User talk:Jimbo Wales

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy	other	Discussions	Ideas
Film title disambiguation year Related Pages extension Separate articles for reactions to terrorist incidents Consensus for changes in citation coding style Ethnicity & religion parameters in Infobox person (2 RfCs) Corrections on Main Page Enabling Hovercards by default Embedding full-length films/videos in articles Physical address of schools/universities/buildings Closure of Possibly Unfree Files Towards a standard biography footer Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive talk edit history watch

What James said publicly (2)

(Note: I'm copying Peter's comment down here to answer it, because it took me so long to find the time to dig up the original quote that a discussion ensued up above that confuses the issue, which is to answer a very specific question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)) Hi Jimmy. According to this, you wrote to James that "I'm not going to dig up the exact quotes, you said publicly that you wrote to me in October that we were building a Google-competing search engine and that I more or less said that I'm fine with it". My emphasis. That said, do you have the exact quotes? I can't find anywhere where James said this. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, and let me provide some context because I think it makes my point very clear.

Note well - the only reason we are having this conversation is that someone published a private email. It was not my intention to publicly take James to task for this, but rather to ask him, privately, to explain it to me. I'd still like to understand it, and I think it's a shame that this conversation is public at all.

1. Back on October 6, James sent me an email saying "Did you realize that we have been developing a search engine for about a year in an effort to compete with Google?"

2. On February 24th, in the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group James wrote "Yes I asked individuals on the board in Oct if they understand that we were building a "search engine" as before Oct I did not realize we were. JW said that he understood this all along and it was something we needed to do.." [1] Note well that James is responding to a comment which specifically discusses this as a search engine which "might compete with Google". At this point, it is difficult to understand James except as claiming that I knew about a secret project to compete with Google and was basically ok with it (or stronger: felt it was something that we "needed to do").

3. This astonished me because it so completely misrepresents what I said in October, and not in passing but in a full conversation that we had. I explained to him in significant detail that we were not "developing a search engine for about a year in an effort to compete with Google". I first said "I wouldn't have described it in that way, nor do I think the Foundation would, but yes, I'm aware of work in the area of improving search and discovery across all our properties." And then I later went on to explain in some detail the difference between work on internal search and a "search engine... to compete with Google". A quote from my email: "I'm not really sure what is causing your confusion here. Perhaps it is just the term "search engine" which in some contexts may mean "a website that one goes to as a destination in order to find things on the web, such as Google, Bing, or Yahoo" and in other contexts can mean "software for searching through a set of documents and resources"." I went on to give some examples of cool stuff we could do using structured data to answer basic questions. He then conceded that "Yes so I think an open source knowledge engine like IBM's Watson and an open source search engine are cool ideas." He went on to raise 4 objections, and for me the most relevant one was the lack of community consultation - my answer to that, in full was "Third, I am always in favor of more community consultation. But I've been fighting very hard for a long time against the absurd notion that the community should vote on software. Voters in the community will not all be well-informed and a populist campaign can easily come to the wrong answer on technical matters. So this consultation needs to happen in a much more hands-on way - and it isn't cheap to do. So, I agree that this is a serious question. For me, it's more of a question of what kind of consultation should happen and when. A commitment to explore a concept through an external grant doesn't strike me as the right point necessarily to engage in a full-scale consultation."

For further reference, what I mean by "full-scale consultation" is what the legal team did with the new terms-of-service - which required huge numbers of man-hours. I'd say something more light weight than that was called for here - zero community consultation is the wrong thing (I'm always in favor of more community consultation), and voting the wrong thing. But openly discussing that we are seeking funding for explorations of how we might do cool things with internal search and discovery isn't the sort of thing that needs to be kept secret for any reason, and there are great smart people and developers in the community who can help refine ideas and help to avoid potential problems.

Elsewhere on this page, James has now backpedalled on a claim that most people quite naturally read as him being threatened with removal from the board if he didn't vote to approve the Knight grant. Peter has done a fine job of pointing that out.

I'd like to remind everyone that while I voted with the majority to remove James, I was not behind it nor even a vocal advocate for it. I voted with the very strong majority because I could see the anger that other board members had with him and that they had lost trust in him. Indeed, I told James in an email before the board meeting "I intend to vote with the majority, whatever that may mean." I think it is not possible to have a functioning board where the vast majority of trustees has lost trust in someone. If you read all that I have just written, I think you can understand some of the reasons why the board lost trust in him.

Finally, I continue to make the case to the board that greater transparency is desirable with regard to the reasons for James' removal. I wish I could tell you more, but that will have to wait.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

When one disagrees with the majority, one well ought to vote against the majority. Clearly my opinion on such matters differs from yours. Else one becomes a "nodder" a la Wilmot Mulliner. Collect (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely. When one disagrees with the majority, one ought to vote against the majority. Clearly, and in all cases. That's the "disagree" part. The "and commit" part is to say that in many cases, even if I have lost a vote, I should support the majority result going forward. Not every issue that doesn't go my way is worthy of a campaign. This is a matter of general ethics, and something that we should encourage (for example) on-wiki. I think picture A should be used in an article. Most other people think picture B should be used in an article. Fine, I should let it go, and I should support the general principle that 1 person shouldn't engage in a campaign to undermine majority decisions in cases like this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Distant cousin of Mr. Mulliner. wbm1058 (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Geesh. Can we stop this hairsplitting? So perhaps James didn't clearly say that he understood that you did not support a Google-like engine when he said you supported building a "search engine". Clearly there are outdated documents that mislead in that direction. At the same time I was getting the impression you were saying that the "Knowledge Engine" wasn't about search at all, though it was never clear what it was about if not search. I think the community finally mostly understands this distinction. Can we drop this now? wbm1058 (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Re: "commitment to explore a concept through an external grant". But this is only partially that. The majority of funding is from general donations for "keeping the encyclopedia online & ad free". yes, more hairsplitting over lies of omission wbm1058 (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the majority of funding is for objectives that, as far as I know, are not regarded as particularly controversial.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Re: you've "been fighting very hard for a long time against the absurd notion that the community should vote on software". Does that mean you are against the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey? wbm1058 (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I am very strongly supportive of that survey and of similar efforts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• So, as I understand it, James was not bounced over Knowledge Engine concerns, nor was he fired because of issues with the executive director. The main reason he was fired, and the board does not trust him, relates to some other concern which, somehow despite other leaks related to those issues, somehow has managed to remain secret. And some on the board insist that it remain secret. Is that right? wbm1058 (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This, IMO, is the question. It's rather amazing how much is withheld without explanation, with "confidentiality" as a reason. Confidentiality is of course a good reason to withhold some information, but when it's used as a general justification to avoid entire topics, it stretches credibility. Jimbo Wales, could you at least answer whether this issue, as described by Wbm1058, is what's at play? With the now-infamous December 30 email, for instance, would it really be so impossible to publish it with a couple black redacting marks through a couple sentences? -Pete (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• I'm sympathetic of the idea that putting a feature plan is not great. There's a difference between a 'full-scale consultation' and a situation where even staffers who were close to the team expressed confusion about the ultimate goals, plan, funding situation, and so on. Also, it's pretty easy to avoid a large conflagration if you dole information out over time and don't directly step on people's toes. Flow, superprotect, and so on directly affect people where they work. Anyway, what's probably most interesting about this is the idea of a culture of secrecy. We saw that this was a major complaint among staffers, but you haven't really engaged it except to say that you don't agree with being secretive (except you seem to agree with keeping board deliberations pseudo-secret). Did you ever respond to James and help him push for a plan to consult the community? Or is that something which was discussed secretly so you can't say? Hard to know whether this secrecy derives from executive session confidentiality or it is more about being polite and respecting the lack of detailed records around the (semi-open) board meeting. II | (t - c) 04:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure what you are asking. I am strongly supportive of the staff always speaking as openly as possible, which in most cases means completely openly, about plans and ideas for the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying to Peter, Jimmy. My reaction is similar to those above. And I'll add, that in my view, the WMF board very much sees us "competing" in a certain way with Google and other companies that reuse our content; this is the "existential challenge" that we discussed before and that Lila referenced in her "Why We Changed" note.. "Competing with Google" doesn't necessarily mean trying to overtake them across their all their businesses or even in general search, and you seem to be framing it that way. "Competing with Google" in the sense of a) wanting people who are seeking knowledge to come to wikipedia.org instead of Google, and b) wanting people to stay within WM/WP domains instead of kicking back out to Google... I would think you are 100% with that. But your response addresses nothing about that, and the WMF did indeed seem to be doing that for the year prior to Oct 2015... and I believe that you would have said that, too. There is a bunch of other misdirecting stuff in what you wrote as well, as others have noted above.

I am still looking for the board or WMF staff to tell the story of what went on with planning around search over Lila's tenure, and there is still a big hole where we are looking for that. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen anyone on the board express the idea that we are "'competing' in a certain way with Google". It certainly is not a primary motivation or consideration - not even in the limited sense that you indicate. Of course we should have some concern about whether actions by other players online, and changes in Internet user behavior over time, will impact us - and this is both a positive and negative thing - change can be good for us or bad for us, and our response to change can be good for us or bad for us.

As for the story you are looking for, I'm afraid that board won't have any more information than you've already been told - and I don't think staff has much to add either.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Thanks for replying to this. I am now very troubled by James statement that "The board approved the Knight Foundation grant. I supported its approval following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board.". James claims above that he only meant a temporal 'following', rather than causal, but it seems to me that (a) any reasonable person would read the 'following' as causative, and more importantly (b) that James would have understood that any reasonable person would have read it this way. If so, then James seems to have been deceiving us, which, as I say, is troubling. Peter Damian (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Peter Damian I stated "I meant it to mean that the statement regarding possible removal occurred before the KF vote not that the statement necessarily occurred in a conversation directly about the KF vote. I do believe that the conversation in which it occurred related somewhat to the KF grant but I understand that others may parse the relatedness of the conversations differently." So I meant that it happened before the Knight vote. And I believed it related to the Knight grants issue but I also acknowledge that others may parse things differently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So when you said "I supported its approval following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board" you did not mean to say or imply in any way that you supported its approval because of the pressure? See Cooperative principle. Peter Damian (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

There was a few things at play. Yes threats of being removed played a part in my decision making. We had already agreed to disagree in a few prior "votes". I did not consider me opposing again to be a good strategic move. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not really a reasonable conclusion (it's an extremely bad faith and downright weird conclusion - James was trying to deceive, for what?). People who were discussing it on Wikipedia Weekly thought the same. The reasonable conclusion is that there was obviously tension, discussion got thrown around about the power to remove, and James decided he'd better do what Jimbo calls elsewhere on this page 'disagree and commit'. I've done very similar things in board rooms. It's a bit nauseating but a natural reaction to try to show that you're back on the team. II | (t - c) 08:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable conclusion. If someone says x and the natural interpretation of x is y, and if the speaker is aware that y is the natural interpretation, yet the speaker claims he didn't mean y at all, then the speaker is deceiving us. There is no other reasonable conclusion. Peter Damian (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether the statement was purely temporal or not is kind of irrelevant. James isn't a mind-reader. He didn't say that someone directly threatened to remove him for how he voted, nor can I imagine anyone saying something so blatantly wrong. But his position was (as evidenced by his removal), quite tenuous, so any statements about removing a board member could be viewed as a veiled threat. II | (t - c)

Well, no. "I supported its approval following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board." Does mean his support was pressured by potential removal, not by the merits of the grant (it also contains the strange lacuna, that James did not just 'support it' he moved the board to accept it - given that, it would be '[I moved the board to take board action] following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board') -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

On the points raised by others above, these miss the point IMO. James was supposedly dismissed from the board because the vast majority of trustees had lost trust in him. I am afraid that Jimmy's comments above rather support that version of events. A plausible narrative is that (1) James raised some valid concerns about the scope of the Knowledge Engine, (2) it was explained to him that these concerns were unfounded, (3) he persisted in grandstanding of which this later example is an instance; (3) people lost patience. It is difficult to explain the reaction of the other board members otherwise. Peter Damian (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, by my reading most of the people who commented on the topic found these concerns to be quite well-founded (employee survey basically showing 90% dissatisfaction, plus a grant application which was basically a search engine). I'm not sure how you could find otherwise. I know what I'm saying here is typical Wikipedia snideness, but I think it's a bit ironic that you would use the word grandstanding, given that you were notoriously banned for several years after grandstanding about FT2's interest in animals or some such nonsense. :) Yeah, Wikipedians have long memories... thanks for the good content work by the way. II | (t - c) 08:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Frankly this whole process of explanation by offering the minimum amount of information necessary is tiring and adds to the confusion, and I entirely agree with Sarah's comment here. I am looking at both James and Jimmy here. James: in what way is the summary of the correspondence 'far from complete', and how does it not accurately represent the overall discussion? Jimmy: during the 7–9 November meetings, did you say anything in front of James about removing board members? Peter Damian (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate Jimmy's and James's answers to Peter's earlier questions, and I think an answer from both Jimmy and James to Peter's last two questions (immediately above) would help all of us to better understand the events leading up to James's dismissal. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be a pity if this thread was archived with those two questions unanswered. HolidayInGibraltar (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting here that it's been over 10 weeks since User:Doc James asked Jimmy to release the email discussed above, about which Jimmy has said repeatedly that he's waiting to hear back from the other trustees before publishing. Is there a communications problem among the board members? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I recall how we were waiting to hear back from the Knight Foundation before publishing the Knowledge Engine grant paperwork. Does someone from The Signpost need to ask each trustee individually? Doc James is clearly saying "bring it on", so don't hold anything back on his account... he seems to be fine with revealing the "main reason" for his dismissal... wbm1058 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like he's busy scuttling something, but hopefully our constitutional monarch have time to answer soon. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 03:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you quoted can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Role of the Founder

This whole conversation is getting icky. Perpetual talk of "Knowledge Engine" is standing the laws of perpetual motion on its head. I'll be bold: James is not getting back on the board. That's simply a truism. No need for handwringing. Same as Lila is not going to be brought back either. Many pieces are in flux so the pieces that aren't should stay until this stuff resolves. As a recommendation during the week that Andy Grove passed away, I suggest Jimbo continue his transition from God-King to Constitutional-Monarch to perhaps Chairman Emeritus of the board that Grove's mentor, Gordon Moore holds. The only reason I say this is when about the time you stopped blocking/banning people and took a step back, it appeared you had taken stock of yourself and said "I am the focal point and lightning rod for actions that I only considered tangential and rather uncontroversial." I read replies today that echo the same sentiment. You aren't shying away from being a board member but no one, not even Patricio, is being microscoped like this. We can play junior detective on the talk page for months and it will not resolve. Take a look at the boards founders chair and see how much influence you would lose in an "Emeritus Chair." There's not a single Intel Board Member or Executive that will ever refute Moore's Law even if he can't vote and can't fire people. Do you think you are the lightning rod and focal point for what's been happening over the last few months? If not, what's a better way to channel influence and mentor once a new ED is found? I'm not being cynical but I've been around the block enough times to see leaders that needed to transform their role to be effective. Leaders rarely lose their power or influence when they take a well-thought out step back from stage. Grove certainly didn't. Moore didn't either. --DHeyward (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Bad analogy; there is no one capable enough and positioned well enough to take the wheel of this starship. In fact, I think Jimbo Wales is obligated to take back more control until some of the more capable members of this community move into the structural administrative/leadership sphere. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you completely with "there is no one capable enough and positioned well enough to take the wheel of this starship.' but I view your quote as a past management failure due to ambiguous roles and ill-defined scope of ED and board members and this being opportunity to review the role Jimbo wants (there's no right or wrong answer here, just how to assess the state of that role and plan to realize it). WMF is big enough to hire organizational experts. Have an outside firm with experience in "churn" and "focus" that can help both WMF and Jimbo figure out what they want, what their vision is of the future and their role and how to map it. It's more than "Find new ED. Lather. Rinse. Repeat." There's nothing wrong if he wants to be ED and WMF makes the changes. But if he doesn't want to be ED and has a vision his goals for himself and the project, I think he and WMF would be wise in hiring organizational coaches that can help advise them in firewalling himself from the ED role and mapping out a plan to effectively implement his plan. Even little things like personally going to SF to reassure employees is compassionate yet it gives the impression that the most senior executive is subordinate to another individual because of a status that is observed but unstated. That makes Jimbo the de-facto "top executive" and the person with the title "ED" his assistant. It will be difficult to recruit and retain top talent as everyone "knows." The types of interrogatory/responses on this page that exist virtually nowhere else, are, in essence, an appeal to authority and responding can give the impression the authority is real. There is a mixed-message sent when one exchange is (paraphrased) "I am just one vote in a 10 person board" with SF visit (paraphrase) "I can personally assure you..." followed by (paraphrase) "The executive director resigned this week but I feel comfortable enough to speak in the ED's place." There's nothing nefarious there. It's quite the contrary. But it's a barrier to recruiting a top ED. --DHeyward (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is it that when I hear WP likened to a starship, the first thing I think of is Spaceballs??? Carrite (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

 :) yes, and the second thing is We built this city Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Super ironically, just noticed these lyrics:

Someone's always playing corporation games

Who cares, they're always changing corporation names

We just want to dance here, someone stole the stage

They call us irresponsible, write us off the page Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

http://i.imgur.com/EZZiWhP.jpg 75.166.21.87 (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

you put some effort into this layout/design, I think... thought provoking and humourous, to me anyway. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You are right about everything you just said, imo, including the mixed-message aspect.

Your suggestion "I think he and WMF would be wise in hiring organizational coaches that can help advise them..." is a great suggestion that I wholeheartedly endorse; I would only maybe add an amendment that perhaps they can first attempt to find these coaches in house (within the community)..that may not be possible, but it might be worth a try. There are a number of really smart people around here..we saw a lot of their clear thinking come out in the Arnnon RFC. If that is attempted, it maybe should be restricted to the people who have been around a long time and who have had admin/ArbCom positions so there will be a bit of history and comfort between the coaches and the WMF ( including Jimbo ). There would be advantages to simply hire professionals in this field, so that may be the best way to go. I am just throwing out another implementation possibility. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo is not just the de-facto "top executive", he is the de facto Chairman and CEO. With term limits, the chairmen-in-name seem like perpetual lame ducks. Are there any other members of the 10 person board who could individually meet with the employees in SF to discuss their future, without risking getting fired for doing so. In our wiki-world, Parliament mostly operates behind the scenes in secret, and the Prime Minister only makes rare public pronouncements. Prime minister press conferences and direct interaction with the public are even more rare. In contrast, Buckingham Palace is a beehive of public discussion and interaction. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That's silly. There is barely a 'group of people', let alone a "world" - nothing Jimbo does affects most anyone in this group, unless someone really is a cultist. There is a relatively small corporation, with a board, an executive, and employees but it's not of moment to most people in "wikiworld", and it is a corporation that runs like a corporation, with a board, an executive, and employees. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we should have a Rfc to see how much community support there is for DHeyward's suggestion, specifically:

"WMF is big enough to hire organizational experts. Have an outside firm with experience in "churn" and "focus" that can help both WMF and Jimbo figure out what they want, what their vision is of the future and their role and how to map it....I think he and WMF would be wise in hiring organizational coaches that can help advise them"

Upon reflection, I think DHeyward's suggestion of hiring professionals to come in to do this is the simplest and best way to go about it. Perhaps DHeyward should begin the Rfc if he is in agreement with the Rfc approach. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's just a suggestion. People can comment here if they have input. I'm an outsider to WMF so what I perceive and reality may not be the same. Jimbo hasn't commented and RfC's about things the community doesn't control, IMO, are not helpful. I would like WMF to have the strongest executive candidate possible and the most productive and talented staff possible. From an outsider position, the people in top positions that have left the organization under less than optimal conditions (in fact the history of rather ugly departures goes nearly all the way to the beginning). Some of it is the mob rule type of pressure and RfC's are a part of that. The proper way for my suggestion is to have it brought to the board and then implemented if they desire. Most corporate boards have sub-committees to determine all sorts of things and if they decide they need help in creating or improving their identity, they should make it happen. This isn't the "volunteer editor" identity, it's WMF and what WMF wants to be as well as Jimbo and what he wants. From the outside, it doesn't appear to be a healthy culture (e.g. the examples previously, ED leaving, board member removed, board member elect drops out, board turns over major appointment to employees where healthy boards would form executive search sub-committee's). --DHeyward (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

ok, I defer to what you say about best process. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Rana Foroohar writes, in this week's Time, that only about 15% of capital flows in the US financial system go into the real economy; the rest just circulates in the high-finance microcosm, where it isn't invested in research, products, jobs or innovation. Some big players are worried; Warren Buffett, Larry Fink and Jamie Dimon met to talk about how to reform corporate governance. So, governance issues aren't limited to just the WMF, and, while it at least tries to invest in the right things, I'm concerned that if it considers itself not of moment to most people in "wikiworld" – volunteers who edit from all corners of the globe – it will continue to miss the target in terms of its investments. For us, the content is our "real economy". wbm1058 (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment on one aspect of this discussion, and that is the notion that I am in any way the "de facto" CEO or "de facto" chairman. There is no sense in which that is true, and I very much doubt that you would find anyone on the board or staff who would concur with that notion. It's very important that this myth be dispelled. Whatever problems we have, and we do have problems, they don't lie in that direction.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that should save a lot of time, knowing that is the wrong direction. In what direction do the problems lie? If I, as a novice here, were to guess, I'd guess thoughtful, accurate and timely communication might be one of the directions, but what do you say? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course I can't speak for how the board or staff view your role; I only know of your Internet presence. Perhaps Patricio did not replace Lila at that Austin conference because he isn't sufficiently competent in English, I don't know (though his user page says "This user has advanced knowledge of English" {en-3}). But look who appears to be in charge here, even in a Spanish-speaking venue: Jimmy Wales: “La calidad de la información de Wikipedia crece cada día” Note the two pictures. There's a reason that, at the US presidential debates, they put the leader in the polls at the center of the table, and those who are trailing out at the edges. This editing profile doesn't look like that of someone in charge of English Wikipedia either, though to be fair the Spanish profile is better. Maybe, like the former ED, I will find him on meta? No. I don't really know where to go for a wiki-discussion with him, other than to speak English on a Spanish talk page. I haven't seen him edit on this page. wbm1058 (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy, do you plan to ever comment on the other aspects of this discussion, like the suggestion of the WMF hiring a professional mediator, or the inquiry above into why it's taking so long to release the correspondence between you and James Heilman, or should we interpret your reply as yet another selective answer with the unspoken implication of "I'm not answering anything else, now shut up and go away"? --71.110.8.102 (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Founder's seat

Hi Jimmy. Would you please convert the founder's board seat to a community selected seat in 2017 and, if you wish to serve as a trustee, compete with other community members for a community seat that year? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd think you might have some chance of getting this change made if you demonstrated that many editors support the change. How many? Well, IMHO the board would consider making such a change if 500 editors signed a petition for it. Maybe you could have an RfC or a straw poll (on some other page please)? My guess is that you might get 50 editors to support your position, but almost as many would be against it, with the vast majority of editors not caring one way or the other. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking Jimmy, Smallbones. I think it's something he should do, and I'll be surprised if he doesn't think so, too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That seems perhaps a more radical solution than necessary. A less sweeping change would be to change the nature of the seat. Just brainstorming, but, if there are an even number of "regular" board members, then the Founder would participate as a non-voting advisory member, who only voted when it was necessary to break ties, and perform a sort of "executive role" by communicating board consensus (a role perhaps shared with the chairman). I'm thinking of how the VP of the US presides over the Senate, as a model. wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a radical change in legitimacy. First Jimmy simply took a seat on the board for himself. More recently, his entitlement to a seat has been determined by his fellow board members. I think it's appropriate for that entitlement to be determined by the communities who create and run the projects.

What I've asked would involve minimal practical change, though. I'm not asking for any change in his role. It's far less radical than the changes you've mooted, in that regard. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well yeah, converting it to a community-selected seat is less radical than abolishing the seat. But, forcing him to run against, and risk being outvoted by a commoner wouldn't be dignified. So, I still think that a perpetual, albeit more ceremonial role would be more appropriate. In the UK, the Queen makes a lot of speeches, but they aren't the same as those of the Prime Minister. Our board chairmen need to take a higher profile; perhaps they should be subject to some sort of community-vetting or selection process which might give them more legitimacy in the eyes of the community. wbm1058 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Be careful what you wish for, Anthony — for all his flaws, JW does remain something of a firewall against commercialization of the site. WMF is a big business now with tens of millions of dollars in the bank and there are sharks out there... I also think JW has value as a public face for the organization. I DO have problems with the lack of democracy in selecting the board and the lack of transparency in the board's operations, mind you. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I heard Jimmy say in a video sometime in the last year that he wouldn't rule out Wikipedia moving to advertising if necessary. Jimmy will get elected as often as he runs, have no fear on that point. I think selection by the community is appropriate for someone who has assumed the mantle of spokesperson for the community. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I have always opposed having advertising on the site. What I have said, many many times going back more than a decade, is that we have never absolutely ruled it out if necessary for survival. It is not something that is even remotely likely, it is not discussed at the board level, it is never proposed by staff or community, no one is considering it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The worse 2 things are A: all the brilliant devils in do-gooder attire...It takes a lot of experience before you can identify them, and B: their selected constant companions, some of the more easily influenced well-intentioned and real do gooders with less critical thinking abilities/experience, who the devils use like pawns to implement their dark plots (which always include violent conflict and/or loss of individual freedoms in some way or other). Blair is in the 2nd. manipulated "do gooder" category, imo, but Jimbo may disagree, but Jimbo is definitely not in either category at this point in time, imo. So, maybe better safe with the known quantity? or maybe not. I would be interested in seeing who/what the alternatives are? Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I've seen this movie before. How about let's not call for a vote of no confidence just yet? Not until we understand who the villains are. Wnt (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Concur, I don't see any villains involved...maybe some pacific trustees but no villains. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes the villain is right there under your nose, all along, from the very beginning. - 64.94.31.206 (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Not in this case. The easiest way to spot a villain is "you shall know them by their fruits". (villain being metaphorically the tree). And there has been no rotten fruit coming out of WMF's products that I can see. Besides, trust me, I can detect a possible villain as soon as they speak or write anything themselves (as opposed to being written for them). They are universally phonies because no normal person wants anything to do with an obvious villain. I don't see any phonies who have been here from the very beginning. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The future of search

As more millions of articles are added, mostly more people bio-pages have been added every day, then Wikipedia is expanding the "who's-who-in-whatever" coverage to include more billions of people, and so the wp:wikisearch operation eventually needs to limit searches by category, such as actors or politicians, etc. This limited wikisearch would focus the results on pages in particular categories, rather than try to find pages simply by words in the free-form text. However, I think we could still wait years for category-screened searches, but that means developing the software soon, aka now. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I wish Jimbo had embraced semantic Mediawiki, rather than shit-canning it because he found it too complicated for his tastes. Imagine a world where you could easily search for all cities in Germany south of the 50th latitude line with at least 45,000 people. That's what Wikipedia is not doing. - 64.94.31.206 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have a mistaken understanding of history here. I had nothing to do with any decision to either "embrace" or "shit-can" semantic MediaWiki. Furthermore, to the extent that I had any influence on it, it was in the opposite direction - far from finding it "too complicated for my tastes" I thought it was incredibly worthy of further exploration. Per what Wikid77 proposes above, I think semantic markup in some form is incredibly interesting and valuable - moreso now than ever before.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that doable in Wikidata?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering how many people would want to do a complex search like the large southern German cities. I use to run a large online plant database where you could do advanced searches to match specific characteristics. The vast majority of searches were simply for the name or one particular property and only a few used the clever searches which I spent so much time developing. The lesson of google is people want free text searches not structured searches.

That said it would be interesting to see some sort of log/analytics for search to see what people really search for.--Salix alba (talk): 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

inappropriate cats in the Commons

Dear Mr Wales - maybe you'd like to take a look at these images of categories in the Commons [2] [3] (see the very bottom of one of those images for the full effect) and then explain to me how you think this reflects on the WP project in general and the admin of the Commons in particular.

Let me paint you a little scenario - I've come across those cats, and some idiot has actually uploaded something horrible to the Commons and to that cat. So if I click on the cat wl to see what is included, I've then got the images in my cache AND my history will shown that I've clicked on the category so have gone looking for them, so I can hardly argue I came across them accidentally right?

Are there or are there not categories which are inappropriate for the Commons even if they currently include benign images? When are you and/or the WMF going to do something about it?

Of course, if you'd rather discuss this with the media when they find out, I can wait. JMWt (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Has anyone checked recently if you still get porn when you search for 'toothbrush' on commons? Or did someone fix that? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The widespread and unchecked function of the Commons as an archive of porn is one thing. But this is getting into something else altogether. JMWt (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

While as is well known I have concerns about the policing of commons, I'm not (yet) convinced that the mere existence of this category is a bad thing for this reason. We have an entry in Wikipedia on the topic of "child pornography" - which is a valid thing to have an encyclopedia article about of course, in the sense of educating the public about the history and various issues and so on. Someone might upload something inappropriate to that article, and it would be caught quickly and reverted and the revision deleted, etc. That's no argument for not having the article.

In terms of a discussion with the media, I don't worry about it as long as two things are present: 1) appropriate policies banning the appropriate things -we have this, and 2) reasonably speedy action in terms of policing. If someone does something horrible at Wikipedia and it is reverted within a few minutes (on a busy page) or even a few hours (on an obscure corner of the site), then the public will understand that it isn't our fault and that preventing it would be destructive to the great good that Wikipedia does.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I can believe that child pornography might include pictures of law enforcement involved in the same (though to me that's quite a stretch). But it is hard to make the same argument about categories called "child sex abuse" and "erotic images of children". But the fact that the images are benign at the moment is not an argument to keep the categories. It is pretty clear to me that any benign images should be recategorised in better cats and that I'm running an enormous risk to myself even looking in those cats to see if there are any inappropriate images to report for the reasons outlined above. JMWt (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

With respect to the media, I suspect almost nobody is going to "understand that it isn't our fault" when the categories are known to exist on the Commons by the admins there and the management of the WMF and yet nothing is done about it. JMWt (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Its just a 'General' category and as per your 2nd link, Commons has clarified why that category exists but your comments makes people think that Commons is somehow housing child pornography...we are NOT...Categories are created for every major topics in the world, and guess what, child Pornography is as big as it gets. If you come across "actual" Child Pornography in that category, then be my guest, go and complain to the media if you must.. WMF has strengthened its stance on this 2 years ago and have taken action in regards to people intentionally adding "CP" to Commons...Regardless of the category, Any time a questionable image is added to commons, its deleted and salted and the user reported to Su&Sa and action is taken almost immediately...The categories are there for a reason...There are 2 sides to child pornography, stop focusing on the wrong side. --Stemoc 15:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You really don't have a clue how this looks from the outside do you. You are seriously sitting there and defending having a category for "erotic images of children". Wake up and smell the coffee - the only place there appears to be "two sides to child pornography" is inside the ratified atmosphere of the Commons. JMWt (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

So its not the category which is the problem, its you.... what next, we should delete the article on Child pornography because an article on that looks bad for an 'encyclopedia'? ..--Stemoc 15:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself nonresponsively, which is tiresome. Can you give an example of some not inappropriate content that justifies the existence of an "erotic images of children" category? --JBL (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, i went to commons and looked at the Category:Erotic images of children. It contains about 30 pictures, mostly "historic" drawings relating to sexual activities with children. Is this "inappropriate"? Tradedia^talk 12:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

April 1 again

(Please note: this NOT a complaint. More like a feeble attempt at humor.)

Wikipedia goes nuts

On April Fools.

"Verifiability" is replaced by

"Ignore all rules".

The main page today

Is full of baloney.

Every DYK is true

But also phony.

I fell for a joke.

That makes me a chump.

I think I'll complain

At the Village Pump.[4]

--MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Love it.--Cyberpower | My Talk 17:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

• News and notes: Trump/Wales 2016

• In the media: Saskatoon police delete Wikipedia content about police brutality

• WikiProject report: Why should the Devil have all the good music? An interview with WikiProject Christian music

• Traffic report: Donald v Daredevil

• Featured content: A slow, slow week

• Technology report: Browse Wikipedia in safety? Use Telnet!

• Recent research: "Employing Wikipedia for good not evil" in education, useing eyetracking to find out how readers read articles

• Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #121: How April fools went down

• Blog: Growing hashtags: Expanding outreach on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Faking credentials

User Essjay famously pretended to be a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States. Nine years ago this caused a major upheaval at Wikipedia. At the time, you said "I regard it as a pseudonym [m.e.] and I don't really have a problem with it." Later in 2010, interviewed for the film Truth in Numbers? (15:00 in), you said "Even to this day [m.e.] I defend it. This is a young man who made a mistake. In the grand scheme of things what he did was pretty minor [m.e.]. Having a pseudonym, and - sort of - fleshing it out with some traits [my emph] - that's really no big deal [my emph], I mean, that's part of online life. "

We have a similar situation this week. See current ANI discussion. A long-standing editor, who represents the Foundation in Nigeria, has (apparently falsely) claimed to be a lecturer at Adekunle Ajasin University, and a biochemist by occupation. A number of users are saying, as you said of EssJay, that this is no big deal, or words to that effect. In the current case, one user compares it to saying they are an astronaut, another has no particular issue with it (although finds it problematic in certain situations). The culprit himself says it is no different from representing yourself as a 'vampire or a goat'.

Now I think it is a big deal, and that fabricating an online identity is quite different from fabricating credentials. I think this is an issue for the Arbitration Committee, and today I will make some enquiries about that, but in the first place I would like to understand your view. Has it changed from 2007-10? Or is it still no big deal? I also seek the community's views on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Damian (talk • contribs)

Community thoughts

• This is why we're supposed to be anonymous editors, and it shouldn't matter whether i'm a janitor or a PhD in biochemistry when i edit. Besides, there are some janitors who are far smarter than some PhD's so that metric isn't even reliable anyway. So what's the big deal? Just tell the user "It doesn't matter who you are. It matters whether the things you say make sense and whether you have reliable sources." SageRad (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @SageRad: Can you clarify whether (a) you think editors shouldn't mention credentials at all on their user page, for the reasons you suggest or (b) it's perfectly OK, even if the credentials are falsified? Peter Damian (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• This person seems to have fabricated a biography for Wikipedia (now deleted, see the thread at Wikipediocracy). There should be an ArbCom case if this is not met with a ban at AN/I and this person should be out the fucking door, end of story. Lying about oneself is bad enough. PUBLISHING LIES about oneself is quite another. That the bio failed to meet GNG and was deleted is neither here nor there. Carrite (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I note further that according to the AN/I thread this individual made FOURTEEN attempts at putting a COI autobiography up on WP. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• The COI self-advertising and legal threats issues here are totally different from Essjay. Besides, as the article explains, Jimbo changed his mind after the first comment quoted above, saying Essjay's inaccurate credentials had been used in disputes improperly. The only thing that I can say in this editor's favor is that you can be an "academic" and a "biochemist" without publishing or being a professor; for example, a lab tech might be hired straight from an undergraduate biochemistry degree, and would qualify. I don't know what he wrote in the article though, because it's deleted. I'd be less concerned with whether an ad is right than that it is here to begin with. Wnt (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Note The statement from Jimmy that I quoted was from 2010, three years after the Essjay incident. Peter Damian (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I'll take your word for it; duly struck. I should work on my skimming comprehension. Wnt (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• (ec) All of us are anonymous. Whatever we say about ourselves is unverified, and we should keep that in mind when interacting with them. Without grossly violating a user's privacy (see WP:OUTING), there is no way to tell if what they say about themselves is actually true. And it doesn't matter anyhow; presumably they are not quoting themselves as Reliable Sources! The only "falsification" that matters to us at en.wiki is if someone falsely claims a Wikipedia identity; when someone falsely identified themselves as an administrator, they are very quickly slapped down. In the case you are talking about, if he misrepresented himself to the WMF, that is an issue for the WMF to deal with. I can't imagine it being a case for Arbcom. (I gather that you weren't able to get much support at the ANI discussion and so you are WP:Forum shopping your issue here. Like most forum shopping, it does not appear likely to give you a different result.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• You gather wrong. There has been little discussion, in that ANI thread, about the impact of misrepresenting one's academic or professional standing on Wikipedia. And I don't think Peter is looking for a result here. He appears to be looking for an intelligent discussion about the issue. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Avoiding the two specific cases, but talking about the issue in general; It is difficult to challenge asserted credentials without outing people. We currently have three options for those who assert credentials here:

1. Out yourself fully such as an academic I know one editor whose userpage and university bio linked to each other.
2. Assert credentials but leave them unverified.
3. Don't assert credentials on wiki

The second option is risky, and I'm aware of one incident where an academic chose not to out themselves when their credentials were challenged. I think it would be helpful if the WMF and or chapters were to offer a verification service for editors. ϢereSpielChequers 14:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would also like to hear from Davidcannon, who proposed Wikicology for adminship with these words:

" Wikicology is a lecturer at Adekunle Ajasin University in Nigeria. He focuses primarily on Nigeria-related topics, but also contributes to numerous topics, such as Medicine, Biochemistry, Molecular biology, Governments Politics, History, Culture, Business and other encyclopedic subjects" according to his user page — a claim I have checked, and find to be true."

Did you not check and say you did? Are you just really bad at verification of evidence? Did you attempt to intentionally deceive the community — and if so, why? We do need an explanation about you failure to perform verification and as to the degree of your involvement in this false identity scam. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. And nobody cares for most of the time. However, a person should not claim to possess academic qualifications that they do not have, as it is bound to lead to exposure and controversy in the long run.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It's beginning to look like the editor does have the qualifications he claims - his claimed academic and professional standing appears to have been exaggerated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

By credentials I mean claims about employment and occupation. I don't dispute that qualifications are also credentials. Peter Damian (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Credentialism sucks. Its as simple as that. Just look at all the bullshit "honorary" degrees floating around and all the crooks calling themselves "doctor" (of whatever) and fraudulent online "colleges" issuing degrees for $100. I think ignore all credentials might be a good policy as well as a disclaimer for our readers. As said above "It doesn't matter who you are. It matters whether the things you say make sense and whether you have reliable sources." should perhaps in someway be formalized into Wikipedia's official description. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • What is the {{Expert needed}} template for? Peter Damian (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The template does seem like a good thing for improving content; and maybe not a problem because "expert" is pretty general and can be satisfied with AGF, I think, as well as how reasonable the expert's contribution seems to be. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Its pretty hard to verify credentials online, and in general I'm not sure we should try to attempt it. As an example, I've identified myself to the WMF a couple of times. I think I faxed them my drivers license and passport. But do they really know who I am? A faxed drivers license could very easily be faked. Credentials, such as degrees, are even harder to verify. So the general solution is probably going to be "ignore all claims of credentials". Sure, I've seen several editors who claim to have PhDs, and in general I believe them - you "can tell" if you've seen enough of them - but I would never take such an online claim at face value if it involved something important.

There is one situation were I think we should verify claims. Paid editors need to declare that they are representing companies or people. If we didn't have this, then we'd never be able to keep up with all the ads people insert in Wikipedia. But there is always a chance of a Joe-job, e.g. a firm's competitor could hire somebody to say that they were hired by XYZ company to embarrass XYZ. So for paid editors claims, it does make sense to have them verified. I'll suggest that for every paid editor declaration we need to have a verifiable statement (e.g. with telephone and other contact info) sent to OTRS from the employer. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that people generally don't ignore all claims of credentials. I suspect this is why the many glaring errors in Wikicology's edits were not spotted. If he is writing about poison gases and people see he is a professional biochemist, they are likely to assume it is OK. As I first did, when someone pointed me to one of his articles (an article that on further investigation turned out to be a crock). It's one thing to make false claims in an article about theology. I don't think anyone will die as a result. But making up symptoms? That seems dangerous to me. Peter Damian (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a case for Doc James

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"Credentials, such as degrees, are even harder to verify." Is this true? I'm admittedly not an expert on the topic, but I thought universities generally will verify a degree on request. For instance, a quick Web search found National Student Clearinghouse, which appears to allow you to verify degrees from many U.S. institutions, as well as some other credentials like professional certifications. I do understand that due to privacy laws verifying will usually require the consent of the awardee. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm an expert on the topic, and I say... EEng 22:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Get the joke? And seriously: even assuming you can get Institution I to verify that Person P earned Degree D (which in fact you can generally do), how do we know that User:IamJohnSmith really is John Smith?

Exceptions include addresses for "verified Facebook" accounts and the like, and most *.edu addresses for faculty members. Collect (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops, forgot. Right you are. EEng 00:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that people say that how one presents themselves on Wikipedia, whether or not it is fabricated is of no importance. Of course, we are mostly anonymous individuals but it's clear when someone says they are an academic or a lawyer or a physician (or any occupational position indicating advanced training), their opinion is taken more seriously than User:JustARegularEditor. I think people calling themselves Dr. or Prof. in their username are being deceptive if the names are not accurate unless it's clearly a nickname (like Doctor Feelgood). I seen people take other's user page self-description at face value and not have any skepticism about whether they are who they claim to be.

As for meaningless credentials, the ones that get me are "best-selling author" (on what list?) or "award winning". These I see in biographies more than Wikipedia user pages but if you scratch the surface, they often turn out not to be very notable achievements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)