| Revision as of 02:05, 1 December 2017 view sourceAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,813 edits →Donations: c← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:14, 10 January 2025 view source Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,539 edits →Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{pp-move|small=yes}} | |||
| {{noindex}} | |||
| {{Stb}} | {{Stb}} | ||
| {{Usercomment}} | {{Usercomment}} | ||
| {{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed| |
{{#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 are ], ] and ].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation's |
'''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=''' |
{{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__ | ||
| {{-}} | {{-}} | ||
| == Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder! == | |||
| == Voting open for ArbCom == | |||
| {{ACE2017}} | |||
| Voting has opened for ]. | |||
| Just in case you need some guidance in voting there are lots of voter guides available, e.g. ] . ]<sub>(])</sub> 00:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| : And don't forget <User:Carrite/ACE2017>. Really now, is canvassing voters' guides here appropriate? ] (]) 04:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::So far they haven't sent talk page notifications to eligible voters this year, but here you get service with a smile :-) ]<sub>(])</sub> 11:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::So far only 107 people have voted. ]<sub>(])</sub> 11:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Full alphabetical list of guides: | |||
| * Boing! said Zebedee: ] | |||
| * Carrite: ] | |||
| * Collect: ] | |||
| * Ealdgyth: ] | |||
| * Elonka: ] | |||
| * Gerda Arendt: ] | |||
| * J947: ] | |||
| * Kudpung: ] | |||
| * Patient Zero: ] | |||
| * Power~enwiki: ] | |||
| * QEDK: ] | |||
| * RegentsPark: ] | |||
| * SilkTork: ] | |||
| * Smallbones: ] | |||
| * Tazerdadog: ] | |||
| * TParis: ] | |||
| * Tryptofish: ] ////////// ] (]) 04:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| I've gone ahead and just transcluded ], which contains the list of all the voter guides, among other things, at the top of this thread. ] (]) 07:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ===Extremely low turnout=== | |||
| ], ''Register to Vote'', ] (CIO) poster, 1946]] | |||
| So far only 261 editors have voted in the ArbCom election, compared to over 1,000 last year at this time. Why? The obvious reason seems to be that there has been no announcement given on the talk pages of eligible voters. All is not lost yet, however. The elections in (both years) last for two weeks so we have time to catch up. Last year's total number of voters was 1,950 - so over half of the voters voted in the first 2 days. I'd hate to see this year's vote total come in at about 520 ! I'll check on whether we can get an announcement put on talk pages. In the meantime - please vote. ]<sub>(])</sub> 19:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :I just went there to vote, but for me it did nor work out well. I was not able to sign in on the Wikimedia site..I got this message: "The supplied credentials could not be authenticated."then when I saw where I did not need to be logged in to vote, I looked at the names and have had no experience with any of them and their names did not link to anything, so I gave up. ] (]) 22:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :ok, I tried again and see that the Candidate statements are linked to via their names below the "voting" button. So now I can do it. ] (]) 22:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :ok, I voted ....YAY!....it was fun ! ] (]) 22:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| : {{ping|Smallbones}} I'm working with the election commissioners to make this happen as soon as possible. :) ] (]) 23:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. I'm sure you'll get this straightened out in time. ]<sub>(])</sub> 23:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{ping|Smallbones}} How does the number of questions asked of each candidate compare? We've still got 11 days left for questions to be asked? Unless, of course someone decides to start deleting them because we're "mid-way through the voting period"? Many thanks. ] (]) 14:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :The cause is definitely the lack of a mass message so far. For context, in 2014, the year directly before we began to send the mass messages, only ] were determined to be valid. In 2015, the year we started sending the mass message, ] were determined to be valid. ] (]) 00:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| By all means let's send out a mass notification as quickly as possible. An election that voters don't know about lacks the maximum legitimacy that we need.--] (]) 14:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Just curious, why wasn't a notification sent out? ] (]) 14:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :: This is a wonderful question. As I recall, during the pre-election discussion it was definitely decided to send out a notification, as has been done for the previous two elections. ] (]) 02:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Some planning and technical issues arose with the first attempt to get the message out, multiple volunteers including the election commission are working to get this resolved within the day. — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given all this attention to detail, it will be interesting to see if they "spam" me, when I already voted. --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> ]</span> 12:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *I hope that whatever mass-mesaage etc. is being planned to be despatched , is in strict accordance with the consensus (i.e. the closure) at this ].Cheers!]<sup>]</sup> 16:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| **There certainly was an RfC saying that we should do the notification again. The problem, as I understand it, is that we only want to notify the eligible voters (approx. 150 mainspace edits needed) who have edited this year. That turns out to be a big technical challenge. ]<sub>(])</sub> 16:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ***In that case, technical challenges etc. shall '''not''' mean loosening the criterion.If it can't be done in the proper manner, ''let it not be done''.]<sup>]</sup> 16:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ****I expect that they will get this to work per the RfC soon enough, but let's not make the best the enemy of the good. I didn't see any suggestion there that this had to be done in exactly one particular way ''or not done at all.'' Pinging the closer {{ping|Floquenbeam}} - do you agree that we should get this done, as quickly as feasible, as close to the summary in your close as possible? ]<sub>(])</sub> 18:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *****<small>(nitpick: you can't maximize two variables; you can't always get it done "as quickly as possible" AND "as close as possible" to the closing summary. Sometimes you have to choose between doing the best you can right now, or doing it as soon as you can once the requuirements of the closing summary are met, or compromising somehow.)</small> All I did was close the RFC saying there was consensus for such a message. If technical challenges are getting in the way of matching exactly what the community wanted, then I have no role in figuring out what tweaks should be made: that's ''by definition'' the responsibility of the electoral commission (who appear to be working as quickly as they can). A textbook example of the kind of decisions they were chosen to make. I'm reasonably sure that there's no benefit to me squawking in their ears to "Hurry up! And also, do it like I said! And also, hurry up!". I generally try to avoid pestering people for zero benefit. They're working on it, they're competent, and they have help if they want it; that's all I need to know. --] (]) 19:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Perhaps part of the turnout is because, when it comes to arbitration, people this year are perfectly happy to take the less painful option and pound their nuts flat with a ball peen hammer instead? ] (]) 03:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Especially all the ], no doubt. ] (]) 10:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == {{Justcurious}} == | |||
| ]] | |||
| Has WMF experienced any decrease in monetary contributions based on en.WP's political slant or is everything still on track? <sup>]]]</sup> 23:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{justcurious}} are you familiar with the logical fallacy of ]? In any case, the WMF's fundraising stats are pretty easy to find; I've pasted them here, to the right. How do those data impact your assumptions? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you, MastCell. The impact the data has on me is #1 - a sigh of great relief considering how aggressively I've promoted WP to educators, and #2 - how I have seriously considered establishing a local chapter. It's good for editors to know these stats because it actually does have an impact on one's credibility when promoting the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I will review the stats you've provided to see how I can best apply them in my future presentations. It is also an indication of great potential for lightening the work-load of unpaid volunteers who devote their time and energy into helping make WP the best it can be. <sup>]]]</sup> 01:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay. From your initial question, I inferred that you believe that en.WP has an increasingly pronounced political bias (it's obvious from your comments elsewhere that you believe that bias to be in a liberal/progressive direction). You also seemed (to me) to be implying that this perceived bias was likely to harm the WMF's fundraising efforts. Was I correct about those inferences? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Steering away from generalizations, I will qualify my response by saying only under certain circumstances do I see pronounced political bias. If everyone respected our PAGs, more editors would collaborate on political articles, but it's a scary place to edit because of DS and limits on reverts. We have quite a few editors and even admins who refuse to get involved if it's a political article, which speaks volumes. I think most of the issues stem from MSM's bait and click resourcefulness - editors depend on online news sources - and most won't hesitate to include breaking news, even with unsourced allegations and the risk of misinformation that often accompanies breaking news. As a result, maintaining NPOV is a struggle. We simply cannot lose sight of the fact that a significant number of our readers don't agree with or read WaPo, NYTimes, The Atlantic, NPR, etc. which is all the more reason to closely adhere to NPOV. We shouldn't have to lose any reader because of a political slant, perceived or otherwise. Another growing concern is the noticeable dismissal of BLP policy, which again is typically tied to politics but not always. We must not lose our "encyclopedic, dispassionate tone" or the high degree of sensitivity required of us when writing about living persons. Yes, I am somewhat concerned over the way some of our articles are written - but not just political articles - we have a growing backlog at NPP and AfC, and they're not all political articles (thank goodness). I won't deny that I'd love to see our political articles handled with the same care and high standards as our medical articles. Regarding your question about funding, I am a bit concerned that some of the imbalances will eventually harm fundraising as we know it, especially if we can't keep up with the growing backlog of promotional articles and PR firms that use WP to launch/sell/promote/advertise products, events and people. They love to use the "💕" that "anyone can edit." <sup>]]]</sup> 01:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm sorry, but "adhering more closely to NPOV" means respecting ]. Like "WaPo, NYTimes, The Atlantic, NPR, etc". Whether "our readers" read them or like'em or not (I have no idea how you know what our readers read or like - you probably mean "]").<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'd also like to drill down a bit on that particular idea. You emphasized that many of our readers "don't agree with or read WaPo, NYTimes, The Atlantic, NPR, etc." Could you elaborate? Assuming some of our readers "don't agree with or read" a specific reliable source, does that mean we should no longer consider it reliable? That would be an extremely novel (and disturbing) interpretation of site policy and guidelines, so I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. There is a fairly obvious effort underway, in the US at least, to discredit and de-legitimize serious, reputable mainstream journalism, but Misplaced Pages should be pushing back against that effort, not enabling it as you seem to be advocating. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm happy to respond to your questions, MC, so you can put your power tools away. To make sure we're on the same page, I will repeat what I actually said and explain what I meant in an effort to avoid further misinterpretation: ''"a significant number"'' does not equate with "many" and ''"all the more reason to closely adhere to NPOV"'' does not equate with "should no longer consider it reliable". To quote , {{xt|"a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and how it is used."}} ] explains it further. We're discussing the most basic elements of our PAGs, which I happen to be very well-versed in as I've demonstrated repeatedly. I mistakenly assumed all seasoned editors were equally as familiar so I chose brevity over citing individual policies in my comment above. When I said it was "all the more reason to closely adhere to NPOV", I was referring to context, types of sources and in a nutshell, part of the first sentence in ]; i.e, "making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view)." I'm not aware of any effort underway "to discredit and de-legitimize serious, reputable mainstream journalism" unless you're referring to Trump but all that aside, I retired from 30+ years in broadcast which included time in the field for CNN Headline News so I have a pretty good idea about what constitutes "serious, reputable mainstream journalism". In the event you're interested in further reading, I've included a few links for you: <sup>added 14:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)</sup>, , , what people seek from ] (you can review the archives for a more in-depth snapshot), and again. Happy reading! <sup>]]]</sup> 09:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::] and ] Re:"serious, reputable mainstream journalism", should the words "objective" and/or "unbiased" be included for Misplaced Pages purposes? And if not, if we accept, perhaps as a practical necessity, that many of the sources we use have a "left" or "right" bias which sometimes they even admit to, how can the word "reliable" be in "reliable sources" ? Its ok the way things are except for the pretense, some would say fraud, that the reliable sources are reliable in a strictly matter of fact and unbiased reporting way. ] (]) 15:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Why == | |||
| Why does Jimmy invite people to edit his user page, when it wouldn't be appropriate to change his own words? ] (]) 04:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{xtd| "it wouldn't be appropriate to change his own words"}} {{tq|... without his permission}} – So often it's in the details. ... Or were you, ], suggesting that it wouldn't be appropriate for ''Jimmy'' to change his own words? Therefore suggesting it would be inappropriate for others as well? The phrasing of your question leaves it unclear for me. --–'''<span style="font-family:FreeSans; letter-spacing:-0.07em;">] ]</span>'''– 13:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :: Remember the episode of Rick and Morty with Stephen Colbert? Crowdsourcing! ] (]) 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{xtd|"when really, he's the only one who should be?"}} – Says who? You? Obviously—self-evidently—he doesn't. | |||
