Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:22, 5 October 2011

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 when more than 2 sections are present.

Policy commission

Policy pages are different from article pages because the original ideas of editors are prohibited from article pages, but not from policy pages.

Just offering a suggestion that you consider appointing a commission of people you know to be trustworthy competent clear writers, that oversees the editing of the policy pages. The purpose of the commission is to help by noting problems and/or suggesting changes. If the editors at a policy page are either unwilling or unable to make appropriate changes, the commission would have the authority to make the changes. These changes by the commission could not be reverted, except possibly through an appeal to the commission, which the commission would either accept or reject. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I too favor something like that, except I believe the policy committee should be elected rather than appointed. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons for Jimbo appointing a commission is to avoid the politics of an election, which can include voting based on political alliances, stealth canvassing, etc. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea of "governance from on high" for policies or for anything much other than mechanical operations might have "unforeseen consequences" froma legal point of view. While I think it would be great if salaried Wikimedia employees had some authority over articles and editors, such would assuredly affect the legal status regarding libel and other laws in various nations. By devolving the decisions to the "community", the foundation has a layer of insulation it should be unwilling to forego. This is not actually "mere opinion" but from many years experience as a contractor for an on-line service. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's also just wrong, I'm afraid, Collect. There would be no legal ramifications at all to the Foundation doing such a thing, and reasoning about legal risk has played as close to zero a role in our decision making around these issues as I think it is possible. This is an oft-repeated myth, that we do things the way we do them so as to insulate the Foundation from legal risk, but it just isn't true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear that - I was using my experience with a "major ISP" and its legal department which basically said the ISP did not wish to get involved in anything remotely approaching a legal case <g>. I ended up seeing an attorney about a threat from an aggrieved party, and (thankfully for free) he gave the opinion that the threat had absolutely zero weight. Which the ISP legal department could have figured out without sending me the registered mail. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I modified my suggestion to more accurately reflect what I intended and perhaps address some of your concerns. I added the sentence, "The main interest of the commission should be the clarity and organization of policy, rather than content which I expect would only be rarely affected, if at all." Also note that the commission would not have authority over article editing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have undone your edit, because it made my reply false. Editing a talk page statement after people have responded to it is hardly ever a good thing to do. Your clarification gets the point across perfectly well. Looie496 (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing WP:TALK, especially WP:TPO and WP:REDACT, I decided to restore what you deleted from my message, per the last option of WP:REDACT, by clearly noting that it was an addition and including a time/date stamp. Also, please note WP:TPO and recognize that you do not have my permission to modify my message. Thank you for originally bringing your concerns to my attention. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; but with that modification, it's less like what I had in mind. Looie496 (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Making policy by consensus can be a tiresome process, especially where consensus doesn't favour your views. If Jimbo could wave a magic wand and appoint a commission of people sufficiently skilled at squaring circles that they could write policies to suit all points of view and resolve all differences on the pedia, then I think that after a little shock people would get used to the idea. Though if such people exist they would have more legitimacy in the community if they were an elected commission. Of course we should remember that there is an alternative model for developing policy based on crowd sourcing and consensus, and before ruling that out we should just check to see how the ten year Nupedia v Misplaced Pages experiment has gone. Assuming that by now Nupedia has triumphed and Misplaced Pages is but a flawed forgotten experiment then yes, we should conclude that a hierarchical top down approach is better than a bottom up consensus based one. Alternatively we could treat the current Image filter initiative as a trial of a new way of making policy. If that goes so smoothly and uncontentiously as to discredit our current policy making processes then I'm sure the community would embrace a similar process for all policy formulation. ϢereSpielChequers 07:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the day, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I think we are in danger of thinking of wikipedia politically in terms of policies rather than focusing on what is most important, encyclopedic content. In fact if many on here cut the bureacratic/governor pretense and wrote articles instead the site would be massively better off.. And if much of the time spent discussing policies and wiki politics instead went into actual development planning and how to feasibly greatly improve overall content we would start meeting our real objectives...♦ Dr. Blofeld

Meta:DICK

Over a period of months had been being improved one word at a time. Today, bam. shows how a single editor can manage to ignore any concept of improvement by consensus etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I reverted it to the last consensus version and asked for changes to be discussed on the talk page. I hope that will help. I would join the discussion, but it seems unlikely that I will have time in the coming week or so, as I'm going to be slammed with work.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Risker has also joined in (though he thinks Robbie Burns is hard to understand <g>). Collect (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Francis of Assisi imprisoned at Perugia

The U.S. national TV networks have been reporting from Perugia all day (all week). Some U.S. reporters have noted that Francis of Assisi joined the war between Assisi and Perugia at age 20, in 1202, and he was injured and imprisoned with the others during the Battle of Collestrada, on the edge of Perugia. His father paid a ransom to have him freed the next year. Francis of Assisi died just after sunset on this day in 1226, almost 23 years after being freed from prison at Perugia. Dying after sunset, then October 4 is the Feast Day of Saint Francis of Assisi. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian wikipedia entirely blocked

• Seen this? Click on en at the top to read in english. Seems a bit of an extreme reaction, anger more than anything about content being jeopardized by the new law, but seems as it hasn't been passed yet...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It can be argued that it's a masterful propaganda move; it would certainly get my attention if I were an Italian voter! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

How exactly was this accomplished? Every single page (not just articles) redirects straight back to the one linked above, and it appears to be a proper redirect as a opposed to a wikipedia style redirect. Who has the ability to do something like that? Surely it has to be a dev or a steward or a foundation member, its not like admins or crats could do that--Jac16888 20:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact the admins can do that because it's a javascript and css trick Xavier Combelle (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like they would have to do that on Meta though and not in the Wiki in order to affect every page like that. --Kumioko (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The same javascript is loaded for every page. It is easy to make this redirect the visitor regardless of where they come in. Dragons flight (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If I turn off javascript in my browser, I don't get redirected to that page anymore, but there's still no content on any of the pages. The article/discussion/history/edit tabs are still there, but going to those pages leads to a blank page too. I thought maybe it was a big white fixed position image hiding the content, but when I turn images off the same thing happens. Assuming this is not a developer's doing (hard to believe it would be), it's an interesting trick. We should probably make sure we know how they did it so that the next en.wiki admin who goes off the rails can't do something we can't readily undo. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a simple CSS display:none. Simple enough to undo. --Yair rand (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Using some debugging suite for web developers included in modern browser will made possible to disable javascript and modify style attributes. In particular #bodyContent display property has been set to "none", changing it to "inline", will show back again the main content. -- 21:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.47.23.114 (talk)

Please read this --80.180.155.18 (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The mobile version stills hold the common.js: http://it.m.wikipedia.org/MediaWiki:Common.js Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on here. ANything to say on this Jimbo? The proposed bill seems an invasion on human rights and freedom of expression.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm supportive. I think the Italians are moving rather more quickly than we would, and making a more dramatic gesture than we would, but that's ok: they're Italians and that's awesome. Their interpretation of the law is correct, based on reports I have from various people, and so it's worthwhile to make the point really BIG in Italy, and around the world: freedom of expression matters, if the world wants to have Misplaced Pages.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. At the moment there is a movement to try and address the silly UK defamation laws. As a British Wikipedian living in the UK this obviously is a risk I face every day; to be sued by someone for a frivolous matter and then fight a lengthy court case to prove my innocence. Any chance we could suspend English Misplaced Pages for a day in protest at the dangerous laws we are already living with?? --Errant 22:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's contextual. In the UK, we have a much better opportunity to address the government directly, and so I doubt if a "strike" is the right thing. I could be persuaded in some circumstances, but in general, "strikes" are what you do when you are operating from a position of outsider/weakness. We aren't in that position in the UK.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to have the Italian language wikipedia restored at least in Switzerland? I know that the idea of shutting it down wasn't yours, but since the Italians decided to block discussion as well as content pages I don't know where else I can ask this.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Do they have a choice though in if the bill passes? Is it voted for? Am I missing something? Or is it to create a distaste among politicians that Italian people do not want this law passed and try to sway them, the latter I'd imagine? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to me that by its very nature Misplaced Pages is truly small-d democratic, and therefore a threat to those with a vested interest in suppressing the freedom of wiki-info. Thanks for your support Jimmy, it makes me feel better about the project than I have in some time. Bravo also to the Italian Wikipedians, the WMF, and ex-counsel Mike Godwin for taking a stand! Jusdafax 07:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes to it:WP statement

Note changes to the statement on Italian Misplaced Pages made earlier today:

• (Edit summary translation: In short, the law doesn't say that)
• (Edit summary translation: removal, replacement, impossible to assert that on the basis of the proposed law)

Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the proposed law, the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on the page (which actually would be possible for Misplaced Pages to do, via a transcluded and protected template). They would *not* have the right to have the content replaced by their version. (The Italian statement now says "chiedere l'introduzzione di una rettifica", i.e. "request the introduction of a correction", while the English version says "request to publish a corrected version".)

Frankly, given some of our past BLP problems, I am in part sympathetic to BLP subjects having some easy comeback against online writings which they feel portray them in an unduly poor light. There are two sides here -- see the Robert Fisk article from a few years ago.

Just as legal cases are lengthy and expensive for bloggers and the like, they are also expensive for BLP subjects who feel they are being defamed by an anonymous source on the Internet, including Misplaced Pages.

I think the WMF statement is a bit over-optimistic here! If anonymous crowds were so effective at writing neutral BLPs, the board resolution and years of hand-wringing on BLPs and pending changes would not have been necessary.

The Italian law as written does not seem a good idea, but I think our analysis should be a bit more measured. Note also that there seem to be far more press freedom issues at stake here than just the posting of corrections. Last year, the entire Italian news industry went on strike for a day over the same proposed bill, which is, after all, known as the *wiretapping* bill, governing the right to publish wiretapping transcripts. Apparently the initiative was sparked by the publication of some of Berlusconi's private indiscretions. See Guardian report. Giving those written about the right to have a statement or correction posted is just a small part of this bill.

The statement shown on it.wikipedia looks like it was knocked up in a hurry. For such a prominent action, it should have been vetted in a bit more detail, and the errors emended before it went live. We shouldn't be misinforming millions of people. --JN466 11:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It has been interesting to watch this discussion unfold and to see the news reports that have popped up. I knew nothing about what this law would actually do before I heard of it (obviously) but I don't feel like I know much more at this stage either. The risks of jumping to conclusions seem to have been forgotten in this media saturated age. Has anyone from the foundation, or its legal team, analyzed the language of this bill and done so with the help of an Italian legal expert? I'm all for the "power of the people" and all that jazz, but I hope everyone realizes that pretty much all the news stories out there are saying that "Misplaced Pages shut down it's Italian site," which means that whether we like it or not the Foundation, or at least "Misplaced Pages" as a whole, is now on the hook regarding all this in the court of public opinion. If it turns out that the response was naive we're no better off for it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there is general agreement that the process here is problematic, whether the result was valid or not. I'm told that this was under discussion in the Italian community for months, and I trust that they are just as analytical and thorough as we are, so I don't think they got the law wrong, nor took the action lightly. However, they didn't let me know or the Foundation know or other communities know, so it wasn't possible to get them wider support and more "eyes on the problem" beforehand.

I was saying to someone the other day from a nonprofit organization who wanted me to join an open letter about an upcoming e-G20 meeting that "open letters" and similar (a protest like this one is an example) are what you do when you have no power or ability to do anything else. If we think of ourselves as weak and powerless, we may feel we have to do things like this in cases where we may not. Notice my answer to the question about UK defamation law, up above: in the UK in particular, if the law were to start to head in any novel and horrible direction, we have plenty of access to the highest levels of decision-making in the UK, and so a protest like this would have to come at the very end of a long series of activities, and would (if we ever did something like this in the UK, which I doubt) be part of a larger press strategy including publicly announcing that we are going to do it unless something gives, to create a "showdown" in the press, etc. without actually having to do it.

Had I been asked, that's what I would have suggested to the Italians, although one big difference is that I don't think we have any direct or indirect way into Berlusconi's office.

I don't think this highly unusual action should create a precedent of any kind. I hope that it generates a good conversation about when, where, how, and why such actions would be taken in various places in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes in biographies of classical musicians

Hi, wondering if Jim or a page watcher would care to look at the discussion at Richard D'Oyly Carte about the appropriateness and usefulness of infoboxes in the biographies of classical musicians and related articles. I was so astonished at the stance there I briefly dipped into some facetiousness before hauling myself back out. Yopienso (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh, if theres one thing you should avoid on wikipedia is adding infoboxes to classical music biographies. They are strongly detested by the opera group.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)