Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:30, 18 May 2008

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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: 2 days

Archives

Index -index- As of January 16, 2003 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 29, 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Smile!

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

Smile!

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

Wikinews

I have noticed that you stated that you think the actions of an OTRS leak at Wikinews was unacceptable. I just want to say a few things. We are a news agency. We report news, regardless of who its about or what its about. We consider our original reporting to be very valuable, but it seems that in my opinion Wikimedia doesn't care. WMF uses secret mailing lists, secret wikis to discuss stuff that I or other Wikinewsies e-mail the staff about. We rarely get any exclusive statements from you or WMF and we certainly are not on the top of the list for giving statements to. I think we deserve some respect. We IMO get none from WMF. I think the recent actions of the staff have shown that they don't want to contribute to WN in any manner. Its really disgusting that we have to force our way into getting information from WMF. As a news agency, and a project of WMF, we should not have to do that. I think this battle has gone on long enough. Please, show us some respect. We more than deserve it. I have been on WN for 2 1/2 years and I never have seen such a great amount of disrespect from WMF. DragonFire1024 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, in my only remarks on the subject, I stated very specifically the Wikinews should be given the same respect as the New York Times. If an OTRS volunteer leaked an email from a 3rd party to the New York Times, I would regard that as a grave abuse of the trust that people place in us when they send us private email. Far from showing a lack of respect for Wikinews, my point is that we should treat Wikinews the same as any other news agency! I will also clarify this over at Wikinews.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the abuse part, but also note if the Foundation, the board or anyone else affiliated with WMF in that sense, would make an effort to contact us, or reply to are requests for statements even if to defend themselves, we might not have had a leak. The information in the ticket, at least the specifics as to who from (name of person) and such can still be protected while at the same time, providing us with valuable information to a story. Even if not the ticket, I am sure there is someone who could have commented without violating privacy.

The lack of respect part comes form the foundation ignoring us and only showing interest in us when they see us doing something they call "bad". The lack of respect comes from the fact that some people have comment on the situations, without reading the information. They see a headline or a word or two and panic. I honestly think that no one involved with the deletion or articles and the so called abuse complaints, read anything in any of the articles. If they had, they would have clearly noticed a few things immediately: 1) Neither of them were published, ever. 2) Both were in some form of preparation/development. Had anyone read them, which means looking at the sources and such, then they clearly would see that, and have seen that the information present, and not finished, was all backed up by sources.

I ventured somewhat off track but my point is, WMF goes around moaning and crying when someone misquotes them, but when we step up to present both sides of a situation we get shot down without any consideration whatsoever. "should treat us like the Times" or "any other agency" is a lot different from doing. DragonFire1024 (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, this is NicholasTurnbull (now at Wikinews) here. I'm afraid to say that I don't believe that your logic regarding Wikinews being treated with "the same respect as the New York Times" really matches what has happened. The actual circumstances are akin to the Foundation, assuming it had the power to remove material from the New York Times at will, deleting a column from publication simply because it contained material unfavourable to the Foundation that had been leaked in an unauthorised manner. In other words, if the Times published the leak, the Foundation could not simply step in and remove the material; in this case, because the subject of the article has ultimate control over the publisher, this conflict of interest has allowed a whitewashing that is unacceptable in terms of journalistic ethics. Wikinews is meant to be presenting news neutrally from the views of the Foundation and cannot be considered to be its propaganda organ. Circumstances where the WMF disagrees with the publication of material should be dealt with as if the WMF was an external party, and to do otherwise is a blatant violation of the Foundation's stated principles of ethics. I call on you to please keep your statement on how we are to be treated, then, and in the future raise disputes over article content just as if you were doing so to the Times: engage in dialogue with us, rather than abusing your power to remove that material. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas, I had nothing to do with anything related to removing any material from Wikinews. I barely even know what this is all about. The only thing I have commented on or been involved with is from the OTRS side. I work closely with the OTRS team, and my remarks were simply about what I think the right approach for OTRS is. My objection was that my words about that matter were being misinterpreted as disrespect for Wikinews, and I think that is not fair to me.

As to the question of the material being removed *for legal reasons*, I have no opinion about it, as I am not an expert on the law, do not really understand what happened and why, etc. I think it rather absurd to assume that the reason Mike Godwin made his request had anything to do with PR, and certainly I am aware of no discussions anywhere that would support such a view. You do know who Mike Godwin is, right? Not exactly Mr. Censorship! Eventually I will likely come to an opinion about this as I learn more about it. In the meantime, I think it is important to recognize that there are always going to be times and circumstances when legal constraints will make it necessary to pause and assess before blindly rushing forward with a story that may well be false and damaging. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo

Firstly, here's a barnstar.

