Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:53, 6 March 2007 view sourceHeadphonos (talk | contribs)1,763 edits →New Essjay Picture Surfaces← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:05, 16 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,102 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 252) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{High-traffic|date=3 March 2007|site=Slashdot|url=http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/03/233224|page=talk}}
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{High-traffic|date=5 March 2007|site=The Inquirer|url=http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37990|page=talk}}
{{noindex}}
{{High-traffic|date=5 March 2007|site=Digg|url=http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Jimbo_Wales_asks_for_EssJay_s_resignation|page=talk}}
{{Stb}}
{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"
{{Usercomment}}
|-
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|}}
|This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''2''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an ].'''<br />
|-
'''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s .<br />The current ] occupying "community-selected" seats are ], ], ] and ].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is ].'''}}}}
|}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-2 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 21--><!--werdnabot-index User talk:Jimbo Wales/index--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''This page is ] and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, <br> ] '''}}}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}}
{{annual readership}}
{{Press
| subject = talkpage
| author = Matthew Gault
| title = Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit
| org = ]
| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit
| date = 8 December 2021
| quote = 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.
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(10d)
| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 252
| maxarchivesize = 350K
| archiveheader = {{aan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
{{Centralized discussion}}
__TOC__
{{-}}


==]==
<inputbox>
]
type=comment
]
bgcolor=#eeeeff
Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.
default=User talk:Jimbo Wales
buttonlabel=New message here!
</inputbox>
{{archives}}


Could you or your page watchers help me with ]? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.
(Again with the bad archiving practice, but I want us to take this opportunity to talk about ways that Misplaced Pages might be improved after this incident. I posted this to wikien-l, and am posting here to generate an on-wiki discussion here. Please stay on topic, and please feel free to delete random trolling comments (personal attacks) that do not contribute to a positive discussion of how we might grow. Not everyone will agree with this proposal, and that is fine of course, we need a healthy dialogue around the verifiability of credentials. But random accusations of conspiracy and corruption are just boring personal attacks. Let's keep this productive and positive.--] 09:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]]
In response to the EssJay scandal, I want to bring back an old proposal
I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. ] (]) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
of mine from 2 years ago for greater accountability around credentials:
:If Godber is not ], which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::] is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? ] (]) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I dunno, but ] wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. ] (]) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
]
::::And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". ] (]) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*Godber's photographs include "views of the ] including large numbers of cars traveling to ], and the ]. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the ] Homestead in ] with scenes of farm life, including ], ] sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the ], ], ], the ], and the Hillside Railway Workshops); ] (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, ], ], ], ] and ]. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the ], and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the ], ], ] area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori ] and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." ] (]) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. ] (]) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:: If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. ] (]) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== ==
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-May/022085.html


For the interested. ] (]) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
At the time, this seemed like a plausibly decent idea to me, and the
reaction at the time was mostly positive, with some reasonable caveats
and improvements:


:Summary: {{tq|This document intends to show the problematic situation in Hebrew Misplaced Pages (hewiki), and provide evidence that it has been overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors, who prevent others from achieving higher permissions while promoting their own allies.}} –] <small>(])</small> 22:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-May/thread.html
to read the entire thread of "An idea".


== Happy new year ==
Nowadays, I bring back the proposal for further consideration in light
of the EssJay scandal. I think it imperative that we make some positive
moves here... we have a real opportunity here to move the quality of
Misplaced Pages forward by doing something that many have vaguely thought to
be a reasonably good idea if worked out carefully.


Good days, Jimbo. I'd like to say that Chinese Misplaced Pages is introducing ARBCOM System currently, since Arbcom on this project, and in fact all the project is originated from the idea of yours, do you have any opinion for that? Any hints, advice or suggestions? ] 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
For anyone who is reading but not online, I will sum it up. I made a
proposal that we have a system whereby people who are willing to verify
their real name and credentials are allowed a special notification.
"Verified Credentials". This could be a rather open ended system, and
optional.


== ==
The point is to make sure that people are being honest with us and with
the general public. If you don't care to tell us that you are a PhD (or
that you are not), then that's fine: your editing stands or falls on its
own merit. But if you do care to represent yourself as something, you
have to be able to prove it.


That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
This policy will be coupled with a policy of gentle (or firm)
discouragement for people to make claims like those that EssJay made,
unless they are willing to back them up.


:Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
How to confirm? What counts as confirmation? What sorts of things need
::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
confirmation? These are very interesting questions, as there are many
::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
types of situations. But one thing that we have always been very very
good at is taking the time to develop a nuanced policy.


Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to from {{u|Tryptofish}}?
Just to take a simple example: how to verify a professor? This strikes
:... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, {{u|Jimbo Wales}} will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than ] was.
me as being quite simple in most cases. The professor gives a link to
:Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage ''et al.'' is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --] (]) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
his or her faculty page at the college or university, including the
] (]) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
email there, and someone emails that address to say "are you really
EssJay?" If the answer is yes, then that's a reasonable confirmation.


:Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
We can imagine some wild ways that someone might crack that process
:As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
(stealing a professor's email account, etc.) but I think we need not
::Suddenly ] going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. ] (]) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
design around the worst case scenario, but rather design around the
:::{{tq|That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.}} Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. ] (]) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
reasonable case of a reasonable person who is happy to confirm
credentials to us.


== ] ==
(This is a lower level of confirmation than we might expect an employer
to take, of course.)


Hey Mr. Wales, there's a discussion on ] about what image should be used on your Misplaced Pages entry. Figured you may want to chime in with personal opinion about the recent freely-licensed images of you that are presented, as there hasn't been much engagement there at the time of my post. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
For someone like me, well, I have an M.A. in finance. I could fax a
copy of the degree to the office. Again, someone could fake their
credentials, but I don't think we need to design against some mad worst
case scenario but just to have a basic level of confirmation.


== ''The Signpost'': 15 January 2025 ==
==Responses==
*<s>Yes</s>. Perhaps it doesn't go far enough, and probably it has its own problems; but it certainly seems a move in the right direction. -- ] 09:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC) ... PS I dunno, some points made below are pretty good. I'll sleep on it. -- ] 11:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2025-01-15}} </div><!--Volume 21, Issue 1--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 07:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
*This feels to me like a bit of a distraction, so I have a different proposal to make. Could you just not appoint people to the ArbCom anymore? If a vacancy appears, we can automatically fill it with the person who got the next highest number of votes in the last election. At the very least, could you not appoint people who didn't even run in the last election? Also, could you not appoint people with a history of massive lies if you're aware of those lies? ] 09:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1269316164 -->

*'''Yes''', this is a helpful start. ] 09:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*WP:V > Someone with a Ph.D claiming that their edits are more worthy than others; what other purpose will it serve? Credential verification is nothing more than a tool for people to claim that their edits are more worthy, regardless of NPOV/V/OR, than someone elses. Not a very Wiki thing, in my opinion. ''']''' 09:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::He addresses those worries. Working out an implementation could take some thought and time though and I do agree editors should be under no pressure to disclose credentials or that they should have sway in edits, only that those who do assert credentials should somehow make them verifiable. ] 09:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Consensus > (A General Editor = A General Editor with a Ph.D). But, paramount to everything, is ]. No matter who you are, what titles you hold, anything that is contested on Misplaced Pages requires a reliable, third party, independant source. Having a new status of editors would blur this requirement, which undercuts on of the key foundations upon which this encyclopaedia is built. ''']''' 09:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Agreed, a "new status" of editors would be way unhelpful. A citation from a reliable secondary source trumps any academic qualification. So why not ban assertions of credentials altogether? I don't think it's needed but I'd support that too. ] 09:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::In theory, using credentials in a content dispute to hang the applicability of your edits on is wrong. Practise may be different; I don't know. Regardless, I would/will frown upon anyone who does what I mentioned to aid themselves or their POV in a content dispute. I can't see any reason to banning their mention, only their use as before - we've always allowed userpages to "run free" like that. ''']''' 09:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Maybe the assertion of credentials in an edit dispute could be made a blockable thing (like legal threats), but allow CVs on user pages if they've been verified somehow. ] 09:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*This is a very good idea in princible, but I think you highlight some major concerns yourself, mainly, that it is very easy to simple ''fake'' a college certificate, especially with the ammount of knowledge users on this encyclopedia. I'm interested as to how this would work, would it be on wiki? with a new subgroup of people created - The verifiers! My concern with this would be privacy if the verifiers had to give out personal addresses to receive documents. Also, if documents were sent to wikia, surely that would be costly to implement, with a probable large number of documents to go through and verify? ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 09:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


*'''similar reservation to Daniel Bryant'''. My personal approach has been different- I've never claimed any credentials on wikipedia, because I think they should ideally be irrelevant. Your work should depend on its own quality and the quality of its sources, and your reputation should depend on your work. we've got everything from preteens to retirees, and I don't think a credential makes a bit of difference, it all comes down to what can be cited. Basically, verification of credentials is irrelevant if they're ignored as they should be. Essjay never should have been treated any different because of what he claimed. ] (]/]) 09:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

::Truth be told I'd also be happy with a total ban on credential citing here but if some folks want to put them on user pages, they should be verifiable. ] 09:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*'''Another idea similar to Jimbo's''': I have an idea but I don't know whether it can be done or not. The idea is to give '''sensitive''' positions like check user and oversight etc only to people who are willing to reveal their real identity to the Wikimedia Foundation so that the Foundation is sure that these people are (in real life) as they say about themselves. --] 09:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::I agree fully to that - to ensure that no deceit is occuring on Misplaced Pages for users with these sensitive permissions. Hell, I'd email Jimbo with everything he wants to know about me if he wanted it; given someone already gave away basically all my personal information in #-en-admins a couple of months ago, it's not like ''I'' care. ''']''' 09:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to give any clue to my RL identity, for my own personal reasons. To be frank people don't need qualifications to regurgitate fact which is all we do here. Remember "own research" is not permitted. Even if it were announced at the top of the page that it had been written by the world's most eminent professor, there is nothing to stop another less exalted editor another paragraph - that is how wikipedia works. People using bogus credentials happens all the time in real life in hospitals, schools and multi-national companies. Sooner or later Citizendum and other similar projects will have their own identical scandals - the very nature of the internet and human behaviour creates them, and unless people are going to post their passports, identity papers and utility bills on their user pages (which will never happen) - these things will be repeated. So like it or lump it we have to get real and get over it. Posting or having qualifications in itself is a minefield? - which university granted the degree, which country was the university in? Can we rely on the student from The University of Ruritania? Whatever we decide, the dedicated imposter will always find a way in. We could demand however as Daniel Bryant suggests known true identity for checkusers and those who publicly represent and speak for wikipedia - sort of give certain editors an accredited press badge. ] 09:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::Which is why a total ban on credential waving would be ok by me. If an editor is asked to fill a position of trust, so long as Wales has a way of doing some due diligence on the person's RL background, there are few worries. ] 09:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*It's the right sentiment, but I don't like the solution. Too much instruction creep, to much potential for badge wearing. It's also questionable if there's any value in revealing someone's degrees without knowing who they are in real life. It's not as if a degree by itself means anything.
:What we could do as an alternative is to discourage people from claiming academic credentials, unless they're willing to provide a link to an outside website that reasonably proves that they're really who they claim to be. If somebody's a professor at some university and wishes it to be known on Misplaced Pages, they can simply interlink their university home page and their user page here. ] | ] 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:To clarify, per Giano, my suggestion is that anyone who acts in a role as an ArbCom member, B'crat, Checkuser, Oversight, Steward, Office (der), OTRS, and anything similar, should have to verify to WMF that what they claim is true. ''']''' 09:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What Daniel.Bryant said is what I meant exactly. --] 10:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

::Privately with Wales or whomever, yes. Also make posting credentials on a user page so onerous or whatever in terms of verification, few want to do it. ] 09:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Daniel Bryant and Giano on this one. If anyone is in a higher position above editor (admin and up), they should be expected to provide (privately) their credentials (if they choose to post them on their userpages) to Jimbo or the foundation. I believe it is important that editors do all they can to not post their personal information anywhere on the web. As Giano has stated, we simply use referenced work anyway, so our expertise is defined by our ability to research and cite our references.--] 10:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Could I just clarify, I am only advocating true identity revelation for those in very high office, consequently with great trust placed upon them - such as checkuser. I'm not even sure the Arbcom have to be known - it is their judgement which is sought not their CV. It is those who could potentially do great harm to the project - revealing IPs ect, or being recomended by the organozation to speak to the press seemingly on behalf of Misplaced Pages who need to be acountable in real life. ] 11:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


:''"...we simply use referenced work anyway, so our expertise is defined by our ability to research and cite our references"''...and not our credentials. OR becomes blurred, V becomes blurred, and that comprimises our foundation principles. Anyone who holds any "positions of trust" on Misplaced Pages is seen by the press as representing it; whether this is desirable or not, is irrelevant - it is the current situation. ''']''' 10:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And what happens if they don't claim anything. People who respect their privacy and refused to reveal anything? Will they be able to have higher positions, Checkuser, Oversight, on Wiki? (Sorry if I sound harsh) --] ] <sup>'''''•'''''</sup> ] <sup>'''''•'''''</sup> ] 10:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*The fact is people claim credentials now anyway, as Essjay did. In less than 5 minutes effort, I found 50 Misplaced Pages Ph.D's today, and I can name another 15 off the top of my head. That was before I found ]. I once had a list of hundreds of Ph.D's here. The fact is also that people pay some attention to these, and it would be silly not too. That's not to say that any of the standard policies shouldn't apply, but every article here requires the application of judgement. Credentials are at least some indicator that judgement is well-informed, though not infallible. So, the right solution is to make credentials verifiable. In short, they're already here. They can serve a very valuable role here, just as in the real world, without changing policy at all. So, it's very sensible to provide a verification mechanism. Fear of a 'class' system are unfounded, since credentials are already out there and widely believed anyway. By the way, banning the mention of credentials is utterly unworkable, and frankly silly. ] 10:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think it would be silly, although I have no worries about CVs posted under a verification scheme, especially if asserting them in an edit dispute is deprecated: A strong citation has sway over any academic degree and people with academic degrees are trained in using them. ] 10:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::What are you going to do, block a professor &mdash; who has spent his entire adult life studying an issue and is struggling for days with some noob hasn't the slightest clue what he's talking about &mdash; for mentioning he's a professor? I guarantee you won't see that professor back again if you do. On the very rare occasions I edit economics articles, I avoid mentioning it because it generally puts people off if you try to pull rank. But, sometimes, it just cuts through the bullshit, and I'm not going to accept being blocked for simply stating that I do know what the hell I'm talking about. ] 10:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::An academically credentialled expert on a topic can make quick work of any crank by following WP's documented citation policies. ] 11:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::That's not been my experience, and I assure you I have absolutely top-notch professional credentials. The problem is that it is very difficult to persuade a crank with a crankish reference to point at. However, the issue you raise is whether people ''should'' pay attention to credentials. It doesn't matter. The fact is that some people do. ] 11:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::If you want some tips on how to handle cranks and fools then, let me know :) ] 11:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
* From the technical standpoint, there are significant hurdles to overcome here.
**Essentially, you would be building a database with private, personal information - who would be able to access that information? Any user groups in particular? Anyone? No one? Would the ] be the only document governing the handling of that information?
**Where would that information be stored? Which steps are going to be taken to protect that information from outside attacks? How would the end users ''know'' that a certain editor verified his credentials? Will real names be visible anywhere?
**Who would process those credentials vouchers? Would someone be paid to do so? Would current staff do so? Would more staff at St. Petersburg be required to do so? Would that place a financial burden on the Foundation?
**Most importantly, ''why'' should an editor want to go through that hassle? What benefits would the editor see? Would there be any reprisals for lack of revealing information?
* The idea may have merit, but it is half-cooked as of now. But I guess since this is the drawing board, there's no need to go back to it. Any suggestions? Answers? ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 10:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*I would want to ensure that we find a balance between accountability and credentialsm. In my opinion, anything that increases accountability is good. Anything that increases credentialism is bad. I feel we are at the point where if you want to be an administrator, you need to submit the kind of information one would submit for any kind of sensitive volunteer work. I believe this should be retroactive for all admins, and the information should '''not''' be made public, though disclosure should be strongly encouraged. Anyone speaking to the media as a representative or having responsibilities above normal admin levels needs to have a background check and must use their real name. That may sound draconian, and we may lose some good admins, but this episode demonstrates that the project has reached a level where the more informal arrangements of the past are no longer acceptable. Now, as far as credentialism, I am very much opposed to anything that makes some rank-and-file editors "more equal than others." It's antithetical to core principles of the project. A good edit is a good edit, and I would hate to see anyone fail to question an edit or get backed down in a dispute just because it's made by some editor with letters after their name vs. some homeschooled kid or some day laborer. Edit counts and other forms of heirarchical ranking should never be invoked in content disputes. Fallacies like appeals to authority are moot if the edit is based on ]. Degrees and other personal information are interesting but irrelevant to edits. They are, however, entirely relevant to accountability. I would be very sad if this incident led to a move toward elitism, since the egalitarian ethos is part of what makes this such a grand human experiment. ] 10:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::Spot on, this is what I've been getting at (thanks for throwing in a reference to the abuse of edit counts too). ] 10:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::"A good edit is a good edit." How do you know a good edit? It's certainly more than simply checking correct attribution, all manner of fringe theories can be attributed. You use your judgement and experience. Why do we use usernames here, instead of anonymous ip's? Because usernames allow a sort of reputation for judgement and experience to develop. Unfortunately, it doesn't scale particularly well to situations with thousands of editors. Why should the judgement and experience indicated by a Ph.D. be dismissed here at Misplaced Pages, when in the real world it is so highly valued that people spend many years acquiring one? To repeat my previous point, people already quite sensible refer to their credentials. If they bore no weight, Essjay would not have been a problem. They're here. They're used. They're widely believed. None of that is going to change. Verify. ] 11:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I interpreted that to mean "an edit supported by strong citations from reliable secondary sources" holds sway over any assertion of academic credentials. I'll get to the pith of it though: Lots of the PhDs one sees listed on this wiki are verifiable but lots are horse pucky too (or from worthless schools) and there is wide abuse. ] 11:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::I don't suggest for a second that some professor's say-so should overrule any standard policies. Obviously any position in a dispute should be citeable. The problem is that disputes here reflect disputes in the real world, which are usually citeable. ''Each'' of us exercises judgement every time we edit a disputed article. NPOV policy goes an amazingly long way, but it does not eliminate the need for judgement. The bottom line is that if you think degrees are "horse pucky" then you don't pay any attention to them now, and you won't if they are verified either. But, some people do pay attention to them, and it would be best to ensure that they are at least genuine horse pucky. ] 11:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::You might want to very carefully re-read my post since I never said degrees are horse pucky. I said that bogus assertions of hem are horse pucky. ] 11:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, I missed the "or" in your parentheses. The point stands though. At least we can weed out bogus claims. Verification doesn't mean credentials will necessarily get you any farther than they already do, which usually is very little. ] 11:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Verification of credentials listed on a user page is more than ok with me. Citing credentials in an edit dispute is not. An academic editing here should have the enough knowledge and skill to support assertions with helpful and strong citations. ] 11:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Derex, if something is a fringe theory, there will be an attributable source noting as much. Experts are welcome and are often good at framing a concept or article, but that does not make them infallible. A good expert can make quick work of a fringe theory through ]. Ultimately, the content and not the expert or non-expert writing should be the deciding factor in a good edit. That's what I mean. Just because I know a lot about certain topics should not make anyone defer to me. Ideally, my edits would be equally scrutinized and challenged whether I were an IP editor or a public figure. I guess I have a different outlook on the recent incident. If journalists weren't fixated on credentialism, Essjay's credentials woudn't have been in the article. I also have a suspicion that he moved up quickly in part because of said credentialsm (in addition to a great deal of unassailably excellent work). So my point is that people with credentials should not get a free pass, and those who think they matter should ask why they think they matter. Sincerely, Jokestress (M.A., English, University of Chicago, 1990) ;) ] 11:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::The balance suggested by Jokestress seems good to me. People are going to refer to their life experience to support their position, and if academic credentials are important to them they're likely to call on them, but giving that a seal of approval by a wee star saying "trust this user, s/he's a doctor" is the wrong way to go. The better approach is to say that it would be much appreciated if they could draw on their credentials to set out a fully referenced case, being careful to meet WP:NOR. This open examination of arguments rather than trusting expert opinion is what makes Misplaced Pages so valuable: Britannica exemplifies the other approach which often works well, but it also has some howlers in it. We need to value, encourage and cherish experts here for what they can contribute, but not for their unimpeachable authority. ... ], ] 11:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::*Jokestress has captured my sentiments quite well, but I would like to recapitulate my own take on this situation in my own words to make sure that we are in accord. To wit, I am against the policing of userpages and/or credentials for rank and file Misplaced Pages contributors, but anyone who seeks to move up through the ranks should be prepared to sacrifice more and privacy, particularly so when someone is going to be recommended by the powers that be at Misplaced Pages as a source to the press. Moreover, in light of the fact that so many of Misplaced Pages's current administrators remain loyal to Essjay and see his deception as "no big deal," I am in favor of making such a policy retroactive for anyone who wishes to retain his or her positions of trust at Misplaced Pages. // ] 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::*I fully understand what you are saying, and to a certain extent agree with you, but there are many vluable wikipedia editors who for various reasons cannot divulge their true identities, many eminent accademics (neither adjective or noun aply to me - seriously) have legal contracts preventing them writing or publishing for others than their employers - and that is just the tip of the iceberg but are these people who give so much to wikipedia to be prevented from accepting the responsibility given freely to a precocious 14 year old merely because they cannot divilge identitiy. ] 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::As someone who is unwilling to volunteer verification of any personal details about himself to anyone other than creditors and respected members of the press, and then only as deep background information with the latter, this has never affected my ability to contribute to Misplaced Pages, nor should it, as I have never felt the desire to seek administrator privileges. Administrators have largely janitorial duties, but are in a position of trust, having been given the virtual keys to the building. // ] 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
What we shouldn't have is a replication of Citizendium, where everyone has to prove their expertise/training/credentials. I would probably leave Misplaced Pages if that were to happen. In reevaluation, might I suggest that checkuser/oversight/arbcom and "approved" spokespersons have their personal details filed in private with the Foundation. We can't stop editors from speaking to the press and we shouldn't, but we can definitely ensure that anyone acting in an official capacity has proof of their achievements on record.--] 11:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:Without expressing an opinion on your proposal Jimbo, I think MONGO's suggestion above represents a minimum requirement for handing out the postions with access to sensitive information and those whose actions reflect strongly on the project. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 11:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*I have three points:
**When Essjay was in full expert-mode he became more detailed about his academic career, even so far as explaining just how he arranges his degrees after his name or giving the exact cost of his education. The lesson The more an editor wants to use their personal expertise to settle an issue the more they have invested in that "truth". Therefore they'll go to lengths to establish their credentials, real or otherwise. I can easily imagine the Essjay of June 2005 faking websites or diplomas to send to the Foundation.
**I've recently encountered two book editors who've both followed a similar arc: jumping into WP to write positive articles about themselves and their associates, and to write attack pieces on enemies. Both are known in their field. Both have claimed expertise and experience in editing. Both were POV pushing and engaging in OR. Both became angry when informed that Misplaced Pages policies require a neutral tone and verifiable material. Experts are not necessarily impartial and that they may not understand the norms of this project.
**Despite the above observations I think this is a very good idea. It puts the world and the community on notice that if someone wants to claim personal expertise they'd better be able to verify it. As far as WP's culture goes, this proposal is the opposite of prohibiting anonymous editing. It creates another way of contributing, another level of familiarity, and may also help solve the issue of retaining legitimate experts. It is similar to Amazon's "real name" designation.-] · ] · 11:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
***Damn, that deleted revision is incredibly revealing. It takes a different perspective when you know who those words are really coming from. The self-aggrandizing martyr complex that shows up in his apology was there a year and a half ago too. ] (]/]) 13:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
****Actually, that wasn't the link I intended. I've added the link I'd meant to provide, . I think it provides insight into the mind of someone who engaged in this type of credential fraud.-] · ] · 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::In contrast, I'd dealings separately with two editors who let it be known that they were historians and authors: one was an invaluable contributor whose edits appeared fully reliable, but was upset by a silly argument with clowns adding unexplained "unencyclopedic tone" tags to his work, and left. The other was a bully whose spurious arguments made me wonder about academic standards where he came from. We need to encourage experts, but approving the validity of their claimed credentials introduces a new mechanism that can be gamed: as I recall, has a dead cat with a diploma in nutritional therapy. Do we have a grading system for how good the credentials are? ... ], ] 11:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*This is also being discussed at ], where I've put some thoughts in a fair bit of detail. Briefly, I don't think it was a ''huge'' problem, in itself - though it was certainly a problem - that someone was claiming non-existent credentials and trying to pull rank with them in content disputes, but it ''was'' a huge problem when someone who was doing that also gained positions of power and responsibility, and was held out by Misplaced Pages as a good person for the press to interview. I'd rather concentrate on how we keep such people out of positions of power, and out of acting as representatives of Misplaced Pages in the wider world. Once again, I think there is some point (perhaps above mere administrator) where it should be necessary to register personal details with Jimbo or, more realistically, with someone like the Foundation's legal officer. Details should include any secondary accounts used and why (there definitely can be legitimate reasons, but in Essjay's case concern is already being expressed about any possible sockpuppets). However, personal details should not be registered with some anonymous person. E.g. if I registered my details somewhere, I would want them held in a safe place by an accountable officer or employee of the Foundation. ] 11:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*If people '''choose''' to publish on their user pages their qualification, then a level of proof should also be provided but of course anything can be fabricated. We must, however, avoid creating a two tier level hierachy of editors - an educated elite v daft peasants. Which I think could arise if this is not handled very cleverly. ] 11:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::Ala Citizendium... But it any case, it must be the verifiable citation, not clever elocution on a Talk page which is the deciding factor. --] 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:Yes and banning any assertion of qualifications during an edit dispute could be clever enough. A skilled academic with knowledge of the topic should be able to use existing WP citation policies to handle cranks or whatever, who often don't heed CVs anyway. ] 12:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*I'm seeing a lot of merit in what is being said by Giano, Gwen Gale, MONGO, Daniel Bryant, and maybe some others - we all seem to see the problem in a similar way (and slightly differently from Jimbo, I think). Where we are disagreeing among ourselves is just in what circumstances people should have to register personal details somewhere safe. At one of the scale, it might be everyone with any authority at all, i.e. the 1000+ admins. At the other end of the scale it might be only a very few: maybe checkusers and spokespersons. I'd tend to go for something in between, but ''any'' proposal like this would have been a line of defence with the Essjay scandal if it had been operating fairly rigorously. ] 12:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::That is a very good suming up - the debate should really concentrate on the level within Misplaced Pages at which identity disclosure becomes necessary - and perhaps more importantly where and to whom that information is disclosed and stored. ] 12:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Agreed. Gwen Gale's idea deals with the problem of claimed credentials without taking on the task of a credentials vetting agency, a register of personal details for those with significant authority would reduce and hopefully eliminate the possibility of unknown falsehoods becoming an embarrassment. .. ], ] 14:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
*I think it would be a mistake to take from this that people claiming to have a PhD should set off red flags in WP. It is people who claim to have a high level of expertise ''and'' refuse to share basic personal information to "guard their privacy" that should set off red flags. Many people who share that they have a PhD on their user page, also share where they live and are currently employed as well as their real names. It would be a waste of time and effort to have such people register for special secret verification. Any editor who becomes suspicious could take verification measures in those cases. However I think that any claims of expertise which are coupled with anonymity should be politely be asked to verify their claims through a method like what Jimbo suggests or else be asked to refrain from making any such claims. The most important thing we must keep in mind in making use of this lesson is not to get stuck on PhD's. The next attempt along these lines (if there are not already existing cases) is just as likely to be a reasonably high ranking retired army officer or a minor member of royalty as an academic. The red flag to watch for here is '''impressive claims made by a strong advocate for personal anonymity'''. --<i><font color="#9966FF">Birgitte</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC) <small>]</small>

:I don't see a problem with people claiming credentials on their userpages (other than the moral obligation not to lie). I claim (truthfully) to hold a B.A in History from U.Q. I do this as a matter of adding some details to my userpage (no one is asking for verification of my claim I live in Cleveland). I don't, however, use this in arguments, which is where my objection to Essjays actions come in. If I were, then I would understand the need to verify my degree (though the practicalities of this are problematic). However, I don't see many reasons for this verifaction. Whether or not you hold a degree in a subject is irrelivent - you should be able to prove what you are saying with verifable sources. If you have to resort to 'nah nah, I have a degree and you don't', then you are most probably wrong.
:I do see one opportunity, where non expertised wikipedians can ask expertised wikipedians for help. That should require some confirmation of credentials. But generally, no. If you want to claim you hold a Phd in Awesomeness, go for it. ] 23:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

::No offense but I don't find a B.A in History from U.Q. all that impressive, so I don't think your situation should merit a red flag ;) Still I think it was clear that EssJay's claims were designed to impress. Anyone who portrays themselves in an impressive manner while they claiming they cannot share their identity with anyone really should raise a red flag after this. And I will point out that EssJay didn't simply not mention his identity; he advocated strongly that their was no need for anyone, regardless of the levels of trust they held, to share personal information. Not even with the board. If I saw someone advocating such a position tomorrow and I looked at their userpage and saw them sharing some non-identifiable but '''impressive''' details about themselves, that would raise a red flag for me and I think it should for you or anyone else who has paid attention to this incident.--<i><font color="#9966FF">Birgitte</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 23:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*If you want to verify degrees, you will need to require official transcripts in sealed and stamped envelopes. Everything else is too easy to fake, as ] pointed out to us multiple times. ] 23:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:*It doesn't have to be anything near foolproof to be useful. I doubt that new user Essjay (for example) would have been willing to undertake elaborate steps to deceive the office. Is there even a policy that says, "don't claim fake credentials?" I don't see anything to this effect on ], for example. Likewise, is there any policy which states, "don't lie to the press or the public?" If there were, accompanied by a clear consequence (e.g. if you do this, you'll be banned by the office,) perhaps it would have been followed.] 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:*Update: I just added . However, as ] is pathetically under-enforced, and anyhow is only a guideline, nothing stated therein can be considered sufficient.] 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


* '''Strongly Oppose''' if any credentials claimed have any bearing in any way on the encyclopaedic content or content decision making. If that were the case then it reads like a disaster waiting to happen. We all know how some folks will go to extraordinary lengths to "win" POV wars - now all we have is someone getting some credential listing and they can weigh in and start throwing their weight about overruling others because "I know best" - all you then have is games of one-upmanship - and the person who has the highest qualification (bearing in mind qualifications need not have any correlation to competency, understanding or intelligence) can then "pull rank" and throw down the trump "I'm a professor this is what it will read as". I never had any interaction with, or connection with any of the essjay situations, but if he had posted some of his "I'm an expert dah dah, thus this should be deleted/kept", in Afd's I was involved in then my response (and this is genuinely the case, not just with the benefit of hindsight) would have been, "fair enough you can claim that, but you are just another editor". Jimmy is a little skirting with the verifiability of it all as well. People in the real world can get real world jobs and real world promotions based on forged credentials - that happens often enough - in the online world it is frankly laughably easy to add a couple of Degrees to your name. I think citizendium is a flawed concept, and I think these proposals are running down the same path and would lead to nothing but problems. ] 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
===Privacy policy===
*My main concern at this point are people entrusted with information covered by the are known to the foundation (their real identity). Misuse or posting of people's checkuser information could reveal their place of employment and other personal details and have major consequences for the person concerned. On the privacy policy where it says "The Wikimedia Foundation makes no guarantee against unauthorized access to any information you provide.", does this include my checkuser information? This makes it sound like it's okay for a checkuser to misuse my information and there is nothing I could do about it. I think that needs to be clarified. Any steps to increase "Security of information" (as described in the policy) would be most welcome. I might even recommend running a background check or something on those people entrusted with checkuser information, to give some comfort that these people are trustworthy. A background check need not be complex, but just a simple check like done if you want to work or even volunteer in a daycare center, with children. I think that would go a long way in assuring people who edit and use Misplaced Pages. --] <small>(])</small> 14:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I think that within your comment is contained what will prove to be a fatal flaw with the whole scheme. Many wikipedia editors edit from their work place, i.e. on someone elese's computer and in someone else's time. I will certainly admit to being guilty of that on occasions. Consequently, I think few will be prepared to take the risk of leaving themselves open to such risks or exposure in the workplace however remote they may be. In the few years I've been here, I have heard occasional accusations of chekuser abuse - maybe they are true, maybe they are false - I don't know. What I do know is wherever there are a few hundred human beings gathered together there will always be rumour - and this will deter people from revealing too much about themselves. People's privacy is their own business. ] 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Hence, allow CVs on user pages only if they've been verified through the "vetted light" way proposed by Wales and ban any assertion of them in editing disputes. As for positions of high trust, let WMF and Wales work out a more formal background check like any responsible org. ] 14:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the idea to require any claims of credentials to be verified? Or is it simply to allow credentials to be verified, if an editor wishes? The latter seems more workable, and more in line with privacy concerns. Right now, people have the easy privacy cop-out that Essjay took, if their credential claims are questioned. A voluntary system removes that as a reasonable evasion. You can prove to the Foundation that you are legit, without revealing your real identity to Misplaced Pages as a whole. I don't really see a downside, as all it does is remove camoflouge for fraud. I suppose however that one might prefer to allow generic suspicions of fraud, if one is opposed to credentials being used at all. I think the singular focus on admins and such is misplaced, most of the world isn't going to particularly care about that distinction because admins don't do most of the editing. ] 23:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:I ''do'' think that the important thing is that people who are held out as having authority be - well, not saints who are beyond all possible reproach (none of us are that) but certainly people who are at least bona fide. Hence my support for the proposals that I have made, or supported, here about some kind of confidentially-maintained register of personal details for people beyond a certain level of Wiki-authority.
:I tend to think, at the moment, that the way to go with the credentials thing is to insist that credentials don't count and to deprecate their use. Accordingly, I have just removed references to real-world credentials/experience from my userpage - not because they were inaccurate but because I now think that having them there is a bad idea, and trying to pull rank based on expertise or real-world experience is likewise a bad idea. I'm not even saying I've never yielded to the temptation to do that in the past - the record would show me up if I said that - but I'll make efforts to resist the temptation in the future. Sometimes real-life things about oneself ''have'' to be mentioned or hinted at (e.g. for disclaimers), but I think that a credential-vetting system is probably not the way to go, and anyway until such a time as we do go down that path we should all be reluctant to say much at all about any special expertise we might have. ] 01:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

::Removing personal information has the downside of impairing people's ability to know where you're coming from. My user page discloses that I'm a lawyer -- that's a credential that I suppose might lead someone to defer to me in an edit dispute (not that it ever has, AFAIK), but it's also an indication of my bias, of what aspects of an issue I might overemphasize, etc.

::I like Jimbo's idea if it's completely voluntary. I could continue to disclose my profession, for the benefit of anyone who wants to be put off by that, but people can decide not to give it any positive weight unless I have the little "Verified" sticker. Gwen Gale and others have suggested that users be prohibited from stating credentials on a user page if not verified. That would be an enforcement nightmare. What wouuld be included in the "CV" that must be verified? Would my claim to be a New Yorker count? For some purposes, that ''is'' a credential.

::Compulsory verification (to the Foundation) is appropriate for anyone designated as a spokesperson, etc., but not for the average user or even the average admin. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 02:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

== Essjay scandal ==

I think it's a positive step to have you acknowledged in direct terms that this was a scandal. Thank you. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 09:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:<s>Doug, no offence, but this isn't helpful at this moment. If Jimbo didn't think it was a scandal, my guess is that he wouldn't have acted as he did in the end. If what you really want is a sort of apology for Jimbo's initial reaction, then please consider that apologies can only be given freely, and demanding them doesn't do anybody any good. ] | ] 10:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)</s> I did, in fact, misunderstand Doug's comment and I gladly take mine back :) ] | ] 11:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::You're misinterpretting my comment. I not asking for an apology, I simply view his direct acknowledgement of what seems to be the community consensus as a positive step in moving forward on this issue. This comment here is ''complimentary'', and not intended to be sarcastic, inflamatory, insulting or any other negative interpretation. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 10:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::It was a scandal. And I have apologized for my role in it. I made several mistakes of judgment at various points along the way, and I am very much in favor of reforming our processes so that we are not so vulnerable. I am spending a lot of time reflecting carefully on my role here. The primary mistake that I made is one that I have trouble condemning myself for, because I think that one of my personality flaws is actually a strength for Misplaced Pages: a willingness to trust people and assume good faith even in difficult times. That caused me to wrongly minimize the importance of this, and to make bad decisions for a time. I am very sorry for that, and the only solution I know of is to work for positive change.--] 11:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Thus the reason behind my "Thank you". I appreciate this immensely as the initial reaction from both you and Essjay was disturbing to the point that if that was the final outcome I would have to leave the project. I am very grateful that it wasn't and that I don't. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 11:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::I echo Doug Bell. Thanks for this message. ] 11:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::As I see it Essjay has gone off into the wilderness with a lot of well deserved condemnation ringing in his ears, inspired by copious amonts of righteous anger and not a small amount of schadenfreude. Essjay regrets it, we regret it. It happened, it is over. It is time to stop the autopsy and the "mea culpas" - hindsight is a wonderous thing, and none of us have it. It is going to happen here and to all similar projects again at some time in the future - that is unavoidable by the laws of human nature. If that Citizendum man does not realise that then he is bigger fool, than some of us probably feel right now. Time now to move on and endevour to prevent it happening so easily again, and join the conversation instigated by Jimbo above. ] 12:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

=== Other views ===

We have to keep in mind that nobody is really interested in the dirt here. What really draws their interest is the grandness of this ] vision of describing accurately the paths of civilization in attempting to bring men to be human. Now there is a lot of conflict in exactly what human civilization is, and that conflict is what brings them all here. Nobody is really interested in whatever small deception there is in Essjay playing out that nice role he wrote for himself in his life. It would make a delightful short movie--not much of a deception at all. However, when that small deception appears against the background of this huge ] project and mission of capturing in print the truth of all of man's striving since the beginning of time--that deception, though small, will drive men mad. So we have to keep all of this in perspective. While it may good for us all to ask forgivenesses for our "small deceptions" and oversights, let us not forget that the only reason that our detractors' animal passions blow this series of events completely out-of-proportion is because of the grandness of this ] mission and dream of making all that is known available in one accurate Misplaced Pages available free-to-all. That is huge, and it is that hugeness of enterprise and possibility that brings even the detractors to these pages. So we have to kind of calm everybody down and keep our sense of proportion. This mission is huge, let us admit. --] 12:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:Splendid, grandiose, and a worthy summary of this huge mission – but what about women's striving? ;) A significant point is "the truth" – something that often emerges in discussions is that there are multiple truths depending on viewpoint, which is why NPOV sets out to reflect all those viewpoints in proportion. ... ], ] 13:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::Whoops, I think this is a meed thing to talk about and everything but it strays far from the administrative worry of basic accountability for CVs posted on WP. ] 13:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I have found my questions from ten hours ago--not personal attacks, not trolling, but perfectly honest questions--buried ]. We'll all draw our own conclusions and as I said, I'm done. --] 14:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah, buried along with everyone else's comments and understandably, so he could clear his talk page and say what he had to say. Wales has said he made mistakes and has even apologized. Meanwhile why don't you offer a helpful word or two based on your experience with credentials over at Citizendium instead of implying your comments have been singled out and brushed aside? ] 14:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

----
I don't think Jimbo deserves sole responsibility here: if some of the issues that emerged in the last week had been known earlier on then the community would have dealt with the issue without such fuss. It had been my belief that serious misrepresentations usually get weeded out at the RFA level. Once I saw the relevant diffs, Essjay's fiction was apparent: he demonstrated the spelling and punctuation mistakes of an undergraduate rather than the prose of a professor and ''Catholicism for Dummies'' isn't the type of source a Ph.D. normally cites. Someone who knew his contribution history could have made a strong circumstantial case to challenge his CV, either during a formal nomination or at RFC. A few step forward now to say it was obvious...well, what seemed obvious to me (and I suppose to many others) is that an administrator, bureaucrat, etc. probably had told the truth all along or he wouldn't have attained those positions of trust. As I stated in my first comment on this scandal, if any other administrators have padded their credentials I hope they come clean now. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:I disagree: Jimbo appointed Essjay - the buck stops with him. Exclusively. The point is this: Godkingship is a very poor idea in a wiki and Jimbo should step down from that post. ''.... contributed at on 5 March 2007 by 129.170.29.111''

::*Is this getting us anywhere? This is an opportunity to make some improvements for the better, can we not see it as such and grasp it. Anyone who imagines Jimbo is going to resign is wasting their life in cloud cuckoo land. It is his project, his encyclopedia - in short his show - so he is not going to leave it. Maybe he has been a little gullible on this occasion, I don't really see anything beyond that - and I'm pretty good at spotting faults. Anyway this is all hypothetical because he's not stepping down, so get used to the idea and lets improve the place. ] 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry for being unclear. What I meant to say is that in a wiki decisions are made by extensive discussion, not by fiat, and that decisions are never permanent and wiki-internal appointments never permanent. The idea of Wiki-chief is incompatible with that. The system runs on trust and respect. You can't demand respect, you can only earn it.

:::::Never mind respect, trust is everything. ] 16:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

::Mr/MS IP, I hadn't realized that it was J Wales who appointed Essjay administrator or bureaucrat. (Actually I'd have voted for him as bureaucrat myself, but didn't merely because of what you might call a technicality. So a cent of the buck stops with me. Should I step down? If I do, must I step into a cowpat?) -- ] 15:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

::Since you two have spoken up I'll say this, Wales botched and he says so. Meanwhile if by some docking fluke he left this wiki it would grind down into throes of gridlock and a messy end within months. Talent and leadership ability are behind what has enabled the social engineering marvel of this wiki. Flaws and all, it's his talent, his wiki. ] 15:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Other wikipedias manage rather well without a chief.

:::::Look Jimbo will be going nowhere. Maybe other Wikipedias do maybe they don't - but I don;t see the ppoint if having further hypothetical discussions on the subject. Incidentally your points may carry more weight if you logged in. ] 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::: I'm not the OP, but speaking as an observer it seems to me that Jimbo's accorded "status," if you will, on this site seems a direct contradiction of both the spirit and the letter of ]. It seems to me that WP has long since reached a point where the policies have to apply to everyone, even and especially Jimbo, if the site is to counter ongoing criticism that "the rules don't apply" to Jimbo's active friends on the site. I'm not saying "get rid of Jimbo," but that that no editor or admin should be accorded status above the spirit and letter of policy. ] 19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::This wiki's the knack so far 'n I don't think he wants to blow it :) ] 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we get back to constructive discussion of how/whether to vet credentials (if we are going to do that, which doesn't seem like a priority to me ... but that's just me) and/or how/whether to vet the bona fides of people in (or seeking) positions of trust? Endless slagging off at Jimbo gets us nowhere, and he's not only apologised for making misjudgments but also made an attempt to consult with us constructively. For God's sake let's concentrate on taking him up on that. ] 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

== Under rug, swept? ==

Just as the New York Times is rather complimentary about our "transparency" and efforts to resolve this issue through discussion, all evidence of this incident is being deleted. If anyone were to look today, there would be no RFC about Essjay, no letter from Essjay to "other" professors, no talk archives about other users trying to talk to him about the situation, and no article about "Essjay". If this continues, the next article in the Times is going to be titled "Misplaced Pages attempts to cover up scandal", and as we have all just learned, sometimes the cover up is worse than the crime.{{Unsigned|166.150.34.235}}
:Jimbo, take a look at this deletion reveiw: The evidence that the community disapproves of this fraud is now gone; so far as anyone can discern, we are collectively mostly interested in covering it up. That's not true at all, but thanks to this deletion, that's the appearance.] 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::*This is not good. David Gerard's actions could further damaging the reputation of Misplaced Pages in the press - this is going to appear like a mamoth attempt at a cover up, if we don't have a very strong message from you, Jimbo - that we are facing up to the problem and confronting it. ] 17:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:::If ] is acting in some official capacity, please let us know about it.] 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Please do let us know if some sort of authorization to erase these histories has gone over the backchannels. ] 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of us expected this and archived some things with webcitation.org:
*
*
*.
*
*
*
*

] 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

== Exhausted ==

First let me make crystal clear: I have no axe to grind against Essjay. I knew and admired him mostly through his reputation and had only very limited direct interaction with him. Until a few days ago, that's all there was.

I was deeply disturbed by his long-term deception, the black eye he gave the project via the New Yorker article, and the seemingly cavalier attitude regarding all this from you. Because of my strong feelings that without accountability on this issue that I could not continue at the project, I have spent a great deal of effort over the last several days trying to focus discussion on what I believe are the core issues at stake. I have done this knowing that such heavy involvement might earn me the wrath of many of the long-time and key contributors here who counted Essjay among their friends. I've done this despite many direct and indirect accusations of being part of "a mob", "a lynching", or simply someone motivated to "kick someone while they were down". Nothing could be further from the truth. My motivation was to help rescue the project from a wound inflicted by one of our best contributors.

It has been a difficult and unpleasant process, and one likely to have cost me much goodwill from many of the others here that hold similar positions of high trust as Essjay did. I accept that cost if it helps the project because really for me the only alternative was to leave.

Now it seems that this process of community discussion and evaluation is being replaced by out-of-process attempts to, as put above, sweep much of this under the rug. I can think of nothing at this point that will harm the project more than that. David Gerard's deletion of the most orderly and constructive discussion on this is perhaps the last straw for me. I am reluctant to give up the fight for the project, as I have seen that most people here understand the absolute need for accountability despite the personal pain involved. However, I am becoming exhausted with the effort required to continue against the emotionally-driven efforts of many people here—and many from the innermost circles of the project hierarchy—to undo the painfully achieved progress on vetting and moving forward. It makes me sad, and it has exhausted my energy for the moment to continue to fight for the dignity of the project.

For now, I'm stepping back and hoping that others will save the project from itself. I hope to return soon, but it depends on whether the project has the strength to complete the process recently praised in the ] article. Sorry if this all sounds melodramatic, but I believe this to be a defining point for the project. You have stepped forward and that gives me great hope in the leadership, but for now I wait to see how this plays out. Your skills at moving the community forward constructively are needed now as much as ever before.

—]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for all your work on this. As you say, it's essential for the record to be as open as possible: the praise of open process praised in the article is marred by the opening sentence "In a blink, the wisdom of the crowd became the fury of the crowd." which sorely mischaracterises the sympathy of many, probably most, of those trying to resolve this difficult human situation. The community seems to me to be doing pretty well with the assistance of Jimbo's helpful words, and the record should be there to make this clear. .. ], ] 18:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:Having watched the Essjay drama unfold over the last week, I found Doug Bell's contributions to be the most helpful in putting things into perspective. Take a break, Doug. You've earned it. // ] 19:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:Please don't stay away long Doug. ] ] 23:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

== Honesty, lucidity and/or transparency are essential elements of any reputable journal, paper, or encyclopedia: ==
As a new editor, using my real name from the beginning; albeit an accused
"sock puppeteer," I have seen first hand what can come from a misguided "checkuser" system and I have also been disappointed, having seen thousands of meaningful items of knowledge deleted by individuals seeking to create their own encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia for "the people."
I have said this beautiful creation called Misplaced Pages, should be "the source," of all information...for us, and our children. "THE SOURCE," that does more additions than subtractions; a source with verified proof of facts and the integrity to show it.
By using our real names, ages, and our verifiable credentials, we truly share our experience, strengths, and hope...for our future here.
I suspect without the above, we have many/all of the elements that make "MySpace" a giant machine, however, we are all left without any form of verifiable truth to help substantiate any valid concept or theory ...that we are truly adding value and/or knowledge to our world.
Finally, as a dad, I want my children to use this miracle, with confidence, that someone with verifiable credentials is responsible for reviewing and correcting any lack of verifiable truth, herein.
Thank you for your time, ] 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:The problem with real names, at least in my situation, is with editing ] ]. People obsessed with these topics, ], and conspiracy theories can sometimes engage in ] and ] of others. Now, I have met some conspiracy theorists in real life and most do not engage in such behavior. Nonetheless, harassment is a real concern, thus I don't use my real name. But, I also have said pretty much zero about my educational and professional credentials and not making up stuff. Now, if I wanted checkuser or other positions of trust, I find it reasonable that I would have to provide my information to the foundation and let them verify it. --] <small>(])</small> 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::*I think it is essential that check users are known to all, and I hesitate to say this, be legally accountable for damage caused by any breaches of confidence they should make, in that way perhaps slowly editors may feel encouraged to give identifiable information to the foundation. ] 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

== Please Clarify, Jimbo ==

I think it might help if you could please advise why you apparently allowed Essjay to keep false information on his Misplaced Pages page after he advised you it was false. Why would you not have instructed him to immediately correct or remove it?

I am relying on Essjay's talk page description of the events(as linked to by Wikinews) so if that is not accurate,please let us know.To just let that information sit as it is gives rise to assumptions of cavalierness about the matter which are likely wrongful assumptions, so please help clear that up if you don't mind.

http://en.wikinews.org/search/?title=Jimmy_Wales_asks_Wikipedian_to_resign_%22his_positions_of_trust%22_over_nonexistent_degrees&oldid=382962

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html ] 20:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

---

: < I think it might help if you could please advise why you apparently allowed . . . . >

Good question! But apparently there is no way to answer that question--because the questioner cannot be interested in the question as asked. The questioner is interested in that question only against the backdrop of the huge task of building an accurate ] encyclopedia. And no doubt the questioner asks that question in good faith; I must admit that I ask that same question in good faith. But realistically, the questioner, even I, would never go around asking that kind of question--unless of someone involved in some huge monumental historic task like building an accurate ] encyclopedia. So no answer to that question or its variants would ever satisfy. --] 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

== On a similar note ==

While Jimbo's current idea is designed to increase Misplaced Pages's credibility by focusing on editors, he had another idea a while back to help credibility by focusing on articles. He outlined it in an interview in . Basically, it would create 2 versions of pages that reach a threshold of stability, a stable and a live version. The stable version would be shown and the live version would be available to edit. Edits to the live version would have to be approved in some way before they are added to the stable version. My question is: Is this still in the works or has this been pushed to the wayside by other ideas? <font color="maroon">]</font>'''<small>]</small>''<font color="navy" face="cursive">]</font>'''''<small>]</small> 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:The suggestion in the article (from late 2005) is
:<blockquote>Wales also plans to introduce a 'stable' version of each entry. Once an article reaches a specific quality threshold it will be tagged as stable. Further edits will be made to a separate 'live' version that would replace the stable version when deemed to be a significant improvement. One method for determining that threshold, where users rate article quality, will be trialled early next year.</blockquote>
:The problem would be that deeming a new version to replace the stable version would be something like the FA/GA process now. There aren't enough editors involved in that process compared with the large number of fairly mature articles. I'd like to see some kind of stable/approved rating for good articles, but I haven't seen a proposed mechanism for making it work on a wiki of this size. ] | ] 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::We could just modify FA; make Featured articles, once they are promoted that is, into stable versions. The only problem would be maintenance, deciding which edits go into the stable versions. Having a discussion for it would take way too long, but letting one person (even an admin) decide would seem too autocratic. This may work well on FA's that are overseen by a Wikiproject though. <font color="maroon">]</font>'''<small>]</small>''<font color="navy" face="cursive">]</font>'''''<small>]</small> 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

==Checking Essjay's edits==
Hi Jimbo,

Because of concerns that ] used false credentials while editing (or influence the editing) of many articles, I have used to see which articles Essjay edited the most. It is a monumental task to attempt to check all of Essjay's 16,000 edits, but there are only three articles which he edited more than 10 times. I am attempting clean-up, de-POV, and fact-checking of these articles, but am experiencing some resistance from users who feel that "any clearly erroneous edits from two years ago would have long since been found and corrected" and "what exactly is the problem?" However, research indicates these edits are still in the article, and that Essjay or his supporters did use his false credentials to stave off edit disputes. The three articles in question are ], ] and ]. All other articles were edited less than 10 times by Essjay.

Misplaced Pages requires vigorous fact-checking to maintain its credibility; however, I feel like I'm coming up against a stone wall. I've had to explain my reasons for fact checking (which seems ironic), and have been characterized as "vindictive" and pursuing "ad hominem assaults". Thse comments sadden me, as Essjay was the 'crat who promoted me to Admin. I know that you want what's best for the encyclopedia, which to me means double-checking the facts submitted by an editor (''any'' editor, but certainly one who now has credibility issues).

Please support me in reviewing this material. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

==Call For New Administrator Standards for Hiring==
With respect, in light of the ] fiasco I would like to suggest new standards for Administrators, both for the Admin's now working and future Admin's.

What we need at Misplaced Pages are REAL standards for Administrators, such as resumes, real names and reference checks...who knows who these people REALLY are ? upstanding citizens? criminals? unemployed druggies? liars like Essjay? there obviously needs to be a NEW set of standards...

Lest Misplaced Pages end up on the Citizendium blog again:

*
*

Yours very truly,

] 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:Janitors? ... ], ] 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

::But should we require some kind of certification in facility management or can we accept practical experience—say, not less than three years—and the reference of the last employer? —]<sub>]</sub> 00:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I disagree with this for admins. This seems like far too much work to justify it (background checks for every RfA?). ''However,'' for higher authorities: ArbCom, Oversight, and especially CheckUser (access to personal info) I think this could be a good idea. <font color="maroon">]</font>'''<small>]</small>''<font color="navy" face="cursive">]</font>'''''<small>]</small> 00:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As if ending up on the Citizendium Blog matters. As I stated previously, admins have largely janitorial duties, but they are entrusted with the virtual keys to the building, so they should expect to surrender a certain amount of privacy to the powers that be at Misplaced Pages, which is exactly what Essjay did when he accepted his position at Wikia. I'm not saying that admins shouldn't be allowed to use pseudonyms, but at the very least admins should be required to provide their real name and mailing address to one of Misplaced Pages's bureaucrats and a record of same should be kept on file with Misplaced Pages's lawyers. // ] 01:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
: Except that a) that would be a violation of the ], in its current incarnation, and b) bureaucrats are not required to give their real name to Wikimedia; why should admins give their personal info to bureaucrats? ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 01:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't take this as a legal opinion or as legal advice, but Wikimedia's privacy policy appears to be silent on this issue. As for your point "b," I'm pretty sure that all current bureaucrats are also admins; ditto for stewards, ArbCom members, and those with checkuser and oversight privileges. The only people in a position of trust at Misplaced Pages who are not also admins are some of the developers. In any event, all of these people should be held to the minimum standards that apply to admins. // ] 02:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
: The Privacy policy does not indicate anywhere that I need to give my mailing address to the Wikimedia Foundation. I will not do so, unless an ''employee'' of the Foundation requests it, and I know exactly what is going to be done to that information, where it is going to be stored, and how it is going to be protected. I will not provide it to OTRS volunteers, or any other on-wiki functionaries, and I'm sure others will refuse to do so as well, as you're talking about information that is considered sacrosanct by many users here. In fact, the whole desire to have a shroud of privacy is the whole reason this incident occurred. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 02:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:Not a problem, you can simply resign as an administrator and become a humble anonymous editor like the rest us nobodies :) ] 02:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:: Very funny. Now, how about something that actually solves the issue? ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 02:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorrry, Tito, but that's precisely the solution that I was looking for -- i.e., encouraging administrators who want to maintain their anonymous status to step down and become just another registered user. // ] 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

==New Essjay Picture Surfaces==

*

If this picture is Essjay alias whoever, then it would seem the picture Essjay posted earlier was yet another Essjay lie. ] 02:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:Comment - I would say this Essjay guy is over 30-years old not 24-years old ! ] 02:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
::And the value of publicizing his picture is what, exactly? ] 02:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:r u starting to sweat NYBrad ? ] 02:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

==Essjay Goon Squad==

Admins such as Essjay ran goon squads targeting, blocking, harassing, editors who knew too much. The checkuser system was handled by this fraud. Has anyone looked into whether this guy had any knowledge nor skill to verify sockpuppets. This proven fraudster was trusted with handling private info. When he lost some argument and risk being exposed, he would claim the opponent was trolling and get his goon squad to block/ban him. Essjay used irc (primarily) to communicate and scheme to bump off his opponents. In order to avoid radar and any potentially bad publicity, he got his loyal crew (which he presumably) had a hand in promoting to admins to do the 'dirty work.' One such member of his enforcement crew/goon squad is Steel359 (I am not sure if he/it is a sockpuppet Essjay). Efforts to delete his history is part and parcel of this group to hide their connection to this exposed fraudster. ] 02:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:This sort of thing is ''rampant'' among admins. It is one of the reasons I largely left Misplaced Pages some time ago. ] 02:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:05, 16 January 2025

    Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
    Start a new talk topic.
    Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy.
    He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees.
    The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit.
    The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.
    This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead,
    you can leave a message here
    This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
    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, 252Auto-archiving period: 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.
    Media mentionThis talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:

    Centralized discussion
    Village pumps
    policy
    tech
    proposals
    idea lab
    WMF
    misc
    For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

    Albert Percy Godber

    Albert Percy Godber at his brass finishing lathe in the Petone railway workshops. A sign before him reads: `This is my busy day'
    "Looking down over a settlement with houses set amongst trees. The arm of a lake or harbour lies beyond, with a mountainous range on the far side. Photograph taken by Albert Percy Godber. Probably taken at Queenstown, Godber having visited Lake Wakatipu and Queenstown in 1926"

    Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.

    Could you or your page watchers help me with Draft:Albert Percy Godber? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.

    "Phyllis Mary Godber wearing a Maori cloak, holding a taiaha, standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber

    I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    If Godber is not WP:NOTABLE, which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. Polygnotus (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I dunno, but User:Sulfurboy wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. Polygnotus (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Godber family outside their house 'Railway Whare' at 23 Bay Street, Petone, circa 1906. From left to right: Albert Percy Godber, Mary Ann Godber, Laura Godber, Phyllis and William. Photograph taken by Albert Percy Godber"
    And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". FloridaArmy (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Godber's photographs include "views of the Hutt Valley including large numbers of cars traveling to Trentham Racecourse, and the Hutt River. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the Mendip Hills Homestead in Canterbury, New Zealand with scenes of farm life, including haymaking, merino sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the Ross Reservoir, Otago Boys' High School, Seacliff Mental Hospital, the 1926 Dunedin Exhibition, and the Hillside Railway Workshops); Invercargill (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, Moeraki, Tuatapere, Waiau River, Oamaru and Port Chalmers. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the Burnside Iron Mills, and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the Piha, Karekare, Anawhata area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori marae and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." FloridaArmy (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. Here's a link to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Requests for comment/Severe Problems in hewiki

    For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Summary: This document intends to show the problematic situation in Hebrew Misplaced Pages (hewiki), and provide evidence that it has been overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors, who prevent others from achieving higher permissions while promoting their own allies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Happy new year

    Good days, Jimbo. I'd like to say that Chinese Misplaced Pages is introducing ARBCOM System currently, since Arbcom on this project, and in fact all the project is originated from the idea of yours, do you have any opinion for that? Any hints, advice or suggestions? -Lemonaka 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors

    That doesn't sound good. From The Forward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. CMD (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Edit_request and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Heritage_Foundation_planning_to_dox_Wikipedia_editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to these concerns from Tryptofish?

    ... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, Jimbo Wales will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than Claudine Gay was.
    Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage et al. is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sita Bose (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
    As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Suddenly ANI going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face. Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Newer_2024_image?

    Hey Mr. Wales, there's a discussion on Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Newer_2024_image? about what image should be used on your Misplaced Pages entry. Figured you may want to chime in with personal opinion about the recent freely-licensed images of you that are presented, as there hasn't been much engagement there at the time of my post. BarntToust 21:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    The Signpost: 15 January 2025

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Category:
    User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions Add topic