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 20:10, 6 December 2014 view sourceJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,541 edits I give up← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:05, 16 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,269 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__
{{-}}


==]==
== Article in the Register ==
]

]
The Register has published another article criticizing the Wikimedia Foundation for not using the $60 million in assets it has, which according to the article is "far more than the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) needs to run a website." (I say "another" because of articles like ). Do you, Mr. Wales, have anything to say about this? I.e. what is the purpose of the $60 million that the foundation is said to be "sitting on"? ] ] 18:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.
: is by Andrew Orlowski, someone's whose journalistic skills I can't comment on here. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::I can. Past experience shows he's got a very long history of attacking Misplaced Pages, often with one-sided and inaccurate or downright untrue claims. He's also got form as an egregious climate change denialist. ''Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.'' ] (]) 19:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:::Orlowski used to be amusing. About ten years ago. --] (]) 20:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
::::More diplomatic than I would have put it. :-) --] <sup>]</sup> 20:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} Thanks for adding the link, NeilN. I must have forgotten to do so myself for some reason. ] ] 20:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

:This one is easy. I'm extremely proud of our financial track record and consider our level of reserves to be prudent and sensible - neither too large nor too small. Here is some typical advice about nonprofit reserves: "A commonly used reserve goal is 3-6 months' expenses. At the high end, reserves should not exceed the amount of two years' budget." For further information from the Wikimedia Foundation, see .--] (]) 21:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks Jimbo, that's really useful. It's strange that Orlowski, who is apparently a professional journalist, didn't do the basic fact-finding that would have given him those answers ''before'' he started frantically hammering his keyboard. --] (]) 21:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Just to expound on what ] said, the document he linked shows the 2014-2015 budget to be "$58.5 million in spending, including $8.2 million in spending allocated for grants". The article linked describes $60 million in reserve which is in line with a 12 month reserve, which is common. ]&nbsp;|] 22:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Whoever said Orlowski was a ''professional'' journalist? He appears to come up with his story before he writes it, then cherry-picks or misrepresents facts to support his preferred spin. This is just more of the same. ] (]) 10:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

::::I meant professional in what I consider the original sense, that is, someone who makes their living by means of full time employment in a particular activity. I did not intend to imply anything about the quality of the work carried out during that employment, nor about any ethical principles underlying the execution of it. --] (]) 20:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

:You allege Misplaced Pages runs no adds, but how about ? How many more are there]? For example ] is an openly payed editor who writes good advertisement articles, yet still advertisements, and get paid for writing them.] (]) 19:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

::Example, please? --] (]) 20:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

:It is important for a non-profit to be able to support its operations for a suitable period if funds dry up for some reason, note also that this figure is for ''assets'' - so it includes the servers, any advanced payments, office furniture - and it doesn't take account of liabilities. Orlowski has been attacking Misplaced Pages for years, and has really lost all credibility where Misplaced Pages is concerned. See for example where he implied that only Misplaced Pages editors would want to read Misplaced Pages... (and ] for why his Immanuel Kant argument was wrong.) However it might be ethical to go back to the model where the banner is removed the minute we hit our target. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',&nbsp;<small>19:04,&nbsp;4&nbsp;December&nbsp;2014&nbsp;(UTC).</small><br />
:: The longevity of many very small non-profits (and especially large ones) rely on their endowments and safe investments to operate through tough times. Even minor things like accounting for inflation and increases in the cost of services becomes important when you operate off donations. Immanuel Kant is never someone I'd want to argue with, but his arguments have sizable holes once you pick through the layers. Gosh... ] is at Good Article nominations and we are here bringing Kant into the matter! Small world, especially since it is you who is bringing it up Rich! Haha. ] (]) 22:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Anyone who wants to know how easy it is to end up with an endowment that loses significant amount of its worth through bad investing can ask Harvard what happened to its endowment causing it to institute a hiring freeze and stop its new science campus plans when the economy imploded and the Great Recession began. The core of an endowment shouldn't be used for day to day expenses, it is a rainy day fund and a source of dividend creation that can subsidize the ebb and flow inherent in normal flows of revenue.] (]) 20:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

