Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:38, 30 June 2009 view sourceJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,539 edits I would prefer to keep the discussion confined to over there, a fuller discussion can be had here once the situation is resolved← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:03, 11 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,379 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 252) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{Calm talk}}
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{usercomment}}
{{noindex}}
{{Stb}}
</div>
{{Usercomment}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an ].'''<br />
'''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s .<br />The current ] occupying "community-selected" seats are ], ], ] and ].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is ].'''}}}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''This page is ] and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, <br> ] '''}}}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{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(10d)
|maxarchivesize = 250K
| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 48
| counter = 252
|algo = old(2d)
| maxarchivesize = 350K
|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
| archiveheader = {{aan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}} }}
{{Centralized discussion}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=2|target=./Archive 47|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot III}}
__TOC__
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>|indexhere=nein|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}}
{{-}}
{{archives|archivelist=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archives list|small=yes}}

== Neda ==

I realize that commons needs to guard against copyrights infringement, but is it really necessary to delete ] of a true hero just because people in Iran have other worries than to divulge their sources. I am referring to the photographs of the brave young woman who gave her life on the streets of Tehran yesterday.
] (]) 03:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

:Of course. We are an encuyclopeida with a policy of neutrality and its important to not have images that break US copyright laws. Such images don't help the project; the project and not the events in Iran being our concern. Thanks, ] ] 03:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

::I can see why Iranians hate Americans at times: they only think of themselves. ] (]) 06:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

:::No, the Misplaced Pages servers just happen to be located there. If it's any consolation, many biographical articles are missing photos for the exact same reason. --] (]) 06:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::SqueakBox does not live in the USA, nor is he a citizen of the USA. The same is true for half of our editors. As for me and my fellow Americans (USA-ians just doesn't make it; sorry fellow America-continent citizens)); even with all its faults, the USA is one of the most giving nations in all of world history. Example: Sir Winston Churchill called the Marshall Plan "the most unsordid act in history." ] (]) 19:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::Wake up! "The OECD report shows only seven countries met or surpassed the 0.7% target, with Norway (0.95%) and Sweden (0.93%) topping the chart. Though the United States made the largest donation ($21.75bn), it contributed lowest percentage of national income, coming bottom of the charts at 0.16% . The US spends the equivalent of $73 per American each year on aid, but $1,763 a person on defence."--] 17:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


::::::Hopelessly POV - the Marshall Plan was devised to stop dem Commies taking over Europe, and was thus politically motivated - not a random act of US kindness. n.b. 'The first substantial aid went to Greece and Turkey in January 1947, which were seen as being on the front lines of the battle against communist expansion'. ] (]) 20:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

:We already have ]. I don't think a picture without source info and with clear ] overtones (and ] as well) is needed to replace it. ] (]) 07:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

:: ] is included as a non-free image; ] appears to be a derivative work. I suspect this will be a pretty non-controversial deletion on Commons. Of course, deleting a photo that does not meet the standards of inclusion on Misplaced Pages or on Commons does not imply a lack of sympathy or respect for the photo's subject! The two issues are entirely unrelated. -] (]) 19:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

USA copyright law allows fair use as does the English language Misplaced Pages. Please don't throw "copyright violation" around so easily. We prefer copy-left content as that is important to our over-all mission, but fair use quotes and images that are deemed appropriate are allowed. Winning arguments with bumper-sticker slogans misinforms the newbies. ] (]) 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

:FYI: All photographs of Neda at commons have now been deleted. It would seem only anglophones can have such a picture to remind themselves of their sordid history in Iran. ] (]) 00:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

===Is Misplaced Pages deleting all Fair Use images of dead people?===

One admin said that ] images of dead people on their pages is not allowed according to ], and wants to use that to delete Neda images from the ] article. See my talk page and
*]

Are we now going to delete ] images of dead people from their article pages? Many of those pages have no other images of those people. Are we becoming that illogical in our application of ]? I mean how far do we want to go in encouraging people to give up their images for free use? See:
*]

In particular, an admin wrote the following concerning the only reason they would allow Fair Use photos of ] in her article:

"''That means as subjects of sourced commentary on the individual images themselves, as images, as works of photography or art, not the topic they show.''"

So we would have to remove all currently existing photos and video stills of Neda Soltan from Misplaced Pages. All of them are being used under Fair Use. How illogical this is....

