| Revision as of 06:19, 21 March 2016 view sourceJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Concerning the dismissal of Doc James from the board: note on public statements made in November...← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:05, 16 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,006 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 252) (bot | ||
| (1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| </noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{pp-move|small=yes}} | |||
| {{Stb}} | |||
| {{noindex}} | |||
| {{Stb}} | |||
| {{Usercomment}} | {{Usercomment}} | ||
| {{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|}} | |||
| {{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates.'''<br /> | |||
| {{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 until Wikimania 2017 are ], ], and ].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is ].'''}}}} | |||
| '''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='''Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, <br> ] '''}}}} | |||
| {{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}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}} | {{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}} | ||
| {{annual readership}} | |||
| {{Press | |||
| | subject = talkpage | |||
| | author = Matthew Gault | |||
| | title = Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit | |||
| | org = ] | |||
| | url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit | |||
| | date = 8 December 2021 | |||
| | quote = The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other. | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| | algo = old( |
| algo = old(10d) | ||
| | archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d | | archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| | counter = |
| counter = 252 | ||
| | maxarchivesize = 350K | | maxarchivesize = 350K | ||
| | archiveheader = {{aan}} | | archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| | minthreadsleft = |
| minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Centralized discussion}} | {{Centralized discussion}} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| {{-}} | {{-}} | ||
| ==]== | |||
| ==What James said publicly== | |||
| ] | |||
| Hi Jimmy. According to , you wrote to James that "''I'm not going to dig up the exact quotes'', you said ''publicly'' that you wrote to me in October that we were building a Google-competing search engine and that I more or less said that I'm fine with it". My emphasis. That said, do you have the exact quotes? I can't find anywhere where James said this. Thanks ] (]) 18:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ---- | |||
| Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team. | |||
| You are suggesting James is either a liar, or has 'poor memory or low emotional intelligence', or that 'emotional trauma' has coloured his perceptions on certain details. This is a serious thing (and nasty) to say about a man whose integrity and honesty is so far not in doubt. I have searched for evidence of what you claim James said publicly, and I can find nothing. There is something I copied ], but the first reference to 'Google like search engine' is in fact ''yours''. Then James suggested someone should ''verify'' that WMF has a group of staff that want to work on a Google-like search engine. 'Verify' /= 'claim'. | |||
| So where, according to you, did James make this public statement? You can't say mean things like this without digging up the exact quotes. ] (]) 19:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been getting some pings about this, which had to do with a statement of mine, so I think I should clarify: I made a comment suggesting a "Google-like" search engine based on and some other source which had mentioned an attempt to make a search engine at Bomis, which apparently predates February 15 when ] referred to it. This was only my take on some unclear things I'd read. After which Jimbo responded that it was never intended to be Google-like, and James Heilman made a purely hypothetical response to a scenario I'd raised. The original quote by ] did not say "Google-like", but was persuasive, because it ''was'' a quote: he a February 11 document said that "Knowledge Engine by Misplaced Pages will be the Internet's first transparent search engine, and the first one originated by the Wikimedia Foundation", citing the . | |||
| :I think the main point here is that we all need to take a chill pill. ''Every'' person coming to this and seeing statements that are frustratingly vague is a) getting frustrated, and b) reading things into what is said that are not quite true. The statements are apparently vague on purpose - ] suggested there is a reason for this shortly after the quote Doc James provided in the archived discussion, and in any case I still don't know what KE really is. If we can't solve that, at least we can try to resist getting quite so frustrated. This is all blind men and the elephant, and we should consider it most likely that each person involved is not lying, not crazy, just behaving in the way that makes the most sense based on what they know. ] (]) 20:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::it would be nice if this were an "elephant" story but there are directly contradictory statements. Just in that thread you linked to, we have James saying that "The board approved the Knight Foundation grant. I supported its approval following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board." And Jimmy said that there were absolutely no such threats. These kinds of contradictions are not resolve-able with the "different parts of the elephant" hypothesis. Believe me, I tried. ] (]) 20:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Related: ]. --] (]) 21:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Re|Jytdog}} Actually, in that link Jimbo said that if anyone on the board made such a threat he'd be astonished, and encouraged Doc James to specify who said what when. This is not really a direct contradiction until the two have narrowed it down to a solid disagreement about a specific conversation at a specific time. ] (]) 03:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::from : {{tq|Absolutely not. The very idea is ridiculous. Based on everything that I have seen from the rest of the board, this is a complete impossibility. I am specifically checking with every board member to try to get some idea of what, if anything at all, this accusation could be based on, and I have so far come to a preliminary conclusion that it is a flat out lie. If I do find out that any board member made such a threat, I will be astonished.}} and it goes on. ] (]) 03:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Earlier today Guy Macon James: "...Doc James, when you say 'pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the board' was this pressure applied in front of the entire board? Was it clear or ambiguous? Was Jimbo there? Does any other board member collaborate this claim?". James's : {{tq|Yes Jimbo was there. And it was clear. I would imagine other board members would confirm this.}} (NB spelling error corrected "their" >> "there"). ] (]) 04:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is '''not''' an "elephants" story. That is a hope I had too. But it is not possible. Which is why I have been saying that for anybody who is paying attention, the contradictions are unbearable. And this is not the only example. ] (]) 04:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::From my perspective, the longer Jimmy keeps digging, the worse this is going to get for him, and for the movement. Which is the real tragedy. My hope is that he pivots, and hard. ] (]) 04:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What digging? Have you found even one person to back up the idea that James was threatened with removal from the board if he didn't support the Knight grant? I haven't, and I've asked around. If someone on the board has backed it up, I'm very interested to hear the story. I think the evidence so far is very much on my side. As I have said all along, "If I do find out that any board member made such a threat, I will be astonished." I have seen nothing to change my mind about that. Have you seen anything?--] (]) 11:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Lets look at my statement "following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board". This does not mean the same thing as "James was threatened with removal from the board if he didn't support the Knight grant". What my statement means is that there were comments by a board member to remove other board member(s) before the vote, nothing more. ] (] · ] · ]) 20:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Hmmm. Your full statement was "The board approved the Knight Foundation grant. I supported its approval following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board.". That is somewhat closer to "James was threatened with removal from the board if he didn't support the Knight grant". The word 'following' is causal, not temporal. ] (]) 21:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I meant it to mean that the statement regarding possible removal occurred before the KF vote not that the statement necessarily occurred in a conversation directly about the KF vote. | |||
