User talk:Jimbo Wales

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


Wikipedia at 21

Wikipedia's old enough to drink in the US now! Seems like it deserves this one :) Here's to many more years of Wikipedia. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!

This is the 21 year old WikiPedia!

But seriously, Jimmy, how does it feel, being 21 years into this project?

They say that good things come to those who wait…

And that’s true! Wikipedia now has over 6,439,141 articles, over 42,884,645 users, and over 1,061,147,195 edits!

Give yourself a pat on the back, Jimmy! You took Wikipedia this far! — 3PPYB6TALKCONTRIBS — 19:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek — The wiki-liquor has been unlocked! Hopefully, Wikipedia will continue for the next 21 years, possibly more! — 3PPYB6TALKCONTRIBS — 02:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy birthday to us! Anyone who is under 21 can literally not remember a world without Wikipedia, and many of them have never been limited by a lack of access to general reference works because Wikipedia has had the answer to almost every question they can ask from the moment they were literate enough to read it. — Bilorv (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Commons-emblem-notice.svg

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons-emblem-notice.svg

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Jimbo, any chance you could get the coders to fix Media Viewer so it isn't actively violating my copyright?

Okay, moral rights. But Media Viewer has had a bug for at least eight years:

If an image:

  • Has multiple authors

and

  • One of them has a Creator: template, the other(s) do not

...Then only the author with a Creator template will be shown as the author.

Here's the but report, where workable solutions are rejected for not being pretty enough:

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T68606


...That was 2014. That solution was then rejected because it didn't look pretty enough.

Seriously, it's been seven years, and it's currently triaged as "future". And has been encouraging anyone who gets images from Wikipedia articles to leave me out of the credit for the images I restore that whole fucking time.

I don't want to do anything about this myself, because I care too much about access to information to ever restrict Wikipedia from using my images. But it's a fucking ridiculous situation, where a core part of Wikipedia's software can violate some copyrights, and the coders don't see this as a big deal. I'm willing to wait. But after seven years, I'm not sure I believe anyone's working on it anymore. I have to jump through hoops to prove copyright before I can upload to Commons, but Wikipedia itself is apparently much more lax about copyright law.

I live in Britain. I can't help but generate copyright in my works. Literally the only one I care about is the moral right of attribution, and even then, I'm not that fussed if random websites fail to attribute me. But it'd be damn nice if Wikipedia wasn't actively encouraging them not to attribute me, because it automatically strips out my information when showing the images in Media Viewer!

I'm just frustrated. I'm not sue-happy, you'll never get a lawsuit from me or a takedown notice or anything. I actively want Wikipedia to use my stuff. I just kinda want some buggy software that I pointed out had this bug as soon as it was implemented, and was assured it would be fixed, to actually get fixed. It's been eight years I've been waiting patiently and not raising a fuss, trusting that it would be fixed. Wikipedia is 21 years old. That means for a third of the time Wikipedia has existed, it's been denying credit to its users, saving it for famous people alone.

That the coders actively refuse to even try to fix this situation, and just promise that at "some time in the future" some Structured Data might magically fix it, even though it'd probably be populated by bots using the same code they do, but if I want to go to my 536.75 featured pictures and however many more didn't get featured over the years and hand put in my name for every single fucking one, then it'll be fixed. ...Okay, I'm really, really frustrated here. And after eight years, have literally no reason to think that anything will ever be fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 06:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: it happens to be the once-a-year community tech wishlist survey proposal time, right now! I suggest you open this over at meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Multimedia and Commons. — xaosflux Talk 10:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
We shouldn't need enormous community momentum followed by a random lottery of which top wishlist items are actually worked on by the WMF (in a reasonable time period) to solve a legal issue, which this is. — Bilorv (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Given that the WMF is apparently too broke to spend money on fixing the software (they even run fundraisers asking people to donate money to defend Wikipedia's independence) it is probably easier to focus on workarounds. For example, you could ask Commons to disable MediaViewer to protect your copyright, or get someone to run a bot to remove all author templates from all images where there is additional content in the author field. —Kusma (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, holy shit: I just discovered something: It only uses the first Creator template. So in any case where there's more than one Creator, IT WILL BREAK. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Call#/media/File:Wilkinson_Call_-_Brady-Handy.jpg Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 16:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden, you should probably contact the WMF's legal department. They can tell the devs to work on this. —Kusma (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@Kusma: I did. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 17:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
What did they say? your personal case may be more UK "moral rights" but violating the license of every cc-by file that has more than one creator should register as a potential problem in the US as well. —Kusma (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Adam, I looked at your user home page and it appears that you mainly "restore" older images. On this Matthew Brady photograph (File:John Lorimer Worden - Mathew Brady - right photograph.jpg) I see you have added yourself to the author field. Are you saying that you think you should be credited as an "author" because of the work you have done restoring Brady's photo and the viewer isn't showing that? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Polycarpa aurata: Fields are a blunt thing. It's not like there's a "restoration by" field, nor is there an "engraved by" field, or a "publisher" field, and, as such, author fields can get quite complex. Consider File:George_Romney_-_William_Shakespeare_-_The_Tempest_Act_I,_Scene_1.jpg which has five different authors (and Media Viewer shows the first only). Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

But publishers are not authors, so why are they in the author part of the description? There must be many cases where there are multiple authors of a work, so I agree that this is a problem, but you seem to have raised this concern specifically because you are not being credited as an "author". You are not the "author" of these works. You should not be credited as such. Add a note to the decription that you restored it, but do not try to claim authorship. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Polycarpa aurata: I don't think you quite understand image restoration or the depths it goes into (nor that practically everyone who does image restoration wouldn't work on Wikipedia if that was enforced). It's normal to credit anyone who has a major role in an image. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 17:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Adam, I have been to many museums and art galleries. I have seen many pieces of art that have been professionally. painstakingly, expertly restored. I did not see credits for those restorers next to the artworks, nor would I expect to. I think most people here contribute their time and energy working on this group project with the hope that it will be helpful to others, not with the expectation that they will be rewarded with praise or credits. I'm sorry, but I do not believe that you should be given credit as an "author" for restoring public domain images. I do not believe that is normal practice. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Polycarpa aurata: They also get paid for their work, and part of that pay reflects them not being credited. I live in Britain. With Britain's low, low low standards for gaining a new copyright - which Wikipedia have actually accepted before when it came to digitizations of Darwin material, which they banned from the project under UK law - I could mark every single thing I did with a Creative Commons license, and Wikipedia would have to accept that or delete my files. And if I did do that, I'd have the right to sue. But I don't want to disrupt Wikipedia, I just would rather get some credit for my work. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 18:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Also to Adam, I see you just filed a case with ArbCom. I will point what has been said above - there is nothing on en.wiki that can be done with this - this is 100% an issue with the developers at the Wikimedia Foundation to take action with. (And reading that bug report, they're worried about implement something that affects less than 1% of the pages that could break several magnitudes more, hence why it is a very low priority issue.) --Masem (t) 17:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
It's a copyright issue so 1% of pages is potentially a huge problem. —Kusma (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@Masem: Is it less than 1%? As far as I can tell, that number is completely made up. Given that MediaViewer fails in such simple cases as Brady-Handy images where there's two creator templates - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Call#/media/File:Wilkinson_Call_-_Brady-Handy.jpg - I'd suspect that 1% of cases is actually quite a bit higher. Also, I fail to see how including all text in the Author field is likely to break many images at all.
There are plenty of images without Creator: templates where MediaViewer includes all text in the Author field of the Information template. How would this cause any more issues than what's already being done? And how would it be a bigger problem to accidentally, say, include some explanatory text than it is to remove credit from Handy on a Brady-Handy image? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea what the numbers are. All I'm saying is what I'm getting as the read as for why WMF hasn't fixed or adjusted for this case, as the devs consider it an edge case that by fixing it could temporarily harm multiple other images that don't presently have this problem. That is the group of people you will need to convince this is a serious problem they need to fix, not us on en.wiki. --Masem (t) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to see a single example of an image that would be broken. And the point is, if it's not going to be fixed, we probably shouldn't be using MediaViewer. I just did a sample of eight images using the random file button on Commons. None of them used Creator: templates, but if they had, two would have been broken, as they had multiple authors. If we consider the percentage as "files that use the Creator template at all", then more research is needed. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 17:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the point is that the code is written shoddily enough that a quick bash out of something that might fix this would probably introduce unexpected bugs, so they'd actually have to take this as a serious issue and spend significant time on it to fix and debug. — Bilorv (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the "Let's push broken code to production" then insist any problems are other people's method. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 18:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Which i think many would agree, this is a big enough issue that it deserves to be fixed. Unintended consequences or not. I'm with Adam on this one. CC only works as a social construct if we actually acknowledge the people who contribute. And I think this is a massive issue that most contributors to the image are not acknowledged in most cases of viewing the image. — Shibbolethink ( ) 18:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
A thing to keep in mind: at least on en.wiki even with CC images, the attribution/credit for creation is always given on the File: page, and we regularly do not use attribution on the thumbnail/in-body images in our articles (see MOS:CREDITS). I do think its odd that for MediaViewer that one of the creator fields makes it to the page but not the other, and that I agree is odd and should be fixed, but its trying to convince the developers to fix it. --Masem (t) 18:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely, it's big enough that it should be fixed. But I would imagine this is not necessarily the fault of the programmer at the bottom who deals with these sorts of issues, but their manager or manager's manager (etc.) for not hiring enough people to solve the number of problems of this (high) criticality. — Bilorv (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Agreed. But it's still galling to have it repeatedly dismissed as being an issue over on Phabricator. A tiny bit of sympathy and I could have made my peace, but instead...
When solutions are being dismissed because they don't look attractive enough, it feels like you're bottom priority. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 18:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@Polycarpa aurata: If I didn't care about attribution I'd put Template:CC0 Release on my userpage to disclaim any and all need for others to attribute what I do. I believe if you want to stand by your implication that it's wrong for us to demand attribution, perhaps you should put that template on your userpage yourself. It's quite easy, just copy {{CC0 Release}} onto your userpage at User:Polycarpa aurata and save. Then all of your contributions will be free to use by anyone else forever without any attribution or whatever else. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


Oh... Oh dear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Spotsylvania_Court_House#/media/File:Battle_of_Spottsylvania_by_Thure_de_Thulstrup.jpg

I live in Britain, where the threshold for gaining a new copyright is exceedingly low, and here we see an example of actively violating my Creative Commons license with Media Viewer. Here we see Media Viewer creating a blatant CC-by violation. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 18:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

See my comment above: the file: page for that still shows all appropriate attribution, and that is where we (both en.wiki and WMF) considers where the copyright information may be found in full. I don't disagree that we should be putting restoration credits with the original author's credits on the MediaViewer page, but we're not violating copyright because we still have all the copyright information on the page we consider to be the authoritive location for that information. --Masem (t) 18:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
A point, but it's at the least encouraging copyright abuse in others, especially as it's also mislicensed by Media Viewer.
I'd probably be a lot more upset if I wasn't completely willing to relicense that to try and protect Wikipedia. But I can't imagine that's the only case, and not everyone is me. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 18:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, a suggestion: look at the Commons template C:Template:Credit line. It goes in the information section to provide a credit line that (as I see from past MediaViewer talk archives) should lets you create a customize attribute statement. (eg: [1]). PITA to redo all your images, but this would be a real easy fix around the MediaViewer issue. --Masem (t) 18:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that Adam's images are the only ones with more than one creator. "Let us edit a couple million image description pages so we don't have to change the software" isn't a "real easy fix" unless someone writes a bot. —Kusma (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Almost coinciding with the birthday...

...there are almost 10,000 editors with 10,000 edits on English Wikipedia. 18 to go within a few edits each (haven't checked how many of those 18 were active). Seems a number that 10-digit monkeys would enjoy (I've kept track of it once-in-awhile for a couple of years and nice to see it just about there). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)