User talk:Jimbo Wales

Co-founder or sole founder?

The article Jimmy Wales reads that Jimbo co-founded Wikipedia with Larry Sanger, but his own userpage reads that he is the sole founder. I assume that the statement in the article is the correct one, as it is sourced, and the same statement is also found in the Wikipedia and History of Wikipedia articles, so why does his userpage state that he is the only founder? I personally think that, if not mention Sanger directly, it should at least give the truth that Wales is the co-founder, or if this isn't the truth, all of the articles I read should be worded differently, as they currently clearly state that the site was founded jointly by Wales and Sanger.--Urban Rose 21:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, UR, that even if he says something others disagree with Jimbo can do what he wants with his user page, certainly to the same extent as any of the rest of us. Adding co-founder to an article is a content dispute whereas adding it to his user page would be treated as simple vandalism. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Jimmy believes he is the sole founder, but the the comminity in encyclopedic articles goes with what is neutral, verifiable etc. Since this is user space, Jimmy can do what he wants. He can declare himself King of the World here, but that does not make it true, or neutral. Zginder 2008-05-17T21:41Z (UTC)

Words can and do mean different things to different people and different things in different contexts. There is nothing wrong with Jimbo being the sole founder in some senses of the term and also co-founder in other senses of the term. See semantics. If natural language was at all logical, Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo would not be possible. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue highlights for me some of the problems that Wikipedia has in achieving neutrality. Wikipedia is not supposed to take a stand on controversial issues, but in this case it does... against me, of course. This is mostly due to trolling, in my opinion. A proper encyclopedic approach would be for Wikipedia to not take this stand, but to merely report appropriately on the controversy. This is impossible currently because some people are such extreme POV pushers on this topic that it is impossible for good editors to maintain the article in a reasonable state of compromise. I try to mostly stay out of it in this particular case, lest I be accused of undue influence. It is a bit sad for me, though, that we fail so badly in this case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you were to declare yourself King of the World, that wouldn't be controversial either, just incorrect. --Random832 (contribs) 14:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article does not describe Larry as a co-founder, it reads "together with Nupedia's editor-in-chief, Larry Sanger, Wales created Wikipedia" in an attempt to avoid the Founder terminology completely and not take a view on this. There is then a section about the dispute. The real question here isn't "Were Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger co-founders of Wikipedia" but "If person A and person B are both involved in the creation of project X, is it correct to describe both as founders where person B was in fact the employee of person A". Larry Sanger does not deny being the employee of Jimmy Wales at the time, on the other hand a number of news reports do describe him as a co-founder. The actually facts of which of them did what are not, as I understand it in dispute, merely what "labels" should correctly be used to describe their relative contributions. I don't think the snarky "King of the World" comment is called for - Jimbo is not making an absurd claim (his role in founding the project is understood) and he has a valid basis (that Sanger was his employee) for regarding it as inappropriate to describe Sanger as a co-founder. Were Jimbo not involved in the project and voicing his dissatisfaction through OTRS, he'd have been treated with a hell of a lot more courtesy. WjBscribe 14:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, do you have any source that somehow supports the notion that an employee cannot be a co-founder of something? I don't think so. Furthermore, even if you wanted to take an inappropriate legalistic view of the matter, you would still be wrong. Sanger was not an employee of Jimmy Wales in some personal capacity. He was an employee of Bomis, and Wales was not the sole founder or the sole owner of Bomis either. So there's no basis whatsoever for viewing Wales as sole founder of Wikipedia. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think I have taken a stance when I have not, other than that Jimmy should be being treated with more courtesy and less snark. The problem is that "founder" is not a recognised legal role like "executive director" or "company secretary" which are matters of record. So the only way to really determine this would be to look up who are recognised as founders of what organisations. What is the relationship between them? If you ask the question, "What does someone have to do to be considered a founder of an organisation?" I expect replies will be fairly varied and to some extent contradictory - it's rather a nebulous concept really. My point was that Jimmy has a sensible reason for advocating the position he does and it should be treated with the same respect as anybody else who feels that Wikipedia's coverage of them or their organisation is unbalanced. WjBscribe 15:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a matter of record in that all the official press releases until 2004 described Sanger and Wales as co-founders. That's pretty definitive. It's hardly conceivable that this escaped Wales's attention or that he just didn't bother to say or do the slightest thing about it all that time, yet suddenly becomes extremely concerned about it in 2004. The only explanation is that he considered himself co-founder until that time, and then got the idea that he could try to change history, which indeed he might have gotten away with if it hadn't been for what he now calls "trolling" by a few critical users. So, he doesn't have a sensible reason for advocating his position, or he would have advocated it before 2004. It is clearly self-serving self-aggrandizement, in order, among other things, to be able to go around and collect five-figure speaking fees. Anybody else would be treated the same way, maybe as an outsider with more formal courtesy, but with the same result. If the available sources show someone was co-founder of something and he claims to be the sole founder, we will not change his article just because he says so. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He is not calling himself the King of the World. A few years back Sanger was better known and wikipedia not so well known but here in 2008 Wales is commonly known and described as the founder of wikipedia, not the sole founder or the co founder. Having seen various examples of people inserting refs about Jimbo allegedly being the co-founder into articles which are not about Jimbo but in which he gets a passing mention I would say the evidence is clear that there is unquestionably trolling going on around this issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What Wales is commonly known as today is the result of his own self-promotion. "The founder" of X is the one who actually founded X and this can not change at a later time. No one, not even Jimbo himself, called him the sole founder before 2004. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wales self-promotion is something we must take a neutral view on as editors (personally, though, I would say well done, nothing wrong with self-promotion). I disagree that how things are seen does not change over time, they clearly do. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course they do; what I said was that actual historical facts do not change over time. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the question then is whether someone being the founder is "how things are seen" or what actually is - and furthermore whether it is a matter of historical fact or current fact. If one takes the view that it's a historical fact; i.e. Jimbo - or Jimbo + Larry - founded wikipedia and therefore is/are the founder(s); then obviously you can't change history. But one could make the argument (it's an extremely fringe view, I think, though) that it's a current fact - i.e. Larry was the founder yesterday, Jimbo is the founder today, ?????? will be the founder tomorrow. --Random832 (contribs) 16:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a historical fact that at the start of Wikipedia, no one called Larry co-founder. It would not have occurred to anyone at the time, because he was not. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Press releases/January 2002 "The founders of Wikipedia are Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger. Wales has supplied the financial backing and other support for the project, and Sanger, who earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Ohio State in 2000, has led the project." via. I hope I can let that just speak for itself. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo is the sole-founder of Wikipedia. Let it go already.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable but it doesn't really matter. Wikipedia as we know it was heavily shaped by others (who is more complex although software wise Magnus Manske was one of them).Geni 20:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for Parakeet parakeet Parakeet parakeet parakeet parakeet Parakeet parakeet. --StormCommander (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh...you do realize that Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo is an actual article with lingustic backing? John Reaves 00:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How embarrassing for Seth Finkelstein to find that quote mere hours after one of the two founders claimed that the other guy was never called a co-founder. Technically, though, Wales is right. Sanger was called one of two "founders", not "co-founder". Another quote from the next year's press release was, "The project was founded by Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger. Wales' Bomis.com search engine has supplied the financial backing and other support for the project, and Sanger led the project during its first year as a full-time paid editor of Wikipedia." So, to use Wales' logic, we might again say that while nobody ever called Sanger a "co-founder", Sanger founded the project. -- Fawn Lake (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fawn, I did not say that "the other guy was never called a co-founder". Please be accurate. Seth is quoting texts from a full zear after the period of time in question. They have some bearing on the overall question, of course, but are irrelevant to my point. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO Jimbo you are much more of a household name than either the founders of Google or those of YouTube, let alone Larry Sanger, much more like Bill Gates who some claim was co-founder of Microsoft with that other chap. I do not believe calling Sanger co-founder helps his reputation one bit. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought here but why does this matter so much? Wikipedia exists and as far as I know neither Wales nor Sanger have found a way to collect royalties from a free site. So why all the controversy? No idea, as is shown by Wikipedia, is developed completely independently and without outside influences. This all seems like a lot of semantics to me. Anyways just my two cents. --EpicWizard (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Seems Arbitrator views on external linking to this site are being pre-emptivly overuled by attemps at talk page democracy. Linking to the homepage of ED can easily make way for "featured articles" to be viewed, such was the case in "MONGO", which led to the initial Arbcom ruling. link of inerest Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica#External_Link_to_site. Any input or clarification may help cull, this already contentious situation from becoming a log-term honeypot of drama. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, in the past the arbitrators forbid the link to ED's website, not the usage of the URL's name without there being a link. Not even allowing the name of the URL to ED's site is blatant censorship. As somebody pointed out in that discussion, the most recent ArbCom ruling on attack sites has been for the community to figure it out and they did, through Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. If ArbCom has or does in the future specifically request that ED's URL be censored, then they should be ignored -- not for the sake of democracy, but for the sake of rational individualism. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so ArbCom rulings hold no greater authority than democratic mobs. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom rulings do in fact hold greater authority than that of mobs, democratic or otherwise. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying "ArbCom rulings hold greater authority than community consensus"? I think that this Jimbo-ism might get a few more backs up than normal... Martinp23 19:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying exactly that. The idea that somehow "the community" could ever overrule the core principles of Wikipedia, for example, is just wrong. The ArbCom will desysop people, and quite appropriately, if they try. As a practical matter, of course, the community does not act so stupidly, and the ArbCom is quite properly deeply respectful of the normal community processes. But the community can vote 1000-1 to overturn NPOV, or NPA, or similar, and that would just be too bad, and likely some bonkers admins would get desysopped over it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and never has been.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There is one significant problem with your ideology. These "core principles" are neither founded on objective facts or truth, but on the democratic mob rule which you speak against. The majority thought both WP:EL and WP:NPOV (among others) should exist, and hence they do. Monobi (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the community would ever "vote 1000-1 to overturn NPOV" is silly, and thank goodness all those POV pushers to those myriad of subjects they push will never get together 1000 votes because theya re only interested in their POV and not in the project but even if they did get together there would be a lot more than 1 resistance vote. The arbcom are not here to ensure we have NPOV but intemrs of its application and enforcement, that is indeed their work, as I see it. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Quite right! So, we decide things through discussion and not by voting. I'm suggesting here that the discussion process which the community might undertake to determine (in the ED case) if links to so-called harassment sites should be allowed on the articles in question has precedence over the voting process (in the closing stages of a case) used by ArbCom. Martinp23 21:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it is this: Where the URL is from should not matter. If it is used in an article to source a piece of information, then it should be allowed regardless of where it points to. If WP/WMF doesn't like ED and what they have to say or not say, then too bad. This is not a censorship game and ArbComm has no authority to rule over community consensus. They also have no authority to censor a link because they don't like their content. My question is why the sudden censorship spree? DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, DragonFire1024, the community consensus strongly disagrees with you on the topic of random links to hate speech. Thank goodness.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And that's a straw man, because I don't think any reasonable community participant has been advocating "random links to hate speech". Links with a valid encyclopedic purpose that happen to be to a site that others find hateful, on the other hand, have been a source of great contention. And, as far as your hypothetical examples of the community trying to "vote out" the core principles of this site, I don't see that happening now either; those who disagree with ArbCom-imposed link bans are, in general, supporting this disagreement with lines of argument that are soundly grounded in those very core principles, such as WP:NPOV demanding neutrality about everything including things that are hateful to our own community members. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I was speaking in general. And again, if the information is vital of an article then it would depend on what that information is and what it is in reference to and etc etc. But to suggest that a link is not allowed simply because someone might not like the site, or the content, or for whatever reason that is a personal point of view, really isn't grounds to not include it. I think the question should be is how important is the information that's wanted/needed? Does it add anything to the article(s) in terms of encyclopedic value? And so on. DragonFire1024 (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are an editor here at Wikipedia with your own account, that means you have signed-up as a volunteer to help the project. As an editor here, its your responsibility to respect ArbCom decisions, and assume that their intent is only positive towards Wikipedia.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

From WP:CENSOR:

While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.

We put ArbCom there, without us there would be no wikipedia, the community is extremely important, and the link is relevant, and should be included.--Phoenix-wiki 21:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the fundamental principle of consent of the governed still holds true here. —Animum (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying to hell with ArbComm...but merely that people are letting their personal point of view get in the way of what can be cited in articles, depending on the case, be considered useful. One idea of NPOV is to take those views and put them aside. If your views are too great on a subject then maybe that person should take a step back and cool off or whatever. But because a site does not hold good views about WMF or anyone else, does not make it entirely bad for WP or anyone to use as a reference. DragonFire1024 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea that somehow "the community" could ever overrule the core principles of Wikipedia, for example, is just wrong. Right. But, that by itself does not mean that ArbCom has greater authority, since neither could ArbCom ever overrule the core principles of Wikipedia. Do you in fact have an argument? --Random832 (contribs) 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom itself (or at least their authority over the community) is a core principle of Wikipedia.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom is not a "core principle" because it was founded out of the will of one person, not by the community. Monobi (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Without that one person, there would be no Wikipedia at all, so there would be no community.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The real question is not about what the philosophical basis of the authority of the ArbCom is, but rather to simply note as fact that the ArbCom's decisions are binding and enforceable with actions including desysop and banning. And this is a good thing. Wikipedia governance includes with good reason an arbitration committee whose purpose, function, and authority has arisen historically and has been impacted by a number of different factors.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course the philosophical basis of the authority of ArbCom matters, and what it does is irrelevant to the basis for its petty existence. If I was to create a committee out of my own will and claim authority to desysop and ban users, this "committee" would not hold legitimate authority. I see no difference with ArbCom. Monobi (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you aren't Jimbo for a start,and your description is pretty poor for what arbcom means. And what do you propose? Anarchy. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What do I propose? A minimalistic "governing body" that is created out of community consensus, with the "members" selected by the community, for 6 month terms and two term limits for a two year period. At any time any member or the entire "governing body" can be removed by the community and restarted for any reasons or lack thereof. These "rulers" and authoritarians will quickly learn they need the editors more than we need them. Monobi (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were complaining about Jimbo having too much say over the arbcom but your own recipe is less democratic. We have arbcom elections which are strongly monitored, which you appear to be replacing with community consensus, which presumably is whoever is around at the time and who watches a particular page. To allow "the community" to remove arbcom members is about the worst idea I could think of as it would seriously lilit the freedom of action of these members. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as limiting freedom of action. The ability of the community, as a whole, to remove problem arbitrators would make them more accountable. WODUP 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The real question is whether you actually believe that ArbCom rulings cannot be overruled by community discussion (read: not mob rule. community discussion) further down the line. The whole idea is somewhat blurred by the fact that ArbCom rulings are often contradictory. If I'm interpreting what you're saying here correctly, I have to admit that, despite your esteemed position, I think you are wrong. And it seems others agree with me, or are equally confused. Please clarify your thoughts on this... Martinp23 12:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that Martin's comment has dropped all the way down here in the past 12 or 13 hours or so, but I must say (as did he) I do agree with him. WODUP 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys have got to be kidding. Censorship? Community overruling Arbcom? You don't own the Wikipedia. You don't run the Wikipedia. It is your privilege to use, edit, and contribute to the Wikipedia, but ONLY within the guidelines, policies, and systems already set up. WMF has the right to run the Wikipedia, not you. Consent of the governed only applies in that you are free to not edit, and therefore not be governed. If Arbcom makes a ruling, or WMF "says so" then that is the way it is. If you don't like it, tough, you are a VISITOR, not an owner. No matter how loud the masses cry, WMF is in charge.--JCrenshaw (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about the Foundation. I agree that what the Office says goes, but the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee is below that. Regarding the rules, we, the Community, make the rules, the rules can change, and if need be, they can be ignored. I think that if ArbCom makes a ruling, and the community at large disagrees, consensus should prevail. Arbitration is for when the community cannot reach a decision, but if the community agrees on a decision, even after ArbCom rules, the community's decision should stand. WODUP 05:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Arbcom is an extension of the office. It is a simple matter of authority and delegation. In order for Arbcom decisions to be fully binding the entity which created Arbcom must have a) had authority to do whatever Arbcom can b) had authority to delegate that authority. Since Jimbo was already handling these things (arbitration, banning, etc.) we can assume he had authority. I don't think anyone can argue whether he had power to delegate that authority. This means that Arbcom derives it's power from the top, not from the community. It is also, therefore, accountable to the top, not the community. The top will keep it in check as needed because it wouldn't be good for WP if everyone got mad and left. In this case there is a very unpopular decision, but Arbcom had the right to make it, has been granted the power to enforce it, and the top agrees. There is nowhere to appeal to, the decision is final.--JCrenshaw (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom is not an extension of the office. The office tends not to get involved in the projects, by custom, and ArbComs can be set up by the project if needed. Nothing to do with office. Martinp23 16:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the English Wikipedia AC, they do indeed derive power from the top, not from the bottom - it's been upheld many times that ArbCom solutions are binding and not overturnable by consensus - for example, before she was unblocked, quite a sizeable portion of the community wanted Poetlister to be unbanned, but each proposal was turned down because it was an AC matter. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the understanding I'm hearing. Martinp23 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Extension of the office in this case means: "Granted permission by the powers that be to act in their place, so that they no longer have to get involved directly." By nature this implies that the office will no longer get involved in disputes that can be resolved by arbitration.--JCrenshaw (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

They never did. There is no "no longer" about it. The ArbCom was, I believe, around before the foundation, or at least before the foundation passed the resolution linked below(?). Are you telling me that you believe that the ArbCom should act as the governing body of wikipedia? Martinp23 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning that the authority of the ArbCom to decide issues is a foundation issue and is essentially beyond debate. If you're uncomfortable with this fact, find a different project. - Chardish (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, the link you provided doesn't seem to support what you're saying. If you'd examine my contribs, you'd see that I've pretty much left the project anyway, due to other commitments, but you'll note that in my time I've done a hell of a lot of work for this place, so I'd appreciate not being told to fuck off when it comes to a disagreement. I'm not doing the same to you so I'd appreciate some reciprocal behaviour. Thanks, Martinp23 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A few things: 1) If everyone ended up leaving because this is undebatable, we would have no good contributers anymore.2) Removing a link form the ED article is ridiculous, we want the article to be great to our readers, not deleting the link cos some silly editors actually feel offended by people they know are fucktards, they really shouldn't give a damn about what ED thinks of them.--Phoenix-wiki 14:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not fair!

You signed User:SimsFan/SignBook, you can't expect to get away with signing one and noone else's, so please sign mine or I'll ensure that everyone else pesters you to do theirs...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God - as embarrassing.... Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was only joking, my full message (that I couldn't complete because the school bell went) was going to be:

You signed User:SimsFan/SignBook, you can't expect to get away with signing one and noone else's, so please sign mine or I'll ensure that everyone else pesters you to do theirs.

