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 23:39, 14 October 2014 view sourceEric Corbett (talk | contribs)45,616 edits →Jimbo...: block me now← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:05, 16 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,002 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 252) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}} {{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{stb}} {{noindex}}
{{usercomment}} {{Stb}}
{{Usercomment}}
{{notice|<center>'''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates.'''<br/>
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|}}
'''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s ].<br/>The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are ], ], and ].<br/>The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is ].'''</center>}}
{{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 ].'''}}}}
{{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}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
<!--{{User:MiszaBot/config
|imaxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 99
|minthreadsleft = 2
|algo = old(1d)
|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
}}-->
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}} {{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}}
{{annual readership}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
{{Press
|archiveprefix=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive
| subject = talkpage
|format= %%i
| author = Matthew Gault
|age=24
| title = Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit
|index=no
| org = ]
|minkeepthreads=2
| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit
|maxarchsize=250000
| date = 8 December 2021
|numberstart=99
| 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.
|header={{aan}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>|indexhere=no|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}}
| algo = old(10d)
{{archives|age=1|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=ClueBot III|archivelist=User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivelist_manual|collapsed=yes|search=yes}}
| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
{| align="right" style="clear:both"
| counter = 252
|]
| maxarchivesize = 350K
|}
| archiveheader = {{aan}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
{{Centralized discussion}}
__TOC__ __TOC__
{{-}}


==]==
== It didn't make any difference... ==
]

]
As a follow-up to this discussion, here it is two-and-one-half months later and I am quitting Misplaced Pages. I announced it at WikiProject:Editor Retention, {{u|Jimbo Wales}}, if you care. (Though Eric Corbett is involved, so you might want to stay away.) ] (]) 01:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.
: I'm not really involved in this discussion other than my single comment, but I was lurking in it. I believe that you should read the near end of ], then ], and then read Lightbreather's last section at the bottom, for context. ] (]) 01:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
:For the record, Lightbreather's implication that a particular editor is responsible for their retirement is false. Everyone following the noticeboards has seen LB's frequent comments over the last few months—comments that have falsely accused certain editors of personal attacks, and comments which have not gathered more than a tiny support at any of the forums tried. ] (]) 03:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
::Johnuniq, I have been harassed and attacked but response at the notice boards has been divided (not "tiny.") More importantly, there is small but powerful group that believes the civility policy is ridiculous, and they defend ''their'' “valued contributors" from blocks. For the record, yes: Eric Corbett ''is'' one of the primary reasons that I am leaving. ] (]) 13:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::: The same Eric Corbett has been a primary reason ]. I decided that I - not other people - decide about leaving or staying. --] (]) 14:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

{{hat|If you're gonna chip at her — and you shouldn't — at least sign your stuff. —] (]) 14:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)}}
:Jesus Christ....If a little ole swear gets your panties in a bunch (or your undies in a knot) then by all means, leave. Some may swear just to get a rise out of you. Why give them the satisfaction?
{{hab}}

*Lightbreather, so far (and without looking) I have found your "announcements" that you are quitting on the Talkpage on the GGTK ArbCom Evidence page (Section header "I am quitting"), on the Editor Retention Talk page , here on Jimbo's talk page, and yes on your own talk page. Anyone would think you were trying to make maximum "political" capital out of your "quitting".] (]) 14:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::For the record, I am a woman and a feminist and after several years of editing and missing the sort of friendly discussions that I have with my friends (all feminists, of course, including the men), I found Eric's talk page and have watched it ever since. I have found Eric and his friends to be the most intelligent, hardest working, least bigoted, and very important to me, the most fun-loving group I've seen on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

::DeCausa, one could think that, yes. In my case, here's how it happened: I was involved in discussions at Editor Retention when I decided to quit, so I announced it there. Then Eric Corbett decided to leave this message as a parting gift. That made me decide that I would take time to add evidence about him at the GGTF arbcom, but after doing that, I thought I ought to let participants there know that I am leaving. My own page? I think that's pretty typical - besides, somone at Editor Retention suggested it. Here? Of all it's the most likely to be "political" (as you put it), but since I took the time to tell Jimbo, at the end of July, how harassed and attacked I felt by the rampant incivility at Misplaced Pages, it seemed only fitting to tell him now that despite the lengthy discussions here and elsewhere, nothing had really changed. Think what you will, but that's how the announcements transpired. ] (]) 14:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::That Eric Corbett is still allowed to edit Misplaced Pages is a clear governance failure.--] (]) 15:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::: Actually, it is a reflection of community consensus, with which you do not happen to agree. ] (]) 17:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::That is indeed a reflection of "community consensus" as expressed at the noticeboards by the editors who frequent the noticeboards. In the absence of a survey of the opinions of the larger community, and the WMF has the resources to conduct such a survey, it is not known what the actual consensus of the larger community is on civility and its enforcement. ] (]) 19:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::: Given the depth and duration of your feeling on this matter, I am surprised that you didn't start an RFC/U against Eric rather than going the backdoor route of going to ArbCom with a case ostensibly about the Gender Gap Task Force. It is highly disingenuous to intimate that community noticeboards are unrepresentative but then to appeal to an even more narrow group for a decision more to your liking. Fortunately, having snorted through the evidence a bit today, there doesn't seem to be anything Eric has done in connection with that particular case that rises to the level of sanctions. ] (]) 23:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC) <small>Last edit: ] (]) 23:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)</small>

:::: I heard "governance", I heard "toxic personalities" before. My English is limited but both terms don't belong in my concept of a 💕, --] (]) 18:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::: I do speak English as a first language and my concept of 'content creators' doesn't meet that of lauded editors who summarise non-academic popular histories (or slim academic journal articles) through to so-called 'Featured Articles' then patrol them as if they're made of gold but, hey, yeah, this is a '💕'. ] (]) 19:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::: Is there actually any chance that you could stop pontificating about civility on Misplaced Pages, whilst in the next sentence being incivil to a Misplaced Pages editor who you have banned from your talk page and thus can't reply? The word "hypocrisy" looms very large here. ] 19:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Comment on Announcement ===
On the one hand, I think that Lightbreather is drama-mongering. On the other hand, I think that Lightbreather is correct that there is a small cadre that believes that the civility policy is ridiculous and restrictive, and protects those who have reputations as excellent content creators from blocks. I have said here in the recent past that, if the WMF actually wants to enhance civility, it needs to take some sort of action, because the enforcement of civility by the English Misplaced Pages "community" is not consistent with the objectives of the WMF. As Carrite notes below, the WMF has resources. ] (]) 15:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

: But what I don't say below is that WMF resources should be invested in a professional Police of Civility (let's call them "the PC" for short). This entire issue is overblown. You are correct that Lightbreather is drama-mongering. It is the drama-mongers that are driving this entire issue, not the genuinely solid Wikipedians who can be jackasses from time to time when they get poked with a sharp stick... ] (]) 17:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

==I need some help==
I would like to discuss you with my current situation with things. And it has gotten to the point that i do not trust the administration system itself. If you could hear me out, i would like some help in the matter. the highest i would possibly go is the arbitration committee. Over time, more and more of these occurrences have occurred with these members, however as the same situation occurred, more and more members have noticed the ] bias certain members have grouped.

With what has happened and very limited both in knowledge and time to get back into Misplaced Pages, my options are limited (no matter how many people claim i have options, they are simply not in my situation). i would really like to return to Misplaced Pages, but only if there is an investigation behind the history behind certain recurring members throughout my history in Misplaced Pages, and perhaps some additional comments from members who also noticed this form of bias. If i'm right about this, this could be a major hole in how the administrative action system works.

If you are free and interested to know more, i would be willing to give further details. If you're too busy to take a look at this, it would be good to at least know you are and perhaps point me to someone with arbitration (that i can trust). But i wuld really appreciate it if i can also mention other editors who have noticed similar action. ] (]) 08:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

== Jennifer Lawrence naked on Misplaced Pages again ==

Jimbo, exactly as , someone has made stolen naked images appear on Misplaced Pages's biography of ] again. I don't credit myself with any special powers of prognostication, it was just obvious that this would happen again if we didn't find a way to prevent it. Dozens of female celebrities have recently had stolen private images leaked to the public. Unless we find a way to stop this, we can look forward to it happening over and over. And the remarks on ] show that readers do notice and aren't happy. What are we doing to fix this? ] (]) 14:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:I highly recommend that we move the image that we want in the article onto English Misplaced Pages and link to it locally rather than at Commons. In this way, we can make sure that at least English Misplaced Pages lives up to our ethical standards. This should be the case unless and until Commons does the right thing and protects the image on their end. It is a terrible loophole that something critical on Misplaced Pages is left vulnerable to shenanigans on commons.--] (]) 14:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::The infobox image has been fully protected on Commons for several days. The other images were fully protected about 12 hours ago, and are set to stay so until April. You know, if someone had just ''asked'' a Commons admin to do that.... -'']'' <small>(])</small> 14:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Why weren't the other images protected after the first time this happened? ] (]) 14:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::JImbo, that's fine for Jennifer Lawrence, but what about the literally dozens of other celebrities involved in the recent leaks? And what stops naked Jennifer Lawrence pictures showing up on unrelated articles? ] (]) 14:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Apparently you can just ask Mattbuck to protect them and... problem solved. If that turns out not to be true (I won't prejudge the question) then I recommend moving them to English Misplaced Pages and protecting them here.--] (]) 14:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Post a list of articles whose pictures you want protected at ] and we'll take care of it. -'']'' <small>(])</small> 14:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::I avoid participating at commons due to the blatant harassment of me that is tolerated there.--] (]) 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::I wasn't stating that you in particular had to do it, but if someone could come up with a list of what articles/images need protecting, that would be helpful. -'']'' <small>(])</small> 15:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::What is your suggestion to stop this? --] <sup>]</sup> 14:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Beyond not allowing uploads, there's not really any way to avoid it. -'']'' <small>(])</small> 14:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::That's obviously untrue.--] (]) 15:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::???. What's to stop editors from uploading pictures and adding them to wherever they like? There's no magic solution, just like there's no magic wand to wave away vandalism. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::I have to ask why we (or commons) allow images to be replaced in this way, without any checks. It is an obvious vulnerability, and we appear to have no mechanism whatsoever available to detect it. Why not? There must be software available that can compare old and new images to see whether they are similar (]es clearly work that way) and the occasional false positive would be no more problematic than those from our existing anti-text-vandalism bots. And if we can't do that, perhaps we should consider some kind of mechanism for allerting those watching articles using images that the image has been changed - an automated post to the article talk page would be better than nothing. ] (]) 15:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Is there anyway I can help out?] ]] 15:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::It seems that if someone can get a list of images in 'Fappening' affected articles to Mattbuck, he'll protect them at commons.--] (]) 15:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Have we tried to compare the names of the photos that the vandals are uploading? There may be some kind of similarity between them.] ]] 15:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Changing file names is trivial. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::The vandals are ''replacing'' images that are already on Commons, so the filename doesn't even get looked at. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about that. ] (]) 21:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Such a mechanism would be very helpful, Andy. Some easy way to detect that stuff certainly. I mean, I have some 82k pages on my Commons watchlist, which is enough that I can't actually edit the raw watchlist anymore, but even if all those were images it's not even close to 1% of Commons. Most images likely are watched by their dead account uploader and no one else. -'']'' <small>(])</small> 15:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Following a suggestion above by {{u|AndyTheGrump}}: could software be used that assesses the similarity between an existing image and a replacement? I suspect most updates are very similar and could be accepted automatically, while radical changes with low similarity could be flagged for attention. ~ ] (]) 22:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

=== The situation on Commons ===
The situation at Commons and the situation with civility in English Misplaced Pages are similar in the sense that a Wikimedia community has gotten out of line with WMF guidance. In the case of Commons, it is apparently simply out of control, and maybe WMF needs to intervene. In the case of civility in the English Misplaced Pages, reasonable editors can disagree, but the community is ignoring or disregarding the (nominally overarching) WMF policy. It appears that the WMF can't or won't enforce its own policies. ] (]) 15:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:How does this have anything to do with the Lawrence situation? --] <sup>]</sup> 15:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::Robert, could you please explain quite what you're referring to regarding civility and Commons? -'']'' <small>(])</small> 15:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::I am referring to two different situations that are related only in that two Wikimedia communities behave in ways that are out of line with WMF intent and the intent of Jimbo Wales. The civility issue doesn't have to do with Commons, but with the English Misplaced Pages. WMF and Jimbo Wales favor high standards of civility. The English Misplaced Pages has low standards of civility. Some editors essentially get a pass on civility. Very little can be done about it, because if one of them is blocked, the block is reversed by another admin, and the restoration of a block would be punitive rather than preventive. Jimbo Wales expresses concern about the deteriorating civility situation. There has been discussion of the use of WMF resources to address the issue. I know less about the Commons situation, but it is my understanding in the specific case that a legitimate image of the actress was replaced (vandalism) with a stolen nude image of the actress. Has the Commons editor who replaced the image been blocked or banned from Commons? The two situations are not related, except that they appear to illustrate disconnects between WMF policy or intent and the actual environment in the Wikimedia community. ] (]) 16:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::If you know less about the Commons situation, why comment it was out of control? A quick check would have shown you the editors were blocked with no fuss. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for blocking the vandals. I will add that part of my comparison of the two situations is that in both cases Jimbo Wales complains, but either doesn't do anything or doesn't do anything obvious, although he has reserved powers in English Misplaced Pages that he doesn't use. (Does he have reserved powers on Commons?) ] (]) 16:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::Clarification: I had nothing to do with blocking the vandals. That was the admins on Commons. Jimbo has the ] on all Wikimedia projects. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks to whoever blocked the vandals. ] (]) 17:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

=== Obvious suggestions ===
Since {{ping|NeilN}} asked me, here are some of the obvious suggestions to deal with this problem:
:(1) Don't allow brand new accounts to replace existing images.
:(2) Images that are uploaded to Commons should be approved by someone ''before'' they can be used. I'm not the first person to suggest this, but it doesn't hurt to repeat the suggestion. Why would you let anyone upload random images and ''not'' check them for copyright status, personality rights, & etc before you let anyone with an internet connection see and use them? That doesn't make any sense to me.
Things that won't work: protecting images after vandals have already used them or protecting all of the images of Jennifer Lawrence (for example). ''Any'' image can be replaced with a naked picture of Jennifer Lawrence. My thanks to the vandal who made that point clear on this very page a few minutes ago. ] (]) 21:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:The first one would be good (though exceptions should be made for own files), but the second one... it would be like turning on flagged revisions across all of wikipedia. In a way it makes sense, but it goes against the idea that "anyone can edit". -'']'' <small>(])</small> 22:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::It doesn't prevent anyone from uploading pictures, it just requires that the pictures are approved before they can be used. How does that go against "anyone can edit"? ] (]) 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Mattbuck}} Any idea how many images are uploaded to Commons every day? --] <sup>]</sup> 22:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Well, this is going to be very unscientific, but looking at ], the first 200 take us back roughly 20mins. -'']'' <small>(])</small> 23:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

==Wikimedia Foundation's FY2013-14 financial report==

WMF released their audited financial report for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 (ending June 30, 2014) yesterday. The pdf for the 14-page report may be found . I was extremely surprised to see on page 9 what appears to be a new line item among the foundation's investments — "mortgage-based securities" — consisting of just over $6 million in value, or about a quarter of the foundation's total investments. Investment in corporate bonds has also nearly doubled over the previous fiscal year, to about $7 million. At the same time, investment in low-risk/low-return treasury securities and municipal bonds has fallen from over $9.6 million to about $7.9 million. I am not a financial analyst, but it appears to me that WMF's asset manager has made a decision to become more aggressive in investment strategy. My question is this: is this an appropriate strategy for a public charity — absorbing additional investment risk in an effort to achieve greater investment returns?

My second question, closely related and from the same page of the report, is this: even with the more aggressive investment strategy, WMF's net income on investments for FY2013-14 is stated as $243,000 on $23.26M invested — barely over 1%. What is the story here? ] (]) 14:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:I think Garfield at the Foundation is better placed to answer specific questions about investment strategy. I will only comment on the high level philosophical question.
:I think it can be a mistake to be either too conservative or too aggressive with investment strategy. We certainly do not want the Foundation to take wild risks (speculating on currency or investing the entire reserve in growth stocks or something like that). Nor should we want the Foundation to invest only in extremely low-paying assets.
:Here is a typical discussion by nonprofit governance experts: "Good risk management with regard to an investment strategy requires the organization to balance three, sometimes-competing goals: 1) minimizing investment risk, 2) obtaining access to the funds when needed, and 3) earning a reasonable rate of return."
:One important risk management principle is diversification. So having debt instruments of different classes (mortgage-backed, corporate, and government bonds) can reduce overall risk. As we put it: "If the asset values do not move up and down in perfect synchrony, a diversified portfolio will have less risk than the weighted average risk of its constituent assets, and often less risk than the least risky of its constituent." See ] for more details, including (if you have the stamina) some of the mathematics behind it.
:Finally, another important principle in longterm asset management involves matching the timing of income to the timing of expenses. In our context, that can mean looking to a diversity of maturities. The risk on a zero coupon 30 year government bond can look substantial in the short run, but does guarantee (nearly so) a particular payoff at a particular time in 30 years. This last is only one example to highlight the principle - not a specific goal for our investment strategy. The principle is that we should have securities which mature in the short term, as well as securities which have longer maturities.--] (]) 14:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::I spent a few years working for an asset management firm. We specialized in asset management for insurance companies which are decidedly not charities, but many of the same principles apply. I'll echo what Jimbo said while differing on literally one word.
::One important aspect of asset strategy involves monitoring the timing of income and expenses. The technical term used is "duration" which loosely speaking can be viewed as a timing metric. However, we emphasized duration '''management''' as opposed to duration '''matching'''. Duration matching (which is what Jimbo described) isn't necessarily the optimum strategy. Some departures from the matching strategy are acceptable. However, the larger context that analyzing the relative timing of income and expenses is exactly the right approach.--]] 15:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