		The Original Barnstar
		For being Mr Wales. SimsFan 18:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you will get these requests a lot, but I was also wondering if you could sign my guestbook at User:SimsFan/SignBook and anothers at User:The_Canadian_Roadgeek/Guestbook (NB:For The Canadian Roadgeek, would you put I asked you to sign.)
I would really appreciate it if you could take a few moments. Thanks. SimsFan 18:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC) JIMBO, YOU ROCK.

The German Admins

Dear Mr. Wales, unfortunately i sued some of your german admins for using my pictures without permission. I revoced my permission, because some of them banned me, without any reason: it is all a libel and slander. I wrote a mail not only to Misplaced Pages Germany, but also to Misplaced Pages International. Nobody answers. I only wanted to tell you, because I think you should know there is going something wrong with your idea. I was interested in working for Misplaced Pages, but the german admins are a little like IM of the Stasi, while Misplaced Pages is definitely NOT the StaSi. Maybe you will read this and look for a solution. Yours sincerely: --Gwynplain (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

*rofl* - wouln't it be so funny, it would be possible to take you to the court, because of these insulting insinuation. Marcus Cyron (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like Sour grapes gone wrong... this copyright has expired and de:Spezial:Contributions/Gwynplain and Special:Contributions/Gwynplain.--Hu12 (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(BK) Wait Marcus, he/she/it sued Misplaced Pages already respectively he/she/it charged against person or persons unknown for felony at the federal prosecutor in Augsburg. He/She/It posted it here and e-mailed something the german OTRS-Support-Team, certainly not only the german. Achates (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You (= Gwynplain) can write a lot - what you do is important. And so it would be interesting, what would happen, if her really has done it. With Edits like the one above he will be "very successfull" ;). Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If he really send it in, it is obvious against Misplaced Pages:No legal threats, and he should be banned from all projects. -- Tobnu (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true and the indignation and the lack of behaviour (AGF) of the german admins is the reason for it. I will complain every admin of the german wikipedia (not wikipedia herself!), who violates my rights and tells libel and slander. It is no violation of Misplaced Pages:No legal threats to complain single user-admins, which abuse their rights. You can't hide behind Misplaced Pages:No legal threats for your mistakes, it is wrong to believe that. The german admins and their behaviour is a shame for wikipedia. Not wikipedia! But maybe I am wrong? It is also possible, I also do mistakes. But not this time. Tobnu, Marcus Cyron & Achates should be banned from being admins. You are not automatically right because you are admin. I gave every admin the opportunity to talk nice and friendly with me, but they spit on it. Also I think I am the one and only banned user, who organized a meeting of wikipedians: de:Misplaced Pages:Augsburg, the first ever there. And I was there tho they banned me without any proof. By the way: it is the story of Augeas, not the Sour Grapes, the only grapes here are The Grapes of Wrath, seeded by incompetent admins, who think they are owner of the german wikipedia. And as the last: maybe this will change the social interaction in the german wikipedia, the german wikipedia loses every day authors: Einer der Hauptgründe: Der Umgangston innerhalb der Gemeinde wird immer rauer. Translation: One of the main reasons: the conversational tone within the community is getting rougher. I am only the top of the iceberg and i have the courage to tell it. Ban or listen to me - it is your decision. I will leave Misplaced Pages now until your decision and when you decide against me, forever. No problem for both sides, I hope. Please send your answer by e-mail. I want to enjoy my life, with our without wikipedia. --Gwynplain (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

First: Jimbo don't have the power to take our Adminship. This only depends to the Comunity of the german language Misplaced Pages. You're begging and crying at the false point. And I belive, Jimbo isn't really interested in your personal problems. Second: please read the article exactly, Gwynplain. The article don't speaks about the german language Misplaced Pages - there's written about the english language Misplaced Pages. Third: You are on the false way. You can't take back a given free licence, because of the bad admins are so cruel to you.... You should had think about that before. Fourth: I hope you will be blocked for all projects soon because of Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How to create a WkiProject

How do you create a WikiProject? --BRTman666 (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)BRTman666

Hi there, reading Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Guide might be useful. Hope this helps! The Helpful One 11:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-founder or sole founder?

The article Jimmy Wales reads that Jimbo co-founded Misplaced Pages with Larry Sanger, but his own userpage reads that he is the sole founder. I assume that the statement in the article is the correct one, as it is sourced, and the same statement is also found in the Misplaced Pages and History of Misplaced Pages articles, so why does his userpage state that he is the only founder? I personally think that, if not mention Sanger directly, it should at least give the truth that Wales is the co-founder, or if this isn't the truth, all of the articles I read should be worded differently, as they currently clearly state that the site was founded jointly by Wales and Sanger.--Urban Rose 21:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Jimmy believes he is the sole founder, but the the comminity in encyclopedic articles goes with what is neutral, verifiable etc. Since this is user space, Jimmy can do what he wants. He can declare himself King of the World here, but that does not make it true, or neutral. Zginder 2008-05-17T21:41Z (UTC)

Words can and do mean different things to different people and different things in different contexts. There is nothing wrong with Jimbo being the sole founder in some senses of the term and also co-founder in other senses of the term. See semantics. If natural language was at all logical, Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo would not be possible. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue highlights for me some of the problems that Misplaced Pages has in achieving neutrality. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to take a stand on controversial issues, but in this case it does... against me, of course. This is mostly due to trolling, in my opinion. A proper encyclopedic approach would be for Misplaced Pages to not take this stand, but to merely report appropriately on the controversy. This is impossible currently because some people are such extreme POV pushers on this topic that it is impossible for good editors to maintain the article in a reasonable state of compromise. I try to mostly stay out of it in this particular case, lest I be accused of undue influence. It is a bit sad for me, though, that we fail so badly in this case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for Parakeet parakeet Parakeet parakeet parakeet parakeet Parakeet parakeet. --StormCommander (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV does NOT mean "neutral", and you yourself said so!

At least, according to User:Filll, about a week ago. That section of the Talk Page is archived, but he said it again here. Can you shed some light on this, perhaps in that newer section? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV does mean neutral. "Actually, even Jimbo gave a speech on this subject a couple of years ago at one of the Wikimedia meetings where he pointed out that the term 'NPOV' was a very unfortunate choice of terminology because it confused people into thinking that the articles were supposed to be neutral." I have no idea what this refers to, actually. I do not agree with it at all, and I have no idea what I might have said 'a couple of years ago' which might have been misinterpreted in this way.

The important question that Filll is raising is how we reconcile the notion of neutrality with the notion of "in proportion to their prominence" but for me that seems pretty obvious. If you have an article about the moon which treats equally the idea that the moon is made of rocks, and the idea that the moon is made of cheese, you don't have neutrality, you have extreme POV pushing for a radical minority view! How, in practice, to sort out a proper sense of proportion and balance is always going to be tricky and involve thoughtful consultation and dialog, of course. There is no magic formula. But a recognition that some views are widely held and grounded in a reasonable analysis of evidence, and that some views are extreme fringe views and not based in evidence, is pretty important to achieving neutrality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But what Filll is arguing is the opposite usage of the word "neutral". He's saying that when an article properly describes a conflict by accurately stating that a vast majority holds the mainstream consensus, and that a tiny minority fringe holds a different view, that this is "not neutral", because, as he argues, when one side has more weight, that is "bias", and therefore not neutral. I've tried to explain to him that this is not what those words refer to on WP, and that neutrality refers to when the viewpoint of the editor or some group colors the presentation of the material in a way that is not accurate, and not when proportionate weight is accurately described in favor of one and not the other. Am I right here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right. What we are looking for is often a way to "go meta" in a way that different parties of different beliefs can agree to. Normally, descriptions of how prevalent a particular belief is can be something that people on all sides can successfully agree upon. I hold that X is true. You hold that not-X is true. As a rough cut, we can say that although X is a view held by a minority of economists (suppose), some of them quite prominent, not-X is generally more widely held by economists, and there is a lively debate about it, or perhaps there was a lively debate about it, but now that debate has died down, or... this is all useful information for the newcomer trying to understand the field.

Normally where this tends to get contentious is around beliefs that are not like my X-example, above. In my example, we have a generally respectable belief whose validity is being actively debated. Some other examples where we might have trouble would be beliefs that are so far out that virtually no one serious holds them (crackpot pseudoscience), or beliefs that are so politically popular that alternatives are perhaps unfairly discriminated against. Tough issues, and of course everyone who holds a crackpot pseudoscientific notion is likely to view the situation as a valiant fight against unfair discrimination, etc. EVEN SO, if we remove the opinionated words from the above, the advocates of the view are likely to agree to the factual situation, which is that virtually no one believes the theory. There is no magic formula to tell us when someone has crossed the line from sensible advocacy for the inclusion of a minority viewpoint into pointless advocacy for the inclusion of nonsense. Good editors have to think about it and talk about it in an atmosphere of respect to try to sort out a solution that balances a lot of competing concerns.

This is not easy, but it is what we do. And when we do it well, we can be proud to call ourselves Wikipedians.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that User:Filll's concerns have to do with situations where there is solid expert opinion that differs from popular opinion ; that seems to be resolved by identifying some articles like evolution as scientific subjects that contain a balanced NPOV account of scientific opinion and omit popular misconceptions as they are covered in articles dealing with other than the science itself. Creationists wish to insert creationism in evolution claiming NPOV says it should be there; which is nonsense. The other extreme I encountered at AIDS denialism where some people got it into their head that since there is no good science for it, the claims of the AIDS denialists should not be covered in that article; which is also nonsense. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design views on evolution are fringe with almost zero support outside the US (one twentieth of the world by population and evolution is not a US subject) so we do not need to tag evolution as a scientific subject merely to keep that POV out of the article. We are not a scientific encyclopedia but obviously science is mainstream and we treat science subjects according to mainstream beliefs, just like with everything else. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of complex situations :) Unfortunately I think Nightstream and Filll are talking at cross purposes to some extent, and Filll is far from arguing that "saying that when an article properly describes a conflict by accurately stating that a vast majority holds the mainstream consensus, and that a tiny minority fringe holds a different view, that this is "not neutral"." He's actually saying that in an article about a certain film which is viewed by 91% of film critics reported by Rotten Tomatoes as a turkey, and which promotes pseudoscience regarded as a religious view and not science by over 99% of the relevant scientific community, the article should reflect the majority views and should show the majority responses to claims the film makes when describing the claims, not in a separate "criticisms" section. It's as much a question of "equal validity" as anything else. Of course the views presented in the film have to be described neutrally as the minority views they are, but they have to be shown in the context of the majority views. As I understand it. Of course I welcome further clarification in this tricky situation where consultation and dialogue is currently in progress. Thanks again, .. dave souza, talk 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Seems Arbitrator views on external linking to this site are being pre-emptivly overuled by attemps at talk page democracy. Linking to the homepage of ED can easily make way for "featured articles" to be viewed, such was the case in "MONGO", which led to the initial Arbcom ruling. link of inerest Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica#External_Link_to_site. Any input or clarification may help cull, this already contentious situation from becoming a log-term honeypot of drama. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, in the past the arbitrators forbid the link to ED's website, not the usage of the URL's name without there being a link. Not even allowing the name of the URL to ED's site is blatant censorship. As somebody pointed out in that discussion, the most recent ArbCom ruling on attack sites has been for the community to figure it out and they did, through Misplaced Pages:Linking to external harassment. If ArbCom has or does in the future specifically request that ED's URL be censored, then they should be ignored -- not for the sake of democracy, but for the sake of rational individualism. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, so ArbCom rulings hold no greater authority than democratic mobs. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom rulings do in fact hold greater authority than that of mobs, democratic or otherwise. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying "ArbCom rulings hold greater authority than community consensus"? I think that this Jimbo-ism might get a few more backs up than normal... Martinp23 19:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying exactly that. The idea that somehow "the community" could ever overrule the core principles of Misplaced Pages, for example, is just wrong. The ArbCom will desysop people, and quite appropriately, if they try. As a practical matter, of course, the community does not act so stupidly, and the ArbCom is quite properly deeply respectful of the normal community processes. But the community can vote 1000-1 to overturn NPOV, or NPA, or similar, and that would just be too bad, and likely some bonkers admins would get desysopped over it. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and never has been.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it is this: Where the URL is from should not matter. If it is used in an article to source a piece of information, then it should be allowed regardless of where it points to. If WP/WMF doesn't like ED and what they have to say or not say, then too bad. This is not a censorship game and ArbComm has no authority to rule over community consensus. They also have no authority to censor a link because they don't like their content. My question is why the sudden censorship spree? DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Guestbook

Here's that Thank You Award, for signing my guestbook.

		The SimsFan Special Thank You Award
		For Signing My Guestbook, Thanks. SimsFan 10:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hope you like it. SimsFan 10:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
JIMBO WALES!!! YOU ROCK!!!