User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Jimbo)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reminder 2019 Wishlist Survey[edit]

Just FYI reminder, as 3 days left for new proposals:

Once again, the massive 2018 U.S. mid-term elections have likely overshadowed the WMF 2019 Wishlist proposals, while many U.S. 50-50% recounts are still being planned. This WMF schedule of overlapping the Wishlist survey with the U.S. elections+recounts is very poor timing for those Wikipedians who work with setup of precinct voting machines, or storage, or recount issues. Hence, remind users of 3-day cutoff for new proposals this weekend. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  • New proposals end on 11 Nov 2018: And then voting begins about the list. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposals ended & voting begins 16 Nov 2018: I was mistaken in thinking the new proposals would be accepted until midnight, 23:59, 11 Nov 2018, but we can now discuss complex U.S. election recounts below. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, waited so long on proposals: I did not even re-submit a proposal to "Auto-merge wp:edit-conflicts" but someone did submit a related proposal to "Allow partial reverts [skip conflict-sections] for edits" to offer the user a semi-edit attempt, where the edit-conflict section(s) would auto-skip to save only the non-conflicted parts of an edit-preview (see: "meta:Community_Wishlist Survey_2019/Editing#Allow partial reverts for edits"). -Wikid77 (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Modification of edit-summary text denied: I had submitted a Wishlist proposal to allow a user to update/redact the edit-summary line of their prior saved revision, but again this year, that feature is being denied as "problematic" or "open to abuse" in harassment, and so any major MediaWiki improvements are likely to be limited this year. This denial seems a case of "blame-the-tool fallacy" as if hammers, nails and screwdrivers would be denied because some angry users might use them to threaten another user. Very frustrating. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hello, respected Jimbo Wales! I ask you, please allow us, we want to open Wikipedia companies in Tajikistan. A branch of this company we really need to supplement information about Tajikistan, Tajiks and others. Respect, Jaloliddin Madaminov (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC).

You probably mean "a chapter" rather than "companies" since the WMF is a non-profit. I'll suggest contacting @Wolliff (WMF): - if she doesn't handle new chapters, then she will know who does. It might be quite challenging to open a chapter in Tajikistan. You should think about what you want to accomplish and how you will accomplish your goals. Are you (informally) affiliated with any universities or other cultural institutions? If so you might do some GLAM projects. Perhaps Wiki Loves Monuments - the annual photo competition - would be of interest. Do you have connections with other chapters in Central Asia? Maybe the Russian chapter would be interested in helping you get started, or is there an Iranian chapter?
I doubt Jimbo would get directly involved in helping organize a chapter, but I'm certain he'd love to see a well-organized chapter get started. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Do we have a wikipedia in the Tajik language? In another variety of Persian understandable by people in Tajikistan?
Related question: When I looked at www.wikipedia.org (note the www.* instead of en.*) I saw languages such as ქართული. မြန်မာဘာသာ, and 日本語 listed. Is there a list of wikipedias that an English-speaker can understand somewhere? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
see https://tg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Тоҷикистон . Tajik uses Cyrillic script, Persian looks something like Arabic script (to me). So it's a question of whether the spoken language is mutually understandable - I'd guess not. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Guy Macon, I often need a list of wikipedias - while I guess I could bookmark the page, I typically click on the globe to get to the main page, then scroll to bottom and click on Complete list of Wikipedias, which bring me here. Does that help? S Philbrick(Talk) 00:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Just what I was looking for! From that page, I also found this Table of Wikimedia projects, which gives the same information for Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikiversity, and Wikivoyage.
Yes, we do have a Tajik language Wikipedia: [1] Jaloliddin Madaminov should work on expanding it and recruiting other locals to expand it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Smallbones, Thank you very much for the answer, I have been working for 2.5 years at the Tajik Wikipedia, for the development of the country of Tajikistan and the participation of young people in general, we need this website or a free encyclopedia Wikipedia. Respect, Jaloliddin Madaminov (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC).
Guy Macon, Of course, we are moving to Wikipedia, but we need to solve problems on Wikipedia is very necessary. Respect, Jaloliddin Madaminov (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC).

A general request for advice[edit]

I have a friend who is clearly notable and should be covered in Wikipedia. Because I have a COI (this is a friend) I want to take great pains to do everything the right way. Because of my position, I don't even think I should write a draft, although I do have sufficient links to share. Of course I have some additional concerns that at least some negative people may wish to excessively object just to pick a fight with me - I'm not interested in fighting anyone. Or that my participation may bring negative people to want to come in and troll by trying to dig up dirt or writing the article in a negative way.

All of that argues for simply doing something quiet - asking trustworthy people in an off-wiki way to take a look and see if they want to write an article. But I actually think it would be much nicer if I had community guidance on how to do this transparently.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Life imitates art
If you weren't the founder or the "Queen of England" or whatever people use to describe your position now, then there wouldn't be a problem here. Just write a draft or submit something to AfC.
But you are the founder and I don't think you can avoid the trolls (in a transparent way). Hopefully though some folks (plural) here can keep an eye on the article.
I'll suggest you just write an intro paragraph and dump it, together with the links, onto a user page. I'll do a basic Google search, read your links, ignore your intro (after finding out why the person is notable) and write a very boring short basic article and post it if I think it is notable. At that point others can come along and add anything that might be controversial in any way, or that might make the BLP interesting. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jimbo Wales: Due to the hastle posed by trolls, an off-wiki email to a user would be a fine way to go. If you're going to be transparent, then there's not much point in not writing a draft, since it won't make any difference, I don't think, to prospective trolls. The page has some significance to you, that's going to be enough to make it a target. Go big or go home. Bellezzasolo Discuss 18:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
As we all know, it's not "Queen Jimbo", it's Duchess of Cornwallshire. He's better off writing anonymously. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Write it in Draft space and see what happens, I reckon. It'#s what we advise everyone else. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Off-wiki contact would seem opaque and could, justly, be criticised as a conspiratorial and autocratic approach. It also has pretty poor optics if the founder of Wikipedia will not abide by the Five Pillars and participate in the collaborative editing process. Given your Conflict of Interest you also should not draft this yourself, much less post it to mainspace (And, yes, that is a higher bar because you are who you are.). As I see it, the only clean way to approach this is to post a redlink accompanied by a couple of central cites to start from here, along with a request that interested talk page watchers both develop an article and keep an eye on it afterwards.
As for the trolls, do you really think an article associated with you is the only one that would be subjected to unconstructive editing? If Wikipedia cannot cope with that on an article that gets extra special attention because it was suggested by Jimbo, what hope does it have of dealing with the same for other subjects of interest to various stripes of trolls? There is a long list of ArbCom cases that reflect the number of outside groups that have an interest in pursuing their aims through Wikipedia, some of them far better organised, resourced, and motivated than your personal haters. And though you are a very visible target with effectively celebrity status, with all that that entails, for some of the categories of unconstructive editors there are regular editors here who are much more desired targets (and I've seen the discussions of outing and off-wiki coordination, and the relative adequacies of our policies to deal with them, discussed on this page, so I presume I don't have to give examples).
However, the good news here is that with that sort of approach, combined with the general irreverence for "The Founder™" on display here, I think Wikipedia is very well equipped to both avoid bias in any such article, and to let community processes (like a notability challenge at AfD) work unhindered by any misplaced loyalty. I would be sceptical of you participating directly in any such discussions (as in, making arguments or interpretations, versus merely providing a link or supplying a fact) because we're hardly immune to such influence (much as we like to imagine otherwise), but absent that my assertion is that our processes are robust enough to handle it.
I see your fears, and they are justified, but I think the only alternative to complete openness is to not act at all. If your fears of undeserved negative attention are justified, and from the perspective of a friend, it may simply be preferable for this person to not have a Wikipedia article at all. From Wikipedia's perspective, of course, if the person is notable, it is always preferable that we have an article on them, even if primarily negative (if that's what the sources support): but you really aren't acting as a part of the project here, you're acting primarily as a friend. For a friend, a good consideration to take is whether a certain kind of exposure will, on balance, be a net good or net negative for the person. --Xover (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't really understand the need for a song and dance (not you, Xover, just generally) when it's a simple affair concerning a COI—and our SOP is to allow the editor to write their article, and simply submit to WP:AFC. Having, of course, disclosed their COI on the talk page. It would have the added bonus of allowing the founder to experience what it's like for a new editor. Something, in fact, that a lot of us could do with being reminded of.... ——SerialNumber54129 10:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Please, I don't want an article. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 10:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, Jimbo will never actually experience what it's like for a new editor (except in the most technical sense) without resorting to socking, is kinda the point. On the CoI issue, my assertion is that he needs to meet a higher bar than any other given editor, by the simple fact of who he is and his role relative to the project. But then, I don't think that's the issue that's his primary concern here: we're discussing the details of ways and means only as a consequence of the main concern (and for that issue, see my last para above). No approach to creating this article in an actually transparent and fair way will address that concern. --Xover (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
That suggestion was of the tongue-in-cheek variety :) But if the fundamental concern is that an article JW writes is immediately going to be trolled, here they are. Looking at the last five (including a BLP), I think concerns that JW's article's are intrinsically targeted...are perhaps overestimated.
*Mike Brown (transport executive)—50 edits since creation in 2017.*The Lazarus Effect (2010 film)—50 edits since 2010.*Sonny Lester—50 edits since 2009.*Mzoli's—50 edits since 2011.*Breaking Home Ties—50 edits since 2007.
Anyway, you get the drift. The way I see it, I'm sure there's plenty of people who would love to "pick a fight" with JW—they're just not doing it in articlespace! ——SerialNumber54129 11:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I do concede that my perspective may be hypersensitive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Considering that 40% of those articles were nominated for deletion, I'm not sure that your sensitivity is unwarranted. Deli nk (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Celebrities have same rights as community[edit]

Looking at the ethics, any celebrity has the same rights, as anyone, to have a separate pseudonym username, and then submit a draft page to wp:AfC for any topic except relatives or business partners. A secret pseudonym cannot be outed; however, per wp:SOCK, a username should not used for evasion, but could be used for a topic-area, such as have 3 usernames for different topics, with one to edit some wp:BLP pages, another for general edits, and yet another for editing nuclear physics or some other limited specialty. The point is to ethically answer, "Why did you use that username?" ... "To edit biopages, or physics" (etc.).

By having multiple other usernames, then evasion would not be a foregone conclusion as when only one pseudonym. Meanwhile, the danger of editing with other usernames is the problem of same-page editing via sock names, and hence, the easiest method is to focus on a main other-username for most pseudonym editing, then rarely use the additional usernames as only for extremely limited topics, such as submitting AfC drafts. As for "friends" in a sense, then any editor could imagine a one-way friendship as fan of a celebrity, or secret mentor to assist a notable person, and hence I do not think submitting a draft for a notable occasional friend as if an unethical COI problem, not in the sense of writing about a notable family member, company investment or co-worker sharing corporate success. Perhaps an essay, "wp:Celebrity status" could explain how celebrities could edit same as anyone else, but beware promotional text. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedians face tedious U.S. election recounts[edit]

Wikipedians are finding complex issues among the 20+ recounts in the 2018 U.S. mid-term elections, although some contests have been resolved by counting mail-in ballots, other recounts are tedious, such as Florida for Senator, Governor and Florida Agriculture Commissioner (1 of 3 cabinet positions). The wp:RS reliable sources, for detailed recounts, have been difficult to find, but local TV transcripts in each region of Florida seem to provide the best details; for example CBSMiami.com with "Sen. Nelson Wants Gov. Scott To Recuse Himself From Recount Process" (12 Nov 2018), after Florida court rejected Governor Scott's lawsuit to impound ballots and tabulating machines before the recount was finished. For the Senate contest, the other recount antics appear to be 2000 Florida recount all over again, just with different lawsuits and protests. For example, the Broward County Supervisor of Elections was met with jeers of "Lock her up" because some vote counts were late in her county. Bags of mail-in votes (Opa-locka) were rejected in Miami-Dade County because those ballots were delayed when the recent pipe-bomber caused a shutdown of some Florida post offices, where packages of explosive devices had been shipped to Democrats, as also causing delays for (majority-Democrat) mail-in ballots, and a perfect excuse to reject allowing those post-marked Democrat votes as "too late" to be counted. All Florida precincts now are required to use pen-marked ballots (no more "hanging chad" of the prior push-pin ballots), but a curious vote tally occurred in Broward County, where nearly 25,000 ballots had no vote for Senator while showing few votes omitted for lower offices, as the reverse of the typical trend where the highest office has the most total votes, compared to lesser offices skipped by busy voters. Perhaps Wikipedians will have more time to write about such events after the recounts are finished. As typical, many areas of enwiki are updated by mere skeleton crews of editors who have limited time to write about recount-delay antics. More sources later. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:30/18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Higher lawsuits to stop recounts... perhaps Supreme Court: A judge for Palm Beach County, Florida has suspended (extended) the vote-filing deadline (of 18 Nov 2018) because Sen. Nelson contended there were not enough tabulation machines to run all 4 recounts around West Palm Beach, including the U.S. Representative recount (source: "Judge suspends some Florida recount deadlines" WCTV.tv, 14 Nov 2018). And, of course, the judge's ruling has been contested by Republicans at the next-higher federal court. Meanwhile, Senator Nelson's attorneys have filed a federal suit to extend all 67 Florida county vote-filing deadlines, with the argument that all counties would have equal time to recount carefully (and avoid lawsuits where some counties had unfair extra recount time). All this one-upmanship might reach the U.S. Supreme Court, as in the Gore/Bush 2000 Florida recount, with a growing pyramid of lawsuit/appeal actions. Again all these events might be difficult for our new Wikipedians to cover. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Latest WMF email[edit]

