User talk:Jimbo Wales

Wikinews Interviews (again)

Jim, I just interviewed Shimon Peres, the President of Israel, for Wikinews. This was reported upon heavily in the Israeli press, signifying the influence of Wiki. In addition to Peres, I have interviewed three Presidential candidates, Al Sharpton, Nadine Strossen, Augusten Burroughs, Gay Talese, and a host of others. Every time a person doesn't like a quote--this time, people don't like a quote used from the Al Sharpton interview on the Tawana Brawley artic--an editor raises whether we can use Wikinews at all for our interviews, which help flesh out a lot of information on Wikipedia.

The consensus was reached that on biographies of living people, an interview where Party A talks about Party B should not be used on Party B's article, but is fine on Party A's article and related non-BLP subjects. Now, the question is whether we can use Wikinews, a Wikimedia sister project, at all on Wikipedia.

I am asking making a public request you make a statement whether you support using accredited reporters on Wikinews to conduct interviews with notable people, and to allow those interviews to be used as sources on Wikipedia. I think your views on this matter will help clarify the matter for others on Wikipedia, including myself. Thank you.

The current discussion is here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews:_Please_post_definite_answer. --David Shankbone 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the spontaneous opinions against using Wikinews as an RS suggest the community feels differently. When I asked a relatively narrow question about using third-party interviews on BLPs, some editors gave sweeping opinions against using Wikinews at all, which was not my focus. It might be that your behavior is clouding the issue. Many users react negatively toward editors citing their own work. Some believe that poor-quality publications are a thin veneer for original research. Perhaps Wikinews wouldn't take such a thrashing if the authors didn't strive to insert their own work into so many Wikipedia articles. Cool Hand Luke 22:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think the problem is with how people are viewing Wikinews. If we are taking time to research and talk to important people, about information directly related to their articles, why should it just sit there and not be used, especially when those same people have the very expectation that we will use it to correct inaccuracies? When I interviewed the President and Editorial Manager of The Onion, who both told me that their name had nothing to do with the UWM student center (as was incorrectly reported in our article) should I just let it sit there until someone else decides to take fix it? Wikinews should be seen as a good place to research some of the people and issue we report about, and collaborate on that research, and then use it to correct our articles. Perhaps the problem is not so much that I conduct an interview with someone and correct inaccuracies they specifically mention with their articles (why wouldn't they?) but that people have a problem with using valuable information. Remember: In an interview, the interviewer isn't the source of the information, the interviewee is the source. They aren't quoting David Shankbone on Tawana Brawley, they are quoting Al Sharpton. Who cares who is the person that asked the question. --David Shankbone 01:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

(I'm copying this comment from the RS noticeboard, because it's something Jimbo might be interested in)

I'm very opposed to any form of original research on Wikipedia, and to the use of "citizens' journalism" websites, because they often publish nonsense. But I have to say I agree with David here. His work is outstanding, and it seems crazy to question its use, especially because, as he says, he was granted the interviews because the subjects respect Wikipedia.

David, would it make sense for you to take the initiative here (assuming you have the time or inclination), and try to set up a research arm of Wikinews or Wikipedia, where original research/journalism of the kind you undertake can be encouraged and strictly monitored? We already allow original images. Original text is the next step, though the dangers of it mean we'd need a very, very strict accreditation system, so that the people allowed to produce material that Wikipedia could use as a "reliable source" are really the very best editors Wikipedia has. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews should remain what it is: a citizen journalism wiki, no different than any other such site. I would oppose any lessening of restricting the use of self-published sources in Wikpedia articles, unless a transparent and known process of fact-checking is imposed on Wikinews. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As for interviews, if there is a process in which the interviewee can acknowledge his words as cited, that may work. It is too way easy to misquote, and/or to quote out of context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Interviews are normally recorded and could be uploaded so everyone can listen to them. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's rather simple to address this: when a WikiNews story is credible enough to get repeated in mainstream reliable sources then we can cite those stories with a mention that the material originally came from WikiNews. Volunteer time is finite and that's much better than any WMF project attempting to set up its own cumbersome, amateur, and potentially gameable attempt at vetting. Durova^Charge! 02:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi. I think that a real news organization is much more than enthusiastic reporters — it includes fact checkers, and more importantly, a respected publisher with a track record for accuracy, who is liable to be sued for misinformation if there are errors. The publisher is critical for reliability. Crum375 (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

But if we stick with interviews, recorded and uploaded for everyone to hear, there's very little potential for harm. The reporters would need some training in how to ask questions, and what to ask; and we would need to know that they were responsible, professional etc (and also that they weren't going to turn up and harm someone), and that would require a really good system of accreditation. But once you have that in place, I don't see the danger of using interviews. Stories are a different matter, because then the reporter has decided the narrative, but interviews would be okay, I think, so long as no BLP violations occurred. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That may work, but I am concerned about unintended negative consequences. What would stop Joe Blow to "record and interview with Mr. Notable X" and upload to Wikinews? Who would check it? Who would verify it? How would our readers trust the content of the interview? Is the interviewer anonymous/accountable? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We couldn't have anonymous interviewers, but I believe reporters already have to give their real names to Wikinews. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a very slippery slope. First, we have no idea how the tapes or words are edited, redacted or modified. With real news media, we have the publisher standing behind that work, here we just have someone's word. Also, you start with pure interviews, and soon you add background facts, and other comments. I think we need to treat amateur reporters as bloggers. Crum375 (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That's all true, and I understand the dangers. But David has been doing such great work. It seems to me that we need to find a way to accommodate that kind of initiative and professionalism. We're getting it for free, and yet we're turning it down. As he said, Simon Peres gave him the interview because he's attached to Wikipedia, so for Wikipedia not to be able to use it is kind of strange.

But yes, it's an area fraught with problems. For example, big companies could easily afford to fly reporters in, treat them brilliantly, give them gifts, and then give interviews where the Wikipedian feels compelled to be very nice. That would create material pushing a certain POV over other POVs perhaps not so well funded. So we would need an ethics committee, and very strict guidelines. But I think it's do-able. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but we'd also open an entirely different can of worms by introducing the concept that an unreliable source is sometimes reliable. Many difficult editors will try to leverage such a concept to their own advantage regarding unreliable sites they want to use as references, and they'll accuse us of hypocrisy for setting up an exception on a WMF project while we reject their own pet site. Let's not go there. Durova^Charge! 02:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the dangers are all true. But committees never work. The only way to keep news organizations honest is by keeping them liable for misreporting or distorting the news and by having them maintain a good reputation over time. That we may have a star reporter is great, but reliable news is not one person, or even a committee. And if the information is that good, other reliable organizations will pick it up soon, and we can then cite them. Crum375 (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