* I'm still not getting two things: (1) Why all of the sudden is WMF putting about a quarter of its chips into Mortgage-backed securities (regarded as the economic snake oil that caused the 2008 crisis)?; and (2) Why is net investment income on $23+M invested so paltry, particularly if a move has been made to more higher-risk/greater-reward investments? Who exactly at WMF could explain these things? ] (]) 18:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


The investment policy - decided by the board - does bear some looking at. It looks like the results are consistent with blindly following that investment policy, but I would have hoped that the asset managers wouldn't have done something as stupid as investing in municipal bonds.

First you have to understand that there are $28M in cash equivalents (something over 6 months spending) that are not included under "investments." But this amount of cash yells out "super-conservative" right from the start. The table on p.9 shows

Fair Value of Investments
*Fair value measurements at June 30, 2014 using significant other observable Description inputs (Level 2)
*Certificates of deposit $ 2,157,598
*Municipal bonds 4,039,187
*Mortgage backed securities 6,032,385
*U.S. Treasury securities 3,875,028
*U.S. Corporate bonds 7,019,079
*Other 137,369
*Total $ 23,260,646

The $4M in municipal bonds is a huge red-flag. People invest in munis, despite the low returns, because the proceeds are exempt from Federal and (usually) state taxes. As a non-profit the WMF doesn't pay federal and state taxes. Somebody is asleep at the wheel on this one.

The $6 M in mortgage backed securities seems a bit high, but since mortgages are a huge part of the fixed income (debt) markets, it would seem reasonable to have some of this debt. Note that I'm not saying "mortgage backed derivative securities" There's no reason for those.

More later. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 18:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}Insurance companies report investment income including and excluding realized capitals gains. This statement did not say. If we assume that realized cap gains are either not in here, or not large, the question is whether the rate of return is reasonable. The next point to make is that one should not relate the investment income to ending assets. The better measure is average invested assets. Without access to that number, a rough surrogate is the average of the latest and prior years assets. The yield is still low, but that make it 1.2% rather than 1.0%

Now examine yields available ( is a good source):
# Mortgage backed securities 1.43%
# Intermediate term treasuries 1.62%
# Cal Munies 1.52%
# GNMA 0.21%
# CD (not from Vanguard) 1.00%
# Intermediate Corporates 3.13%

Not knowing the exact mix or securities makes the comparison iffy - I picked intermediate term, it may be that there is a mixture of short and intermediate term. Based on the available yields I would have expected more like 1.4%-1.6% so the 1.2% raises questions, but not the "what the hell are you doing" questions. I also see that they used to own a bunch of TIPS which they sold. TIPS have a very low yield, so depending on when they were sold may affect the yield quite a bit.

However, as already noted, this isn't the right venue for such a discussion, and you aren't really interested in my take, you want to hear from WMF, but having spent years doing this, I couldn't resist.--]] 18:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:I share Smallbones' query re Munis. Why?--]] 19:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::Indeed. Municipal bonds pay a lower rate of return than corporate bonds because their interest is exempt from federal income tax and some state taxes, so that the net return to the investor is comparable to that of corporate bonds. As a 501(c)(3), the WMF does not pay federal income tax and probably does not pay state income tax. The investment in municipal bonds would appear to be a mistake. What is the explanation? ] (]) 19:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::As I have said, ask Garfield.--] (]) 19:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::: Garfield? Link? Ping? ] (]) 23:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::: - to be clear, I'm not brushing you off. While I support fully a diversified investment strategy involving different maturities and different risk categories, I'm curious myself about the municipal bonds decision.--] (]) 23:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

== ] Comment ==

] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] 19:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:No, thank you.--] (]) 19:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

== Jimbo... ==

I hope you'll take this as it's meant--that is, without too much rancor--but I think it's time for you to put up or shut up. I think the problem that (at least some) people are having with your issues with Eric is that, while you're talking about it, you're not actually ''doing'' anything about it. If you think Eric should be banned, don't just snark about it on your talk page: actually start a ban discussion on AN, or Arbcom case request, or whatever you think should be done. Because right now, at least from where I'm sitting, all it looks like is that you just want to take potshots at him from the sidelines (and, until this ANI thread, in a place where you forbade him from responding, which is hardly an open discussion), and you don't actually care about ''fixing'' this "failure of governance". If you really think this is a problem that needs solving, then it's time to get on your proverbial horse and ride: marshal your various arguments and diffs of evidence and start the discussion in the appropriate place (this talk page ain't it), just like any other editor. Stop talking and start doing. <small>oh, and if you think that "well, I can't start it because I'm Jimbo, and people will think that Jimbo starting a discussion means it won't be fair to Eric"--well, snarking from the sidelines against him isn't much better, so why are you doing that?</small> ]&nbsp;]] 20:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
: I agree with Writ Keeper, and I wish you would ''officially'' take a stand against EC's continued abuse and construct a ban proposal. He is poisoning our culture by encouraging unfathomable behavior, and an example needs to be made that this is ''not'' acceptable. ] (]) 20:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::I would love to have some assistance in doing that. I am hopeful that the Foundation will step in with a strong statement to the effect that abuse of other editors is not acceptable simply due to good or allegedly good content contributions. There is a huge error going on - the idea that good content contributions are so worthwhile that any kind of outrageous longterm abusive behavior is ok. The error is in ignoring what such behavior does to poison the community discourse and drive away good editors.--] (]) 20:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::I would love to see that, too. Jimbo, are you able to facilitate that in any way? Have you asked the Foundation to consider such a statement? ]] (]) 20:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Yes, tonight.--] (]) 20:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Did Jimbo do something bad?]] 20:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::I don't think so. I did make the point that a particular editor with a long track record of abusive behavior should be banned. Such opinions are welcomed and a normal part of our discourse, but of course if I say it, it has the potential to great Great Drama. But I think that a wider conversation needs to be had about what kind of community we want to be.--] (]) 20:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone else notice Jeniffer Lawrences boob on this page?]] 20:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:Boobs removed from Commons. ] (]) 20:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::No they are not. See ]] 20:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::{{u|mattbuck}} can you revdel the revisions in question and protect that image? There is one other image vandalized by the same user. ] (]) 20:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|a particular editor with a long track record of abusive behavior should be banned}} - you don't need a Foundation statement to do that. Just go. - ] (]) 20:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
*Why do you need assistance? Why does this have to be a Foundation issue? Just ''do'' it if you're gonna do it. Stop trying to throw your weight around behind the scenes with statements like "I am hopeful that the Foundation will step in" and step up to the plate yourself. I'm not a lawyer, but it was my impression that this kind of thing, for better or worse, is ''not'' the Foundation's job. And y'know what? Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't; maybe consensus is with you or maybe it's against you. Or maybe there is no consensus. But in any of those cases, you should just learn to live with the results like the rest of us, even as you work to change it. Part of "everyone can edit" is that sometimes people you don't like or would rather not work with are allowed to edit, too. That's the path ''you'' chose for Misplaced Pages; you should start dealing with the consequences. I'm speaking in metaphor here, but shit or get off the pot, man. If you're going to do something, do it. If you're not, please stop talking about it. ]&nbsp;]] 20:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::Without a proper mandate, to do so would only invite a silly mega-drama and not actually progress things. I do agree with "shit or get off the pot" - I am just saying that suddenly coming out of a general approach of not personally wielding the ban hammer and trying to build appropriate community institutions to deal with problems would be unwise. Building consensus for a positive change and shepherding through some breakthroughs in longstanding community deadlocks is the right way forward. Assistance appreciated!--] (]) 20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Well, What can I do to help?]] 20:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Stick around. Weigh in. Email the Foundation. Find other good editors and build a movement for an RfC to make this issue clear. Ask probing questions at next ArbCom election and make sure that there are clear statements on whether or not we should tolerate abuse and misogyny. There's no one simple thing, but being here, joining the campaign, will make a world of difference.--] (]) 21:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::* "''Find other good editors and build a movement for an RfC''" Would that be canvassing? ] (]) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::: Oddly, I just redacted and warned an editor for accusing Eric of misogyny (with, of course, as usual, no evidence whatsoever)... . ] 21:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::But the last few edits at ANI are a great example of the toxic environment. Not your edit necessarily, but the fact that another personal attack was removed and ''that'' edit was reverted. So one personal attack stays and the other is redacted. There should at least be some sort of system and some sort of standards. ]] (]) 21:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::: Yes, but there's a big difference between criticism and diagreement, and accusing someone of being a misogynist (with, as per usual, no evidence whatsoever). That's why I redacted that. ] 21:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I don't disagree with that, but surely "Jimbo is unfit to be the public face of Misplaced Pages" is ''also'' a personal attack (given that it is not backed up with evidence, either). ]] (]) 21:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::It does sound like hard work, though. Even just sticking around can be tough sometimes. ]] (]) 21:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
*If you ever accuse me of misogyny again Jimbo then we'll meet at AN/I. Again. ] ] 21:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::I'll just quote you: "dishonest cunts" "fucking cunts" "if you don't want to be called a cunt don't act like one". I won't even get into "you're plainly an idiot" or the abusive comment that started all this in which you attacked a female editor's intelligence. Evidence matters, and it is overwhelming.--] (]) 21:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::See, Jimbo, ''this'' is exactly what I'm talking about. You say the evidence is overwhelming. So ''put it in an Arbitration request already''. If it's as overwhelming as you say, they'll ban Eric just like you want them to. I know lots of people have little faith in Arbcom, but I don't think they're quite ''that'' bad. ]&nbsp;]] 21:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::: OK, enough. Time to put up or shut up please Jimbo . You can have no problem finding diffs that Eric is occasionally incivil, but if you think you can prove that he is a misogynist I think you will find yourself struggling badly (and the simple use of the "C" word doesn't count - I think you know very well how that discussion went). ] 21:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::The "quotation" above of Eric re "cunt" was not a quotation but really a paraphrase, one presumably to personalize what he wrote to make it seem worse, where no personalization was intended. (Here's the actual quote: "Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.") What Eric actually wrote is (IMO) good advice for anyone and everyone, it wasn't a threat or condition for a name-call against the editor Eric was in dialoge with, as the paraphrase attempts to make it seem. ] (]) 22:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


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.
You keep saying "allegedly good content contributions". I personally find that offensive, at least acknowledge "good content contributions". Do you have any idea how much work Eric and I put into getting ] as a tiny example from a start class article into an FA article for instance. All for free, not a cent. Nobody has to put a thing into wikipedia and you can't expect "professional" level civility on a website which relies entirely on people putting in a lot of work without compensation. If you can't respect the work people do here for free, how can you expect those editors to respect you? Sure, you think Eric is outrageously abusive, but if you bothered to stop and read some of his articles you'd at least understand why so many support him, even if you disagree that his content is worth more than his behaviour.♦ ] 21:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]]
:Jimbo's behaviour is far, far worse than anything I've ever done. ] ] 21:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
*You don't need a movement to start an RfC. Just start one. There's no need to wait until the next cycle of elections--] is right there and still open for business. When I'm telling you to do something about it, I don't mean ban him unilaterally. That is, of course, a bad idea. But what I'm trying to get at here is that the community is deadlocked because ''we don't agree on what the right thing to do here is.'' And ''you'' do ''not'' get to make up our minds for us. If you want an answer to "should Eric be banned", then ''pose that question to the community'', and accept their answer, whatever it may be. You don't need a mandate to do that, and we already have the community institutions for it: either AN for the community as a whole, or Arbcom for a smaller group that doesn't get as easily drowned out in white noise. Neither of those institutions are perfect--far from it--but they're what we have. ''Use them.'' Is there gonna be a lot of drama? Undoubtedly. You seem to think it's worth the drama, though, so just suck it up and get to it.<p>And if you ''don't'' want to do that? Fine. But then you should stop talking about Eric in the meantime. You've made your opinion eminently clear already. If you're not interested in seeing if that opinion stands up to the community, stop voicing it. Because no, it's ''not'' nice to continually say that someone should be banned. Being banned is not a nice thing. We need to be open about such discussions, but you're not ''really'' discussing it, are you? A ''real'' discussion would take place on AN or somewhere similar; neutral ground where such discussion actually has the potential to reach a constructive conclusion, whichever way it turns. ]&nbsp;]] 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:If Godber is not ], which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::As I have said, I will appreciate assistance in that. I'm just curious - what's your opinion. Should we be the kind of community where comments like ""dishonest cunts" "fucking cunts" "if you don't want to be called a cunt don't act like one" should be accepted and ignored, no matter what the human cost? I don't think so. I think the biggest detriment to the encyclopedia's quality is toxic behavior like that. It's time to take a stand, and I hope you will support me in that. Without support from you, and others, and the Foundation, there is no hope and we'll go down the path of other communities which succumbed to trolling.--] (]) 21:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::] is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? ] (]) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It's rather one-sided though, isn't it. Jimbo speaks and his acolytes fall to their knees, Who would have the balls to block Jimbo? I on the other hand am easily blocked. ] ] 21:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
*:: The only reason that you haven't already been banned is ''your'' acolytes, though I prefer the term ''sycophants''. ] (]) 21:30, 14 October 2014 (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)
]
:::It should be one-sided, and of course it is. The point is that I don't go around abusing people, calling them misogynist terms like "cunt" and using sexist terminology like "who would have the balls to block Jimbo". That kind of behavior is simply unacceptable and it's high time that we said so clearly and without regret.--] (]) 21:31, 14 October 2014 (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)
:::: If "cunt" is a misogynist word, why do we have ]? More to the point, I think you know very well that in many countries "cunt" is not used in that fashion, and the UK is one of them. ] 21:39, 14 October 2014 (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)
:::::You forget that I live in the UK, and "cunt" is considered a personal attack here as it is anywhere. It is not at all acceptable to call people names (of whatever provenance) at Misplaced Pages, and the apologetics for abuse must stop.--] (]) 21:50, 14 October 2014 (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)
:::::: Yes, it's a personal attack, no-one is disputing that, but you're claiming it's a misogynist one. If I do something stupid at work, I'm just as likely as anyone else to be called a "stupid cunt" regardless of my genitalia. Would you claim that being called a "dickhead" is a misandrist attack? ] 21:57, 14 October 2014 (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)
::::::Have you ventured into ] territory before? I can assure you ''cunt'' is a well established vernacular.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 22:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::There is no longer WP:DICK. There is "Don't be a jerk" ] (]) 23:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo, you claim that Eric is responsible for all these editors leaving without providing diffs, even when Giano asked for them to indicate Eric is causing half the community to walk out. But take that one article, one of hundreds Eric has contributed to. . The work that went into that benefits 30,000 people a month, people generally who could not give a monkey's right testicle how it got there and how civil the editor/s who wrote it out. In one year that's 360,000 people, in ten years that's 36 fricking million people benefiting from the work put into that one article. Add up all the FAs and GAs he has written and reviewed and in ten years this work is benefiting hundreds of millions of people. Do you see now why we think this is more valuable to us than if he didn't exist on here? We lose a contributor like this, "outrageously uncivil" or not, and that's a loss to that many readers over ten years which you don't seem to care about. Is this an encyclopedia or not? What really matters here? Can you really expect exemplary behaviour from everybody given the lack of compensation for the blood, sweat, and tears put into the project for free? Honestly, I'd rather not see this bad blood on here between the two of you and would rather see Eric getting on editing happily, but at least look at the other side of the argument... What's more important. FA quality work benefiting millions upon millions of people globally or one editor being mildly offended by being called a "dishonest cunt". Put it in perspective. What ''really'' matters here? ♦ ] 21:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
: Dr. Blofeld, are you suggesting that as editors accumulate contributions they also accumulate amnesty regarding atrocious behavior? Is that all one needs to do is improve an article that gets lots of hits then they can all people "cunts"? ] (]) 21:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::What you haven't accounted for is the uncountable (because they aren't here to count) number of women and thoughtful kind contributors who have been driven away by a toxic environment in which calling people 'cunt' and similar is considered defensible. What diffs can I show to show you the people who don't edit because we tolerate such? I could show you plenty of diffs of outrageous behavior - but I don't think you are asking for that because you know and (I think) acknowledge that it's true. What you are asking for is evidence that it matters. The only evidence I could possibly give is that during the era when I personally banned people for much less than that, we enjoyed spectacular growth in contributors in no small part because finally, thankfully, people found a place of fun, of love, of lightness, of intellectual joy, rather than the sexist outrageous insult that is rampant online. What really counts is the hundreds of millions of pageviews on art


== ==
::::Yes, we have plenty of editors here who are both productive and "civil" by your standards, but everybody is different. Don't all dedicated contributors count? Couldn't some of the things Eric says be dealt with with less drama and comments?♦ ] 21:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Yes, the block button tends to reduce drama quickly and firmly.--] (]) 21:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::Really? I'm glad you've found it so. ] &#124; ] 23:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC).
::::: The number of hits an editor gets at ''their'' articles is, or should be, irrelevant. The community does not have one set of standards for prolific contributors and another for everybody else, nor is that a good idea. In fact, it's an absolutely terrible idea. ] (]) 21:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


For the interested. ] (]) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: ''"The most fundamental problem of politics... is not the control of wickedness but the limitation of righteousness"'' - Henry Kissinger --] (]) 21:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


: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)
*(in response to Jimbo asking me what my own opinions are) Honestly, Jimbo? I'm reserving judgement until I see the evidence. Historically, I've been more in favor of Eric than not; it seems to me that he does tend to get provoked into saying the things he does. And after all, he does come from a different culture than I do, and who am I to judge him? Lately, though, I've been starting to think that respect for others' cultures needs to be a two-way street, and that, while we should be understanding when someone says something that we find offensive, they in turn should be understanding when we say it's offensive, and at least make an effort to change their patterns. Eric doesn't do the latter, no question. So I see sense in both sides these days; much would depend on the evidence (which must necessarily include context, not just sound bites).<p>But like I say, who am I? <small>I'm Jean Valjean!</small> My voice is only important as a single member of the entire community's; ''I'' don't get to make calls about whether he should or shouldn't be banned, admin, 'crat, or otherwise. And neither do you, founder notwithstanding. It's the community's decision and nobody else's, and if you insist on talking about it, I wish you would do so in a venue where the community can opine. ]&nbsp;]] 21:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::I'm not sure why you are surprised that I ask for your opinion - it does count. I fail to see how he's been provoked. What culture do you imagine he comes from where nasty name calling is accepted? The UK? I live here, and that's not what culture is like here at all - nor anywhere.--] (]) 21:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
*There is a fantastic NLCS game 3 taking place right now Jim. Why don't you watch the last half instead of responding here for a while?]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 21:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


== Happy new year ==
::::Jimbo, you say that Eric is responsible for the driving away female contributors by calling people cunts, but genuinely my experience of him and his talk page stalkers is that his involvement in the project has actually ''encouraged'' collaboration with quite a few decent editors here and there are many female editors here who've been grateful for his involvement and frequently turn up to thank him. Have you seen this? He honestly seems to attract female editors and article collaboration with them rather than repel them. There are many textbook civil editors on wikiepdia who regularly turn up on Eric's talk page and thank him for assistance and are willing to overlook anything he might say and see the bigger picture. Your view of Eric is entirely dominated by those negative comments and drama which you witness without having first hand experience of seeing that actually a lot of the time he has a way of actually increasing collaboration and improving content and mutual respect between editors if he is approached in the right way. Sure, I'd rather Eric kept what he thinks to himself at times like most of us do here to simply avoid the reaction, but I do think it's bleeding obvious that the current way of dealing with it is not working and creates more problems than what we being with. Blocks tend to inflame the situation more, I'm not sure why you think that is the solution, in fact I'm pretty sure a few weeks ago you said that abolishing civility blocks was a good idea to reduce the drama and backlash. OK you block Eric for calling somebody something, what about the huge backlash and admin circus act which follows. Is this really dealing with the actual problem, the root of it?? ♦ ] 22:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::] is a great footballer who scores brilliant goals and helps other players score great goals. But when he goes and bites someone, or stamps on them, or abuses them, no-one says he should be excused because of that. He gets a ban, for violence and for bringing the game into disrepute, and sometimes he (sort of) apologises. ] (]) 22:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


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)
*Surely, Mr Wales, you must realise the irony of using the WMF in this way to further a (as yet unsubstantiated) personal vendetta against an individual whose work (and resulting click-through, views and donations) pays the salaries of those very same WMF staff? WMF isn't simply gifted funds because of the excellent governance arrangements it has in place (which you admit have failed anyway) - content drives donations. I have no problem with your having personal disagreements with others but the petulant manner in which you have gone about fighting this particular battle is unbecoming. Respect for you and this project is diminished by your conduct, in this instance, not that of Mr Corbett. You dislike Mr Corbett and his style (which is perfectly fine) but you clearly haven't yet gathered enough evidence to come even close to substantiating your claim that he is a misogynist or that he is driving editors from this project. I wonder if the WMF would assist me in making a case against those editors far worse, far more divisive and far more toxic than Mr Corbett could ever be? I think not. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 22:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:There is no irony. There is no vendetta. The facts are very well substantiated - I have given exact quotes which no one denies. And my clear and obviously correct point is that his behavior is destructive to Misplaced Pages because it costs us good contributors who are not willing to put up with his abuse. Content absolutely does drive donations, which is why it is critical for us to get rid of editors who drive way good content contributors through abusive behavior. The case for his behavior being destructive is absolutely clear, unless you really do think it is ok to call people 'cunt' and to attack the intelligence of other contributors in the course of what should be routine editing. What more evidence do you need?--] (]) 23:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::Jimbo, you're talking a big game here. Gather up your evidence--your ''actual'' evidence, not just assertions--and ]. ]&nbsp;]] 23:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::{{tq|I have given exact quotes which no one denies.}} Wrong. (See above.) ] (]) 23:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
*I've really had quite enough of this. Jimbo Wales is a dishonest cunt of the highest order. Now block me. ] ]


== ==
== I'm no prude but. ==


That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Can someone remove the crotch shot pic?]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 21:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:Not sure what you mean. But yes.--] (]) 21:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:I removed the 'Talk Page Stalker' template. Images were being added to that then appearing on this page. ] (]) 21:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:: Given the image is now protected locally and at commons, I've restored the template. ] (]) 22:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Template protected for autoconfirmed users only. User adding explicit pics was redlink name not IP. If it happens again someone just remove ''Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner'' (and surrounding double brackets) from top of this page. ] (]) 22:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


:Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== Respect ==
::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to from {{u|Tryptofish}}?
Hey Jimbo. I've only been an active editor for a few months, and unfortunately I've already witnessed exchanges that are remarkable in their ferocity and disregard for others' feelings. All too often, Wikipedians seem to lose sight of the issues at hand and resort to personal attacks and displays of disrespect in surprisingly petty matters.
:... 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.
: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)
] (]) 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.
What I find particularly interesting is that this behavior would not be tolerated in other online communities I've been a part of, and none of these communities had a formal process to deal with unwanted behavior like Misplaced Pages does. It got me thinking about what constitutes respect in those communities and how it is enforced. As far as I can tell, respect is defined by the values that everyone in the community shares; these values seem to be unwritten, but emergent in every member's behavior. And they are enforced by individual members of the community acting on their personal values. When one member of the community disrespects another, members of the healthiest communities immediately step up in plain site to say that's not what the community is about. Showing disrespect only puts the community's respect for that member on the line. In contrast, disrespect seems to be ignored- and sometimes encouraged- by Wikipedians who are not on the receiving end or addressed after the fact in committees and administrative boards. I think the silence sends a clear message to newcomers about what they are considering being a part of, and it's hardly flattering.
: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)
::Suddenly ] going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. ] (]) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{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)


== ] ==
I'm curious what you think about respect within the Wikipediaverse. As a community, do we share the values that would add up to basic respect for others in most other communities? Are such values not relevant to our community, because Misplaced Pages is about building an online encyclopedia and not giving people warm fuzzies? It seems like iour values would run deeper than that. Or is it possible that Wikipedians have grown complacent and won't consistently stick up for these values because they've seen them violated so many times? And the $1m question: how can we promote respect in the community '''before''' we have to worry about enforcing it? Best. ] 22:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:Your comments and questions are very wise. I have much to say about them.
:First, our community has fundamental values that are very strong traditions and are deeply opposed to personal attacks and misogyny and so on. But they are also very fundamentally about hearing people out, even people who are not mainstream nor being kind and thoughtful. Both of these traditions are valid and have value, but they are also in tension. We don't want to be a community that is a police state where any form of dissent gets you blocks, but neither do we want to be some kind of 'radical free speech zone' where the most insulting and abusive behavior is tolerated.
:Second, until a certain point in time, I personally made decisions to "thread the needle". My judgments were far from perfect - no human being could be perfect. A better approach was apparent and we took it - move that decision making into the community, building institutions over time to make wise decisions. (Knowing full well, of course, that institutions make errors too.)
:Finally, here we are today. My view is that much of what we do still works remarkably well. But we have an increasingly hard time dealing with certain types of incredibly destructive behavior from people who also do good content work (or allegedly do good content work). The view - which you can see here in tonight's discussion - is that if someone can write featured articles that have a high number of pageviews, we should accept astonishing abuse, such as calling people "cunt" or "idiot". And - to be at least a bit more complete in my remarks - the behaviors are not just random minor violations of "political correctness" but ongoing thoroughly and unapologetically abuse behaviors justified by people (particularly women, I'm afraid) "deserving it".
:I think this is fixable. But I think it requires an open and frank discussion, and a rallying call from seriously good editors who are producing good content but who think that we should *also* be working to welcome hundreds of *new* editors who are seriously good and also not jerks.
:So I agree with you - "the silence sends a clear message to newcomers" - and I won't take part in that silence. I think we need to be vocal and clear - abusive editors will no longer be tolerated.--] (]) 22:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:: (a) respect has to be earnt not demanded (b) if I had workers who spent all day every day at the water cooler complaining rather than doing any owrk they wouldn't be employed for long either. Jimbo, I presume you did mathematics to more than an elementary school level, why not look at Erics last 500 (or 100, 200 whatever) contribs and figure out what percentage are problematic or non constructive? And for fun, maybe comapre it with some other civility warriors? Or wllm or whoever? cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::You raise an interesting question - how to measure the damaging impact of abuse. I respectfully submit that counting percentages of edits that contain abuse is not a very valid way to go about it.--] (]) 23:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::: This business about page views earning leeway is nonsense, and I seriously doubt that "Eric's articles" get ] anyway. But if page views earned you Wikipoints that could be redeemed as an ], the main editors of ] could do no wrong, but I doubt they go about the project calling people "cunts" and "idiots" and suggesting that their ''allegedly'' superior intelligence gives them license to do so, and I doubt they would get away with that if they did. ] (]) 23:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::I agree.--] (]) 23:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


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)
== An image of you and your words - deletion nom @ Commons. ==


== ''The Signpost'': 15 January 2025 ==
https://commons.wikimedia.org/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales


<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>
] (]) 22:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1269316164 -->
:According to a reliable source, a commons admin ({{ping|Russavia}}) made a corrupt offer to write a Misplaced Pages entry about an artist who does "penis paintings" as follows "I'm going to write a Misplaced Pages article about you, he said, and you penis-paint the face of Jimmy Wales, the cofounder of the largest and most influential encyclopedia in the world. The painting would then be added to the article." . Until that admin is blocked, either by the community at commons, or the Foundation, for harassment, and the work deleted then I have very little interest in responding to inquiries at commons.
:I should be clear - the problem is not the abuse of me, but the toxic and juvenile environment at Commons. I have never failed in 30 seconds of looking to find a horrifying BLP violation at commons of a photo of an identifiable woman engaged in sexual activity with highly questionable provenance (for example a deleted flickr account). Every time (including tonight) that I go there hoping to see improvement, I am disappointed. And I think that as long as we tolerate it and don't bounce some very bad admins, we will not solve the problem.--] (]) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::This image seems to be based on a slide from the Wikimania civility speech of August 2014, which I took the liberty of making a transcript of at ]. Unfortunately the location of the audio seems to keep moving around and currently I have it at which I can't even sign in to now. I would trust this has all been posted to Meta by now, so maybe someone who knows how to find this easily would provide the location, which would probably solve the copyright mystery at Commons as well. —] (]) 23:17, 14 October 2014 (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