Hey Jimbo. Don't know if you'll be interested in my two cents, but here they are:

I've been a registered editor since 2010, and an anon since 2006. I am nothing but excited about the project. I tell all my friends about what a great experience being part of the Wikipedia community has been for me, and how much I've strengthened my editing and communication skills in the year I've been here.

That said, the WMF donation request emails are getting out of hand. They're getting increasingly needy (and honestly a little manipulative with the subject lines). I get that Wikipedia needs donations to survive, I really do. I donate a few hours every day to this project. And it's starting to bother me that the groveling is the public face of the project I am a part of. [NAME] - I'll be honest: I can't afford it is a subject straight out of phishing spam. Or how about: [NAME] - Deleting Wikipedia? Manipulative.

I'm not saying stop asking for donations. That's a totally normal part of a non-profit. But can we act like the adults we are? More and more, when I tell people I'm an editor, I hear about how much they hate the tone of our donation ads. Is this the face we want to be projecting? cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 22:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Noswaith dda @Cymru.lass:. (See your based in US but as a welshman I couldn't help acknowledge your username.)
For some time we have been trying to find an alternative subject line to -/This is a little awkward/-. That line works and works very well but we have found it very difficult to effectively translate and adapt into other languages, and despite our best efforts have struggled to find an alternative.
We first tested -/Deleting Wikipedia?/- as a subject line a couple of weeks ago and it was the only winning variant in hundreds of tests. We retested in case it was a statistical fluke and continued to see it perform well. The effectiveness of this subject line for the most part does not come from its apparent clickbaiting. The change in the number of people opening the emails was relatively small and unsubscribes remained extremely low. The big driver in terms of its success was from a significant increase in those people who opened AND read our email appeal. We posed a question and donors were motivated to donate when presented with the idea of imagining a world without Wikipedia.
Our motivation behind this sort of subject line is the fact that in three countries today it is already as if Wikipedia does not exist. The risk that this could happen in more countries is greater now that it ever has been. Censorship, impediments to free speech and over regulation of copyright are threats that Wikipedia, Wikimedia and its communities face every single day and it is with that context that we want to lead.
Any email that included this subject line came with at least some context to flesh out the idea, i.e., “If Wikipedia were deleted, it would be a great loss to the world,”, but going forward it is our full intention to make even clearer that we intend for the donor to imagine a world without Wikipedia and the threats it faces every day, not threaten that it is going away.
Our plan is to continue to testing on this theme, exploring censorship and copyright restrictions as well as our increasing role as the backbone of knowledge on the internet, and help donors see that knowledge can and is threatened all the time. We are definitely and eagerly open to any feedback, suggestions and ideas you might have.
Best,
Seddon (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Re: "Our motivation behind this sort of subject line is the fact that in three countries today it is already as if Wikipedia does not exist. The risk that this could happen in more countries is greater now that it ever has been", giving the WMF more money will help this problem...how? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
One of the things that we discussed at the most recent board meeting is that we should increase our public policy capabilities. One of the things that we know is that in many of the policy conversations that will impact us directly and indirectly, we don't have a seat at the table to talk with legislators simply because our public policy work is underfunded and understaffed.
I have personal knowledge, because I got involved, of what happened in Europe in the most recent European Copyright Directive vote, which we lost badly. Our tiny team there made a valiant and solid effort, but I heard from MEPs directly that the place was crawling with lobbyists from the music industry and the "big tech" industry (Google mostly), and that they felt like they hadn't heard from us. Many were surprised to hear that we didn't think the explicit exemption for Wikipedia was good enough. This is something that is directly correlated with staffing and funding.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
What you say, Jimbo is certainly correct. However I wonder if the proposed strategy, i.e. be more competitive with the lobbying is the best or only strategy, particularly because our access to money for our public policy work will never be able to keep up with the big tech companies' access to money, imo.
I'm thinking that the best, and maybe the only, strategy for winning this ongoing fight is to become more direct in applying our public policy capabilities.
I'm thinking we (our board) should consider entering the political arena directly by finding and promoting candidates, perhaps even from in-house, who support our public policy positions and getting them elected. We have an enormous potential in terms of block voting by our editors and, even more so, our readers.
I realize this might be completely contrary to all or part of our original mission definition and/or collective mentality, but desperate times does require desperate measures, and the high tech predators particularly won't quit until they put free educational and information sources in legislated graves.
I think, could be wrong, its too late to try to defend our project with indirect, nice guy cooperative influence. We have to take off the gloves, get down in the trenches (and be thankful its not WW1 type trenches) and kick the shit out of the big tech sneaky and crooked bastards by becoming the politicians that they constantly bribe and influence; and then we, and probably other promoters of free education and information, will be in a position to just tell them to "fuck off"...and yes, they are as or more sneaky and crooked than any corporate entities in the history of capitalism, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yet Another Wikimedia Commons Discussion[edit]

There is a deletion discussion at Commons which, in my opinion, has ramifications for thousands of images. (I am purposely not expressing any opinion here on whether that would be a Good Thing or a Bad Thing). The discussion is here:[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that "fair use" does not have universal applicability as a rationale. Thus there might be legal ramifications in some places which are not contemplated by the US copyright principles on en-wiki. Copyright laws are in a major state of flux. Collect (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Would not the copyright laws of the US apply to a US product such as Microsoft MS-DOS? See the list of images below. Is it not true of every one of them that "there might be legal ramifications in some places which are not contemplated by the US copyright principles"? I am just saying that a deletion rationale that applies to a large fraction of the images on commons should be discussed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Wow, I've never had something I did brought to Jimbo before. I feel honored! @Guy Macon: on COMMONS, fair use images are not permitted and never has been. That discussion has nothing to do with fair use on the English Wikipedia, which continues to be allowed, within reason. Any images that meet our fair use policy can be moved here. --B (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. If commons doesn't allow fair use, that's their decision. Do you agree with my conclusion that this pretty much prohibits any image of any commercial product? I believe that the same deletion rationale ("Derivative work of the copyrighted box cover designs") would apply to:
..and thousands of other images of commercial products with copyrights on the packaging design. Am I wrong? If so, how do you decide which copyrighted packaging is allowed?
Of course we all know that in the real world, Johnson & Johnson has no objection to someone showing an image of a Tylenol package (but would have a big problem if somebody started selling acetaminophen pills with that label on them). --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The rule was always that fair use could be uploaded to Wikipedia, with a rationale specific to use, and Commons is for 100% royalty free images. To take on fair use in Commons is a substantial change in mission. From the Welcome page: Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone (emphasis added). Deleting these files from commons is not a problem because they can be transwikid back to the projects that use them, where fair use is fine. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Guy Macon: Any of those where the packaging is not {{PD-ineligible}} should be deleted. This is not new. --B (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons follows here a WMF policy regarding licensing according to which all WMF projects must “host only content which is under a Free Content License”. However, individual projects may have an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). A prominent example is en:wp where Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is an EDP which permits fair use under certain requirements. But Commons is not allowed to have such an EDP (see point 2 of the WMF resolution). Hence, we have no choice but need to delete fair use material at Commons. Please feel free to submit deletion requests if more such material is found at Commons in violation of c:COM:L. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)