| :::::::::::I do believe that the conversation in which it occurred related somewhat to the KF grant but I understand that others may parse the relatedness of the conversations differently. | |||
| :::::::::::Apologies if I was unclear. ] (] · ] · ]) 22:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Ok, since there are no foxholes in which to seek cover here on Jimbo's TP, I've adorned myself in flame-retardant underwear in order to say what needs to be said. This entire thread should be put to bed for a number of reasons beginning with the fact that it has become unbearable and unproductive. While it may have started out with the best intentions, it has escalated dangerously close to the point of no return. I don't think I'm alone, but I can no longer bear to see {{u|Doc James}} in the position of having to continuously defend himself against miscommunications. He is a highly respected contributor both on and off WP - he is an ER surgeon for Pete's sake - and should not have to be subjected to this onslaught. I feel similar to the way {{u|Jimbo Wales}} is being treated, having been forced to defend himself against miscommunications. He is one of the founders of WP, and yes, that means a lot whether some of you care to admit it or not. It would be extremely difficult to convince me that Jimbo has done anything that could be considered intentionally detrimental to the project - stupid maybe but certainly not intentional. His rug burns are bleeding from <s>calling him on the carpet</s> dragging him onto the carpet to explain what he's already explained repeatedly. This may come as a surprise to many, but I also don't want to see {{u|Jytdog}} attacked for his initial concerns over the dismissal of Doc James. I know his bulldog tenacity and while we can all admire him for it, we also need to protect him from it. I can only hope that he now realizes his persistence in this matter cannot possibly bring a positive result. I see bridges being burned, and that is not a good thing. Please, please, please - can we stop the onslaught if for no other reason than for the sake of maintaining respectability for those involved? It has long since devolved into torturous dialogue, and this is not where Doc James, Jimbo or Jytdog need to be investing their time. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 00:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::], if this is a , you may never get to the bottom of it, but that does not mean you should stop seeking reality. I somehow don't see Jimbo pivoting...Southerners ''like'' to dig..:), and are beyond stubborn. Its entirely up to you, but if it was me and I could not let it go, I'd use the ] process to figure out what happened. That may work better than trying to "dig" relevant info from the combatants. ] (]) 06:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I still want an answer to the question '''"Does any other board member corroborate this claim?"''' Doc James say that an unambiguous statement was made in front of the entire board including Jimbo Wales. Jimbo says it never happened. What do the eyewitnesses say? --] (]) 08:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Really? Answer A would mean board members were threatened and acquiesced. Answer B would mean it didn't happen. Acquiescence is not compatible with giving Answer A, and answer B would be silence as there is nothing to witness. I wouldn't expect any verbal/written answer but people tend to vote with their feet in cases like this. <small>(p.s. I corrected a typo in your bolded area)</small> --] (]) 09:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I agree with ] that seeking info from other board members/eyewitnesses is the logical next step. One or more of them might feel an obligation to help those who are interested in getting to the bottom of what happened. There is nothing to lose by trying to get them to speak up or at least answer some questions. Even if they all clam up/stonewall, even that will provide an additional piece of reality for acceptance and/or possible reaction. ] (]) 16:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::"Answer B would be silence as there is nothing to witness" doesn't make any sense. If someone claimed that Jimbo ] and that he did it right in front of me, my answer would not be be "silence as there is nothing to witness". My answer would be that I never saw it happen and that the claim that it happened right in front of me was false. --] (]) 21:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I Agree with Guy Macon re:Answer B. So one or more of the trustees need to help get the record straight. This matter seems too important to too many people to walk away from. If the trustees do not come forward, maybe a time deadline has to be set, then there are several other approaches I can think of at the moment; which have already been mentioned I think. The main thing I think is to try to get to the information in as non-judgmental way as possible. It may even be possible to get at the details without identifying the names of the individuals who did or said whatever. The first approach we could try is to bring in a professional counselor to speak to the parties separately, gather the details from all perspectives, boil down the events which the parties agree happened, come up with a description of the events which is agreeable to all parties and share that description, perhaps in confidence or perhaps not, with whomever wants to know the description of events. The sharing of the description might or might not be limited in some way, perhaps by email...I'm just thinking out loud here...or made public...these parameters could be set by the parties perhaps. Don't laugh, but I think an experienced family counselor might be able to work with the parties and help them sort this all out in a way that will bring a healthy, constructive and positive conclusion to this matter which all concerned, including the people talking here, will be happy with. ] (]) 05:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Jytdog}} | |||
| It looks like you are accusing Jimbo of something but not quite saying what it is. Your technique looks like a combination of ], ], and schoolyard bullying. If you have an actual accusation to make, you should make it clearly, with evidence to back it up. Otherwise you should apologize. Please note that ] says: | |||
| "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks. | |||
| .... | |||
| "'''What is considered to be a personal attack?''' | |||
| .... | |||
| *"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." | |||
| So I'm calling you on this. It's time to put up or shut up. Please take a few days to get your accusations and evidence in order and then present them so we can all see what you are talking about. | |||
| ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 06:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :You can choose however you like. Everyone has to deal with contradictions. They are right there, and turning the focus on me does nothing. ] (]) 08:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry, but this is all an argument about I-don't-know-what said I-don't-know-when by I-don't-know-who. If ] wants to explain exactly who, ''exactly'' what, and when, and says Jimmy Wales was right there, and was paying attention (I mean, they call them bored meetings for a reason - you sure he noticed?) and then he gives a contrary description, then ''maybe'' we can start speculating one of the two is actually saying something untrue. More likely, they'll simply say they interpreted the same statement differently, and if we heard the statement, then we'd have a chance to interpret it differently ourselves. This isn't hard science here ... more like an argument over how many smurfs you can squish in a barrel. Give me a bigger hammer and I can prove you a liar. :) ] (]) 16:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::I support ]'s free speech rights here because his persistence is within the bounds of civility, in my opinion.] is understandably getting tired of all the criticism of Jimbo, but persistence is often crucial when trying to get to the bottom of something and I think Jytdog's persistence is an acceptable approach in a seemingly complicated puzzle involving human behaviour with different spins and even different facts having been placed in our piublic arena for acceptance. It could be harmful to the long term soul of any movement to accept and archive presentations/reports ''about something important'', that include what appears to some as a false reality propped up on flawed logic. At least that is my position on whether or not ] has gone too far. I say no, he is just seeking the truth. ] (]) 16:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for the note, Nocturnalnow but there is no "free speech" in WP, and nobody has any "rights" here. ] (]) 01:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have a different opinion. I believe we are all born with free speech rights and take them with us wherever we go/are. There may be negative consequences to exercising the right at some venues or in some manner and anyone can choose when, where, how, and if to exercise them, but we always have them, imo. ] (]) 02:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry {{u|Nocturnalnow}} but this is about Jytdog's bullying which has reached the point of ]. And I mean specifically the tactics of repeating vague accusations - without any proof of any kind - so often that people assume that there must be something to it simply because the vague accusations have been repeated so often. Jytdog has been "asking" the same "questions" for 2.5 months now, and he has received reasonable answers. It's time for Jytdog to step up to the plate and say exactly what his accusations are and what his evidence is. I've given him a nice slow pitch right down the middle of the plate, if he has anything he can whack that pitch right out of the ballpark. But I say he has nothing, no believable accusations and no evidence to back it up. | |||
| {{u|Jytdog}} can you produce anything? Or are you just another ]. It's up to you. Show your stuff. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 19:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| : {{re|Smallbones}} I've seen plenty of McCarthyism on this talk page in the past, and this ain't it. Please, we have enough chill pills on hand for everybody here. I have no doubt in my mind that dismissing a community representative was a bad idea, that not having a proper election afterward made it worse, but that doesn't mean that every side-issue where two imprecise accounts seem superficially contradictory has to lead to shouts of "that is a lie!", followed in due course by a duel at twenty paces. At the same time, we shouldn't expect people not to keep digging for details - which is one reason why it was such a bad idea, because it doesn't save the remaining board any hassles at all in the end. ] (]) 20:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| : {{ping|Smallbones}} you are adding more heat than light throwing around hyperbolic accusations of McCarthyism. I have been reading this topic regularly and in my opinion Jimbo has indeed been guilty of giving answers which must be parsed for truth rather than being clear statements. Jimbo is a big boy and does not need others to shield him from questions from the community, he dodges them well enough on his own. ]] 21:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| I'll just wait for Jytdog's answer, if he can come up with one. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 23:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ===Once again=== | |||
| There is a lot of stuff about elephants and 'he said she said'. I don't care about this. Jimmy, my point is that if you are going to accuse people of being liars, or mentally traumatized, or talking 'utter f---ing bullshit' or other such mean things, then you need to back this up with 'exact quotes'. Indeed, even with exact quotes I am not sure those things are justified. ONCE AGAIN: where did James say publicly that he wrote to you in October ''that'' WMF was building a Google-competing search engine and ''that'' you "more or less said that I'm fine with it". Simple question. ] (]) 11:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Peter Damian is not the only one waiting for an answer here, Jimbo. If James said that publicly (as you claim), that should not be difficult for you to find, should it? ] (]) 22:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::It would be a pity if this question slipped off to archive unanswered. ] (]) 10:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| === Can trustees ignore community requests? === | |||
| Regarding ]'s request for trustees to speak up regarding whether or not they are aware of any threats of removal having been made prior to the KE vote i.e. "Does any other board member corroborate this claim?"; I see this as a separate issue from J's and J's differing accounts. I see this aspect as being about what, if any, responsibility the trustees have to show some respect for requests from well established members of the community. Does anyone know the answer? ] (]) 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :None. Trustees are not accountable to the community. There is an ethical argument that they are based on the WMF's stated values of transparency, but there is no mechanism by which trustees are actually accountable to anyone except the majority of the trustees, who can by a simple vote oust any other member, for any reason. ] (]) 01:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Five of the trustees are accountable to the community at least in the sense that every two years they have to stand down or seek reelection. In the last community elections two sitting board members stood and both lost. In the current elections for chapter appointed seats neither sitting member is actually standing, so we have no way of knowing what that part of the community thinks of the current board or those two members. It is an element of accountability, but a tad unhealthy a situation. One wonders who will be the next board member to be re-elected by the community, we could be waiting a few years for that to happen. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>'' 14:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::agree (the situation is not clear)--] (]) 10:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Correction: THREE sitting members of the Board stood for re-election and THREE lost — but the Board (with its unelected majority) restored one of the defeated candidates to its ranks by tossing the elected representative Doc James over the side of the boat. Welcome to power politics in the false guise of democracy... ] (]) 14:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ===Full disclosure=== | |||
| I and others still look forward to a disclosure of the story around the Knowledge Engine, and the WMF Board's role in Lila's acknowledged mistake to not bring the KE to the community earlier. This has not been disclosed anywhere yet. ] (]) 00:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ===] project=== | |||
| {{quote box |width=25em | bgcolor=#c6dbf7 |align=right |halig=left | salign=right|quote="Many in the community were furious that details of such a large project had been withheld by an organization that prides itself on radical transparency. Wikimedia’s public story—that it was never working on a search engine—was directly contradicted by a grant proposal made to the Knight Foundation and leaked internal documents."|source= —Jason Koebler, '']''}} | |||
| Jimbo Wales, I understand you are willing to discuss the ] grant and ]. One of the main issues is what were the events leading up to the Lila Tretikov's resignation and your involvement. The Knight Foundation grant was presented to the board members in September 2015, but according to ''The Signpost'' ]. Jimbo Wales, did you tell Lila Tretikov to make the Knowledge Engine project completely transparent to the other board members or did you tell her not to share the full details of the grant and engine or did you not say anything specific to Lila Tretikov in September and October 2015 regarding the grant or search engine project. People want to know what really happened since the project and events are still shrouded in secrecy. | |||
| Jimbo Wales, the initial blogpost by contradicted the ]. The leaked internal documents states the "Knowledge Engine By Misplaced Pages will democratize the discovery of media, news and information—it will make the Internet's most relevant information more accessible and openly curated, and it will create an open data engine that's completely free of commercial interests. Our new site will be the Internet’s first transparent search engine, and the first one that carries the reputation of Misplaced Pages and the Wikimedia Foundation." According to the leaked internal documents, the Knowledge Engine was originally intended to be a search engine on a new site and there is a concern that "Google, Yahoo, or another big commercial search engine could suddenly devote resources to a similar project, which could reduce the success of the project." Jimbo Wales, did you tell or not tell Lila Tretikov to inform the Misplaced Pages community regarding the full details of the Knowledge Engine project? I am not sure what happened since Lila Tretikov never revealed all the grant documents. Jimbo Wales, was the Knowledge Engine project originally intended to be a much bigger project run on a new separate website, according to the leaked internal documents? Lila Tretikov never commented on the leaked internal documents as far as I know. For an organization that prides itself on , I think it is odd that the WMF has not published an official statement regarding the original intention of the Knowledge Engine project and what is the current goal. If you did urge the board and/or the WMF towards full publication of the details of the grant and project how come the details and events have not been fully disclosed yet? ] said in early March "the org is still in crisis mode and hopefully will enter a stable interim period soon." According to Ariel Glenn, WMF's "tech gnome", it is "not just about an .". I previously commented in regard to the Knowledge Engine project but it was archived by the bot before you had a chance to reply. I hope you can clear up the confusion a bit. Thanks. ] (]) 00:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Reply by Jimbo Wales ==== | |||
| :I strongly believe that all aspects of our long term strategy should be discussed with, and often led by, the community. Therefore, I always recommend to people who have ideas that they share them with the community as early as possible. I don't agree with you, by the way, that "the project and events are still shrouded in secrecy." | |||
| :The project presented to the board at the Wikimania board meeting in Mexico was about improving internal search and discovery, with some very reasonable and modest first steps outlined. At that board meeting, we specifically discussed that this would not be a Google-like public search engine. | |||
| :As it turns out, Damon Sicore had, much earlier, circulated internal proposals for a Google-like search engine. He did so with great cloak-and-dagger secrecy - one employee told me that he had to give his PGP key on a USB stick rather than it just being downloaded from a public keyserver, in order to get the proposal from Damon. As it further turns out, those proposals got no traction, and that was not what was ultimately presented to the board. As I understand it, some of the hype from those proposals survived into a grant proposal to the Knight Foundation, but what was actually proposed and funded was modest and sensible. | |||
| :I know some people are looking for more than that, but that's what there is. Certainly, as I have said many times and as has been confirmed by many people, the board did not approve nor discuss favorably any concept for a "Google-like search engine". Also, no code was ever written, and the idea never got beyond Damon's brainstorm.--] (]) 16:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ===== Questions for Jimbo Wales ===== | |||
| ::Jimmy, could you please comment on how the WMF Vice President of Engineering would facilitate an environment where "great cloak-and-dagger secrecy" and requiring a "PGP key on a USB stick" for sharing materials between employees was considered normal behavior? Was the discovery of this kind of strangeness a contributing factor in why Sicore left WMF in July 2015? I know, you probably can't (or at least shouldn't) comment on such a specific personnel issue, but maybe you can speak in more general terms. I just know that if someone at my business were to ask me to provide a PGP key on a USB stick in order to see a workplace document that didn't include incredibly sensitive customer-identifying information, I think I'd be thinking about contacting our Human Resources department to ask where our organization is finding such people. I don't know, maybe it's different in a "tech firm" like Wikimedia Foundation? - ] (]) 14:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::I can't comment on specific personnel issues. Also, remember that I don't work at the Foundation on a daily basis, and so very specific details like what the culture was like when Damon was around are really not something that I know anything about first-hand. In general, I suppose I have the same questions that you do, except that I also think it's pretty much of academic interest at this point. Clearly, the culture that the Foundation comes from and exists in is one of extreme openness, not one of extreme secrecy. In some contexts, I should add, I don't think extreme secrecy is necessarily a bad thing - Apple has done quite well out of it, and it really helps them with their surprising marketing launches and so on. But - that isn't us, it shouldn't be us, and it isn't ever going to be us.--] (]) 11:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Replies by the Community ==== | |||
| JImmy do you know what was pitched to the Knight Foundation originally, who pitched it, who wrote the Knight Fdn grant, and who approved it? You also still have said nothing specific about the boards role (or perhaps better, failures) with regard to Leila making her acknowledged mistake of not bringing this to the community earlier. Do you have anything specific to say about that? ] (]) 16:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :I wasn't at any of those meetings, so I don't know what was said. I'm not really sure who attended. The board, nor any members of the board to the best of my knowledge, never discouraged Lila from bringing anything to the community, and generally has always been broadly supportive of the community being consulted about everything important. As I've said before, it didn't occur to me that the relatively modest deliverables of the grant as approved by the board would not have been brought to the community, but at the same time, it didn't (and doesn't) seem like the kind of thing that would require a huge community consultation. If you're looking for board blame, it won't lie in the area of discouraging Lila from speaking to the community, it will lie in the area of simply assuming it would happen.--] (]) 18:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Jimbo has said what he thought of Lila's mistake - he said it was a mistake, but as everyone including the board, and Knight, and Lila understood, whatever extravagant padding there was in the puffery language in the grant - it was all simply early research on Misplaced Pages search process at (an open source and thus transparent search process) and it's not at all worthy of this after-drama that some apparently conspiracy-minded people try to make it out to be. Jimbo has basically said all that, but for some reason people want him to say it over and over again, in some prosecutorial fashion of questioning. It's sad, really. The salient points are these: | |||
| :*no engineering was done; | |||
| :*the project was obviously disclosed to the community in November, which is just before the grant was accepted; | |||
| :*and it's for research. | |||
| :Some of you may think that early November is too late, but come on, it actually makes no difference to the project, and anyone now (and, at least, since November) can directly go to the people doing the research and talk to them about it, and if you are insightful, I am sure, influence their work. -- ] (]) 16:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *I honest to God don't understand the paranoia that I've seen over this. Really. Misplaced Pages is not user friendly and needs a better search engine. It was pitched the way such things are. What is the problem with the Knowledge Engine? I just don't understand the objection. This is separate and apart from everything else, such as whether James was treated right (and I tend to think he wasn't). ] (]) 17:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the objection was that we could not possibly hope to compete with a Goggle-style search engine, no matter how much money we put into it. The problem with this objection is that it's not clear whether anybody seriously proposed a Google-style search engine, and it is clear that the board never approved or even considered a Google-style search engine. So it's the usual thing about folks trying to make a mountain over an imagined molehill. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 17:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree that competing with Google would be silly. There would be much better uses for the money. But making the search engine better is a good idea. I don't see the fuss. The blog post is quite clear on that. ] (]) 17:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think understanding the furore about this isn't really about the improvements to the search. Some people are concerned that there really was a secret plot to do something crazy. There wasn't, and so there isn't much to say, nor much evidence to put forward other than the statements of engineers, an explanation of where the hyped language came from, and an understanding that one of the reasons there was insufficient communication with the community is that there actually never was any real plan to do anything dramatic. Had there been such a plan, of course the community consultation would have been huge and important and necessary and the right thing to do.--] (]) 18:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::By the way, even if you competed with Google, so what? It's within your remit. No, I am angry at you, but not for this reason. ] (]) 19:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| : I think Wikimedia could compete with Google, even beat it for certain kinds of searches. . There are proposals for search engines where the users' computers work collaboratively - something people will do for a free open source search engine, but not volunteer for just so some company can benefit. Google's results have obvious limitations, like certain characters you can't search for (you can find ], but not ]). Sometimes it seems like a war just to get search results that actually contain the text you searched for. More immediately, there's interest in open source search run against single specific sites (often by the site owners themselves) that could pretty much be indexed on demand. Last but by no means least, Google is becoming increasingly corrupted, generally against its will, by demands for it to "forget" various types of information. This is something that a networked search system controlled by hundreds of thousands of individual users might be able to resist more effectively than even the best-lawyered corporation. So the idea is by no means futile! It is ''also'' possible, however, that Wikimedia's search could be designed to complement and work with Google and other providers, offering a layer of protection for the privacy of users who choose whether to go on to the company's search hits or to investigate results added on by an open source network that specifically tries to index things that Google misses. My instinctive preference is just to see the coders get something prototyped ASAP that people can see and understand and work with... but then there is the risk that the patent trolls swarm over it, coming up with one obvious thing after another that you could do with it that they will ban you from doing until the day when or IF the patent expires. So I understand it isn't easy. ] (]) 13:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] if you have followed this (and apparently you haven't) you would know the following which is all in the pubic records. 1) James Heilman's platform for running for the Board was getting more resources for building content and adapting WP to current users' needs and improving transparency and community input on technology projects. 2) When he got to the board, he became aware of the KE initiative, documentation of which he has said that he himself had hard time getting access to, and which he has said he heard discussed as a "moonshot", and he said that he heard budget numbers on the order of $35M over several years for the project kicked around; 3) He was aware that this had not been discussed in the community and he has said that he argued within the board for such big commitments of the limited technology budget to be discussed in the community (in other words, doing exactly what he said he was going to do). 4) After wind of the Knight Fdn grant was made public, it took a lot of dogged effort by the community to get the grant application itself made public (it was only after one of us actually got the Knight Foundation to say that of course they were fine with it being published, that WMF published it - Lila had said that WMF would not publish it b/c the Knight Fdn wouldn't like that). 5) Once the grant application was published, everyone could read it, and if you do read it, it is plain as day that very ambitious plans are discussed in it. Lila has written that in the discussions with the Knight Foundation, the scope of what would actually be done with the grant money was pared down. The big plans are still there in the grant application. 6) Planning for the KE project was segregated within the WMF staff, and discontent around that and other things related to the KE project was ''a'' factor in staff discontent; staff discontent is what eventually led to Lila leaving. 7) James has said that his pushing for transparency around the KE was ''a'' key factor in his dismissal from the board. 8) There has never been a public disclosure of what actually happened with regard to the planning around the KE, how the staff re-arrangements, etc fit into that, etc, and how that changed over time. 9) it is obvious that what Discovery is doing ''now'' is improving internal WM/WP federated search, and just starting to explore how it could include other open sources of data in those search results. | |||
| :::::That story is at the heart of a lot of the crap that has happened over the last couple of years, including James' dismissal. It is a story that I and many other people want to hear. There is nothing "paranoid" about any of that. ] (]) 22:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yeah, I know, you've made that point about 50 times already. Remind me not to ask you to stick up for me if I'm ever kicked off the WMF board of directors. ] (]) 13:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::So if you know all that, why do you call the request to ask for the real story "paranoia"? That's a real question. ] (]) 06:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clarity on being Google-like ==== | |||
| Jimmy, in almost every statement you've made about KE, you've used the term "Google-like search engine", often in the quotes. I think the question people are asking is more general, i.e. whether KE was/is intended to allow searches for pages and resources outside of the WMF constellation of websites. Google's algorithmic system (not to mention giant server farms with independent power sources) is obviously well beyond the WMF's capacity, but a distributed open search engine (see Wnt's comment in section above) or another alternative model certainly is something it could contribute to. Was KE aimed exclusively at WMF-hosted content, or was it intended to have the capability to index and find sources outside the WMF projects? --] | <sup>]</sup>✌ 14:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :That's not a bad question as I have been ''assuming'' that this KE thing is just a way to get some order out of the chaos of Misplaced Pages. If it goes beyond that it's a different ball game. ] (]) 14:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps Jimmy should paste the FAQ link at the top of this page; that is why a ] is created, after all. See ] (]) 15:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, the FAQ is plain enough. Thanks. ] (]) 16:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's also ], showing a result from Fox News. <p>The question is how the qualifying words "Google-like" are being used to answer the questions, since if what he means is that KE will not have Google-like features (such as proprietary algorithms, crawlers, and industrial scale), the inconsistencies between what he has been saying and what the evidence points to evaporates, though not necessarily in a very informative way. --] | <sup>]</sup>✌ 17:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If one thinks Fox News is worthwhile to include down the road than convince the WMF in the open comment development process. If one does not think Fox News is worthwhile than one can rest assured that it's not included now and they are looking for public comment on what they are doing. You are right that 'Google like' is vague but it's not like Google at all at present and demonstrably as an actual thing never has been, including in inviting anyone who wants to be involved, to be involved. ] (]) 17:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We're talking past each other somehow. I was asking Jimmy about his use of the qualifier "google-like". Otherwise I suspect we're on the same page. --] | <sup>]</sup>✌ 00:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Since this was never pursued at more than the brainstorm stage, I don't think there is a really 100% clear answer to the question. Some documents have seen can be read as contemplating '''possibly''' also indexing other "non-commercial" sources - that term is super vague, but I think what was intended was fellow-traveling academic sources such as academic journals (but many of those are commercial, so maybe only the open-access ones?). I've never seen where anyone ever went beyond the most basic of bullet points on a slide, though, so really this isn't a question that actually has an answer. | |||
| :::::::If we aren't engaging in some kind of "gotcha" process about things in the past, then I think an interesting and useful conversation could be had about what non-WMF resources might be included in a revamped discovery experience.--] (]) 11:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Perhaps the following explains it: , and it actually does correlate somewhat with ''Related pages'', the feature under user Preferences, Beta Features that I asked about earlier. Of course, it is only a tiny part of it not to mention greatly expanded and far more sophisticated in the current projections for the KE. Those editors who haven't enabled the beta feature yet, I highly recommend it. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 14:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Jimmy, no one is looking for "gotcha". We are looking for a clear narrative of the story that we can see pieces of in the Knight Grant, the talk about a "moonshot", and the talk about a $35M budget over several years, and of course how the plans changed over time. There is no "gotcha" here. ] (]) 06:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Concerning the dismissal of Doc James from the board == | |||
| Before anything else let me say that what follows are my inferences from publicly available information. I haven't been given any information that isn't available to everybody who looks for it. | |||
| I have been trying to figure out the real reason Doc James was dismissed. I never believed that the Knowledge Engine business was more than a minor factor, and still don't. Instead, based on reading between the lines, I believe what happened is that James tried to intervene in the fraught situation involving the interactions between Lila and the WMF staff, and in the process (a) undercut Lila, (b) undercut decisions made by the board as a whole; (c) gave people information that was intended as confidential; (d) misrepresented the views of some people to other people. | |||
| I would like to add that I'm a longtime participant in WikiProject Medicine and continue to support Doc James as leader of the project. I believe he was frustrated by the ongoing damage to Misplaced Pages and was acting in what he thought were its best interests. I also believe that the decision by the board to extend Lila a second chance after serious failures was a mistake that resulted in exacerbating the damage, so nobody really ends up blameless here. Furthermore the decision to dismiss James from the board without being able to give a specific reason was a huge political error -- the board obviously didn't fully understand the special factors that come into play when you are dealing with people who have been elected rather than appointed. | |||
| Even if these conjectures are correct I don't expect you to say so, but perhaps if I have gone down the wrong path you can say that at least. | |||
| ] (]) 14:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Accusing a medical professional of not keeping a confidence is a pretty serious matter, but I'm fairly sure that isn't likely here. I have been watching and trying to understand this saga since the initial sacking of Doc James. I have yet to see anything be disclosed by him that wasn't his to disclose (he was certainly entitled to say that the board had voted him off). If the reason for his removal was something as simple as "this was secret and you made it public" then it wouldn't have been so difficult for the board to have communicated that to him. If it was more that he asked difficult questions in the boardroom and had done his research well enough to know things others didn't and raise things others didn't want raised, then I can understand the difficulty of explaining to him privately or publicly why he was sacked. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>'' 15:07, 16 March 2016 (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. | |||
| :Well, if I recall correctly, it was James and only James that revealed that Lila 'got a second chance', and as someone else said on this page, it was probably precisely at that point Lila's employment position became untenable, and she could never survive. Whether James supported that second chance (if it was even put as a second chance at the time) and then decided he did not support it later is all water under the bridge. As is the fact that James did not just support the Knight grant, he ''moved'' the board to accept it. So, now he suggests, he did not really support it? What? ] (]) 15:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]] | |||
| ::In a very general way I agree with {{u|Looie496}}, especially that it ''appears'' that "James tried to intervene in the fraught situation involving the interactions between Lila and the WMF staff." The rest of what he says overstates a bit what evidence I've seen, but is a reasonable conjecture. Per WereSpielChequers, I'd tone down (c) and (d). | |||
| 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) | |||
| :If Godber is not ], which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? ] (]) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I dunno, but ] wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. ] (]) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ::::And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". ] (]) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Godber's photographs include "views of the ] including large numbers of cars traveling to ], and the ]. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the ] Homestead in ] with scenes of farm life, including ], ] sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the ], ], ], the ], and the Hillside Railway Workshops); ] (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, ], ], ], ] and ]. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the ], and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the ], ], ] area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori ] and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." ] (]) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. ] (]) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. ] (]) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == == | |||
| ::Getting involved in a conflict between the ED and the staff, is a very difficult if not impossible for a board member to do well. It's clear that this didn't work out for James. It's clear that he lost the trust of his fellow board members. It's clear that a full disclosure of Lila's situation/personnel file/disagreements with the staff is not possible. | |||
| For the interested. ] (]) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::My only question is, where do we go from here? It ''appears'' to me like a couple of people in sections above just want to run Jimmy out of town on a rail with tar and feathers. Forget that noise. There's no justification for it and no possibility of it happening. If that is what folks want, I suggest opening an RFC (somewhere else please) and being completely open about what you want. I'd think you might even get 5-10 supports. There are always a few in any crowd. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::Reasonable suggestions for changing the governance system OTOH would be appreciated. If I understand James correctly, he wants the founder's seat on the board to be elected. We could certainly discuss that, get an RFC, and send a formal request to the board. Perhaps a "board of trusted editors" or a "senate" could be formed to review any removals of elected trustees in the future (but they'd need something else to do - I doubt that this situation will repeat itself in the next few decades). We could work on guidelines on how the community could have better input into the plans for new tech projects. There's lots of things that we could do other than fume and sputter and repeat the same old questions on this page. But what do folks want to do that could have a positive impact? ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Alanscottwalker}} if it was something as simple as James revealing that Lila had 'got a second chance' then it would have been straightforward to tell him, privately or otherwise, that this was the grounds for removal. But I'm not sure who released that information and when, in fact I don't remember hearing it until some time after James had left the board. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>'' 21:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, I don't think it did happen until James left the board. But, as I recall it was in a mid-December email (from when James was still on the board) that James then released in late December or early January. It remains that once it was revealed, it was probably over for Lila (there was never a possibility of pulling that back quietly). ] (]) 22:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You have to be pretty deep into inside baseball to have even noticed that James said 'second chance', and it's hard to believe it had any impact whatsoever. Things were over for Lila when the ~90% lack of staff confidence survey came out (long before the community knew about it), including most if not all the C-level employees. Every month that you survive as a top executive when ~90% of your staff don't have confidence in you is another chance, but it can't go on forever. That kind of number is basically unheard of. Incidentally, I was the initial non-staff person to dig out the mention of the report in one of the published Quarterly Reviews (as I skim through all of them), leading to its disclosure, and I did that with absolutely no help from anyone and only very thin rumors of its existence. There was no interest in the board in disclosing the report to the community, even though prior reports had been disclosed. It's hard to imagine anything that anyone said or did could be as damaging to Lila's position as that factoid. ] | (] - ]) 04:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No, there was most definitely not any inside baseball knowledge needed to see that James said 'second chance'. But then he was on the board that solely deals with the terms and conditions of Lila's employment, which generally requires confidentiality in perpetuity, not just anyone's opinion. ] (]) 09:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's extremely tiresome for people to cite 'the law' without sources. While I'm not a lawyer, I've spent several years as a fiduciary for a couple different organizations, and I am one of the few active long-term editors in the overall theme of fiduciary standards and corporate governance (as well many other areas of law, going back several years; User:Coolcaesar and User:Wikidea are the other ones who work in law a lot). I'd love to see the specific legal basis for many of the statements that get thrown around. I am not aware of a blanket confidentiality law surrounding board meetings. Executive session is strictly confidential, which implies that the rest of the board meeting is not. The general board meeting is confidential by convention, and there is sometimes discussion around the duty of loyalty, but I have yet to see a detailed legal citation on that. We know that this decision to support Lila wasn't secret because it was announced to all the staff after the big November crisis management meeting. Nor am I aware of any laws which disallow a board member from publicly providing their opinion as to how the board acted. There's some debate over whether a board is really allowed to take action in secret. In public deliberative bodies, secret votes are often illegal. For example, recently in Anchorage, a school board had conflicted internal straw polls over retaining the Superintendent and eventually merged into a unanimous decision in public, which is viewed as a . ] | (] - ]) 15:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Most knowledgeable people in the US are aware of the confidential nature of employment information. For the constitutional right of privacy and "strong public policy" in favor of individual privacy in the California employee's personnel information see generally, and for privacy of an individual's employment personnel information, including the performance evaluation by the employer see generally, . Privacy of the employee is standard for the employer. ] (]) 21:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Well, that is a naive view, but it is better to look at parallel situations such as executives of public agencies. When you take a high-profile position, you do so with the understanding that your performance will be under scrutiny by many stakeholders. In other words, you give up privacy in exchange for wealth and fame; you also give up your right to be sue for defamation (see ]). For example, in Oregon, the state Attorney General's office recommends that school superintendent evaluations be released to the public (see ). According to (2015), in Colorado, New York, North Dakota, and Ohio teacher evaluations are public. Many other states have similar and even broader laws: in Connecticut, performance evaluations of state and municipal employees was/is open to the public . Lila should have known that a staff survey would be done and released as the others were (sadly, in a shameful display the WMF changed its goalposts by refusing to disclose that bad one until forced). Anyway, this is sort of beside the point other than to illustrate that the naive view of employee privacy is not really realistic. The reality is the context of James's statement: he was defending his character by producing evidence that he was not lying after he was dubiously removed. The 'second chance' thing was tangential, and in any case it's just plain common sense that a chief executive with 90% lack of confidence who is not fired is getting a second chance to turn things around. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish; it appears that you're trying to suggest that James was in the wrong for doing all he could to turn this organization around before we lost even more. It frankly offends me that you would discourage people from doing important, bold actions. I've worked as a software engineer at a company which suddenly lost most of its engineering staff. Picking up the pieces is not good. ] | (] - ]) 04:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::No. Redaction of personnel information from e-mails is standard practice when e-mails are released. There is no greater good in being sloppy or worse with personnel information. As employer, keeping it in confidence is its own good - it's just the right thing to do. Look what your argument is: someone released personnel information for their own benefit, according to you. No, there is no government public agency involved here (And ''Board of Trustees of Stanford Univ. v. Superior Court'' an educational organization with California employees is more on point, regardless - disclosure of personnel information of another not allowed). Your personal history is irrelevant - trying to convince with your personal history is strange and useless (emotional?) argumentation. That you're offended by citations when you asked for them is bizarre, unless what you are offended by is a another view. ] (]) 10:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Well, my apologies for the overly strong words. Blame it on the alcohol. :) I thought you were the one who was making snarky remarks about how gossipy the Signpost was in covering this topic, but I think I was mistaken. In any case, I'm not at all offended by the citations (quite welcome!) but more by the implication that James was in the wrong, when in fact he was absolutely silent until after he was removed with no explanation, while the organization was left in crisis and the community was left completely in the dark about the dubious actions of their elected representatives. I wonder how you would act in such a situation. As far as your citation, I actually sort of met James back around 2008 when we were both involved in the discussion of ] (see for example ]), so I do try to step back from primary sources. While law is sadly lacking in accessible third-party sources, I'm pretty skeptical of a 1981 court case as being the end-all-be-all. If you're citing common law, ] is generally the most authoritative. I've never reviewed it for this topic, although I have for torts as I worked heavily on ]. In any case, yes, I am emotional on this topic. When this crisis erupted, I looked at Glassdoor and found that (if I recall correctly) the executive officer had like a 25% approval rating - lower than anything I'd ever seen before by around 30%. That's really sad, and yes, it makes me emotional. In addition, as can be gathered from the fact that I largely wrote the article on ], I have a personal interest in the topic of board negligence and laziness. Every year in the United States, insurance companies pay about $3b out due to board member negligence, usually attributable to laziness and cowardice. It's worth noting that violating board confidentiality is, as far as I know, not a criminal wrong with the exception of government boards which seem to have laws around executive session (covering both discussing things in secret illegally and illegal disclosure, typically misdemeanor level). In general, as far as I am aware violating bylaws is basically a private wrong against the corporation (i.e., a tort). Quite often, board members are faced with the choice of two bad options: follow the duty of care and go public with corporate mismanagement and face the judgment of fellow board members (and more significantly, long-run reputation costs if you become known as a "Boy Scout" or someone who rocks the boat), or follow the "duty of loyalty" (usually cited for upholding confidentiality) and be a lazy coward and let the corporation cover the costs of the lawsuit when things go wrong, since ] formally blessed exculpatory clauses such as the . Mostly, board members choose the latter. With that said, I was a fiduciary of a trust with around $150 million in revenue and $100 million in the bank a few years ago. Around a year prior to my time, a board member was disturbed by some of the practices, tape-recorded board sessions and went public with what the board was doing. She was kicked off and accused of violating confidentiality. The eventual lawsuit around defamation cost about $5 million, with the trust paying for all it all when the jury awarded $500k to the removed board member and assessed punitive damages against the corporation. ] | (] - ]) 10:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree with Looie496. Doc James is a medical professional, is using his real name, and deserved more respectful treatment. This is separate and apart from the merits of his position. ] (]) 17:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::This all boils down to a personality conflict, I think. I suggested a family counselor as the best path to patch things up, but nobody seems interested in moving forward, just rehashing what already happened. The family aka marriage counselor is a damn good idea because the underlying issues here are emotional and personality based, for sure. Hire a good counselor and the whole thing can become a great personal growth event for all concerned. ] (]) 22:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, this is the kind of bullshit that happens on co-op boards, the boards of garden clubs, neighborhood associations, and so on. It can get nasty. What I don't like is how Doc James, whether he's right or wrong being a side issue, has gotten kind of smeared under his real name. He's been subject to "hard ball." I don't care what people say about Cortheapple because Core Theodore Apple is ''not'' my real name. But James is his real name. I don't like to see his integrity impeached as it has. ] (]) 15:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And that is why there are some things that should be and in some cases need to be private. -- ] (]) 15:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Perhaps. I was referring to comments I saw early in the dispute. ] (]) 15:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Understood. Silence is hard, sometimes, but it is often essential. -- ] (]) 16:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| * the conversation above seems to have a misunderstanding in it. Look at Molly's timeline . When Jimmy and Patricio and Lila called a WMF staff meeting in November, it was said then - in front of the whole WMF staff, that the board was giving Lila a second chance with the board's "full support". It was not some secret thing. It was followed by an email from Patricio where he referenced the board's "unanimous support", as again noted in the timeline The issue for James were those references to the board's "full support" and "unanimous" support. I know James expressed that dissent ; its not clear to me if/when he said that publicly before then. ] (]) 06:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy new year == | |||
| ==Bomis== | |||
| 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) | |||
| Nupedia, an effort at creating an expert-written online encyclopedia, was the base from which Nupedia's Wiki — Misplaced Pages — was launched. It was a division of Bomis, which was a small internet company which made an effort to launch a commercial webring of sites hosting softcore girlie pictures, or some such. All this is very well known. What I've never seen in the various histories of WP or discussions of the early participants is what exactly "Bomis" signified. Was it a made-up word that sounded cool? An acronym? Fragments of words pasted together for effect? Best I can come up with is the observation that 4 of the 5 letters are shared by the word "Jimbo." Does anyone care to shine any light on this arcane tidbit of Misplaced Pages history? ] (]) 15:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :"Bo" is clearly "Jimbo" and "IS" was a frequent acronym for "Information Service". Best guess barring Jimbo posting a response. ] (]) 15:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, never mind, I should have checked Misplaced Pages: ''"Although Bomis is not an acronym, the name stemmed from "Bitter Old Men in Suits" (as Wales and Shell called themselves in Chicago)."'' ] (]) 15:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not sure where that came from, but it isn't 100% accurate. We didn't actually call ourselves that. Tim made a joke once about having a company called "Bitter Old Men in Suits". The way it is written it makes it sound like a nickname we had for ourselves or something.--] (]) 11:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Would it be more accurate to say that ''"Bomis was secretly an acronym for 'Bitter Old Men In Suits,' an inside joke dreamed up by Shell."'' ? ] (]) 14:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == == | |||
| == Search recent changes, and other Inspire Campaign proposals == | |||
| Do you know anyone who wants to make a search engine? ]. I also like ]. ] (]) 01:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|Do you know anyone who wants to make a search engine?}} {{=2|8}} ] (]) 01:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::What? For someone who named themselves after an anti-utilitarian, I don't see you or anyone else brought about after the ] (]) 02:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Stagnation of math pages:''' I think Jimbo realizes the "stagnation" against improving math articles is not due to wikitext markup but rather a severe case of ], where not only technical formula additions are reverted but also explanatory text is reverted as unnecessary clarifications because the math jargon and concise formulas are considered "complete and sufficient" as if math articles were formal proofs for readers to be presented with the simplist derivation of broadest scope: "''I can define that math term in less than 24 words and 7 formulae across 5 sub-disciplines''". Any additional words to explain issues to laymen, or give practical common examples of math in society, are often reverted with disdain, regardless if you can prove "]" in one page as ]; they are just reverting improvements to math pages as a reflex reaction to deter expansions. Instead, we need several math ]s where 50-70 users agree to allow explanations and practical examples to be added into major math pages, such as "] (phi)" example as the count of reduced fractions with denominator ''n''; otherwise there are likely many herds of 5-7 users who will enforce stagnation of math-speak pages. Currently, the huge article (or dissertation) "]" contains more than 400 math-tag formulas with relatively few clear examples of practical applications; the mind boggles of formula-hoarding. -] (]) 02:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :The only way this could be on topic is if you wanted me to link to ] because https://xkcd.com/435/ ] (]) 02:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :: Those pages are great links about the issues of writing better math/science pages, but my response above was about translating ] into wikitext markup, for your link to "]". -] (]) 12:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I see. I figure BibTeX is as good as any other format that Google Scholar can export citations in. Are EndNote, RefMan, or RefWorks any better? ] (]) 01:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :By the way, {{Ping|Wikid77}} what do you think of ? ] (]) 04:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well Jimbo is probably right about bots will never be "good" at writing articles, as Jimbo had noted good poetry can be difficult to write, but I think bots could be "good enough" in many cases, if the bots had ] text patterns (of ] rules) for how an article should be worded, and so we observe a million WP pages about basic species data as written by bot uploads. -] (]) 12:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I think bots can already be good at filling out infoboxes '''with citations,''' which is far better than I know how to use WikiData to do. (I am not yet technical enough to understand ] and not interested enough in writing things that computers can read but people can't to acquire the necessary expertise.) I think bots can already be "good enough" for most readers at filling out some of the article templates in the manual of style, but certainly not good enough for more than 95% of editors, yet. ] (]) 01:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Created ]. Endorsements most welcome. ] (]) 02:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to from {{u|Tryptofish}}? | |||
| * In order to check the assertion of ] concerning the maths pages in general, and the ] in particular, I have posted the following message at the talk page : | |||
| :... 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. | |||
| ::{{=}}{{=}} To own or not to own {{=}}{{=}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::At ], someone has pretended that page ] is owned by a terrific dragon that delete any contribution that tries to make the article clearer and shorter (see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&type=revision&diff=710796589&oldid=710789244). Let us try if this assertion contains any part of truth. <small>] (]) 17:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ] (]) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :And I have also modified the section "Characterization" of the article in order to have a sentence that begins with: "the beta distribution is characterized by"... Let us see what will happen! ] (]) 18:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| '''Should have checked other math page:''' {{ping|Pldx1}} see page "]" for revert of 7-word clarification, "have no common factors other than 1" (see: ); same truth, different dragon. However try to re-add that key phrase of "no common factor" and explain the count of reduced fractions with denominator ''n'' as an example of ]. The reverts of explanations in math pages has been happening for many years, with removal of similar 7-word phrases added to clarify a term. -] (]) 23:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Does anyone think ] or ] wouldn't benefit from ]? ] (]) 02:43, 21 March 2016 (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. | |||
| == Offending Administrator ] == | |||
| :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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Jimbo, | |||
| 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) | |||
| I'm having trouble with an administrator ] and I think he/she is a problem for many users. I've been editing constructively and in good faith. However, ] has acted very aggressively and condescendingly toward me, threatening to block me on numerous occasions. When I'm having a debate with other users, he has threatened to block me because he disagrees with me and considers my side of editing to be disruptive and against Misplaced Pages policy. I don't believe him to be a bad person, but I would like for him not to be involved in my editing, and instead let me discuss with the other users, without the threat of being blocked hovering over me. Could you please advise as to what I should do? | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 15 January 2025 == | |||
| Thank you! | |||
| <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> | |||
| ] (]) 02:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1269316164 --> | |||
| ::Edit constructively. Do not yell "Censorship" to "win" a content dispute. Discuss collaboratively with the other editor rather than combatively. ] (]) 03:28, 20 March 2016 (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 user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
 | This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Centralized discussion
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.Albert Percy Godber
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.
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)
- user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 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". 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)
- 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)
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
- From the editors: Looking back, looking forward
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024
- In the media: Will you be targeted?
- Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last
- Opinion: Reflections one score hence
- Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next
- Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics