User talk:Jimbo Wales

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251: 10 days

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:

Matthew Gault (8 December 2021). "Wikipedia Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Wikipedia Edit". Vice Media. The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.

ANI v. WMF time frame

I know this might have gotten lost in the shuffle, but I'm planning to start an RfC regarding the "office" action in that case. Do you know, or know who to ask, regarding how "temporary" the "temporary" takedown of the page is? I'm not asking for some exact date, but rather some estimate, or even just an order of magnitude (days|weeks|months|years). If we're talking "Wait a couple of weeks until the appeal is filed", that's a very different conversation than "We might, if we're lucky, have it back in five years." Do you know that, or know who to ask about that? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend against an RfC at this time, it seems unlikely to accomplish anything positive in any way. I would say that specific questions like that are not answerable at the present time for legal reasons. The best thing to do here is assume good faith that the legal team know what they are doing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith can be assumed to a point. But at some point, "What exactly are you doing, why, and how long will it be?" needs to get an answer, not "Well, legal reasons...". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We know that "technical issues" for the comparatively-simple matter of graphs meant "completely broken for 18 months". One can only imagine what "legal reasons" for a political court case in India means—perhaps a decade? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe even more [1]. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an rfc would achieve anything as Office actions can't be overruled by any editor. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overruled, not per se—but we can certainly object to them and register disapproval. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is a good idea and I certainly won't object to it. Maybe we can create a new page like WP:FRAMBAN and seek the community's view. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Seraphimblade: @AirshipJungleman29: WMF has agreed to handover basic subscriber information of editors who edited Asian News International page to Indian court.[2]. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, see discussion at WP:VPWMF. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That, and it was under some type of "sealed cover" arrangement. I don't even pretend to know the first thing about the Indian judicial system, so I don't know what that means or how it would affect things. I will certainly say that the question of disclosing any information to an opposing party, or to any court which might disclose it to such a party, should be the reddest of red lines and the hardest of hard "No"s, even more so than the article takedown. If refusing to do that means "WMF will have to pull out of India and they'll block Wikipedia there", we absolutely should do that instead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason the open letter already has 50+ signatures. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot more than that now. Jimbo—this isn't flying. We're going to need a lot more information and a lot less stonewalling, at the very least. I hope you'll get that message to the right people. What's so godawfully important here that we should be caving like this, when we never have before? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Note that you are jumping to conclusions and you're wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade could we take the tone down just a notch please? I completely understand everyone's anxiety over this specific case and the precedent it sets. I genuinely believe the WMF are fighting this tooth and nail but they also want to fight the case on its merits and it's hard to that if you publicly state that you have no intention of obeying a court order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I shared your optimism, and I hope that in the end, you are right and I am wrong. What we know so far is that the WMF will not draw a line at endangering or harming our content if India's courts tell them to, so that's not the "Absolutely not past here" red line. Will they draw that line at harming our editors, if the court tells them to? Apparently (at least if one believes what Valereee said about it, and I certainly have no reason to believe she is not being honest), what they told the editors in question wasn't very comforting, and they've not given us an answer to that at all. So—I really do wish I shared your optimism, but I'm afraid I don't, and if it comes up to the point of the WMF possibly being willing to endanger real people? Well, that's not a dispute over source reliability or the MOS, or even a dispute over banning someone from the project. That's actually doing real-world harm, and I think that needs condemnation in some pretty strong terms. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd be banging the drum right next to you but I don't think we've quite reached that point. Regardless of what will actually happen, the WMF cannot just announce that it won't comply with a court order. Or perhaps it could but that closes off every legal avenue in the original defamation case. We should also bear in mind that these internal discussions are still public and anyone can read them, including the court and the other party. Which (to me) explains why the WMF are so constrained in what they can say. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and along with that. Who are these "fellow travelers", exactly, and why have none of them come publicly forward to support what you're doing? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 400 signatures now. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF AI contests, money for all!

WMF community can be the judge of the best AI. The WMF should have a daily contest with cash rewards to the top ten winners each day. The contestants may be wise to 'team up' and share the daily money. The daily prize package should be $1,000 x top ten prizes = $10,000/day or under 4 million a year. This should pass Nobel, Pulitzer, spelling bee, prize awards soon. The daily contest is simple: The best wording for a question put to AI to produce the most accurate answer. AI investors would put up prize money for the right to be on the voting panel. AI is so far doing okay with the questions I ask, but the best results would be a team effort to get the 'almost perfect' questions. I hope to create a user page for input. Mr. Wales, please respond as soon as possible as you have all these AI companies on your speed dial and they will wonder why you responded too slow.Music Air BB (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF projects aren't a platform for the promotion of whatever algorithm software marketing is currently promoting as 'artificial intelligence'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has a trophy yet for the best AI. Nobel has prizes for a few fields, the Olympics have for many. WMF could be the first and most coveted prize. Who better to judge AI than a community that has the best combined intelligence now? Let the corporations that step on the skulls of the oppressed masses pay through teeth for the right beat the largest drum. The best AI triple simile/metaphor could be the most challenging event. Music Air BB (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OP has been blocked as a sock, FYI Jip Orlando (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]