One way of ensuring NPOV would be to allow these interviews to be used here only when at least two Wikipedia interviewers were present, representing each of the major POVs. That would be an interesting way to approach news reporting. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this would be reliable over time. Most editors have no way of checking the true POV of anyone, and this would be impractical. In any case, we are here to write an encyclopedia, and rely on reliable third parties. If the information is any good, those reliable third parties will pick it up. Crum375 (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) No one seems to be suggesting that David Shankbone's interviews are unreliable or distorted, so I don't see the problem in using them. Judgements can be made on a case by case basis, and interviewers would have to prove their reliability. It is touching to see so much faith bestowed on main stream news media with their supposed fact checking systems, but anyone who has had any dealings on a private or professional level with the same would find it also more than a little naive, as is the suggestion that reliable third parties will pick up information if it's any good. That is not the criterion for news inclusion. Tyrenius (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm the last person who needs to be reminded that "reliable" sources aren't necessarily so, but as a site we've accepted certain compromises for consistency's sake. The argument for making an exception here constitutes special pleading. I have the greatest respect for David Shankbone, yet he simply doesn't fit our existing guidelines. Durova^Charge! 03:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sure there are some amateur bloggers out there who are better than the professional media. But the point is that we as editors are not equipped to judge the competence of individuals, so we must rely on organizations. WP:V tells us to trust reputable mainstream media, and to exclude bloggers or amateur reporters except in very special cases. Crum375 (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but "WP:V tells us to trust..." sounds creepy. It's not scripture; we write those guidelines and policies, and we amend them as it becomes necessary. WP:Ignore all rules also tells us to...ignore all rules. I caution anyone from becoming too doctrinal and start following guideline and policy like scripture, instead of seeing those for what they are: malleable and helpful guides that are there to help us shape a valuable, premiere information source; guides that should be changed when they hamper that goal. All that said, I don't see that we need to necessarily change them in this case. That doesn't meant that Wikinews may not need to change a bit. --David Shankbone 03:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't all that hard to get published in a regular vetted source, especially when a prominent person consents to an interview. And if you prefer to publish for WikiNews then you could notify mainstream editors that the interview is available. IAR addresses pressing needs when no other solution is workable. Durova^Charge! 04:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If a regular source wants an interview, they will do it themselves and ask the questions that suit them. A simple solution is to send the interviewee a transcript and ask them to email the Foundation to validate it. It is then equivalent to anyone contacting the Foundation to correct their biography. That validation can be appended to the published interview. Tyrenius (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Tyrenius hit it on the head. My interviews are rather boring, pedantic, academic stuff. Some of it is interesting, but much of it is raw information meant to be used. Most people don't realize that interviews you read in Rolling Stone, People, etc. are heavily edited and thus, people often claim they were "misquoted" - Jimbo can attest to this phenomenon. My interviews are cleaned up a little (to remove "um" and "uh" unless I think it adds to the sentence, though rarely). What makes them unique is that I base them, often, on Wikipedia. I transcribe. This is why my interviews are popular with the interviewees. It gives them a chance to talk and not be spun. The questions we want to know are not necessarily the questions the MSM wants to know, because our goals are different. We are intellectuals pursuing knowledge, not corporate rags pursuing dollars. If anything, I think we can do a better job of discovering the truth for ourselves...there is room for this work on Wikinews, and for Wikipedia to use the information. If anything, I think what I have done on both projects reveals the potential for all of us to discover the truth for ourselves, and stop being fed the corporate line by the corporate media, and regurgitating it here. --David Shankbone 04:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That may work. But as said before, beware of unintended negative consequences; and they are many, if one can use a little imagination. OTOH, if Wikinews comes up with a process that will satisfy current practices, it could be explored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Can interrupt this discussion and point out to any one that may not have know that Wikinews has an Accreditation process all ready and that this should be consider within proposals. Gnangarra 04:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a process and it is a good one. Additionally, many of my interviews have been discussed openly by my interviewees or people affiliated with them and I also have plenty of e-mail communication that show they are very satisfied with my product. In other words, if I was called out on anything, I can back myself up. I think Jossi's point, though, is not lost: What Wikinews suffers from is a lack of help. Having a good process is a bit wasted when we are stretched thin. We could use more help; more people willing to interview or do OR or to fact check; more people to provide oversight to the work. Thus, Jossi has a point. My own work is without question (I know), but we need to have more people working on Wikinews to inspire confidence. --David Shankbone 04:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The other useful thing with this would be that we could forward questions, if we knew which interviews were coming up. I've worked on contentious or difficult subjects where it would have been helpful to ask one of the principal players what his views were. That way, we could tailor the questions to suit the needs of particular articles we're trying to develop. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a chance for the Wikipedia community to come together. Ideally, the interviewer would be a simple conduit of questions. Right now I completely structure interviews, but not for lack of soliciting on Wikipedia Talk page for people to give me ideas. But if we had enough community involvement, we could craft good interviews. For instance, in the next month or so I am supposed to interview Donald Trump, Noam Chomsky and D.A. Pennebaker. Frankly, it would be great to get some help with these, and to get a group of people interested in starting a project on Wikinews around talking to people about their Wikipedia pages and fixing inaccuracies, etc. I think this is a void that Wikinews can fill on Wikipedia, and I think it adds an interesting dimension for many very capable editors. --David Shankbone 05:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Its an interesting way to move with BLP articles though we'd need to be cautious about neutrality and being drawn into editorialising because of the subjects willingness to be interviewed. I think we'd be better served by looking to a subject area of knowledge such that we'd ask Donald Trump about Homeowners' association and Casinos. Gnangarra 09:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and we should also be trying to get a free image for the articles where ever possible. Gnangarra 09:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

