Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:03, 29 November 2017

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Doc James, Pundit and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation's Director of Support and Safety is Maggie Dennis.

Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here

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

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.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• 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

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Voting open for ArbCom

v t e 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections Voter Log Contact the coordinators Discuss the elections Quick guide Candidates: Candidate guide Candidate statements Questions for the candidates Discuss the candidates Personal voter guides These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. Yngvadottir Tryptofish power~enwiki J947 TParis The owner of all Gerda Arendt QEDK SilkTork RegentsPark Smallbones Patient Zero Stormy clouds Elonka Carrite Collect Tazerdadog Ealdgyth

Voting has opened for Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017.

Just in case you need some guidance in voting there are lots of voter guides available, e.g. User:Smallbones/ACE2017 . Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And don't forget <User:Carrite/ACE2017>. Really now, is canvassing voters' guides here appropriate? Carrite (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

So far they haven't sent talk page notifications to eligible voters this year, but here you get service with a smile :-) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

So far only 107 people have voted. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Full alphabetical list of guides:

• Boing! said Zebedee: User:Boing!_said_Zebedee/ACE2017
• Carrite: User:Carrite/ACE2017
• Collect: User:Collect/ACE2017
• Ealdgyth: User:Ealdgyth/2017_Arb_Election_votes
• Elonka: User:Elonka/ACE2017
• Gerda Arendt: User:Gerda_Arendt/ACE_2017
• J947: User:J947/ACE2017
• Kudpung: User:Kudpung/VG2017
• Patient Zero: User:Patient_Zero/ACE2017
• Power~enwiki: User:Power~enwiki/ACE2017
• QEDK: User:QEDK/ACE2017
• RegentsPark: User:RegentsPark/ArbVotes2017
• SilkTork: User:SilkTork/ArbNotes_2017
• Smallbones: User:Smallbones/ACE2017
• Tazerdadog: User:Tazerdadog/ACE2017
• TParis: User:TParis/2017_ACE_Guide
• Tryptofish: User:Tryptofish/ACE2017 ////////// Carrite (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and just transcluded Template:ACE2017, which contains the list of all the voter guides, among other things, at the top of this thread. Mz7 (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Extremely low turnout

So far only 261 editors have voted in the ArbCom election, compared to over 1,000 last year at this time. Why? The obvious reason seems to be that there has been no announcement given on the talk pages of eligible voters. All is not lost yet, however. The elections in (both years) last for two weeks so we have time to catch up. Last year's total number of voters was 1,950 - so over half of the voters voted in the first 2 days. I'd hate to see this year's vote total come in at about 520 ! I'll check on whether we can get an announcement put on talk pages. In the meantime - please vote. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I just went there to vote, but for me it did nor work out well. I was not able to sign in on the Wikimedia site..I got this message: "The supplied credentials could not be authenticated."then when I saw where I did not need to be logged in to vote, I looked at the names and have had no experience with any of them and their names did not link to anything, so I gave up. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ok, I tried again and see that the Candidate statements are linked to via their names below the "voting" button. So now I can do it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ok, I voted ....YAY!....it was fun ! Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I'm working with the election commissioners to make this happen as soon as possible. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure you'll get this straightened out in time. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Smallbones: How does the number of questions asked of each candidate compare? We've still got 11 days left for questions to be asked? Unless, of course someone decides to start deleting them because we're "mid-way through the voting period". Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The cause is definitely the lack of a mass message so far. For context, in 2014, the year directly before we began to send the mass messages, only 593 votes were determined to be valid. In 2015, the year we started sending the mass message, 2674 votes were determined to be valid. Mz7 (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

By all means let's send out a mass notification as quickly as possible. An election that voters don't know about lacks the maximum legitimacy that we need.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Just curious, why wasn't a notification sent out? Benjamin (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• I hope that whatever mass-mesaage etc. is being planned to be despatched , is in strict accordance with the consensus (i.e. the closure) at this RFC.Cheers!Winged Blades 16:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • There certainly was an RfC saying that we should do the notification again. The problem, as I understand it, is that we only want to notify the eligible voters (approx. 150 mainspace edits needed) who have edited this year. That turns out to be a big technical challenge. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    • In that case, technical challenges etc. shall not mean loosening the criterion.If it can't be done in the proper manner, let it not be done.Winged Blades 16:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Just curious...

Has WMF experienced any decrease in monetary contributions based on en.WP's political slant or is everything still on track? 23:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Just curious... are you familiar with the logical fallacy of begging the question? In any case, the WMF's fundraising stats are pretty easy to find; I've pasted them here, to the right. How do those data impact your assumptions? MastCell  01:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, MastCell. The impact the data has on me is #1 - a sigh of great relief considering how aggressively I've promoted WP to educators, and #2 - how I have seriously considered establishing a local chapter. It's good for editors to know these stats because it actually does have an impact on one's credibility when promoting the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I will review the stats you've provided to see how I can best apply them in my future presentations. It is also an indication of great potential for lightening the work-load of unpaid volunteers who devote their time and energy into helping make WP the best it can be. 01:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. From your initial question, I inferred that you believe that en.WP has an increasingly pronounced political bias (it's obvious from your comments elsewhere that you believe that bias to be in a liberal/progressive direction). You also seemed (to me) to be implying that this perceived bias was likely to harm the WMF's fundraising efforts. Was I correct about those inferences? MastCell  19:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Steering away from generalizations, I will qualify my response by saying only under certain circumstances do I see pronounced political bias. If everyone respected our PAGs, more editors would collaborate on political articles, but it's a scary place to edit because of DS and limits on reverts. We have quite a few editors and even admins who refuse to get involved if it's a political article, which speaks volumes. I think most of the issues stem from MSM's bait and click resourcefulness - editors depend on online news sources - and most won't hesitate to include breaking news, even with unsourced allegations and the risk of misinformation that often accompanies breaking news. As a result, maintaining NPOV is a struggle. We simply cannot lose sight of the fact that a significant number of our readers don't agree with or read WaPo, NYTimes, The Atlantic, NPR, etc. which is all the more reason to closely adhere to NPOV. We shouldn't have to lose any reader because of a political slant, perceived or otherwise. Another growing concern is the noticeable dismissal of BLP policy, which again is typically tied to politics but not always. We must not lose our "encyclopedic, dispassionate tone" or the high degree of sensitivity required of us when writing about living persons. Yes, I am somewhat concerned over the way some of our articles are written - but not just political articles - we have a growing backlog at NPP and AfC, and they're not all political articles (thank goodness). I won't deny that I'd love to see our political articles handled with the same care and high standards as our medical articles. Regarding your question about funding, I am a bit concerned that some of the imbalances will eventually harm fundraising as we know it, especially if we can't keep up with the growing backlog of promotional articles and PR firms that use WP to launch/sell/promote/advertise products, events and people. They love to use the "💕" that "anyone can edit." 01:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "adhering more closely to NPOV" means respecting WP:RS. Like "WaPo, NYTimes, The Atlantic, NPR, etc". Whether "our readers" read them or like'em or not (I have no idea how you know what our readers read or like - you probably mean "some of our editors"). Volunteer Marek  01:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to drill down a bit on that particular idea. You emphasized that many of our readers "don't agree with or read WaPo, NYTimes, The Atlantic, NPR, etc." Could you elaborate? Assuming some of our readers "don't agree with or read" a specific reliable source, does that mean we should no longer consider it reliable? That would be an extremely novel (and disturbing) interpretation of site policy and guidelines, so I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. There is a fairly obvious effort underway, in the US at least, to discredit and de-legitimize serious, reputable mainstream journalism, but Misplaced Pages should be pushing back against that effort, not enabling it as you seem to be advocating. MastCell  01:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to respond to your questions, MC, so you can put your power tools away. To make sure we're on the same page, I will repeat what I actually said and explain what I meant in an effort to avoid further misinterpretation: "a significant number" does not equate with "many" and "all the more reason to closely adhere to NPOV" does not equate with "should no longer consider it reliable". To quote TenOfAllTrades, "a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and how it is used." WP:CONTEXTMATTERS explains it further. We're discussing the most basic elements of our PAGs, which I happen to be very well-versed in as I've demonstrated repeatedly. I mistakenly assumed all seasoned editors were equally as familiar so I chose brevity over citing individual policies in my comment above. When I said it was "all the more reason to closely adhere to NPOV", I was referring to context, types of sources and in a nutshell, part of the first sentence in WP:RS; i.e, "making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view)." I'm not aware of any effort underway "to discredit and de-legitimize serious, reputable mainstream journalism" unless you're referring to Trump but all that aside, I retired from 30+ years in broadcast which included time in the field for CNN Headline News so I have a pretty good idea about what constitutes "serious, reputable mainstream journalism". In the event you're interested in further reading, I've included a few links for you: Pew, Pew, Statista, what people seek from WP (you can review the archives for a more in-depth snapshot), and Pew again. Happy reading! 09:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

MastCell and Atsme Re:"serious, reputable mainstream journalism", should the words "objective" and/or "unbiased" be included for Misplaced Pages purposes? And if not, if we accept, perhaps as a practical necessity, that many of the sources we use have a "left" or "right" bias which sometimes they even admit to, how can the word "reliable" be in "reliable sources" ? Its ok the way things are except for the pretense, some would say fraud, that the reliable sources are reliable in a strictly matter of fact and unbiased reporting way. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Why

Why does Jimmy invite people to edit his user page, when it wouldn't be appropriate to change his own words? Benjamin (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"it wouldn't be appropriate to change his own words" ... without his permission – So often it's in the details. ... Or were you, Benjamin, suggesting that it wouldn't be appropriate for Jimmy to change his own words? Therefore suggesting it would be inappropriate for others as well? The phrasing of your question leaves it unclear for me. --–A Fellow Editor– 13:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Remember the episode of Rick and Morty with Stephen Colbert? Crowdsourcing! 185.13.106.234 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I mean, why does he want other editors to edit his page, when really, he's the only one who should be? Benjamin (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"when really, he's the only one who should be?" – Says who? You? Obviously—self-evidently—he doesn't.

(... doesn't say so, that is ... FWIW, AFAIK, neither do any WP policies and guidelines; p&g do state that users have a wide latitude over how they run their own assigned userspace though—i.e. it's up to the user's discretion, it's Jimbo's prerogative. As on your 'own' userpage the prerogative regarding whether to allow such is yours.) --–A Fellow Editor– 13:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"These are Jimmy's words. Should not be changed."? Benjamin (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The user is meaning this edit. Going by what Dr.K. has said in the edit summary, it was reverted because you changed Jimmy's words. What he is quoted as saying.--5 albert square (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, I understand that. What I don't understand is why Jimmy would invite me to edit his words on his page, if they are quotes that should not be edited. Benjamin (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It's because you changed it from reading "founder" to "co-founder". I looked at the actual article Jimmy Wales for this and it says "He is historically cited as a co-founder of Misplaced Pages, though he has disputed the "co-" designation, declaring himself the sole founder". There's also sources backing this up.--5 albert square (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a content dispute, is it? Benjamin (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin, stop trolling and go do something useful please.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) – OH! So this thread is all because you, Benjamin, tried but got reverted! Now I see ... Tnx 5 albert square, I was starting to think some weird 'on-the-spectrum' pedantic OCD fixation of some sort was going on ... Turns out instead I just got drawn into some classic passive aggressive rhetorical questioning. Eww, now I feel icky ... ... --–A Fellow Editor– 14:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I thank 5 albert square for the ping. Now that Jimmy himself has replied, I think this matter has been put to rest. In any case, my opinion is, when editing anyone's userpage, or anywhere for that matter, one should not put words in other peoples' mouths. Editing is not an exercise in ventriloquism and noone should manipulate the expression of anyone's ideas anywhere. Dr. K. 15:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it is not my intention to troll. I'm still confused about why Jimmy would invite editors to edit his page. Benjamin (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo trusts that most editors are mature enough to only make constructive edits to his page. His page has been built mostly by editors other than Jimbo himself. When the occasional vandal or troll makes unconstructive changes to his user page, he trusts that they will be quickly reverted. Deli nk (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

What would be a constructive edit? His page is composed of things that aren't supposed to be changed. Benjamin (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

_ _ ___ ___ _ _

"I like turtles"

--–A Fellow Editor– 17:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)