Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jpgordon (talk | contribs) at 15:40, 6 July 2007 (Funny once.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Chris Benoit

Heads up. It looks like Wikipedia knew about Chris' wife's death a half a day before the police. The IP posting this is from the same city as WWE headquarters. Wikipedia is bound to get questions about this, so I thought you might want to get a jump on it rather than find yourself surprised. I'm pretty sure you're not lacking surprise calls from the media. Rklawton 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is either a lucky guess or what we all think it is. The IP is owned by Optimum Online, which is a massive /12 range of IP addresses. It could be anybody in New England. Sean William ‹‹‹ 15:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message with authorities. Apparently, Benoit left suspicious text messages for people on Sunday. It is very likely one of the recipients of text messages edited the article. Cary Bass demandez 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any case of mandated reporting (or whatever the equivalent is for suspected foul-play) for which people may be culpable? It's a very gray area on the internet. Anyway, it just goes to show the power of Wikipedia in being one of the quickest sources of information in the universe, even inside information. There is a flip-side to this coin as well, but damn!. Valley2city 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chris Benoit breaking news on Wikipedia --164.107.222.23 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So for every 1000 or 10,000 so vandals writing in to say "XX is dead" one was true. I don't see how we can turn this into an action item for us. Only in hindsight can we find the needle in the haystack. Reporting every such claim to authorities would turn us into laughingstocks. Thatcher131 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Valley2city was referring specifically to reporting threats (not applicable in this case) or to reporting "clues" to authorities once a crime and a relevant post have been linked (as it appears in this case). Incidentally, FOX News has now picked up this story. Rklawton 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The news I watch here in Erie, PA is reporting "WHY-KEY-pedia" knew about the murder, too.--trey 10:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great catch RKlawton, your elf-like eyes made the news. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19468182/ . Warrush
I didn't spot the original edit, Wesleymullins did. All I did, after some discussion with other editors on the article's talk page, was to bring it here so JW wouldn't find himself answering "huh?" when the reporters called. The fellow who did find it ended up blocked for insisting the thread belonged in the article's talk page. Rklawton 13:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guten Tag!

Und wie geht's? Wie lange haben Sie Deutsch gelernt? Cheers, Corvus coronoides 18:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe seit zwei Jahre Deutsch studiert. Aber, mein deutsch ist noch nicht sehr gut.--Jimbo Wales 02:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hinterlasse auch mal beste Grüße aus Deutschland :) --Athalis 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales - private and public talkpages

Jimbo, a suggestion. How about if you were to create a private (although readable by the community) talkpage where people who really want to talk just to you can post, which will automatically archive to this page after 24hours unless you choose to answer or choose to archive to its own subpage? I realise a great many of the posts "here" will be placed "there" in the first instance, although not those where folk are requesting help/advice/guidance where they cannot find other appropriate forums, but is a 1 day delay in receiving help from others too high a price to pay? I also realise that you may be too busy on occasion to review the bulk of such traffic, but again the default is to these pages meaning it isn't lost, in which case you can move (with appropriate notices) any item you wish to deal with "personally". LessHeard vanU 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC) ps. Of course, comments from any other party here is welcome![reply]

Well usually when people want to talk to me privately, they email me. I am not sure what you mean by "private (although readable by the community)"... if it is readable by the community, how is it private? Maybe I just misunderstand...--Jimbo Wales 02:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means a place where people can converse with just you, but in a way that is viewable by the community (in a way that E-mail is not). Typically conversations on this talk page don't receive your direct input.--Cronholm144 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cronholm is correct. People send you smileys, make personal requests, etc. in an arena which has an established practice of third parties involving themselves, which the mailer does not always wish (see the post above, which was the catalyst for this idea). A semi private talkpage gives the community an opportunity to allow you to respond, or not, as you wish, before it defaults to your "anybody can edit" talkpage here. LessHeard vanU 12:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That defeats the purpose of a wiki - where anyone can edit and comment. Anyone should be allowed to comment on a post, especially if it doesn't need jimbo's attention. He is busy alot, and most of the time other users input solves the problem or provides some great input. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion was prompted by the post above this; when I read it my reaction was, "Well, if you want to speak only to Jimbo then you shouldn't post here...!" which was immediately followed by, "So, where can you go to communicate with Jimbo publicly?" The talkpage I was suggesting would be editable by the community (for removing vandalism, etc) but there would be a voluntary agreement not to respond to comments until it defaults to this page, to allow Jimbo the opportunity to react if he so chooses when it is convenient for him. This talkpage has become in part a de facto WP discussion page. My suggestion would provide the resemblance of a talkpage such as all other users enjoy.
However, as Jimbo hasn't commented (or created such a page) since the first response this I consider this discussion as moot. LessHeard vanU 09:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't really see the problem. And I don't quite get what solution is being proposed for it. I suppose if there is a big problem with trolling, we could semi-protect the talk page, but I think the current situation works pretty well. That is, sometimes people ask me questions that are really just general questions that anyone can answer, and usually someone helpful jumps in to do that before I can get around to it. If people had to wait on me to answer those, then they would probably end up permanently disappointed, since I already work basically from when I wake up until when I go to sleep, and still can't get around to everything. Sometimes I don't answer things because I overlook them, or I forget to answer before the archiver comes through, or because I can't think of anything useful to say, or because I can't think of anything nice to say. :) That's surely a failing on my part, but I don't think having yet another talk page would help. :)--Jimbo Wales 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really, really, really moot, now! ;~) LessHeard vanU 12:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is IAR policy simply because it has your blessing?

Hello Jimbo,
For a couple of weeks now there has been discussion at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules about seeking a better wording or revision of policy. The discussion has recently reached the question of: "Is IAR policy because Jimbo says it is? Is it possible to revise or reword IAR (perhaps significantly) without Jimbo's blessing?" Your input would be valued. See especially the sections Jimbo's role and Planning of straw poll #2. Thanks! - Chardish 11:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been policy. It was the first policy we ever had. It was the first of our "rules to consider" and it is really really important in the overall social fabric of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people seem to think that IAR causes unbelievable destruction to Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, people will do stupid things whether that page exists or not. I realise you have much more important matters to attend to, but if you have the time and the will, your input on matters on WT:IAR would probably straighten things out. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 14:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many people seem to have some difficulty in understanding its role and how it can be applied in various scenarios. Shouldn't you, or someone else, invest some effort in trying to better clarify the issue? Some would say that such a rule is relative to one's interpretation of things; others could argue that it is a dillema and that IAR could itself be ignored. It is therefore a question of judgement, and how can you standardize judgement when dealing with so many people? Or perhaps IAR is a sort of Force majeure? --Thus Spake Anittas 14:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input on WT:IAR Jimbo :-) --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 18:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks as well, Jimbo! What you offered will be very helpful in deciding where to proceed from here. - Chardish 21:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for creating the wikipedia.

Regards from the Catalan nation —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.129.86.142 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You created this wonderful site

Meeting you is such a honor and pleasure and...all that that fun stuff! You have made a wonderful site! I...I...I am totally speechless and I am not even speaking! I am typing! Okay, I know I seem a little to much fan much. But I am just exited! Thank you for creating Wikipedia!-Angel David 00:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your comments on WP:IAR

Well... why don't you test the limits of your policy making powers? I think everyone would like to see WP:NOMORONS. I know I personally would also like to see WP:YOURBANDSUCKS or Wikipedia:Your friends are not notable. I don't care how many girlfriends they have.

Wikipedia:Even an inclusionist would delete that, everyone is just laughing at you for saying you're standing up for "What wikipedia should be" Could be useful too. The shortcut could be WP:LOLYOU. --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 22:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for some love

As mentioned above by someone else, all references to the Benoit-Wikipedia story eventually work their way back to my original edit made hours after his death was announced. Like other Wikipedia administrators, I have seen you speak in vague terms in the MSM about how the story became a story. I've read others say "someone brought it to our attention" or "we put the pieces together" or as you said, Wikipedia officials became aware of the posting. Just to make it clear, the someone or we that put the pieces together and made Wikipedia officials aware of the posting is me. I feel that Wikipedia is dragging their feet in giving a that-a-boy to the person who broke the biggest wikipedia-themed story in the site's history. Although currently the story may be a net negative for the site, I think we may look back on this as the incident that lead to the changes many of us think are needed here. Wesleymullins 06:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness, no slight was intended. First, I give you a very hearty that-a-boy for bringing it up, if you were the first to do so. The only reason I haven't been trumpeting it from the rooftops is that I was unsure who was the first to notice it. Second, I do not think the story is a net negative for the site at all... everything went very well, and I am pleased with the whole thing. What changes do you think it suggests? I don't foresee any changes resulting from this story or any like it.--Jimbo Wales 12:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my understanding of the matter: I think Wesleymullins is referring to your review of his block. You see, when Wesleymullins broke the Benoit story (so to speak), an administrator rather rudely and abruptly ended the thread and then deleted all trace of it from the Benoit talk page. That's one reason it has been rather difficult to see who did what with that article on the 25th. The deleted thread anticipated the media brouhaha, police involvement, etc. The exceptional circumstances were obvious. As a minimum, WP:IAR applied. Wesleymullins tried to restore the thread, but the admin refused to "permit" it. In the end, Wesleymullins was blocked. This came as quite a shock given the significance of the edits, the rudeness of at least one of the admins involved, and Wesleymullins's own edit history. He posted an unblock request, and you denied it. Since then, we've seen a great deal of media coverage, computers seized, and the vandal questioned by authorities. It's likely that Wesleymullins is looking for credit for his scoop, vindication for his actions, and apologies from those he feels treated him unfairly. I could be wrong, of course. At the moment, I feel he deserves all three. Rklawton 13:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe what Alison means, is that she didn't deny his unblock request. A spoofer did. Please see her talk page. Flyguy649talkcontribs 14:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precisely. He left a phenomenally rude (and, dare I say it, crowing) message on my talk page demanding I apologise. I never reviewed his block in the first place, rather, I had to put up being impersonated and misrepresented. And now this guy is harranguing Jimbo, Cary and just about anybody he can find who'll listen about how big a meanie-admin I was? You'd think he being such the expert in such matters, would have stopped to check his facts first before he went off like he did. - Alison ☺ 16:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah! Rklawton 16:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think he's really in the right here, though. He misunderstood the message that some troll left, pretending to be you, and if you had said it, he would be right to be annoyed. As it is, it was all just a misunderstanding, no? --Jimbo Wales 19:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, indeed. The culprit/impersonator was found through checkuser (is asking for unblock right now!) and has been blocked indefinitely. Email me if you like for details. User: Wesleymullins with a lot of grace and honour, has issued me with an apology on my talk page and that is now in the past. Given his circumstances, Jimbo, I can completely see where is anger and frustration has come from, esp. given that he never had a chance of a fair unblock review. That just compounded the matter for the guy. He really got the wrong end of the stick on this one - Alison ☺ 20:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am going to add "crowing" and "self-aggrandizing" to the list of strengths on my resume, Alison. Some of the best descriptors of me I've ever heard. I am glad we made up, but just to be clear, I only reported on the person who originally blocked me (not you); I just crowed and self aggrandized on your page about what I thought was your refusal to unblock me. Jimbo, you asked why I think this could lead to changes here: If I understand the history of the schools of thought behind Wikipedia, you would be more inclined to subscribe to the "the more the merrier" philosophy, so maybe this whole Benoit/Wikipedia story doesn't bother you the way it bothers those who support a more elitist approach. I've read many editorials the last few days using this incident as a shining example of everything that is wrong with allowing anyone to edit here, and I must admit as someone who routinely has to defend being part of Wikipedia to my friends, this has only added fuel to their fire. I can see the Benoit/Wikipedia episode being the springboard that creates a more formal approach to editing this site. At the risk of self-aggrandizing more, let's forget for a minute about the fact that some vandal goofed off and caused Wikipedia, the WWE, the families of the deceased and law enforcement a lot of stress and confusion for a week. Let’s just focus on the fact that I got blocked. To reduce that incident to its simplest description, a kid who makes his living spinning records was able to decide what is/isn’t newsworthy. I hold a Master’s Degree in English Composition and research/write for a living, yet my voice was silenced by someone whose userpage contains a link to his vinyl collection and is peppered with references to skateboarding and underground parties. Call me elitist, but there is something askew there. Wesleymullins 04:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoopedia

This site, sponsored by the NBA is copying pages by Wikipedia without giving Wikipedia any credit. Possible lawsuit? Charlotte provided me these diffs on a separate source: For example, http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php/Hack-a-Shaq is obviously copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack-a-Shaq.


Thanks for your time,

Miranda 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does give Wiki some credit by using the name "Wiki," but no, there can be no lawsuit, since Wikipedia is free and free for distribution, and that goes for its content; and good thing it is in such a way. If Jimbo boy decides one day to sell Wiki for some 50 million bucks, the content will exist on other mirror sites and a new Wiki can be recreated by others. Hopefully, Jimbo will not take this step and the problem will never arise. :) --Thus Spake Anittas 20:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, "wiki" is a generic term not belonging to Wikipedia (or anybody else). Its use doesn't state or imply any sort of credit to Wikipedia. And Wikipedia, though "free", is licensed under a specific copyright license, GFDL, which makes specific rules regarding credit that must be given, which aren't being followed in the NBA wiki. However, any legal action would have to be taken by the creators of the specific content, not Wikipedia/Wikimedia themselves, who don't own the copyrights involved. From what I can see, the NBA Hoopedia has no statement of copyright license or credit on its article pages, and the history of that particular page doesn't include any edit comments indicating the source of the material other than the user who directly supplied it. *Dan T.* 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I should have kept my mouth shut. Yes, you're right on all accounts. Perhaps someone could contact the owner of that site and ask them nicely to comply with the rules. Now, to my next concern: Wiki is free under GFDL, where one must give credit to Wiki for the content used. However, can Wales change the license for the content that used to fall under GFDL to become copyright material? I'm still worried that he one day may decide to sell the site and our work will become copyrighted, while we're pushed out by some bigshot company. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under GDFL anyone can "sell" our work and make bazillions of bucks. But it would be like selling ice to Alaskans. It's already free, so why pay for it? The one thing they won't be able to do is copyright (other than GDFL) or otherwise take credit for our work. Rklawton 21:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear; and you're right: it wouldn't work to make Wiki a premium site, but it would work to add advertisement to the site, etc. You could probably argue that there is no need for advertisement because Wiki gets funds that would otherwise not be given, if the site had ads; but that still doesn't change my concerns that: 1) there might be an interest in aquiring Wiki, and; 2) Wales may be willing to sale the site in the future. If not now, then maybe in 10, 20 or even 30 years. Can he just decide to sell the site as he wishes? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can download the site now if you like. Free. So there's nothing to sell. Ask.com and others mirror Wikipedia's content already - and host it along with ads. However, they do this within the terms of the GDFL license, so it's no big deal. Rklawton 21:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that with so many people visiting the site, there is a great potential for business and as Wiki's popularity grows for each day, so does its worth. The mirror sites offer only the content, but not the encyclopedia where people can come and edit, and interact with each other. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is anything being done regarding this instance of nba.com ripping off Wikipedia and all of its contributors? --Rajah 02:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if some of our articles on basketball players use photos in violation of copyright. I know for a fact that some of our articles on basketball players lack photos. If we contact the NBA, we could suggest that they use our content, give us credit, and release some NBA and WNBA player photos under the GFDL so that we can use them. Crediting Wikipedia is their obligation under the GFDL anyway. Releasing photos would help us provide them with free marketing for their product. JamesMLane t c 03:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia and the NBA should respect each others IP rights. Your idea of a quid pro quo exchange, while interesting, probably won't hold up. I looked for the designated agent of NBA, but all I found was a designated agent for their photo section photos.nba.com terms, and it's Getty Images. --Rajah 03:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block question

Jimbo, can you clarify why you blocked DickClarkMises (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Thanks!--Chaser - T 00:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserting an image despite there being an OTRS request not to do it without talking first. He says he left a message and got no response, and then re-inserted the image. Wrong answer. The particular image in question is not the issue, of course.--Jimbo Wales 01:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've unblocked. Thanks, Jimbo.--Chaser - T 02:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Adminship is no big deal"

Hey, this original statement by you is being disputed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Cut_down_on_premature_requests, some people believe it does not apply since it is so old. Could you please clarify there, it would be greatly appreciated :). Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

I had sent you an email, but I just wanted to make sure you would have time soon to upload the meetup pictures. I want to finish the page soon, and add them to my collection. Thanks! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Million Dollar Wiki

Hey Jimbo! I've contacted the owner of the million dollar wiki and, he has said he is willing to supply us for free the following pages;

  • Wikipedia
  • Wikinews
  • Wikimedia Commons
  • Wikiquote
  • Wikiversity
  • Wikibooks
  • Wikisource
  • Wiktionary
  • Meta Wiki
  • Wikimedia Foundation

I have contacted him in order to try and stop other people from buying the pages and possibly phising.

All he asks is an email from an official WMF email address. I have emailed you hit details for you to email him.
Thanks Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 08:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia, it is a CoE

Would really like to see your reaction to this little debate. Or rather "this huge debate". I actually think it goes to the heart of so much. JDG 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC) ... Oops, nevermind. Just read #5 in your Statement of Principles for the first time ("Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself."). Pardon. JDG[reply]

What do you mean by "CoE"? What does that stand for?--Jimbo Wales 19:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Compendium of Everything", apparently. Flyguy649talkcontribs 19:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Community of editors", maybe ? Abecedare 00:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikiversity, to Jimbo Wales, the appropriate place to discuss the nature of the Wikipedia? There is a topic there called Wikipedia Studies. A.Z. 23:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you, Jimbo, sort of invited me to expand upon it here, despite Principle 5, I was preparing myself to leave the best definition I could, as I very deeply feel that being a CoE (rhymes with Joe) is Wikipedia's real raison d'être, and that many thousands of disputes (literally) would be immediately and permanently resolved if this truth came to be understood and promulgated by our benevolent dictator and other leaders. Sadly, the whole thing was ruined when I was Googling for my own previous uses of "Compendium of Everything" in both Wikipedia and meta.wikimedia, and I stumbled across a thing called "Citizendium" which defines itself as "a citizens' compendium of everything". No doubt you know of it, as it is the work of none other than ol' LWS. But I hadn't been aware of it and was absolutely shocked when I saw my pet phrase used for his project. Shock swiftly gave way to hilarity, though: if anybody is constitutionally disinclined to create a true CoE, it's Larry, with his insistence on expert editors. Despite his use of "compendium of everything", and despite actually ending the name of his project with "endium", there is no chance it will actually be a CoE under his severely limiting pre-conditions.

