| Revision as of 23:01, 11 October 2011 view sourceJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,542 edits →META← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:44, 19 January 2025 view source ArionStar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,296 edits →Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/delist/Jimmy Wales: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{pp-move|small=yes}} | |||
| {{usercomment}} | |||
| {{noindex}} | |||
| {{same page other wikis|commons|meta|message=Please choose the most relevant.}} | |||
| {{Stb}} | |||
| {{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}} | {{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 = 85 | |||
| | counter = 252 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 350K | |||
| |algo = old(1d) | |||
| | archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Centralized discussion}} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>|indexhere=no|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| {{archives|age=1|target=./Archive 69|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot III|archivelist=User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivelist_manual|collapsed=yes|search=yes}} | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| {| align="right" style="clear:both" | |||
| |] | |||
| |} | |||
| ==]== | |||
| == Talkback == | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{Talkback|Maunus}} | |||
| ], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]] | |||
| == A question about truth == | |||
| I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. ] (]) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If Godber is not ], which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? ] (]) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I dunno, but ] wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. ] (]) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ::::And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". ] (]) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Godber's photographs include "views of the ] including large numbers of cars traveling to ], and the ]. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the ] Homestead in ] with scenes of farm life, including ], ] sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the ], ], ], the ], and the Hillside Railway Workshops); ] (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, ], ], ], ] and ]. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the ], and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the ], ], ] area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori ] and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." ] (]) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. ] (]) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. ] (]) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == == | |||
| Is this quote which was attributed to you correctly attributed?: "''Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view''." if it is then how does that relate to your statement on my talkpage that "Truth is a huge concern, and the new version makes that clear".? To me this looks like a contradiction, although I guess it might be a matter of context. In any case the first quote is a very big part of what I find Misplaced Pages to be about - presenting different views weighted in accordance with their level of acceptance, not presenting truths. I think that the proposed policy change basically suggests that notions of objective truth or untruth trumps views to the contrary. Perhaps I am wrong again, but maybe you could explain to me why?]·] 18:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :One part to focus on is this: "What people believe is a matter of objective fact...". We are deeply concerned with truth. Another part to focus on is this: "Perhaps the ''easiest'' way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe..." It is not the only way, just perhaps the easiest way. | |||
| :We want everything in Misplaced Pages to be verifiable. We also want everything in Misplaced Pages to be true. Because people may not always agree on what is true, we very often need to 'go meta' in various ways, one of which is to write about what people believe. | |||
| :Another way you might think about this: because we want everything in Misplaced Pages to be true, and because we write it using an open process of dialogue, a useful set of techniques for getting at the truth include depending on reliable sources (which are judged to be reliable because they say true things more often than unreliable sources), and going meta when beliefs about what is true differ significantly. Far from verifiability coming about because we don't care about the truth, verifiability is useful because we care so deeply about the truth.--] (]) 18:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for responding. In my world there is no "truth" only well supported claims and hypotheses. I consider truth to be for religious people.]·] 13:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Is what you say true?--] (]) 21:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is my point of view, you need give it no more than its due weight.]·] 23:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unfortunately, a number of people insist on retaining the "verifiability, not truth" formulation in the first sentence of ], which causes a great deal of confusion on this subject. Hopefully, the current RfC will produce a consensus on a compromise that at least moves these words out of the lede. ] (]) 16:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::If I'm allowed to comment here, the "go meta" approach that Jimbo speaks of can be summarized as: truth is approximated in Misplaced Pages by following the ], with all its ancillaries, starting with basic verifiability of statements, but paying attention to the reliability of sources, and avoiding the synthesis of conclusions not supported by sources. Alas, some see a conflict between NPOV and NOR. E.g. when a source says "the earliest use of word X is 1909", but when a Misplaced Pages editors finds on a Google Books search a source from 1901 using it, then it has been argued that NOR—and more specifically SYNT—prohibits mentioning the 1901 occurrence in Misplaced Pages because it obviously contradicts the secondary source, even though the NOR policy gives considerable leeway for choosing sources: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Interesting enough, at least some of those wanting to keep "verifiablity, not truth" in WP:V argue that secondary sources should always trump primary sources, even though that's not what the NOR policy says. I suspect it's the desire to have a simple rule that drives them to embrace such a position. ] (]) 11:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: An interesting if ] dispute can be found in the RS/N archives . Basically the abstract of a paper had contracted "GDP per capita" to GDP, and there was an extremely long discussion mostly among editors who did not have access to the full paper whether WP:V and WP:NOR should trump common sense. ] (]) 11:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Truth panel == | |||
| :Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Your that we often need to 'go meta' reminded me of <i>]</i> and its ], providing information about usage for selected words. For example, see the usage note at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/can. Perhaps, Misplaced Pages can have a truth panel for reporting percentages of the truth panel supporting each of the main viewpoints in an article where editors disagree on what is true. In many cases, the differences in viewpoint show no sign of disappearing. When Misplaced Pages has a neutral presentation of views, then its readers can make informed decisions about what to believe. (See also ].) <br> | |||
| ::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* I am leaving space for Jimbo to answer above, but I think you have raised a complex collection of issues. WP allows multiple articles to reflect opposing, or various, alternative viewpoints. However, to reduce "text-spamming" or flooding main articles with fringe theories, the tactic has been to lump fringe theories into an "umbrella article" such as "]" about the sinking of the R.M.S. ''Titanic'' in 1912. Using that umbrella article, then the curse-of-the-mummy theory is not mentioned in every major article related to ''Titanic'' nor in all of the ship's crewmember articles. However, just because a theory is rare, and kept from flooding other articles, does not mean that it is "less true" but rather only that the theory is "less publicized" which is a major effect of judging notability by the number and prestige of reliable sources which mention a topic. For example, during the sinking of ''Titanic'' in April 1912, some crewmen reported that water was seeping under the bulkhead walls, rather than over the top, even though ''Titanic'' had a '']'' to the hull (not double-hull walls as added to ] R.M.S. '']'' afterward). Eventually, a new theory arose that the ]s, which held the hull plates together, were made with weaker metal which became very brittle in icy water, and so accordingly, the cold rivets snapped as more water entered, and made the outside damage to the hull worse than the original impact with the iceberg and ]. Logically, that theory seems plausible, but it should not instantly replace the original idea that the iceberg made a very-long gash in the hull which allowed huge amounts of water to enter. Eventually, a new theory can become the mainstream view. A broader theory changed in viewpoints about ]s, where during the 1960s, many people were taught that dinosaurs were "]s" and the animal group which never "ruled the world" were ''birds'' (and then, Hitchcock's film '']''). Nowadays, the prevailing view is that most dinosaurs were, instead, birds (not reptiles), and the dinosaurs-as-reptiles viewpoint could be considered a fringe theory currently. That is why it is good to have multiple articles about such theories. As for a "Truth panel", there could be multiple ]s (along with the 2,000 WikiProjects already formed) which ensure that all published theories, for their subject area, are mentioned, in proportion to the reliable sources. -] (]) 12:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to from {{u|Tryptofish}}? | |||
| :::These WikiProjects seem to be relevant here. | |||
| :... 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) | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::(The article "]" classifies dinosaurs in the class Reptilia, but, if you have evidence that they should be classified as birds, then you might wish to convey that information to the members of ].) <br> | |||
| :::—] (]) 16:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As the infobox in our ] article shows, it is true, according to the modern classification, that all birds are dinosaurs (] is a subset of ]), but it is not true that all, or even most, dinosaurs were birds (] is not a subset of ]). In the modern classification, birds are considered reptiles. ] (]) 15:28, 11 October 2011 (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. | |||
| Perhaps there might be an incentive for POV pushers to "push" the "truth percentages" in their own direction. I suggested several possibilities in an essay ] including the simplest one of all -- allow an article to be as one-sided as editors wish, but to be so labelled, and to alow a countering advocacy article for the other POV. ] (]) 13:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Wiktionary - Misplaced Pages links == | |||
| Hey Mr. Wales, there's a discussion on ] about what image should be used on your Misplaced Pages entry. Figured you may want to chime in with personal opinion about the recent freely-licensed images of you that are presented, as there hasn't been much engagement there at the time of my post. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I am not sure if this was ever discussed, but I was thinking of how often a more direct link to Wiktionary would be extremely usefull. For instance, some words have wp articles with direct links to other language wikipedia´s found on the right column, but if you want to check the definition found on Wiktionary, you need to leave wp or open a new tab. We could have a Wiktionary link included in the same list, or perhaps some other way of having the direct link between the two projects. Huge number of en.wiki users are not native English speakers, and anyway, even for the ones that are, the definition found on Wiktionary can be usefull. Did anyone ever thought about this before? ] (]) 00:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 15 January 2025 == | |||
| :See ]. | |||
| :—] (]) 01:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :We can manually add links to Wiktionary where appropriate: <nowiki>]</nowiki> --> ], <nowiki>{{wiktionary|example}}</nowiki> -->{{wiktionary|example}} <nowiki>{{wiktionary-inline|example}}</nowiki> --> {{wiktionary-inline|example}}. | |||
| :There is also ], which can be activated on Misplaced Pages by following the instructions on that page. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&</span>] 00:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| <div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2025-01-15}} </div><!--Volume 21, Issue 1--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 07:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1269316164 --> | |||
| == A brownie for you! == | |||
| Hello, Jimmy. The subject of the ] article, whom I've met and photographed twice in person, requested that his surname not be used in his article. As it is the practice to comply with such requests for reasons like privacy, I have taken care to keep it out of the article. Another editor asked about this on ] and now Touré has asked me to remove mention of it from that talk page, which I have. Can be removed from the talk page's edit history? Thank you. ] (]) 04:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);" | |||
| :We nevertheless ought to strike a balance between a desire for privacy or secrecy and the inherent value of producing a complete reference work. This individual makes regular media appearances and hosts at least two television programs. This is someone who is a celebrity; someone who is famous, not infamous. We aren't sheltering the victim of a viral video meme; Touré has diligently sought to build his name and reputation as an essayist, critic, and television personality through more than a decade of publishing and television appearances. To be clear, we're not protecting the identity of ] (about whom I still question the merit of having ''any'' article, whether he is named or not). At first blush, insisting that we conceal the last name of Touré seems to make no more sense than deleting the last name of ]. Absent a clear issue related to personal safety or his family's privacy (one which goes above and beyond the considerations which might apply to ''any'' celebrity) we're only left with a question of the degree to which our encyclopedia should conform to a celebrity's preferred personal branding. While I can appreciate that any biography's subject will be sensitive to its contents (and I believe we as a project ought to be sensitive to a subject's concerns), I can't help but find his claims that the inclusion of his surname is 'vandalism' to be somewhat overwrought. | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| :The ] took place in 2006, shortly after the BLP policy came into effect, and while the community was still sorting out what it all meant to the project. (Indeed, the discussion is on the very first page of the BLP noticeboard archives.) I would hesitate to rely on that discussion's conclusion to guide us forevermore, for two reasons above and beyond our usual awareness that ]. First, the discussion was in the early days of WP:BLP, and we lacked the body of experience with BLP that we have now. | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | brownie :D ] 19:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Second, a major point raised in the original discussion was that issue shouldn't be decided by BLP concerns, but rather was a question about verifiability and the existence of reliable sources. At the time, no reliable sources were offered to support the use of the subject's purported surname. Glancing briefly through the recent history of the article, it certainly appears that this concern remains valid today. Before we even think of pulling the BLP trigger, we need to make sure that article content clears the basic five-pillar requirement of verifiable, reliable sourcing. It is ''there'' that the question of including the subject's surname falls down. It should go without saying that the existence of a widely-available, reliable secondary source would also obviate much of the concern regarding a real or hypothetical invasion of privacy on Misplaced Pages's part—the cat, as they say, would already be out of the bag. Absent such reliable secondary sources, the name shouldn't be included purely on the basis of non-verifiability. ](]) 15:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ::I agree with the above. Someone who is purposefully famous for their work and seeks to remain as such isn't a private individual. Thus, to maintain our neutrality and our breadth of coverage, we should include his full name, regardless of his wishes. So, unless sources only refer to him with half his name all the time without mentioning his full name, we should include it all. If they do only mention half...well, that's a different scenario that needs to be discussed, but I find it unlikely. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 15:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is a reliable source for his full name? It does link the name to a profession on BET. ] (]) 16:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, I don't think you actually have to '''use''' a reference for his name in the article, that would be a bit overkill, I think. It just needs to be shown to us editors, not the readers, that RS's use his full name. So, that's one example there, yes. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 17:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would be reluctant to rely on a primary source document relating to an individual's tax filings; it takes us to the edge of the realm of encyclopedia-writing and brushes up against investigative journalism. As a gut-instinct matter, it feels more like a 'gotcha' or 'outing'. Ideally, I'd like to see an article ''about'' Touré (preferably in the entertainment press or some other relevant venue) which includes his surname. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest that Misplaced Pages shouldn't be the ''first'' secondary or tertiary source to include any particular bit of biographical information. ](]) 17:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think TenOfAllTrades has produced a classic, thoughtful, and elegant discussion of the issue. The rule can't be "Don't include a surname unless it is ok with the BLP subject" nor can the rule be "Always include a surname, BLP subject wishes and human dignity be damned". Thoughtful editorial judgment to balance valid competing concerns is, as almost always, the right way forward. | |||
| :::I don't know much about this particular example. I could be swayed towards omission if: there is a physical danger to family members, there is doubt about the sourcing, there is a sense that notability happened to the person rather than being sought, etc. I could be swayed towards inclusion if: there are plenty of reliable sources, there is no obvious safety or privacy issue, the person has deliberately sought fame. It's always a lovely thing when there is a simple and easy formulaic answer, but reality is complex so there often isn't one. Thoughtful discussion can be productive.--] (]) 17:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Does ] writing in the count? ] (]) 18:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Following up on my previous remarks, I note that Target Entertainment Group (which distributes Touré's television interview program ''On The Record'') refers to Touré by his full name – Touré Neblett – in their and on their web site: (Rights...Catalog...Entertainment...''On The Record''). The phrase "renowned music journalist Touré Neblett" seems to come from that press release, and was repeated verbatim by a handful of outlets. ](]) 18:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::FWIW, we deal with similar issues at ] on occasion, usually revolving around (alleged) real or birth names of people known by stage names (particularly pornographic actor/ess), although sometimes middle names or similar. I don't recall any other case involving a surname but I don't see any reason to treat this differently. We or at least I usually prefer to deal with it in a way similar to that suggested here. We definitely don't publish the info based on searches in primary sources like trademark documents, ancestery searches, tax filings, legal cases, etc. Instead we look for reliable secondary sources. One difference I perhaps have with the above, if the person is covered in more generalised sources I would prefer to find at least one instance of the usage there rather then solely going by specialised sources. (This somewhat reflects my experience, sometimes it may be the real name of porngraphic actor/ess was covered in reliable sources that cover the industry but I don't see the need spread the name when other more generalised sources have not.) However I can see this would go both ways, it may be generalised sources are not aware of the subject's preference in a case like this. We do of course get more complicated cases in BLP/N where the subject is no longer involved in whatever it was they were doing before, and potentially no longer really seeking publicity and all the sources are fairly old. ] (]) 17:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Interface change == | |||
| I think you should change the interface of Misplaced Pages (and your other Wiki sites) to allow non-admin users to delete their user, user talk and subpages. ]] 17:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :After thoroughly and thoughtfully considering the implications of this proposal, I have come to the conclusion that this would run the risk of allowing anyone to move an article they don't like to their to their own userspace and then delete it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::User above is correct. ]''' <sup><small>]</small></sup>''' 19:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==[REDACTED] for kids? == | |||
| Is there such thing?] (]) 18:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :See these websites. | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :—] (]) 20:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::All plastered with promotion. →<span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur">]]].</span> 00:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : is the best I have seen out there. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 04:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :The original question is ambiguous. Are you asking about a wiki that children can edit, or about an encyclopedia that they can consult? | |||
| :—] (]) 13:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == META == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I think you ''might'' like to note how a META sysop can keep an essay in his ''own'' preferred status . Cheers -- I feel like I am swimming up the Thames. ] (]) 18:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Haven't we played this game already? Deal with it on META, not here...] ]''' <sup><small>]</small></sup>''' 19:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::At such time as Jimbo says that he is reading his meta user page again, that might make sense. As for "getting over it" right now there is a legitimate issue about an admin/editor wearing two hats at once. Cheers. ] (]) 19:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::This isn't something you should come crying to Jimbo for. This is something you should bring to the administration of META (I'm not sure how Meta works, so I'm not sure who you'd go to). Looking at your whopping 93 edits shows that outside of worrying about that "Dick" ESSAY; you haven't been doing much else. ]''' <sup><small>]</small></sup>''' 21:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I assume you did ''not'' note Jimbo's opinions clearly stated about this "essay" and the nature of the edits which were stable. I would also suggest that my 20K edits across projects does ''not'' indicate any pre-occupation with any single essay. Cheers, now can you accept that Jimbo does not read his user talk page on Meta as a rule? ] (]) 22:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Jimbo's not going to come in and save the day. I'm not going to further argue with you on the topic. ]''' <sup><small>]</small></sup>''' 22:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Actually, Tofutwitch11, you're mistaken. I do care about bullying in any Wikimedia venue. Coming in and making wholesale changes after a long period of stability, and reverting people without discussion, is just never ok.--] (]) 23:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| You're the subject on a delist FPC. Please, give us your feedback. ] (]) 01:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ] ] 22:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:44, 19 January 2025
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
 | Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit. The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt. |
| This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, you can leave a message here |
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
 | This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Centralized discussion
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.Albert Percy Godber
Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.
Could you or your page watchers help me with Draft:Albert Percy Godber? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.
I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Godber is not WP:NOTABLE, which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. Polygnotus (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I dunno, but User:Sulfurboy wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. Polygnotus (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". FloridaArmy (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Godber's photographs include "views of the Hutt Valley including large numbers of cars traveling to Trentham Racecourse, and the Hutt River. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the Mendip Hills Homestead in Canterbury, New Zealand with scenes of farm life, including haymaking, merino sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the Ross Reservoir, Otago Boys' High School, Seacliff Mental Hospital, the 1926 Dunedin Exhibition, and the Hillside Railway Workshops); Invercargill (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, Moeraki, Tuatapere, Waiau River, Oamaru and Port Chalmers. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the Burnside Iron Mills, and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the Piha, Karekare, Anawhata area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori marae and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." FloridaArmy (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. Here's a link to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors
That doesn't sound good. From The Forward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. CMD (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Edit_request and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Heritage_Foundation_planning_to_dox_Wikipedia_editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to these concerns from Tryptofish?
- ... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, Jimbo Wales will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than Claudine Gay was.
- Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage et al. is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Sita Bose (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
- As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Suddenly ANI going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Suddenly ANI going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Newer_2024_image?
Hey Mr. Wales, there's a discussion on Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Newer_2024_image? about what image should be used on your Misplaced Pages entry. Figured you may want to chime in with personal opinion about the recent freely-licensed images of you that are presented, as there hasn't been much engagement there at the time of my post. BarntToust 21:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 January 2025
- From the editors: Looking back, looking forward
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024
- In the media: Will you be targeted?
- Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last
- Opinion: Reflections one score hence
- Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next
- Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics
A brownie for you!
|
brownie :D Sir Macaw 19:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |
Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/delist/Jimmy Wales
You're the subject on a delist FPC. Please, give us your feedback. ArionStar (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Category: