Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC:_"Scholarly_consensus_there_is_genocide"_Wikivoice_in_lead

    For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 1 December 2025

    • Comix: Madness
      It could happen to anyone.
    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration Committee election results

    Dear Jimbo,

    The results of the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections have been posted at WP:ACE2025. Nine seats have been filled, with three incumbent arbs continuing, two former arbs rejoining, and four new candidates being elected. This has been a remarkably speedy process this year -- the scrutineers finished just over 24 hours after voting ended! Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to the scrutineers for the fast turnaround. CMD (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:THESIS6 has me wondering... do you think members of the arbitration committee should be required to identify themselves to the WMF? Not publicly, of course, but privately by undergoing some form of identity verification that only the WMF would see and have access to? Some1 (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Face

    Do you think articles like Mar-a-Lago face and Republican makeup with shoddy highly partisan sourcing are appropriate for Wikipedia? Where can equivalent articles on the plastic surgery practices of Democrat politicians be found? How about the tendency on the Left to lie about their ethnicity and heritage?

    Does Wikipedia need outside intervention or do you think the horrific bias and poor treatment of minority viewpoints among editors can be handled within the website's community? FloridaArmy (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh wow. excessive or uniform plastic surgery interventions such as lip augmentation, Botox, and jaw contouring, coupled with heavy makeup, spray tans, fake eyelashes, and dark smoky eyes. isn't exactly a trend exclusive to Republican/conservative women. Just watch any reality TV show. Some1 (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase "appropriate for Wikipedia" does not mean anything because Wikipedia is not censored. A similar topic for liberals would be blue-haired liberal. You also haven't provided any sources that support "lying about their ethnicity and heritage", which is a really broad claim and difficult to verify. For example, has Zohran Mamdani lied about his heritage?
    "[O]utside intervention" on Wikipedia is a form of canvassing. As for "horrific bias and poor treatment of minority viewpoints" - the articles you linked are about plastic surgery trends, how is that about mistreating "minority viewpoints"? Regards, --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 17:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpreted "outside intervention" to mean something similar to Ed Martin's letter to the WMF. Some1 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken on multiple fronts here, I'm sorry. Wikipedia is not censored manifestly does not mean, and has never meant, that literally everything under the sun is appropriate as a Wikipedia entry. I think you probably know better than that, and a mere moments reflection will make it clear. We have extensive guidelines and policies about what is appropriate for Wikipedia. Outside intervention is not necessarily canvassing, and a too quick reach for "canvassing" is often a clear tell of a very unWikipedian perspective: "I don't want people who don't agree with me to edit Wikipedia, because I like the bias that I'm pushing and I am concerned that new editors will overturn it." Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding 'horrific bias', to my mind, one of the most insidious examples of such that the English-language Wikipedia suffers from originates from those that think that 'neutrality' should somehow be defined according to the narrow and right-shifted talking-points of US political discourse. This is a global project, and not subject to facile 'equality between negative coverage of two political parties' rules. Not for the US, and not for anywhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    pester there is no such article on Wikipedia titled Blue-haired liberal. There is a redirect created with the edit summary " R from related topic and non neutral name" linking to section of text identifying such descriptions as a partisan slur. FloridaArmy (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence why I said "a similar topic". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so you can expand the section if you want to. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 09:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is Censored. For years we have had the biased coatrack attack page Racial views of Donald Trump while Racial views of Joe Biden is not only deleted but edit protected in mainspace and even in draftspace so no editor is allowed to work on it despite the widespread coverage of Joe Biden's racist statements and actions. I would very much like to hear from Jimbo Wales about the problem of bias, censorship, and BLP violations on Wikipedia. This is his talk page and he is the community's leader. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with what AndyTheGrump said above, and it also applies to this. Wikipedia tries very hard to maintain a neutral point of view, which is not a right republican point of view. English Wikipedia is a global project, because English is a global language. (I myself do not live in the USA.) --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 10:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "biased coatrack attack page" Think there's an issue? fix it. Complaining about a potential issue isn't going to improve Wikipedia.
    "widespread coverage" ...yet the article topic had so little coverage it was deleted. Not that I like Joe Biden, but the deletion discussion was closed as delete for a reason.
    "he is the commmuity's leader". With all respect possible to Jimbo Wales for what he has done for Wikipedia over the years, no he isn't. The leader of Wikipedia is consensus.
    And no, Wikipedia is still not censored. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 10:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia tries very hard to maintain a neutral point of view by hosting attack pages against Republicans and blocking editors from editing subjects about the misdeeds and foibles of Democrats? Where is coverage on Wikipedia about Nancy Peloai's plastic surgeries that made her face immovable? If Wikipedia isn't censored why aren't editors allowed to make edits to an entry on Joe Biden's long history of racist statements and actions in mainspace or draftspace? Because we're worldwide it's okay to promote smears and slurs against parties that aren't favored among a majority of editors? FloridaArmy (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're assuming that everyone who doesn't support republicans is a democrat. That's not true. Unlike the USA, most countries do not have a two party system. You won't see it (not your fault; nobody does), but you're biased as well. Just as I am! We're all biased. But the sources tend to be less biased, which is why they're the base structure of Wikipedia articles.
    And you are allowed to make a page on the "long history of racist statements" made by Joe Biden if you can show that the notability is met. (Also, it's highly possible that there's just more coverage of Trump than Biden, hence why the page on racial statements by Biden did not meet notability at the time.) Complaining and loudly requesting external intervention will not help.
    I'm going to stop replying to you now because I don't want this to descend into a long political argument - that would be contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. I recommend you do the same, but you have not listened to me yet so I don't imagine this recommendation will go far.
    Happy editing :) --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 10:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to consider whether you are listening with empathy and kindness to what FloridaArmy is saying. In any event, I don't see your response as actually addressing the concerned being raised. FloridaArmy said nothing (at all) to suggest a view that "everyone who doesn't support republicans is a democrat". Nothing. What he did identify and ask about is a valid question: is it ok to host attack pages against Republicans while not allowing such pages about Democrats? And the only possible Wikipedia answer to that question is not a straw man attack on what wasn't said, but to say "FloridaArmy, you are right. We should not host attack pages on anyone, and we should make sure that our coverage of all politicians and all living persons is clear, fact based, and neutral."
    You could be an ally here, or you could persist in not listening. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I chose to leave the discussion because it's pointless political talk. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 10:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this is a worldwide project, it is highly unlikely that there are any political parties that are favoured by a majority of editors. If you could only get out of your narrow US-centric mindset for a second or two, maybe you'd realise just how ridiculous that statement is. We don't demand that every potentially-negative article concerning the Austrian People's Party is balanced by one on the Social Democratic Party of Austria. And we certainly don't measure 'neutrality' on our article on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea by the standards of North Korean domestic politics. Instead, we base coverage on what the sources we have available have to say. Can that lead to bias. Yes, obviously - both in bias within the sources, and the bias in the way we decide whether a source is appropriate. What the English-language Wikipedia does have to its advantage however is that its broad contributor base helps counter the narrow political mindset of those obsessed with imposing the obsessions of the US on anything and everything. Clearly, there is still a lot of work to be done in this regard - there are far too many articles, on far too many subjects, that simply assume that the reader is only interested in US-related content - but at least there is something countering it. And despite any bias (real or imaginary), it seems that the English-language Wikipedia is still attracting both readers and contributors in large numbers: unlike at least one alternative online encyclopaedia I could name, which is both explicitly based around US content, and which appears from its statements regarding 'neutrality' (admittedly rather confusing and ill-defined), and from its new content (most is still just Wikipedia clone), to define it in a manner far closer to the preferred viewpoint of the US right. As a simple look at that project's 'recent changes' page will illustrate, it simply isn't attracting the contributor base necessary to make it a viable long-term alternative. And nor is there much in the way of evidence that it has any enduring readership base. I strongly suspect that the reason for this is simple - most of those to the right of the US political spectrum aren't particularly interested in reading online encyclopaedias, and very, very few are interested in donating free time to maintaining them. The Wikipedia you get, and the alternatives you don't, are the direct consequence of demographics, and no doubt also of the political leanings of those who contribute to it - an entirely unsurprising result, and one that nobody in their right mind could think could be fixed (if it actually merits 'fixing') by attempting to impose external political standards. That is both morally obnoxious, and likely to result in the readers and contributors rejecting any such politically-motivated interference, and looking elsewhere to continue as before. In summary, Wikipedia is what it is, and for all it's failings (it has many) it seems to be what the readers want. Call that market forces if you like. Just don't kid yourself that you can 'fix' it by whining about a lack of an article about Joe Biden... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The US-side of things does sometimes get a lot of weight, like at Moses#Legacy_in_politics_and_law. The cure is of course editors being arsed to work on it. I haven't been, so far. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then go to the salting admin or WP:DRV and present the brilliant sources you intend to use for your Draft:Racial views of Joe Biden and get the salting overturned. That was done 5 years ago, new sources may very well exist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that both articles are terrible and not worthy of keeping. They are obviously not NPOV. Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you going to nominate the article(s) for deletion? Some1 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: The fact a subject is not neutrally presented is not a valid reason for deletion. The solution for lack of neutrality is to fix the article, not delete it. And I'd note that both articles seem to cite some pretty hefty sources. If this was an article about Austrian politicians say, with good sources, but in German (per my earlier comments) a 'delete as non-neutral' AfD might have sneaked through. Here though, no chance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, but the lack of NPOV is far from the only problem. I do not agree that the sourcing is "hefty" in the relevant sense. Basically these are extreme WP:COATRACK articles "In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and if there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate." That sounds right to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I marked them for AfD. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If wikipedia was a soda flavour, what would it be like?

    And would it be possible to sell it at Wikipedia conventions in hopes of fundraisings?

    I can answer more questions if you wish.

    GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hop water. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see that, what about Cream soda? GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On a good day, Wikipedia is like that particular Coca-cola I had one hot summer day in Alabama when I was 8 years old after playing a long game of kickball with friends. Sweet, satisfying, and a perfect moment in life. On a bad day, it's a watered-down diet Coke when the machine wasn't functioning. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Water, and that's a good thing! Neutral, but vital and good for you. Probably won't have much luck selling it for fundraising, though. — Czello (music) 10:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    From Open Encyclopedia To Ideological Weapon: Wikipedia’s Hidden War On Truth

    From The Daily Wire, for your whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=1326821556"