Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:01, 25 December 2007

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: 3 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 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Uprising of the righteous in de.wikipedia.org

Dear Jimbo, I'd like to draw your attention to a call for vandalism in the German speaking Misplaced Pages made by established users. This group wants to censor vector graphics of NS symbols so that (dumb) Neo-Nazis could not make use of our high quality images. Please speak out against this plan.

It is a heated debate which lead to an admin blocking me for two hours for stating my opinion. When I complained about it other admins affirmed that I had not violated the rules and therefore the block was unjust. For answering the question what I think why I was blocked I have been blocked for additional 24 hours (“NPA”). Some have argued that my points were legitimate and my block should be revoked but no one did—who would dare to defend a “swastika lover”?

As I understand your statement of principles you agree with me that Misplaced Pages is an open project and no one should be excluded on the grounds of group membership. This means every imaginable group is generally welcomed at Misplaced Pages: Neo-Nazis, misogynists, child molesters etc. This consideration makes one not feel comfortable but it is the truth: all these groups are already readers and Wikipedians. Neither our license nor our five pillars forbid those groups the use and participation. I ask you to publicly admit this fact and elaborate your rationale behind these terms and conditions. --mms (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think Jimbo would meddle into de. Admin decisions? He would be not clever to do so, and I do think that he is clever.

And do you really think that the people reading your statement here are interested in such internal affairs? --d2dMiles (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Jimbo! You have been selected being unser Führer of German WP :-( Seriuosly! sorry, but not kidding. And he is not blocked yet. Misplaced Pages, erwache! --195.4.209.76 (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Führer? Gott im Himmel... Allow me to propose a quote from William Tecumseh Sherman. When he learned that there was a movement to make him president of the United States, he answered I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected. Durova 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to führ äh fear, mms just told on de:WP:FZW, our Village Pump, that he loves Swastikas. In my opinion is this in Germany and Austria not quite OK and a prosecutor would propably be quite interested, albeit our servers are not located in Germany. Leave mms alone, standing near persons playing russian roulette can hurt bystanders too. Achates (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks. We are in en.wikipedia.org here. No one is interested whether you think it is “quite okay” to love swastikas or not. But I’m still very interested what Jimbo thinks about writing Misplaced Pages for the benefit of Neo-Nazis and the like. --mms (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I've just read that thread and I don't see either side professing a fondness for swastikas. It's poor form to make these insinuations, particularly in a venue where most people are unable to read the original. It's a discussion between two sets of reasonable people that has deteriorated from sarcasm to animosity on a topic that would be sensitive in any language, but nowhere more so than in German. Each language edition creates its own consensus policies. Here in English we retain all material of encyclopedic value, regardless of its potential to give offense, and the community manages the occasional individuals attempt to exploit sensitive images for shock value. It isn't for us to dictate our solutions to other languages. Yet I do suggest you refrain from using polarizing tactics. Durova 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So after you read the discussion you came to the conclusion that there are no devoted swastika lovers or real Neo-Nazis involved. This may be true but it doesn’t mean there is no issue. What would you do if there were Neo-Nazis? I understand that my request for clarification of the principles is way out of the day to day business and you may need some time to decide how far free “free” means. But I have to be emphatic about it as this is crucial to my further participation. Maybe you, Jimbo, and the majority speak out against Neo-Nazis in Misplaced Pages and maybe against some other groups, too. I’m sceptical to exclusions of all kinds but I believe a community should set up its own rules. If it is consensus (or nearly consensus) to exclude some groups I suggest to rewrite the principles and amend the license accordingly. I have been blocked for a year in the German speaking Misplaced Pages for a deduction from the main principles: we write articles and redraw images to support Neo-Nazis. --mms (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this is the English language Misplaced Pages, please refer to two policies: WP:POINT and WP:NOT#Not a battleground. Your yearlong block on the German Misplaced Pages does not extend to this language edition, although it may be noted if serious questions arise about your conduct here. I hope you adjust well. In the best of all worlds, perhaps good work at this project will earn you an early return to the German Misplaced Pages. I do advise against using inflammatory symbols in userboxes here. Our mission is to create an online encyclopedia, not to test the boundaries of anarchy or free speech. Durova 22:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

After having more than 2,000 edits in de.wikipedia.org and nearly 1,000 edits in en.wikipedia.org I don’t think I have to “adjust well”. I’m not promoting anarchy in Misplaced Pages but surely I promote free speech. While I agree that one should not use Misplaced Pages mainly to train ones rhetoric skills, serious and fundamental discussions should be possible. --mms (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Mms, do you think, if you compare Jimbo with Adolf Hitler, he would help you? “unser Führer”, isn't it a little bit awkward? -- 87.165.144.7 (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Referring to Jimbo as our “Führer” was my reaction to the insinuations against me. Jimbo calls himself leader which is a literal translation to Führer. So I see no obstacles why he should not answer my question. --mms (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest Metz/Register article

Cade Metz recently wrote a reasoned opinion piece on the inherent conflict in Misplaced Pages between anonymity and COI . Which do you think should have priority as Misplaced Pages moves forward, COI or anonymity? Also, just one more question...you said that you had only a few hours notice before the Doran article came out in the Register...Did Cade request that you contact him a couple of days before the Doran article was released, and, if so, what was your response? Cla68 (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My response was that I don't speak to the Register. I guess you know that since you were cc'd on the email.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

While I think The Register needs a new hobby, there is a good question above; "Which do you think should have priority as Misplaced Pages moves forward, COI or anonymity?". I would like to hear your views on this, if possible. Thanks! - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think both COI and anonymity take a backseat to NPOV. Sometimes anonymity helps us to preserve NPOV, sometimes not. We do not have a hard and fast rule against COI editing, but rather some soft recommendations mostly designed to help people who may have COIs understand that they risk doing damage to the very cause they are seeking to advance, if they behave inappropriately at Misplaced Pages. In general, I think that anonymity... the right of people to edit as either ip numbers or as usernames without validating who they are... is not just valuable but incredibly valuable, and I would oppose any moves to get rid of it very firmly.

I don't think Cade Metz' piece is a reasoned criticism, really, but just typical of him. He starts with a falsehood: "In Wikiland, you aren't allowed to edit articles where you have a conflict of interest" and goes downhill from there. Nuance is not the forte of The Register.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo for that. Needless to say, I completely agree that NPOV takes charge in those possible COI situations. Happy Holidays! - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

While the Register is respected in the UK, with good reason, I really do think that article was scraping the bottom of the barrel. Our assuming good faith policy should cover this, after all which similar enterprise (My Space and Facebook come to mind) assume bad faith of users who aren't engaging in suspiciously illegal acts (and COI ain't that). We already allow usersx not to be anonymous and otherwise we should assume good faith. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying AGF on the Registers' part? I dont think AGF applies externally. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all, I am saying we at wikipedia must assume good faith in our editors, regardless of whether they are anonymous, as long as we believe they are not engaging in illegal activities on wikipedia. Which would destroy the Metz argument that we should somehow assume bad faith of some of our anonymous editors, based on COI. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think dislike for the sources, and insularity, is causing a dismissal of a deep structural issue - WP:AGF doesn't resolve the problem that anonymity and conflict-of-interest is an open invitation for a lot of bad-faith editing. Whenever this discussion comes up, I see replies I'd characterize as that, in theory, in a perfect world with perfect people, there should be no problems because Misplaced Pages policies say everyone should play nice. However, it's an imperfect world, with imperfect people, and many of them play very nasty indeed. You can't escape this issue by saying it's against policy, because the policies are applied by people, and thus there's an incentive to game the system. Outsiders keep writing about this in various ways, because it's very obvious to anyone who looks into what goes on in terms of real conflict-resolution. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look

Please,look at Horton, Alabama and tell me if it is any good at my talk. 1Bookfan Talk

Hallo!

Hallo,herr Jakob.

Jes,spreche auf Deusch.Verrlassen Sie mich eine Nachritch an Ein Buchanhanger Rede .

Auf Wiedersehen und gluckliche Feiertage! Ein Buchanhanger

Hallo

@L-drama : if Jimbo's invitation on German Misplaced Pages to come to this page for comments is written in German, then sort it out with Jimbo if you want to have comments in German deleted from this page. Currently, Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Good practice only mandates that you ask for a translation, not that you erase a comment in a different language. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth knowing that I am NOT German, and thus couldn't make sense of what you were trying to show me in the slightest. If you'd done as I asked, and discussed it with me on my talkpage, we might have got a bit further in understanding each other. (Sorry about this BTW Jimbo). Lradrama 13:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, you already know you can't go around to anyone else's user talk page and just delete non-English conversation, right? Well you can't do it here either, even if it might seem more "public" than most user talk pages. Nigel Barristoat (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience. I think I need a Wikibreak... Lradrama 14:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Particularly since I can read German (though barely and badly), I would appreciate if German language comments are left here. Also, since I try to stay in contact with all language communities and offer my assistance in the event of internal disputes, I would appreciate if no comments ever be deleted from here on language-grounds alone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And from that last exchange, you can guess why it's probably a good thing that JFK gave that speech in Berlin and not Vienna... Season's greetings. SBHarris 18:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well once again, I'm very sorry, my mistake. It will not happen again. ;-) Lradrama 18:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say i'm very sorry if I made anybody mad.I want peace to exist here,so tell me if you are angry at me for leaving a comment in German.1bookfan 23:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No one is angry about your use of German on this page; some of us were merely confused. It happens, here as elsewhere. Mr. Wales has invited commentary in German, so it would ill behoove any of the rest of us to take any other position. Bielle (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

hi there

ok well this is like my last attempt to try to talk to someone here... ...i have been banned as a user for some time now (User:Iamandrewrice), having been said to have many sockpuppets. However, this is not true, as another user (User:Joeseth1992) pretended to be me and hacked my account, making sockpuppets himself, and then leading to a phenomenon in which even though I was trying to explain my situation to fellow wikipedians, no one would listen, as they all thought that I was lying and that all the sockpuppets were mine, even though they had nothing to do with me. I really want to help edit the site, and it would really make me smile this xmas if you allowed me once again to operate here. I would very much appreciate it if the other users could be informed that many of the messages that they have read and received that they believe to be me, were in fact from another user who was impersonating me. (I know this user in real life by the way). Please please please try and help me out... if you would like a full detailed step-by-step explanation of everything that has happened, I can email it to you, but it is quite long. Well whatever you decide, please email me here on benniguy@hotmail.co.uk

Thanks a lot... and have a nice xmas

89.241.196.68 (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

87 Socks huh? How many wasted man-hours wasted is that..? In the spirit of both naiveté and the holiday (God, admins, and WP:BEANS forgive me for this), why don't you create a new account and edit constructively and anonymously, leaving the past behind you (the incivility, disruptiveness, socking etc...). In any case, I can almost guarantee you that neither your main or the various sockpuppets will ever be unblocked. —Cronholm 18:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You were community banned Ben. Your attempt earlier this week to discuss this resulted in yet another round of sockpuppetry that forced Misplaced Pages to block nearly 200.000 IP's in 3 separate rangeblocks for 3 hours. If you want to appeal your ban then talk to Jeff about it. ArbCom is the way to do this, Jimbo doesn't normally respond here himself. This started as a simple 1 hour cool down block, you escalated this yourself. Merry Christmas Ben - I really hope that you willl somehow be able to return at some point in the future and continue the fine progress you made before this happened. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well those sockpuppets werent me though. ALthough they were someone I know in real life (apart from about 50 or so accounts that i dont even know who they are that you identified with me). But I really am sorry for being rude originally, but I really would like to continue editing. Can you please allow me to? Because if I make a new account... everyone will blcok me straight away... do I have permission to start a new account then? thanks 89.243.4.19 (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

oh by the way, the user who i know in real life (who made all the other accounts, pretending to be me) has got other other accounts, and will probably continue to pretend to be me, as he wont listen to me... please dont believe that they are me :S

89.243.4.19 (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

But, creating sockpuppets to discuss on here is also against the ban policy and is considered abusive sockpuppetry. If you want to appeal a ban, see this, otherwise, creating sockpuppets will only get you into more trouble. --EoL talk 14:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you are a genius.

Thank you so much for founding Misplaced Pages. I don't know what I'd do without it. If I need info, I always come here first. Wiki rules! A pyrate's life for me... (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Guten Tag!

Guten Tag, mein Herr. Wie geht's? Ich liebe Deustch!!!!! Translation: Hello, sir. How's it going? I love German!!!!! Good luck learning the language. I've been taking classes for two years, myself. Awesome language.

Froliche Weinachten und ein gluckes neues Jahr!!!!

Ichliebezuko (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ichliebezuko (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry people, I'm leaving this German text well and truly alone! ;-) Lradrama 20:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Translating

Hi Jimbo! If you need help for understanding german messages or if you want to understand german Misplaced Pages articles, etc., I´d be glad to help you! Whenever you want Dagadt (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Jimbo

What are the patrolers, Stewards, Board vote admins, developers and imports of Misplaced Pages? And another question also: do you have some special things only you, with your "founder" status, can do? ----Yours, User:Deba Tihs ´n´ Mad Dog (right place to talk to me is here) 18:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:User access levels. patrolled edits are disabled on the English Misplaced Pages but we can patrol new pages. Jimbo Wales has the founder privilege. Graham87 06:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

JzG

JzG and Awbrey's Charles Peirce related contributions

Jimbo, please have a word with JzG. This is a complete misrepresentation of the history of Awbrey's edits and concerns. Admins should show greater respect for the truth, for the content-editors that create Misplaced Pages content, and for the moral and legal aspects of plagiarism and copyright. JzG has been treating Awbrey like enemy number one and this is merely his latest personal attack. When will we as a community tell admins that insist on creating and angering enemies to stop it? This is just poisonous. We should be better than WR, not imitate them. Further, it hurts the encyclopedia when people delete content just because the person who wrote it is now disruptive. There was no issue with Awbrey's article content on math/logic articles until after he was justly banned and then decided to act as disruptively as possible. Finally, when an admin gets to the point that he literally says he would rather "we be sued"; I think he needs to step away from the computer and take a nice bike ride in the park. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

But no banned editor has the right to edit here? Or are you claiming they do? In which case you should not DO SO. Defending some banned troll and in the process attacking of our most respected admins isnt right. What is going on, WAS? Normally you behave impeccably but this looks like trolling to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I am solely referring to edits to logic/math articles that Awbrey made prior to being justly banned. He was not banned for any edit that he made to math/logic articles. He was banned for being disruptive in non-article space. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As for "what is going on": the short story is that Awbrey is angry at Guy and Guy is angry at Awbrey and the result is not helpful to Misplaced Pages. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The campaign against Misplaced Pages Review seems to be growing more and more bizarre by the day. Last month the community got dragged through sockpuppet-hunting paranoia a la User:!!; are we now to the point that a user an administrator here is trying to erase the contribution history of a person who participates there? Give me a break. Videmus Omnia 23:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we all need a break. - "our most respected admins" I love it! Giano (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

He clearly is, and I am taking my work break from today. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say that characterizing Guy as one of our "most respected admins" is an unsupported claim, though you're certainly entitled to your opinion. In my interactions with him, I've found him to be abrasive, confrontational, and dismissive. Videmus Omnia 16:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not reviewed the entire history but I can state some general principles which might be helpful here. First, when someone is banned from Misplaced Pages, their prior edits unless somehow bad can surely be allowed to stand in the general case, although there can be special cases. (For example, if a stalker has written an article about his victim, it can be best after the stalker is banned to simply delete that article and start over from scratch, as a courtesy to the victim.) At first glance, though, the debate JzG is commenting on does not seem to be about deleting content just because the person who wrote it is now disruptive, is it? It is some kind of argument about merging/moving content?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

<<<Jon Awbrey spent something like a year faithfully contributing to Misplaced Pages based on his widely acknowledged expertise in Charles Peirce and his work, a very important figure in the history of logic. That expertise made his contributions to logic/math articles to be beyond reproach to people who knew the subject (although readability by non-experts was and is an issue). But he ran into trouble on articles like Truth where he had to edit with people who could not understand his specialized expert vocabulary and Jon was poorly equipped to fully appreciate WP:NPOV leading to charges of breaking WP:NOR leading him to go to the policy talk page at WP:NOR where he was abused and misinformed by that page's owners; leading to a dramatic self-destruction wherein he began to disrupt Misplaced Pages as much as possible and continues to do so (I tried to help, but he was having none of it, his mind was made up). This latest battle in Jon's war of honor is described by Jon (aka Jonny Cache) here. Especially relevant is this quote:"The crux of the matter is this. I contributed content to Misplaced Pages that to this day adds to the credibility of Misplaced Pages. Nobody but nobody has the right to use that credibility to discredit me. If Guy Chapman can get away with asserting unchecked lies on the Wikienlist and on Misplaced Pages and no one in that so-called community calls him on it, then Misplaced Pages as a whole has forfeited the right to continue using those contributions." I love logic and do not wish to allow Guy to create a situation where Misplaced Pages's logic articles are eviscerated just because Guy is angry at Jon. Jon does not want the articles deleted, he just wants Guy to cease defaming him by claiming his contributions were "original research". Guy has used this fight as an excuse to remove information and redirect and wipe Jon's attribution from the records. There is no reason for all this removal and redirection in the first place except for Guy defaming Jon and causing this stupid fight. Let's put the content of the encyclopedia ahead of the emotional satisfaction of "winning" against enemies. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Research accusations

The user in question did not, in fact, have the expertise that you seem to be assuming for him, and the problems he encountered on Truth were perhaps not because the other editors didn't understand the specialist vocabulary, but because they did understand it.

The importance of our content policies lies in the fact that, when someone arrives claiming to be an expert, we don't have to worry about whether they're telling the truth. What we ask of all editors (expert and non-expert alike) is that they rely on the best secondary sources they can find. This is something that real experts will be able to do, because they'll have read the secondary literature. You'll know the real experts by their edits, because they'll be able to tell us what other experts think about the subject, not only what they think about it themselves. That is something Jon Awbrey could never do.

Take this edit as an example of the problems in the Truth article (I don't know whether he wrote it originally, or just moved it from elsewhere, but regardless, he's the one who added it to Truth). Kant is here used as an example of a philosopher discussing the correspondence theory of truth. But Kant didn't discuss the correspondence theory of truth. He may have assumed the validity of it, as did most philosophers, but it's misleading to say that he wrote about it, and then to cherry pick a quote of his to back that up. Kant is an example of a writer so difficult to understand that primary-source analysis is bound to come a cropper, because even experts — people who've been studying him all their lives — disagree about what he meant in various places.

The best thing now would be to find a specialist Wikipedian to review Awbrey's material, but that will take some time, as people who understand this stuff are few and far between, and they have their own articles to work on. In the meantime, regarding any of his material that's based on primary sources (and my memory of the stuff of his I saw is that it was always based on primary sources), it's probably safe to assume it's original research for which a secondary source might be hard to find. SlimVirgin 20:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, don't see an "original research" problem in Jon Awbrey's edit to the "truth" article mentioned above by SlimVirgin, nor do I see an "original research" problem in the restoration of that material to that article by LessHeard vanU as mentioned below .

Kant discussed the correspondence theory of truth in the quote introduced by these edits. The quote starts with "Truth is said to consist in the agreement of knowledge with the object." Which is the correpondence theory of truth, no "deduction" or "interpretation" is needed for that. Then he comments on it, pointing out some inherent problems with that definition. No "deduction" or "interpretation" is needed to see that that is a "discussion" of said theory. Arguably Kant's quote is even a secondary source on the correspondence theory as Kant compares how that theory was handled by philosophers before him, adding an interpretation of these preceding theories.

I'm however troubled by the "original research" contained in:

Kant is an example of a writer so difficult to understand that primary-source analysis is bound to come a cropper, because even experts — people who've been studying him all their lives — disagree about what he meant in various places.

Yes, experts are still discussing and disagreeing about "what he meant in various places." It wouldn't be too difficult to find secondary sources to back up such claim.

Yes, in general "Kant is an example of a writer difficult to understand". Neither would it be difficult to back up such claim with secondary sources.

But no, you can't jump to the conclusion (="original research") that Kant is unclear in each and every paragraph he wrote, without quoting secondary sources that this particular paragraph is unclear or leads to a particular interpretation problem. I don't see anything difficult to understand in it.

It becomes particularily chilling when Darkdealt does this: →Kant - removing material identified as original research by User:SlimVirgin – SlimVirgin was out of line by proposing her original research as a response to this issue. When others start to blindly implement conclusions based on that, I see that as somewhat more troubling.

Re. SlimVirgin's "cherry picking" allegation (" it's misleading to say that wrote about , and then to cherry pick a quote of his to back that up.")... pardon? If you want to quote Kant you'd need to be selective, no question:

• The quote would need to be about the topic at hand (the correspondence theory of truth in this case);
• The quote would preferably somehow be legible (which is, as discussed, not so evident in Kant's case).

Of course such process of selection could be labeled as cherry picking, but implying this would be a misleading type of cherry picking is... disingenious.

I want to conclude by stating that I don't take any side in this issue about JzG's and Jon Awbrey's actions in general. The first is an admin, the second a banned user, I have no other experience than that is the way it should be. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good example of the problem with how the disputed policy concerning primary source usage is used to own article content. SlimVirgin claims that her expertise allows her to remove a sourced quote because her expertise is better than another person's expertise so she gets to decide that her original language that is not a quote is more valid than an actual quote of the person's own words describing what they think. So the disputed policy is, in short, used to promote actual original research and delete actual quotes. That's backward. And that is what Jon was trying to fix when Slim and her friends baited him into getting so angry he self destructed. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

First, do not blame anyone but Awbrey for his banning. He was banned from WP by Gwenol for having exhausted the community's patience in several areas; and he has had similar experiences on other websites.

You are completely wrong that I said my expertise in the area trumped his. What I wrote above was that we need secondary sources, not the interpretation by Wikipedians of primary sources (not my interpretation, and not Awbrey's). An editor who is an expert on Kant, and who is in a position to discuss the extent to which Kant did or didn't assume the validity of the correspondence theory of truth (which is by no means as straightforward as it seems), will know who the best secondary sources are, and will be able to cite them -- indeed, will want to cite them, because they're excellent writers and scholars. Awbrey was not trying to "fix" the NOR policy. He was trying to weaken it to allow more of his kind of editing. SlimVirgin 21:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Blame is for children and priests. I am not assigning blame. Further, I agree with the banning. You are completely wrong in saying that I said that you said your expertise in the area trumped his. I perceive what happened different than you do. You miss the point that a quote from a reliable secondary source was not used to refute or frame or explain the quote from the primary source so that then both quotes could be included in the article providing the user with a balanced picture; but instead a disputed policy was used to remove useful content and to revert to actual original research consisting of a synthesis of material. When you say "Awbrey was not trying to "fix" the NOR policy. He was trying to weaken it to allow more of his kind of editing." you are merely displaying "assume bad faith". WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But here's the question: how are you in a position to judge whether it's useful content? Using the Kant edit as an example, you have what purports to be a quote from Kant, and you have a Wikipedian telling you it's an example of Kant discussing the correspondence theory of truth. With secondary sources, if I ask "how do you know this is useful?" you can say, "Because it was written by Professor Smith of Oxford University." But with only a Wikpedian's interpretation of a complex primary source, there is no plank to rest on, nothing to underwrite the edit. That is the point of the insistence on secondary sources for anything disputed, contentious, or interpretive.

It isn't a question of good faith or bad faith. It's a question of wanting to know — if Misplaced Pages says "this is what Kant meant" — who in the outside, published, academic world, agrees. Any Wikipedian who really is an expert on Kant will be able to answer that question. If they can't, you need to ask yourself why. SlimVirgin 22:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, maybe take some time before you reply to this one. This is an interesting debate, I'd even say important. I just hope it doesn't turn into a heated debate which wouldn't serve the quality of the debate.

I didn't see you replying yet to these points I tried to make:

1. The Kant quote is, in this case, perfectly legible. That may be an exception, but it is.
2. Since, in this quote, Kant analyses ancient philosphers (logicians and skeptics), it is at least partially a secondary source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. You cannot bring in a quote and say it represents "correspondence" unless you have a reliable source that tells you it does. In this case, all we have is the Wikipedian himself telling us that in his personal opinion it is correspondence, and that's OR. Crum375 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss Kant. Suffice to say, the issue is not a simple one, and hangs in part on whether he's seen as mostly an idealist or mostly a realist, and whether it's more accurate to say he adhered to the correspondence theory of truth or the coherence theory. The point is this: people come to Misplaced Pages to read what published experts think Kant meant, not what Jon Awbrey or SlimVirgin or WAS 4.250 think about it. That is the only point I am making. SlimVirgin 00:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There is that Assumption of non-Good Faith previously mentioned, that

"...it's probably safe to assume it's original research..."

just after admitting that it would take an(other) expert to make a reasonable judgement on the validity. WAS 4.250's comment holds that the material is not being removed on the basis of original or faulty verified research, but because of a clash of personality. Since Awbrey's contributions fall outside of BLP concerns it is surely safe to allow disputed (on the basis of author, not validity) material to remain? The fact that the material has remained to this point must indicate that either passing experts have had no problem with the article(s) or that it is too difficult for those that have reviewed it to form a decision on its merits. By all means let us find an expert to pronounce upon the validity of the content, but lets not remove it in the meantime on poorer considerations of personality clashes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no assumption of bad faith, rather a familiarity with Awbrey's edits. He based his edits largely on primary sources, often in areas in which he had no qualifications. This is part of the very definition of original research -- basing contentious edits on your own, idiosyncratic opinion of what complex primary-source material says. I think the fact that it has remained in the articles suggests not, as you say, that passing experts have no problem with it, but more that passing experts have not, in fact, passed. It's because of the difficulty of evaluating this kind of work that OR is very much frowned upon, because in certain areas, it's difficult sometimes even for experts to be sure of what's right and wrong. Therefore, edits that lack good secondary sources really should be removed if a request for secondary sources produces none. SlimVirgin 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't read like a bad faith assumption to me. Surely if we have reasonable doubts as to whether something is original research and we can find no secondary sources then that is the time to remove the contentious material, even by an editor who doesn't fully understand the subject matter but does understand our original research policy. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I said non-Good, not bad, which is different. It's a nuance that I should have realised might be missed.

Where does the doubt arise when we cannot understand the content, and cannot find the secondary sources to qualify it? The criteria for inclusion of content is verifiable (not verified) so we have to find the expert (cited) view that the content is unsupported, per my understanding of Original Research. Only then can the articles be amended. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The content is unsupported by secondary sources. I gave you an example above, where Awbrey made an edit about Kant, based only on his understanding of Kant's original writing, even though he has no expertise in philosophy. And the edit that he made goes to the very heart of expert disagreement about which approach Kant took to the issue of knowledge and truth. Awbrey simply assumed that he knew which approach was correct (or else he is not familiar with the dispute). This is what's wrong with OR. SlimVirgin 22:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to leave this at Squeakbox's comments below, but... The initial comment on this topic was regarding Guys comments/proposed actions in relation to Charles Peirce and Awbreys contributions. This is what WAS 4.250 and I, and I believe Squeakbox, were referring to. Difficulties with Awbrey's edits to Truth, or other articles, has only tangiable in relation to this; there are plenty of "difficult communication" and WP:OWN editors contributing to Misplaced Pages still. While Squeakbox's position of conservative approach to unverified content has its merits, certainly I was content to leave the discussion at that point, I still feel that it is not this principle that is guiding Guys considerations regarding the Charles Pierce article. I am also concerned that there isn't the desire to investigate whether there are the sources to verify the content that is simply based on the individual who initially provided the text - problematic in other articles as they might be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well okay, non-good faith. I tend to go for the more conservative remove the material first and then restore once verified as we cannot afford to get things wrong, Thanks, SqueakBox 22:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And while assuming good faith is very important in our personal interactions the most important thing is the finished product and we should surely always act conservatively and cautiously in order to endsure the quality of our product as our primary mission. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure Guy's actions are completely guided by WP:AGF in regards to this. By the way, what was the last featured article Guy wrote? </sarc> Videmus Omnia 00:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read bits and bobs lately implying that those who write featured articles are somehow better than the rest of us, and I include myself as someone who has never seriously contributed towards a featured or indeed even a good article. We have over 2 million articles and only a tiny minority ever make GA status and yet we are cl;early judged ont rhe encyclopedia as a whole while BLP may effect a tenth of articles. I don't even buy that everyone needs to be editing articles to be useful here but do object to the implication that those of us who edit articles on subjects and people we consider important and improve hundreds and thousands of articles in little ways are somehow an inferiror type of editor. Knowing your work with images, Videmus, I hope you agree with me here. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, I don't mean that at all, and I appreciate the BLP work that you do. But I am deathly sick of admins that seem to feel entitled to set themselves up as the cops of the project, without making any meaningful contributions to content. I think we'd all be better off if they just buggered off, or went back to writing articles. Videmus Omnia 02:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Darkdealt

Honestly, My Good People, these sorts of problems are so much easier to solve than you all make out. Darkdealt (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If a user's past contributions are considered original research, perhaps DarkDealt's method is the correct way of dealing with it? It is a shame though. The contributions of Jon Awbrey look fine to me. You don't need citations for every single little fact. Is there something I'm missing here? Ripberger (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Darkdealt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely as a sockpuppet created to edit war. If that obviously-experienced editor wishes to make major edits on apparently contentious topics, then he or she is welcome to do so under his regular username. The last thing that a contentious topic needs is a brand-new single-purpose account making major edits on behalf of another editor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see from Dark's contributions that he was editing warring. I don't understand your reasoning to block him. Ripberger (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I bring to your attention, without further comment, item 7 in this list of observations on Misplaced Pages behavior. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a single-purpose account created solely to dive into a contentious area; the editor even created user and user talk pages to camouflage the account's newness (turn his user and talk links blue). He invoked the name of another editor (SlimVirgin) in making edits to articles that are at the center of an ongoing dispute. In only an hour after his first edit, he managed to find his way to the middle of a conflict on Jimbo Wales' talk page.

If he wishes to contribute to this discussion, he can do so under his regular account name and stake his own reputation. Creating a puppet to pick a fight is just not allowed. If you've got any more questions about the block, you should probably take it to my talk page; if you think I've misused the block button, then you should address the matter to WP:AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ten, I have replied on your talk page. Sorry, for taking up your talk space, Mr. Wales! Ripberger (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reversed Darkdealts edit to Truth. If it was an inflammatory act, by a now indef blocked account, then I felt the status quo needed restoring - I have no opinion on the validity of the removed text and would be happy if it were removed following consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Jimbo

Dear Jimbo,

Please Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 09:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Carolyn Bothwell Doran

Most businesses have personnel worries like this but don't have AP articles written about them. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. David Gerard has a nice way of putting it. When filling out a form, do we check the >100,000 box or the <10 box? What he means when he says that is that we are simultaneously a small nonprofit organization, quite non-notable in terms of the overall size of the organization, and also a top 10 website with a huge media profile. There is no excuse for the Wikimedia Foundation having hired someone like Carolyn Doran; it was a major misstep for the organization without a doubt. But as you note, and especially since as far as we know, no money is missing, it is the sort of thing that most businesses have worries about... and it happens all the time of course that people are hired whose history is not what one might hope. For us, it ends up a major media story anyway. This just shows that going forward we have to be absurdly vigilant about such things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What is most annoying from a community point of view is that they don't understand the distinction between what happens on foundation level and Misplaced Pages. For the press to bad mouth Misplaced Pages because of a foundation issue is absurd beyond words. Sorry for posting this here but this has been annoying me ever since this story came out. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sincerely curious, why do you think it's "absurd beyond words" to relate the two topics, especially given there's a fundraiser going on now? While happily there's no evidence of any money having been stolen, I would think it very obvious for potential donors to Misplaced Pages to be concerned over the topic of mismanagement at the foundation level. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Because that is a foundation issue. It has no influence on the quality of Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is run and maintained by the community who works damn hard in their spare time to keep the site running smoothly. Whenever something like this happens it gets treated as if this was a Misplaced Pages issue which it isn't. It is a foundation issue that has no effect whatsoever on the quality of the encyclopedia. EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But don't you at the very least think that funding for the foundation is vital for the functioning of Misplaced Pages? The servers have to be paid for somehow, and hopefully developers, and even a lawyer or two, which then requires a treasurer, etc. After all, why then is there a big banner asking for donations? Where do you think those donations are going, and why? I'm very puzzled at your mental map here. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to Seth) Do the servers write the encyclopedia? No, the community does. I realize that those with an axe to grind are very eager to use this as yet another excuse to bad mouth the hard work by thousands of people who devote their spare time to running the encyclopedia. Some of us are here to write the damn encyclopedia and frankly couldn't care any less about missteps at foundation level. I donate 30$ every year and I get more than I could ever have hoped for in return. If that is a problem for people such as yourself then frankly I couldn't care any less and neither could 99% of the community. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But surely you'd grant at minimum that the "community" could not do its work without the infrastructure of the foundation? There's another issue having to do with the hype around Misplaced Pages, and you can see that reflected in the coverage. It may not be the most nuance of portrayals, but connecting Misplaced Pages's focus on information, with the Foundation's lack of information here, does seem to me to make a valid point, if only of the not-practicing-what-you-preach variety. Note there's a difference between disagreeeing with the validity of the point, and not seeing any basis whatsoever for it. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your argumentation is logically incoherent. None of what the foundation provides to make Misplaced Pages exist affects the quality of the content here nor does it affect how Misplaced Pages is run. To put it another way... with or without the foundation Misplaced Pages with the same community would be the same. We would simply be donating to someone else in return for the servers and occasional legal backup. Sure, we can't operate without the servers but the foundation merely provides those servers, it doesn't run Misplaced Pages. We do, and you need to realize that we could easily make this site a whole lot less transparent if we wanted to. We don't because transparency and everyones right to voice their opinion, including you, is part of what makes this community work despite some people's efforts to exploit that. No missteps at foundation level would ever change any of that - I think you overestimate just how much influence the foundation and even Jimbo has on how this site is run. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, whoever the "someone else" is who handles the million bucks, if there was someone with an extensive criminal record near it, isn't it obvious cause for concern about management? It may not change your own willingess to donate, but surely it's a reasonable concern that it could have an overall effect. Actually, the real stuff doesn't seem to be very transparent at all. And remember, there's always the block button hanging over my opinion. Let me tell you, given some of the flaming I've gotten from the "spirtual leader", I sure don't think in terms of a right to express my opinion (more like being onsufferance as long as I don't annoy the powers-that-be too much, which is not the same thing). I don't believe this exchange is very risky, I really am interested in your thinking, and it's a rather mild topic overall. But I sure wouldn't count it as any great triumph of openness. Anyway, I think people underestimate the influence of money. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You have some media knowledge Seth, can you give us an overview of the number of US non-profit entities who have hired people of questionable background? The number of those incidents which have been widely reported? The number where a founder such as Mr. Wales has publicly pledged to make up any missing funds, which missing funds have not yet been found to exist? Perhaps you could share your perspective on how often these things happen - just this once, or sadly, all too often? How many of these organizations were seriously impaired, and how many were able to keep delivering on their mission regardless of the personnel issues? Do you really think that one person can derail an army? Franamax (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheap irony is a great story. In this case, it's not just shady background, but "Encyclopedia organization didn't get information about its own COO". I think people should admit, objectively, that's a grabber. Misplaced Pages advocates often try to have it both ways - when the topic is positive, it's a revolutionary force for knowledge, when the topic is negative, well, it's just a tiny nonprofit that really shouldn't be held to any professional standards at all. Yes, of course, that's a great rhetorical tactic when it works. But let's put it this way - outsiders are not as inclined to be as forgiving of that shell-game as insiders. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to strike my last rhetorical flourish, since irony was not what I intended (maybe a cheap laugh though, for which I apologize.) But I'll let the rest of the questions stand - I'm not saying anything about "tiny nonprofit", I really was trying to ask you where this stands in the grand scheme of things, how significant is this grabber? In financial terms (currently equal to zero) and organizational terms (improper influence uncovered currently equal to zero), how significant is this event?

