User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Wikipedia - Suggestions

Dear Sir,

I love Wikipedia. I have learnt a lot and it is a brilliant tool. However for a person who is not an expert in any field, some of the content has become so technical that I have difficulty understanding the content, e.g. pages on quantum physics Suggestion: can we have for example, WikiSimple - Wikipedia pages simplified, that is easier for non-techies to understand please, in everyday language so that perhaps even a child can understand. Perhaps even have a WikiYoung (as opposed to WikiJunior which appears to relate to books only, pity!).

Also, I find that certain pages that one would consider complete at a particular date are constantly being updated. Is it possible to see the history of the changes for that particular discrete page rather than a block of changes for more than one Wikipage.

Just some thoughts.

Regards

Monika — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.229.225 (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think Jimbo has been on travel this week, but several of us have noted the increasing complexity of many articles, which add ever-more abstraction of concepts to widen an article for broader coverage of rare cases. Several attempts to simplify wording have been met with hostility over the risk of omitting unusual corner cases of a subject (in n-tuple space!), or perhaps a limit to wp:data hoarding, and now many pages read as total "geekspeak" overrun with technical jargon. Hence, the page "Polygon" must mention the word "polytope" long before "triangle" or "hexagon" or "octagon". Even many sports articles fail to explain the score-board systems, such as RHE (runs/hits/errors) numbers. I still recommend writing the clarified versions as pages on Simple English Wikipedia, where the word "simple" refers to the vocabulary used and does not limit topics to only simple treatment. We also tried to branch into a "Micropaedia" of short, explanatory blurbs about major topics, but that idea was met with numerous objections. Perhaps even harder than writing simple explanations of complex topics, it is a struggle to convey to some people why simplicity even matters. The Micropaedia format would have encouraged thousands of editors to write simple summaries about perhaps 300,000 common topics. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Micropaedia approach works, and has been taken already - the article points to simple polygon right off, and regular polygon later. I think an argument can be made for simple regular polygon to be a created as a separate article again, where beginners can be introduced to the very basics of triangles and squares and such. The navigation (and some of these articles) could be better. Wnt (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there is a proposal at meta:Wikikids (not Wikids :), which would be a project analogous to Wikijunior if accepted someday.···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 20:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Monika raises a very good point, as complexity not confined just to quantum physicians and scientific subjects but many others as well. Sometimes it is as if articles are written by committees of people who don't like each other. Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a discussion at WikiProject Biology about the jargon added to the article on Cell (biology) about this. If I didn't know anything about astronomy, most of these articles on various stars would drive me away. I feel sorry for 4th graders doing school papers and thinking "I wanna be a scientist" and then happening on an article about a volcano saying This diatreme contains a small plug-like body of nepheline syenite that is about 30 meters (98 ft) in diameter and is choked with variety of angular to subangular xenoliths and autoliths or trying to learn about cell mitochondria and facing: Chlorplast thylakoids constitute earth's most abundant and yet unique phospholid-defficient biomembrane system containing largely a inverted-hexagonal cylinderical micellar phase-forming monogalactosyl diglyceride (MGDG). However, total lipid-extract of thylakoid membranes forms aqeous lipid bilayer organisation, as also native thylakoid membranes - was revealed by NMR and TEM studies. Add to the list of things Wikipedia is not...not a resource for kids to learn more about science, math, and other stuff unless they had a Ph.D. at age 8.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Write a simple overview of quantum physics

I glanced at "simple:Quantum mechanics" (QM) on the Simple English Wikipedia, but even that page seems to ramble without providing a clear, balanced overview about "quantum mechanics" (versus traditional "classical mechanics"). However, because the general topic seems so extensive in the various facets (physics, chemistry, and math formulas), I am thinking we should write an essay "wp:How to explain quantum physics" as an exercise in writing pages intended for general readers. I am too tired to work on that essay yet, but one easy tactic (to keep the wording simple) is to limit sentences to just 4 prepositions each. Also, a teacher has warned to avoid tedious words (such as "complex") which tend to discourage potential readers as warnings of difficult thinking will be required. More later. -Wikid77 01:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This list of introductory articles, including "Introduction to quantum mechanics", might be helpful.

Category:Glossaries, including "Glossary of quantum philosophy", might be helpful.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Those pages also show a tendency to dive into rambling details, without giving an overall "overview" of quantum physics. So, the essay could emphasize this aspect, where explanations tend to either launch into detailed descriptions about light waves (frequency and photons) or follow the history of quantum mechanics as how it was developed over a period of several decades. It would be interesting to try explaining the major concepts in perhaps 10 paragraphs, because excessive tangents would likely consume too many paragraphs (or create very large paragraphs!). -Wikid77 10:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law. JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

As soon as somebody writes a clear explanation of quantum physics, the universe will cease existing. Fortunately, we are all quite safe against this possibility.Jehochman ^Talk 11:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Somebody already did, and that universe did stop existing, as soon as somebody read it. This happens all the time, and we were simultaneously never, and always, in danger. Surprised you didn't know that. Begoon ^talk 16:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

My Google search for quantum nutshell reported about 850,000 results, including Quantum Enigma » In a Nutshell. My Google search for quantum simplified reported about 11,300,000 results, including The World of Quantum Mechanics Made Simple ~ An Animated Guide - Part 1 (1/6) - YouTube (11:49).

—Wavelength (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Those webpages will be good to compare, when thinking about the core concepts to cover in a simplified overview. I have already decided to mention the various, refined experiments which led to new ideas about the structure of the atom and the interactions of subatomic particles. I see the medical articles are also severely cryptic, and seem to require the typical reader to have an M.D. or at least extensive pre-med background. -Wikid77 15:42, 25 March, 08:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Change.org Comments By Jimbo Wales 23rd March

I wouldn't normally dream of contributing on this page, but having read the comments referred in my section title regarding that rather daft petition, I just wanted to say thanks for such a measured and direct response. This does wikipedia lots of good.

"More of this sort of thing" -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Presumably, you are speaking about THIS.

Petition to JW: "Create and enforce new policies that allow for true scientific discourse about holistic approaches to healing."

JW Reply: "No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.

"Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

"What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse.' It isn't."

Agreed that this is on-target. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that is what I am referring to, thx. (I've checked my garage, now I'm going to check the rest of my premises) -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I wonder why did you say: "I wouldn't normally dream of contributing on this page"? Thanks.71.202.123.2 (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• O'Malley, James (March 25, 2014). "Jimmy Wales waves a giant 'citation needed' sign at crazy alternative medicine lobby". Tech Digest.

Ping @Montanabw since this piece also mentions the "unicorn lobby", with which she has long been locked in a struggle for scientific truth and basic common sense. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Science as Falsification (1963) by Karl Popper should be required reading for the people who have signed the petition. But it probably won't be.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Unicorns? You rang? It's not [just unicorns, it's also pink and rainbow ponies and fairytale pegasi. All of which routinely seem to inhabit the bodies of real horses. Montanabw^(talk) 21:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It always seemed to me that the convenient added ability of pegasi to fly over tall or wide obstacles, plus their assorted other magical powers, wouldn't make up for the additional cost of having to buy custom-built stabling facilities four times normal size. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

To respond to IP 71 above who asked I said "I wouldn't normally dream of contributing on this page" - it is because this page belongs to one of the founders of the coven, serious topics are discussed here by intelligent and forthright people, and I'd rather not have the spotlight on my own inadequacies, and poor editing record. I do not propose to further comment on that subject. I must now rush off to feed the centaurs. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• More press coverage: Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners “lunatic charlatans”.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • On doit appeler un chat un chat. There's nothing particularly controversial here, just the regular shouting "I have cures they don't want you to know about!" is a good way to sell snake oil. WilyD 11:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it's useful to check the articles from the petition: "As a result, people who are interested in the benefits of Energy Medicine, Energy Psychology,^[1] and specific approaches such as the Emotional Freedom Techniques, Thought Field Therapy and the Tapas Acupressure Technique, turn to your pages, trust what they read, and do not pursue getting help from these approaches which research has, in fact, proven to be of great benefit to many." I don't see any obvious surprises, though. Wnt (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting though that a too-skeptical approach isn't a good thing for skepticism. For example, an application of the ever-overbearing, ever-unreasonable WP:MEDRS to Tapas Acupressure Technique removed^[2][3] all mention of $2.1 million in government money given to Kaiser Permanente to study this proprietary nonsense by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Now having seen some of the good grant proposals that don't get funded, and knowing how far that money could go in a legitimate lab, it really angers me that it was doled out by a center which seemed to be seeking to test really absurd "alternative" practices rather than trying to screen a wide range of cheap and time-honored herbal preparations from traditional Chinese medicine. An article about medicine, and especially about pseudo-science, is not all about medicine, and its sole purpose should not be to serve the medical lobby in pushing its point of view. Wnt (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"I actually hate it here"

"I actually hate it here." said yet another Wikipedian, administrator who started editing Wikipedia in 2007. He said: "I actually hate it here." and retired. So, Jimbo, I wonder if you're concerned at all that sooner or later toxic editing environment and bullies would take over the site you have worked so hard on?71.202.123.2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As a recipient of plenty of it myself, yes, of course I do. At the same time, it is important to understand that there are huge swathes of Wikipedia editing which take place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some editing is taking place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere, but lovely and congenial atmosphere is shrinking while poisoning atmosphere is growing. Wikipedia is still loosing editors, and you could make a difference.71.202.123.2 (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear that there is any directional shift at all. Certainly people have been coming to this page for about a decade lamenting the loss of the good old days. A common human affliction. At the same time, it is always worth looking at specific problems and trying to draw principled general conclusions. But usually when anon ips show up to authoritatively state that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, things get pretty thin when specific examples are requested.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're an admin, you've got to expect to be tossed into all of the acrimonious debates, wrestle the evil-doing bad guys to the ground with all the force of our guidelines and policies, deal with spammers and other miscreants - and all of the other political nonsense that goes along with it. If, on the other hand, you want to improve the article about Red squirrels (which is the first article I ever edited back in January 2006!) - you'll have a peaceful, fun existence and get the warm fuzzy feeling that you've improved the world by helping to create the largest repository of human knowledge known to mankind. 99% (at least) of articles here are great places to work - but (sadly) the admins are not needed in those place - so their stress levels are high and they see only the worst. We should back our admins - understand their stress - thank them when we can and sympathise when wiki-PTSD strikes and takes one down. SteveBaker (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right. in general. However if you look at the what appears to be 'the straw that broke' here it was a copy-edit, editing dispute over, get this, Ancient history. This being a wiki, one can surly get fed-up with negotiating such things -- but in the end, it's a wiki. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It probably doesn't help matters that we're down to only about 600-700 allegedly active admins for an increasing workload of articles, IP vandals, disputes, ANI, etc., etc., etc., more rules on admin behavior, and then the fear (as we saw with the Kafziel case) that doing the right thing will get you drawn and quartered at arbcom if you happen to cross a persistent user with a personal fiefdom out for blood when poked at. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What's remarkable, ColonelHenry, is looking at Wikipedia's history...I saw some RFAs where editors were moved on to admin status after editing for six months! And some after just three months! And some of those admins are still at work today. But 8 years ago, Wikipedia was growing and there was a press to increase the admin corps and a lot of people who were judged capable were drafted. Now, the prospect of going through an RFA is daunting, years of varied experience in all areas of editing is expected AND you can't have made any major mistakes and have baggage. It's become ultra selective and I understand why...but unless things change, the numbers will just keep decreasing as there is always attrition. Liz 03:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with natural attrition, but I consider it entropy...like the heat death of the universe.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Many Wikipedia hostilities reflect the real world: (edit conflict) I have come to appreciate "Jimbo's Wikipedia" as not just the "sum of all human knowledge" but also "some of the hostile ways in which knowledge is squelched" and perhaps the 2nd issue is just as important in what Jimbo has emphasized for the world. The "enemy at the gates" is not just amassing along the borders of the Ukraine. The problem is not just high-priced books and journals, but also people actively trying to suppress other information, as when told not to edit their company page, then some of them reduce the competitors' pages. Beyond the history of "book burning" or "Fahrenheit 451" I have met quite a few wp:TfDs ("Template for Da burning") as well. Someone even told me that wp:edit-conflicts which derail quick edits were a minor issue, rather than the primary reason it is difficult to get a classroom of 20 students to all expand the same new article. Wikipedia is being thwarted by invented limitations, at many levels, including the underlying MediaWiki software. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's worth considering that Wikipedia isn't in a vacuum here. See http://www.vice.com/read/how-corporate-lobbyists-use-the-internet-to-destroy-democracy (an article which specifically references Wikipedia) which alleges that Westbourne Communications ...engages in aggressive rebuttal campaigns, which involves creating a feeling among opponents that everything they say will be picked apart. This is an “exhausting but crucial” part of successful lobbying... If this is true, I don't think by any means this company is unusual among PR firms in doing so. Wikipedia rules have made it so that people are called out on the carpet for merely speculating when someone might be doing such a thing, but I suspect many of us cross paths with this sort of thing often. The article talks about it being used against activists, but what we too easily forget is that Wikipedia's goal of providing impartial knowledge to all is one of the most activist causes there is. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the bad people are certainly driving the good people away. The underlying problem is that what worked when Wikipedia new doesn't work now......what enabled building it when it was new back then now enables destructive sociopaths, mob violence, and a random and destructive system of "policing". North8000 (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that Wikipedia started with a lot of people building content but not much accumulated content. Now it receives a huge amount of traffic to these cumulative resources and is in a position to control a large amount of content, and various factions are fighting over that power. The key here is to shatter that power, to make it so that a lot more people have the right to make content (including the ability to search that content) accessible in a global encyclopedic framework. Wnt (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"Sociopaths," "mob violence"? No, it's just anonymous people working without pay. When it stops becoming interesting it becomes drudgery and I can understand why that person lost interest. Coretheapple (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If that person would have just lost interest he would not have said "I actually hate it here". There's a huge difference between "losing interest" and "hating" the place. Besides that person's retirement is only one example of many.71.202.123.2 (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

He's welcome to explain what he meant. Coretheapple (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Two related thoughts made are worth repeating. I read the opening posts the other day, and walked away thinking about them, which led me to some of the thoughts expressed by user:North8000. It is well-known in the busines community that the set of skills needed for a start-up are not the same as the set of skills appropriate to manage a mature company. I wasn't here during the startup phase, but I've read enough of the hisotory to see the differences. Some long for a return to those days, but that isn't going to happen. We have to recognize that we are moving into middle age, and act accordingly. User:Wnt also makes an important point: in the early days, it was all about building content. While we are still building content, we have so much content, that we need ever increasing resources dealing with maintenance issues, which frankly, aren't as exciting.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that some of the most important fundamental changes are:

• Wikipedia has become much much much more influential. So much much much more is to be gained or lost (and is at stake) by what it is an article and how it is written. So instead of the dominant kumbaya mission of "let's build an encyclopedia" dominating the psyche, POV interests and other interests have become much stronger and more prevalent.
• The vagueness, and lack of carefulness of the rules, structures, and positions which is just what we needed when we were a "commune" has now turned against us. The "system" has become weapons of warfare and of random harm to editors. And even where it is not mis-used it is not up to the task. Can you imagine a system where the same person is allowed to be the police, judge, jury and executioner, they get the job for life, and the criteria for getting it is "got in back when it was easy"?
• With (as it matures) the dominance of the "lets build something cool" slipping from 90% to 60%, much of the other 40% has been a lot of other things. For example, another place to play/participate in an on-line warfare game.

North8000 (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're making a very sound analysis. I think that the only way one can derive any satisfaction from volunteering for Wikipedia is to find a backwater where subjects that are not a subject of editorial battling, but are important and neglected, require attention. The idea is less to "build an encyclopedia" in the abstract sense, as after all the encyclopedia belongs to a third party, and one may not like what the third party is doing. But if one feels that the article on Extinct hummingbirds is neglected, and one feels strongly about extinct hummingbirds, then one can improve such articles without feeling a sense that one's time is being wasted. But I can understand why people trying to become involved in administrative stuff become frustrated. I monitor this page because I'm interested in the scourge of paid editing, and it has been a very frustrating experience that has not increased my satisfaction or made me feel better about Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement: the more prominent the subject, the more acute the editorial fisticuffs, and the more "important" the subject, the greater the chance that one's sandcastle on the beach will be wiped out by an incoming wave. So, if somebody is bored and wants a challenge, there's a new monograph: John K. Derden, The World's Largest Prison: The Story of Camp Lawton. (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2012) about Camp Lawton (prisoner of war camp), a Confederate prisoner of war camp located in the defunct town of Lawtonville, Georgia. There are your red links, go to town... Carrite (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I've found that subjects of importance sometimes don't have Wikipedia articles, when the sources are offline and/or when the subjects are not especially fashionable or recent, and/or when they concern members of minority groups that are not active on Wikipedia. For example, I was absolutely astonished to find that the single biggest road accident in U.S. history, an incident that helped result in abolition of a guest workers program, did not have a Wikipedia article. The reason was that the victims were Mexican migrant workers. Nobody cared then, or now. Yet there are umpteen articles on video games and minor musical artists. We reflect the prejudices and obsessions of society. Coretheapple (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Even for recent events, there's a real cultural bias. I've got a redlink on my user page for a Mexican band called Reyna De Monterrey that had 10 members wiped out in a traffic accident in 2013. Compare and contrast to the treatment accorded The Exploding Hearts, who are appropriately covered on WP. (While I'm name-dropping red links that maybe little birds will see, here's another subject of a recent biography that needs a WP piece: Mira Lloyd Dock; per: Rimby, Mira Lloyd Dock and the Progressive Era Conservation Movement. Penn State University Press, 2012.) Carrite (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a weak spot. Take a look at Bracero program. There is an article, for sure, but it needs a lot of work. This is an area in which there isn't a lot of screaming among editors, just a great deal of content that needs work or creation. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Bacon

Hello, Jimbo Wales. You are invited to join WikiProject Bacon, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of bacon and bacon-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. NorthAmerica1000 02:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Need help with the C Word (Crimea)

I am a WP:DRN volunteer, and occasionally get requests for advice on my talk page. Today I got a request regarding Crimea that I don't quite know what to do with, and I think it is the sort of thing that may interest Jimbo or at least one of his Loyal Minions Loyal Talk Page Watchers. The request is here and here, but a look at the pages involved (Russia and Ukraine) shows that it goes a lot deeper than that. It touches on how Wikipedia treats disputed territories in general. Any advice would be really helpful; this one is over my head. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked at those, and it's well above my pay grade too. I respect Guy, and if he's asking for help, here, on this, he obviously needs it, and I hope he's getting it, somewhere. Far too often, well meaning contributors are left to act on their "best guess", then crucified for not "getting it right". Pleas for help with consensus like this should be acted upon swiftly, and I'm sorry if all I can do here is bump this for attention. If I knew more, I'd do more. Begoon ^talk 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The dilemma we have now is to deal with something "unprecedented": A country lost control of a seceded area which has already received high media coverage (i.e. no shortage in reliable source) but there is not yet any non-governmental cartographic agency published any updated map to depict the updated status of the area. Should we change the infobox map in the country's article lede to reflect the disputed status of that area? One side believes reports on the disputed area is sufficient to justify the new map. The opposite believes any country map must have real counterpart from any credible cartographic agency. I have no doubt the latter will settle all the editorial disputes. However, I don't think the former breaks any pillar of Wikipedia either. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Sameboat - 同舟, I have noted on the Ukraine talk page that it is not merely a matter of the maps, but the fact that, in accepting the maps, it has automatically been accepted that statistics in the infoboxes (population, area of country, number of regions, etc.) are to be split as plus and minus Crimea. That is where WP:OR is really coming into play as there are no reliable secondary sources to justify such changes.

In the second instance, both articles are being treated as current affairs articles and are suffering from WP:UNDUE information bloat. There are articles covering the current affairs developments, which is why I have added hatnotes to the top of the Ukraine article directing readers who are trying to find information on the subject to the correct articles. The Russia article, however, is sporting a current affairs tag. I'm not even going to try to change that as I know, from experience, that such an edit will trigger an edit war. Sadly, both articles are prone to POV hit and run edits already. The high media profile since last year has culminated in unprecedented traffic on both articles (which is spilling over into other Ukraine/Russia articles) with the advent of the Crimean situation.

My understanding of articles dealing explicitly with any given country/nation-state is that are not venues for WP:RECENTISM. They cover more generalised areas of history, culture (and sugar 'n spice things like flora and fauna), sports (snips 'n snails), et al. The articles in question have been turned into a free-for-all for those who haven't managed to get a look in on the current affairs articles. Instead of being informative, they are being turned into complete gobbledygook. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For totally owning those stupid "holistic medicine" nuts, and not letting them (or anyone else) promote their crackpot theories without evidence.

Jinkinson talk to me 12:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Impossible.com application held by government

Jimmy, given that you've thrown much public support to Lily Cole's Impossible.com, and your wife's Freud Communications added PR muscle behind it, I'm publicly notifying you here that the UK Nesta office refuses to share Impossible.com's application papers that resulted in the project receiving a £200,000 grant. Since you are a champion of open government, perhaps you could orchestrate an end-around the secretive government and personally convince Ms. Cole to release the application documents to The Register and/or post them on Wikisource or Wikimedia Commons? Would you do that, please? - 50.146.162.25 (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is not relevant to Wikipedia. I recommend you take it elsewhere. The article in The Register is typical of them - lots of sneering innuendo that doesn't really stand up to a moment's scrutiny. I've reminded Lily that Andrew Orlowski once trumpted a claim that Wikipedia was "Khmer Rouge in diapers". This is not a serious debate. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the question, as framed, isn't appropriate to wikipedia. But, hey, it's your personal talkpage, so asking your opinion in this open-house format might be ok, no? Do you think it's ok for documents relating to a large government grant like this to be hard to access, if they are? That's not something I'd imagine you'd approve of, given what I know of your passion for openness. If the question seems personal to you, that's not necessarily the fault of the questioner. Begoon ^talk 18:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are asking me my philosophical position on the transparency of government grants, then I will say yes, there should be significant transparency. It's important to note, though, that the reason the FOIA request failed is that the grant came from Nesta, which is not the government but rather a charity. It has a big endowment which did not come from the government but from the lottery, which is operated by the Camelot Group and licensed and regulated by the government, including a requirement that 28% of revenue go to good causes. What level of transparency should there be around that? Again, a very interesting philosophical question and were I to have anything at all to do with any of these organizations I would recommend that they pursue very transparent policies.

But as you can see now that we're into the details, none of this is what the original poster was really after.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, Jimmy. That does make some things clearer. Sorry about the diversion below. I didn't intend that. Recognising a genuine question when tempers are running high can be difficult. I'm glad you were able to do so. Some folks can't, and I hold no hard feelings for that. Begoon ^talk 18:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind Begoon's questions, as they seem to be moving in the direction of discussing philosophical matters rather than misstating facts to try to make me look like a hypocrite (the original poster is the one who did that). I still think this page is not the right place for this discussion, as it has virtually nothing to do with Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is not a chatroom. You can email Jimmy if you want to, and he will answer if he wants to. Otherwise, please extend to him the same courtesy as any other user and do not start discussion topics that are unrelated to the encyclopedia and potentially unwelcome. Jehochman Talk 18:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Ok. It says it's open house. Maybe you wrote that. Or maybe you're sticking your beak in unwarrantedly. Hard to say, really. I doubt it's your call, though. Begoon talk 18:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC) It not hard at all to understand what's going on here. You need to treat other people on Wikipedia as human beings, rather than avatars in a shoot-em-up game. Jehochman Talk 18:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC) If you interfered with a third party conversation on my talkpage like this, I'd have you banned. I hope Jimmy will be more lenient. Begoon talk 19:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC) 1) Talk page bans are informal requests that cannot be enforced, 2) Jimmy's page is often answered by third party 'helpers', and 3) Based on Jimmy's response above, I believe that you'd face the greater chance of a talk page ban if Jimmy were to ever give one.--v/r - TP 19:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC) You're lovely. Wikilawyering is beautiful. The world will appreciate it one day. I'm done here now. Enjoy. Begoon talk 19:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Wikilawyering? Is that your go-to retort when someone points out the obvious to you?--v/r - TP 19:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC) No. But I really am done here now. Have a nice day, Begoon talk 19:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Re: "Talk page bans are informal requests that cannot be enforced", go ahead and keep posting to a user's talk page after they have told you not to, and you will have a nice peaceful 24-hour block to contemplate the question of whether talk page bans are informal requests that cannot be enforced. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Show me the policy. I can show you pages of ANI threads specifically about talk page bans. Unless there is a formal interaction ban by the community, administrators will not block because someone said "U banzed from muh page yo." Users don't own their talk pages. It is considered polite to respect a talk page ban but not required. And there are quite a few accepted exemptions including warnings and ANI notices. An administrator who blocked an editor for violating a talk page 'ban' by the talk page owner would certainly be questioned about their suitability in the role. Administrator's enforce community decisions. There is no community involvement in a talk page ban and so tool use is wholly inappropriate. WP:User pages: "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)." Do you read an explicit rule there? I read an implicit request.--v/r - TP 19:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC) They may not block for violation of a talk page ban, but they will for disruption and hounding, which stalking a talk page may certainly include. KonveyorBelt 20:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Then it wouldn't be a block for a talk page ban violation, now would it? It'd be a harassment block which has it's own set of standards of which ignoring a 'talk page ban' isn't one of them.--v/r - TP 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Which really distracts from which central point which is: Jehochman has sided with Jimmy whereas Begoon has sided with the OP. Who do you think Jimmy would 'talk page ban' if he were to do so?--v/r - TP 20:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Still, the actions in which a user takes in ignoring a talk page block, like hounding the user and personally attacking him could fall under certain standards for "harassment". KonveyorBelt 20:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Like I said, go ahead and keep posting to a user's talk page after they have told you not to, and you will have a nice peaceful 24-hour block to contemplate the question of whether talk page bans are informal requests that cannot be enforced. If and when that happens, feel free to consider it a harassment block instead of a block for a talk page ban violation, and the rest of us will feel free to mock you for silly wikilawyering. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC) If you say it enough times, it'll come true? Have you ever blocked someone for a talk page ban? No? Have you see it? No? Got policy to support your claim? No? You've got nothing but insistence that it is so. You're being silly. The issues that you say will get someone blocked are issues in themselves that would earn much more than a talk page ban. Someone involved in the harassment, hounding, and personal attacks which would earn a 'talk page ban' would actually have earned much more before such a talk page ban was even enacted. So what's left to talk page ban? I'll tell you, it's users who don't get along but are not violating policy. We don't block users for not getting along. And so we don't block for talk page 'ban' violations. If someone was doing all the things you said they are doing to get a talk page violation, they would've been given an interaction ban and so a talk page ban wouldn't be necessary from the start. And if all of those things are happening after the talk page ban to earn the block, than what was the original reason for a talk page ban? I don't need to Wikilawyer, logic simply doesn't support you. You're in a causality loop.--v/r - TP 20:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Jimbo, I am surprised you supported the site, and here's why: According to you "She had a deep understanding of what in fact makes up a huge part of human life: doing nice things for each other with no expectation of any particular return". So looks like you do support "doing nice things for each other with no expectation of any particular return", but when around three months ago I asked you here, at this very page to do something nice for me you refused. I did not ask for anything impossible. What I asked for was within each and every Wikipedia policy. What I asked you for was within your power, and it was not only a nice thing to do, but the right thing to do too, and you refused. So I don't understand how one could support something, which he himself isn't following.98.234.242.89 (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the least idea what you are talking about. But the idea that it's a great thing to do nice things for others with no expectation of any particular return does not imply that one must do every random thing that anyone asks. I'm sorry if I disappointed you in some way and if you can be more specific, I can either do the thing you are talking about, or try to explain to you why I won't.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I am reminded of an incident regarding TV chef Ina Garten, a BLP I have on my watch list. The woman receives far more requests to assist charities than she can possibly agree to. A sick child asked for something through Make-A-Wish which she couldn't fit into her schedule. So she got pilloried online for weeks for something she didn't do, and for about two years, SPA editors tried to add that tempest-in-a-teapot to her biography over and over again. Well, not on my watch, but how about the BLPs that aren't watched? So, it seems that you, Jimbo, have something in common with Ina Garten. Trolling. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a very common modern problem for anyone the least bit in the public eye - and many who are not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So, "the discussion is not relevant to Wikipedia", according to Wales. I wonder, then, if someone were to come along to this Talk page and say...

When I searched for Lily Cole, who doesn't much use twitter or facebook, klout told me that she's influential on several topics including, much to my surprise "World of Warcraft". This turns out to be because there was some kind of commercial for the Body Shop called "WOW! project" and her line of makeup is featured.

...we would rightly say that that sort of out-of-left-field discussion of Lily Cole's Klout score is not relevant to Wikipedia, and therefore shouldn't have been placed on this Talk page. Is that correct, Mr. Wales? - 50.146.203.48 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Kind of the other way round. Someone else asked Jimbo for his opinion of this Klout thing, and he listed some concerns, drawbacks and problems with it, in quite some detail; also including its relevance (or not) to Wikipedia. One of the examples used seems to be someone he knows. So...? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

El Reg (sic) sees the light, is welcomed back to the Temple of the Mind

Pott, Trevor (25 March 2014). "Schoolkids given WORLD'S CHEAPEST TABLETS: Is it really that hard to swallow?". The Register. (in their "sysadmin blog" section, which of course is more reliable than "special report"...)

"... Encarta may be history, but today we can download the totality of Wikipedia for offline access. ... Take some time to look up things you don't understand in Wikipedia and get lost chasing links and learning.

"... A 'worthless', low spec, outdated-before-it-is-launched £30 tablet that no person from the developed world would ever want can contain dozens of times more information than Encarta 1994. When and where internet access is available, it can give those children access to all of humanity's collected knowledge." (emphases in the original, which mentions Project Gutenberg first)

I'm sure that last phrase sounds vaguely familiar...

It seems some parts of "El Reg" are moving on from the obsession with generating regular "flame of the week" material that I found so entertaining when I was a teenager. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The obsession is mostly courtesy Andrew Orlowski looking to rack up a freelance click-troll piece. The Register is odd editorially - basically, a bunch of freelancers pitch pieces, some of which are insanely awful and some of which are great. So not quite Forbes/Examiner, but rather more varied than the conventional news site. I have friends who write for it who I'd happily talk to about Wikipedia for el Reg - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You must know

Legal threats have no meaning, when an admin violates rules of Wikipedia on highest level. You must know and you can ask the question (Jimbo Wales). Not anarchy (knowledge must be - not violation from the side of any admin). Use of personal message instead protocol (template) - super violation. Do not touch (the admin must get warning). If not anarchy. 128.73.115.165 (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You must know: I have no idea what you are talking about. If you have a specific complaint, it is best to discuss it using specific diffs.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Removal_of_adminship_.28desysopping.29 :

If an administrator abuses administrative powers, these powers can be removed. Administrators may be removed by Jimbo Wales, by stewards, or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain functions or placement on administrative probation. The technical ability to remove administrator status rests with bureaucrats, stewards and Jimmy Wales. - 128.73.115.165 (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

Right, so the next step is for you to present evidence, using diffs, that an administrator has abused their administrative powers. Yes? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: the reference to "legal threats" above is likely because this user, who has been blocked indefinitely under the name Need1521, issued legal threats to the blocking admin under another IP address. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion on a very controversial and high profile AFD.

The AFD is here. Having your majesty weigh in there, King Jimbo, would be greatly appreciated, if you don't mind (since you are, after all, the constitutional monarch). Jinkinson talk to me 02:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about the particulars. There is no reason why, in principle, there cannot be an article about a set of conspiracy theories. (We have for example: John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.) But such an article needs to be well-researched and encyclopedic - i.e. there need to be reliable third party sources confirming notability, etc. Lacking that, such an article probably could be deleted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

LinkedIn group - again

Hi Jimbo, - may I ask again that I be made an additional admin for the LinkedIn group? There is a lot of spam and there's no way to remove it, because it appears you're the only administrator of the group. There are definitely interested/potential Wikipedians on the group, so having spam (and the people who harvest addresses) is a detriment to Wikipedia. (My name on LinkedIn is: Bob Kosovsky). Thanks for anything you can do. -- kosboot (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not seeing you as a member of the group. Are we talking about the same group? This one?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's this one: https://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=39542&trk=anet_ug_hm -- kosboot (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

While you're there, I would not mind being an admin ('manager') as well (I am at LinkedIn under my name, Brian E. Logan). Bearian (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've made you both managers. I'm still owner but I'll transfer that to someone at WMF when I get the chance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! -- kosboot (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

How to request mass message sending

Hello, This situation has me totally baffled. The situation is that Wikipedia, on April fools day, is vandalized excessively. I want to request that a mass message be sent to let Wikipedians know that they should be ready for the giant attack of the vandals. But I do not know how to take the action necessarily or if it is even allowed. Hoping to get this settled with only 5 days left, Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 15:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sending such a message is not necessary. There are lots of experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with the different sorts of things that occur here every April 1. And although this would not be the attention, sometimes posting too prominent a warning of incoming vandalism has the paradoxical effect of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with Brad about all of that, I'd say that there are some good places to notify active editors without unduly alerting people who may simply take the warning as an invitation to cause trouble. Village Pump is a good place. But there are also places like the sitenotice for logged in users only, or the watchlist, which might be used to good effect. Note well that there have been controversies about these things in the past, so not everyone would agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I have addressed appropriate April Fools' Day demeanor here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• See WP:BEANS. Those with experience already know what to do. KonveyorBelt 22:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)