No, seriously, you'll get the 'First-Jimbo-to-sign-my-guestbook-award' if you do. You know, just to make it fair and all...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But I didn't have time to type it, so I submitted where I was up to. So basically a small ad: Sign and get an award (and a slightly higher edit count) ;)...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 15:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for an + edit count, sign it one letter at a time.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol :D...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:SimsFan has subsequently been blocked for sockpuppetry [1] and I'm about to delete that sub page. So I think this thread is best just dropped, on balance my friends! Pedro :  Chat  20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, at Wikipedia:Help desk#Arb Com Unblocking SimsFan said Arbcom (and Jimbo) have offered him a second chance. I'm not sure if it is true or not, but the block notice no longer applies. If this is untrue, Jimbo's 'New messages' banner should trigger him to get involved and say it was a lie. And I was only joking about the above anyway...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a jwales(at)wikia(dot)com volunteer who forwarded my email to arb com. Jimbo himself, will not know about this, it was arb com who gave me the second chance, not Jimbo. 92.5.91.181 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

FritzpollBot

Hi Jimbo I just want to know your feelings on the User:FritzpollBot. It would massively create thousands (possibly even millions) of stubs on little known areas. This would be a massive undergoing but I want to see how you feel about such a proposal. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Potentially over 1 million new articles but I'm not counting me chickens before their full grown adults!!. Wouldn't it be awesome to have a detailed article on every friggin place in the world? Fingers crossed that it can be done and that indeed they can later be expanded. As for addressing uneven geographical coverage; well this is about the best we can do. Saludos! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like something that needs a lot of discussion before actually doing it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. Something massive like that just isn't create "on the spot".--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 04:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it has been discussed for several weeks. I proposed the initial draft several months ago but we are figuring out how to combine the most reliable sources, e.g using the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency data on global coordinates and relief etc. I anticipate that once this has been done some time in the future another bot can be programmed to add statistics on population etc of these settlements obtained from official government sources. This way there are no "dead mans land" or vastly uncovered areas to the geo coverage as such on here although it will clearly be years before it is possible to have completely even coverage and full articles on everywhere. Obviously obtaining completely reliable statistics on many of the third world countries will be difficult and of course countries like Burma and China. Things are starting to look more promising though and I have seen goverment data released on countries such as Rwanda, Mozambique and Madagascar of late. Two years ago I could find nothing on Malagasy settlements. Now we have over 1000 articles which are not bad starter articles using government data etc. At the end of it of course we want to see full and complete articles across the world but we have to take a major step and think sensibly towards making this happen.

In terms of strengthening our encyclopedia I see this as an important task, I;ve always thought of articles on places as a backbone to any good encyclopedia anyway and many other articles are inextricably bound to place whether they are biographies or landmarks etc. Basically I consider "real world" content the most important and a priority on here and also to enhance the intergrity of the site and counteract any false claims made in the media that we are obsessed by articles on fiction or video games. I'm currently thinking about a way to generate articles on species and genera of which I'm sure you've noticed in browsing are severely sparse in places and if we are to take another step towards the knowledge totality thing we need to be thinking about how to cover areas of natural science and biology more fully. Naturally we are the encyclopedia editors who write the articles, but I believe we need to think strongly about how to give the project a further boost in some of the most important areas in the most efficient way possible initially, which of course is automated article generation (kind of like RamBot has done in the past but on a much larger scale). It seems highly ambitious but it is a possibility and an encouraging prospect for wikipedia at that. Feel free to offer your thoughts. Ideally I think several of us should get together (online as well as wikimedia meetings) and have a good discussion about what really is important to a respectable encyclopedia and subjects that would give us the most credibility and seriously plan concievable ways in which we can enchance these areas on a large scale, particularly if they are poorly covered areas of potential high encyclopedic value. For me geography and nautral life on the planet are amongst these. Best regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case it sounds good, but keep in mind the following points.

1. Will there be enough information for the articles to be a valid stub?
2. Will we have problems with the articles being orphaned?
3. Will having all those articles be...excessive?

But it sounds like a good idea in the making.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To your questions:

1. Of course. The articles would look something like that of User:Fritzpoll/GeoBot/Example.
2. They won't be orphaned, the bot will add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places/country of location. Plus, there may be additional links from a higher country subdivision.
3. I certainly don't see how it would be excessive. We want to, hypotheticaly, cover the world as evenly as possible. If we use bots like the rambot to create all the articles on towns in the U.S. why can't we have another to cover the world. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know this discussion was taking place over here (stumbled through Editorofthewiki's contribs) - I can answer any technical questions about it, but it is going through the bot approval process at the moment, and these guys have outlined the principle of the thing. Fritzpoll (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I already used a bot User:Phoenix-bot with exactly the same job as this bot. It created 300 stubs on little known places in Russia, China and kazakhstan without any prior discussion. I assume that's where the idea for this bot came from anyway...--Phoenix-wiki 14:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Blofeld/Editorofthewiki - I just responded to a request at Bot Requests. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Our no CC-BY-SA-NC policy is about to cost us nearly 2000 really good images.

Hi Jimbo, was good meeting you in Sydney.

Our policy of no CC-BY-SA-NC images on commons is about to cost us nearly 2000 really good images: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Fabelfroh_2008

The images are high quality, encyclopedic, including a bunch of QI and FP. The user is allowed by their employer to release CC-BY-SA-NC but not CC-BY-SA. If we insist on CC-BY-SA or nothing, we're going to get nothing. I know that CC-BY-SA is more useful, but if we insist on people giving up more freedom than they can give up, the result is that we get less images than if we let people choose more, ahem, freely. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We've had mass deletions before. Long term the impact tends not to be as great as you would expect. Plant and animal pics are something we are fairly good at makeing for ourselves.Geni 20:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, by getting rid of suspect images we actually improve our overall collection. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Suspect? These are high quality images. 32 QI and 1 FP, so far, and more in the queue. About 2/3 microscopic photographs. We don't have a surplus of those. And who knows how many good images we just never see because people are taking them elsewhere. We are really asking for someone else to set up an equivalent but different repository, that does everything commons does and also allows NC submissions. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You are free to do so. If you want more microscope pics it is probably a matter of finding someone who has acess through a school or a university.Geni 01:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not the quality that matters its the legal mumbo-jumbo that matters, and matters a lot. If by removing 2000 high quality images we assure the rest are legally safer then it gets my support. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Its a line in the sand issue, and these images are on the other side of the line clearly the author knew exactly what the limitation means. Therefore we loose a few images, even if they in an area of under availability but encyclopedic necessary. Then again its also an opportunity for a group to fill the void and make these types of image free through some form of funding like the Greenspan project. Gnangarra 02:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedian Administrator

Japanese Wikipedian Administrator blocked my contributions about Jehovah's Witnesses by making accusations. Then please help me.125.199.137.118 (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm going to try and answer you question. Do note that I'm not doing so on behalf of Jimbo Wales, I'm just an editor like you. I have been looking over your edits at the Japanese wikipedia, but have not found any evidence of a conflict. There is no entry on your talk page, and you don't appear to have taken this up with the administrator, or the Japanese help desk, or the Japanese arbitration committee. Those really are the steps you will have to follow when having an issue. If at some point you really think Jimbo Wales has to know about it, you will have to provide a clear statement on the issue, and tell him what you expect to be done. - Species8473 (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless he means this user. But unless there is a translation of the reverted edits and the blockmessage on the talkpage there is nothing the most curious non japanese editor can do. Agathoclea (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The block was for abusive language on two user talk pages and as related to a POV conflict over the Jehova's Witnesses aricle (that discussion is here). In particular, this edit is an accusation of POV-pushing against a user and a legal threat against Wikipedia, as is this edit (although the latter threatens to sue "all of Wikipedia" instead). And last but not least, the block was only for 24 hours. In other words, there's nothing to see here.... --jonny-mt 09:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Jimbo? How's everything in life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.86.157 (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dust1235

Block this user. It is a sockpuppet. It is also a SPA. It nominated the Seconds from Disaster template for deletion and never edited again. Please block it! Please!!!!! (And please restore the template!) 122.54.93.104 (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of other people supported the deletion of the template as well. If you want to contest the template's deletion then go to Wikipedia:Deletion review - Jimbo is very unlikely to restore it. Hut 8.5 09:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)