<<<< The accreditation policy of Wikinews is nice, but comes short in addressing the concerns expressed here. What we need is an "Editorial board" of some kind, two or three people (using their real-life identities) that are willing to put their good names on the line and be held accountable by editorial decisions regarding these interviews (or any other Wikinews material that could be used in WP articles). In summary: Nothing short of whatever we impose on other sources as it pertains to current measurement of reliability for WP articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

For example, from Wikinews:Original_reporting: Since Wikinews has no formal approval process for authors, when contacting sources, you must represent yourself as an independent author/researcher, not as a 'representative' of Wikinews. See what I mean? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Granted. Jossi, I think you would be a great person to try to get involved in this. Accredited reporters have their real identities published (for instance, my real name is David Miller; David Shankbone has become a pen name, which is not uncommon for journalists; but my real name is published on Wikinews, as are the real name of all of our accredited reporters). I think it is important for Wikipedia purposes, though, that we differentiate between interviews and other types of OR stories. I think interviews fall into a separate category. But if we are talking about OR stories in other realms for use on Wikipeida, I think the waters become murkier. I have always stuck to only adding interview material for use on Wikipedia because my philosophy is that the people are talk to are notable and the content is theirs that I'm adding, not mine. --David Shankbone 16:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not just about interview but about all other Wikinews stories. We use all sources in stories (and for a moment forget about OR). We don't publish a story OR or not without some kind of source. Whether it be notes (I photograph my notes and research) or tapes. The point is interview, or exclusive story, we work as hard if not harder than MSM. Some OR stories might lack some important stuff, but not all. In fact the vast majority of our OR articles have extensive notes. But when the same excuse of verifiability is given, it gets old. Look through our articles, not just the OR ones or interviews. They all have sources, from MSM and such including any online reference that may be used old or new. DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with SlimVirgin. If Joe Blow uploads a questionable audio interview to Wikinews it's not reliable, but David Shankbone is a trusted and accredited journalist, and vouches for the accuracy of the interview, even if he does choose to host it on our sister site. It's not that Wikinews is reliable, it's that Shankbone is. Compare it to some other reporter who chooses to publish his interviews on his personal site, say on AOL or Geocities or whatever. By accepting the reporter's interview as reliable, we certainly aren't accepting all AOL or Geocities as reliable. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

But I am only reliable because of my track record, and that I can produce the audio versions of my transcripts, and that there are outside parties affiliated with the interviewees recognizing them and that I receive e-mails trumpeting them. What would be great is for some Wikipedia editors/admins who are interested in improving article on Wikipedia by talking to the newsmakers directly in an interview, and conducting them on Wikinews. I've already shown that we can do this with people from Augusten Burroughs to Senator Sam Brownback to Shimon Peres, the President of Israel. Instead of relying on the corporate rags and for-profit news media abyss spinning for us what people think and say, Wikinews is a great place for us to explore the words of others in an undultereated fashion. I think this is something that very much can work in tandem with Wikipedia, and improve our reliability. People won't tell us that Wikipedia "misquoted" them - the work i have done so far shows the potential for this aspect of our work to be carried out on Wikinews and enhance our project. I think it's the next step. I think we could use more people joining to formulate such a project on Wikinews, in tandem with Wikinews's other activities. --David Shankbone 16:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is definitively worth exploring, but I think Jimbo's talk page is not the most appropriate forum to do so. Where should be continuing this discussion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

An attempt for Wikinews and Wikipedia to work together

I started a page to begin discussing principles to follow and requirements to reach for articles on Wikinews to be used as sources on Wikipedia. It's a start. Some of the things I listed are already done, but don't worry about that now: let's start at square one. More, I want people just to think about what qualities a Wikinews article should have to make it a credible source on Wikipedia--mind you, this would create a class of articles on Wikinews that would meet this criteria while others would retain their "anyone can write a story" ethos, and unless an article meets this criteria, it can't be cited. I believe development of reasonable criteria is possible, and what I read in the discussions on this issue seem reasonable. You can find what I started here (edit whatever you want. One caveat: this page is for those who want to help, not for those who simply want to bash and denigrate the idea. --David Shankbone 22:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments

You say here [1] of IRC "I encourage those who are concerned about what goes on in IRC to simply join it, make some friends, and participate in a spirit of loving harmony." are you aware the problem is actually #admins, which is private channel and certainly does not have a spirit of loving harmony? In the past Arbs have said they have no jurisdiction over IRC - were they wrong when they said this? Giano (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Does not what? "a loving spirit of harmony". Your sentence does not make sense, please clarify. Personally I thought Jimbo was being very clear, did you not read the "from this day forward" sentence, surely we shouldn't obsess over what happened but ensure that what is happening and is going to happen does so in a spirit of loving harmony. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting the missing verb. My English always goes to pieces when I'm ice. Giano (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano, I am afraid you don't have sufficient experience with that channel to know what spirit it has. It mostly does, in fact, have a spirit of loving harmony. It's a good channel where, on rare occasions, bad things happen. Just like on Wikipedia. Just like anywhere that human beings gather. We are human, we make mistakes. We get tired and grumpy. We get angry. In general, when we get our heads screwed back on straight, we apologize for our past bad behavior.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo. From your statements here and your statements above, I would like to formally ask your permission to join the #admin IRC channel. I have never been an admin and do not expect to want to be an admin anytime soon, but I do have a "spirit of loving harmony". Can I have your permission to be a member of the admin IRC channel? There are obviously other non-admins in there and since I have never misbehaved on-wiki nor in any other online forum, I think I would be welcomed with open arms in that channel. What do you say? --SGT Tex 04:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too!!! I can even sing harmony, and have a lovely little spirit. Plus I ain't been misbehavin, in fact I've had absolutely no impact one way or the other. So it couldn't hurt, right? sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 05:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you should let us all in; that place sounds like a hoot.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bah. Never mind. If that place is so wretched that it runs off two of our best contributors (Bishonen and Giano), I want nothing to do with it. Everyone involved in that channel should be ashamed. --SGT Tex 14:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you protect your userpage?

Hi, Jimbo. I'm just curious why you don't semi-protect your userpage. I have your userpage watchlisted and I've only seen about 2-3 constructive IP edits. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask you this: What kind of statement would it make if the person most closely identified with Wikipedia, The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, protected his page in such a way that it put the lie to one of our key mottos? You see - anyone can edit this page, whether to add commentary, reply to questions, vandalise or revert. Risker (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Jimbo explicitly invites other people to edit his userpage. Semi-protecting it would make this seem a little hypocritical. The page is move-protected, as there is no legitimate reason why it would need to be moved. Hut 8.5 16:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Per Risker, as good-faith edits are more than certainly welcome, this place is watched by countless people, myself included, so any vandalism is quickly removed. --Charitwo ^talk 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your email comments on school notability

Hi Jimbo, I was directed to this post of yours on the mail list. Based on that, would you mind commenting on Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)? Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 19:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My views have changed substantially since that time, though. High schools are problematic because there are typically no reliable sources but also because these kinds of articles are typically magnets for BLP-violating vandalism. I still maintain, of course, that there is a big difference between not wanting thousands and thousands of bot-generating articles. But I am less sanguine about the possibility of being able to create and maintain good high quality articles on schools. I do not vote in deletion debates, and my views are just the views of one editor, so please don't quote this either way as a decree of some kind. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Very wise. Are you personally leaning more towards maintainability rather than verifiability being the inclusion threshold these days? Alice^✉ 23:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not so much that. I think that the best route to maintainability is verifiability. :) I still very much think that verifiability should be relied on whenever possible to do the heavy lifting on difficult questions of "notability". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you weigh-in on a RfC?

I have never posted here before, but I was wondering if you might like to weigh in on a request for comment that I think will have implications well down the road. It's occurring right here. The article is What the Bleep Do We Know!? and the question basically is "Can editors use reliable sources that don't mention the movie but mention the content of the movie?" In other words, is it original research to let the reader know that certain purported "facts" in a movie are flatly contradicted by science textbooks and then reference those science textbooks which may not directly reference the movie (perhaps because they were written before the movie came out). ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the phrase "mention the content of the movie." If the sources do not mention the movie, then they are not literally mentioning the content of the movie, they are mentioning content that you (or I) believe is "really" contents of the moview. This is at best a slippery slope leading wikipedia editors to insert their own views into articles. The issue here is not what is a reliable source but what is an appropriate source. An appropriate source should be a source ´´concerning the topic of the article´´. If the topic of an article is biology or physics, then sources on biology or physics are appropriate. If the topic of an article is a film, then sources on the film are appropriate sources.. It sounds like Science Apologist has his or her own opinion and wans to make that part of the article. If the movie really is not an authoritative documentary on science, can´t we find appropriate sources - e.g. reviews of the movie by critics or scientists who watched the movie - that say so? Slrubenstein | Talk 05:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Say someone made a documentary that stated as fact that Abraham Lincoln died at the age of 85 (to use an example provided in the discussion). Would it really be original research to refer to documents that proved he was shot and killed and include a statement like "mainstream historians disagree with the points presented in the movie"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 14:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A slippery slope indeed. In your extreme example above, if there was such a documentary ever made, and the documentary was notable, you would find a variety of sources that would address the factual inaccuracies in the documentary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What if there were none? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We have tons of articles on marginally notable documentaries, books, etc. that have received almost no serious coverage by knowledgeable sources. And if the point is less glaring than Abraham Lincoln dying at 85, it's likely to get overlooked. This is especially the case for scientific topics given that most movie reviewers have near-zero scientific knowledge. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, Jimmy or something else? Of concerns to academics

I just thought you may be interested in a comment of an anonymous reviewer in my recent Wikipedia-related paper: I am concerned about the author’s insistence of referring to the Wikipedia founder as “Jimbo Wales.” I highly suggest that some basic fact checking occur as to his formal name. In a recent profile in the Sunday New York Times Magazine he was never referred to as “Jimbo.” If his formal name is James or Jim then I highly suggest you delete the “Jimbo”’s from the text of the paper, including where Jimbo appears in the bibliography. Your userpage has Jimbo, but article redirects to Jimmy... so... do you have any preferences as to what you'd like to be called? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is just my nickname online. I prefer Jimmy in print. I am not "James" though, ever. My real name really is Jimmy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fund raising header and coordinates in en.Wikipedia - a major problem

Copied back from Archive 31 as nothing has been done Copied back from Archive 30 for the second time Copied back from Archive 30 I think that this is an important enough topic to at least deserve a reply before being archived into a hidden archive file. - I created entries to archive 29 and 30 during my search to find this post. Whoever is maintaining this page is doing a very poor job.

I can understand the need to use a fundraising header from time to time; but I can not understand why it can not be created in such a way as to display properly on pages that use the coordiates template in en.Wikipedia. I realize that the problem is the absolute location of the coordinate entry, but why no one with the power to do something about it is willing to invested in the programing costs to fix the problem escapes me. The following page is a good example of the problem which displays differently dependant upon that status of the fund raising header (hidden or fully displayed) both create problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Joseph%27s_Catholic_School_%28Hamilton%2C_New_Zealand%29# Note: the smaller the window the worse the problem becomes.

Also see the discussion related to the issue in greater detail at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Problem_with_the_position_of_coordinates_with_fund_raising_header

Also posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_2007/Archive2#Conflict_with_fundrasing_header_and_coordinates

These document some of my attempts to address the problem over the past 40 days

Would you be willing to forward this to someone with the tallent to fix the problem? Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1st repost Dbiel ^(Talk) 16:25, December 15, 2007 (UTC)

2nd repost Dbiel ^(Talk) 13:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have notified the developers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this will be the last time I post this as it appears that the developers are either incapable of making the required change or unwilling to do so. It is a shame that something this important is basicly ignored. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We ignore at least three even more important things every day before breakfast alone. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am finding that easier to believe all the time. ie "Doran" Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. Wales...

...I would like your opinion on this. —BoL 02:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"the guerrilla war thats being arranged will be the Virgina Poly Tech Massacre all over again" is a threat of violence. In my opinion that message and the IP address obtained by a checkuser should be forwarded to the FBI. Boowah59 (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like children pointing their fingers at each other and saying "Bang" to me. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

He's a sock of PWeeHurman, and I have an alternate that hosts a checkuser list. —BoL 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Treasurer position

I may be able to fill the treasurer position. I am a CPA with experience in the nonprofit world. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please mail your resumé to Sue and take an active role in helping WikiMedia. We have too much to do and not enough people to do it all. If you really want to be a part, jump in and help. Can you mail references to Sue? Can you offer to do some work via the internet? Are you bonded? Can Sue talk to your current employer? Don't answer here! Call up Sue and talk to her. Good luck. I'm sure you can fit in somewhere to some degree. Make it happen. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What Was said. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

GWR Entery

I knew you would get into GWR '08! How does it feel?--74.138.108.174 (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What is GWR?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Guiness World Records. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A small update to MediaWiki software...

Yes.. Wikipedia is a great project... I think, this idea, can make it even better. Of late, I found that statistical data shown in Wikipedia is not consistent among different language versions. To make it consistent and for the benefit of editors, can we have a Wikimedia Statistics site, similar to Wikimedia commons, where we can categorize every possible statistical information starting from salary of people, to population of hungary to revenues of corporations etc? Instead of directly editing Wikipedia for updating these values, we should instead edit the common statistics site and that change should be reflected automatically to all the pages that "transclude" this information (just like page transclusion).

Can you do this? This could greatly improve the quality of the already great Wikipedia.. :) Thanks, Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 05:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

See m:Proposals for new projects#Statistics Wiki. MER-C 10:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please help me - I just want to clear my name now

This section moved from Talk:Jimmy Wales

Hi Jimbo please see [2]. This has gone on for years, I have been bullied, stalked and falsely accused of so much basically by one editor User:SandyGeorgia gaming the system and trading on her knowledge of existing issues.

I HAVE to go to arbcom and get a proper chance to defend myself...in the past I have always wound up gagged while lies are told...that is NOT fair...

I know I don't matter, why should I? I am no-one...but as long as this can be done to me it can be done to anyone, and if it can be, it will be...

I am sitting here in floods of tears....I feel like I am at the end of my rope...that must seem crazy but I was raised by a psychopathic mother, made out to be the guilty party whatever I did, however good, even perfect I tried to be...abusive people pick up on that and the dominos start to fall...

I have to turn around and fight this to the end now...please help me get a fair chance to do that? That's all I am asking, not for anyone to be censured but just for me to have a fair chance to clear this up once and for all through arbcom and PROVE that Wikipedia still works...and always can. Whatever games people try to play with the system. --Zeraeph (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what has happened here is very unfortunate. A number of good editors and admins are trying to sort it out so that Zeraeph can continue to edit without feeling harassed (regardless of whether she's right or wrong to feel that way), and also so that SandyGeorgia doesn't feel undermined either. There has certainly been an unpleasant dynamic, but I'm hopeful we can get it sorted this time. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr Wales: The overrriding objective here should not be to allow one editor to continue to edit, but to protect the encyclopedia. While everyone can edit, there are limitations. The editor in question (Z) has made false statements of fact about another editor, and has persisted in that conduct, both on and off Wikipedia. The rigorous policies underlying BLP are not attenuated simply because the subject of false statements happens to be an editor; attacks are attacks regardless of where they appear on Wikipedia. (My apologies for posting here rather than on your user talk page; I did so to keep the thread together.) My regards, Kablammo (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC) To be absolutely clear: while some of the attacks were expressions of opinion, others were allegations of fact, such as ascribing to the object of the attack certain diagnoses or mental conditions. The matter is under discussion elsewhere on Wikipedia so I will not duplicate detail here. Kablammo (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, these attacks on Sandy across mulitple pages of Wikipedia (and presumably also offsite) simply have to stop. It is just this sort of behavior, gone unpunished, which encourages some of our best contributers to leave the project. It is my fervent hope that Z, and editors like her, will be blocked or banned from editing so that constructive contributers who sincerely want to help the project can do so without feeling threatened or harassed. Jeffpw (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, I want to assure you that I have never made a deliberate false statement about any editor, though many have been made about me. I made one sincere mistake, a very small thing, whereby I mistook one editor for a sockpuppet of another they resembled closely in positive ways as well as negative ones, and in their attitude to me. I cannot be the first person to do that, and yet that seems to have been blown out of all proportion, not only at the time, but since. Apart from that I have been at pains to only tell the truth in any of this. If what I was saying was not true I would not have a problem here, and I do, most definitely, have a serious problem here. (I was so upset I managed to post to the wrong page by mistake) --Zeraeph (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This post contains one such statement. Kablammo (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Kablammo, that is, indeed a link to the one sincere mistake I made as I referred to above. --Zeraeph (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess this was another. Jeffpw (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that was just a statement of fact that I am prepared to stand by particularly in the face of personal attacks like this [3] or this [4] or this [5] that go on constantly without censure. I do not know another way to tell the truth than to just tell it. --Zeraeph (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, I invite you to look on this as wikidrama staged by SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin invited Zeraeph to the stage by unblocking her. SlimVirgin knew (or should have known if she didn't) that a drama sequel was going to follow when she unblocked Zeraeph.

As far as I can see there's an unsettling divide et impera component in all this. Ask me if you don't understand what I mean by that. Compare current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#There was an easy way to deal with all of this drama before the fact --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, as you know, I am a big girl, nobody uses me in any "Wikidrama", as far as I can see, Slimvirgin just happened to notice what was happening and did what nobody else has done to date...looked closer, and started to see some of the truth. She will NEVER know what that meant to me after all this time of being maligned, re-invented and stigmatised...just that someone who didn't even know me would actually STOP and take the time to be fair to me, as so many others have not.

I have my chance to put this before arbcom, maybe they will see the truth too, but I know it is a lot to ask, so if they don't, I won't mind. I really came to respect whatr you are doing here and nothing will sour that, besides, because of SandyGeorgia, once I never stood a chance here, and now I am finished here, arbcom is the only chance I have. Thank You --Zeraeph (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is at Arb. Zeraeph's forum shopping here should be shut down. Marskell (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, as you know, the arbcom request was made by user:Jehochman not me some 12 hours after I posted here. To call that my "forum shopping" is a little odd. --Zeraeph (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The WikiMedia Foundation needs money

We both know that the WikiMedia Foundation needs money. Can I volunteer to have the WikiMedia Foundation sell ad space on my user pages? Maybe we can have a user template set up so that anyone who wishes to, can help fund the WikiMedia Foundation in this way. Is this possible? This could be as limited as one small approved ad on a user page. Or it could be allowed to expand to allow users to compete to see who can create the most money producing set of user subpages. Or anything in-between. Let's make money for a good cause off the drama. There is no telling what kinds of cash crops could be grown in the set of user subpages marked with a This page's ad revenues are donated to the non-profit WikiMedia Foundation. template. Users could join forces and produce who knows what to create revenue for Wikipedia and fame for themselves. All those people who came here to promote something could create user subpages with their ideas or vanity and instead of being a constant disruptive force in the encyclopedia can be turned into a revenue generator. Of course, it would have to be very clear that it was not an encyclopedia page. Perhaps a whole different look to an ad enabled page so at a glance it would not be confused with the encyclopedia. Instead of deleting pages based on non-notability or nonsense or the like, they can be "userfied" to an ad enabled user subpage. We can convert our content problems into a revenue solution. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a well-intentioned idea, but I don't think user pages have the readership or type of ads which would draw much revenue. In order to make a serious amount of money, it would be necessary to either have a high number of people seeing the ads, or to use very profitable keywords (a user named "Wii" might become extremely popular ...). If they do, you're on the way to re-inventing Wikia as subpages of Wikipedia. Such re-invention is an interesting concept, granted, though there's a huge number of problematic conflicts inherent in it. Come to think of it, selling ticket to the drama such a proposal would generate could be a money-maker itself :-) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would support ads (on content pages) that you would have to opt-in to see, but since such a small % of Wikipedia users are editors (and could enable this in their preferences), this kind of system probably would not make a lot of money. What we need are more imaginative fundraisers than simply asking for donations with a bar on the top of every page. Mr.Z-man 00:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Captitalism and Wikimedia/Wikipedia is a winning combination. The world economy functions because of a simpple resolution and thesis based on the original barter systems. Wikipedia can compete very effectively with Google / KNOL if there is a system in place to generate revenue. Advertising on all pages will be an important step to take; yes, difficult at first, albeit it will be a necessary one...ultimately. Press on! Like a Rainbow (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)