::::It's typical that the very first reaction here to the Register's article is to demean its writer. The issue many people have with this fundraising campaign is that the ads clearly imply that Misplaced Pages's survival is at stake, when it is not. The ads are clearly deceptive, and may violate laws in some countries. According to , more than a few Misplaced Pages insiders think the ads are misleading also. Misplaced Pages's survival is not at stake. Costs, mainly for programming staff have doubled while the number of users is steady or even declining. Even if the site had no fundraising revenues, it could easily cut staff and survive for years. Most people are donating because of the content, yet very little of the funds goes to content creators. And there's the issue of the fundraising banners taking up 50% of user's screens. Here's my , and here's another article on the . -- ] <small>]</small> 01:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
::::: Those who attack the person and not their arguments are not helping the matter, but criticism of Misplaced Pages is a key part of understanding and correcting flaws. Most of us are here to build and maintain the growing encyclopedia and the argument about the ads does deserve some discussion. I have found them more intrusive, but I still think they are a major improvement over donation ads appearing over every article. I'm sure Jimbo is aware of the "humor" that campaign enabled and the WMF moved on from that style. Could the current ads be excessive, yes, but trying new things is an important part of trying to improve. It is probably just not best to do so on this page, at this time. ] (]) 01:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

== Has the 5P and our !rules become too static? ==

When is the last time our !rules have been drastically changed, a !rule scrapped, or it's scope fundamentally enhanced or diminished? Despite having IAR and essays deploring instruction creep, we seem down the road towards more bureaucratic mud and a solidifying and codifying of our policies, guidelines, and important essays into "this is how it's always been done, and so it shall always be!" instead of what I always thought our !rules were intended to be- a statement of "this is how we solved this problem last time, adjust this !rule as new consensus finds new problems need different solutions, and adjust this policy/guideline accordingly to assist in the next time being more efficient". Are we stuck in a mode to which Thomas Jefferson was afraid the USA would find itself in- "some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched". Perhaps we need to do what Jefferson had hoped the USA would do, have a new constitution every so often (more along the lines of modern French history I suppose, minus the whole Nazi collaboration part); in Misplaced Pages perhaps the equivalent would be to open up the main policies in a sandbox to be rewritten from scratch where there wont be those who say "but that's what it has said since 2009!" as an excuse for why some thing can not be changed. But this is just my opinion. I'm sure there will be a lot more. In opposition.] (]) 21:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
:What changes in particular are you proposing? I do see a general issue that significant change is extremely difficult because the English Misplaced Pages is governed by consensus rather than by majority, and that consensus is difficult to achieve with as varied as the English Misplaced Pages. Are you proposing anything in particular, or just being abstract?
::Is this perhaps a proposal for something along the lines of a ]? Honestly, I could and do see some merit to having something like that take place on a fairly regular, if rather lengthy, interval. is a good thing because it tends to make it easier to enact reasonable changes which would be glossed over because of "tradition" or lethargy or whatever you want to call it. Some sort of specific proposal of such a convention might get enough support to make some sort of periodic basic review possible. ] (]) 22:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

:::Last such gathering, if not advertised as such, was in London this last summer. A couple of thousand people participated, that's all. A very large number of RfCs added together, could perhaps count a similar number of participants. --] (]) 23:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

::::Ah, yes, the meeting of the connected, the monied and the grant-worthy faithful. I couldn't attend because of financial constraints, despite living in the country where it was held. That said, I probably would not have attended anyway because I am a sort-of excluded group, being one of the profoundly deaf who cannot hear what is going on, who get next to no transcripts or sign-language facilities etc. I doubt that I missed anything of note but, please, don't let anyone suggest that Wikimania is representative of anything. From all the things I have read, in relation to many such events hosted around the world, it seems to be more of a fan club, a networking facility, an evangelistic meeting etc. I'm sure that it gives much pleasure to many people but let's not over-rate it. (Still not sure if I am allowed on this page or not - please let me know.) - ] (]) 00:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Personally, I think if we were to have a real "meeting" of sorts to revise policy, the optimum place to do so would be here, online on wikipedia, where the discussion could be recorded in the edits and it would be basically transparent, as opposed to personal meetings which rarely are as transparent. ] (]) 00:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

::::::I would support an on-line convention. My upstream post maybe should have been addressed to the owner of this talk page. Because of the near-impossibility of achieving ] on any significant change, any major change will have to come with the backing of the WMF. The English Misplaced Pages will never make any major changes in its pillars or policies unless it is pushed. I would strongly encourage the WMF to call for an on-line convention, but with the understanding that consensus does not require super-consensus, or some other set of rules that might really be adopted. More later. ] (]) 04:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::: Physical meetings aren't the place to accomplish anything of this magnitude. It's a little hard to change anything on WP, the decision-making system (which basically requires super-majorities agreeing to do something specific amidst a mass of sometimes contradictory simultaneous proposals) is very conservative — it preserves the status quo. Change happens slowly and piecemeal. The Village Pump works as well as anything — which is to say: pretty much not at all. I doubt much can be done in the way of fundamental alteration of the WP system. It is what it is. ] (]) 04:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::: I think it could be doable, maybe, if the approach taken were that there would be multiple "rounds" of proposals, probably more than one variant phrasing for each proposal, gathered and then voted on, with the highest-level proposals, probably for the pillars, first, and then for "core policies," and then policies describing specific applications of those policies, etc., etc., etc. If there were to be, for instance, a month or two allocated for each round, with a period of voting at the end of each round, possibly with some sort of ] and if necessary run-off voting after rounds if required, it might be doable. Having said that, it might also take up to or over a year to accomplish, and there is a real chance that interest would wane before the process were even remotely finished. But, for the comparative minutiae of the lowest-level proposals, even that might not be necessarily a bad thing. ] (]) 15:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages going to have a Constitution? ] (]) 06:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

===On-Line Convention===
The original poster, ], asked when the last time was that our rules have been drastically changed, and whether the five pillars of Misplaced Pages have become too static. In looking over the five pillars, I don't see anything that I would propose be changed. Does the OP propose a change to the five pillars? I can identify several areas where our policies and procedures should be changed, but where we are locked in by the requirement for ]. The problem is not so much, as the OP implied, that Wikipedians give too much value to how we have done things for several years, so much as that we don't have consensus for what to do differently. Consensus has become a burden. A few areas in which there is dissatisfaction but not consensus include Requests for Adminship (many editors think that the process is toxic, but some think that it has improved, and in any event there is no single consensus proposal for reform), paid commercial editing (some editors think that paid commercial editors should be banned, some think that paid commercial editing should be discouraged and must be disclosed, a few editors think that paid editing is actually a constructive influence), the Arbitration Committee (most editors think that it is too slow, some think that it should be split into subcommittees or meet in panels, some favor some other approach), administrators in general (some think that administrators should serve for a term of years, some think that they should be probationary for one year, et cetera), civility enforcement (some think that it should be stricter, some think that it should be looser, some think that there should be a list of naughty words), and so on. The problem is that we will never get consensus. My first question, for the owner of this talk page, is whether the WMF can intervene, perhaps by calling an on-line convention and specifying that it may change policies by majority rather than consensus. My second question, for the original poster, is whether he or she was proposing anything in particular, or just trying to start a discussion. ] (]) 17:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

: Misplaced Pages's dismissal of majority rule in favor of hokey-pokey pseudo-consensus decision making and the absolutely unstructured RFC process is one of its original sins. It's a minor miracle that the site is still functioning after having been based on that shaky and flaky system of governance. Still, at this point it is what it is... Change is going to be slow and piecemeal. ] (]) 17:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::Yes, majority rule would be great. "Attention followers! The world must know that evolution is just an unproven idea foisted upon us by the godless! Go here and check a box. You don't have to think or reason, just push a button." --] <sup>]</sup> 22:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::I pretty much agree with NeilN. ] might be a somewhat vague idea but it is superior to the alternative which, on hot topics, is almost certain to result in issues with meatpuppetry etc. You only have to look at caste articles and the "calls to arms" on off-wiki forums to see that. The logical problem is the chicken-and-egg thing: we have policies that are supposedly derived from consensus and those policies are enforced using the consensus argument. - ] (]) 00:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:::: There is a difference between content decisions and site governance. ] (]) 01:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
::::: Perhaps. Robert has been trundling around with a lot of policy proposals etc in the last few weeks, as well as being involved in some other controversial things that have (sometimes) backfired. I guess this might be a wood/trees situation, where I'm looking at it from close-up and they're looking at it from 20,000 feet/metres/miles/kilometres. - ] (]) 01:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

== Paid editing not incompatible with Misplaced Pages adminship? ==
{{hat|Per the recommendation of Jehochman, I'm closing this thread down. For the record, my view on the principle is that paid editing is incompatible with Misplaced Pages adminship. As to the specifics of whatever this was all about, by the time I looked at it, the case had already been declined by ArbCom so it isn't relevant to discuss.--] (]) 15:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)}}
Jimbo, in view of the statements you've made on the subject of paid editing, I thought you should be aware of this ]. It seems to me that Arbcom is about to set an unfortunate precedent here. Thanks. ] (]) 15:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:No evidence has been submitted that the user in question is currently or has any plans of engaging in paid editing. So there is no precedent being set other than sanctions not being punitive.] 16:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::So, as long as you stop when you get caught, it's all good? ] (]) 16:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::She paid her dues at that time. No double Jeopardy.] 16:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::It's not double jeopardy. She was fired by WMF for paid editing. Whether she should keep her admin status on en-wiki is a separate question. ] (]) 17:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::As you can see from the discussion below, I am not the biggest fan of paid editing in the world. But what I don't understand is why you and another editor have suddenly come out of the blue to latch on to this particular issue. It serves no useful purpose and frankly I don't get it. ] (]) 22:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Off hand, I'd say that RFarb looks more like a continuation of harassment against an editor than anything else. ]] 16:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::I agree.] 16:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::That's a pretty serious claim, and I ask that you provide diffs or retract it. The filing party has never interacted with Missvain/Sarah before. ''']''' 17:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Which begs the question: What is Pudeo doing involving themselves then? As you say, no interaction before. Instead, they just allow an issue to go cold for nearly a year then whip out an RFArb without making even the pretense of discussion or dispute resolution. I won't say that Pudeo's actions fall to the level of bad faith, but I would consider them bad form. I also see an editor in ReverendWayne who has barely edited at all in the past year, was also apparently uninvolved in the original dispute, yet pops out of the woodwork demanding answers, even to the point of forum shopping this thread. A couple of the comments on the RFArb itself are wondering the same thing I am - what purpose, aside from griefing an editor, does this request serve? ]] 20:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Resolute, I haven't looked at your editing history. I think it's better to engage the substance of an argument than to investigate the person who's making it, but I understand that not everyone shares my view. My interest is in defending Misplaced Pages's administrator accountability policy, which has been weakened by allowing an administrator to ignore valid concerns of the community. Arbitration proceedings do provide a place for uninvolved editors to offer their opinions, and you may have noticed that I expressed similar concerns in the case of ], with whom I was likewise uninvolved. I hope this satisfies your curiosity to some extent. ] (]) 23:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:Paid editors have been required to disclose as much since June; before that there was no rule. ArbCom is ultimately about dispute resolution and rule enforcement, where all disputes are resolved and no rules are being broken, there's not much for them to do. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 18:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Given Misplaced Pages's/WMF's spineless attitude on the subject, I don't think it's very fair to hold an editor or administrator to a standard that does not exist. Outlaw paid editing by administrators, make it retroactive if you want, and then crack down. But right now paid editors in the admin corps can work the gravy train as much as they want, as long as they disclose or exploit the gaping loopholes. ] (]) 18:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::I don't think that it is accurate to characterize the WMF as taking a spineless attitude toward paid editing. The push to tighten the rules on paid editing has come primarily from ], who is a member of the board of the WMF, and also from the WMF board in general. The English Misplaced Pages is what is deeply divided on paid editing, because the English Misplaced Pages community is hamstrung by the mandate to act only on ]. The ArbCom is bound by policies (and the lack of policies) made by the English Misplaced Pages community. ] (]) 18:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::It's accurate because paid editing was not banned. ] (]) 21:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Last year, I was given a 10 pound award by the UK Wikimedia branch for my efforts during a contest on wikisource. I didn't take it and one reason was, at least theoretically, that might in the eyes of some have made me a "paid editor" who might be seen as having some sort of COI regarding editing material related to wikipedia on that basis.
:::Having said that, I tend to think that if we are to have paid editing, admins are probably the better people to do so. As admins, they tend to get more scrutiny than a lot of others, and they are at least theoretically aware of our policies and guidelines regarding content and might on that basis do work more compliant with other policies and guidelines than most others. Maybe. I don't like it, never have, and never will, but given the pathetic weakness of a lot of our content related to businesses in general, I can't object as much as I might like to otherwise. ] (]) 18:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

::::That would certainly be a straightfoward way of solidifying the image of admins as "super-users" who can get away with murder. Since I hate the doubletalk which holds that admins are just "ordinary users" without special privileges or prerogatives, I wouldn't mind that at all. ] (]) 18:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::I guess you decided to completely overlook part of my statement in your ongoing efforts of evangelization on this topic, particularly regarding the fact that admins in general get more scrutiny than others, in your obvious attempt to keep on the attack regarding this issue in any and all instances. Your own comment seems to be a more straightforward attempt at beating a horse than the comment to which it was referring. ] (]) 18:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

::::::Yeah we all know how easy it is to remove administrators. Touche! ] (]) 18:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I notice that by your statement above the only response you would even consider remotely acceptable would be removing their administrator status. You apparently consider that more important than verifying the content, or apparently anything else. Are you really interested in supervising any possible content which might have been done by a paid editor, or simply trying to play "gotcha" to those individuals who have been alleged to have done so? ] (]) 18:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Look, if you want to give all administrators a ticket on the gravy train, I don't want to discourage you. It may not do Misplaced Pages's reputation any good, or help fund raising very much, but that's no concern of mine. More power to you, and have a nice day. ] (]) 21:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::] - and of course, if it takes off, feel free to run me through it. ;) ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 18:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

From ]: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions, and to justify them when needed." That's the rule that's being broken here. Isn't paid editing by an administrator, even if it's not explicitly prohibited, a legitimate concern of the community? Administrators don't have the option to stonewall for a few months and let the whole thing blow over. And as reading the admin accountability policy ought to make clear, it does not apply only to misuse of admin tools. ] (]) 18:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:You do not seem to believe that there may have been some degree of off-wiki discussion on this topic, nor that at least one person whom I know to be no true "fan" of wikipedia, Carrite, has said in his lengthy review of the matter he could find little if any evidence. In some cases, it might be more reasonable for some discussions involving privacy concerns to take place off-wiki. That may well have been done here. To the degree that some of the comments involved seem to be implying that any accusation must be treated as being factually accurate, and I'm not sure that is necessarily a reasonable conclusion in this or any matters of this type, I can say this seems to me to be perhaps less interest in solving a problem than perhaps finding a handy scapegoat to make some people feel happy or fulfilled. I would actually prefer trying to achieve the former myself. ] (]) 19:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

:: I'm a fan of Misplaced Pages, look what I did today: ]... Now the Wikimedia Foundation, them not so much... But even they have good eggs and bad eggs... —Tim /// ] (]) 07:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

:Prior to the most recent Arbcom decision I'd suggest to take it there, now, I'd say 'Why is everyone such a c*nt' on such issues?' ] (]) 22:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The request has been declined, but I made right before in case anyone wants to investigate further.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:Sarah, or Missvain discerned the notability of ] before the entire world did? How dare she? She wrote "blah, blah, blah" as a placeholder on her own sandbox page while fleshing out a reference? Get out the pitchforks. How fortunate we are to have a "detective" like The Devil's Advocate on duty here. ] ] 08:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::Yeah, that is ''totally'' a full and accurate description of what I presented in the first paragraph.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 08:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::Jesus. Should have known that TDA's interest here would be in pushing his GamerGate agenda... ]] 15:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:And again, we see transparently bogus complaints thrown at her, for which it's hard to imagine any purpose other than harassment. On the off chance there's actually some misbehaviour, I'd recommend reading ]. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 09:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

* This conversation should be closed down because it's rude to talk about a third party outside of our dispute resolution process. You can go talk to the editor directly if you want to. This page is for talking with Jimmy, or talking about Misplaced Pages, not gossiping about somebody. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==Site bans==
"I think a lot of people should be sitebanned for misbehavior and that the community will begin to grow and flourish again when we get rid of people who bring more drama than they are worth. "

This is really a weak argument. We have banned many many people, often for no discernible cause, and often our most productive people. Robust research into reasons for leaving showed that the arguments about the community environment were overblown, certainly those relating to "drama". It is far more productive to work to change the way people interact, than to simply ban them. Banning is a "one size fits all" mentality.

Regarding the recent case I believed that the ArbCom had managed, after much wrangling to put together a ban-free solution, and turned my attention away from the recent case, to find now that some of the more progressive measures have been overthrown by the reactionary ones is a disappointment, but is not unusual. I regret the loss of two potential (and past) assets to the project.

All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',&nbsp;<small>00:41,&nbsp;5&nbsp;December&nbsp;2014&nbsp;(UTC).</small><br />
:{{ U|Rich Farmbrough}}, I would like to see a list of ten, or seven, or perhaps even five editors who were banned for "no discernible cause, and often our most productive people". In my experience, the discernable cause is readily visible, and amounts to massive disruption of the encyclopedia. But maybe there are many unjust bans I haven't noticed. Bring the account names forward, so that people of good will can campaign against this injustice you describe. ] ] 05:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

== Undisclosed Paid Advocacy (UPA) templates and Policy ==

Jimmy, I have two questions apropos ]. 1)What should happen to content that is the product of UPA ('''Undisclosed Paid Advocacy''')? Perhaps, any UPA prior to the ToS should be grandfathered, like content on Commons prior to tightened rules on using appropriate license tags and the like. And any content created after the ToS banned UPA, that is the product of UPA, be removed through the use of templates like <nowiki>{{subst:Copyvio|url}}</nowiki>/{{tl|Copyvio}}.
2)Are you aware of any significant efforts, since the Terms of Use were changed to bar UPA, to create a specific policy page that says that the product of UPAE, like the product of a copyright violation, should be removed? I don't think anyone's tried to create an equivalent of <nowiki>{{subst:Copyvio|url}}</nowiki> to tag UPA. I'm sure most of the folks who make money performing PAE and UPAE will continue to !vote against such moves, but perhaps Paid Advocates could be excluded from such voting. I thought it worth asking Jimbo, (and unavoidably, his talk page stalkers) and ].--]<sup>(]•])</sup> 01:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:Anything to help deal with the scourge of paid advocates is worth considering. One problem with tagging UPA is that often it is somewhat ambiguous. (Often it isn't, of course.)--] (]) 08:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
::Pinged for this discussion. I didn't even know there was a FAQ. As to your question, I don't know the answer. The attitude toward both disclosed and undisclosed paid contributions is extremely permissive, so I don't see the point of working up a sweat about it. Usually when a company dispatches employees or contractors to an article it is extremely obvious, and if dealt with firmly can usually be gotten rid of so that uninvolved editors can be left to edit without harassment. I actually addressed one aspect of the topic on my user page just the other day. ] (]) 15:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
::By the way, Jimbo, having discovered the FAQ I've taken the liberty of adding a paragraph, so as to close a loophole that I've seen mentioned here and there. If it's not what you want, please advise and I will take it out. ] (]) 16:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:::I'm generally in favor of anything that would tend to minimize paid advocacy editing, but I also really dislike all the tags that get left on article pages, sometimes for years after the problem has been addressed (I suggest putting most tags on the talk page). For the most part, the proposed tag would be doing the same thing as the advertising tags or the NPOV tag - so I'll say that there's no need for a new tag.
:::That said, there is a need for editors to go clean up the advertisers' (and the paes') messes. Perhaps we could organize Wiki-project:PAE cleanup. There have been a couple of projects that say that they try to minimize PAE problems, but to my reading they've ended up giving paid editors advice on how to skirt the rules - not something I want. If folks are really interested in a real PAE cleanup project, please let me know. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 16:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

* What is really needed is a check button under the edit summary with THIS IS A COI EDIT (linked to the policy page), right next to THIS IS A MINOR EDIT. If clicked, this would tag the summary as a COI edit so that the change could be reviewed by an unconnected editor. No need to deface the article for all time with a flag. ] (]) 17:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
::I would support that, as long as checking the box results in an immediate revert and ban on further editing in article space.--] (]) 21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
::: That's a pretty extreme take, isn't it? ] (]) 07:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
::::No, I think it's relatively mild, actually. Once someone self-identifies as a paid advocacy editor, it is extremely unwise (giving rise to a completely justified perception of corruption) to let them continue editing article space.--] (]) 13:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::I'm all for what you're suggesting, Jimbo. But at this point it is not policy. If you want to make it policy, perhaps through a strengthening of the Terms of Use by the WMF, it would certainly be a step forward. But right now you'll not get support from the community. I think that this is an issue in which the community needs to be led, not followed. ] (]) 16:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
::That's a good idea. ] (]) 17:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Make the check box for THIS IS A PAID EDIT and require it to be used in the case of paid edits. I'm 100% in favor of that. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 18:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:::: I think we all realize that not all COI edits are paid COI edits. They all need to be checkable, whether or not the writer has been paid. ] (]) 07:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

::::Who should I ping to get a reading on the technical issues of including such a box, {{U|Philippe (WMF)}}? Probably not, but he should know who to contact. The technical issues, as I see them, would be
1. how to get a read out on your watchlist, perhaps with a bolded '''P''' or '''PE''' or '''Pde''' (I've got a personal preference here) next to the paid entry. Perhaps only paid entries on a special list where you don't need to specify the articles you're interested in.

2. How long would it take to get up and running? Less than the time needed to pass a new policy (since it would have to be a requirement to click the box for paid entries)?
:::: ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 20:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::This would be a horrible idea as it would send the false message that we condone COI (paid advocacy) editing. Such edits should be immediate grounds for banning.--] (]) 21:36, 5 December 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.
::::::: Again, this is a perspective that is way, way, way, way more extreme than the standing consensus about such things. The new Terms Of Use by WMF have more or less codified paid editing. That ship has sailed. ] (]) 07:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I'd say that certain forms of paid editing, e.g. Wikipedians in Residence, are specifically allowed on En Misplaced Pages, others are regulated by the WMF under the ToS but not specifically mentioned under En Misplaced Pages rules. I'd agree that that ship has sailed, except that very few paid editors seem to follow the regulation - how many many paid editing declarations have you seen? (and how do you find these declarations? I think I've seen less than a half-dozen paid editing declarations, we may need something a bit stricter. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 08:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Smallbones, don't fall for this fallacy of equating all paid editing with paid *advocacy* editing. We should welcome, for example, universities who encourage professors to edit Misplaced Pages on their subject matter expertise, even paying them bonuses to do so. That's not the issue that anyone is really concerned about and is 100% different from the moral corruption of paid advocacy editing. Carrite seems to think the ship has sailed on this issue, but he's mistaken. The WMF terms of service did not codify paid advocacy editing - it was a first step at banning it completely. The wind is blowing very strongly against it, and those who are engaging in paid advocacy editing of article space (as opposed to following the bright line rule approach) should understand that the mood of the community is very strongly against them and increasingly so.--] (]) 13:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]]
::::::I think you (Jimbo) must have misunderstood me. This would just be a required disclosure for '''paid editing''' similar to one of the 3 required now. Paid editors now have their choice of declaring on their user page, on the talk page, or in the edit summary. This would just be a small variation of the edit summary, except that it would be required so that we can find paid edits easily and thus more easily monitor it, rather than searching around in 3 different places. i.e. paid editors can effectively hide their paid edits now. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 22:59, 5 December 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)
:::::::I see where you are coming from but I still don't agree. I don't think we should take steps to normalize paid advocacy editing of article space whatsoever. We should require disclose (as we currently do) and require avoiding article space ENTIRELY for paid advocacy editors. There is simply no valid justification for doing that editing yourself, when you are being paid, as opposed to asking completely independent unpaid (i.e. uncorrupted) editors to take a look at your paid-for suggestions.--] (]) 13:46, 6 December 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)
::::::::@] I think such a plan for post-edit reviews would be appropriate if most paid edits were good changes that only needed a quick re-assurance. In practice though, the majority of them are self-serving edits, asking to add awards, philanthropy, and other promotional material using primary sources. Also, the number of hours it would take WMF to develop new features would actually be more hours than the community spends each month reviewing Request Edits in pre-existing tools.
::] 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)


== ==
::::::::I think the community is too focused on "transparency & review" as the solution to paid editing, whereas I give article-subjects advice based on an "abstain, unless, then" model, where abstaining is the de-facto. ] (]) 04:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


For the interested. ] (]) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::: I think that "transparency and review" is where we're at. Let's make sure it is as transparent as can be and as well reviewed as we are able. That has always been the key to solving this contentious issue. (I really like your "transparency and review" phrasing, by the way, that's right on the money...) ] (]) 07:28, 6 December 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)
::::::::: For those interested in an example of CorporateM's advice on "abstain, unless, then", here is a that has been waiting patiently for nearly two weeks for the "then" portion, i.e., "review and consideration by a disinterested editor to avoid any remote appearance of impropriety". Clearly CorporateM's version ("The merger was opposed by consumer advocates, such as the Consumer Federation of America, due to anti-trust concerns. The two companies combined would become the largest pet food brand by market-share with a 45 percent share of the cat food market.") is better than Misplaced Pages's current version ("Both corporations saw this major strategic transaction as the ideal way to benefit from their combined know-how, complementary strengths and international presence in the growing pet-care market."), but since Nestle presumably paid for the improved content, it's radioactive and few volunteer editors would dare introduce it to Misplaced Pages's article space. CorporateM undoubtedly got paid for the research and writing time, regardless of whether it gets pasted into article space or not. ] (]) 15:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::From what I've seen, transparency and review has failed us quite significantly. Whether a paid editor discloses and follows the Bright Line or acts covertly, the outcome tends to be the same edits, only now the edits have increased stickiness and the paid editor can claim immunity to accountability for their edits, being that they didn't actually make them themselves. It promotes gaming the system, canvassing, and creates more trouble than just deleting promotional material in article-space. WP:COI says editors with a COI are suppose to be "cautious" but the PR industry seems to now believe advocacy is acceptable so long as it's in Talk space. There are cases where BrightLine/transparency is useful, but it is difficult to say whether its net-effect is good or bad. In most cases the article-subject wants something different than Misplaced Pages and we do not want them to reach those goals that are counter to our mission, regardless of the process or level of transparency used to attain them. ] (]) 18:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


== Happy new year ==
I just had an idea that I have not thought through in any great detail. We have the capability (not used much here but wildly popular in other languages) to put articles into "flagged revisions" state, see ]. It would require some (relatively simple, probably) changes to MediaWiki to put '''editors''' into that state, or even for individual editors to tick a box to request review by an independent editor before that change goes live. I can imagine a lot of use cases for this.--] (]) 14:11, 6 December 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)
: Good idea to minimize bureaucracy. Requesting a change on the talk page is pretty much a waste of time because it's often overlooked. If the proposed change were turned into a pending change, that would be useful. Next time somebody reliable edited the article, the change would be reviewed and adopted or rejected. Presumably if an account were discovered doing paid advocacy, it could be set to this state by an administrator, or an ethical PR agency could create accounts in this state. Somebody doing an occasional paid edit could flag particular edits without flagging their account. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


== ==
:I agree that this "flagged editors" thing is a good idea. Also I understand Jimbo's concerns about re Carrite's/Smallobne's suggestion. However, what Carrite is simply doing is recognizing that COI editing ''is permitted.'' I agree that identifying paid <s>editors</s> edits (Smallbones' idea) in the same fashion would be counterproductive. ] (]) 16:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== Semi-Protection ==


:Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I see that this talk page has been semi-protected due to block evasion. I thought that ] had traditionally had an open-door policy on this page with regard to blocked and banned users, so that this page was an exception to the rule that editing logged out by blocked or banned users was ]. There was a recent ArbCom case resulting from an edit-war over the removal of posts by banned users. Looking over that case, I don't see that the ArbCom changed the status of this page. Has Jimbo changed the policy on this page and requested the semi-protection? In view of some of the recent posts by IPs to this page, the semi-protection is probably a good idea, but was it Jimbo's idea? Just asking. ] (]) 23:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
: Nope. He's elaborated on this a few times. (By the protecting admin) Also relevant: ] ] (]) 00:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:What is the point of drawing attention to obvious trolling? People should work out the purpose of Misplaced Pages and promote that purpose. Anyone wanting gossip should go to the other website. Thanks to HJ Mitchell! ] (]) 00:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
:I'm fine with temporary semi-protection and I'm also fine with the occasional removal of tedious rehashes of old points by banned users. But I also in general want to keep an open door policy, even to banned editors, without giving them an infinite soapbox to harass me and others. I'd say that if I've responded to someone, that's a good indicator that I think the question and my answer should stand publicly - though 'hatting' is a good option if the discussion seems to be spinning into uselessness. These are going to be difficult judgment calls and the main thing that I think came out of the recent ArbCom case is that good users should assume good faith and try not to edit war about such things. In the discussion on HJ Mitchell's talk page, there was a good suggestion: if a user in good standing feels that there was a valid question that needs answering, then they can ask it themselves. I think that's a good approach.
:In the two specific threads that were removed, I gave my answer to one: ] is policy which can and will be enforced both by the community in some cases, and by the WMF in some cases. The other, well, I have to defer to WMF Legal for further questions in part because of the delicate nature of such matters, but also in part because I'm not personally privy to recent developments. (I could ask, and they would give me a detailed briefing, but I'm not that interested in the details right now. I think the Foundation should take a much harder line and ban not just based on the narrow grounds they use today, but also quite a few abusers who are disrupting the community, but that's another question for another day.)--] (]) 10:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
::Err, are you talking the WMF ban more people on child protection issues or....something else? I really hope you're not referring to people in the case just closed as I am sure everyone is taking a step back, recharging, calming down and (hopefully) moving on. ] (] '''·''' ]) 13:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Sorry to be ambiguous. No, I wasn't referring to any recent case. I think the current WMF approach to child protection is good and thankfully it remains a very tiny and rare problem. Speaking in general, I think that the WMF should step in more aggressively when we have cases of volunteers being harassed. Getting involved in bans in areas relating to POV pushing and whatnot would be unwise, as those are things about which the community has great expertise and that system seems to be working relatively well. But I would like to see more aggressive enforcement of the terms of service, particularly "Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism".--] (]) 13:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Aah ok, yes that I agree on. ] (] '''·''' ]) 13:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to from {{u|Tryptofish}}?
== Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tim Toni‎ ==
:... 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.
] is open for conversation. If you have the time, examine the debate and yield an opinion. Thanks! ] (]) 00:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
: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)


== ] ==
== Idea ==


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)
Jimbo - see ] (] '''·''' ]) 05:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
:Very interesting! I'd never thought of this approach, so let me say it in my own words to see if I can capture what you are saying: if someone can't be substantively discussed in any Misplaced Pages entry other than their own biography, this is a warning sign to us that the person may be simply "famous for being famous" and therefore not truly encyclopedic. I write it this way ("a warning sign to us") to avoid overstating the case, as there could certainly be exceptions. And there are some ways that people can try to be a bit wikilawyerly about it - imagine a set of twins, each of whom could in theory be discussed in each other's entry, but taken as a pair, they aren't notable for any other topic. I think such games playing, though, doesn't really do anything to undermine your core insight here.--] (]) 10:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
::Yes - precisely it - sort of a boomerang effect. If the person has not done anything that could be reasonably included in a nonbiographic article, then this comes into play (a bit like being solely notable for being a relative and having done nothing else notable) ] (] '''·''' ]) 13:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


== I give up == == ''The Signpost'': 15 January 2025 ==


<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>
We, that is, the peasant that is me, appreciate your intervention in restoring a rubbish article about rubbish without sources or any kind of comprehensibility. We also appreciate your facilitation of the co-opting of the encylopaedia by dregs from the region of the Internet that is called Lower Slobbovia. Thank you, sir. We do appreciate it. We do appreciate all your work in making the encylopaedia you created look like the domain of foolish lunatics. Praise God, and farewell. ] — ] 20:06, 6 December 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 -->
:I wish you well in life.--] (]) 20:10, 6 December 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