The guideline referred to is from ]. No matter how obtusely this is justified it does not pass common sense, and I think most people would be shocked if this rule were really applied across all articles about dead people. --] (]) 14:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::The law often has nothing to do with common sense, moreover IP law. ] (]) 14:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:::It is not against ] law to use Fair Use images in articles about dead people where there are no existing free images to use. The Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for setting this policy. I am sure Jimbo has some say in this too. So I ask again, can we rethink this? --] (]) 15:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
:The policy I know is that non-free images of ''living'' people aren't generally allowed since it should be possible to get a free one (just take a camera to their next public appearance). Non-free images of ''dead'' people should be ok if we can't find a free one. --] (]) 15:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
::The hang up is, so long as there's any hint that a free alternative image of the dead person might be lurking about somewhere, the non-free image, if spotted, will most likely be deleted. ] (]) 15:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
:::The lurking images. :) So if we suspect lurkers, the Fair Use images gotta go. --] (]) 15:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Put that way, yes, that's what happens. It takes a lot to show no free images of someone can be had, how much searching it may take to find them may have a bit of sway, but not a lot. ] (]) 15:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
::You know how illogical this is, don't you? You can't prove a negative. One can't prove there are no free images. A lurking image is always possible. So we delete the remaining images in hopes of future perfection... --] (]) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Under current IP law, fair use is a narrow doctrine to begin with and given the WmF's goals as to free content, en.Misplaced Pages's fair use policies are even narrower. ] (]) 15:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
::Well en.Misplaced Pages's fair use policies (]} as you interpret are not logically based on this:
::"''An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals.''"
::That is from , and your interpretation of it is incorrect in my opinion. I mean we have many, many fair-use images of album covers, and much more. Thumbnail-size images of dead people are not a problem, and do not violate WmF policy. It is not reasonable to expect too many uploads of free images of people who are no longer with us, and thus not around for more photos to be taken of them. --] (]) 16:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Not the same thing: As I said on your talk page, there is about zero likelihood that a free alternative to a copyrighted album or book cover will ever show up, not so with people's faces, which in themselves are not copyrighted in public (though photographs of those faces are often copyrighted). ] (]) 16:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
::We can not reasonably expect uploads of freely licensed images for many dead people. So the English Misplaced Pages Fair Use policy (]), or your interpretation of it, is not following . In some cases free images show up, and in some cases they do not show up. --] (]) 16:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Is there anywhere this conversation won't spill? What does it have to do with Jimbo? ] (]) 19:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
::::See the part higher up about . I also wrote: "The Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for setting this policy. I am sure Jimbo has some say in this too. So I ask again, can we rethink this?" --] (]) 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Two separate issues apply. One is personality rights and the other is the interaction between legal fair use and Misplaced Pages's nonfree image use policy. In addition to copyright, personality rights also apply to many images of living people. Those rights have various nuances, but the bottom line is that they usually cease to apply once the person is no longer alive. From the moment onward, a copyrighted image of a non-living person (from most jurisdictions) gets covered in basically the same group as copyrighted images of landscapes, cartoons, etc. ''Fair use'' is not the operative principle at Misplaced Pages user space: our local nonfree image use requirements are stricter than the law requires. This sums up quite simply: if an image is under full copyright, don't use it in user space. It may be frustrating, but the reasoning behind it is sound--it has something to do with the habits of a minority of editors who pushed fair use to the breaking point, and the potential that carries to redirect volunteer time away from core project functions. Sadly, this is one of the situations where a small number of people spoiled it for everyone. On a brighter note, there are other productive things that concerned editors can do to honor Neda Soltan and her culture. I blogged about one suggestion the other day. With best wishes and respect, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Possible solution. 120-pixel-wide Fair-Use photos in articles about the deceased ===

Currently, all photos of Neda Agha-Soltan while alive and well have been removed from the ] article.

Maybe Jimbo and others can suggest the following policy clarification to the ] board. Where does one go to leave comments to be read by the WMF board?

Rather than remove all Fair-Use images from articles about dead people, I suggest only allowing small thumbnail photos of the people. Smaller than what is currently allowed in infoboxes. See examples of 120-pixel-wide photos of people here:
*]

This way we encourage people to find larger, free images. But without depriving deceased-people articles of ''any'' images.

Viewing 120-pixel-wide images may irritate enough people to go find those "lurking" free images mentioned previously, and to find and ask some of the copyright holders to free up some of their copyrighted images.

Most of the many, many copyrighted Fair-Use album covers have images of people, and are between 200 and 300 pixels wide. See:
*]
Of course they often have more than just face shots of people, and so the larger size is justified.

There are Neda images here:
*] - before they disappear. There are ongoing deletion discussions. Rather than delete them we can reduce them to 120-pixels-wide, and remove the larger versions altogether from Misplaced Pages.
*http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-neda-agha-soltan-pictures,0,5241125.photogallery
*http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/23/iran.neda.profile/index.html#cnnSTCPhoto
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8113552.stm
The Neda images seem to be getting out semi-anonymously, "family friend," etc.. I am not sure, but I don't think it is allowed on Misplaced Pages to use them as anonymous-source images. Even if they are released as free images. How does one verify they are free? Do we trust CNN or the BBC if they say the family friends released them as free images? I don't know what the policy is. That leaves only ] for now. It may be years before family and friends in Iran are willing, or feel safe enough, to put their names to some photos of Neda, and make them free images. --] (]) 11:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
:Would that be so bad? It is not actually necessary to see a picture of her to understand the article, so we can wait a couple of years until we get a free image. Unfortunately the English Misplaced Pages allows a huge number of non-free images (like album covers in articles where the album cover isn't discussed), but there exist good and completely 💕s in some other languages. ] (]) 11:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
::I think most people prefer illustrated articles over non-illustrated articles. Also, the outpouring of emotion, and the historical significance of her death is based on the photos, videos, and video stills. Her death would not have become notable otherwise. Wikipedias in other languages are using Fair-Use images in their articles about her. Turkish Misplaced Pages, for example, according to a comment on the English article talk page.
::Also, some admins interpret ] to delete all Fair-Use photos from some articles about deceased people. Fortunately, they haven't deleted the Fair-Use photo of ]. --] (]) 12:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Personally, I'd say that a link to would be sufficient until it is clear that one of these images is no longer copyrighted (dewiki uses one of those, but I'm not certain that they are allowed to do so), but I won't do anything about this. As I think that our current lenient policy (allowing non-free images) is very bad, I don't take part in any admin work in that area. In support of ] (let's make this a 💕), ] (]) 14:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
::::For what it's worth, I've long thought that carrying external links to stable sites carrying non-free (or not known to be free) images and other content is enough, so long as those sites aren't themselves blatantly astray of IP laws. Likewise, I wouldn't want to disrupt the encyclopedia by deleting every NF image I see here which runs astray of the NFI policy, even if half or more of those I see indeed do. ] (]) 14:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Although interesting, this is one of the stranger proposals to deal with this issue. It's like saying BLP vios are okay, if only done in small font. The images themselves are a significant part of the issue, and covering the event without using the images is incomplete. We can make a conscious decision to sacrifice encyclopedia quality for the goal of free content, and in so doing diverge from most every other information source int he world, but if so that's what it is. ] (]) 14:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::If one has the outlook that the world will be going through many and sundry upheavals in IP law over the next few decades, getting from here to there with free content all the while will indeed seem weird now and then. I don't agree with the BLP analogy, ELs to smears or what would otherwise be taken as BLP vios on en.Misplaced Pages are most often forbidden and at most, strongly frowned upon. As for free images and other media content, en.Misplaced Pages is already rather bountiful and it seems this will only grow. ] (]) 14:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not sure I follow. The current policy (non-free images are okay in restricted circumstances) is what is like allowing BLP violations in small font. ] (]) 14:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Good link, Kusma: . It is a good idea to link to that from ]. They are posting those images there at the ] under ] rights. I note that they are using 120-pixel and 150-pixel-wide Fair Use images. We can put one or two of those images in the article at 120-pixels-wide and link to more.

:::I have a question. Are there any narrow banners that request a free image? Banners that can be added to the top of articles. We could adapt it to add it to articles with non-free images. Something like "Do you have a free image for this article?" It would link to a page with more info. Or we could add a link that is labeled "''(Do you have a free image?)''" at the end of the image caption. Linked to a specific help page explaining that we need a free image to replace the the Fair Use image, and that we may need help from a copyright owner in releasing a copyrighted image to attributed free use. They would still be the copyright owner under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.

:::The discussion at ] is fascinating. The contrast between the photos showing ] (photos are here for now) with and without the scarf cause all kinds of comments from people around the world who are showing up. Those comments illustrate ] ramifications and ] at so many levels. So rare to see this kind of dialog. If only the news media could hear and cover this. --] (]) 13:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
::::The issue is nothing to do with NPOV or systematic bias, and your continued insistence that it is is frankly a little strange. This is about our non-free content criteria. In response to your other comments, we do have ], but some people hate them for some reason. Personally, they seem a brilliant idea to me, and I have used them in my own articles prior to finding free images. ] (]) 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
:::J Milburn. From the "Statement of principles" section of ]:"''Doing the Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the ] and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty.''" ] covers the NPOV angle already. Many there agree with the NPOV and ] concerns, including some admins. If the images weren't non-free images, then there is little doubt that the article would have images of her with and without the scarf in order to meet those concerns. Your non-discussed removal of the image with the scarf as you did (leaving only the image of her without the scarf) would not have been justified, and would have been overturned. Only ] interpretations about minimal use justified its removal, and I see that even though that image meets every angle of interpretation of NFCC, there is still a strong unwritten, vague policy of extreme parsimonious use of Fair Use images. That is why I came here for further clarification. I have gotten some clarification from Jimbo Wales. I leave further revisions of this WMF policy in the hands of the WMF. --] (]) 11:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

