| Revision as of 16:19, 30 October 2011 view sourceMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 1d) to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 86.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:38, 6 January 2025 view source Novem Linguae (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Interface administrators, Administrators50,879 edits →Requests for comment/Severe Problems in hewiki: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{maintained|1={{user16|Jimbo Wales}}|article=no}} | |||
| {{pp-move|small=yes}} | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{ |
{{noindex}} | ||
| ⚫ | {{Stb}} | ||
| {{same page other wikis|commons|meta|message=Please choose the most relevant.}} | |||
| {{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 = |
||
| ⚫ | | archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |counter = |
| counter = 252 | ||
| ⚫ | |minthreadsleft = |
||
| ⚫ | | maxarchivesize = 350K | ||
| ⚫ | |algo = old( |
||
| | 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" | |||
| |] | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| == Sorry to Bother You == | |||
| Hello, there, Mr. Wales, and I'm sorry to bother you, as I know you're a very busy man. One of the smaller articles in Misplaced Pages is one that I've hand-raised myself, much like the subject of the article, ], a beluga whale at Shedd Aquarium.. ] suggests that 70% of the article needs to be rewritten, and that it may have to be significantly cut. I know you probably won't fret over such a small article. But please, look at it yourself, and tell me how it can be improved, if you may. Thank you, Mr. Wales, and good day. --]]''<sup>]</sup> 12:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: I will leave space for Jimbo to answer, above, but recently he has been very busy. Meanwhile, some of us other editors have added notes and sources (from the ''Chicago Tribune'') into article "]" as examples for updating the sourced text. It is an interesting article because the multi-year sources cover the whale's life from birth to age 12 now, and have described reactions to other whales at the Oceanarium. Similar articles (such as a page about "]") provide indepth information that is difficult to find, combined, on the Internet at large. -] (]) 05:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't notice this until now. My concern with that article, like every other one that I encounter, is that it not contain unsourced information; particular, that it not contain unsourced POV information. You indicated to me on my talk that you know of more sources, and if you add them then there is no problem. Also, note that I could have just gone in and immediately removed everything that wasn't verified; I chose not to, as it seemed like it could be saved, and that regular editors (such as yourself, Belugaboy) would be able to do that far better than I could. I'm happy that other editors have since added sources and improved the article. ] (]) 09:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Donations. == | |||
| Hello, these donation ads are getting tiring. Please out of respect to your members, consider removing these ads. These volunteers do enough work by writing these articles, then you ask them to write code for you like the coding event that was just held, you ask them for storytelling services. Please pay these people, rather than continuing to ask them of this. I know not all of the blame should be upon you as it should also respectively be upon the WMF, but you are the owner. Regardless, thank you for your service for the largest encyclopedia on the net. As it regards, ] (]) 21:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : We look forward to your pending membership :-) (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 21:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not the owner. :) --] (]) 07:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder! == | |||
| == Recent activity at Verifiability policy page and talk == | |||
| Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|Closing this discussion in the interests of harmony. Sarek's close was a good close, but I see no harm emerging from allowing the RfC to run a few more days. I think SV should take a break from this issue.}} | |||
| FYI. There was an RFC on a proposal that began on Oct 5 re WP:V. The RFC had the participation of about a hundred editors. About 8 hours ago it was closed as successful by an administrator and the changes were implemented in WP:V. Since then, the changes have been reverted. A couple of hours ago there began intense activity opposing the proposal, after . --] (]) 00:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, Jimbo. I was just coming over myself, because I'm very distressed at what's going on. (I was the admin who did the close.)--] 01:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * '''''Reminder:''''' Well, I am not convinced that moving ''"verifiability, not truth"'' to be lower in the policy page was really a helpful, significant change. What people should understand is that the word "verifiability" requires ''"truth in representing sources"'', plus some sources are not correct, so "truth" is an aspect required to judge accurate sources (articles should not cite known false, out-dated sources). Hence, the broader reality is "verifiability ''and'' truth" (while the word "not" has been misleading for years). Meanwhile, the phrase "verifiability-not-truth" sounds like convoluted "]-speak" (Yoda: ''"Do, or do not; there is no "try")'', so even when people do not gag about verifiability requiring truth ("]"), some viewers will read the "verifiability-not-truth" phrase and think, "WTF??" (trendy term for ''"sounds like utter ]"''). I can appreciate a compromise, to lower the "not-truth" phrase further down into the policy, but "]" with reality, and accept the fact that Misplaced Pages is in the truth business? -] (]) 17:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::You make some good points, but you also miss a few (possibly though due to how obvious they are). Articles ''should be'' permitted to cite known false/outdated sources. It's ''how they are used'' that's important. I can point out thousands of articles where it is ''required'' to cite such sources. One example is ]. Besides reasons such as applicable to that article, often, to show historical changes in perceptions and understandings, it is also required to cite incorrect/outdated sources (grossly paraphrased made up example: "In the 1500's scientists believed (some item we believe to be nonsense now){incorrect/outdated cite}, which was later proved to be false{newer cite with current beliefs/theories}"). | |||
| ::And of course, truth is often largely irrelevant when beliefs, belief systems and such come into play. In those instances, since for each belief system there are dozens or thousands of conflicting ones, we ''cannot'' determine truth, but can simply only posit what each believes without giving weight to which is "true". These are some of the key reasons why verifiability is more important than ''our own'' individual ''"truths"''. It's one of the reasons that "v... not t..." is so important. Numerous (many many many) Misplaced Pages articles are comprised of way too many beliefs that have counter-beliefs and no universally held "truths". Even the same goes for BLPs, where all we have is what's reported, which is at best just a shadow of the truth. Of course, in those situations, it again boils down to properly using all sources; correct or incorrect, outdated or new. If BillyBob made (notable) claims about MarySue, which were later proved to be false, they still (sources and all) should be included - but with the new information and cites presented as well. Of course, that gets back to weighing the notability and relevance of each. | |||
| ::Simple point is, it's far more complex than "old vs new" or "incorrect vs correct". It's a balancing act that needs to be encompassed by numerous other policies and guidelines to determine how such is applied in each article. And with a lot of NPOV and BALANCE (not bias) applied to ensure due weight to each individually and conflicting views as a whole. At least, those are my thoughts. | |||
| ::One last thought. Too many people seem to pick apart one single policy or guideline in an effort to improve it without looking at the bigger picture to realize that one cannot do that without determining how it affects the interaction of that policy/guideline with the numerous others we are required to adhere to. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>|<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 17:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''''Overcomplicating issues can obscure the role of truth:''''' I agree there is a balance, but when dwelling on ''"it's far more complex"'' then there is the danger to overlook the simple factors. It reminds me of the student talking to his parents, ''"We had a long discussion in philosophy class today, and I no longer know what really exists, perhaps it is all an illusion, and is anything real?"'' The parents, of course, reply like, ''"Well, we always thought your car and your allowance were real, but perhaps they no longer exist."'' Articles should be true to the sources for a specific topic, and the sources should be checked for known factual errors. The key issue is that truth is determined by the collection of sources; when there is a mixed difference of opinions, then that is the limit to the truth of those sources. When people have tried to justify the "verifiability-not-truth" phrase, they use terms such as "no ]" or Misplaced Pages does not seek "]" because that seems to be the heart of the problem (versus truth relative to sources). Instead, when articles are written and copy-edited for corrections, the editors are working with so-called "]" where a reporter focuses on what the sources have said or written. That is why "]" addresses the concept as an out-dated mode of thinking (compared to "The earth is round"), and the old sources are used to show that some people ''formerly'' believed in that concept, but secondary sources judge the earlier primary sources as having mistaken notions. WP uses secondary sources to give true opinions about the concepts, where possible. For example, a controversy in that topic concerns quoting Greek philosopher ] out-of-context, where he wrote a comparison of the flat-earth and round-earth concepts, but some people used only part of his text to "prove" he believed the earth was flat (not actually), by quoting selected phrases, out-of-context, and omitting the parts where he noted the earth as round. Step 1: Focus on truth, then the next steps involve weighing the sources and avoiding a partial out-of-context quote about a topic. The focus on truth is how slanted text is judged. When a new ] source is published which reports, ''"The conviction has been overturned"'', then WP should change the article to reflect the truth, not pretend the conviction stands as verified by an out-dated source. That is how current up-to-date sources are detected as being omitted, and the focus on truth is why an article which omits the acquittal would no longer be viewed as correct. Misplaced Pages is in the truth business, where truth is determined by all the sources, to the extent possible. Beyond that point, the truth is uncertain, but WP articles do not depend on "verifiability-not-truth" in practice, just in policy wording which confuses many people. The focus on truth is how an editor can determine a word is misspelled, versus a variant spelling, and when to append "" to emphasize a misspelled word is truly a direct quote from a source. -] (]) 00:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| IMHO, a splendid example of how things work all too often on Misplaced Pages -- for a rather different sort of take try reading ] showing an attempt to explain the reasoning behind policies, rather than counting angels on the heads of pins within policies <g>. Cheers. ] (]) 00:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | {{ |
||
| ==]== | |||
| == FUD tactics or admins know best? == | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{hat|I agree that this was an embarrassing incident, but in the interests of harmony, let's just move onwards}} | |||
| After ] got posted on WP:AN there was a flood of opposes in that WP:V RfC. That's quite interesting sociologically because a notice had been up for nearly month at ], which is transcluded on WP:AN. ] (]) 17:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Oh, and you only have 15 minutes to comment on the issue above before the offer expires! {{smiley|grin}} ] (]) 17:44, 29 October 2011 (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) | |||
| ::Many editors do ''not'' pay attention to ] on a regular basis. Thus, there is nothing whatsoever unusual about the "flood" of opposes and essentially equal flood of approves. Cheers. ] (]) 17:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :If Godber is not ], which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::For policy change proposals, perhaps something similar to what we use for "Gee, we're all getting together in NYC next weekend. Yay!!!" should be used, that way all editors are made aware of such. I understand the importance (and fun) of interacting with the community at such events, but I'd posit that community involvement in potential policy changes is probably a lot more important. And oddly, though rarely used for such, the mechanisms are already in place to ensure such involvement. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>|<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 17:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | {{ |
||
| == Just wanted to say == | |||
| == A great idea that can't be missed!!! == | |||
| 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. | |||
| Dear Mr Wales, | |||
| I wish I could give you a BarnMilkyWay but no one's come up with that, apparently. (]) | (PS: Have a good day) 00:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == == | |||
| I was wondering if you would like to include WikiBates into part of the Wiki organisation. | |||
| WikiBates is a debating part of the Wiki organisation, where once or twice a month you come up with a topic and allow to teams to battle it out to win that certain argument. | |||
| For the interested. ] (]) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I believe this is a great idea and I have 2 people to back me up so far. | |||
| :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) | |||
| yours Sincerely, | |||
| ] (]) 12:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :We already have that as part of Misplaced Pages and it happens a lot more then once or twice a month. Just check out ] or the talk page of any contentious article :) --] (]) 13:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:38, 6 January 2025
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
 | Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit. The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt. |
| This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, you can leave a message here |
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
 | This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Centralized discussion
- Refining the administrator elections process
- AI-generated images depicting living people
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder!
Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! Gooners Fan in North London (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Albert Percy Godber
Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.
Could you or your page watchers help me with Draft:Albert Percy Godber? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.
I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Godber is not WP:NOTABLE, which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. Polygnotus (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
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)