Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:49, 18 March 2010

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Your input is requested

Can I respectfully ask you to review this decision ]? It seems to have been make rather hastily (less than 48 hours after discussion was opened) and does not reflect the consensus of the discussion. It also seems to fly in the face of providing free access to all human knowledge, which I greatly support. How does one appeal such a decision? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother - this is a matter for community consensus, not for Jimbo. – ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Since community consensus is not being observed here, what is the process to appeal? (I still think Jimbo might be interested in this, though). Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a pretty strong consensus. But, as was said, this isn't really a matter for me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow - thanks for answering. I've asked several places where to find out about appealing, since the majority of comments were "oppose" and yet the decision went the other way (13 oppose, 8 support - yet support called the consensus?). So where does one appeal?Smatprt (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Jimbo himself: Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. It is not a "vote count", see WP:Consensus. – ukexpat (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, of course. But since no partnership was formed and nothing resolved between the "supports" and "opposes", no consensus was even attempted. Several suggestions were made, but the reviewer didn't respond to any of them. I should have been more clear about that. So where does one appeal this? Just answer me that and I'll go there. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Start with User:Peter cohen who "closed" the discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. For what it is worth, I misread the close. What I meant is that there seems to be a consensus against undertaking a merge. I see that the close says the opposite, perhaps Peter just mistyped? It happens. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It was myself who made the close in the interests of moving the process forward. The resolution is to start sandboxing an article to replace the current one with an eye toward Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies especially WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:PSTS. It is requested that those upset with this close work constructively in the sandbox to try to develop the best article possible. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. You closed it opposite of community consensus (13 oppose, 8 support, with what look to be sensible comments in either direction) in order to "move things forward"? Shouldn't the resolution be in the other direction? And those who aren't happy with the existing community consensus to work to sandbox something that will answer the objections?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your last question is supposed to mean, but there is evidence of meatpuppetry action in the enumeration. I take Misplaced Pages:What is consensus?#Not a majority vote seriously. The quality of the argumentation seemed to me to be very lopsided toward the "mergists" in the discussion. It seems clear to me that the arguments being made by those requesting a merge or a partial merge were more tied to reliable sources and legitimate content objections. The other side seemed to be appealing to vague notions of fair play and censorship that are not really germane to this discussion. In any case, I'm hoping that everyone will be involved in sandboxing a solution. If this fails, then it fails, but after wasting megabytes of text on this conflict we absolutely must move forward. The status quo is going to lead us to an arbitration. It is my opinion that this may be a way to forestall that seeming inevitability. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was my concern precisely. I'm hoping ScienceApologist will re-factor his remarks accordingly. Smatprt (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to clarify, but I would like you to collaborate rather than forum shop, Smatprt. For example, I would like to see you find some independent secondary sources that outline what the most important Shakespearean authorship ideas are. That would be incredibly useful to Misplaced Pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Forum shopping? Can you please explain? Are you referring to the report that I filed on Tom Reedy for numerous incivility issues? For some reason you are trying very very hard to have that report deleted. I just don't understand why you and Peter are throwing all these allegations around and also interfering with an RFC/u. Based on these actions, you two have become involved editors representing one side of this debate. Don't you see that you are feeding the flames? Why don't you just follow Jimbo's suggestion above: "Shouldn't the resolution be in the other direction? And those who aren't happy with the existing community consensus to work to sandbox something that will answer the objections?" Instead, you seem to be directing everyone to rewrite the article from top to bottom. Smatprt (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have done so on numerous occasions and supplied them for the article. Smatprt (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Then it's time to use those to sandbox a good summary style article in the sandbox. I look forward to seeing your contribution. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, since my name has been introduced into this, I should like to point out the following.

• I started the merge thread in response to the consensus among experienced editors at WP:ANI#Shakespearian fringe theory and some awful articles that the articles should be merged
• There are a number of pretty obvious sockpuppets voting in that discussion
• When I contacted people offline for their suggestions as to who the puppetmasters were, I was informed that there is a record of off-wikipedia canvassing by some of those who argue that Shakespeare did not write his own plays.
• Discussions are not votes. The closer should consider the strength of the arguments in the light of Misplaced Pages policy. This can mean that the apparent minority wins.
• I did actually post at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard an invitation for admin intervention in light of the puppetry and arguments that misrepresent WP:NPOV. I didn't expect a non-admin to arrive, but there was an awful lot of crap to cut through and the views of those at the AN/I thread needed to be taken into account.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This allegation of sock puppetry is just that - an allegation. And an unproven and uninvestigated one at that. If someone merely checks the IP's and approximate locations, I am pretty darn sure Peter's allegation will be found to be in error.

• As someone who has hunted down a number of puppets, I can find no evidence for such an allegation, much less anything "pretty obvious", as Peter notes.

• For the record, I asked Peter for any evidence of Sockpuppetry and was provided none. Smatprt (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, BenJonson is spending March Break with me as we are working on a book about Tempest together and writing an article on Hamlet, so I wouldn't be surprised if we have the same ip. He'll be back home next week, and our ips will be very different. Mizelmouse (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop the sniping back-and-forth Get back to writing the encyclopedia. There's a sandbox to play in where progress is waiting to be made. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already made a large contribution there. (I am the only one who has). But I did feel it important to address these allegations of SockPuppetry. I hope you agree that they really need to stop. Smatprt (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. In looking at ScienceApologist's further explanation of his ruling I don't think he has actually ruled in favor of either party of this debate. He's merely suspended judgement and directed everyone to create the sort of changes that need to be made. He hasn't made a ruling on any mergers or article deletions at all...yet. It's a "let's see the alternative first before deciding" approach. I think this is very smart and exactly what needs to be done in this contentious climate. Bravo!4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The following exchange, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#ScienceApologist.27s_Decision) has clarified ScienceApologist's methodology for dealing with disagreement:

Is there a point to continuing this exchange? I can't see one. Get into the sandbox and start editing. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: Despite your decision that editors should adopt a policy for which there was manifestly no consensus, Jimbo Wales has made it quite clear that your decision was erroneous. What do you propose to do about this? Why should I "play" in a sandbox for which you claim administrative privilege, in light of your clearly evident prejudices ("offending articles," etc.) and erroneous judgment? Has it ever occurred you that some of us might have better things to do than engage in a procedure controlled by your personal biases? --BenJonson (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)--BenJonson (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr Wales, you had recommended I check with Peter to see if he mistyped, because, as you said "it happens". And I did check in with Peter. But what has happened in the mean time causes me concern. Peter has represented himself as having an "outside view". However this discussion ] would seem to imply otherwise. He is obviously friends with Nishidani, one of the subjects of my RFC/u filing, and has since made comments supporting just one side of the debate across numerous talk pages and noticeboards ], ], ], ], ], ]. It was Peter who actually instigated the whole merge discussion that brought me here in the first place. As I have said to Peter, it's fine to support your friends and take on their causes, but at least don't represent yourself as having an outside view or being uninvolved. So we have two administrators, Peter and ScienceApologist who have both jumped in as "uninvolved" or "outside" editors, but they seem to be actively representing one specific faction. Is this kosher? Smatprt (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't WP:DR. Take it elsewhere, this will only make it worse. Verbal chat 22:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bullying

Jimbo, I think this kind of bullying is not acceptable. Please don't do this, or we may need an RfC/U. Hans Adler 22:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How is that bullying? I asked him not to go and start editing long-settled articles in order to make a point about a completely unrelated article. There's nothing bullying about that at all. People should not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor has a pattern of such behavior -- see : "For third parties who may be confused by looking at the examples I gave above, editor ChrisO has methodically gone through and moved each of the templates I used as examples to where he thinks they should be."

This matter was inconsequential, but this is very aggressive editing, I think. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's disappointing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And as for Jimbo's comment, my own reaction is that it is both correct and proper. An RfC/U over it? Sheesh! Jusdafax 22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What's disappointing is the amount of bad-faith assumptions being thrown around, particularly by people who should know better. Jimbo, if you had bothered to look at what I am actually doing, I am tidying up some long-standing terminological, sourcing and POV problems. This isn't "making a point", it's simple good practice. Take a look, for example, at the list of unsourced POV allegations against living persons I just deleted from Bandargate scandal. Do you think I should have left that alone? Fixing problem articles is certainly a lot more productive than bickering on talk pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec with various people) It is perfectly normal to address problems with long-settled articles as soon as they become apparent. After all, this is a wiki, and "it has always been like that", while still somewhat convincing, doesn't have the same force as in real life.

What I found really concerning is this: "You are making up policy that doesn't exist." You are simply claiming this. I challenged you to discuss interpretation of policy. You chose to propose a compromise title instead, which is fine. But then please don't act as if you had already won the dispute about policy interpretation.

WP:NPOV#Article titles sets a high standard for the use of inherently non-neutral titles:

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used as (or in) an article title. Misplaced Pages takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources.

This seems to be the only passage that allows exceptions from the principle that we only use neutral titles. The term "Climategate" appears to be used by a majority of sources, and mentioned (in inverted commas or qualified with "so-called") by many but not all others. It is at least arguable (and in my opinion true) that that's not a consensus of the sources using the term.

I think as founder of this project you should be a bit more careful not to push a specific interpretation of technical points of policy in a matter in which you seem to be emotionally invested. Hans Adler 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not emotionally invested in anything other than the neutrality of Misplaced Pages. The current name is manifestly not neutral. Please help me work towards consensus on a proper title.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some support (I'm not sure how much) for adding "controversy" to the title. Does that satisfy your concerns or do you prefer "scandal"? Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Help you work towards consensus on a proper title? You mean like this? Or by supporting one of the extremes, the one that you favour and that in my opinion is against policy? Hans Adler 23:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've already said, consensus requires both sides to find a middle ground, and I'm glad that you have at least (if somewhat grudgingly) endorsed the proposal that GoRight and I put forward, Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh noes! Now we have Gategategate! :-o Guy (Help!) 22:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• The possibility of improving on the current title by focussing on the controversy has been put forward before, but as I recall commonly derailed by those demanding the less neutral "climategate" title refusing to compromise . Consensus is more likely to be achieved by ruling that term out, and pressing for a change from "hacking incident" to "controversy". The option of "scandal" appears problematic, a dreadful email talking of deleting one's own private emails is possibly a criminal offence under post 2005 legislation but is hardly an assault on the principles of science. . . dave souza, talk 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"derailed by those demanding climategate" -- Dave, this is categorically false. There were more than 20 editors who agreed to a compromise with the word "controversy", but it was blocked by a few who insisted on the title remaining "hacking". The debate was further tainted by false accusations of canvassing. ATren (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

To repeat my previous comment, on 17 February, 2010, there was an attempt to have "hacking" removed from the title Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. 27 people supported the change and 8 opposed it. Therefore, the name change failed. Q Science (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking up diffs of the rather complex discussions, my memory on this is rather hazy and I'm glad to strike the wording concerned. . . dave souza, talk 09:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've been following this from the beginning, and we do seem to keep coming back to some variation of Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy as a title that everyone can live with. It's not my preference, but it works. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • So what does it take to make that change? As for me, I will drop all objections if we can get that change. Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy will be fine. The main point for me is that it eliminates the false notion that the scandal is primarily about the emails being leaked/hacked... this isn't news because it is a "hacking incident" but because of the content of the emails and documents. That's the key point for neutrality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• I'm really mystified. A lot of people have been defending an article on "the hack". Is this no longer a topic notable enough to have its own article? Why not have two articles, one on the hack and one on the controversy. These are two different subjects, not two different titles for the same subject. So when you say that this is a compromise, I don't quite understand. They are 2 discrete topics. Moogwrench (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no very strong opinion on where the "hack" is sufficiently notable as a standalone. I currently would be inclined to say no. However if, as seems highly unlikely, there are further developments and this turns out to have been a sophisticated and well-funded hacking incident with much interesting to be said about it, then of course a separate article would be warranted. If, as I think more likely than that but still unlikely, it is eventually revealed that someone with access to the servers released the emails because they were either politically motivated or simply horrified at the ethical breaches evident in the emails, then depending on the circumstances that might or might not warrant a separate entry. And finally, in the most likely case of all, the investigation never turns up anything, then unless I've overlooked something noteworthy, we simply don't seem to have enough standalone to write about. But those are just my musings, and as I say, I have no very strong opinion about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I guess I don't feel so alone now. If Jimbo can't get his article on Climategate to be actually called "Climategate", I suppose he can imagine how I feel trying to get right things that are far less obvious. This whole situation in here reminds me of William Golding's The Lord of the Flies. 115.128.13.88 (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The comment above was me, forgetting to log in. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• The name Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy is very similar to the name of the current article Climatic Research Unit documents. My first choice is to make Climatic Research Unit documents the main article and redirecting Climategate to it. Sole Soul (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales - Wikiversity Alternative

I have started a Wikiversity alternative, a link can be found on my "user" page here. It seems to me that different wikis with similar scopes will ultimately be better for all stakeholders. I am currently and repeatedly banned from Wikiversity, however, you would be welcome to promote my wiki there or most anywhere else as an alternative for those who would appreciate a different management style in a research oriented/collaborative learning wiki. Good job on this wiki, though. It appears it is #6 on Alexa now. Have we cured poverty yet? Has Wikiversity already cured cancer? Probably not yet, but maybe eventually. Maybe. :) EME44 08:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

How much money do you make from your speaking engagements and do you donate the proceeds back to Misplaced Pages? Ferdy789 (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't answer questions about my personal finances. I do donate significant amounts of time and expenses to the Foundation - for example, I never get reimbursed for unpaid travel that I do on behalf of the Foundation, not even to board meetings. I pay my own flights and hotels. When I go to New York to meet with potential donors - as I did recently - I fly at my own expense, I pay for my own hotel, etc. An alternative approach, which I have considered but rejected for a number of reasons, would be for me to file my expenses with the Foundation and then when they reimburse me, simply donate that money back. The main reason not to do this is that it would be a useless accounting exercise, and it's been much simpler for me to simply make sure that no money ever flows from the Foundation to me. In addition to my fund-raising activities on behalf of the Foundation - activities which bring in many times my personal income from all activities in my life, I also have at times directed revenue from things that I am doing into the Foundation. I will continue to support the Foundation with my money and time as much as I can. I will also make no apologies for having a successful career outside the Foundation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

When the heck do you find time to sleep?Thelmadatter (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This question made me laugh out loud, thank you. The reason is that just after I posted the answer above, I took a nap. I'm in London and a bit jetlagged. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity

Hey Jimbo. Just wanted to say that I strongly support your recent actions at Wikiversity. As controversial as the block/delete/desysop may have been, I am sure they were performed in the best in interests of Wikiversity and the Wikimedia Foundation. Difficult as it may have been, I believe you did the right thing, and that's what counts. All the best, FASTILY_sock 07:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Attack coatrack we discussed

I noticed while you recognized that the Carrie Prejean attack page was a coatrack, you didn't accept straight off that it was an attack page. The "encyclopedia article" was created when Miss Prejean, then 21, said that marriage was a man-woman thing. I quote the Gay/ same-sex marriage advocate mob editors:

• "Hilton's words and Prejean's answer to the marriage question are the only reason Prejean has an article today."
• "Prejean's fame beyond yet-another-state-pagaent-winner lies in the interactions with Hilton and the public reactions thereto."

Per Misplaced Pages:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view." -- Rico 18:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't helpful to insult people by calling them a 'mob'.

As to the content issue, I don't know the case well enough to have a strong opinion on whether this is a BLP1E situation, but I will say that there is at least very good reason to consider it, and my initial inclination would be to agree with you. As it currently stands, I re-iterate my opinion from before: the article is a fiasco and embarrassment. I'm dealing with several different issues at once these days, and so I'm not going to have time to personally get involved in this one, but I do hope I will be kept informed over time as to how it progresses.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Rico, since I am the first quote above, I will note that I not a mob member. Even mice don't scurry from me. I followed the Prejean "controversy" closely at first and have cleaned up vandal edits on wikipedia to her article (as I have also done to James O'Keefe more recently). I also know that state pageant winners often do not get to have articles on wikipedia because they get deleted (not be me, but I'm more of an inclusionist if articles are verifiable). There is no question that Prejean's notability stems from her answer given in the pageant and Perez's subsequent baiting to increase the controversy. Since then she has had a very rocky road, and the article necessarily reflects what has been reported, and we need to avoid being too gratuitous--Jimbo's comment is not surprising because unless you've followed the controversy closely, you would be surprised to know the overall tenor of her coverage was exceedingly negative. But she's way too famous now not to have an article, imho. Its always fair to debate whether and how certain things should be worded, but those who may not agree with you aren't necessarily some cabal of gay marriage aficianados.--Milowent (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)