User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(Manual archive list)

Pictish language: classification[edit]

Formerly In case anyone is at all interested in cleaning it up

It appears there are certain editors who are specifically intent in their classification of Picts and Pictish language as being Celtic peoples and language that they dismiss any opposing viewpoints from RS sources claiming they must be wrong simply because they oppose their own sources saying Celtic. I frankly don't want to get involved, but as Pictish history has become the topic of my current studies I have found these articles sorely lacking, unhelpful, and horribly biased. Pictish language after being classified as Celtic in the lede and throughout the article mentions at the very last sentence of the entire article that a 2012 classification by an RS source and respectable author on language classification- classifies the language as "non-Indo-European" (ie-which makes it non-Celtic by default). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from In case anyone is at all interested in cleaning it up to Pictish language: classification, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.
Wavelength (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A somewhat hostile way to start editing Wikipedia. I suggest the talk pages of said articles are a better place to discuss this than here. The Picts attract a lot of fringe theorists on the basis of their supposed air of mystery and it can be tricky sometimes to tell the reliable sources from those that are unreliable. The 2013 paper by Hamp (sort of) that apparently reasserts the non-Indo-European theory doesn't actually go as far as to say that Pictish is non-Indo-European, rather that there is a pre-Indo-European substratum (identified as "Picts") that influenced the development of Brittonic Celtic languages. This is uncontroversial and recognised by the likes of Forsyth who argue that Pictish is part of the Brittonic continuum. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Guto Rhys of the University of Glasgow as recently as 2013 would disagree with the above interpretation that the Indo-European Celtic theory is the dominant and that it has been that way. There is controversy, the Celtic theory is neither the mainstream or dominant, and you attempt to portray it that way. My last word on the subject. And I've been editing for about 6 or 7 years but I hate doing it now, so... not a newbie, and yes I'm hostile. You're a POV pusher. (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I've never heard of him. Should I have? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Having pushed for the inclusion of Eric P. Hamp's view I have to admit it is less than ideal as an RS (he is now 94, & the view only comes in some notes of his written up by somebody else, in a very obscure journal). As long as that is the best RS the non-Celtics can come up with, and while every basic textbook you look at says the predominant view is that they did speak a Celtic language, things are unlikely to change. Johnbod (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Jimbo, Whether they are squabbles or acrimonius debates, etc., has anyone every approached you with an idea to reduce their occurrence in Wikipedia, so that there is some hope for improvement in the future? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Presumably without resort to some sort of strict controls of some sort being enacted? John Carter (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I do think that this might be a good topic to be covered in the next WMF 5-year (?) plan: Updating the governance system to reflect the size and importance of WMF projects. 12 years ago the system may have been adequate, but lots of things have changed. If you need examples of things that aren't currently working very well, just look around on this page. Mr. 2001 is still hanging around here 7 years after he was banned. Russavia finally got himself community banned a few weeks ago, but only about 3 years after declaring war against the central governing structures of Wikipedia. And he is still sockpuppeting here. There should be serious discussion on whether the current systems work and whether they will be able to work in the future, and what the consequences will be if they don't work. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Are there five-year plans here? If there are, the first thing I might suggest might be consulting some volunteer workflow management experts (if such even exist) about how to optimize the effectiveness of volunteer time. Wikinews for instance was and is a great idea, but with the liberal interpretation of policy here regarding notability almost redundant now. For all the material available for use there and here, wikisource had only 270 total editors in the last month. I am sure if we could effectively better integrate all the entities both of those and the others could experience dramatic improvement, but I have doubts the existing separate strutures of all the entities will ever be able to effectively work together without some sort of imposition from above, preferably with indicators of how the changes will make things easier and increase general efficiency and effectiveness. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
.......other than debugging Visual Editor you mean??? (Too easy.) Carrite (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
John Carter, I believe that there was one five-year plan (that's what strategy wiki was about) but that (maybe) there won't be another (for a while). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Suggestion_for_the_Board:_Technology_Committee which might be relevant. Deltahedron (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Something you Should Know[edit]

User:Jimbo Wales, It is very nice to 'meet' you and to discover that you are the founder of Wikipedia, a source for knowledge and information that I often use, and to which I have contributed during the course of the past year or so. I wanted to take the time to compliment the editors and the process regarding an unfounded report that was recently made against me there by another, now indefinitely-blocked, editor. Having become disillusioned regarding a prior, separate matter, I could have but did not report the editor on Wikipedia (but have done so on WikiCommons, after being inspired by the absolutely overwhelming support that I received on Wikipedia). What occurred is that the editor reported me on Wikipedia with entirely false allegations, quite honestly leaving my head spinning at the very least. The situation was quite like nothing I have ever experienced before in an online setting, what with the false comments by the one particular editor, but also in a wonderful way in regard to the incredible support that I received on Wikipedia at the ANI forum. There are so, so many people (about 30 or more) who supported me that I am quite beside myself because I had really thought that the particular editor's behavior directed toward me and my work here was acceptable, and had been extremely discouraged. I would also like to recognize User:John Carter for making a statement in the ANI discussion that posts were being made at your talk page, otherwise I would never have known to come here and check it out. There are just so many people who have been supportive in this matter that tears are literally coming to my eyes right now; it has all been quite an experience. I'm glad that I reached out for advice and suggestions because I really was unsure about what to do, and did not desire to escalate the situation. So, I just wanted to take a few moments to come over here and let you know that you have created a wonderful resource, and that you have so, so many outstanding editors here. I am really thankful for all of that! Those folks who are genuinely doing the right thing and contributing here in good faith, particularly in my recent experience, are to be recognized and commended for their professionalism, diligence, support, kindness, and good faith. I am going to re-post this on my talk page, also, so that our fellow colleagues are aware of my comments to you. Thank you, again, and God bless, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 04:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Just in case this seems random, it's related to the "carriearchdale" threads Jimbo hatted above the panda ₯’ 00:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
so you want to say that the post is not worth listening to and want to discourage us from doing so?-- (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Um, no, I don't believe I even suggested that the panda ₯’ 00:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, then it's probably a misunderstanding, ... , sorry.
But this is also quite ambivalent - not knowing the circumstances, this could be a user trying to suck up to the max to the administration or someone trying to apply genuine irony/sarcasm!?-- (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Another "ok", when further reading it seems to be true relief by a user that an intrigue within Wikipedia was debunked as such by the community... Is it?-- (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"What occurred is that the editor reported me on Wikipedia with entirely false allegations" - this is what is most striking to me about the Wikipedian system: it is possible to do this, make "entirely false allegations" and have a friendly official make a decision regardless of the truth, facts or proves, censoring the matter, before any objective source can even read it.-- (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo hatted those sections, collapsing them with the explanation that he didn't think.the discussion appropriate for his talk page. He erased and suppressed nothing. Any reader including you can click "show" and read that stuff if they want. So your use of the word "censoring" fails even the most expansive definition of that term, IP user 37. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Refuting false claims has worked at ANI: Even though many people have been victims of false claims at wp:ANI, there are other cases where level-headed users have debunked the false accusations to refute unfounded claims. ANI needs major reforms to require "rules of evidence" when making claims, and divide each issue into fact-finding versus judgment phases, to deter people who dogpile "guilty" before the false claims have been refuted. -Wikid77 12:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if there were a 24 hour clock that started running following a "Motion to ban" before any Ban opinions could be rendered, that would be a step forward. You are right that the greatest ANI injustices happen because accusation and retribution is fast but defense can be slow. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Search Engine Results ( -> Google)[edit]

Why is Wikipedia listed as the top search result among Encyclopedias while all the other Encyclopedias are not even listed on page one, at all?-- (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not. Assuming you've cleared your History cache. Encyclopedia Britannica is first, is second, followed by Wikipedia, followed by various other encyclopedias. What you are seeing is the result of Google's "personalization", based on what you've been viewing. (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
WP outranks Britannica for many viewers: Even when "personalization" is disabled in Google's "Web History" menu, then WP pages tend to outrank Britannica (EB) because EB typically presents a topic as a related-pages list, rather than a webpage focused on the named topic. EB page access is a 2-step process, to first search for topic, then choose among the related pages. Meanwhile the search-engine results are chosen to down-rank a page which includes a topic on a page with a "laundry list" of related phrases, while up-ranking a page devoted to the topic. Consequently, some medical encyclopedias, with dedicated-topic pages, have often outranked WP in searches. -Wikid77 13:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Too bad you didn't read the comment by more carefully. (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Depending on topic, WP has more-specific pages to match: Some medical encyclopedias/sites tend to outrank WP, such as or or MedlinePlus from the U.S. NIH. Because the search-engine target is whole webpages, then for random topics WP is more likely to rank high, with specific pages dedicated to each topic. Surely, no other website has the broad coverage, and WP's emphasis on wp:NPOV-neutral text makes it a safer choice for search-results display. -Wikid77 13:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Monopoly (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)[edit]

A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market-- (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a question that you should take up with Google, not Jimbo or Wikipedia, as they design their sophisticated search algorithms, not us Wikipedians. As everyone knows, Google is a profit-making business, and prominently displays content from paying customers. Because Wikipedia pays Google not a single penny, it seems that something else is at work. Perhaps it is because Wikipedia offers vastly more free, high quality original content than any other website? Perhaps it is because hundreds of millions of readers regularly place their faith in Wikipedia, trusting us to provide good introductory coverage of millions of topics, in every major language? Those are my guesses, but you would have to ask Google. They may choose not to answer, though. Business secrets, after all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Wishful thinking, based on a lack of understanding of Google's personalization. (I would further guess you didn't bother to try to replicate the results.) See above. (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It's obviously not a case of monopoly, which is where there is a single seller in the market place. Wikipedia does not sell its product - in fact it gives it away, makes it available for anybody else to give away, and will even supply the software to give it away. I'd be interested to know what other encyclopedias there are that the IP thinks are possible "competitors" or "replacements" for Wikipedia? I know there are some local topic 'pedias, and a few things like the Austrian Economics 'pedia. I haven't looked at the Encyclopedia Britannica lately, but doubt that it is worth paying for if WP is available. Doesn't the Chinese government sponsor its own online pedia?
Unlike a monoply, there is competition in this "market", even if the product can be freely copied in many cases. There is a competition for readers - if they don't trust the contents they'll go elsewhere - and there is competition for writers - if the community understands that readers are avoiding their content, then they will likely go elsewhere. I know wikipediocracy tried to create something like its own pedia, but they obviously didn't understand this "market". Why would any reader trust a pedia that is advertising products to them undercover?
Probably the biggest force that has a similar economic effect on us as competition would, is "potential competition." We should understand that if we don't produce a product that readers want, another editing community could be formed, include extra features (or excluding certain aspects of WP such as edits from anons) and our readers will be drawn away. About 80% of WP content could be uploaded, no problem. So you'd have a pedia with 3.4 million articles instead of 4.2 million. What would it cost to do this? I'd guess less than $5 million to start it and maybe $5 million per year to run it. If the WMF can raise $50 million per year, it's pretty likely that a "competitor" could be self-sustaining.
We should certainly take the threat of competition very seriously. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I assume the "monopoly" assertion refers to Google, which has all the power on this point - we will have no warning if they ever decide to stop listing Wikipedia in favor of some in-house extract or some other site. (I imagine if auto-translation gets good enough a Google-Baidu merger becomes inevitable) Google is enough of an official monopoly that governments put regulations on Google (plus Bing) as their means of regulating what the public searches. However, if we do not allow deletionists to casually delete "extra" sources and "less interesting" details, Wikipedia could provide some degree of competition against Google as a means of searching the net. And I believe that a better-designed Wikipedia can compete against itself and freely share infrastructure with other encyclopedias. Wnt (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
In recent years, about half (~50%) of all pageviews have come via Google hits, but I don't know if those people read more of each page than people seeing a page via a wikilink from other pages or Bing/Yahoo. Also Google, Bing (MSN Search) and Yahoo Search have all promoted WP in search-results lists, but the page-ranks have varied somewhat. -Wikid77 12:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to say that a non-profit has a monopoly on what is essentially a philanthropic effort. CorporateM (Talk) 19:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we need some serious competition. In practice we do have a sufficient virtual monopoly because of the extent of our use and our general acceptance in the world, that , despite the feasibility of reusing content for another free encyclopedia, it would be very difficult to get sufficient editors for another encyclopedia with the same scope as WP. There is however room for one with either a more scholarly approach, or possibly one with a more inclusive approach. For a while it seemed possible that Citizendium might meet the need for a more academic approach, but it didn't happen (initially because of the decision not to make the licensing compatible with WP--for a few years it's been the same, but their format still requires complete rewriting before they will accept even good WP content. I think it's time for another try at this., possibly following the lead of some of the medical editors who are arranging for peer-reviewed versions of WP articles in their field. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Just keep improving Wikipedia pages, by the hundreds and thousands meanwhile, but we need a "Micropedia" version in WP to show short blurbs about each major subject, compared to articles which span 17 or 25 pages of rambling text while wp:Data hoarding the excessive details. -Wikid77 12:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the "more inclusive" ones still exist? Deletionpedia or something like that? Have they been popular? I guess not... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)