And to restate my last sentence separately, as EG says above much better, Misplaced Pages is not the Foundation, it is the contributors, it is not the red and green lights on the servers, it is the people making the lights flash. That doesn't minimize wrongdoing at the Foundation level, it just shows the scale of the right-doing. That should stand apart from the other questions I asked. Franamax (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, just my opinion, I think this is presently an embarrassment, and a set-back to getting big-ticket donations (which has been a problem all along), but it's not going to bring down Misplaced Pages. The results of the financial audit are going to be more significant overall in regard to future funding. In terms of image, I think this is going to be one of things that sticks in the public mind, maybe not for pure significance, but because of that cheap irony. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• <outdent>Look, Seth, I'll try to make this compact. Most companies large and small have problems like this-- ask any personnel director. They don't actually impact the workings of how to make an encyclopedia. I wasn't being tongue in cheek about saying I didn't care about somebody's run-in's with the law, across the country and far away. Not my problem. What I did care about as an editor HERE, is hypocrisy. So long as things are handled above-board, same rules for all, that's fine. But Misplaced Pages has a policy about bios of living semi-notable people (people you'd never find in a paper encyclopedia), which is screwed up. To wit, there is endless fighting over semi-notables who WANT to have bios (and there are edit-wars about deleting), while at the same time, people who do NOT want to have bios, are forced to watch them kept up, while being edited by other people, on the basis of (sometimes shoddy) journalistic reporting. This is not in keeping with the golden rule, needless to say. And yet those rules are not the same for WMF people. Some of them have been caught altering their own bios in a way that would get them banned if they didn't pull rank. What were they thinking? WMF people who no longer want bios see them shrink, and finally begin to flicker in and out of existence (see Angela Beesley). And Carolyn Duran's bio used to be up, but has now disappeared as effectively as purged unpersons in old Soviet photos. What--is she now less notable than she was 2 weeks ago? All of this is as screwy as the Carioca:

Say, have you seen a Carioca?

It's not a foxtrot or a polka

It has a little bit of new rhythm, a blue rhythm that sighs

It has a meter that is…. tricky

A bit of wicked wacky-wicky

But when you dance it with a new love, there's a true love in her eye

And a bit of wicked wacky wiky this is, too. SBHarris 08:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source

I'd be glad to hear your opinion on the current state of Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source, proposed as a replacement for Misplaced Pages:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources (WP:NOR's PSTS section).

Related talk (which I took at heart for improvements) at:

• Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#WP:WITS
• Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

EffK charge in progress

legal threat by banned user removed part 2

awards

1bookfan has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You deserve these awards! 1bookfan 00:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

GAG++ :-P --Fandyllic (talk) 12:26 AM PST 23 Dec 2007

Also,

Please sign my autograph page. 1bookfan 00:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

RoryReloaded (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You deserve this for creating this place!--RoryReloaded (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Italian lessons

If you don't know how to speak Italian, come to my talk page! I can provide you with basic to expert Italian (probably). Feel free to come for lessons whenever you feel like it! RoryReloaded (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Wasn't expecting that... RoryReloaded (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made your smiley smaller. A 90 kilobyte image was a tad too big, I think. --Dapeteばか 10:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch!RoryReloaded (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages surrendering users' info without a fight

I wonder what your opinion is about the following story:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/12/video_prof03.html

Apparently, Misplaced Pages has surrendered without argument the info about some registered Misplaced Pages user(s) in response to a subpoena from the Video Professor. Other websites being sued have successfuly fought back on the free speech and the first amendments grounds, and even Comcast is demonstrating some backbone on the privacy protection grounds. But apparently not Misplaced Pages.... Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The story is not well reported. It is false to say that we did not put up a fight. And we were successful in pushing the company to seek identifying data not from us but from the cable broadband provider, which is protected under the Cable Act from complying with a mere subpoena.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Curious. I have read the VP court motion where the Misplaced Pages issue is being discussed: http://www.citizen.org/documents/videoprofwithdrawal.pdf Here is what it says: "1. VPI issued subpoenas in early September 2007 to infomercialscams.com, ripoffreport.com, and Misplaced Pages for identifying information regarding the persons having posted anonymous defamatory remarks about VPI on these Web sites. 2. VPI is withdrawing its subpoenas to infomercialscams.com and ripoffreport.com. 3. Misplaced Pages failed to respond to its subpoena served out of the Middle District of Florida. In this case, VPI moved the Florida. Court on September 26, 2007 for an order requiring Misplaced Pages to show cause why it should not be held in contempt . A hearing on the show cause was scheduled for December 20, 2007. 4. On November 29, 2007, Misplaced Pages produced the subpoenaed information and, thereafter, the show cause hearing was vacated. 5. The information produced by Misplaced Pages consisted of IP addresses requiring additional subpoenas to be issued to the Internet service providers (ISP) of the owners of these IP addresses to provide the names and physical addresses of the these owners." It does say "Misplaced Pages produced the subpoenaed information", and there is no mention of any opposing action by Misplaced Pages. As I understand, in most cases Misplaced Pages does not have the actual names of the registered WP users, but only their IP addresses. That is what you had and that is what you surrendered. Moreover, the above document makes clear that Misplaced Pages surrendered the IP addresses of multiple users and not just a single poster. Frankly, I find this action astonishing! If this news spreads around, what kind of an effect do you think it will have on future posters who contemplate including some negative material, even if it is properly sources, about some big company, organization or country? And what about those companies/organizations themselves? How long would it take them to figure out that they can prevent posting of negative information about themselves in Misplaced Pages by itimidating its users? I would have expected more of a backbone from the supposed beacon of free dissemination of knowledge and information. The other websites in the lawsuit did not have the protection of the Cable Act either, but they chose to fight back and succeeded. Also, the post at Public Citizen, http://www.citizen.org/documents/videoprofsamplenotice.pdf, indicates that informercialscams.com actually notified its users whose identifying information was being sought by the VP subpoena. I don't suppose you did the same, did you? Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not cross post. Thanks. Note that is not a discussion forum.I f you have issues with the actions by the Wikimedia Foundation, you can write to them. You are wasting your time here. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 02:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, let's not try to gag the discussion. If not Jimbo's page, it may belong to other policy page but it certainly belongs right here on Misplaced Pages. How the hell did anyone give the IP information of the user just for asking? I am shocked. --Irpen 02:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the do not gag part; this is Jimbo's page and discussion is common and encouraged. KnightLago (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The question I ask is, How did the community let a dispute degenerate to the point where its participants resorted to the law and the press? Reporters sometimes misstate the facts and this piece may have erred about WMF's role, but as community volunteers we ought to be learning from this and finding better ways to resolve these problems. Durova 23:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion?

This is some questions I decided to brought up on your opinions.

• What is your opinion on barnstars and other awards? Do you think it helps/hurts the community?
• How do you feel when somebody give you a specific award?
• When do you think the awards should be given by a Wikipedian?

I would like your opinion out of curiousity. Thank you for your time. PrestonH 19:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I like barnstars. They are a decentralized reward mechanism that seems to me to have no downsides. I think people should give cute and interesting awards whenever someone does something good or nice or helpful or of high quality or...

The Germans give gummibears. This pleases me greatly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Heretics! They should be giving jelly babies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Does everybody hate muffins or is it just me? 68.195.123.26 (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't hate you... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "hate muffins" would be a good name for a band, or a book, or for actual muffins (the secret ingredient is hate!). sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 04:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BADMUFFINS daveh4h 08:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Hi, just a quick note to say that your input is requested at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007. Whilst appreciating the pressures on your time, a select group of candidates have been chosen by the community, and should really be helping out and/or familiarising themselves before the terms of the outgoing Arbitartors ends. Thanks, and have a good Christmas Martinp23 01:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• nod* Announcement very soon. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Worth staying up a few more hours for, or should I go to bed? I'm very eager to hear the results. --Deskana (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you should leave out the milk and cookies, and some carrot sticks for the reindeer, and when you wake up, if you have been a really really good boy, there will be a present or two waiting for you under the tree.  ;-) Risker (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

But it'll still be December 24th when I wake up :-p --Deskana (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

He did it on Christmas Day last year. --jpgordon 03:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm led to believe a three-year term on the Arbitration Committee is nothing close to a Christmas present :) Daniel 03:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Shhh. They might hear you. --jpgordon 04:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, sounds like visions of sugar plums will be the furthest thing from their dreams...--Risker (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Jimmy, someone mentioned elsewhere that you can make yourself a real nice Christmas present by tweaking your picks. :) --Irpen 03:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that Jimbo cares more about the integrity of the project than about a simple bottle of cognac. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

In the immortal words of The Goons, "Brandy-y-y-y-y-y-y!" (someone else said this)

Oh look. I've found a sense of humour. Missing one careless owner. Can't quite read the name. Ray M. Rit or something. Seriously, expansion is needed. Maybe Santa will get a place on the ArbCom? Carcharoth (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cognac and Christmas

In response to Raimond Arritt, this wasn't my idea. I offered the bounty on a safe bet hoping to find a fool who would take it and thus make myself an easy brandy . Someone then suggested that Jimmy can turn the table on this .

But speaking seriously, I also hope that Jimbo cares about the integrity of the arbcom and the community's perception of the appointed arbs and won't make the January 2006 or February 2007 mistakes by substituting the community judgment by his own. Being able to tweak the appointments by expanding or reducing the slice's size is already questionable. As I wrote in the link given at the previous one, expanding the top slice of this to 8 would be acceptable but Jimbo can solve all the cabalism problems at once by expanding it to 10 AND getting a nice bottle in the mail by the New Year's eve if he chooses to.

Merry Christmas, Jimmy! --Irpen 17:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays Jimbo Wales. Have a Happy New Year !

Passed on message

Alright Jimbo me man, this is a message from Jay Cee, he be entering the hospital engineers Tony Lieu time, he want me to tell you. Booya.

Christmas thought

Íngrid Betancourt, who has been a prisoner in the Colombian jungle for years, said the one thing she had begged for and been refused is an encyclopedia. "Oh to learn something new" she is reported as having said. Which makes me think how lucky we are who have access to the endlessly informative and multi-lingual wikipedia. Living in a place myself where the nearest decent library is probably a thousand miles away, and where there are simply no book shops, I want to say thanks for founding such an excellent and enrichening project, spreading knowledge to those who need it throughout the world. Feliz Navidad, SqueakBox 17:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Only one person in five on Earth now has access to the internet, but all that is very rapidly changing. There are places already where people without basic necessities, still have access to cell phones. And soon, web-enabled cell phones. And see One Laptop per Child and similar programs. I've heard complaints from people that we're trying to get people on the internet, who have no clean water. Yes, but that's Moore's law vs. the logic of Malthus, and it's bound to happen. So what? There is no world problem that isn't made worse by ignorance, and if ignorance is easier to fix sooner, we need to do that first.

Misplaced Pages is an astonishingly powerful evolutionary, and revolutionary idea. All of human knowledge, filtered and organized through millions and millions of minds and then made available, pre-searched, to everybody, for free. If that doesn't give you goosebumps, you should check your pulse to see if you still have one.

Critics of the project seem to come in two varieties: 1) Those obsessives for whom the best is always the enemy of the good, who complain about the quality of free food (spare me), and 2) Those who worry about those who believe in the project so much, that they think the ends justify the means, in the producing of it. I'm of the latter type, at worst. Few things are that important (thinking like that, got us the Inquisition). But overall, the project IS worthwhile and IS astounding, and the sooner we get all 6.6 billion minds on the planet connected, the sooner we will eliminate much lack of empathy (i.e., lack of imagination), much lack of knowledge, and (even more importantly) be able to use the astounding parallel processing ability of all those minds to attack any world problem, in the same way we're making an encyclopedia here. So, onward! I'm now going back to my chem, physics, and medicine pages, where (yes) I actually do spend most of my time. Happy Holidays to all. SBHarris 01:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		To Jimmy Wales, for having a Misplaced Pages account in your name. Susanlesch (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the spam but I am fresh out of ideas. I read somewhere you don't like user boxes but I hope you like barnstars. I hope someday to achieve a Wikimedia Ambassador barnstar. Good luck. -Susanlesch (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Reposting now as User:MiszaBot III already deleted it. What a rip off if I don't even get a reply. -Susanlesch (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews Interviews (again)

Jim, I just interviewed Shimon Peres, the President of Israel, for Wikinews. This was reported upon heavily in the Israeli press, signifying the influence of Wiki. In addition to Peres, I have interviewed three Presidential candidates, Al Sharpton, Nadine Strossen, Augusten Burroughs, Gay Talese, and a host of others. Every time a person doesn't like a quote--this time, people don't like a quote used from the Al Sharpton interview on the Tawana Brawley artic--an editor raises whether we can use Wikinews at all for our interviews, which help flesh out a lot of information on Misplaced Pages.

The consensus was reached that on biographies of living people, an interview where Party A talks about Party B should not be used on Party B's article, but is fine on Party A's article and related non-BLP subjects. Now, the question is whether we can use Wikinews, a Wikimedia sister project, at all on Misplaced Pages.

I am asking making a public request you make a statement whether you support using accredited reporters on Wikinews to conduct interviews with notable people, and to allow those interviews to be used as sources on Misplaced Pages. I think your views on this matter will help clarify the matter for others on Misplaced Pages, including myself. Thank you.

The current discussion is here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews:_Please_post_definite_answer. --David Shankbone 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the spontaneous opinions against using Wikinews as an RS suggest the community feels differently. When I asked a relatively narrow question about using third-party interviews on BLPs, some editors gave sweeping opinions against using Wikinews at all, which was not my focus. It might be that your behavior is clouding the issue. Many users react negatively toward editors citing their own work. Some believe that poor-quality publications are a thin veneer for original research. Perhaps Wikinews wouldn't take such a thrashing if the authors didn't strive to insert their own work into so many Misplaced Pages articles. Cool Hand Luke 22:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think the problem is with how people are viewing Wikinews. If we are taking time to research and talk to important people, about information directly related to their articles, why should it just sit there and not be used, especially when those same people have the very expectation that we will use it to correct inaccuracies? When I interviewed the President and Editorial Manager of The Onion, who both told me that their name had nothing to do with the UWM student center (as was incorrectly reported in our article) should I just let it sit there until someone else decides to take fix it? Wikinews should be seen as a good place to research some of the people and issue we report about, and collaborate on that research, and then use it to correct our articles. Perhaps the problem is not so much that I conduct an interview with someone and correct inaccuracies they specifically mention with their articles (why wouldn't they?) but that people have a problem with using valuable information. Remember: In an interview, the interviewer isn't the source of the information, the interviewee is the source. They aren't quoting David Shankbone on Tawana Brawley, they are quoting Al Sharpton. Who cares who is the person that asked the question. --David Shankbone 01:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

(I'm copying this comment from the RS noticeboard, because it's something Jimbo might be interested in)

I'm very opposed to any form of original research on Misplaced Pages, and to the use of "citizens' journalism" websites, because they often publish nonsense. But I have to say I agree with David here. His work is outstanding, and it seems crazy to question its use, especially because, as he says, he was granted the interviews because the subjects respect Misplaced Pages.

David, would it make sense for you to take the initiative here (assuming you have the time or inclination), and try to set up a research arm of Wikinews or Misplaced Pages, where original research/journalism of the kind you undertake can be encouraged and strictly monitored? We already allow original images. Original text is the next step, though the dangers of it mean we'd need a very, very strict accreditation system, so that the people allowed to produce material that Misplaced Pages could use as a "reliable source" are really the very best editors Misplaced Pages has. SlimVirgin 01:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews should remain what it is: a citizen journalism wiki, no different than any other such site. I would oppose any lessening of restricting the use of self-published sources in Wikpedia articles, unless a transparent and known process of fact-checking is imposed on Wikinews. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As for interviews, if there is a process in which the interviewee can acknowledge his words as cited, that may work. It is too way easy to misquote, and/or to quote out of context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Interviews are normally recorded and could be uploaded so everyone can listen to them. SlimVirgin 02:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's rather simple to address this: when a WikiNews story is credible enough to get repeated in mainstream reliable sources then we can cite those stories with a mention that the material originally came from WikiNews. Volunteer time is finite and that's much better than any WMF project attempting to set up its own cumbersome, amateur, and potentially gameable attempt at vetting. Durova 02:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi. I think that a real news organization is much more than enthusiastic reporters — it includes fact checkers, and more importantly, a respected publisher with a track record for accuracy, who is liable to be sued for misinformation if there are errors. The publisher is critical for reliability. Crum375 (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

But if we stick with interviews, recorded and uploaded for everyone to hear, there's very little potential for harm. The reporters would need some training in how to ask questions, and what to ask; and we would need to know that they were responsible, professional etc (and also that they weren't going to turn up and harm someone), and that would require a really good system of accreditation. But once you have that in place, I don't see the danger of using interviews. Stories are a different matter, because then the reporter has decided the narrative, but interviews would be okay, I think, so long as no BLP violations occurred. SlimVirgin 02:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That may work, but I am concerned about unintended negative consequences. What would stop Joe Blow to "record and interview with Mr. Notable X" and upload to Wikinews? Who would check it? Who would verify it? How would our readers trust the content of the interview? Is the interviewer anonymous/accountable? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We couldn't have anonymous interviewers, but I believe reporters already have to give their real names to Wikinews. SlimVirgin 02:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a very slippery slope. First, we have no idea how the tapes or words are edited, redacted or modified. With real news media, we have the publisher standing behind that work, here we just have someone's word. Also, you start with pure interviews, and soon you add background facts, and other comments. I think we need to treat amateur reporters as bloggers. Crum375 (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That's all true, and I understand the dangers. But David has been doing such great work. It seems to me that we need to find a way to accommodate that kind of initiative and professionalism. We're getting it for free, and yet we're turning it down. As he said, Simon Peres gave him the interview because he's attached to Misplaced Pages, so for Misplaced Pages not to be able to use it is kind of strange.

But yes, it's an area fraught with problems. For example, big companies could easily afford to fly reporters in, treat them brilliantly, give them gifts, and then give interviews where the Wikipedian feels compelled to be very nice. That would create material pushing a certain POV over other POVs perhaps not so well funded. So we would need an ethics committee, and very strict guidelines. But I think it's do-able. SlimVirgin 02:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but we'd also open an entirely different can of worms by introducing the concept that an unreliable source is sometimes reliable. Many difficult editors will try to leverage such a concept to their own advantage regarding unreliable sites they want to use as references, and they'll accuse us of hypocrisy for setting up an exception on a WMF project while we reject their own pet site. Let's not go there. Durova 02:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the dangers are all true. But committees never work. The only way to keep news organizations honest is by keeping them liable for misreporting or distorting the news and by having them maintain a good reputation over time. That we may have a star reporter is great, but reliable news is not one person, or even a committee. And if the information is that good, other reliable organizations will pick it up soon, and we can then cite them. Crum375 (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

One way of ensuring NPOV would be to allow these interviews to be used here only when at least two Misplaced Pages interviewers were present, representing each of the major POVs. That would be an interesting way to approach news reporting. SlimVirgin 02:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this would be reliable over time. Most editors have no way of checking the true POV of anyone, and this would be impractical. In any case, we are here to write an encyclopedia, and rely on reliable third parties. If the information is any good, those reliable third parties will pick it up. Crum375 (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) No one seems to be suggesting that David Shankbone's interviews are unreliable or distorted, so I don't see the problem in using them. Judgements can be made on a case by case basis, and interviewers would have to prove their reliability. It is touching to see so much faith bestowed on main stream news media with their supposed fact checking systems, but anyone who has had any dealings on a private or professional level with the same would find it also more than a little naive, as is the suggestion that reliable third parties will pick up information if it's any good. That is not the criterion for news inclusion. Tyrenius (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm the last person who needs to be reminded that "reliable" sources aren't necessarily so, but as a site we've accepted certain compromises for consistency's sake. The argument for making an exception here constitutes special pleading. I have the greatest respect for David Shankbone, yet he simply doesn't fit our existing guidelines. Durova 03:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sure there are some amateur bloggers out there who are better than the professional media. But the point is that we as editors are not equipped to judge the competence of individuals, so we must rely on organizations. WP:V tells us to trust reputable mainstream media, and to exclude bloggers or amateur reporters except in very special cases. Crum375 (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but "WP:V tells us to trust..." sounds creepy. It's not scripture; we write those guidelines and policies, and we amend them as it becomes necessary. WP:Ignore all rules also tells us to...ignore all rules. I caution anyone from becoming too doctrinal and start following guideline and policy like scripture, instead of seeing those for what they are: malleable and helpful guides that are there to help us shape a valuable, premiere information source; guides that should be changed when they hamper that goal. All that said, I don't see that we need to necessarily change them in this case. That doesn't meant that Wikinews may not need to change a bit. --David Shankbone 03:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't all that hard to get published in a regular vetted source, especially when a prominent person consents to an interview. And if you prefer to publish for WikiNews then you could notify mainstream editors that the interview is available. IAR addresses pressing needs when no other solution is workable. Durova 04:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sad

There are those who are editing Misplaced Pages even on Christmas day...

...that would be me, that it would. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too lol, I hope it doesn't cause me to burn the pigs in blankets :)Merkinsmum 00:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sad at all. Lighten up! It's just as valid to spend $5 of your time to edit Misplaced Pages as it is to put that much money in the Salvation Army pot. And might end up doing more good for the world, all told. Who can tell how long your knowledgeable edit will last, or what its good effects will be? We all contribute to the world in the way we can. Those of us who can write, may write for charity on Christmas. Merry Christmas! SBHarris 00:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"...knowledgeable edit..."? Have you read my contrib history recently? ;~D LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages provides a 💕 of 50,000 words or more in 29 languages so far, with Bulgarian, Korean and Arabic likely to pass that mark in the next few weeks. Peace on earth, goodwill toward all (edit, edit). :) Durova 00:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I am Jewish, and Hannukah has already ended. : ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Joyeux Noël

I just want to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Same Here:

Merry Christmas, Jimbo Wales! Wishing you a very Merry Christmas! Best regards from myself! -- S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s Post this merry message on any other user talk page you can find.

Et a vous! -Susanlesch (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)