| Revision as of 08:45, 13 December 2016 view sourceMBlaze Lightning (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,562 editsm Reverted edits by 77.234.40.181 (talk) to last version by MBlaze Lightning← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:14, 10 January 2025 view source Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,539 edits →Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{pp-move|small=yes}} | |||
| {{Stb}} | |||
| {{noindex}} | |||
| {{Stb}} | |||
| {{Usercomment}} | {{Usercomment}} | ||
| {{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed| |
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|}} | ||
| {{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates.'''<br /> | {{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an ].'''<br /> | ||
| '''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s ].<br />The current ] occupying "community-selected" seats |
'''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s .<br />The current ] occupying "community-selected" seats are ], ], ] and ].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is ].'''}}}} | ||
| {{Notice|1={{Center|1=''' |
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''This page is ] and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, <br> ] '''}}}} | ||
| {{Talk header|search=yes}} | {{Talk header|search=yes}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}} | {{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}} | ||
| {{annual readership}} | |||
| {{Press | |||
| | subject = talkpage | |||
| | author = Matthew Gault | |||
| | title = Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit | |||
| | org = ] | |||
| | url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit | |||
| | date = 8 December 2021 | |||
| | quote = The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other. | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| | algo = old( |
| algo = old(10d) | ||
| | archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d | | archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| | counter = |
| counter = 252 | ||
| | maxarchivesize = 350K | | maxarchivesize = 350K | ||
| | archiveheader = {{aan}} | | archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| | minthreadsleft = |
| minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Centralized discussion}} | {{Centralized discussion}} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| {{-}} | {{-}} | ||
| == Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder! == | |||
| == Systematic problems at US-Russia articles == | |||
| My first post to this talk, after editing here for over five years. | |||
| A new article, ], is one of a number that addresses recent, apparent conflicts between the United States and Russia. The article begins, | |||
| {{tq|''"The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has concluded Russia influenced the United States 2016 election to help elect Donald Trump as President of the United States."''}} | |||
| It is sourced to articles from the ''Washington Post'' and NPR , both of which state that anonymous U.S. officials have told the media that the CIA concluded as much. Here is the ''Washington Post'' quote, which is typical of media statements on this issue more broadly: | |||
| {{tq|''"The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter."''}} | |||
| Again, these statements are attributed, ''anonymously'', to U.S. officials who say they are familiar with the intelligence and can speak authoritatively, if not officially, on the CIA's behalf. In our article, there are no officials, attribution, anonymity: we write the CIA has concluded XYZ as a fact. | |||
| I've edited on a number of articles that involve recent deaths and BLP issues, that this kind of editing, where attributed statements become fact, doesn't fly in that editing crowd. In U.S.-Russia articles however, despite hard work any many good contributions from editors on all sides, it is far more common. This is especially problematic for anyone with even a modicum of historical knowledge about intelligence agencies: officials may speak on their behalf, they may produce reports, etc., but what an agency has actually concluded on a given incident may remain unknown even decades after it has occurred (if any comprehensive conclusion is reached). I think the stakes are high: the U.S. and Russia are two major nuclear armed powers, and we have a responsibility to write our articles on U.S-Russia issues with neutrality and caution. We need to get it ''right.'' | |||
| I'm making a post here because I think this deserves community discussion. I'm pinging a number of people: {{u|Mandruss}} and {{u|TheRedPenOfDoom}} who have often corrected me at BLP articles, {{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}}, {{u|The Four Deuces}} and {{u|Kingsindian}} who I've seen provide plenty of commentary on historical articles here, and {{u|Ocaasi}} and {{u|SlimVirgin}}, who have disagreed in the past, but who I think care about careful editing. If any of you think others might have insight, I would very much appreciate your asking them. -] (]) 19:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :In my opinion, this is not a good venue to have a content discussion. Our policies seem pretty clear on how we treat information from reliable sources. As to the anonymous sources used by reliable sources for assertions of fact, I refer you to ].- ]] 20:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks {{u|MrX}} for your comment. I think this is larger than a content question, though content is what suffers in the end if we don't research and write these articles with the utmost caution. I'm bringing this here because I think it's been an issue for years, and I see it getting worse every month. -] (]) 23:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that articles should distinguish between facts and opinions and should be clear on whose opinions they are expressing and whether those opinions have been expressed publicly or are being filtered through anonymous sources. And when opinions are mentioned, we need to explain the degree of their acceptance. I think though the problem is wider than ] says. During the recent U.S. presidential election campaign, there has been a group of experienced editors who have been active among all the articles who have in my opinion injected a pro-Clinton bias into them to the detriment of all her opponents. Many of these editors have histories of involvement in controversies on GMOs, Eastern European issues, libertarian-related articles and the 2012 election. They even insisted on using a 2009 picture of her, which of course makes her look younger than she actually is. A group run by David Brock called "Correct the Record" has coordinated people to influence discussions at a number of websites, and I think it would be a good idea to see whether it has happened here. ] (]) 22:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's also been no shortage of ''very'' aggressive pro-Trump editors. In other words, there are editors on both sides promoting their views just like most other controversial topics. ] (]) 22:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{reply to|Shock Brigade Harvester Boris}} I've seen editors who are presumably coming from all perspectives edit productively (pro/anti-Clinton/Trump/US/Russia), and others edit disruptively. Ideally, everyone leaves their opinions behind and edits neutrally. But this is not working at US-Russia articles, and is the point of my post: many articles are overwhelmed by edits and editors that fail to distinguish between accusation, allegation, innuendo, and fact - and are even hostile to these distinctions. For me, who has zero allegiance to the geopolitical interests or political legitimacy of either the U.S. or Russian governments, it is practically impossible to edit on these articles unless I want to adopt a partisan approach. This hurts Misplaced Pages, and does a disservice to our readers. -] (]) 23:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| :::As expected, there were pro-Trump editors. But they did not show any evidence of sophistication or coordination and were mostly new editors who managed to get themselves blocked or banned. Although they provided disruption, they were not effective in influencing the articles. ] (]) 22:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::::I'm not aware that we have a policy or guideline that turns a fact ("officials concluded...") into an opinion because the reliable source relied on information from anonymous sources. The Washington Post and The New York Times did not offer their opinion; they reported facts about what government officials have concluded. Whether the government officials' conclusions are actually true are outside of the scope of our role as encyclopedia editors.- ]] 23:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]] | |||
| :::That "also" is much appreciated, Shock. :) I suppose it's frowned upon to post pictures on Jimbo's talk page, but I must say I made <s>SageRad</s> (or was it another sage?) cross trying to add a photo of artwork representing Putin from the Abode of Chaos on any of the "oh no, the Russians are coming!" pages. I don't think it's been deleted from the ] page in the end... but it did get booted from ], which, of course, has been another "lively" page. ^^ If you've never seen the Demeure du Chaos, Mr. Wales, I hope you'll take the time next time you're in SE France. ] (]) 01:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. ] (]) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If Godber is not ], which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? ] (]) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I dunno, but ] wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. ] (]) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ::::And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". ] (]) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Godber's photographs include "views of the ] including large numbers of cars traveling to ], and the ]. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the ] Homestead in ] with scenes of farm life, including ], ] sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the ], ], ], the ], and the Hillside Railway Workshops); ] (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, ], ], ], ] and ]. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the ], and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the ], ], ] area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori ] and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." ] (]) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. ] (]) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Just wanted to say == | |||
| * I note that you had already started a discussion on this topic on the article Talk page . I think you made a mistake by opening up the same discussion here. You should go back there and respond to Neutrality's message, which I thought was well put. If you wanted more opinions, I think you should have posted only a short neutral request here for more editors to participate over there. Per ], "Notifications must be ], neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief..." --] (]) 22:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| **It is entirely appropriate to take talk page discussions to other fora in order to obtain a wider input. ] (]) 22:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| **{{reply to|Bob K31416}} I think my note was polite, clear and brief. However I think this issue needs a larger conversation beyond ], one you should also participate in. That's why I brought it here. -] (]) 23:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::For a recent example of an appropriate notification here per ], see ]. --] (]) 01:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| * ] was anonymous. Any further questions? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| **I don't see the bearing of your comment on this discussion ]. The ] revealed that the US government itself illegally tried to influence an American election, "and attempts to cover it up, led deeply into the upper reaches of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and the White House." ] (]) 01:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| **How did our Misplaced Pages article cover the Deepthroat event while it was breaking? And yes, I have a lot of questions, but I certainly won't be wanting any of your input. Frankly ] that's a very unhelpful comment. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| 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. | |||
| Let me try to set out something that I think will be very close to something that everyone can agree upon. In many cases the provenance of some information is relevant to the readers understanding of the degree of trust that should be placed in that information. It is almost always good writing for Misplaced Pages to add things like "According to the New York Times, citing anonymous sources at the CIA..."--] (]) 04:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| I wish I could give you a BarnMilkyWay but no one's come up with that, apparently. (]) | (PS: Have a good day) 00:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This works well but only when it's one source, maybe two, reporting on something. Once you have a dozen or so sources saying the same thing, it becomes impractical to list all the "According to's". In this case, the relevant "according to" is "the CIA".] (]) 15:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's not necessarily true at all. The statement, {{tq|''"The CIA has concluded that Russia..."''}} is very different from saying {{tq|''"U.S. officials state that the CIA has concluded that Russia..."''}}, for two important reasons. First, because this is how almost ''all'' reliable sources report the news. Second, there's a reason those sources attribute the statement: pretending that anybody knows what "The CIA has concluded" is a hopeless exercise. -] (]) 15:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::''"because this is how almost all reliable sources report the news"'' - that's just not true. In fact, pretty much the opposite of what you claim: , etc. ] (]) 07:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agree with Darouet. "The CIA" means you can read it at www.cia.gov , and that you can ask any CIA official what the position of the agency is, and they will tell you. See ] and also ]s. When anonymous sources are quoted, we need to specifically say either "according to anonymous CIA officials" or if it is only being sourced from a single media outlet then instead the phrase would be as Jimbo put it (i.e. mention NYT specifically as getting the scoop). When you have independently-confirmed reports from multiple major newsmedia talking to *different* and preferably multiple anonymous sources within the government, then you can drop back to "according to some officials within the CIA" or the like. When you have an official and officially-public opinion of some CIA bigwig at a press conference, which is VERY different from anonymous leaks (whether intentional leaks or the more usual sort), then and only then can wikipedia say in wikipedia's voice that "The CIA said X." Words have meaning, and wikipedia needs to have better control of ourselves than other organizations that begin with the letter W, methinks. ] (]) 16:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your comment. I agree that in almost all cases, and especially in contentious political articles, rigorously attributing and sourcing information can only help readers. I have learned things when other editors critiqued my writing by demanding attribution, and wish this were more common practice, above all at the U.S.-Russia articles I've referenced. -] (]) 07:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == == | |||
| :I went over and started to implement some attribution to unnamed U.S. officials, but on reading this article cited there it may be that the reports, not necessarily the validity of their conclusions, are being confirmed by named officials and Trump. However, it's not clear whether the named officials and Trump are commenting on news reports or government reports. The news situation on this is a bit unclear for now as it is breaking news and will probably clarify as the story develops. --] (]) 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| For the interested. ] (]) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The reports are also contested in the US intelligence community. For instance this ''NYT'' piece, "C.I.A. Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence," reports not one piece of evidence but states, {{tq|''"The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome."''}} -] (]) 15:54, 12 December 2016 (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) | |||
| :I also don't see the release of the report to government officials (e.g. leaders of the Senate and Congress) as being anonymous. These named leaders have confirmed that they've been told about the report and they've given a very short summary - the CIA believes that Russia hacked to interfere in the US election. The CIA officials who confirmed the existence of the report were anonymous, but I think we can trust the NY Times, WaPo, NPR, CNN, senators and congressmen etc. when they say that there was a report. As far as I know the details haven't been published. So the claims about this incomplete report/conclusion being anonymous strike me as being misleading. It's incomplete, nobody at the CIA has publicly put their name on it (what else is new?) but the existence of the report has been confirmed by the best sources we know of. Let's try not to muddy the waters. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 20:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy new year == | |||
| ::You did not read my post carefully. My concern isn't just anonymous sources, it's sourcing on Misplaced Pages. If the NYT, WaPo, NPR and CNN say, {{tq|''"According to US officials, the CIA has drafted a report concluding that Russia,"''}} this '''attribution should ''not'' be dropped here on Misplaced Pages'''. Similarly, if newspapers write that the CIA has concluded Russia interfered in the US election, our article title should not be "Russian interference in the US election." {{reply to|Smallbones}} do you think that departure from allegation or attribution into declared fact, in either of these instances, is defensible scholarship? -] (]) 05:50, 13 December 2016 (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) | |||
| :::Agree that an encyclopedic entry should meet the "There was" test. "There was a ]", "There was an ]". "There was ]." and should not be responding to crystallballing questions, such as the hypothetical "Is there ]?", or "Was there ]?" ] (]) 06:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == == | |||
| == BLP violation at Serbo-Croation Misplaced Pages == | |||
| That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Edgar, | |||
| ::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to guess that you are making a complaint about the Serbo-Croatian Misplaced Pages (SH =SerboHorvatsky?) I believe Jimmy has great difficulty reading and following all the goings on there, like most of us English speakers do. Could you politely and briefly list the articles of concern and what you think that Jimmy can do about them? Thanks in advance for your understanding. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 01:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to from {{u|Tryptofish}}? | |||
| :: Sigh. The original poster above is another sock of {{user|Operahome}}, aka the "Igor Janev spammer", who will no doubt continue to swamp this page with more socking rants shortly. The problem is: in this particular matter, he has a point, and it would be good if Jimbo (or the Foundation) could deal with it. Background: Operahome's single-purpose activity on Misplaced Pages has been to push promotional articles about a guy called Igor Janev, a (just-below-notable) academic from Macedonia. We don't know if Operahome is Janev himself or somebody close to him (could be a family member or something; definitely somebody with close real-life contacts though). Somebody pissed off by Operahome's disruption on sh-wiki then wrote a satirical piece about Janev (in user space, but with a redirect from article space), presenting Macedonia as "Janevistan" (]. Operahome wants it deleted – rightly. It is quite clearly a serious BLP violation, and just because Wikipedians are rightly pissed off about Operahome's antics doesn't justify those. Since administrators on sh are apparently unwilling to delete the page, it would be good if the Foundation stepped in and deleted it as an office action. | |||
| :... 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. | |||
| :: (Please, people, help keep this section clean from more socking: delete any contribution by new suspect IPs on sight. And, Operahome: if you want anything done about this, then please, please, for the love of god, do one thing: stay out of here.) ] ] 06:04, 13 December 2016 (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) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:14, 10 January 2025
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
 | Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit. The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt. |
| This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, you can leave a message here |
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
 | This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Centralized discussion
- Refining the administrator elections process
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
Happy New Year to Misplaced Pages's Founder!
Happy New Year Jimbo Wales! Wish you luck in 2025! Gooners Fan in North London (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Albert Percy Godber
Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.
Could you or your page watchers help me with Draft:Albert Percy Godber? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.
I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Godber is not WP:NOTABLE, which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. Polygnotus (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I dunno, but User:Sulfurboy wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. Polygnotus (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". FloridaArmy (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Godber's photographs include "views of the Hutt Valley including large numbers of cars traveling to Trentham Racecourse, and the Hutt River. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the Mendip Hills Homestead in Canterbury, New Zealand with scenes of farm life, including haymaking, merino sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the Ross Reservoir, Otago Boys' High School, Seacliff Mental Hospital, the 1926 Dunedin Exhibition, and the Hillside Railway Workshops); Invercargill (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, Moeraki, Tuatapere, Waiau River, Oamaru and Port Chalmers. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the Burnside Iron Mills, and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the Piha, Karekare, Anawhata area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori marae and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." FloridaArmy (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. Here's a link to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Just wanted to say
You have created something valuable to everyone on the Internet. I'm sure you get this a lot, but thank you.
It may sound weird, but Misplaced Pages has helped me through some tough times. We can never thank you enough for this sometimes infighting, sometimes peaceful, sometimes divided, but always united community You are the backbone of the cabal of editors thriving community that is Misplaced Pages.
I wish I could give you a BarnMilkyWay but no one's come up with that, apparently. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 00:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Requests for comment/Severe Problems in hewiki
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Summary:
This document intends to show the problematic situation in Hebrew Misplaced Pages (hewiki), and provide evidence that it has been overtaken by a group of mostly religious and nationalist editors, who prevent others from achieving higher permissions while promoting their own allies.
–Novem Linguae (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Happy new year
Good days, Jimbo. I'd like to say that Chinese Misplaced Pages is introducing ARBCOM System currently, since Arbcom on this project, and in fact all the project is originated from the idea of yours, do you have any opinion for that? Any hints, advice or suggestions? -Lemonaka 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors
That doesn't sound good. From The Forward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. CMD (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Edit_request and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Heritage_Foundation_planning_to_dox_Wikipedia_editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to these concerns from Tryptofish?
- ... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, Jimbo Wales will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than Claudine Gay was.
- Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage et al. is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Sita Bose (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
- As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)