| :::<small>(... doesn't say so, that is ... FWIW, AFAIK, neither do any WP policies and guidelines; p&g do state that users have a wide latitude over how they run their own assigned userspace though—'']'' it's up to the user's discretion, it's Jimbo's prerogative. As on your 'own' userpage the prerogative regarding whether to allow such is yours.)</small> --–'''<span style="font-family:FreeSans; letter-spacing:-0.05em;">] ]</span>'''– 13:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"These are Jimmy's words. Should not be changed."? ] (]) 13:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The user is meaning . Going by what {{u|Dr.K.}} has said in the edit summary, it was reverted because you changed Jimmy's words. What he is quoted as saying.--] (]) 13:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Right, I understand that. What I don't understand is why Jimmy would invite me to edit his words on his page, if they are quotes that should not be edited. ] (]) 13:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's because you changed it from reading "founder" to "co-founder". I looked at the actual article ] for this and it says "He is historically cited as a co-founder of Misplaced Pages, though he has disputed the "co-" designation, declaring himself the sole founder". There's also sources backing this up.--] (]) 13:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It isn't a content dispute, is it? ] (]) 13:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| :Benjamin, stop trolling and go do something useful please.--] (]) 14:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| {{outdent|:::::::}}{{ec}} – <big>OH!</big> So this thread is all because you, Benjamin, tried but got reverted! Now I see ... Tnx ], I was starting to think some weird 'on-the-spectrum' pedantic OCD fixation of some sort was going on ... Turns out instead I just got drawn into some classic ] rhetorical questioning. Eww, now I feel ''icky'' ... ] ... --–'''<span style="font-family:FreeSans; letter-spacing:-0.05em;">] ]</span>'''– 14:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :I thank {{u|5 albert square}} for the ping. Now that Jimmy himself has replied, I think this matter has been put to rest. In any case, my opinion is, when editing anyone's userpage, or anywhere for that matter, one should not put words in other peoples' mouths. Editing is not an exercise in ventriloquism and noone should manipulate the expression of anyone's ideas anywhere. ] ] 15:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team. | |||
| ::I'm sorry, it is not my intention to troll. I'm still confused about why Jimmy would invite editors to edit his page. ] (]) 16:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jimbo trusts that most editors are mature enough to only make constructive edits to his page. His page has been built mostly by editors other than Jimbo himself. When the occasional vandal or troll makes unconstructive changes to his user page, he trusts that they will be quickly reverted. ] (]) 16:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What would be a constructive edit? His page is composed of things that aren't supposed to be changed. ] (]) 16:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::_ _ ___ ] ___ _ _ | |||
| :::::<blockquote>"I like turtles"</blockquote> | |||
| ::::::--–'''<span style="font-family:FreeSans; letter-spacing:-0.05em;">] ]</span>'''– 17:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Benjamin, a constructive edit is something that benefits the encyclopedia. Altering Jimmys talk page to say he is the co-founder when he denies this is the case is definitely not beneficial. | |||
| 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. | |||
| :::::::He allows editors to edit his userpage because Misplaced Pages is about anyone being able to edit it. The same goes for his talk page, he prefers that it isn't protected. However, he also understands that in order to stop damage to the encyclopedia, sometimes we will need to protect it. If that is the case, he trusts us admins to make decisions. ] (]) 19:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]] | |||
| ::::::::You can compare Bitcoin to the rise of Misplaced Pages: 1,000 articles in February 2001 (one month after founding), 10,000 in September, 40,000 in September 2002, 100,000 in March 2003 (with 500 people editing daily). Unlike Bitcoin, however, there's no danger of its collapse. Jimbo hasn't actually edited his userpage since before the London riots - more than six years ago. ] (]) 10:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. ] (]) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == |
== Just wanted to say == | ||
| You have created something valuable to everyone on the Internet. I'm sure you get this a lot, but thank you. <br>It may sound weird, but Misplaced Pages has helped me through some tough times. We can never thank you enough for this sometimes infighting, sometimes peaceful, sometimes divided, but always united community You are the backbone of the <s>cabal of editors</s> <b>thriving community</b> that is Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Browsing the web while not logged into Misplaced Pages I came across donation requests by you for Misplaced Pages. I will not consider a donation, and will be advising against it to contacts, due to the toxic editing environment I have encountered here. Regards. ]] 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| I wish I could give you a BarnMilkyWay but no one's come up with that, apparently. (]) | (PS: Have a good day) 00:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This is what happens when you set up an organization without a leadership hierarchy. ] (]) 19:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == == | |||
| : You've made 86 edits to mainspace since September 2016 and exactly 1 edit to mainspace since April. I wonder how you know exactly that the editing environment is so "toxic." Pro Tip: Maybe ] is not a subject on which one should spend significant time if one wants to actually improve the encyclopedia. ] (]) 02:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| For the interested. ] (]) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Summary: {{tq|This document intends to show the problematic situation in Hebrew Misplaced Pages (hewiki), and provide evidence that it has been overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors, who prevent others from achieving higher permissions while promoting their own allies.}} –] <small>(])</small> 22:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Couldn't agree more. ] (]) 22:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy new year == | |||
| ]] | |||
| ::What do you think the overall reaction might be when readers who are fans of Hannity see the fundraising banner over a NPOV tag on his article? Do you think it has an effect? Stats show the page's monthly pageview average is 88,838 (Nov 2016 - Oct 2017), or 1,066,056 total pageviews for the year. It could be that WP isn't experiencing any negative feedback over it, or possibly not enough to matter, but my experiences in marketing/advertising/PR says neutrality is a priority, unless your targeting a specific demographic. <sup>]]]</sup> 12:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::The NPOV tag doesn't indicate whether the dispute is about the article being more in favor or more against Hannity. Does that have an effect on your thoughts? --] (]) 15:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::BTW, I just read the lead and it may look anti-Hannity to a fan or others. If the fan noticed the NPOV tag, that might give the fan some comfort. FWIW, I also looked at the Rachel Maddow article for comparison. --] (]) 15:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And what was your conclusion, Bob? I just attempted to remove the conspiracy theory crap which is noncompliant with NPOV - it's biased, and when you consider Maddow is in competition with Hannity it should be removed, or the conspiracy claims about Maddow added to her BLP for Balance using the same arguments that are used in Hannity. I tried that a while back - and it was reverted. I was also reverted at the Hannity article twice within a few minutes today. It's all about tag-teaming and gaming - there's clearly a POV push, and it has nothing to do with AGF - it's soapboxing. If that doesn't reek of partisanship in defiance of our core content policies, I don't what does. <sup>]]]</sup> 20:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think you have reasonable complaints and nothing much can be done about it. --] (]) 01:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree...and the beat goes on. <sup>]]]</sup> 02:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Good days, Jimbo. I'd like to say that Chinese Misplaced Pages is introducing ARBCOM System currently, since Arbcom on this project, and in fact all the project is originated from the idea of yours, do you have any opinion for that? Any hints, advice or suggestions? ] 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Tampa Mayor's communications director censoring content == | |||
| == == | |||
| It appears that Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn's communications director is censoring content from the article about him. Is that allowed? ] (]) 16:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC) ] (]) 16:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :No. And has already been reverted. Not sure why you are coming here with it though. It's not Jimbo's job to monitor each article. Regards ''']]''' 16:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is a good place for reporting this type of concern. -- ] (]) 17:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to from {{u|Tryptofish}}? | |||
| === Is a communications director a paid editor? === | |||
| :... 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. | |||
