User talk:Jimbo Wales

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

Small donations no longer accepted[edit]

Congratulations, Jimbo Wales! Despite your request for donations by the end of June, you have refunded all donations from a small donor. I am glad that Wikipedia is so successful. 84.120.0.236 (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Define "small donations" when you say they're no longer accepted? Looking at the "donate to us" page the minimum donation from a donor in Spain is €3, which is surely small enough (I imagine any lower than that and the transaction fees mean it's not worth the WMF's while to process). ‑ Iridescent 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Iridescent: could this be connected to this recent thread? They both seem as...less than competent as each other :) ——SerialNumber54129 06:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Katherine (WMF) wrote: Renew your donation: €1 »
Jimbo Wales wrote: Renew my donation: €1 »
@Iridescent: From the page you have linked: Please select an amount (minimum 0.87 EUR)
84.120.0.236 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, some less-intelligent trolls have proposed off-Wikipedia that the WMF can be crippled by making small donations and then indignantly demanding a refund. As if an organization with a $100 million budget could be damaged by people acting like fleas and gnats with their one Euro or two dollar claims. Logical thinking is not the trolls' strong point. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
And indeed once money is donated, the recipient is under no obligation to provide a refund anyway. Emails would got ot OTRS where they would get a template response, costing the Foundation precisely nothing. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
So, if no human is taking care of donation messages, could these refunds have been an automated decision? Certainly, the donation process reports an error caused by Wikimedia. After taking measures, Alice has decided to retry her donations. By the way, Bob was refunded Alice's donations. 84.120.0.236 (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
These refunds are not automated. 84.120.0.236 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It could foreseeably be disappointing if you donated your life savings to WP and they didn't bank the money, but otherwise, sitting on the money given in small donations and large philanthropic donations, will not go the way you expected. If they bank most of the money, taking it for granted, donations will dwindle. They will surely amount a few hundred millions into an egg that way, but these millions will slowly lose value without being replaced. What happens then is, to maintain the value, they are forced to invest in the sort of investment schemes which give capitalism a bad name among capitalists. You think Jimbo gets a lot of personal complaints about being a leader now... watch those complaints get injected with vile and venom when the foundation becomes involved with big banking, especially if the investments are successful. They are given the money to maintain, and improve, the sites, and they wisely spend it towards that purpose as currency, rather than taking it as a grant. What might cripple them is if they hold the money for some time, and then larger investors demand it bank. "They've still got it, Your Honour! We want some of it back, we want most of it back and then..." Then it's not for granted any more. Suspicion should definitely not be castigated, however it makes more sense than is immediately apparent to do as they are doing with it, so where your concern is best placed is in exactly how the money is spend rather than if it is spent at all. They are juggling small beans on a large stage in the reality. What is the figure... 16 billion edits a year now? The foundation is receiving what, under 0.01c towards each edit? (not sure if that is totally accurate...) ~ R.T.G 11:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder, wrote on 10 September 2019: I'm asking you, sincerely: please take one minute to renew your €1 donation to Wikipedia.
I find this joke quite funny actually. 84.120.0.236 (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

If only they had kept the tens of thousands of donated Bitcoins when one Bitcoin was worth just a few cents... Count Iblis (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow under attack and block threat at ANI for postings here[edit]

Hi, Jimbo, The attacks are led by someone who made his first Wikipedia edit 4 months ago and quickly challenged my postings here on your talk page. I am not asking for anything at all from you about this and if blocked I doubt I will appeal. I hesitated about even mentioning it but decided that if I were you I would want to be alerted about this situation. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Best to stay away from this page, is a drama filled time suck. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nocturnalnow: Perhaps the best thing to say is that it's time to move on. If you remember when you first started editing this page I tried to encourage you. Different viewpoints are certainly welcome here, even if they sometimes seem a bit bizarre. But for a long time now, I've just been able to tolerate what often seems like pure nonsense and occasional personal attacks. I've mostly moved now to trying to ignore you. Please take this as friendly advice, I just think that it's time to move on. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
At the top of the edit notice of this page it states:
This is the user talk page of Jimbo Wales.
It is not a place to publicize arbitrary on-wiki disputes.
There are literally millions of other pages you can contribute to if you end up being prevented from posting here. Millions. And their talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 17:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Liz Read! and Smallbones, I take your point as good, friendly advice which I will follow 100%. Thank you for being nice to me:) Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: The suggestion that you be blocked did not come from me. It came from other users who are frustrated with your comments here. And some admins agree with them. You seem to believe that you are being censored. You aren't. You are just being reminded that this isn't the place to talk about the things you like to talk about. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Epilogue
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Solution, I think. I am taking the friendly advice of Smallbones and Liz and will be 100% staying off of Jimbo's talk page going forward. Best wishes to all. Nocturnalnow (talk) 12:26 pm, 7 September 2019, last Saturday (5 days ago) (UTC−7)
Well, honestly, Nocturnalnow, I wasn't considering "100% staying off" any one page (which amounts to a strict topic ban) which means that some editor might try to bring you here if you fall back into old habits. I was thinking about just limiting your activity there to ~10% of your editing which still amounts to some participation and allows you to also spend most of your time working on the encyclopedia. I think it was the imbalance of editing time that got people's attention. SPAs (single purpose accounts) are a red flag to many people and it is clear that you do have some interests beyond Jimbo's talk page. Of course, other admins might have different opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 12:45 pm, 7 September 2019, last Saturday (5 days ago) (UTC−7)

link

Carrite (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Indian Science Ministry to Edit Wikipedia articles[edit]

Turkey’s top court set to rescind Wikipedia ban - pro-govt journalist[edit]

Jimbo, any news on this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any news that I can talk about. But I hope that what that report says does come true!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
This obviously requires a vigorous discussion about what news Jimmy Wales has that he can't talk about... ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Nothing yet.[1] let's file for a BOOMERANG. EllenCT (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

WMF Ombudsman commission[edit]

I had occasion to write a letter to the Ombudsman to address some inconsistencies between the plain reading and current interpretation and application of the WMF's meta:Access to nonpublic personal data policy; specifically how meta:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is being interpenetrated to apply to information which, on its face, is either not covered by or explicitly excluded from the definition of non-public personal information (being the only information germane to the agreement) Since dealing with that policy and agreement is within the purview of meta:Ombudsman commission I figured I'd write them a letter. I mean this is what an Ombudsman is for, right?

Turns out it seems that is not the case here. According to their authorizing board resolutions (foundation:Resolution:Ombudsperson checkuser and foundation:Resolution:Amending the Scope of the Ombudsman Commission) it is not even a real Organizational ombudsman. They are chartered to "investigat[e] cases of privacy policy breach or checkuser abuse for the board in an official manner"(emp. mine) but only charged to "offer a sympathetic ear to those reporting an abuse of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy on any of Wikimedia project" later amended to "mediate between the complainant and the respondent (e.g. CheckUser, ArbCom member, Bureaucrat, Oversighter or Sysop)". Not one mention about independently handling complaints or what to do when the WMF is the respondent. They are even tasked as agents of the Foundation "When legally appropriate, the Ombudsman Commission will assist Wikimedia Foundation..." That is not the description of an ombudsman function it is a description of a checkuser/oversight complaints window dressed up with a grand sounding name.

So, my question is: Is the WMF Ombudsman commission equipped and authorized to act as a neutral party with respect to questions relating to the behavior of Foundation staff and their apparently incorrect interpretation and application of this policy and the associated legal agreement which gives it substance and effect? If not, does the Foundation have someone with such a function, for instance by making use of their outside council to address the substance of my letter and more generally for matters relating to what a WMF ombudsman should deal with -- disputes where the WMF and its agents are party?

(Pinging the C-Suite because... why not? They are the one's who should know and might even answer: @Katherine (WMF) and TSebro (WMF): and the Community elected board members because addressing issues like this is the duty they were elected for and should answer: @Pundit and Doc James:)

Jbh Talk 17:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

interpenetrated !!! --JBL (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
I wish to thank you for creating this platform. Gharouni Talk 06:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)