So, it's all ruined. I was harboring secret hopes that my description of a CoE would capture your and others' imaginations, particularly the idea of enshrining 10 or 15 distinct Levels of Detail ranging from the Utterly Trivial to the Strictly Encyclopedic, with corresponding radio buttons in User Prefs to lock in the user's choice... But I'll spare you my full description of it, as the way I envisioned it happening is now impossible. Now that Sanger has a "Citizendium", we'll never have a vote on changing our name to "Wikipendium"; we'll never vote to change "The Free Encyclopedia" to "The World's First and Only CoE".

Now we'll need some other terminology for what we really are, and I'm so stuck on "CoE" that I can't even begin to cook up something else... Here we are, creating one of the signal cultural achievements of our era, something that goes well beyond the 18th century paper-and-expert-bound "Encyclopedia", and we don't even have a word for it. True to psycholinguistic theory, the lack of a word actually causes folks to lack the concept, so we war amongst ourselves over what should be included/excluded (Inclusionists vs. Deletionists) when we should all understand we are creating a CoE and therefore absolutely everything should be included, with the presentation to the user strictly regulated through 15 Levels of Detail via software, with a default Level of, say, 4. What other reference work in history could at all rival this? Is there a shortage of magnetic diskspace? Why is there such resistance to fully becoming what we've already started becoming?

Think of it like this: in a true Coe you can, if you've set your Detail Level all the way to 15, follow the life and times of Total Nobody, who, on April 14th, 2008, resolves to learn to walk and chew gum simultaneously, and fails for five entire weeks until that glorious June day on which she succeeds, even managing to blow a bubble or two as she lurches down the sidewalk (link to YouTube video provided). Her resolution and the implementation of it would doubtless be among the least notable events, from our present vantage point, ever recorded in a reference work. Yet I can assure you, and I believe you will admit the truth of this after only a little reflection, this event will be of real interest to some far-off future homo sapiens splendoris anthropologist mining this magnificent resource for details of daily life among homo sapiens sapiens. Imagine if we in 2007 somehow had text describing the tiniest activities of homo habilis or homo erectus or even just the Sumerians or the ancient Chinese. These homely details would be cherished by anthropologists fully on a level with the composition of the Epic of Gilgamesh or the refining and blending of saltpeter and other ingredients into gunpowder. To simply know how neolithic or peri-historical people spent their days would be a huge breakthrough in our understanding of ourselves. This is the same service we can render to the future if we just drop the outmoded limitations that the "Encyclopedia" percept puts on us. Thanks to the technology that our developers so ably wield, we can embed multiple versions of this reference under one rubric, and feed out the version desired by the simple programmatic reading of the value of an html form element linked to userid. One could sense Britannica and other encyclopedias trying to break free of the arbitrary constraints placed upon them by the physical book, as they fed out "yearbooks" and the like. Now we are easily free of those constraints thanks to software-driven document creation and TCP/IP internetworking, yet many of us insist on hoisting the old constraints right back onto us, and howl "Unencyclopedic!" and "Non-Notable!" when they are challenged by someone who has liberated her/his thinking from the Book form. Jimbo, please move away from those people. JDG 07:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I guess the silent treatment is understandable. My way of writing about these things is a bit flighty. I'm pretty confident these ideas will be implemented, and that's reward enough. JDG 11:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikisistene Chapel

Isn't this adorable?
An editor has nominated the above file for discussion of its purpose and/or potential deletion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion and help reach a consensus.

If you'd like a chuckle, check out possibly the best thread that WP:ANI has seen in a long time. DurovaCharge! 03:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or the most disrespectful. I found it to be one of wikipedia's more embarassing moments and rather offensive. Peace.Lsi john 03:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chacun a son goût, and all that ... - Alison ☺ 04:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Jimbo was meant to be God. And where is God's left arm? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel
OK, I see the arm, but why the pink dress? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who's going to tell God what to wear? -- ChrisO 20:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was obviously some kind of clothing shortage. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint letter about Wikipedia

Dear Mr Jimmy Wales- Some of what I'm about to say regarding Wikipedia's diatribes is so childishly simple, I fear it may be patronizing to explain; I apologize in advance. Here's the story: I have to laugh when Wikipedia says that it understands the difference between civilization and savagery. Where in the world did it get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. Wikipedia has no evidence or examples to back up its point. Not that I've come to expect any better from Wikipedia. We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist, altruistic principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have enabled the worst types of vitriolic megalomaniacs I've ever seen to sidetrack us, so we can't reverse the devolutionary course Wikipedia has set for us. There are many roads leading to the defeat of Wikipedia's plans to incite an atmosphere of violence and endangerment toward the good men, women, and children of this state. I feel that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving, domestic violence, or even escapism.

Please remember that I welcome Wikipedia's comments. However, Wikipedia needs to realize that the hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve. Wikipedia's tracts are just a rhetorical ploy to get away from the obvious fact that the really interesting thing about all this is not that a stockpile of Wikipedia quotes favoring negativism could fill a junkyard. The interesting thing is that its conclusions are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition". Funny, that was the same term that Wikipedia's subordinates once used to cause this country to flounder on the shoals of self-interest, corruption, and chaos. Wikipedia knows perfectly well that its plans for the future owe much to the hijinks of what I call ethically bankrupt, unholy propagandists. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: How long shall there continue tyrannical contumelious-types to vend and yellow-bellied used-car salesmen to gulp so low a piece of careerism as its convictions? In other words, what exactly is it trying to hide? That's the big question. If you knew the answer to that then you'd also know why if you can make any sense out Wikipedia's unambitious, craven artifices, then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did.

So don't tell me that like much conventional wisdom, Wikipedia's methods of interpretation contain too much convention and not enough wisdom just because its sermons reflect an unpleasant bias that will besmirch the memory of some genuine historic figures sooner than you think. Wikipedia's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only scurrilous answers, unsympathetic resolutions to conflicts. Wikipedia wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet it is also a big proponent of a particularly diabolic form of gnosticism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that Wikipedia is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to it whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Wikipedia is radicalism. Why? My answer is, as always, a model of clarity and the soul of wit: I don't know. However, I do know that if Wikipedia truly wanted to be helpful, it wouldn't enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values. During the first half of the 20th century, conformism could have been practically identified with paternalism. Today, it is not so clear who can properly be called an irrational, frotteurism-prone beatnik.

I know some ghastly ne'er-do-wells who actually believe that everyone and everything discriminates against Wikipedia -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls. Incredible? Those same people have told me that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that it can dole out or retract. With such people roaming about, it should come as no surprise to you that if it weren't for debauched, crafty skinheads, Wikipedia would have no friends. It may be unfashionable to say so and it may surprise a few of you out there, but I, hardheaded cynic that I am, do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with Wikipedia. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I review the basic issues at the root of the debate. The nicest thing that can be said about Wikipedia's backers is that they are testy ex-cons out to create some self-serving, pseudo-psychological profile of me to discredit my opinions. From this anecdotal evidence, I would argue that its method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "Wikipedia-ism". It is a crazy and avowedly mawkish philosophy that aims to take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. This may sound like caricature, but Wikipedia commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. It then ensures that these people stay in those positions because that makes it easy for Wikipedia to create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight.

Daily, the truth is being impressed upon us that while Wikipedia insists that censorship could benefit us, reality dictates otherwise. Actually, if you want a real dose of reality, look at how one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Is there anything that Wikipedia can't make its bootlickers believe? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to give Wikipedia a rhadamanthine warning not to convince people that their peers are already riding the Wikipedia bandwagon and will think ill of them if they don't climb aboard, too.

If Wikipedia opened its eyes, it'd realize that its violations of the rules of decency are so beer-guzzling they beggar belief. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Wikipedia will wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public. And to overcome these fears, we must compile readers' remarks and suggestions and use them to arraign Wikipedia at the tribunal of public opinion. Wikipedia's helots don't represent an ideology. They don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're just flat myopic.

There is something grievously wrong with those inimical vandals who accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice. Shame on the lot of them! Wikipedia possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, it can't even spell or define "erudition", much less achieve it.

Common sense and scientific evidence agree: One of Wikipedia's accomplices keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that Wikipedia is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that Wikipedia argues that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: If its compeers had even an ounce of integrity, they would enable adversaries to meet each other and establish direct personal bonds which contradict the stereotypes they rely upon to power their avaricious publications. Wikipedia should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. We need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Wikipedia. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that if Wikipedia had even a shred of intellectual integrity, it'd admit that it sometimes has trouble convincing people that its vices are the only true virtues. When it has such trouble, it usually trots out a few dour scalawags to constate authoritatively that Wikipedia's maneuvers are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. Whether or not that trick of its works, it's still the case that it is immature and stupid of Wikipedia to give rise to grumpy mischievous-types. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to criticize the obvious incongruities presented by it and its fans, and that's why I say that it has a natural talent for complaining. It can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours.

Wikipedia would have us believe that it knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Wikipedia is surrounded by vexatious, lascivious big-labor bosses who parrot the same nonsense, which is why its sophistries are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. And they promote the mistaken idea that everyone who doesn't share its beliefs is an uppity fugitive deserving of death and damnation. I don't normally want to expose anyone to rigorous sarcasm, satire and disdain, but Wikipedia undoubtedly deserves it. If Wikipedia were to inspire a recrudescence of scornful fatuity, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that Wikipedia flatters people in order to betray them. But the problems with Wikipedia's projects don't end there. Wikipedia wants to lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction. It gets better: It actually believes that it can override nature. I guess no one's ever told it that its most obscene tactic is to fabricate a phony war between dodgy pillocks and duplicitous, addlepated beguilers. This way, Wikipedia can subjugate both groups into helping it till the disorganized side of the stoicism garden. I unquestionably don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that we must make this world a kinder, gentler place. Our children depend on that. It seems that no one else is telling you that Wikipedia doesn't care about accountability in our public systems. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, for the nonce, Wikipedia is content to offer stones instead of bread to the emotional and spiritual hungers of the world. But before the year is over, it will deny minorities a cultural voice.

When Wikipedia made its puppy-dog allies wag their little tails by promising to let them attack the critical realism and impassive objectivity that are the central epistemological foundations of the scientific worldview, I realized for the first time that relative to just a few years ago, the most discourteous junkies you'll ever see are nearly ten times as likely to believe that Wikipedia has been robbed of all it does not possess. This is neither a coincidence nor simply a sign of the times. Rather, it reflects a sophisticated, psychological warfare program designed by Wikipedia to treat people like the most hidebound dorks I've ever seen. Wikipedia says that it is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. What it means by this, of course, is that it wants free reign to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore. Other than that, Wikipedia is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how money-grubbing Wikipedia is. You can't do it. Not only that, but if it bites me, I will undeniably bite back. I would like to end on a heartfelt note. Wikipedia's primary motivation is self-enrichment at our expense.

Thank you, --Darlingshire Barracks 10:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has made a total of five edits to wikipedia, including his own page, and all of them today. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a crime? --Darlingshire Barracks 11:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. My comment reflects the length and depth of your wikipedia experience. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You mask any valid arguments you may have with unnecessarily complex language. Someone who has a valid point to make (and who doesn't live in or before the 17th century) ought to just come out and say it without trying to confuse their audience. For this reason alone the majority of Wikipedia is likely to completely ignore your statement. Perhaps it would be wise to take a little time to cool off, and come back and have an educated conversation on the subject devoid of the meaningless rhetoric. --D 12:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Source: Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator. (At least I believe so...) Silly rabbit 12:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this has been done before on Wikipedia. (So no, this is not an original joke.) Silly rabbit 12:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he may be lampooning my diatribe above. I plead guilty to a byzantine style, Darlingshire... but are you sure there's not some reverse snobbery at work here? JDG 16:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. But I think it's just a happy accident: see this diff. Silly rabbit 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why didnt Barracks discuss whether or not the gehoxtahagen is framed up by the ramistan? Wesleymullins 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darlingshire, I just have one question for you. Uhh...what?--SGT Tex 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a prank. The letter is automatically randomly generated by an intelligent computer program. See http://www.pakin.org/complaint/ Silly rabbit 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks Silly rabbit, I thought my comprehension skills had left me for a moment there. I'm glad I'm not as much of an idiot as I thought. --SGT Tex 02:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two words: Ignatius Reilly.--Jimbo Wales 02:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God Thread on ANI Board

I was curious as to whether this is appropriate conduct for Wikipedia? [2] I'd appeal, but it seems all the people I could appeal to are participating. :P Drumpler 00:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, in particular, bothers you about it? I was raised a strict roman catholic and personally I think God would appreciate the humour (provided He understands the in-jokes :-p) --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 00:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the type of thing Conservapedia will hold against us, so we should definitely keep it --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 01:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, interestingly, I'm not a Christian and do appreciate such humour as I detest religion in all of its form. Where I am concerned is that this could become a precedent for people holding several other off-topic discussions because "the admins did it." I have a really good idea for an essay, where this conversation can leak into, but for the WP:ANI page, I feel it inappropriate. Drumpler 11:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Dear Sir,

I am a user in Portuguese wikipedia and I was blocked by an administrator because I vote in another direction in the pages to erase. He threatened me with blockade. Because of this threat I ask a informal mediation for the problem, but when he reads my request to a mediation, blocked me immediately. And know I can’t reply any question neither the mediation. What I can do?

The user is [3]

Kind regards,

octavio.viana@rightsideclub.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.157.79.82 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Wales

Rather than be rude and not answer my questions (like you usually do) would you mind actually responding to the comments i am about to make (if your not to busy travelling around the world big-noting yourself).

Okay, firstly i have noticed a number of flaws in wikipedia which i think require your attention (as apparently your better than everyone else, so you should be able to easily fix them).

1. Rude and Abusive editors - I have experienced a number of problems with editors who have abused me and been quite rude to me on a number of occasions, and i have tried to complain about them before however you don't seem to do anything about it, therefore i must assume that you think it is ok for editors to be rude and abusive, as you do not do anything about it.

2. Editors not admitting they are wrong - I have fought with another editor because he/she reverted my edit as he/she thought it was incorrect. After providing sufficient evidence to suggest that i was right, they refused to listen and would not admit that they were wrong, therefore meaning that the encylopedia was incorrect.

3. My third problem is you Mr Wales - I find it very upsetting to read through your talk page and see that you often do not respond to concerns when they are addressed to you. Instead, other "wanna be" Jimbos (why anyone would want to be you, i do not know) respond trying to answer questions about wikipedia, and it wouldn't be so bad except when something is addressed to you personally i/we should not expect people other than you to answer it. Secondly on this point, i think that it is unfair of you to take responsibility for wikipedia's success. The fact is that yes you did co-found wikipedia, but its success to date has had little to do with you, dedicated editors make wikipedia run by adding and editing articles (without being payed, i might add), so really you don't do anything except pay the site fees.

4. Blocking policy - I am sure that within a few hours of posting this message my account will be blocked for "trolling" (like thats even a real word) when all i have really done is ask relevant questions and inform you of concerns which must be addressed. And once i am blocked, god knows i will not beable to get my account unblocked, there should be better unblocking procedures, so that honest people are not caught in the middle of a terrible situation which is what usually happens. Wikipedia admins seem to have it in their heads that editors do not deserve a second chance, "indef blocks" is not a fair policy, not even the legal system allow people to be held indefinately (well, not usually), and people are always entitle to a second chance.

Finally i would hope that you will personally respond to this comment, and i hope that other idiotic editors would kindly not comment on this situation or my comments, as this is quite clearly none of anyone elses business. So i would like Mr Wales to respond to my concerns and i would hope that you will be rectifying these problems.

Thank you for your time and i hope to see a response from you soon, (note: failure to respond will be seen as rude). (Mandy122 06:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Consider me rude, but this is Mandy122 (talk · contribs)'s first edit. It's hard to right wrongs when you are careful not to give any specifics.-gadfium 09:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gadfium, AFD. Mandy122, could you tell us more? Give us examples. About point 3, Jimbo Wales is very busy. Many people ask simple questions which don't need him to personally answer, so others help answer simple questions. --Kaypoh 09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While AGF'ing it should be noted that Mandy122 claims that editors have previously been rude, that Jimbo has not done anything about it (and doesn't answer every post on his talkpage), and is familiar with the term trolling. Is Mandy122 prepared to divulge if they edited under another name (or as an anon)? I would also point out that "indefinite" is not the same as permanent; an indef block can be lifted after 1 second, as indefinite means no determined time limit (i.e. no minimum or maximum). LessHeard vanU 09:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here we have another issue with other editors rudly commenting on issues that are none of their business, my questions/comments were directly to Mr Wales, it is no body elses business. But since you have asked User Kaypoh, regarding point three with simple questions, no problem yes definately answer them, but with specific topics/issues that are addressed directly to Mr Wales (such as my complaint) then there is no reason for anyone else to comment or add your input. And User LessHeard, regarding your point, just because this is my first edit doesn't mean that i am not expienced with wikipedia. My partner has used wikipedia for a number of years and i have seen some of the issues that he has had to deal with, and i think of my self as someone who, although have not edited regularly, knows how wikipedia works and the way it operates and you only have to read the talk pages to understand how rude, abusive and uncooperative some users are. At least three separate users have commented on my complaints but i do not hear anything of jimbo wales at all (probably washing his hair). (Mandy122 10:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
As I have previously noted*, it has become practice for third parties to comment on topics posted to Jimbo on this talkpage. Yep, there are rude, abusive and unco-operative people here at WP since, being the encyclopedia anyone can edit, there are a lot of rude, abusive and unco-operative people in the world generally. There are rules and guidelines here designed to mitigate the effects of same, but it isn't instant and it doesn't always work. Thems are the conditions that presides. (* coming so soon after my comments regarding Jimbo and posts for his eyes only, I am finding this discourse ever so slightly ironic...) LessHeard vanU 12:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

Hello, Jimbo. Is there a reason that Wikipedia has no model for editors to follow when adding citations? As article reach higher maturity levels, citations become required. When they aren't there, the next editor has a pile of work to do. -Susanlesch 09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is Wikipedia:Citing sources, or where you thinking of something else? --Sherool (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<ref>{{cite news|author=Givhan, Robin|title=Dick Cheney, Dressing Down|publisher=The Washington Post, The Washington Post Company|work=|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43247-2005Jan27.html|date=[[2005-01-28]]|accessdate=2007-07-04}}</ref>
  • Well seeing no replies, maybe I ought to be more specific. I myself edited the 'cite journal' usage on WP:CITET. The page used to list publisher as a field (but the field is not there). I recall having to remove the UCLA law school and Springer from usage examples to do this. Wouldn't people wonder about an encyclopedia with buried (invisible) publishers for academic journals? -Susanlesch 22:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, actually, I have no idea about stuff like this, but it certainly sounds like something that could be improved. I have no idea why publisher is not listed as a field there, and I am sure someone will see this and help you or fix it. :) --Jimbo Wales 04:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFICE pages on WP:MFD

Two pages presumably protected under the WP:OFFICE policy have been nominated for deletion here. You have been contacted either as an office contact or as someone involved in the editing or maintenance of the nominated pages. If you with to comment, please see the deletion discussion. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 14:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stone cold truth

Mr. Wales, what are you thinking? How much did those two dweebs who "created" YouTube get from Google? After everything washes out, they probably pulled in 8 million each, cash. Wikipedia (forget all this other cruft, including Wikimedia, MediaWiki, WikMediaPedia, PediaWikiMedia and all the other annoying ones), I say, Wikipedia has got to be worth at least triple over Youtube to Google. You're only one where they were two, so 8 mil * 2 * 3 = 48. 48 million stone cold cash for delivering this baby to Google. And, frankly, Google will be a better parent than this woeful foundation working out of St. Petersburg, Florida, of all places... C'mon, it was a nice ride, but it's really descending into a lot of jibba jabba (as Mr. T. would say). Your personal stock is at its apex exactly now. You don't know what will happen from this point forward. The Board, with legal assistance you yourself recruited, may find a way to legally sever you from this property. Your time is now. Jim Tour 10:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Maddie was here 18:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! per maddiekate. Also WP:10T. And I'm fairly sure Jimmy is already a millionaire from Bomis --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 18:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh no, not from Bomis.--Jimbo Wales 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you not make money off...erm...'adult photography'? --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Or the New Yorker. :) --Jimbo Wales 23:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that kinda undermine... uh... this? --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 23:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I'm surprised to see you, of all people, among those editing this page. Seems as if you've been hiding for more than a year. Michael Hardy 22:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... Oh...I see that's a bit of an exaggeration. Michael Hardy 22:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I edit here fairly often. For me the funniest part of the above exchange is that claim that the Youtube guys "probably pulled in $8 million" "stone cold cash". I can't help thinking of Austin Powers, since You Tube sold for $1.8 billion or whatever it was. :) --Jimbo Wales 23:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP10T you say. Let's look at this WP10T shall we?..."10 things you did not know about Wikipedia". Who did not know? I knew every one of these claims, myself. The statement germane to our business is #1 "We're not for sale". Yes, "We're not for sale", it says. Can't get any more direct than that, can you? Nor more wrong. Think of the many, many companies Google has gobbled. Were they not led by young, smart, strong-willed men (sorry, if there were any of the fair sex amongst them, please let us know) like Mr. Wales, full of pride in their creations and relishing their roles as founders and leaders? Yes, they were. Keyhole, Deja, Pyra Labs, 2Web, Outride, Inc., Neotonic, Applied Semantics, Kaltix, Genius Labs, Ignite Logic, Baidu.com, Picasa, Zipdash, Urchin Software, GrandCentral Communications, Feedburner, Panoramio, Doubleclick, @Last Software, YouTube. Ah, but the sweet, sweet song of millions on the barrelhead seduced them, one by one. Is your esteemed founder made of steel? Does ice-water slosh in his veins, not to mention his arteries? Hie thee to The Wayback Machine to see statements similar to WP10T on the websites of these companies, in some cases mere weeks before the SirenSong and the GoogleGobble.

After the flat statement "We're not for sale", this, this, what shall we call it, this carefully crafted FYI states, "If you're waiting for Wikipedia to be bought by your friendly neighborhood Internet giant, don't hold your breath. Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in St. Petersburg, Florida." Oh ho! Don't hold your breath! But notice it says Wikipedia is run by the Foundation, not that Wikipedia is owned by, or "a property of" the Foundation. There are those who run and there are those who own. And those who run should not speak and write as if they are privy to all the dreams and desires of those who own.

Another page, doubtless written by those who run, states "With the announcement of the Wikimedia Foundation on June 20, 2003, the ownership of all domain names was transferred to the Foundation." This fact is given in the context of the question "Who Owns Wikipedia?". Yay, if the sheep want to believe that ownership of "wikipedia.org" and "wikipedia.com" shields them from a sudden drastic move by Mr. Wales, perhaps I should not disabuse them of their sleep aid. After all, sheep help so many others to sleep, it seems cruel to tear out from under them their own nighty-nighty comforts. But nay! I am sorry little sheep: while you sleep in the peace of the domain names owned by your beloved Foundation, Mr. Wales may one night, and should one night, make his midnight creep. And when the thing is consummated and 48 mil on the barrelhead goes, as it should go, to Mr. Wales and his children and their children, you will wake up to a reality all your FYIs and FAQs left you totally unprepared for. And that reality will be named: wikipedia.google.com.

I raise this in such a public way because it is the only decent avenue I have. A personal communication is not an option in my case, for reasons that will remain with me. But just as a person, to see what Mr.Wales may be throwing away due to distinctly uncapitalist principles he seems to have contracted, like a cold, over the years, is simply too painful.I had to try something to deliver him from this Patty Hearst-like allegiance to these flat-out communist ideas ("knowledge wants to be free", the entire damn copyleft movement) that cannot but rob him, his wife and their chidren of their due. Wales! Snap out of it! Hey! Snap out of it! Jim Tour 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation owns the Wikipedia trademark. Jimbo can't sell the trademark, because he isn't even the chair of the Foundation, nor he own the copyright of any of the text (except the one he types, of course). So he can't even sell it. And if it were sold, someone else could copy it and Google couldn't do a thing, so there's no point in worries. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation owns Wikipedia. Full stop. Not me. I find it amusing, though, to see that Jim Tour wants to save me from my "flat-out communist" ideas. The last I checked, I was still a card-carrying radical for capitalism. Check your premises, Mr. Tour. :) --Jimbo Wales 01:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watch someone turn that into Liberal Bias. --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ
You're also forgetting that those weren't efforts intended to better the planet, but commercial ventures, at least as far as I've seen any of them. If google wanted to, they could 'take over' wikipedia anyway, with no need to buy it. Under the GFDL, as long as they give credit where credit is do, they could mirror Wikipedia for free (in the same way Linux is free), and then allow their users to edit it. Google could probably easily Embrace, extend, extinguish us if they wanted to, but I doubt they do --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 01:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ownership of "Wikipedia" is a very complicated matter. The Foundation owns the Wikipedia trademarks (probably worth quite a lot, as it's a well-known brand), and they own the servers (worth maybe a few tens of thousands of dollars; old hardware isn't very valuable). The text of Wikipedia is owned, quite literally, by the people who contributed it. --Carnildo 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While there is the ability to purchase a copyrighted name, and a bank of servers, and some offices, Google (nor anybody else) is unable to purchase the concept. Jimbo, I would suggest, is fully aware that he is riding upon a paper tiger (how about that for a mixed metaphor!) in that the entire Wiki empire is only worth its current valuation while it is "free". As soon as it is purchased, and charges levied on reading and editing, then its value will drop like a stone (a cold stone, if you will) as the community migrates to the next free wiki based encyclopedia. Further, since nearly all material contained within WP is either public property or released under licenses that allow the copying and editing (with due acknowledgement) but retains the copyright with the license holder then any information that transfers with the sale of the name does not belong to the purchaser. In short, Jimbo nor anybody else has very little to sell except the name - every thing else is the community. LessHeard vanU 12:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must fly, as I am entertaining in my city apartment tonight, but let me suggest that all the above writers have missed a numbers of factors, all of which together mean that, if anybody does, Mr. Wales owns this project. 1) The editors! If it came down to Mr. Wales against some faceless Board in a dispute over the future disposition of the project, I estimate that fully 80% of this single greatest asset will follow Mr. Wales, particularly when he promises to reinvest a healthy percentage of his windfall into the project, 2) The developers. You have all talked about the data (text and images, mostly) being freely available and, yes, so is the software, but think of what would happen in a transition to Google. These developers would be showered with incomes, stocks, health-plans, flex schedules like they have never seen. The result would be, within four months, a proprietary codebase making the freely available one look broken-down, long in the tooth, etc.,. Never underestimate the cool factor. And that brings us to 3) The users. They will hear about the mighty struggles at Wikipedia on the news, pitting a red-blooded American entrepreneur against a Foundation hopping with Germans and French persons, trying to crush his right to be a tycoon with "copyleft" principles straight from the mind of Marx. It is obvious which side they will take to their hearts. Plus, the Google Wikipedia will look so much cooler... Well, I must stop at 3. Thank you for the lively debate. Jim Tour 14:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Jimbo owns the Wiki.
Seriously, who needs a Board after all? Who needs users? Tour's probably gonna be vaporised for crimethink anyways. Let's just ally with Google and... Hang on... who were we talking about again? Tour? Tour who? Must be Sanger's doing.
If you cannot deal with humor, please move on. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Coldmachine

Thanks for letting me know. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question regarding spoilers

Over at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and at least two other venues including a RfC and MedCab request, this whole issue over whether spoilers should be used in plot sections or at all has broken out repeatedly. The problem is that many are taking an abstract point with it, saying that "spoiler warnings are encyclopediac" or "Well, Wikipedia is never going to be like Encyclopedia Britannica, so why don't we stop pretending with these silly guidelines?" I was wondering if you could put your input into what you think readers should expect of Wikipedia. Some of the questions raised by those in favor of spoilers say that Wikipedia shouldn't reveal detailed plot information without express warning, while some (including I) consider the fact that just because people don't know about Wikipedia's disclaimer doesn't mean we have to warn in a (our view) condescending and redundant way that Wikipedia reveals details. Your thoughts would be appreciated, because if left to our own devices, those not in favor of the current guideline will continue posting a contested tag on the guideline (about which there is already an argument starting).

Sincerely, David Fuchs 23:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if he responds, won't that spoil the ending of the debate? Peace.Lsi john 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply tired of pointless philosophic queries which presume much and cede nothing. David Fuchs 14:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we enforce WP:FRINGE?

Hi, Jimbo. You know that the English Wikipedia has expanded to comprise more than a million pages. Its popularity makes it a favourite target for folks pushing all sorts of fringe theories. As a result we have lots of obscure articles full of patently false claims or fringe theories. As a rule, there are no wikipedians who monitor these low-traffic pages or have them on the watchlist.

A stray pick: "Ancient Kamboja probably included the Pamirs, Badakshan, and parts of Tajikstan" (from Komedes). Or: "Jiroft civilization was older and more advanced than the Sumerian civilization" (from Jiroft civilization). Or: "Aratta was the oldest Armenian state" (from Aratta). Once I attempt to remove a loony claim, I am often reverted within minutes by nationalists or charlatans.

Such articles exist for years, giving Wikipedia a bad name for accuracy. They hold little interest for me, who has neither time nor energy to fight for their sanitation, but I feel there should a place where I could report them. The proliferation of fringe theories is detrimental to the image of Wikipedia. My attempts to report them on WP:RfC nor WP:ANI don't work.

A day ago, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard was started to deal with fringe theories and to enforce WP:FRINGE (which is currently just a declaration), but it will be most likely deleted on the grounds of its perceived "uselessness". How Wikipedia is supposed to decrankify obscure pages whose looniness is obvious to anyone with a high-school diploma? Should we just ignore them and let all sorts of silly claims languish in mainspace, as we do now? I would appreciate your opinion on this issue. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=142912033"