| The editor involved has been as a paid editor. It is ''very'' common for Misplaced Pages editors to edit articles about their employers or organisations to which they belong. While there is the potential for a conflict of interest in those cases, that is not considered to be paid editing. In this case, the editor is question is ] the mayor's communications director. Is that different from being an assembly line worker in a factory editing the article on their employer? ] (]) 19:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :I performed the block and yes, I think being the ''communications director'' director means you are being paid to ''communicate'' about your client/company. It's not the same as if you were a mechanic working at a Chrysler repair shop updating the specs in a car article. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I should add, the block was for violating ] - that is, undisclosed paid editing. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::The "connected contributor" template was added to ] in , after Ashleybauman's first edit. So it wasn't really undeclared, was it? While I'm not disputing that "Ashleybauman" Misplaced Pages editor is almost certainly Director of Marketing & Communications at City of Tampa and Mayor Bob Buckhorn, it feels like someone may be advancing their own political agenda by getting their "opponents" blocked. Don't we usually ask representatives of article subjects to discuss issues on the talk page rather than blocking them as "paid editors"? ] (]) 20:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::It was added by another editor tying the various accounts together. I don't see where Bauman ever declared it herself. --] 20:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes. {{u|Waters.Justin}} added that template and . Both of those seem to be egregious violations of our ] policy. Justin.Waters is also the editor who added the material removed by Ashleybauman. ] (]) 21:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bauman was very explicitly informed about the policy over two months ago. And you're still missing the '''undisclosed''' part. Undisclosed paid editing is against the WMF TOU. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm sure you've seen editors or IPs showing up at biographies and edit-warring to remove some piece of information. Eventually they communicate something like "I am Mr X's assistant/employee/office intern/etc and Mr X doesn't want that in his article". Someone usually manages to direct them to the talk page or the BLP noticeboard and the issue is discussed and sorted out. We don't block them as paid editors. I don't think they would generally be considered paid editors. I've never seen a case where they were asked to put up a paid editor declaration. Is it because this person has that particular job title that they are being treated differently? How is blocking them addressing their issue? ] (]) 20:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"I am Mr X's assistant/employee/office intern/etc and Mr X doesn't want that in his article" - which can be considered enough of a declaration to satisfy most people. If you don't think we don't block for UPE, you haven't looked hard enough. If you disagree with the WMF TOU, take it up with the WMF. If that clause exists in the TOU, admins are going to enforce it. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I know that editors are blocked all the time as undeclared paid editors. I'm just not sure that is meant to include people making good faith attempts to change something they don't like on their employer's biography. ] (]) 21:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It is. People making bad faith edits are simply blocked for vandalism or disruption. The routes to unblocking are quite different. Bauman can simply declare and get unblocked (with a rap on the knuckles for her editing). Vandals usually stay blocked. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:30, 30 November 2017 (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. | |||
| == Email from ]...Personal appeal? == | |||
| :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) | |||
| Jimbo, I just got an email subject "Please read..an important personal appeal..." I never heard of Brewster Kahle so I did not open the email, but after seeing his Blp I am wondering if he is trying to do something about the attack on Net Neutrality ? I suppose I will open it tomorrow and see what it says unless you or someone warns me not to open it. ] (]) 20:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Never mind....I had a look, it is a donation request re: Internet Archive library. ] (]) 22:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:14, 10 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
- Refining the administrator elections process
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder!
Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! Gooners Fan in North London (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
Just wanted to say
You have created something valuable to everyone on the Internet. I'm sure you get this a lot, but thank you.
It may sound weird, but Misplaced Pages has helped me through some tough times. We can never thank you enough for this sometimes infighting, sometimes peaceful, sometimes divided, but always united community You are the backbone of the cabal of editors thriving community that is Misplaced Pages.
I wish I could give you a BarnMilkyWay but no one's come up with that, apparently. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 00:49, 6 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)