looking into it - which I have not - this particular case is a Joe job. I do think that in every specific case where an individual real human being is being singled out for criticism, we have to look into all possibilities as a matter of thoroughness, dignity, and honor. If Mr. 2001 were to take the same approach, he'd likely not be so ineffective at every single thing he tries to do.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 20:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Jimbo, do you really think this might be the case of an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/KesslerRonald&offset=&limit=500&target=KesslerRonald eight-year-long] Joe job? I'm not sure how gullible you think you average Talk page users like Smallbones above are, but let me assure you that I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. So, it seems to me that your new push to advise the WMF Legal department to recommend to the WMF board that the Terms of Use demand disclosure of paid editing will not include these "inadvisable" cases of self-promotion. Thank you for clarifying. As for that needlessly antagonistic so-called editor Smallbones, I'll remind him that [[WP:COISELF]] isn't a "rule", it is a "guideline". And if he has any concerns about my editing of Wikipedia as a "sock of a banned editor", then he can direct his investigation to the nearest CheckUser noticeboard. Until then, he can [http://vinyllisteningproject.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/dont-care-single-klark-kent/ suck my socks]. - [[User:Checking the checkers|Checking the checkers]] ([[User talk:Checking the checkers|talk]]) 16:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
::::I agree that doesn't seem like a "Joe job," but I also agree that this kind of routine self-editing has absolutely no bearing on our broader discussion of paid editing, which focuses on "paid-editing mills" with commercial clients, and other situations in which editors are paid to edit for third parties. I certainly agree that there seems to be a concerted effort to confuse the issue and conflate paid editing with COI editing. As for who Mr. Checkingthecheckers is, it couldn't be more obvious. But obviously his presence on this page is being tolerated because he is doing a good job of keeping the paid editing discussion alive. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 19:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


==The Arbitration Committee ==
==The Arbitration Committee ==

Revision as of 20:45, 2 March 2014


    (Manual archive list)

    May I ask

    to put this graphic on your user page? Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just note that I put the graphic on Jimbo's user page about an hour ago. It was reverted and I explained to the reverter and put it back in. In any case I won't start an edit war about this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I like it, please add it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I just sent another email to you, saying, among other things - Thank you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Could this also be added on Image description? Paid_contributions_amendment, we might be able to get more people to give comment.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 22:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be good to tie it to a specific campaign.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, is it good? if someone didn't agree with this they may revert it. Thanks Jimmy.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 23:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, too easy. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    May I update the image to an svg version with better clarity and a little better graphics?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Same design, better clarity - why not? Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'll use the original SVG handshake (I was tempted to use the Editor retention hands but that changes the look too much) and copy the rest for a little better clarity and improve the graphics a bit but stay within the spirit of the original.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. When this graphic was mentioned months ago I put it on my user page too, and the new one looks much cleaner. Well done :-) --Atlasowa (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A barnstar for you!

    The Original Barnstar
    You are awesome! Yoadi (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello!

    I must say, it is quite an honour to be messaging you, sir. :) --What the Heck am I doing here? 05:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What if you pay yourself?

    Jimbo, is it paid advocacy editing if you're advocating for yourself? For example, this recent edit wasn't paid for by anyone, but presumably it could promote a greater income for the editor who made the edit. Do you consider that particular edit to be a promotional one? Do you presume that the editor is self-interested (considering the User name)? Is he placing his own goals before the goals of the Wikipedia project? Is it "advocacy" editing? We would like your judgments on this matter, because (as Carrite's recent comments show) there is still a lack of clarity on what exactly constitutes "paid advocacy editing". - Checking the checkers (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We've had rules about this forever, see WP:COISELF.
    Now, I've got some questions for you. Are you editing for your own self interest? Are you a paid editor or are you editing as an entrepreneur (as your example might be described)? Are you a sock of the banned editor Mr. 2001? Why do you bother people who are simply not interested in your opinions?
    Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer at the present time to define "paid advocacy editing" pretty narrowly to avoid wasted time talking about borderline cases - a classic rhetorical tactic of those who oppose reasonable measures to deal with the worst abuses. Having said that, I think best practice clearly frowns on edits of that type, and that if Mr. Kessler really did make that edit, it was inadvisable at best. (Note well though, the possibility of a Joe job).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum - I have removed a typical insulting and uninformative comment from Mr. 2001/Checking the checkers because it was nothing more than insult and ranting. I did not say, and have no opinion without looking into it - which I have not - this particular case is a Joe job. I do think that in every specific case where an individual real human being is being singled out for criticism, we have to look into all possibilities as a matter of thoroughness, dignity, and honor. If Mr. 2001 were to take the same approach, he'd likely not be so ineffective at every single thing he tries to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The Arbitration Committee

    Jimbo, have had a chance to read what was being said about your Arbitration Committee and your arbitrators in the last few days?

    I provided quotes by both sides of the same conflict. As one party of the conflict put it: "That said, a lot of arbcom's behavior over the last week involving both of us has completely flummoxed me, and somehow remarkably we seem to be in agreement that arbcom's handling of this case has been poor enough to raise incredibly serious questions." Unprofessional, ridiculous and cowardly performance by your arbitrators has resulted in the damage to Wikipedia.

    So let me please ask you, Mr. Wales, don't you think that it is about time to start hiring professionals as your arbitrators, professionals who do not depend of lynch mobs of your community, professionals who aren't cowards, professionals who know what they are doing? 50.174.76.234 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]