Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sj (talk | contribs) at 14:42, 18 March 2004 ((Compromise proposal)+talk from Talk:Jimbo_Wales). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jimbo Wales has requested that no article be written on him. -- Tim Starling 07:50, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

See for the mailing list post where he states this. Maximus Rex 07:53, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Anthony wrote in an edit summary "this one is heavily linked to, though, we shouldn't have links going to user's pages)"

It isn't actually. It is linked to from very few places, and not from anywhere in the main article namespace, apart from the History of Misplaced Pages article, so there is no reason not to redirect it to the user namespace. Angela. 00:31, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

History of Misplaced Pages is in the main article namespace. Anthony DiPierro 00:33, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just delink it from there then. Geez. Adam Bishop 00:34, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just leave this as a link to Misplaced Pages. Geez. Anthony DiPierro 00:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

History of Misplaced Pages is not a real article anyway. You can't remove the redirect from here claiming it is a self reference, when the only page that links to it is entirely a self reference. Angela. 00:36, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

If History of Misplaced Pages is not a real article then delete it or move it to the meta namespace. Self-references are fine, but links into user: space from non-meta articles aren't. Anthony DiPierro 00:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's delinked now. Why didn't you just do that instead of trying to make a non-sensical redirect? Angela. 00:51, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing non-sensical about the redirect. It's actually quite consistent with Misplaced Pages standards. Anthony DiPierro 00:55, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cut it out Anthony, you're way off on this one. Dori | Talk 00:51, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm not, we don't link from articles into user: namespace. Anthony DiPierro 00:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We are not linking any articles to the user namespace. We are redirecting it. That is done for hundreds of user pages. Angela. 01:02, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

It should not be done for pages which are linked to from the article space. Anthony DiPierro 01:03, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It should not be linked to from the article space then. Angela. 01:39, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo is an important figure, and should have a page. Not linking to him from the article space is a bad solution. Anthony DiPierro 01:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

He doesn't want a page. End of story. Angela. 01:47, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

He never said that. Read what he said more carefully. Anthony DiPierro 01:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"I would prefer if there were no article about me" == He doesn't want a page. Stop trolling Anthony. Angela. 01:56, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

That's a selective quote from over a year ago taken out of context. Stop trolling Angela. Anthony DiPierro 02:08, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No personal attacks by you, either! Two wrongs don't make a right... -- Oliver P. 05:45, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No personal attacks! I entirely agree with Anthony, for what it's worth. As I understand it (someone correct me if I'm wrong!), there was originally no "User:" namespace, and user pages were just mixed in with the articles. When the "User:" namespace was created, the user pages were moved there, and the resulting redirects were left as hangovers from the olden days. I've always thought that the links to these redirects should be corrected to point straight to the user pages, and then the redirects deleted (or turned into encyclopaedia pages), but I've never done anything about it because the task seemed too daunting. As I see it, the article space is the encyclopaedia, and somebody trying to access what they think is an encyclopaedia page should not be presented with something that isn't. It's confusing and misleading.

As for the idea that Jimbo shouldn't have his own page, that's just silly. He's the founder of the world's largest online encyclopaedia, and he's been written about in national newspapers. Jimbo didn't say that no article be written on him, just that he would prefer there not to be one. And I understand that. I'd feel uncomfortable if people I'd worked with started writing articles about me! But in the spirit of neutrality, we should follow the same rules for articles about people who happen to be associated with Misplaced Pages as for people who happen not to be. -- Oliver P. 02:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo should of course have an article. After all, so does Bomis, and that is much less justifiable.—Eloquence 02:07, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Note that following the protection of this page, Jimbo Wales has sprung up.

Let's get a renewed opinion from Jimbo. There seem to be three possibilities

1) He doesn't object to an article. As no-one has given a reason for him not having an article other than him not wanting one, we have an article.

2) He objects strongly to an article. As he is final arbiter, we don't have an article.

3) He objects, but not strongly (i.e. "prefers not to" as was the case a year ago). Open the debate whether we should have one anyway. Currently Anthony, Erik and Oliver think we should, Angela and Dori think we shouldn't. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wait a second. If Jimbo doesn't want an article, I don't think we should have one. I think we should redirect this page (and Jimbo Wales) somewhere within article space, or delete it. Someone else made Jimbo Wales into an article, I've only added to it, because again, if we're going to have an article, it shouldn't suck. Anthony DiPierro 14:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please look at Talk:Jimbo Wales for my reasoning about the controversial edits/"rebirth" of a Jimbo article the last day. — Sverdrup 13:39, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It would be good to avoid another round of Anthony-bashing if we can. His borderline behaviour of making edits that, whilst not explicitly disallowed according to a formal policy, are widely denounced as not being in good faith, is currently under review by the Arbitration Committee. Let's stick to figuring out whether we should have an article at all. For this purpose, I've got in touch with Jimbo to ask for a more definite opinion. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

1. I haven't named anyone. 2. I have not criticized anything else than the reluctance to just drop it, the action of just letting it slide until the mediation processes all are done. Also: the Arbitration Committee is pretty unknown to me. I'd suggest you letting out a bit more public info from Misplaced Pages's inner circle. — Sverdrup 14:08, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Misplaced Pages:Avoid self-references is policy. Linking to user pages from article space complicates forking. Anthony DiPierro 14:16, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As is well known, despite my benevolent dictator position around here, I am loathe to actually forbid people from doing things. But for me, this is a matter of courtesy and respect, not just for me, but for the project itself. I know that my position may not be shared by all, so I don't mean to say that those who would like to see an article about me are being discourteous or disrepectful, quite the contrary actually, it's a bit flattering of course.

Speaking objectively and neutrally, if this were about anyone other than me, I would say that of course it's fine to have an article. But it is about me, and my position in the project is unique. Part of what I seek to avoid is a snarky reporter reporting on this article, as if to suggest that Misplaced Pages is absurd, and just a vanity project of some kind.

It's important to remember that although my name has been in the papers and whatever, my day to day life is not that of a famous person of any kind. I have a small home office in an ordinary middle-class home in an ordinary middle-class neighborhood. I have a 4 year old Hyundai with a dent in the side that I drive when I do go out.

I pop up here after breakfast each morning and type my wild thoughts about freedom and knowledge and neutrality and openness and wikilove. And then I go downstairs to play with my little girl. I don't feel very much like an encyclopedia-topic.  :-)

I've discouraged other people from creating articles about themselves, and from editing articles about themselves, although of course we don't have a firm policy against it. But I want to set the best possible example in cases like this, and I fear that if we have a general "green light" for articles about ourselves, we'll end up having to put up with some very strange and annoying arguments.

Anyhow, so that's my position, and I suppose it isn't nearly as helpful as it might be if I just said "no". But I do feel pretty strongly against it. I suggest that we take a vote, and that the voters be made aware of my feelings against the existence of an article, and if nonetheless the consensus is to have it, then we may have it.

I'd prefer to wait until I win the Nobel Peace Prize, though.  :-)

Jimbo Wales 14:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you have any desire to have this redirect to your user page, or are you neutral on that issue? Anthony DiPierro 14:28, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo's last message is pretty clear. Before this message I would have voted in favour of a Jimbo Wales article. But indeed, as Jimbo suggests, maybe we will start a big ball turning with alot more people wanting their own article. People that aren't as deserving as Jimbo is. So I am in favour of letting the question rest.Vanderesch 15:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My position is very similar to yours. Let's wait to hear from others who have previously been in favour of having an article. If they still are, then we can set up a vote. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As I've said above, I'm neutral on the issue of whether or not to have an article on Jimbo. I'd prefer to have one, but at the same time, I respect his request not to. This should be formalized as a vote, though, because this issue will come up again in the future. Anthony DiPierro 15:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well we need to talk about it and explore the issues because this is an issue that will come up again. We only need to vote if a natural consensus doesn't arise.

I think we should vote to determine if there is a consensus or not. Anthony DiPierro 15:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Voting comes after discussion. See Misplaced Pages:Poll and Misplaced Pages:Voting. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:08, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I never said we should vote now (if I thought we should, I would have started the poll). I said we should vote eventually. Anthony DiPierro 16:27, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I hope I never met you over the green baize of a poker table, Anthony. I never seem to be able to read what you mean :-). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you've ever seen me go on tilt, I think you'd wish you had. Anyway, sorry about the confusion. Anthony DiPierro 17:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to argue with our great benevolent dictator. I don't think we should put an article in if he continues to strongly object, but I'm going to put forth some arguments against the ones he made in his statement. I doubt a snarky reporter would complain about a short NPOV article about a CEO of a company and leader of a large project. I think that Jimmy is important, whether he likes it or not, whether he feels like it or not. Do you really think that most people with articles "feel like an encyclopedia subject" whatever that means? Maybe for pop stars there's a feeling about it; I don't know. Does fame or achievement stop people from driving dented cars and playing with their children? I don't know many famous people, but my cousins Jeff Hyslop and Stephen Robinson are regular people with lives, flaws, humanity. Neither are incredibly famous but they have articles here about which no one's objected. Jeff's daughter Jenna has lived a pretty much normal life, except that her father travels a lot to perform. Jimmy's modesty aside, he's an encyclopedia subject. moink 16:48, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One size fits all

We need to formulate a policy on "Articles about contributors". It's a special topic. I can't think of a single case where complex or thorny problems haven't arisen. Easter Bradford got really upset with the article about him, after initially being jovial and buoyant about contributing here. Sheldon Rampton's article was the subject of a long mailing list discussion.

Whatever we decide, let's not use the Founder as the first case! Let's start with someone who is (a) not well known, (b) not controversial and (c) not a project leader. --Uncle Ed 15:18, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We already have a policy. Misplaced Pages:Auto-biography. As long as you don't create the article about yourself, it's perfectly fine, and should be judged by the same criteria as any other article. OTOH, I believe Jimbo is a special case, and if he doesn't want an article about him, I think we should oblige. Anthony DiPierro 15:25, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well Jimbo's article is the one that blew up yesterday evening/today, so it has to be sorted. I agree with Anthony that the current "don't create an article about yourself" will do for starters. However I also we shouldn't be embarassed to make a special case for Jimbo and not have an article if we best serve Misplaced Pages by doing so. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:39, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo's argument is that having an article for him does not best serve Misplaced Pages. His argument is unique to him. Further, I think the fact that the subject himself has requested not to be in Misplaced Pages is a factor. It shouldn't be the only factor, but in this case I think it pushes the matter over the edge. Anthony DiPierro 15:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not having an article about Jimbo is a General Case, not a special case. We don't have ANY articles about contributors -- other than their own user pages (which are clearly personal and considered off-limits to unwanted others). Problems with biographies of contributors/staff include:

1. Conflict of interest: everyone naturally wants to portray themselves in a good light
2. Bias: others can be tempted to retaliate for edit wars or administrative action by planting negative stuff in someone else's bio.

Please give 2 or 3 examples of a satisfactory biographical article about someone who is a Misplaced Pages contributor, and I will change my mind! --Uncle Ed 16:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

1. Sheldon Rampton 3. Osama bin Laden 2. JJ from Good Times-SV(talk) 16:46, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So if RMS decided to sign up for a Misplaced Pages account, we should delete his page? Who knows, maybe he already has one. Excluding articles about people just because they happen to be Wikipedians is a bad idea. According to Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, " A few somewhat famous Wikipedians have significantly contributed to encyclopedia articles about themselves and their accomplishments, and this has mostly been accepted after some debate." So, while I don't have an example off the top of my head, apparently this does have precedent. Anthony DiPierro 16:30, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, if Richard Stallman starts contributing, we won't have to delete his page. If there's already a good bio in place, they shouldn't have to choose between being a contributor or the object of a bio. But we still need a policy (Steve was joking above, I assume). --Uncle Ed 16:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Like I said before, we already have a policy. These pages are allowed, though it is discouraged for them to be significantly contributed to by the subject or a close associate of the subject. It just doesn't seem to be the policy you like. Anthony DiPierro 17:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Jimbo has again asked us not to write an article about him. I disagree, but out of courtesy, we should let his opinion stand for now. The redirect currently in place should be kept, but all links to it from the article space should be removed so that mirrors and forks don't run into problems.

However, in the interest of our commitment to neutrality and collecting knowledge, we should set a reasonable threshold for including an article about Jimbo in Misplaced Pages, whether he likes it or not.

I propose as such a threshold that all of the following conditions must be met:

• English Misplaced Pages reaches 5,000 quality-controlled articles (which have been subjected to an approval mechanism, possibly a more advanced form of Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates)
• Print edition is published
• Wikimedia Foundation has raised more than $100,000 in donations

I predict that this sets the time at which the article is allowed to about 2 to 4 years in the future. Alternatively, an article can be written in the event that Jimbo should die before these conditions are met, unless that unfortunate event is the result of the actions of a Wikipedian (we don't want to give any people ideas!).—Eloquence 12:20, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer to redirect current links to Jimmy Wales (entrepreneur) (or whatever other title we decide which won't conflict with this page), but as long as this is made as an exception just for Jimbo I guess this isn't too bad.

As for not having an article on Jimbo, I'd like to make it clear that my vote is contingent on the fact that he doesn't want an article. If he changes his mind in the future (and I'd hope he would), my support for this compromise is revoked. Anthony DiPierro 12:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about "no article about a contributor unless they are famous for something other than their involvement at Misplaced Pages"? --Uncle Ed 13:02, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, first of all, Jimbo would qualify for that, via Bomis. But no, I don't think lack of fame is a sufficient reason for deletion. If a contributor who was famous only for involvement at Misplaced Pages asked that we delete an article about him (and we could confirm that she was the one making the request), then I'd consider it. Even then, I don't know. In this case we're talking about the person who pays the bandwidth bills. I think we should grant him his request not to have an article written about him, at least at the current time, when he's not really that famous. Anthony DiPierro 13:15, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Under that rule, we wouldn't have an article about the emperor of Atlantium either. Pakaran. 15:31, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My vote for a compromise: Misplaced Pages will not be the first comprehensive, mainstream encyclopedia to include an article on Jimmy Wales. But as soon as Britannica or someone other inserts an article on JW, we'll show them that we cover this subject (as any) best! :-) — Sverdrup 20:17, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Many Misplaced Pages forks already have an article on Jimbo, and they are comprehensive, mainstream encyclopedias :). Anthony DiPierro 20:22, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now that it seems like we're not having an article for the time being, at Talk:Jimbo Wales there has been a suggestion to redirect both Jimbo and Jimmy pages to Misplaced Pages, thus avoiding cross-namespace redirects, which is very appealing. However there may be links to these pages that we can't update (cos they are beyond our control) that are intended for the user page. This would mean that we should consider having a "Looking for Jimbo's user page? Click " line at the bottom of the Misplaced Pages article.

I have unprotected this page, as it seems daft to have Jimmy Wales protected and Jimbo Wales unprotected. , let's pick a redirect and aim both pages there. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects are a bit ugly, but not really an issue. It's the cross-namespace links which we should avoid.—Eloquence 17:59, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

We definitely don't want a link at the bottom of the Misplaced Pages article. The problem with this particular cross-namespace redirect is that it will almost certainly turn into a cross-namespace link. Anthony DiPierro 18:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bottom line, we don't want articles about Wikipedians who are noteworthy for wikipedia - otherwise we will have articles about all sysops, all frequent edit warriors, all slashdot users with excellent karma... Pakaran. 18:45, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think we can draw a line between people who are noteworthy only within Misplaced Pages (sysops, high-conflict users) and people who are noteworthy even outside Misplaced Pages for Misplaced Pages. moink 19:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo is noteworthy for Bomis, though. Anthony DiPierro 19:59, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Moved Talk from Talk:Jimbo_Wales, now redirected here

Note this page is for talking about the article Jimbo Wales. To write a general message to Jimbo, visit the talk page for his user page at User_talk:Jimbo Wales