User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(My Brilliant Idea)
m (Wikimedia Foundation/Wikipedia as a registered charity - Would ENABLE TAX DECDUCTION FOR UK)
Line 815: Line 815:
   
 
--[[User:Ce garcon|Ce garcon]] 18:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 
--[[User:Ce garcon|Ce garcon]] 18:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Wikimedia Foundation/Wikipedia as a registered charity - Would ENABLE TAX DECDUCTION FOR UK ==
  +
  +
If Wikipedia/the Wikimedia Foundation registered itself as a '''Registered_charity (see [[Charitable trust#United Kingdom]])''' with the UK '''[[Charity Commission]]''' (website: [http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ www.charity-commission.gov.uk]) it would enable Wikipedia users and possible patrons to donate tax-free to the Wikimedia Foundation.
  +
  +
I really suggest you look into getting yourself approved as a Registered Charity in the UK, it would save you a lot of money it seems!
  +
  +
From [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Deductibility_of_donations http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Deductibility_of_donations] it appears at the moment the only other countries apart from the US where donations are tax-deductible is Germany and France! --[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|Mistress Selina Kyle]] 21:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:32, 19 December 2005

User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivedecember14

(Old stuff cleared out.)

Wikicities.com | My Website

Did you come here looking for something fun to do? Ok, now would be a good time to go speedy delete some images from "Images with unknown source" and "Images with unknown copyright status". According to the new speedy deletion criterion (I just changed it), these can be deleted on sight when they have been on the site for at least 7 days.

Contents

Dershowitz legal threat

Can you confirm that the "very strong complaint" you received was from Alan Dershowitz or his staff? - Xed 20:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if he doesn't, there's no denying that some dollar-hungry, savvy and perhaps fame-seeking (or -maintaining) attorney is going to eventually figure out that Wikipedia is low-hanging fruit with respect to a class-action defamation/libel suit...and how many Wiki articles are there, again...? (ka-ching!) And all-the-better that there's a constitutionality matter at hand regarding the supposedly legal protection extended to ISPs. Right...I'm sure that's in the Constitution somewhere. Perhaps the ever-useful Article 14...? ;-) --AustinKnight 20:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In the US, ambulance chasers usually focus on personal injury law, or (more recently) IP law. Defamation hardly even makes the grade. For every actual defamation suit there are ten thousand unfounded threats, which is why most people on the Internet don't take them very seriously. Times v. Sullivan poses a very high barrier to slander or libel suits by public figures. And the legal protections extended to ISPs are statutory, they have nothing to do with the Constitution. If you're implying there is a constitutional right to sue for libel, you're wrong. In fact, the courts (from Times onward) have routinely held that libel suits must be restricted in order to avoid a chilling effect on protected expression under the First Amendment. Firebug 22:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, counselor. But, do you truly think that, today, Herr Dershowitz is convinced of your line of reasoning regarding due process and equal protection? Or the former editorial-page editor & founder of USA Today...? Or members of the Supreme Court of the United States, such as Antonin Scalia (who has specifically spoken against your arguments)...? If you're assessment is wrong, and correspondingly Wikipedia does not take action to reel-in some of the over-the-top nonsense, and the courts (eventually) go against them...what then? Platitudes? "Sorry, that was such an unfair ruling."? --AustinKnight 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Clearly you are a bitter, bitter person. --kizzle 22:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I am a lighthouse. A fairly compassionate one. One which is steadily, cyclically, unrelentingly warning that there are shoals here that the unwary need to pay attention to, and which if ignored will result in tragic drama. I wish for nothing but succcess for Wikipedia, but see serious trouble in the offing. I'd be a bitter, bitter person if I said or did nothing. --AustinKnight 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
AustinK is right and his lighthouse is shining a lot brighter than Firebug's. Firebug is not telling the whole story. The barrier that the Supreme Court erected to protect free speech from the excessive pinch of libel suits in Times v. Sullivan requires a litigant to prove that the defamer acted with "reckless disregard for the truth." It should be clear that Wikipedia has been acting with reckless disregard for the truth. For example, despite numerous protests and requests that Wiki administrators stop a registered editor from posting libelous statements, he is allowed to continue. Just yesterday, he posted for the second time the false statement that I am under psychiatric care. Anyone who knows about libel law should know that, such a statement, if false is defamatory pro se and that it requires no proof of actual injury. And this is days after he edited an article removing the graduate degree from my name and posted as the reason that my degree was "phony." He later put it back in, admitting that he did that to punish me. Allowing a registered editor to repeatedly post defamatory statements in a campaign to discredit someone and ignoring the injured party's repeated protests, is in my opinion prima facie evidence of gross and reckless disregard for the truth. And, for Wikis who might not care about law or justice, it is no way to run an "encylopedia."Askolnick 13:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Question...

I have a question; how come everyone but Jimbo Wales answers most questions? See above... Spawn Man 21:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Because Jimbo is lazy! ;-) --Jimbo Wales 21:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What has the world come to!!!! Spawn Man 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Reminds me of a quote -- "In fact, I think Linus's cleverest and most consequential hack was not the construction of the Linux kernel itself, but rather his invention of the Linux development model. When I expressed this opinion in his presence once, he smiled and quietly repeated something he has often said: 'I'm basically a very lazy person who likes to get credit for things other people actually do.' Lazy like a fox. " - Eric Steven Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s03.html
Start a world tour, and appear on international news networks, and then tell me why you don't answer every question on your user talk page. -- user:zanimum
Okay.... Wait done that..... Well I manage to reply to everyone.... =) Spawn Man 07:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Xed

You may misunderstand my argument... the point is not that Xed is acting in bad faith, but rather that it is an assumption of bad faith on Xed's part to write off concerns with the article on the grounds that the complainer is Dershowitz - particularly when that is not clear. This has been the issue with Xed in both of his arbitration cases - that his default assumption about anyone - particularly anyone who disagrees with him - is that they are acting in bad faith.

Oh, and you shouldn't edit people's evidence sections. ;) Phil Sandifer 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please move my comment to where it should be, I'm sorry. I'm not very experienced at RfC's actually. --Jimbo Wales 00:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
lol. I'll just file under "Jimbo can do whatever he wants." Phil Sandifer 01:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
As someone has mentioned to me, there is a difference is between "assuming bad faith" and "reasonable suspicion". Snowspinner seems to assume everything I do is in bad faith (bad faith in itself). The bullying has to end. - Xed 22:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Come on, Xed. Give us a break. You aren't being bullied, and you very often show bad faith and you very often do things to be disruptive. No one, least of all Snowspinner, assumes that everything you do is in bad faith. But enough of it is that we're getting sick of it. --Jimbo Wales 00:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Without taking any position on Xed or his behavior (about which I know little and care less), I think his question is reasonable, and I want to hear the answer. Did Dershowitz threaten us? Firebug 22:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
No, Dershowitz did not threaten us. In my opinion, there was a misunderstanding here. But there was no threat.--Jimbo Wales 00:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
He did however contact Jimbo with a "strong complaint". Dershowitz, or his assistant, edited his own article, removing unflattering info and adding flattering info. Then he was banned. Presumably, he then complained to Jimbo, who deleted most of his article and allowed only admins to edit it.
Looking thru the history of Alan Dershowitz (note:older edits have been moved to Alan Dershowitz/old for unexplained reasons), you'll see on the 5th, 6th and 7th of December several edits by three users:
The IP numbers come from Harvard University - probably Dershowitz or his assistant Mitch Webber. A member of Wikipedia has identified "FakeName" as the same person as whoever the IPs are. FakeName has been banned, see his talk page [1]
"FakeName" makes a legal threat here: [2]
These are a couple of edits that the Harvard vandal makes:
  • [3] (Lengthy addition of all awards he has received and how wonderful he is)
  • [4] (removed info on conflict with finkelstein)
Other edits from the Harvard vandal include complete or partial blanking of the article [5] [6]
-Xed 00:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
There are different kinds of threats. I doubt that Jimbo would react positively to a lawsuit threat. But hypothetically if somebody said, "last year I gave the Wikipedia foundation $50,000, and if you don't fix this article I'll stop giving and tell other people to stop giving", that could be more persuasive. I don't know if something remotely like that happened, but it would explain things. Mirror Vax 11:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that happened. Dershowitz is a man with powerful friends. He can also muster up a legal argument where none really exists (he did get OJ Simpson off the hook after all). Jimbo is probably just a bit over-awed. It just means less powerful people can't alter their articles, but if you are powerful - well go ahead and vandalise it and afterwards we'll make sure you like it. I should note that I now have evidence that Dershowitz, or the computer he usually uses, was the source of some of the vandalism. - Xed 11:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

A sincere question

On Talk:Alan Dershowitz you asked to "verify very carefully, with documentable sources, every single fact in the article." Wikipedia policy and guidelines were apparently designed to provide rules and guidance so as to ensure content integrity which in turn should be a clear reference point to eliminate or at least minimize unnecessary discussion. However, the reality is that these policies and guidelines are frequently ignored or given their own spin to suit an agenda. Policy isn't worth much if there is no mechanism to enforce it, hence my sincere question is: Why not draw upon the considerable (volunteer) expertise of Wikipedians who have demonstrated the capabilities and an NPOV history, along with any volunteers from those who made the substantial effort to create those policies and guidelines, to form a policy review/referral committee? The formation for such a Committee could be done in the same manner as you proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Straw poll. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 22:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

While I'm at it, Mr. Wales, a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct is urgent and essential. Like professional codes, or those required by many corporations and organizations, it must be simple and straightfoward and anyone who serves on the committee must first acknowledge the Code and agree to abide by it. (Note: Since I posted this, someone created the article without my knowledge.) - Ted Wilkes 18:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This user has been involved in several other activities Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone, [7] and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone. Most of this involves attempting to impose rather strict standards on other users. In the Onefortyone cases this involved deletion of all information which related to homosexual or bisexual activities of several celebrities regardless of the source cited. In the case of James Dean a google search for "James Dean" and "bisexual" returns over 100,000 hits which probably justifies some mention of rumors. Fred Bauder 02:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, User Ted Wilkes now tries to create a diversion from the fact that he is constantly deleting well-sourced contributions by others simply because he doesn't agree with them. Ted Wilkes has been harrassing me for months. He repeatedly deleted edits which were well sourced (see [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) and aggressively attacked users and even administrators and members of the arbitration committee if their opinions were not in line with his personal view. It should also be noted that Ted Wilkes repeatedly violated the 3RR in the past and was blocked for doing so. See, for instance, [17]. There is much evidence that Ted Wilkes is identical with multiple hardbanned User:JillandJack alias User:DW. This is of much importance. Both users have very similar editing interests and the same aggressive attitudes. He repeatedly called me a vandal, a liar, etc. and falsely claimed that my edits are fabricated, unfounded, or unwarranted and therefore must be removed. For a summary of the facts, see [18]. What makes me so sure that Ted Wilkes is identical with User:JillandJack alias User:DW?
  • On 7 November 2003, User:NightCrawler, another alias of DW and obviously an Elvis Presley fan like Ted Wilkes, deleted a passage relating to a claim by David Bret that Elvis may have had a sexual relationship with actor Nick Adams, a claim also supported by some other sources. See [19]. The same user added some denigrating remarks on Bret's book to the related discussion page, which were similar to those later written by Ted Wilkes. See [20].
In November 2003, NightCrawler was hardbanned. See [21]. But NightCrawler reappeared as User:JillandJack creating a new, denigrating article on biographer David Bret. See [22]. This biased article was rewritten by me on 4 April 2004. See [23]. In the meantime, JillandJack was hardbanned.
  • On 20 April 2005, some different comment concerning author David Bret and his book was added. See [24]. This was repeatedly deleted by IP 66.61.69.65. See, for instance, [25], [26], [27]. Administrator DropDeadGorgias was forced to restore this comment. See [28].
  • Since May 2005 there was an edit war between Ted Wilkes and me concerning the article on David Bret and particularly his book, Elvis: The Hollywood Years, presumably because of Bret's claim that Elvis may have had homosexual leanings - a claim Ted Wilkes didn't like from the beginning. See [29].
On 5 May, Ted Wilkes reinstated, without further commentary, the biased version by JillandJack thereby deleting a link to a positive Guardian review of a book written by Bret. See [30]. Significantly, Ted Wilkes repeatedly reverted the article to the version he preferred, i.e., exactly the version JillandJack had created, accusing me of distortions, fabrications, being a vandal, etc. See [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], etc.
It is difficult to definitely verify Onefortyone's contention that Ted Wilkes represents the same person as DW. DW has not edited for a very long time. He logged in from Canada and was especially interested in French and Quebec subjects. Ted Wilkes does not seem to share this interest but checkuser shows he does log in from Canada. I'm not sure I trust the chain of users Onefortyone puts forth as proof. Fred Bauder 14:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that DW used different nicknames to write about different subjects. For his contributions on celebrities, he especially used the nicknames of "NightCrawler" and "JillandJack". Just a question. Are the IPs 66.186.250.106 and 66.61.69.65, which have deleted some of my contributions and denigrated my sources, also logging in from Canada? See [55], [56], [57], [58] and [59]. Onefortyone 13:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
My thought is that the concern he raises is important and should be taken seriously, but not to the extent he has carried it in his struggles with Onefortyone, who I should point out is currently on Wikipedia:Probation due to advancing information which was either original research or back by unreliable sources. Fred Bauder 14:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Bauder - Your committees unanimous conviction of Onefortyone has nothing to do with my suggestion. I'm saying that such a Committee is badly needed so as to institute the kind of measures essential to restore Wikipedia's rapidly declining reputation. In my suggestion on this page to Mr. Wales, I never mentioned "views." Such a Committee would be there to enforce/rule upon existing policies and guidlines - not, mine, not yours, or not anyone who uses Wikipedia for Spamdexing. Look at those policies, some very sincere contributors went to a lot of work creating them, but they are repeatedly being ignored and are meaningless. It needs thought, planning etc, but this Committee might also elaborate/modify policies as required or consider new, articulated proposals -- all designed to create Wikipedia articles of integrity. - Ted Wilkes 17:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

He just needs to be on notice regarding your history. Fred Bauder 19:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Why can't his idea stand on its own merits? [The following 512KB reserved for Bauder's history of all we participants in this discussion; that should include Bauder, but I suppose not Wales until he replies.] (SEWilco 05:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

Defamatory page histories

Jimmy, please look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_libel_from_edit_history. Fred Bauder 02:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Emergency!

Jimbo! Thank god you're all right! I rushed over here as fast as my megabytes would carry me! On your userpage, you say edit your page to get it to look as good as Angela's. Nonsense, Mr. Jimbo! Your page should look like mine and Cool Cats! Now, those are perfect userpages. Carefully crafted and sculpted to the upmost quality...Full of beautiful info boxes...and most important, have a sense of humor and attiditude! Please reconsider that statement and join the dark better side of userpage designs. :) -MegamanZero 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Account Deleation

I would like my account deleated pleas. My account is Admiral Roo. Thank you.

Wikinews Germany

Dear Jimbo Wales, as I first heard of your wiki-projects I thought for myself: That's kinda good thing! Really! But after I worked for 4 month at the German Wikinews [60] I was told, that there are no rules, that have to be followed. Even if the community itself decides its own rules by discussion and by election, they have never to be followed by all users. I'm sure, that not all users want to follow rules, but that should never end up with a unwritten law in a wiki, that every user may edit every page as he wants to without having to respect the rules the community set up. If a user has a problem with one or another rule, he should try to discuss it with the other users and should try to change the rule by discussion and election. If he does not and just ignores the rules, he should be stopped by Administration Force. I told the folks at the German Wikinews my view, but they always said: "We are a wiki. Everybody may change what he feels like". That's something I can't believe. It means, that nobody can be stopped violating pages, because he is free to do, what he wants. With best regards --80.171.92.179 13:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Rule Idea

Hey jimmy just an idea, and maybe this rule is already in place but why not require registered users to caegorize or at least link there articles in some, way, shape or form. this way bum articles might stand a better chance of bieng picked up.Briaboru 20:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)BriaboruBriaboru 20:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. --BRIAN0918 20:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

We should have forums!

Jimbo, I think that Wiki should have an official forum where people could discuss different topics - including off-topic discussions. I believe this would benefit our community, because:

  1. The community would get closer and grow as members would learn to know each other better;
  2. Discussions would be posted in a chronological matter, instead as we have now on the talk pages, where everyone can add their comment anywhere in the discussion;
  3. The forums would serve some of our needs to socialize and relax; and not just discuss article-related topics or things that only relate to Wiki;
  4. Since we unite many of the members into one compact place, we would have better resources at our hands; members could organize themselves better and agree on Wiki content. I did this by starting a [Romanian notice board], and, in less than one week, we had 25 members contributing and helping each other out. A forum would intergrate all kind of members into one single portal!

If you worry about bandwith, then you should choose a free forum, but let it be a decent one. What do you think? --Anittas 21:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what IRC is for. Raul654 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
IRC is a chat software that I do not like. Isn't it Applet, or something? Besides, in a forum, you can keep track of things that have been said. You can post your thoughts in an organized matter; and you can post a lot of info at once. In a chat, it's more about personal interaction between members. Everything is spontaneous. IRC is fine, but it can't replace the forum. --Anittas 21:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I would not mind if talk pages were replaced in forum formatt for ease of reading and NO EDIT CONFLICTS...yay!!!:)Voice of AllT|@|ESP 21:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
But you never get edit conflicts if you do "add section" instead of "edit". Forums aren't usually more flexible than "add section". — David Remahl 21:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • And that's what we have 'talk pages for. -MegamanZero 21:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Generally, we stay on topic for a while and indent, instead of created hordes of big ugly titles for each posts. That is were the edit conflicts come in. Having the forum option to make a post that anyone can edit would be useful for vote tallies though.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 21:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There are various portals (see Wikipedia:Community_Portal) and (no offense but) I think this talk page has evolved into the most watched noticeboard. +MATIA 22:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so where's the forum? Where are the discussions? That page is only to advertise for projects, etc. In my opinion, it would be good for the members to have a place where they can debate anything. --Anittas 22:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
There are many portals and noticeboards related to various topics, but not forums. +MATIA 23:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I knew that already. Forums would have a different role in the interaction between members. A forum is more flexible to these things, instead as we're having it now; a whole big mess spread everywhere. --Anittas 23:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Getting a professional vBulletin or Invision Power Board would be a great idea, Wikipedia is not so suited towards debates and discussions because of the fact that talk pages are well, not very organised definitely not as much as forums with easy to read different threads and forum subsections, and the fact that people can edit other peoples' posts

I think it would be a really good idea too and would encourage a lot more debate and contributions/growth to Wikipedia --Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

ATTN: Non-encyclopedic content

Category:Computer and video games in production contains many articles that are not inherently encyclopedic. I think this is obvious. Just bringing it to your attention. Adraeus 21:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

May I kindly ask why..? It is incorrect conjecture to think Jimbo will edit the articles or anything to that affect. Why not talk to members who participate in the constuction of articles such as this..? I would be glad to discuss the issue with you; I am working on that situation right now. I don't think this is the right place to discuss something like that.-MegamanZero 21:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Wales recently deleted a large portion of a certain Wikipedia project due to non-encyclopedic content. Moreover, many people visit this talk page, and so Wales' Talk page is more like a bulletin board than a Talk page. Adraeus 06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Adraeus, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I haven't recently deleted a large portion of anything anywhere. Perhaps you were told wrongly?--Jimbo Wales 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
You still didn't answer my question though...what will Jimbo do to remedy the situation..? This is not an area of paticular interest (or expertise) for him, and this is something you should really bring to someone's attention who dabbles in the construction of these paticular articles. This may have "transmogrified" into a "bulliten board", but that doesn;t mean its meant to address every little thing that comes to mind.-MegamanZero 07:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
What Wales does is up to him, wouldn't you agree? By the way, I've found that editors of primarily entertainment articles aren't oriented towards developing the encyclopedia. Most are simply not qualified to add content to Wikipedia. Since most of these editors do not pay attention to editing standards, this Talk page is effective for reaching the right people. And I'd say that the issue of Wikipedia turning into an FAQs archive for every little piece of data regardless of notability is of great importance to the founder. Adraeus 07:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do, but not everyone is "un-qualified" as you put it, and some of us really do try to check sources, evaluate thesis, write proper conjecture, etc. I am only saying Jimbo will most likely not address this- look at all the new mail aon this page; some of the above haven't even been answered by him yet. I just think this is the incorrect place to post if you want something done about your situation. On the other hand, I will be glad to work on those articles when I goet the time.-MegamanZero 07:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    It's not a matter of adding to articles. It's a matter of removing articles that are non-notable. This means going through a lot of red tape, courtesy of the Wikipedia bureaucracy. Adraeus 07:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Then this is the wrong place entirely. For that, go here.- MegamanZero 07:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    I really have neither the time nor the patience to go through the red tape; hence, this message to Wales. Adraeus 07:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't quite understand. If you have nethier the time or the patience to deal with a problem like this, then you shoudn't have brought it up. I'm not trying to be offensive or anything, mind you, but if you can't do something about it, why make a thesis..? Make an effort first, then ask for help. Also, if you're interested, I would be glad in helping you put them up for deletion- there are thousands of people on wikipedia, and Jimbo is not the only one who can help with a situation like this.-MegamanZero 07:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I am concerned about such articles to an extent, mostly on the grounds of worrying about whether they can be adequately verifiable, but I'm of course not about to mass delete anything just because I'm personally not sure I would vote 'keep'.--Jimbo Wales 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the category, looked at a random article listed in it and saw nothing "obvious"ly wrong. Besides verification, the only real problem with fancruft is if they include TOO MUCH data, they could limit the market for derivative works by the copyright holders (and thus be a copyright violation). With regard to this: as long as on balance we are more of an asset to the specific copyright holder than a liability, we should be ok. WAS 4.250 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Making the internet not suck

We make the internet not suck

What do you think? I made it to appeal to the MySpace crowd and such. I'm not sure if it should go into Wikipedia:Banners and buttons. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 22:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of different fonts :-) It's a great idea. Could you also try one with just one or two "boring" fonts? Counterintuitively, if you do it just right, it might actually look even cooler. Kim Bruning 07:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's too POV. Michael Hardy 03:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk to me?

People (en:User:Mindspillage ([61] and en:User:Uncle G ([62]) have kept saying that I should talk to you. I'm not convinved that you should get involved, but they know better than me. About [User talk:Expurgator This], this, but mainly This. Yeah, well that was all a rather bad idea. I guess lots of editting takes it toll after a while. So I make things lite-hearted, with little jokes to fool my fellow editors, testing the system and all that. Yeah it's immature, sure. I obviously don't take Wiki as serious as others, but that was all I editted for anyway, was to curb boredom. To be honest, I wasn't treating it like you were, as the future of encyclopedias or anything. Just as a bit of (intellectual) fun. Maybe I should take another wikibreak for a few weeks again? That did the trick for a while last time, and when I came back I had new projects to do (This one mainly). So I guess I'll be back in the new year. And will try to resist the temptation of making new sockpuppets (which, to be honest, I could do quite easily, I got a "roaming" (at least i think that's what it's called) IP adress AND a university owned one which has other learned users sharing it, which they've been unwilling to keep blocked.

I copied this from Meta for Wonderfool. --Shanel 22:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews Interview, re: language versions other than Enlish

From the Wikinews interview:

I would imagine that every language version has someone who can represent it in discussions about issues that affect it, and all of Wikimedia. You saw what happened what happened with Seigenthaler. What if a similar issue were to arise on the Japanese version of Wikipedia. Could someone from the Japanese wiki go on NHK and defend the wiki much like you just did on CNN? Like you said, "it's just news", and gives us more publicity, but still, projecting a professional image to the media will only encourage people to be more intrigued by Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia projects. Jacoplane 23:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Class action prep against Wikipedia

This Class action preparation is outrageous, can someone please stop it. [63] It even has a logo abuse. Longbow4u 23:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

www.wikipediaclassaction.org redirects to some newswire, albeit one with the Seigenthaler scandal high on the list. No doubt Willy on Wheels would join that thing. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Stop what? How could anyone stop that and why should it be stopped? They have the right to criticize Wiki. --Anittas 00:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Is this your web site? Mirror Vax 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you talking to me or to Ricky? --Anittas 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
As indicated by the indentation level, I was talking to Longbow4u. Mirror Vax 01:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I only take seriously class action lawsuits from people who can use commas properly. Phil Sandifer 08:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
It wouldn't make sense for Seigenthaler to write the site, as he said he wasn't gonna sue Chase, so why would he sue Wikipedia? Brandt could be the author, and if he is, who cares? Not to bait him or anything, but he's a guy who runs an organization for internet privacy and then he tracks down editors to find their name and location. I doubt he has much leverage. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 08:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Also discussed at WP:VPN#Wikipedia_Class_Action_Lawsuit. This looks like hot air to me, and I can see that the website has since been removed. Thue | talk 11:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
It's still up as of my timestamp. 23skidoo 15:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
You are correct, it is up again after having been down. Thue | talk 21:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Another story picked up by Google News, from ZDNet, on this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTICE: This class action lawsuit is by the scammers at BAOU Trust the people behind the fake indonesia quake charity QuakeAID. Per whois:

Registrant Name:Jennifer Monroe
Name Server:DNS1.BAOU.COM
Name Server:DNS2.BAOU.COM
Name Server:DNS3.BAOU.COM

The reason this is popping up everywhere is because they run their own "newswire" which is carried by Google's News service. We at wikipedia are a target because we exposed them for the fraud they are.  ALKIVARFile:Radioactive.png 00:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if it weren't authored by scammers, there'd be no credible threat of a class action here. A class action is appropriate when the putative class has a large number of members and, in the adjudication of those individual claims, common questions of law or fact will predominate. I don't think that the number of people bringing defamation claims would be large enough to meet the numerosity requirement. Even if they were, defamation claims are obviously ones in which individual questions predominate. The issues include: What statements were made about Siegenthaler (or Ellison, or Sollog, or whoever); were the statements about this particular plaintiff true; and to what extent was this particular plaintiff damaged by any false statements that were published. The only rationale for slinging around the term "class action" is that it might get the threat more attention. (Although I haven't researched this particular issue and this comment isn't an opinion letter, I'm a lawyer who's been on both sides of class actions -- trying to get a class certified, and trying to block certification. In this hypothetical lawsuit, I would much rather be opposing certification.) JamesMLane 00:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I was merely indicating WHY we are their target... not that they have a valid claim!  ALKIVARFile:Radioactive.png 17:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Just what would be the actual defined class for the suit? Normally, in class actions, it's something that's clearly, objectively defined, such as "Persons who purchased [product] between [date range]", and it is alleged that they all suffered similar harm as a result of the defendant's actions. But what would it be here? "People who have been defamed on Wikipedia"? But it's up to a judge and jury to decide if something is defamation in each individual case; there's no grounds to presuppose it in advance to build a class action. Or is it "People who have been mentioned on Wikipedia"? But most of these people haven't suffered any harm, or have any actionable claim; many are actually happy that they are mentioned in this site, as it strokes their ego; many others don't care one way or the other. I can't see any judge accepting any such class. Nor can I see any judge doing what the site in question wants them to do, that is imposing prior restraint on future speech by Wikipedia editors through court-mandated changes in Wikipedia policy. That would be struck down as unconstitutional by the appeals courts if they did it. *Dan T.* 02:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Just a comment, not on class action, but personal action. If a person in, say, New Zealand is defamed on Wiki, and the contributor used his own genuine name in his sig, then the contributor who is living in NZ can be personally sued for defamation in NZ. No? Moriori 03:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Read WP:NLT before doing anything else. Then see if you have a friend or colleague - perhaps at work - who is somewhat knowledgable about local defamation law, who can tell you if it's worth an initial consultation with a lawyer.-gadfium 05:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with gadfium's implication that the answer to Moriori's question would depend on New Zealand law. I should have specified that my comment above was based on U.S. law, specifically on class actions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the analogous state rules. JamesMLane 06:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

myopinion

Jimbo et al, in an ideal world wikipedia would be ideal. However, the world sucks and is populated by idiots and a$$holes. You need to get something working on this site so that only authorities can publish articles. I dunno, maybe a universal student number or letter of verification that an editor is indeed someone in the academic or research community.. whatever... But like I said, in an ideal world.....

Czech Wikipedia

Hi Jimbo. On Saturday I was on Wikimedia Poland plenary assembly and one of polish colleague told me, you recently told, you have no contact to czech community and asked for contact to anybody on czech Wikipedia. Well I was quite surprised, because I visit #wikimedia every once in a while. Maybe you just didn't know, where I am from.

So, I am sysop of cs.wiki and I am also ambassador of czech Wikipedia for polish and english language users. Feel free to contact me anytime you want; preferably on my czech discussion. Live long & prosper --Zirland 09:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Communism

Hi! One thing I wondered about for a while: you have the Che Guevara image on your user page. Are you a communist or something? --Heptor 14:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Che was more better known as a revolutionist than just a communist. Pic's cool nontheless. :) --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 15:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Err, it's just a joke. At least, I think it is. :P --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I certainly hope it is :) Still, I would say that Che is well-known as a communist revolutionist. --Heptor 16:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo is a man of the Right. A "gun rights" supporter, capitalist and Ayn Rand fan. He certainly aint no Che. — David Remahl 16:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Without disagreeing with the "aint no Che" characterization, the Che is not usually remembered for his little-known "keep guns out of the public's hands, for fear they'd start a revolt" policies, so the "gun rights" bit isn't helpful in distancing Jimbo from Che. The Ayn Rand part works though ;) -- Anonymous Coward 16:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom Election

Um, hey. What's going on with that? karmafist 17:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm worried that waiting any longer may result in a strong selection bias for however the election goes, unless it is moved to 2006. A number of students end up going home around this time of year, with limited internet access, and a number of adults are going to be paying more attention to the holidays and turning of the year than wikipedia. I suggest you either close the poll and get the ball rolling, or announce that the elections will occur in January. --Improv 19:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Time is running out... Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 21:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • With all the recent bad publicity, can't decide if you want the same old gang of troll coddlers re-elected, eh Mr Wales? :) Wyss 21:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo, in all seriousness, there is no realistic way to do this on a proper timetable unless we use the old process. We can discuss changes in the process all through next year. Everyking 04:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I disagree with EK that last year's process is precisely the way to go, but we need to decide this quickly, clarify, devise a process, and implement. That is, if this is gonna happen this year.
I'm willing to assist with whatever mode is chosen and to help organise: I've mounted broad discussion and votes for issues before and planned implementation, with self-evident results ... this took a couple months in total, so ...
What say you? :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Communication and site changes

I agree that people need to try and assume good faith more often with you and the changes you make on the site. However, I think that a lot of people may be reacting with hostility because they perceive the user base as hearing about major changes through the news media before they hear about it from you/from wikipedia. Maybe there is some way this could be improved on, such as a feature similar to the new message notification which alerts all editors to new announcements, and you could then use that announcement channel to notify us about new features (hopefully before the media does :)? Kit 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hasenjagd

  • Have fun with this special kind of new (or old?) German bolshewik humour:

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalensperrung&diff=prev&oldid=11367727#Unscheinbar

Version vom 01:23, 6. Dez 2005 Jesusfreund (Diskussion | Beiträge) PRUUUST - verschoben ins Humorarchiv, Überschrift "der ganz normale Wahnsinn im Adminalltag". Selten so gelacht...

cu 17:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


  • And now an anti bolshewik joke:
Ich sehe das nicht so, denn Hans Bugs Kritik hat eine wichtige Funktion. Sie stört einzelne, aber für das Wohlergehen des Projekts ist sie wichtig. -- Weiße Rose 15:46, 7. Dez 2005 (CET)
Ahja? Also mir hat seine "Kritik" bei der Erstellung einer Enzyklopaedie noch nie geholfen... --DaTroll 15:47, 7. Dez 2005 (CET)
dito. --GrummelJS8 15:48, 7. Dez 2005 (CET)
Nicht überraschend. Die Funktion ist die eines Kammerjägers. Ungemütlich für das Ungeziefer. --Frisch From Fröhlich Frei 16:26, 7. Dez 2005 (CET)

Source: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Diskussion:Benutzersperrung/Hans_Bug&oldid=11421707#Meinungsfreiheit

Have fun 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


  • And now a real big bundle of German bolshewik humour. Follow the first link and have fun. Great! 14:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


Entadminisierungsanträge sind seit neuestem nicht mehr zulässig. (Vergleiche die Versionsliste der entsprechenden Seite). Botswana 13:38, 8. Dez 2005 (CET) = [64]

Source: [65]


  • Oops, a problem. Towarisch de:Peterlustig has started with communism in de, but bourgeois people like Hans Bug has caught him in flagranti and call that "copyright violation".

"What to do?"(Lenin).

Karl and Rosa have a classic de-idea:

No Hans Bug - no problems [66].

A reason? (sorry, that´s a silly bourgeois question!) "Belege: Statt aller zunächst pauschal Benutzer:Hans Bug, Benutzer Diskussion:Hans Bug" (Stechlin).

Live show: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung/Hans_Bug&oldid=11470758

btw.: Some commies name reasons: "Hans Bug nervt" or "he´s boring".

Have fun 11:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


Admin Anneke Wolf (aka "Rosa" or Rosa Luxemburg ) doesn´t like this current result: [67]
Der unheimlich starke Abgang der de:Benutzer:Anneke Wolf:
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administratoren/Probleme&oldid=11561304
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Diskussion:Administratoren/Probleme&oldid=11562262#Wieso_gibts_nicht_schon_l.C3.A4ngst_einen_Sperrantrag_gegen_Benutzer:Anneke_Wolf.3F
Have fun 13:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


  • 5 hours - new German bolshewik humour
7:50 , 14. Dez 2005 (CET)
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung/Hans_Bug&oldid=11626536#Abstimmung (finished)
The votes: PRO banning : 69 | CONTRA banning: 50 (and some more)
13:36, 14. Dez 2005 (CET) - 5 hours later
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalensperrung&oldid=11626941#.C3.9Cble_Nachrede
Have fun 13:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls

Even as the Seigenthaler scandal was breaking in hundreds of news reports across the world, arbcomm member and suspended (in effect, apparently disbarred) lawyer Fred Bauder voted to endorse the statement that my sourcing standards were "unrealistic," as in, "Why bother for accuracy? Any tabloid crud will do!" Over at the village pump, Zoe accused me of "whining."

Here's what the Register has to say today about Wikipedia's sourcing standards and credibility:

Calls for responsibility, we learn, in that unique strangulated prose style that is truly Wikipedia's legacy to the world -
"... often form a pejorative means of attacking political opponents. This habit of demanding behaviour aligned to one's own desires also occurs in other arenas: one expects "responsibility" from children, parents, spouses, colleagues and employees, meaning they should change their attitudes to suit the speaker."
From which the only thing missing is:
".... booooo big bad teecher - I'm not going to skool today. fuck you!!"
Which is terrific stuff.
Now a picture of the body behind the "Hive Mind" of "collective intelligence" begins to take shape.
He's 14, he's got acne, he's got a lot of problems with authority ... and he's got an encyclopedia on dar interweb.

Yep. Wikipedia's vaunted Hive mind happens to behave like a clueless, irresponsible 14 year old boy. Wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls. Also from that article:

Involvement in Wikipedia has taken its toll on a significant number of decent, fair minded people who with the most honorable intentions, have tried to alert the project to its social responsibilities and failed. Such voices could be heard on the Wikipedia mailing list, speaking up for quality. Wikipedia is losing good editors at an alarming rate, but who can blame them for leaving?

Hint: It's not all the bad publicity. Wyss 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother complaining. All criticism of Wikipedia is now regarded as shrill hyperbole by the faithful. The worst thing is that the 14 year old with acne has not got trouble with authority — on Wikipedia in many cases he IS the authority. And recent criticism shows, the quality suffers as a result. - Xed 21:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


Kudos to Jimbo for providing Wikipedia to those eager to learn! Angel

My Brilliant Idea

Here's my idea -- give every unemployed person a computer with an Internet connection and teach them how to use Wikipedia. At least they'll have something to do, something to keep them busy...imagine the possibilities!

There's a lot of intelligent, educated, and otherwise bored people right now -- smells like civil-unrest to me! In this respect Wikipedia is a genius-idea! (if the French or German goverment happens to be reading this right now, implement this brilliant program NOW and gimme some CASH for my idea!)

Have a Digitally Enhanced Good Day!

64.12.116.69 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can suggest a grant that would cover this, we'd gladly consider, however we only have enough money to fund our current projects so far, not enough to fund experimental projects like this. -- user:zanimum

Message from Ta bu shi da yu

Jimbo, I'm having some issues editing Wikipedia from home (can't submit pages), but can you please email me in regards to [68]. I am not a pedophile and never have been. I need advise on how to deal with this. This is serious. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (posted by Mark on user's behalf due to ongoing technical problems preventing Australian Optus subscribers editing articles)

Well, that article doesn't actually say that he's a pedophile, just that he "commended" another contributor who was one. But that's an interesting link... the attacks on Wikipedia just keep coming from all directions now, and now we're apparently being accused of being a gathering spot for pedophiles. *Dan T.* 18:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, that anti-Wikipedia article commits the common error of getting our URL wrong... it says wikipedia.com rather than wikipedia.org. Do they think we're a commercial site? *Dan T.* 19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
We have sorted out the issue now... Linuxbeak spoke to them and posted a brilliant response. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiFuture...or WikiNot?

Constructive criticism & suggestion for the day:

Someday, perhaps soon, Google Print and its controversial Google Print Library Project initiative are going to be settled. And my guess is that they will go forward, either such as they were originally conceived or in a fashion similar to how MPEG music has come to be legally ubiquitous (provided freely on a selected basis as determined by the author), but in any case a commonly accepted practice and a profound knowledge-tool.

When this happens, "whither Wikipedia?"

The quality differential alone will crush Wikipedia in terms of relative interest & traffic, making it more exclusively a haven for the disenfranchised-14-year-old mindset. Users new (or old) to Wikipedia would do well to read Wyss' well-formed thoughts regarding the many-fold problems with Wikipedia that continue to go unaddressed or otherwise evaded with respect to effective corrective measures.

Google's corporate motto alone, Don't Be Evil, is fairly clearly indicative of where all this needs to head. Granted, Wikipedia is today a non-profit entity, and may remain as much despite the Wikia initiative, but turning over the reins to Google management...either in whole or part...would no-doubt result in the much-needed, dramatic course change that Wikipedia is in need of before it lands crushingly on the rocks of its own ego and becomes crab food.

Constructive suggestion: either 'sell' Wikipedia to Google outright -- an option of today's Wikipedia board -- or can the board outright and bring in Google's management team to restructure the content-creation processes to make them truth- & quality-driven rather than traffic-driven, thereby enabling a real future for Wikipedia.

"Or not."

--AustinKnight 18:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. Unless Google Print allows editing, it'll always be inferior in terms of coverage. It takes at least a year for books to start covering something new, and usually at least a decade for encyclopedias. We can start covering something as soon as major media cover it enough to provide us with sources. --Carnildo 20:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that WikiCities goes out of their way not to allow wikis that would compete with Wikimedia's wikis. So that, at least, shouldn't be a concern. Also Google Print isn't creating original content (to be sure, they're publishing conteet by others, just like any number of print publishers, and Project Gutenberg, do). -- Pakaran 20:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

John Siegenthaler

Hi. Can you tell me his email address? Thanks. Michael Hardy 19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Are personal attacks now acceptable?

Suppose I were to send a hoax email to the subject of a Wikipedia article, and then write up the results (haha! got him!) on the talk page and in the article. The subject of the Wikipedia article also happens to be a Wikipedian.

Would that be: (a) good traditional encyclopedia research, or (b) an egregious personal attack?

I say (b), but the Wikipedia community (including several admins) says (a).

Oh, and the article subject/Wikipedia user happens to be very unpopular (in fact has been blocked from Wikipedia). Does the answer depend on that? Should it?

See User:Grue/Brandt for details. Mirror Vax 22:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No it is completely unacceptable behavior. Very disappointing. We are Wikipedians and for me that means something.--Jimbo Wales 19:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Siegenthaler case

Is this statement correct? "On December 6, 2005, the two were interviewed on National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation radio program. There Wales described a new policy he implemented preventing unregistered users from creating new articles on the English-language Wikipedia, though they continued to be able to edit existing articles as before." If so, it is the best news about Wikipedia I have heard since I first became involved. I congratulate Mr Wales on finally taking the first step to making Wikipedia a real encyclopeadia rather than an adventure playground for cranks and (as has now been demonstrated) slanderers. But it is only a first step. The next step must be banning anonymous people from editing at all, requiring all editors to have verifiable contact details, and protecting completed articles from random editing. (See User:Adam Carr/proposal for more on this). Adam 02:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, then after that we should have mandatory biometrics identification, and psychological purity exams. Special NPOV chips could be embedded inside the brains of would-be editors :) Jacoplane 02:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Worth looking into. Adam 02:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be simpler, and best, if Adam would take care of whatever Wikipedia editing is left to be done; the rest of us could use a vacation. ;-) Really, though, I treasure my complete Wikipedia anonymity pseudonymity; eliminating it by requiring "contact details" would be one of the few changes around here that would drive me off. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Define a completed article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I am aware that the changes I favour would drive some people aware from Wikipedia. But the object of this exercise is to write an encyclopaedia, not to keep the entire computer-owning population of the world amused. As the Siegenthaler case (among many other things) demonstrates, our present structure is not optimal for achieving that objective. Therefore it must be changed.
  • A completed article is an article which says what needs to be said about a given topic, comprehensively, accurately and impartially, as determined by those knowledgeable on the subject and working on the article.
  • I still want to know if the above statement attributed to Mr Wales is correct.

Adam 04:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So when will this change come into effect? Adam 04:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Appeal

Once again I want to appeal my arbitration ruling. You seem to be deliberately ignoring me, and apparently you deleted my old requests from this page, so I figure I need to request again. Everyking 05:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Not ignoring you, just swamped. I will get to it soon, I promise.--Jimbo Wales 15:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
OK well, again, what I'd really like is an opportunity to talk with you about it...we can talk about it through e-mail and you can respond at your leisure, or IRC, or here if you like. I just want a chance to make my case. Everyking 21:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Page creation restrictions

I think we should reinstate the ability of anonymous users to create talk pages, so they can comments about articles, ask questions, explain their edits, etc. Captain Zyrain 12:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Systematic bias in Wikipedia biographies

One thing I've noticed about biographies on Wikipedia is that they tend to be heavy on negative opinion. There is often a section titled "Criticism" which can be quite large. There is rarely (I've never seen it) a "Praise" section that documents positive opinions. Anything positive gets filtered out as "POV", while negative opinions stay.

I'm not saying that criticism should be balanced by praise. My preference is to keep opinions out as much as possible.

Interestingly, there is no "Criticism" in Adolf Hitler. If a bio can be written about the most criticized man in history without a "Criticism" section, why not for others? Mirror Vax 13:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be a question for the community, not Jimbo. Why don't you post it to the village pump? Fredrik | tc 15:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

israel wikipedia freedom under terror attack

in the israeli wikimedia their are person that is one of the responsible is nickname is "gilgmsh" he blocks every body their he do not give to many pepole that give an important informastion and equal to the wikipedia in english, this person block me when I want to transfer what he did to me when I scription the artical on the "celts" (currntly it's fit to children)

when I want to past what he did to the other responsibles

the problem is that even in the forum all of them know each other this is gilgamsh the responsible domain http://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%94:%D7%92%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%9E%D7%A9&action=edit and this is the responsible domain of the israeli wikipediahttp://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%A9:%D7%93%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%A9%D7%99&action=edit this is the reason I passing to you thankes on the listening "splendor"

There isn't an "Israeli Wikipedia" any more than there's an "American Wikipedia"; editions are by language, not country. What you're talking about is the Hebrew Wikipedia. This is an important distinction, as it prevents people from claiming that a particular edition is supposed to represent or be controlled by one country (e.g., if the People's Republic of China were to demand control of the Chinese Wikipedia). *Dan T.* 15:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

I think deciding the election procedure based on a straw poll, which is designed to get people's feedbacks on a range of available options, with around 40-50 people participating in total (which isn't significantly larger than the number of people standing for the Arbitration Committee) is a inherently bad idea. It's not like there was a significant majority in favour of any one of the proposals, either.

The result of a straw poll is not to use the procedure with the most support, it is to find out why other people didn't like that proposal, and work on improving it so that people who didn't support the original idea will support an improved version (or at least, not oppose as much). Talrias (t | e | c) 15:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but we need to move forward. We do have the luxury of ongoing investigations as we move forward, and flexibility to analyze what works well and doesn't, for next time around. --Jimbo Wales 15:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A serious suggestion to Mr. Wales

An article in wikipdia is like any other piece of software. It needs to reach stability, pass some Beta test before it can be "published" or exported to the world at large.

Here is a simple suggestion:

Each article will include two versions:

1. The public, "published" version.
2. The internal "under development" version.

Edits, as we know them today, will take place on the internal version. Vandalism (even a sophisticated one) will be removed. Facts checked. All without the public at large exposed to that ever changing version of the article. In software lingo will be the non stable nightly build .

Only after an article stabilized (frequent edits stopped) Versification of facts by team of experts who would certify the article th article will be published and that is the version that will be available to the public and mirrored all over the net and would remain this way until the next stable revision of the article (could be few month or weeks)

It is suggested the members of each articles' "Verification team" will be people who will use their real name and real identity hopefully experts on the subject matter - as much of the abuse allowed on wikipedia comes from the anonymity (even of resisted users as you surly know).

This verification process should not be hard. If Wikipedia policies are followed all the material should be sourced (99% over the net anyhow) and no Original research is used.

I am sure you will get objections to this policy. Mostly from people who are using "gangs" to PUSH a certain POV into articles. I have ran into such a gang lately and see how Wikipedia policies (when not enforced) leads to very poor encyclopedia articles. I am sure that articles in which Wikipedia policies have been followed will be easy to verify and certify. Also the fact that the internal version of the article is only available to few thousands volunteers (instead of to millions) would reduce significantly the use that some groups today are making in Wikipedia is spreading their propaganda on a daily basis. Zeq 15:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This is already being developed. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 15:55
Please explain and give details, cause i am tired fighting with all the POV pushers. I want to work on an encyclopedia not to fight those who use Wikipedia to spread propeganda. Zeq 15:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll believe it when I see it. Academic editing standards are likely not conducive to high mega-mega traffic consisting largely of bickering fools and trolls donating time and money to an open, Google-visible site pointing to the misleading text and keywords they insert into thousdands of articles. Wyss 17:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not "all about the money", even if you've seemed to convince yourself of the contrary. The inertia is attributable to three things: the fact that Wikipedia isn't failing, but just not working as well as it could or should; the fact that pushing Wikipedia one way means pushing the developers (few in number) and the community (anything but); and the fact that a novel construct like Wikipedia faces novel problems requiring novel solutions.
Of course, we can also believe Jimbo and the board are just evil. Eventually pictures of them eating babies would leak to the public, though, and then Wikipedia will fork. JRM · Talk 17:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
See Article validation. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I never said it was "about the money," nor did I ever say (or even think) Mr Wales is evil. I did say it was about traffic. Meanwhile, you guys might want to brush up on your reading skills. Your responses are typical of the careless, knee-jerk and ill-considered remarks sincere and skilled editors around here have to endlessly waste their time on. Wyss 22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    No, not in this case. You don't have to. JRM · Talk 02:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Typically evasive answer, substituting a flip, put-down remark for substance. Which is to say, as an editor, I most certainly did have to, always and without end. Wyss 14:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
JRM, your answer is a waste of key srokes. If you want to answer use words we can understand as (at least me) not as smart as you and can't really tell what you want to say. Zeq 20:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Wales: I am wating for an answer. What troubled me most was that you were recently quoted as saying "Don't quote Wikipedia". Do we have a serious encyclopedia (even on serious subjects) or not ? Could for example someone look up "Hebron Massacre" and finds complete set of facts instead of Palestinian Propeganda ? Or do you have another method to fight the Anti Israel systematic bias on Wikipedia. Do you know how many articles in Wikipedia (about the conflict) present only ONE side POV (and not both as policy demands)? You see the current policies don't work. How are you going to address this aspect of Wikipedia success ? This aspect which is called : Verification ? Or maybe you think that the current methods work and all it takes is to get everyone to registed instead of editing with IP addresses ? Zeq 20:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy "Decision" was a "Summary Judgment & Execution" made without ever hearing all the facts

On 02:52, 15 November 2005, the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy "decision" was made to push out a rare proven topic expert on polygamy, while giving free reign to a hostile proven anti-polygamy editor to misinform Wikipedia readers with propaganda POV. Unfortunately, their anti-expert "Decision" was made completely without any consideraton of the facts or fairness whatsoever. Truly, the evidence testifies (to any honest observer) against the making of this "Summary Judgment and Execution" where considering the facts had never been allowed or performed.

Could you please take a look?

Sure, I'll take a look sometime in the next 3 weeks. I deleted the rest of what you posted here, but I'll read that too. --Jimbo Wales 16:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Today is three weeks later since you made that last post. Coming back today to see if you've had the time yet to fix this anti-expert railroading problem, I unfortunately discovered that someone else had completely removed this section of mine from your TALK page. So, for your review, I put this back back and I ask for your urgent assistance still.
At 18:36, 16 November 2005, I posted that original complete outline, as follows:
At 16:53, November 23, 2005, you replied here.
At 02:04, 14 December 2005, that entire section was then removed by Adam_Carr on your TALK page here.
Anyway, I really do hope you will fix this problem. Pushing out proven content-experts on rare topics by unknowledgeable biased wiki-process-experts leaves Wikipedia misleading the marketplace when it calls itself an "encyclopedia." I know you're busy, but I do hope you will solve this horrendous "Summary Judgement and Execution." After all, I was the one who asked for the Arbitration. Yet never once, not a single time, did any one consider any part of any of MY evidence in any way whatsoever. They gave me no mercy, nothing. They went straight to user-execution, without considering the overwhelming quantity of abuse I had received. It was the pure definition of kangaroo court. From the beginning, it was clear that the head arbitrator's demonstrated bias against the topic should have caused them to recuse themselves. Instead, a pure kangaroo court ensued, designed only to push a rare, proven content-expert of a rare topic out of Wikipedia altogether. It was a complete railroading.
I have believed Wikipedia was better than that, so I am hopeful that you will rectify this as soon you can. (The outline above is intended to help you on that.) When you do fix this, you will truly be helping the readers of Wikipedia find actually correct, accurate, and NPOV information about the rare and little-understood polygamy related topics. That, itself, will then help Wikipedia to not lose its credibility as a hope-to-be "encyclopedia," by recognizing that proven content-experts do have a value in preventing misinformation. I am hopeful for goood things about Wikipedia, so I am hopeful you will fix this tragedy soon. Thank you. - Researcher 19:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Additional: I just now discovered some more evidence of arbitrator-bias that I had not seen before. I just found out that, on October 10, 2005, while I was distracted with the ongoing dispute at that time, User:Neutrality had deleted the entire explanation about the subtopic of Christian polygamy in the polygamy article. They disguised their extreme bias attack with the absurdity of calling the content an ad, but only an anti-polygamist would suggest that about the NPOV content they deleted. (Please read the deletion for yourself. Without that now-deleted content, the polygamy article now gives no explanation about that subtopic whatseoever, misleading the Wikipedia readers to think that there is no such separate thing as Christian Polygamy, and that it is somehow the same as the totally separate subtopic of Mormon Polygamy.) As I explained in my opening Evidence comments, it is repeatedly proven that anti-polygamists do not want others to know about Christian polygamy or what it is really about because that new subtopic situation has so powerfully changed the discussion about polygamy in general. (See the Sunday, Dec. 11, 2005, article in the Washington Times, here, as one example to see what I mean.) Later, instead of recusing themselves for their obvious bias against the topic, though, (the obviously NON-neutral) arbitrator Neutrality instead cast the last outrageous vote to execute me in the "Summary Judgment & Execution." This is just another example of the outrageous railroading that has occurred here, a kangaroo court. I repeat my hope that you will be able to fix this tragedy. Thank you. - Researcher 20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Journal Nature investigation

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438890a.html PLEASE scream about this from high mountaintops. Please try to get a wirestory about this. We must correct public perception:There are abysmal entries on Wikipedia but there is also good work. Last week's media travails created the impression that Wikipedia is malicious and chaotic. We must push the moderate view. Lotsofissues 20:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's funny coming from you. [69] [70] Mirror Vax 22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


From Nature magazine

They have written (about William Connolley):

"It takes a long time to deal with troublemakers," admits Jimmy Wales, the encyclopaedia's co-founder. "Connolley has done such amazing work and has had to deal with a fair amount of nonsense"

Does this mean that you disagree with ArbCom? Interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not aware that the ArbCom would disagree with that statement at all. Why should they?--Jimbo Wales 11:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't he sanctioned by the ArbCom before? I think there was something associated with revert warring; correct me if I'm wrong. Everyking 12:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
They also sanctioned his opponents (more severely) and acknowledged Connolley's subject matter expertise. None of this is particularly inconsistent with Jimbo's statement. Connolley has continued his good work and caused no problems since. --Michael Snow 21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I was just asking. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nature's results examined

I've looked closer at Nature's results: WP averages about 1 error every 2 KB, and the average article size is 6.80 KB. Britannica averages nearly 4 errors every 2 KB, and the average article size is 2.60 KB. See also: table of data. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-15 05:45

Please don't quote these figures. Nature says it compared articles which were roughly equal in size (editing out references and other things if necessary to acheive parity). We don't know which versions of articles they used, so though these figures are interesting for internal use, we shouldn't use them for media lest we be accused of data manipulation/inaccuracy. We're hoping someone at Nature will give us a list of problems they noted. P.S. I thought you were great in the podcast. - Nunh-huh 06:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and I also edited out references, external links, see also, TOC, and any tables. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-15 07:06
The update is that Nature is in the process of readying the information they can share with us regarding errors. Probably to be available in a week or so. Whee! - Nunh-huh 20:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia tagline

Hi Jimbo. There is debate going on at MediaWiki talk:Tagline over the change to the tagline you requested. Your input there would be appreciated. - Mark 06:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Gross and flagrant abuses of power

Dear Jimbo Wales

I am using this medium to bring to your attention, flagrant and severe abuses of power, exercised by some of the administrators of Wikipedia. I am specifically talking about the Muslim administrators. Allow me first to say that I am not a religious fanatic. I was a left-winger all my life believing and fighting for multiculturalism, something I still believe in and defend. I converted to Islam and remained a Muslim trying to promote it for five years. During all this time I noticed that what I had been told and read about Islam prior to my conversion was a world different from what I came to see. 9/11 was the turning point for me and after investigating the facts I realized that everything I had read about Islam were lies and I had been duped into this religion. I assure you there are many others who also converted to Islam and today defend it tooth and nail, just as I did, but if they come to see the truth, they too will leave Islam horrified. These lies have produced many victims. Perhaps you remember John Walker Lindh the American kid who become a Muslim and went to Afghanistan to become a terrorist and fight against his own country. But a more tragic story is that of the Belgian woman Muriel Degauque who became a suicide bomber in Iraq, killing six people and injuring several more. These people, my self, and thousands more, are victims of lies. If I knew the truth I would never have converted to Islam. The same is true for many.

The pages of Wikipdia discussing Islam are filled with lies. Anytime I tried to post something, completely complying with the rules set by Wikipedia, my contributions were reverted as soon as they were posted, and guess by whom? By Muslims of course! These friends stand on guard, 24/7 and will revert any statement made critical of Islam. If you complain, they ban you.

Muslims’ abuse of power in Wikipeia has gone too far. I was banned by gren for 24 hours. The reason for that? He appointed himself to act as mediator between me and a Muslim who was reverting every message I was posting with inane and invalid excuses. Gren used a very authoritative language ORDERING “both of us” to refrain from insulting each other as if talking to two kids. That was surprising! Not just his pompous tone was inappropriate and puerile, but the warning itself was completely uncalled for. There was a strong disagreement between this Muslim editor and I, but no insults had been exchanged. We were two grown ups disagreeing strongly, but respectfully. At the same time Gren, took completely the side of my opponent. Upon clicking on his username, I discovered that he is also a Muslim.

I came back and told him that as a Muslim he can’t be an impartial mediator. His mediation would be conflict of interests. He can’t be unbiased in matters that are so close to his heart such as his faith. I suggested that it would be ethical for him to step aside and let a non-Muslim mediate, if mediation is needed and either one of us calls for it. As it happened neither one of us had asked for gren to mediate between us. He had self appointed himself for the job. He was offended by my blunt remarks and banned me. You can read our discussion in my talkpage

Gren claims that his beliefs should not be brought into equation. I beg to disagree. This is absurd. Does he think others are so naïve to agree that one who has placed his faith in a religion can be impartial in matters concerning his faith? Despite this he demanded “compliance”.

This is a flagrant abuse of power. The above mentioned person acted dictatorially and when I protested he used his power to silence me. He accused me of “disruptive behaviour”. In other words, his unethical conduct in assuming the role of a mediator in matters where he has vested interest is not disruptive, but if you protest his abuses of power, you are the disruptor. Isn’t this how dictatorships operate? Is such behaviour acceptable? The dictators abuse their power and punish the protesters accusing them of “disruptive behaviour”. That is what gren did.

But why am I bringing this to your attention? Because the problem is not limited to Gren alone! This was not the first time that I was abused by Muslims in Wikipedia. A couple of months ago a similar incident took place when my contributions were reverted as soon as I posted them by another Muslim called Anonymous editor. Then he called SlimVirgin who did exactly what gren did. SlimVirgin, a Muslim administrator who at the same time was nominating Anonymous editor to become an administrator, accepted the invitation of AE to mediate between me and him. Naturally, she took the site of AE completely. I complained that if she is a Muslims and so supportive of AE, she can’t be an unbiased mediator. Her response? She banned me.

These are flagrant abuses of power. If you protest, these people will ban you for good. In fact in my talk page, you can see a user called Absent applauding me for standing against bullishness and dictatorship. If you click on his username you’ll see that he is banned indefinitely by SlimVirgin.

Dear distinguished Jimbo Wales: This is a problem that has to be addressed. The abuse has gone too far. What is at stake is the very credibility of Wikipedia. If this problem is not addressed, the impartial and competent editors will become fed up and leave and this encyclopaedia will be reduced into another apologetic site for Muslims. The consequence is that more people like me, Muriel and John Walker will be fooled and more terrorism will take the lives of innocent people. I did not become a terrorist, but I can say that without knowing, I started hating everyone who was not a Muslim. The brainwashing is so intense and subtle that you will certainly become affected by it. I lost a lot, including the woman I loved because of these leis.

This is not fear mongering, but harsh reality. It seems that even the government of the USA has got the message that the engine of Islamic terrorism is Islam itself. See [this] I also invite you to see a site created by ex-Muslims and see the warnings that these people have for the world.

I heard many times both in public sermons and in private discussions that the non-Muslims deserve to die. Virtually everyone agreed with 9/11 in private and denounced it in public. I was no different. I too took part mindlessly in that game of deception. Hypocrisy was expected and praised. Everyone lied and bragged how they deceived the "filty kafirs". I can’t explain why I played along despite my conscience. Once I bought in to the lie that Islam is the true religion of God, I was then easy prey. I was pressured into conformism and did what others did, without thinking. Muslims lie. This is not “stereotyping” this is what Islam teaches them to do. What I learned also is that Muslims use anyone including the neo-Nazis to acheive their goal. See this

I plan to speak out. But it is very likely that I will be banned again and most likely indefinitely. If you can, please intervene. Remember: “for evil to triumph, all it takes is for good people to do nothing”. It is the peace of the world that is at stake. It is lives of many innocent people that is at stake. Please do not let evil win through bullishness. Defend my right to speak. Protect Wikipedia to remain impartial. If you don’t, you or one of your loved ones could become their next victim. Thank you for reading this, and thank you for defending righteousness against tyranny. Kind regards OceanSplash. 15 Dec. 2005 07:03

Dear Jimbo Wales, do you despair about Mankind as often as I do? Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 14:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom election and consensus

You asked that a process similar to RFA be set up as part of the ArbCom election process, and your proposed criterion is 50% support. But half of all votes hardly makes a consensus, which of course is used in most other Wiki processes, including RFA itself. Would it not make sense to hold ArbCom polls on the principle of consensus rather than simple majority?

I realize that RFA's criterion (~75%) would be rather difficult to achieve, but 60%-65% sounds workable. It would be rather easy for any established user to garner at least some support, and given the importance of the ArbCom I would prefer if they were backed by more than simply half the community. Radiant_>|< 13:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

We'll see how well it all goes. It's possible that if we see a lot of candidates making the 50% threshold, and a lot of candidates going a lot higher (80%+, for example) then clearly it will make sense to focus on a higher threshold. On the other hand if a 'typical' candidate is getting 55% or so, it wouldn't make sense to end up with no arbcom just because we can't get to admin levels of consensus. And then finally I would say that if we can't find any (or enough) candidates who get 50%+ support, we'd better throw in the towel on the concept.--Jimbo Wales 15:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Jimbo, we know how it is going to be done. Now the question is: When? When are the ArbCom elections scheduled to start? Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 18:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please begin the election already. karmafist 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt hoax

Ouch, that was harsh! I'm not the author of the prank and I saved it to my subpage only because it was repeatedly removed from it's original location. I agree that the prank was in a bad taste but the result was quite entertaining. I should also add that I never used any sockpuppets on Wikipedia, and I tried to keep my behavior within acceptable norms all the time.  Grue  13:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's true, you got the wrong user. The hoaxer was User:Callum Derbyshire. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I must say, for the record, that I didn't have a problem with the hoax. I suppose, however, this is wrong. I feel somewhat ashamed that I felt good about the fact that Daniel Brandt, who has listed my personal details on his website, should be shown to be a hypocrite through trickery.
I'd also like to note that as far as I know, it wasn't Grue who posted this, unless of course Jimbo has some inside info I am not aware of. Jimbo? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Did it show him to be a hypocrite though? It just showed that he was trusting. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I offer my most sincere apologies to Grue. I got this one completely wrong. I still think it is in poor taste to archive it on Wikipedia as if we are proud of it. But, I'm sorry Grue, I screwed up.--Jimbo Wales 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America

Jimbo, this has been listed for the 8th time. This is getting ridiculous. I have closed the vote, removed the afd tag and locked the page to stop people from reverting me. I realise that you may not approve of this action, however, so I'm telling you directly. Do with this what you will, however may I note that relisting is a complete waste of everyone's time and will cause more disruption than ever. I also wish to note that listing it again is a form of pushing for the article's deletion by attrition. Do we really have to keep on having the article listed on AfD?! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Wow! That means that Wikipedia:10 GNAA VfD nominations pool is now closed according to the official rules! — David Remahl 15:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I feel that closing it is a violation of due process, until and unless we create a policy handling things that have been on VfD that many times. Political systems are not bound, like a straightjacket, to past decisions, and in this case especially, politicking played a major role in the votes. It is worth noting that this holds for any article where there is a judgement call involved in its suitability for VfD. --Improv 16:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:Improv's comments above. There is no good reason to make this article immue from normal procedures, and there is no policy or guideline which supports this action. DES (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I also agree. Locking up an article and "protecting" it from an procedure, giving the concensus "This is getting ridiculous" seems POV. It is my humble opinion that Ta Bu is not using his aminintrative powers in good faith.-MegamanZero |transerver 19:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • While I would vote to delete it, myself, I must say that Ta bu shi da yu has a very good point here. "This is getting ridiculous" isn't always POV, sometimes it is just simple fact. This is getting ridiculous, and I say this as a person who would very much love to see this article deleted. I would support a policy change which says something like "after N survivals of VfD, a new VfD can not occur for a full year". In this way, we could have an annual holiday every here, GNAA day when we try again to delete this article. :-) --Jimbo Wales 21:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a difficult question. It's a borderline article in terms of notability...the question arises, are you just renominating repeatedly to get the result you want (delete), and then it will all be done with? The problem, of course, is that if you're for deletion, you only have to win the vote once; if you're for keeping it, you have to win every time. That makes it seem unfair for those in favor of keeping it. On the other hand, if you bar any further attempts at deletion, it seems undemocratic, because you're not letting people have a say on it anymore. I think the answer is something like Jimbo mentions. We should have a system in which surviving AfD once means renomination can't occur for a month (or two?), twice means not for 6 months, more than that means not for a year. A system like this (the numbers could vary depending on general opinion, of course) would give us a more orderly and uncontroversial way to deal with these cases. Everyking 05:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Going over the more recent history, it seems the 7th nomination was cut short (only 3 or 4 people managed to vote before an admin closed it), and the 6th nomination resulted in no consensus (with the default action being to keep it). I think (should go double check) the 6th AfD was back in June, so it's been at least six months since we've really debated this... —Locke Cole 10:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That is not correct. I started that VfD (when it really was a vote) less than 6 months ago. - Where the page is now, I have no idea. I hope that Firebug didn't just copy and paste over it... Ta bu shi da yu 11:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The 5th nomination was closed early with the closing comment by you. You noted that it was removed from VfD by a user you hadn't yet determined. You also noted you were creating a new nomination, which is here. This 6th nomination resulted in no consensus, this was back in July (so I was a month off). A 7th nomination was made in October at some point, but it was prematurely closed. An 8th nomination was just made, which you prematurely closed. It's been at least five months since the last full debate of this article at AfD/VfD, so why close it early? —Locke Cole 11:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Apologies, you are correct (there have been so many nominations I'm beginning to lose track - my entire life doesn't revolve around the GNAA!). From memory, someone delisted the 5th attempt early, thus causing people to say that it was an invalid VfD due to this problem. That's when I listed it for the 6th time, and sectioned it up in ways that made it easier to admin. Apologies for the mistake. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
          • It's okay, for all I knew the nominations had been overwritten at some point and I wasn't seeing the "real" nominations. =) —Locke Cole 04:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
May I ask why the procedure is being closed at all..? -MegamanZero|Talk 23:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

More news-based questions

The Times says:

Jimmy Wales, who is still very much alive, said: "We’re very pleased with the results and we’re hoping it will focus people’s attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good." He said that Wikipedia plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles from next month.

What mechanisms will these be, if I can ask? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If I've understood other conversations correctly, the long delayed article rating system is hopefully going to come online in January. Dragons flight 03:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
See: m:Article validation feature. Jacoplane 04:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah... cool :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection policy needs your input

Heya Jimbo, juet letting you know that we've come to a pretty solid consensus (98 support votes to 4 opposing) on a proposed Semi-protection policy. We feel with all of the heat we're facing right now, it might be a good time to enact something like this. Please check out the discussion and give any input that you can. It'd be much appreciated. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Has someone talked to Brion about implementation?--Jimbo Wales 15:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not him specifically. However, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason did comment on it, though he commented on it before we had the current proposal, which is here. Right now, accounts only a certain age or older can move pages. The consensus on semi-protection was to use the same function of the software for semi-protection. We intentionally did that because the thinking was that if we used an existing function of the software, it'd be easier to implement. We envision it only being used for 20-30 articles tops, but it would be our most vandalised articles, i.e. George W. Bush, Daniel Brandt and others. If you could leave a note with Brion to take a look, that would be wonderful. I tried to find a place to leave him a note, but could not. Since it's using something we already have, I wouldn't think it'd be that difficult to implement, but of course, I'm not a developer. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Er, you mean the same software as for page moves, right? Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 18:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

(crossposted from my talk page)

Brion has commented briefly [71], so he is at least aware of the proposal, and has presumably read the front page. Note that the comments he made were on those features we presently opted to avoid for exactly the reasons he mentions. -Splashtalk

If you want, you can just pull a Jean-Luc Picard and say "Engage!". --kizzle 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Count me in. Enthusiastically. But of course we need to get the technical details sorted with Brion.--Jimbo Wales 23:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
K, thanks for chiming in. We'll work out the details, I already re-posted the request on Bugzilla, if any developers could let the editors involved in creating this policy on the Semi-protection proposal page what needs to be done from our end and update us what's going on on your end, that'd be greeeeeaat. --kizzle 01:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Seigenthaler

I've submitted an op-ed piece to USA today, which I hope can reassure John Seigenthaler, Sr. I don't want to post it here, but I'd like to email it to you and see what you think. I've got two or three email addresses that you've used from time to time, but I'm not sure how current they are. Where should I send it?

Also, I emailed it to someone who says he's forwarded it to Seigenthaler (I still don't know Seigenthaler's email address. His home phone number is easy to find, though). Michael Hardy 03:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration clause

I have proposed at MediaWiki talk:Edittools to add the following to the bottom of that section of the edit page:

By clicking to save the above edit, you agree to the binding resolution of any disputes that arise as a result of your participation in Wikipedia through the dispute resolution processes available here .

As I stated there, I believe this will head off legal threats of all stripes, as the courts (in the U.S., at least) are keen to enforce arbitration clauses, thereby reducing their caseloads. I plan to get wider input from the community before implementing such a change, and I thought you might want to run it by the foundation's lawyers as well - currently, nothing binds disputants to our internal dispute resolution processes, which I think would be to our benefit. BDAbramson T 04:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So anyone can edit Wikipedia, except noobs, those who disagree with Snowspinner and anyone who doesn't think the cabal is always right? Jeez, what next? There used to be a wiki here, of sorts, now it's getting like Talibanistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.87.165 (talkcontribs)

  • It would not prevent anyone from editing (any more than the automatic GFDL license already does) - it would only reduce the likelihood of people taking legal action against Wikipedia based on disputes that arise from their participation here. BDAbramson T 01:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes disputes arise which are beyond the ability of the Arbitration Committee to deal with, for example, those which involve facts not available to us. We are good with behavior which is accessible as a diff, not necessarily with such questions as whether someone murdered Kennedy, or whether a reference is adequate to support such an assertion. Fred Bauder 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I'd rather see such disputes resolved somewhere other than a court of law - that's what an arbitration clause forecloses. BDAbramson T 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: I've copied the above discussion to MediaWiki talk:Edittools - please keep the discussion on that page. Cheers! BDAbramson T 03:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Your name in vain.

User_talk:Monicasdude#Vote_change.3F

I cannot find an appropriate place to mention this sadly puerile behaviour from Spawn Man. Since he is doing the entirely boring "I'm a-gonna tell Jimbo! waaaaaah!" bit, mentioning the event here seems like a viable way to bring it to the attention of someone (or someones) who can address it.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

True Protection

Hi, Jimbo. Then where is the answer of Jimmy Wales to me(LoveandPeace,"Please please Jimmy Wales" Nov 13)?

  • Probably,I think, the true problem of Wikipedia is revert-deletions or page-deletions forced by adminstrators without enough conversation or clear explanation.
I think the resolution of above issues is that:Wikipedia should set the short term(for examples 3 months) to all the admins and Every 3 Months Wikipedia should have all-admin-election. Please tell Jimmy Wales this resolution if you can understand.
  • Where is the answer by Jimmy Wales to my request November 13 ? Where is my request to Jimmy Wales November 13 ? These are the true prime cause of Wikipedia's problem. I mean revert-deletions,page-deletions and blocks to contributors get the situation of Wikipedia worse and worse and worse. Do you think it is natural consequence? --LoveandPeace 08:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Giving some lessons to a new admin

I think he´s not hopeless :-)

Greetings 14:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

Jimbo, is you're e-mail address really jwales at wikia dot com or is that meant to be at wikipedia or wikimedia dot com or dot org? Jasongetsdown 15:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

Quote from Slashdot/SP page:

I see that some news media have picked this story up as if it is important. Please please please don't do that. This is one of many changes to the software which are coming soon, including the ability to put pages into a 'validated' state (better name should be determined) and so on. Treating this as a major policy change is therefore a huge huge error being made by people who have no understanding of how Wikipedia works.--Jimbo Wales [wikipedia.org] 16:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC) [1] [wikipedia.org]

As the one who submitted the story, sorry for characterizing it as a "major policy change", I think I just got a bit excited as I've been trying to get this idea accepted for a long time :)... hope I didn't cause too many ants in your pants. Also, is the community participating in developing the concept of validated/non-validated articles or is this left purely for the developers? It would seem to be that such a process would have prima facie issues of getting content OK'ed by admins. --kizzle 18:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As best I understand it, it is being designed in a sufficient flexible way that policy can be developed around it. This is the best way, of course, the wiki way, which allows the commmunity to determine policy, with the software merely providing more flexible tools.

The "protection for X% of users" is one such tool. A system for allowing even those edits to take place, but to not be "pushed" to the front view is another. Putting together several such things will allow for a precisely defined policy which tries to raise the cost of doing bad things while lowering the cost of doing good. The Wiki way. :-)--Jimbo Wales 15:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor

Jimbo - I request that you look at the decision to desysop Ed Poor. You have made comments indicating that we should be more aggressive in identifying and blocking disruptive users. Ed did this, and in retrospec he may or may not have made a mistake, but if we can not allow admins to make mistakes without fear of reprisals and desysoping, then we will never as a community have control over both vandalism and disruptive editing. I support banning users more quickly (less "due process") since they can assume a new identity in minutes - and as long as they don't repeat their previous behavior - no one will care enough to investigate and ban them again. Please comment on the proposed decision. Trödel|talk 01:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Forbidding the citation of specific sources?

There is a fierce debate regarding citations of Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (religioustolerance.org), and I wanted to see if you had any input on this. User:Jguk, who has previously been convicted of edit warring by Arbcom, created the page Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org, in which he claims that the site is not credible because its authors do not have degrees in theology. He also claims that the writing is sloppy and inaccurate, though he has yet to provide specific examples of this. He contends that citing OCRT is just like citing a blog, and thus out of bounds. Defenders of citing OCRT (including me) point to the site's significant popularity (millions of hits per week), its long tenure (it's been around for 10 years), and the fact that the site's articles do cite their sources and are thus not just opinion pieces. When jguk started mass-removing references to OCRT citing the above page as policy, I nominated it on MFD as likely to cause confusion (masquerading as policy). (A {{proposed}} tag was later added.) I think it would be horrible precedent to start making policy on whether certain specific pages should be cited as sources or not. We'll have POV axe-grinders challenging every source they don't like. Firebug 04:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Firebug, it's quite proper that we challenge whether references are reliable and reputable, in the same way that we should challenge unreferenced material. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org you'll see that many people share my concerns. Number of clicks on webpages do not a good source make. In this case we have a website containing information almost all of which comes from one man, Bruce Robinson, who is quite open about having no academic standing and whose essays have never been reviewed by an academic. A number of us on the talk page have already expressed concerns about how Robinson uses sources as well as his lack of academic approach. That's why we're having this discussion as to whether it is suitable to reference the religioustolerance.org website. Remember, if information currently referenced to religioustolerance.org is correct, it should be possible to find a better, reputable source for it (indeed, since Robinson quotes his sources, if you trust his essay you should also be able to go back to his sources and, if those sources support the information in the WP article, cite those instead), jguk 08:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Not to be overly harsh, but I found that Jguk approached this in a seemingly underhanded and rather aggressive way. Failing to add a {{proposed}} tag to the unilateral policy, and using it immediately as a basis for tens of reversions (which would be more difficult to do, appearence-wise, with a proposed policy). That it related to citations linked from that site is inconsequential, since this webpage did provide verifiable references for at least some of these. His en mass deletion, waving the would-be policy piece, seems questionable. El_C 10:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I admit I was a bit bold in how I proposed this and following WP:BOLD, which I'm a big fan of, isn't always a good idea. However, I never marked it up as policy and have been quite open about everything and the comment about being underhand is uncalled for (I'm also a big fan of WP:AGF). This should all be water under the bridge now anyway as any faults in the process have now been retectified - we have a proposal page that is marked up as a proposal page, ongoing discussions on its talk page, links on the talk pages of many of the affected articles (and if I've left any out, please add them), and a link on RfC to the discussion page, jguk 11:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I said seemingly, meaning I am trying very hard to assume goodfaith, and I am far from finished with such an assumption here. Nevertheless, Jguk cannot simply discount it being presented as policy, since it was sectioned off of WP:V (again, without a {{proposed}} tag), not his user space. I'm also afraid that the above dosen't respond to the en mass nature of the reversion prior to —and during— the discussion (at least the one I was privy to). El_C 11:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

To provide my $0.02 here, I think that jguk approaches this with a specific axe to grind: he wants religioustolerance.org excluded because they disagree with his pet issue of BC vs BCE for dates. That being said, I am in favor of continuing this discussion in its present form because I think there's an important issue at stake here, which is that Wikipedia should always favor primary sources over secondary sources, and secondary sources over tertiary sources, etc. Religioustolerance.org is a great example of a tertiary (or lower) source: it is essentially one man's (or a small number of men's) opinions, citing generally better sources for the factual content contained therein. I think we should not be at all shy about using the primary and secondary sources cited by religioustolerance.org for the benefit of our readers. I think we need a compelling reason to cite an opinion site in favor of doing the work of synthesis ourselves. If we used religioustolerance.org sparingly, in a few places, to demonstrate certain opinions, that would be one thing. But Wikipedia is littered with quite literally hundreds of references to them, often in places where superior verifiable and reputable sources exist. I view this as indicative of a problem, and despite my personal beliefs about jguk's motivation, worthy of serious discussion. While agreeing with El C's concerns about the way this was done, I find the attempts to shut down debate on this topic prematurely to be disturbing. Nandesuka 16:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia account

Jimbo, can you please confirm whether this account (simple:User:Jimbo Wales) is you, or an imposter. I'm going to leave it blocked until you either confirm, or until you've contacted a developer in order to get the account handed over to you. Please contact me here on en: Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 07:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You did the right thing. Not me.--Jimbo Wales 15:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Users engaging in criminal activity in the name of Wikipedia

Daniel Brandt has gathered proof that User:Vilerage sent to him a Denial of Service attack on to his http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ web site by using http://www.brandt-watch.org/ with the script running from http://www.geocities.com/visualrage/ with evidence documented here: http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/perp.html . I asked the user in question to explain his actions and he refused to. I have posted on the administrator's notice board here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Vilerage in the hopes that it could be dealt with, however administrators have mostly supported his actions and Vilerage eventually denied that he had done it (in spite of previously confessing). This has the potential to put Wikipedia in to enormous disrepute, if it is seen that Wikipedia is supporting criminal activity. Whilst individuals might feel that Brandt deserves what he gets, the fact that this person did this with reference to his Wikipedia account and as a Wikipedia editor means that for all intents and purposes he did it here. I implore you to action against this user before it gets out of hand. Whilst I am not sure of the liability of Wikipedia with regards to protecting or encouraging criminal activity, I imagine that regardless of that, as this is the 2nd such incident (alongside the "hoax") there is a very good chance that the media will use this to portray Wikipedia in a very bad light, and that could be more damaging than any criminal charges. I had hoped that admins would react to stop this, but it seems not, and that is making things even worse. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It's important to note that what a Wikipedian does, is not reflective of Wikipedia, if it is done off-site. His alleged DOS attack did not utilise WP in any way, and the media is smart enough to know that they'd be facing potential libel suits if they portrayed it otherwise...combined with the fact no respectable journalist is able to say "a hacker from geocities" with any shred of seriousness ;) Obviously WP condemns criminal action, but I can't imagine we're in any way facing liability, or even media condemnation, for the criminal actions of somebody who owns a WP account. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 15:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation authorizes anybody not on its board of directors to speak for Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project. Thus, I don't see how they would incur any liability for somebody's outside actions, even if they are claiming to be doing it on Wikipedia's behalf. *Dan T.* 15:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course we can't be legally liable for something like this, but we don't have to accept it either. I condemn this sort of thing in the strongest possible terms. It is unacceptable. We want to really strongly put out the correct and true story about our community, and this sort of things gives a very bad impression. We are Wikipedians. This means that we should be: kind, thoughtful, passionate about getting it right, open, tolerant of different viewpoints, open to criticism, bold about changing our policies and also cautious about changing our policies. We are not vindictive, childish, and we don't stoop to the level of our worst critics, no matter how much we may find them to be annoying.--Jimbo Wales 15:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. And I also wanted to note that it is not just Daniel Brandt's word that he did it. Aside from confessing, and there being direct links to his user page, Brandt has put systems logs on his page for anyone to view, to prove that it really happened from that address. I have noted a few people saying "Daniel Brandt is unreliable" but I think that if you have systems logs and confessions then its pretty much a definite. Anyway, he seems to have left indefinitely, and he has put something akin to an apology on his page, and you have made your stance clear, so thank you. And I hope that we don't get a third such attack to have to worry about. I hope that we can all make peace here. I know that a lot of people think that Brandt is a crackpot, that his views about the CIA being everywhere are silly, but he does do a lot of research on to these things. He is quite correct about the scrapings, and that Wikipedia, due to its mirrors, can be used for scraping. I am not convinced though that Google and Wikipedia really are linked, and if they are, I am not convinced that Google pays Wikipedia to scrape. Nor am I convinced that there's little CIA agents running around here trying to control Wikipedia. Oh, there's probably CIA agents that use Wikipedia, and they probably look at posts to do such things as to find out if anyone is a terrorist. But I doubt that its quite as sinister as he suggests. However, that's his opinion. I've also suggested what I think would act as a solution to the biography issue, if you will. I think that what would be a great addition is to add a part of the talk page called "Ask the Expert", and then, for biography pages about real people, if the real person wants to participate, then they can be asked questions about key data there. For example, we can ask them for sources for things that we can remember them saying. We can also ask them if there is more to something. I think that this would work wonderfully well. And it can apply to businesses and practically anything. Whilst we could do it just in the regular old talk page, I think it'd be good if it was a separate section. Then we can still have the rule that you can't edit your own biography, yet their voice is heard? What do you think? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo, just to give you a view from the other end: User talk:Daniel Brandt#Hi Mr. Brandt. - Brandt has confirmed here that Zordrac is not working on his behalf, nor has any authorisation from Brandt to pursue any matter. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, we had something of a falling out the other day when he told me I was "prematurely ejaculating" over this. In his opinion, he doesn't think that I should have made such a big deal out of all of this, and he thinks that its A OK for people to behave like this towards him. He criticised me for all of the effort I did to support him. And I guess that I do have a habit of going out of my way for people, some of whom (like Brandt) don't appreciate it, and others who don't deserve it. So there you go. I still say that my work helped him but hey, he doesn't appreciate it so that's his business. At least he agreed with me to take people's real names down, although because I asked him to do that I got some guy harassing me and threatening me because of it. I feel stupid for sticking my neck out now. And I wonder if it was really him that I met on Live Journal in 2002 anyway. The guy I met was nice. Maybe there's another Google Watch somewhere. Maybe I was talking to one of his secretaries then. I don't know. I am through with supporting Brandt. Its not just that he attacked me, but he did it publicly. Whilst maybe I made mistakes, he should have e-mailed me rather than just smearing my name in public like that. He should have seen my intentions if nothing else. So yeah, I've seen what he's really like now. But that doesn't change my opinion about Vilerage. Brandt might think he's okay, but I don't. I think that Brandt has a lack of knowledge of legalities. He forgives people far too easily for criminal actions and doesn't see the repercussions. He also stuffed things up with Seigenthaler - Chase DID NOT libel Seigenthaler. I've tried to convince him of that but he doesn't seem to figure that one out either. Every legal opinion in the world has confirmed this. But, on the other hand, Wikipedia has libelled Brandt. But oh no he insists that they haven't. I think its just daft. Someone writing in there the "Outing" thing is obviously libelling him. You can't get any more obvious. The fact that people are going around saying that he is "a guy who makes money at the expense of people's privacy" when he's actually a privacy advocate is proof of libel. Who is responsible is another matter. But Brandt insists its just a privacy invasion. I think the guy doesn't know what's what and barks up the wrong tree. But the problem is that he attacks people, like me, who went out of their way to help him. Just see some of the comments I had to delete off my talk page to see that it wasn't easy for me to do this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Class Action Suit

I heard about this from another user. I was shocked! Why the hell is everybody ganging up on us this way? How are you planing to fight this? I would sue these people, whoever they are, for trademark infringment, as they are using the Wikipedia logo on their site, and for defamation. --Mb1000 20:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

We should stop advertising for wikipediaclassaction. It is pretty obvious that their claims are baseless, and all we are doing by mentioning them so often is boosting their Google AdSense revenue. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Twas I who noticed the possibility of the illegal use of the logo, and twas I who added the sentence to Wikipedia Class Action. I think Wikipedia needs to always maintain NPOV, even when writing about itself and it's enimies and detractors. --Nerd42 21:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The same kind of thing happened en force on LiveJournal in 2001. They eventually had to hire lawyers on a virtually permanent basis to deal with all of the legal implications. I think that Wikipedia will have to do the same. Wikipedia is now about the same size as Live Journal, so I think its time to do this. All of the major policies should be worked over by lawyers (not just Wikipedia users who are also lawyers, but actual paid lawyers), especially such things as Wikipedia:No legal threats, Wikipedia:Libel and Wikipedia:Autobiography and any other applicable rules. And then any major issues. In my opinion, we cannot forbid legal threats if Wikipedia is to remain a legal business. It might be disruptive, but actually breaking the law is a lot worse than someone accusing you of doing it. Being libelled is worse than someone accusing you of libelling. It should be discouraged if it is frivellous, but it shouldn't be a bannable offense. It should be on the same level as a personal attack Wikipedia:No personal attacks and that's about it. That's my opinion. I have written a proposal for how to deal with this kind of issue here: User:Zordrac/experts which you may wish to adopt, or propose for a consensus. I think that this would work to avoid all of the current legal issues. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

somebody's fakin yo name again

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo Wales isn't really you, is it. --Nerd42 03:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

While this is a parody project, I advise you stop them from using your name, seeing how you own Wikicites. -- user:zanimum

Chinese Wikinews

What is currently going on as regards Chinese Wikinews? I remember a while back, there were concerns that the Chinese might block Chinese Wikipedia in response to Chinese Wikinews, but since the Chinese Communists have decided to block Wikipedia anyway, I see no great reason not to start the project. More than enough users (including myself) have expressed interest. A huge swathe of Chinese readers in the US, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, etc. would benefit from the project, even if it were not accessible to mainland Chinese. I see no reason for it not to be started, and in fact, I consider it to be a violation of Wikimedia principles for one not to be started. What is the current status of the project, and when do you (and the other members of the Board) intend to allow the project to go ahead?

--Ce garcon 18:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation/Wikipedia as a registered charity - Would ENABLE TAX DECDUCTION FOR UK

If Wikipedia/the Wikimedia Foundation registered itself as a Registered_charity (see Charitable trust#United Kingdom) with the UK Charity Commission (website: www.charity-commission.gov.uk) it would enable Wikipedia users and possible patrons to donate tax-free to the Wikimedia Foundation.

I really suggest you look into getting yourself approved as a Registered Charity in the UK, it would save you a lot of money it seems!

From http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Deductibility_of_donations it appears at the moment the only other countries apart from the US where donations are tax-deductible is Germany and France! --Mistress Selina Kyle 21:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)