: I don't think I've ever seen such an utterly bizarre policy suggestion as this. It's like saying that it's OK to break our ] policy, as long as we aren't ''too'' nasty about a living person in their article. We have placeholders for this type of thing, and the fact that fair-use photos of ] appear in his article are simplya red herring - they comply with ]. If we merely plastered any copyrighted image - at 120px or any other size - over every article we could think of, most would probably fail and be removed. <b>]</b> 10:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

::The proposal is only for articles about the deceased. --] (]) 10:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
::: Why should they be any different from articles about anything else? Either images pass all the criteria or they don't. If they do (like the ones in ]), then fine. If they don't, then they'll be removed. We can't have some strange half-way house of "sort-of-acceptable" images - we'd have to actively change Foundation policy to do that. <b>]</b> 11:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
::::The Neda images pass all the criteria in my opinion and in the opinion of some others, including some admins. See my previous replies and the image deletion discussion. But they don't pass the unwritten rule of extreme parsimonious use of Fair Use images. I understand that rule, and the reasoning for it. I may disagree with it, but at least now I understand it more clearly. "''Clear as mud''" actually, ;)
::::I agree with you that it would require policy revision by the Wikimedia Foundation. --] (]) 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:It does not say "Misplaced Pages, ''The 💕'' <small>except for deceased subjects</small>" perhaps for a pertinent reason. By the way; Hi Jimbo and sorry to clutter your talk page with this. - ] ] 10:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
::I leave it in the hands of the Wikimedia Foundation to value people more than album covers. That is my simplistic summary of the issues. There seems to be no problem at all over Fair Use images of album covers. Many contain images of people. They usually contain more than that, and so 200 to 300-pixel-wide Fair Use images seem to be the unquestioned norm for Fair-Use album covers on Misplaced Pages. We don't demand that music companies eventually release a small, 200 to 300-pixel-wide, free version of their album covers. We could be that strict concerning album covers if we chose to be. It seems that some European countries may be expanding the right to Fair Use in their countries. So maybe things are loosening up more broadly. Discussion can continue at ]. --] (]) 11:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Timeshifter, I'm really getting sick of you misrepresenting my actions. ''Of course'' the two images would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that they were both non-free- the more the merrier, within reason. The reason I removed the image of her with the headscarf was not because I was part of some secret cabal trying to force the idea of headscarves out of Misplaced Pages, but because that was the extra one- the other image was the one used in the infobox. This would have been a standard, uncontroversial action, apart from the fact that this was a current event. Of course, everything about a current event has to be controversial, including policy enforcement. The fact we still have two images of her in her own biography is alarming. If the biography is kept, which it shouldn't be, ''one'' should be kept, if any. It doesn't matter which one, really. You're free to argue about that all you want. Using both of them is clearly an abuse of our NFCC. ] (]) 12:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

:I am not misrepresenting your actions in the ] article. In the talk section farther down, ]?, you say "There is no number." And: "Articles are not entitled to a certain number of non-free images, nor is there an arbitrary number of which they cannot have more." In your above reply you say "that was the extra one" concerning your deletion of the image with the head scarf at ]. As I said already, I came here for clarification, and Jimbo gave some clarification, and there is no need to repeat everything that is already discussed at the image deletion discussion. --] (]) 12:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

=== How many Fair Use images are allowed in an article? ===

See ]. The woman, Neda, was killed while wearing a scarf. But she also has photos of her without the scarf.

] does not say how many Fair Use images are allowed in an article. It says "minimal". If the policy is only one is allowed, then it would say "one" and not "minimal."

The ] article has 2 Fair Use images. He is notable because he was murdered. --] (]) 07:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
:There is no number. I can't see why you expect a number to just appear if you keep asking. This is a matter of editor judgement- if those advocating more images are able to provide a decent reason as to why the two present information that is needed and could never be presented by one or a free alternative, then two will be used. If not, one or none could be used. Articles are not entitled to a certain number of non-free images, nor is there an arbitrary number of which they cannot have more. Articles can have as many as they need- normally, a lot fewer than some would like. ] (]) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Curious about your personal opinion ===

Jim, I know (1) you don't generally get involved in ] and (2) have encouraged Wikipedians to e-mail around to secure free media for the project. Still, FWIW, I'm simply curious what your personal take would be wrt an issue addressed too-lengthily a few posts up on your talkpage.

Yeah, a **free** pic of its now-iconic subject in conservative/formal Iranian dress would be great. (It's doubtful the dresscode at Islamic Azad University, where "]" studied religion and philosophy, allowed for the "''colorful-scarf-haphazardly-falling-down-to-the-back-off-the-crown-in-public''" look otherwise in fashion among underground pop-chanteuses, which just so happens to have been our late subject's aspiration as well.) But she's dead, the few best-known pix of her iconic; and her family, who had previously ] have since then been required to move to a different residence by the athorities and have been requested to avoid speaking with the foreign press during these difficult times of unrest in Iran. What would be your quick, general take on this, Jimbo? Do you think this situation presents special circumstances?] 15:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two separate questions here: the photo of her death, and other photos of her.

I do think that this situation does present special circumstances, one of which is a concern for the human dignity of the deceased. This is also quite clearly a case of ], and should be considered from that angle as well. (I see the article is in the process of likely being merged with an article about the incident, and I think that's good.) I think that the image of her death is iconic, historically important, and relevant to the article about her death. That the image is haunting and emotionally moving is something the reader needs to see in order to understand in part some of the reaction this created.

For the other images, among the factors to be considered here is replaceability with free alternatives - as she was a college student there are presumably many pictures of her whose copyright is owned by friends and loved ones - perhaps if they have one that they like or think accurately captures her spirit, they will wish to donate it... however, this may not happen for some time, and may never happen. Using a "fair use" picture in such a circumstance strikes me as undesirable, but there is a complex judgment call as to whether it is nonetheless something we should accept, although undesirable to some extent. I have no very strong opinion about it.

I do think, as is well known - and this is just a specific case of the general principle - that we should be quite diligent about seeking out photos under free licenses. Misplaced Pages is quite famous and important and generally admired all around the world, and I think people will generally be happy to help us make it better. --] (]) 16:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks for your reply, and for co-founding Misplaced Pages. I guess this part sums up your opinion about using additional photos besides the '']'':

::''"Using a 'fair use' picture in such a circumstance strikes me as undesirable, but there is a complex judgment call as to whether it is nonetheless something we should accept, although undesirable to some extent. I have no very strong opinion about it."''

:It also seems to summarize some other admins' current interpretation of ], except that they seem to have very strong opinions against additional non-free photos besides the death photo. Some other admins think photos of her alive (with and without the scarf) are necessary in order to emotionally understand the relevance and impact of her death to various people, and also to show the full picture concerning her death and life.

:Traditional Muslims worldwide are particularly moved by ''].'' Liberals (Muslim and otherwise) are particularly moved by '']''. I am moved by both. There have been pro-fair-election articles and demonstrations worldwide organized by both types (conservatives and liberals). Some articles and rallies concentrate on one type of photo over the other.

:For those Wikimedia Foundation members and others who happen to read this; here is a photo and video summary: See showing her wearing a black scarf, baseball cap, and long black top before she was shot. She turns around and looks in the direction of the camera at around 9 seconds. One can pause the video there. She is next to her music-teacher friend in the blue shirt with white stripes. CNN discusses this video and her clothing. See '''' to see her still wearing the long black top after she was shot and on the ground. The black top is laying on the ground behind her, and is closed at her waist. The black scarf is behind her head. It is not clear if we can link to the videos, since they are anonymous. They aren't copyright violations though at YouTube.

:The only authenticated photo of her wearing a scarf is . It will be deleted if it is not used in the article.

:I believe the and ] need to be rethought and rewritten in order to avoid much frustration in my opinion. Many previous discussions have occurred about their vagueness concerning non-free and/or anonymous photos and videos. --] (]) 18:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
::What specifically needs to be rethought, and why? This whole post is somewhat vague. Further, what does it matter whether some find one picture more moving, some find another more moving? What if we had no free images of Audrey Hepburn? Would it be reasonable to include several, as some people find her prettier on one, some in another, and some in another? ] (]) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
:::''To self:'' "Hmm, maybe I should supplement the many pix of ] as a starlet on her bio with a fair-use one from her later life when she did also-notable work as the UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador -- !"] 16:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
::Jimbo, I think it's true that bloggers/reporters/editors striving for sterile objectivity at times somewhat neglect the issues of human dignity you've mentioned. I've just come across the to media coverage of the "Neda" story, posted by "Fatemeh" at ''Muslimah Media Watch:'' "''he was young, slender, and pretty, and so Western media images are obsessed with watching her die'''' helps explain the fact that Neda is represented as a corpse just as often as she is represented the way any murdered American woman would be: alive and smiling, usually in a picture given to the media by her family or friends''."] 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Barnstar ===

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Bookbound barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |To ], for his kind and expert,<br />scalpel-quick opinions often granted<br />to the users of Misplaced Pages '''. . . . . . .'''<br />(and also for <br /> ]).<br /><small>&nbsp;— ] 17:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)</small>
|}

== Michael Jackson and ] ==

Hi Jimmy - Raul that the ] article got more hits (5.9 million) than the main page. Can you confirm if that is a record for most viewed article in a 24 hour period?

It's worth mentioning one of the main editors of that article, Realist2. He's heavily associated with it, bringing it to featured status. I when I ] a photo to him. Editors like Realist2 save this site and its community a lot of headaches and bad headlines. The MJ story is clearly the news event of the year, and the media has been looking for any angle on it. Editors like Realist2, through diligent work and effort on a topic that is important to him, spare us headlines about ghastly vandalism that wasn't caught or embarrassing mistakes. He's pretty broken up over Jackson's passing (as you can see from his ]), but we all owe him and editors like him thanks for their hard work. --<font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">>David</font> ''']''' 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

:I'd like to second that. He dedicated himself to that article, making sure no nonsense was added to it, and as a result I'm sure he's improved Misplaced Pages's reputation in people's minds when they turned it after the death, and found such an informative page. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 07:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
:When I read the article only minutes after the story broke, I recall asking myself, "Why haven't I cringed, reading this?" Now I know. ] (]) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

== A matter of principles ==

''Dear Mr. Wales,''

I have come here to ask for information about the very pillars that suport the entire Wiki Movement, in order to prevent some spasms of confusion and madness from negatively interfering in the normal course of the Wiki Process, in my native language's Misplaced Pages. Amen! Actually, it's not that grave. But, in the name of the Wiki Culture, I want to defeat it in the most coherent way possible.

What happens is that the (rather schizophrenic) Lusophone community is discussing, again, some of the worst things that could ever be discussed in a Wikimedian environment. And the one I am talking about is to deny anonymous users the right to edit.

Could you give me some orientation about the status of this right? I would be most grateful if you pointed me some official policies or founding principles (and discussions related to these, if posssible) in a way I can have solid data to base my positions on. ''As you like to write around here, "this comment in a nutshell": what are the relevant pages related to anonymous edits that can be used in a debate?''

Faithfully yours, ] (]) 01:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

:It sounds like you're looking for ]. <nowiki>{</nowiki>{]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]}<nowiki>}</nowiki> 04:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

::Yeah, almost (I wanted something richer in content, but it seems that's all there is to it). I apologize for my impulsiveness, and thank both Mr. Wales and Nihiltres for the help provided. I'd just like to confirm if those rights are irrevocable. ] (]) 21:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

== Just a small question ==

I just wondered about the validity of ; has everything been represented accurately, or is there some information that was inadvertently left out? <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 12:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, not sure how to answer that question. There's always tons of information left out of any blog post or news story. That particular post looks like a pretty decent repeat of the New York Times story, but I can't vouch for any part of it that I don't know about. Did you have a more specific question? :-) --] (]) 15:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
:I hadn't scanned over the NY Times story until and hour ago, so I felt that perhaps I wasn't getting the whole picture. There is still probably some details missing, but on the whole, I think I understand what went on. Thanks, <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 16:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

== Good work ==

This () was well done. Congrats! -- ] (]) 13:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --] (]) 16:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

::Truth be told, having thought it through, I think this was within BLP policy. ] (]) 16:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Wise and mature.
:::This is hilarious though: . :-) ] (]) 16:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
::::I bet someone got a chuckle in the newsroom over that one. (And nice job, Jimbo.) ] <small>]</small> 18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::That is hilarious. For the record: I had no idea at the time that a New York Times reporter had edited the entry, and didn't know who it was until I talked to the reporter after it was all over.--] (]) 01:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

''“We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a really hard time with it if it had.”'' I take it then that you would have supported keeping it out even if there ''were'' reliable sources? What about if it was widely reported? ] (]) 10:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

:If it had been widely reported the question would not have arisen (keeping it out of wikipedia would have been pointless). Since it wasn't, and since the New York Times wanted to protect David Rhode by not making it public, this was absolutely the right thing to do. Very responsible (and almost a case for ]!) --] <small>(])</small> 11:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
::What if it was not widely reported, but we did have reliable sources? ] (]) 12:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

== Reliable Source Notice Board you might want to pay attention to: ==

You might want to watch or participate in ]. ] (]) 17:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

As far as I can tell, no one has drawn your attention to the above-mentioned proposal and related RFC on ]. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 19:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It is much too premature for this proposal, and it seems to mix several different issues. I am very open, as always, to making changes, and support a general movement to refine processes over time, but I think a much more comprehensive discussion is needed before an actual proposal like this is put forward.--] (]) 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
:For the record '''What do I want!''' ''modest incremental change''. '''When do I want it!''' ''in the fullness of time after due consideration and reflection''. So we're probably on the same page there. Will you give a view as to how you see your future role with respect to Arbcom and what contingencies are in place should you be unable to fulfil the role? Thanks. --] (]) 01:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

::That's a very good question. I think a very useful model of a modern constitutional government with checks and balances, and a healthy mix of respect for tradition, stability, and democracy is that of the UK government. We have today a very different sort of system, as suits our needs, but there are many ideas in that system which we do not have here - many of which do not need here. Admins are in some ways similar to the House of Lords, in the sense that they are in office essentially for life unless they do something pretty egregious. We do not have a House of Commons, though perhaps we should. The ArbCom is something like the Law Lords, although again, not in every particular. I would hope to see some useful ideas generated over time, in collaboration with the existing institutions, which are working pretty well but have flaws. Having a single institution - a fully elected ArbCom with absolute sovereignty for example - would be dangerous for the obvious reasons. Having me with completely unrestricted power in all things, which we do not have and I do not want... I want less power over time, not more - would be dangerous for the obvious reasons. Having everything decided by day to day popular votes also has clear problems.

::One way in which our system does mirror the British system is that we have admins, elected directly by the community, being something like Parliament (though being more like the Lords in some ways, and the Commons in other ways). And ArbCom being something like the government. And me being something like the monarch, with a customary veto which is rarely used (actually, essentially never). And other odd bits and pieces.


==]==
::Institutional design is a complex matter.
]
]
Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.


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.
::On a more personal level, and I believe that the ArbCom members past and present will back me up on this, I serve the ArbCom in terms of providing some institutional and "spiritual" memory and reminders. I try to make myself useful to them, and I generally have I think. I raise questions and try to pose challenges and help encourage a spirit of thoughtfulness. I don't have to do much of this, because the sorts of people who are elected to ArbCom in our current system are not the type of people generally inclined to partisanship and bickering, but to reflection and deliberation.


], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]]
::There are risks in change, but still, we should always look for change. Orderly, thoughtful, and productive change.--] (]) 02:20, 30 June 2009 (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)
:::Thanks. And contingencies? --] (]) 02:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:If Godber is not ], which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm pretty sure things would work out ok without me. Lots of good people here. How about this: in case of my untimely death or inability to perform my capacities, the ArbCom is hereby authorized to figure out what to do, subject to ratification with a 50%+1 vote of the community. In the interim between them coming up with a ratified proposal, the status quo is to be considered as much as possible. I will admend this succession plan from time to time upon the recommendation of the ArbCom and Community, until such time as we figure out a more longterm and binding way of dealing with it.
:::::I promise to do my best to stay alive so that this is nothing more than a cute speculation, too. :)--] (]) 02:29, 30 June 2009 (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)
::::::Thanks for your response, Mr Wales. You describe part of your power as "a customary veto which is rarely used (actually, essentially never)". Perhaps this is why the French and German WPs—actually, ''every'' other WP—seem to do fine without such a role? On your UK governance analogies, I find the House of Lords analogy for admins to be odd. ] ] 03:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
]
::::And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". ] (]) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*Godber's photographs include "views of the ] including large numbers of cars traveling to ], and the ]. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the ] Homestead in ] with scenes of farm life, including ], ] sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the ], ], ], the ], and the Hillside Railway Workshops); ] (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, ], ], ], ] and ]. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the ], and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the ], ], ] area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori ] and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." ] (]) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. ] (]) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:: If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. ] (]) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Just wanted to say ==
:::::<blockquote><blockquote>"''Leave ... Jimmy D. ... alone!''" --- ] ] 04:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)</blockquote></blockquote>


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.
:For what it's worth, and probably something that is relatively not very well known, Jimbo's actual involvement in ArbCom business is, essentially, inexistent. He occasionally sends something our way that was addressed originally to him but doesn't require his intervention, or asks for our input on the very occasional matter that is on his lap, and we occasionally poke him for "philosophical opinion" when we consider matters of a more "constitutional" feel.<p>To give a sense of perspective, out of the approximately 16000 emails that have been on arbcom-l in the past six months, Jimbo has around 70 to his name, nearly half of which are on topics more social than Wikipedian. Rumors of his still ruling Misplaced Pages with the iron fist of an '']'' are, at best, misguided. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 03:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I wish I could give you a BarnMilkyWay but no one's come up with that, apparently. (]) &#124; (PS: Have a good day) 00:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ==
== David S. Rohde ==


For the interested. ] (]) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. I've rewritten ] pretty much from scratch; I think you'll find it's in much better shape now. Kudos on your actions in this matter - I think you did exactly the right thing. -- ] (]) 00:58, 30 June 2009 (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)
:Thank you. I don't think it's right (and I speaking as a subject of the article, not as an editor of Misplaced Pages) to headline part of it as "Misplaced Pages controversy" - as far as I can tell, there is very little controversy about it at all, and certainly if there is a controversy about it, the controversy isn't a part of David Rohde's story.--] (]) 01:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


== Happy new year ==
::Fair enough, I've taken it out. Actually, there was less coverage about it in reliable sources than I originally anticipated. That ''may'' change, so I can't guarantee that the subheader won't return if it does turn into a major controversy. But hopefully it won't. By the way, if you need an article like that one to be revised in the future, please feel free to get in touch - I write for a living, I have a lot of research resources to hand and I'm used to short deadlines. To be honest, I could have made it a much better piece well before this news broke; there's a ''lot'' in reliable sources about the good work that Rohde's done on behalf of the Bosnian Muslims. I don't know if there was some reason not to add such material to the article but I would have thought the material I added at ] and ] would have counted in his favour. Just a thought. -- ] (]) 01:16, 30 June 2009 (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)
== 1st Wiki - in - Portuguese dissertation defense ==


== ==
Mr. Wales,


That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I would like to let you know that I just defended my dissertation on Wiki-pt. I was approved! The title of my dissertation is "Nos bastidores da Wikipédia Lusófona: percalços e conquistas de um projeto de escrita coletiva online" ("Behind the scenes of Misplaced Pages in Portuguese: Pitfalls and conquests of a collectively written online project"). I believe this is the first dissertation of its kind, in the Portuguese language.


:Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your vision and, if I may divulge a bit, I remember when you came down to Brazil (São Paulo) last year. Some said that Wikipédia hadn't achieved or reached a phase worthy enough to be studied as a social phenomena. The successful defense of this dissertation demonstrates this outlook concerning Wikipédia is at least not true and indeed maybe completely false.
::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to from {{u|Tryptofish}}?
My very best regards,
:... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, {{u|Jimbo Wales}} will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than ] was.
:Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage ''et al.'' is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --] (]) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


:Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
Telma Johnson <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Suddenly ] going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. ] (]) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.}} Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. ] (]) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:03, 11 January 2025

    Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
    Start a new talk topic.
    Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy.
    He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees.
    The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit.
    The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.
    This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead,
    you can leave a message here
    This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
    Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 10 days 
    This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
    Media mentionThis talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:

    Centralized discussion
    Village pumps
    policy
    tech
    proposals
    idea lab
    WMF
    misc
    For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

    Albert Percy Godber

    Albert Percy Godber at his brass finishing lathe in the Petone railway workshops. A sign before him reads: `This is my busy day'
    "Looking down over a settlement with houses set amongst trees. The arm of a lake or harbour lies beyond, with a mountainous range on the far side. Photograph taken by Albert Percy Godber. Probably taken at Queenstown, Godber having visited Lake Wakatipu and Queenstown in 1926"

    Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.

    Could you or your page watchers help me with Draft:Albert Percy Godber? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.

    "Phyllis Mary Godber wearing a Maori cloak, holding a taiaha, standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber

    I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    If Godber is not WP:NOTABLE, which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. Polygnotus (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I dunno, but User:Sulfurboy wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. Polygnotus (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Godber family outside their house 'Railway Whare' at 23 Bay Street, Petone, circa 1906. From left to right: Albert Percy Godber, Mary Ann Godber, Laura Godber, Phyllis and William. Photograph taken by Albert Percy Godber"
    And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". FloridaArmy (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Godber's photographs include "views of the Hutt Valley including large numbers of cars traveling to Trentham Racecourse, and the Hutt River. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the Mendip Hills Homestead in Canterbury, New Zealand with scenes of farm life, including haymaking, merino sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the Ross Reservoir, Otago Boys' High School, Seacliff Mental Hospital, the 1926 Dunedin Exhibition, and the Hillside Railway Workshops); Invercargill (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, Moeraki, Tuatapere, Waiau River, Oamaru and Port Chalmers. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the Burnside Iron Mills, and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the Piha, Karekare, Anawhata area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori marae and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." FloridaArmy (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. Here's a link to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    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)
    Suddenly ANI going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face. Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Category: