User talk:Jimbo Wales

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

Re: Net Neutrality smackdown; Relocate WMF servers and headquarters to Canada? Why not?[edit]

Jimbo, here's the Canadian government position on net neutrality. Maybe its time to be truly en.wikipedia instead of am.wikipedia. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

background info. AND Net neutrality in Canada --Moxy (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Or you could abstain from any overreaction until everything plays out. There are lawsuits to be concluded and injunctions to be ruled on. Moving to Canada would make a substantial statement and certainly Wiki should consider it but if Wiki decides to make such a move as a political statement it should do so when it would make the most impact. #toosoon -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking not so much as a reaction but rather a realization that the USA has recently revealed to the whole world facts about the selectivity of its justice system and privacy laws which, until recently, have not been known by most people either in the USA or outside the USA. All of these revelations make the case that the USA is certainly not, in 2017, a trustworthy, stable or friendly place for a project like Wikipedia. Perhaps New Zealand or another English speaking place would also be appropriate, but I do not se any justification whatsoever to stay in a location which has become so ethically, sociologically and legally fucked up. Please read the opinion of our government on net neutrality]. I think its an invitation that should be accepted. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
And should we go ahead without mentioning that Net neutrality didn't exist when wikipedia was founded? Or that the NSA spying became public knowledge in 2005? It's a belated realization?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I hate to attempt analogy, but I suppose sexual harassment, and the awareness thereof, has also been around a long time. But maybe the more aware and more socially conscious portion of the public at large has just gotten to the point where they will not succumb to such bullying and f-you behavior from the powers that be....especially now that everybody knows that the only power the assholes have is what the rest of us allow them to have. So, I'm suggesting that we simply tell the FCC to go fuck themselves because we can pick up our chips and relocate when it suits our morals even easier than the Silicon Valley Marketers can when it suits their bottom line. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI: GamerGate was a funded Trump campaign operation[edit]

"I realized Milo could connect with these kids right away," Bannon told Green. "You can activate that army. They come in through Gamergate or whatever and then get turned onto politics and Trump." ~ Steve Bannon on Milo/Breitbart's use of #GamerGate to boost Trump.


EllenCT (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope, it wasn't. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Your evidence? There is more discussion here. EllenCT (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hitchens's razor. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
That would be an argument if the person in charge of running Trump's campaign didn't admit in the quote above that he was supporting the controversy to further the campaign. EllenCT (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Please read my userpage. My political POV is quite clear. "Person X used movement of useful idiots Y for goal Z" is not the same thing as "movement Y (in its entirety) was a funded campaign operation for goal Z". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
See what that stupid civility policy is doing? It made me refer to a bunch of fucking idiots as a "movement". Fuck that. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply it was a funded operation in its entirety, and I would very much like to know the proportion of which it was. Plenty of its Enwiki disruption sure seemed like it had far more than the usual sort of enthusiasts involved, just as the magnitude of the fallout from arbcom cases was way more than what ordinary chauvinism has ever done around here prior. EllenCT (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thats how it came across. Old people in suits were not very effective; but I am pretty sure that others (e.g. youtubers) were able to fool a lot of people into believing a lot of nonsense. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Just in case someone wants to block me for stating the fact that GG was a bunch of fucking idiots -- I have plenty of proof. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
We don't need proof the sky is still blue, thank you. Jonathunder (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Well it's a tricky one, isn't it? GG could have been Trump related, if unlikely, but given that pretty much everything Bannon says is bollocks, it's probably not. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Black Kite seems to have the best answer here. Bannon as an individual almost certainly doesn't come within miles or parsecs of being a reliable source. I can still remember one of his first interviews after being dismissed from the White House to the effect that he wasn't fired but set free to advance Trump's cause outside of the government. BS of the first order. Sometimes I wonder if he can perceive the real world. And I'm a conservative leaning person who generally votes Republican. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf#During_the_Iraq_war (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The quote in the tweet is from a July USA Today article, and it's not just Bannon saying it, it's the article's author Mike Snider observing, "Yiannopoulos devoted much of Bretibart's tech coverage to cultural issues, particularly Gamergate, a long-running online argument over gaming culture that peaked in 2014. And that helped fuel an online alt-right movement sparked by Breitbart News."
This is corroborated by several independent news reports, such as, "Here’s how Steve Bannon used angry white gamers to build himself up to Trump’s chief strategist" in Business Insider UK, "Let Samantha Bee take you through the history of Steve Bannon’s mighty troll army," ("a tale of how Bannon rode gamergate to GOP victory") in Salon, "How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist Ideas Into The Mainstream," in Buzzfeed News, and "From Gold Farming To Gamergate, The Gaming Ties Of Donald Trump's White House," in Kotaku. There is absolutely no question that Bannon hired Yiannopoulos and several others as political operatives during the onset of the GamerGate controversy in the mainstream and here on Wikipedia, and that during that time they were most involved with GamerGate as their work. There are no reports that I can find consistent with the idea that Bannon only braggingly wants to take credit for spuring the movement after the fact.
That the tweet I quoted above, which brought this situation to my attention, has become controversial over the past three days, along with the replies from Wikipedians above, show how people are strongly inclined to repress the truth (in the psychological sense of unintentional forgetting) instead of coming to terms with GamerGate as a paid editing campaign, on- and off-wiki, which in this case successfully swung a US presidential election on jingoism. But the tweet's author deserves it, as he was duped along with most everyone else when it was happening, and hasn't exactly retracted that position. EllenCT (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
You wrote: "show how people are strongly inclined to repress the truth". What you wrote in the OP ("GamerGate was a funded Trump campaign operation") is obviously not true if you interpret it to mean that the entire thing was a funded Trump campaign operation (which is a reasonable interpretation); which is why I corrected you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
If you are arguing someone else funded it, who? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
So you're not arguing it was not funded by someone else, are you arguing it was not funded by anyone? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Nope. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
How would you feel if it was funded by paying wikipedians? EllenCT (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Potatoes do not experience human emotions, sorry. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Do potatoes capable of English communication lack the ability to feel? EllenCT (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
GamerGate's start had nothing to do with Trump or Bannon. It well established before Yiannopoulos joined in. It appears true, at least from what I witnessed, that Yiannopoulos attached himself on to GamerGate as a means of furthering what we now call alt-right goals, as very early on GG became focused on anti-feminism and anti-PC, which aligned nicely with Yiannopoulos' and Bretibart's interests. This gave GG supporters some sense of vindication, as it meant that someone on the media agreed with them. Accordingly, they ignored Yiannopoulos' previous attacks on gamers, and focused on this belief that he had somehow realized how right they were, rather that just trying to get what he could out of their movement. The same for some of the other conservatives.
However, given that Yiannopoulos started writing for Bretibart some months before GamerGate started, I can't see how it can be argued that he was hired because of GamerGate, when it didn't exist. Similarly, he was attacking gamers in his writing just as GG was starting, and only a month before coming out in support of GG, so I can't see this as a great conspiracy. What I can see this as is an alt-right commentator realising that he could capitalise on and use a growing movement of anti-feminist Gamers, and perhaps Bannon later seeing it as a chance to take more credit than he deserved. - Bilby (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The truth is quite boring compared to conspiracy theories, isn't it? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
When exactly do you think GamerGate started? Zoe Quinn's spurned lover's public accusations? When was Yiannopoulos hired? When I read things like this suggesting death threats from a "Ukranian troll" are less serious than death threats from 12 year-olds, it's hard for me to think that he wasn't told to find such issue(s) to latch on to as a condition of his employment. EllenCT (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Q When exactly do you think GamerGate started? A: Depends on your definition.
Q When was Yiannopoulos hired? A: Feel free to Google that.
(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The answer to both questions is August, 2014. Coincidence or obvious? EllenCT (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what I've written. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you understand very well that I understand what you've written. Please see also [1] for insight into Bannon's top-sites strategy. EllenCT (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. TQP out. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see also [2]. EllenCT (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
GamerGate started August 16, 2014 with the publication of The Zoe Post, but they would tend to argue that their main trigger was August 28 with the so called "Gamers are Dead" articles. Yiannopoulos was writing for Bretibart from April, 2014, about five months earlier. On August 14, 2014, he published on Bretibart his article on Grand Theft Auto, which follows on from May 2014 article about Elliot Rodger. Both were highly critical of Gaming - the Elliot Rodger piece blames games for "inspiring and structuring his violent fantasies", while the August piece, published two days before the start of GamerGate, describes gamers as "weirdos in yellowing underpants". The timeline doesn't add up - he was writing for Bretibart before GamerGate, and if his role was to bring Gamers into the alt-right fold, insulting them and blaming mass shootings on video games was going to drive them away.
His pieces pre-GamerGate seem to be aimed at the standard conservative agenda: targeting Muslims, gamers, feminists and the left. GamerGate gave him an army, and he certainly fed the movement by giving them a feeling of legitimacy. Bannon (through Bretibart and Yiannopoulos) did capitalise on GamerGate, but it looks like it was more of an opportunity that fell in their lap and made them change focus, rather than anything they planned and created. In regard to bankrolling them, I doubt that there was any need beyond what they would have already been doing. They had an army of highly motivated, anti-feminist angry young men who were heading in the direction they wanted, and all they needed to do was keep feeding them with the occasional article of support. - Bilby (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Timeline: Gamergate started in August, 2014. TheTrump campaign started in June, 2015. Bannon joined the Trump campaign in August, 2016. I have little doubt that many Gamergate trolls became Trump trolls, but that is a far cry from Ellen's silly claim. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Which claim do you think is silly? EllenCT (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • That would be the header that says "FYI: GamerGate was a funded Trump campaign operation", EllenCT. Unless someone has invented a time machine, the sequence of events shows that your statement is absurd, which is a synonym for "silly". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Do you think the Business Insider UK, Salon, BuzzFeed News, and Kotaku sources linked above don't all say exactly the same thing, consistent with [3] and [4]? EllenCT (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Where do those Politico or Buzzfeed sources discuss Gamergate? Please direct us to the specific paragraphs, EllenCT. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC) mentions "GamerGate" seven times. EllenCT (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Quote: "I retain the right to speak plainly on any topic to Jimbo, as he has said.", in the section below, is probably the silliest thing you've written here this week. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Proper figurehead response[edit]

Jimbo, I propose that you publicly challenge President Trump to reverse the payroll tax, paying for the work subsidy by inflating the currency with platinum coins. If you have any reasons that such a response is not appropriate, please bring them to my attention. EllenCT (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Because Jimmy isn't subject to saying whatever an editor on his talk page wants him to say. He's free to express, or refrain from expressing, whatever his opinion is on whatever political issue he wants. You, of course, are free to do the same, so feel free to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the latter is not true: EllenCT is "indefinitely banned from the topic of economics, broadly construed." Lobbying Jimmy to make a statement on economic policy seems to me to be a clear breach of that. Choess (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I retain the right to speak plainly on any topic to Jimbo, as he has said. I stand by my recommendation and expect if there are reasons it might not be optimal, stating them is the only way to aspire to true optimality. EllenCT (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Let's let Jimbo speak for himself.
Quote: "I'm really sorry that I asked you, because I know that I wasted your time. As I've said clearly in the past, I'm not interested in this topic. Please if this comes up again, don't spend a lot of time gathering links for me on this or any related topics. I just don't have the time nor inclination to read any of it. You seem to be extraordinarily mistaken about my 1990s opinions, by the way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)"
The following links were also quite interesting:
I'll assume the IP is dynamic.
(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
That Jimbo quote was about a different topic, and he has said quite a bit more about what restricted editors such as myself can say here. And yes the IP is dynamic. EllenCT (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Did you notice that he wrote: "or any related topics"? Do you think that Jimbo has overruled your editing restriction (he can't and hasn't)? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
How is a response to the most disruptive organized paid editing campaign in the form of a challenge to reverse payroll taxes by minting high denomination coinage related to that topic? EllenCT (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure how to respond to that. Quote 1: "clearly stated intention of not talking about economics". Quote 2: "challenge President Trump to reverse the payroll tax, paying for the work subsidy by inflating the currency with platinum coins"... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Again, do you think that Jimbo has overruled your editing restriction (he can't and hasn't)? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@The Wordsmith: [5] [6] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
My recommendation to Jimbo stands. EllenCT (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)