Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:24, 22 January 2008

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

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 2 days

Archives

Index -index- As of January 16, 2003 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 - late May 2006 May 24 - July 2006 July 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 - Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 - December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 - Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 - Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007- Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2-5, 2007 March 5-11, 2007 March 11 - April 3, 2007 April 2 - May 2, 2007 May 3 - June 7, 2007 June 9 - July 4, 2007 July 13 - August 17, 2007 August 17 - September 11, 2007 September 14 - October 7, 2007 October 28 - December 1, 2007 December 2 - December 16, 2007 December 15 - January 4, 2008 January 4 - January 30, 2008 January 30 - February 28, 2008 February 28 - March 11, 2008 March 9 - April 18, 2008 April 18 - May 30, 2008 May 30 - July 27, 2008 July 26 - October 4, 2008 October 4 - November 12, 2008 November 10 - December 10, 2008 December 5 - December 25, 2008 December 25 - January 16, 2009 January 15 - January 27, 2009 January 26 - February 10, 2009 February 8 - March 18, 2009 March 18 - May 6, 2009 May 5 - June 9, 2009 June 10 - July 11, 2009 July 12 - August 29, 2009

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

On the topic of east Europeans and draconian sanctions

Hi Jimbo,

recall your email exchange you had in February, 2004, where you asked whether the internal squabbling was getting worse, whether the mediation/arbitration system was working and what could be done to build a sense of love and harmony. One wise contributor Caroline responded: "We still have a geographical bias, partly but not soley due to the different levels of internet access amongst different communities and countries. As this divide narrows we will get more contributors who disagree with the current consensus on various articles. Most articles on countries and political movements have not been edited by people from the relevant country. If we sometimes have trouble getting Wikilove between the US and UK then it will probably get worse as net access improves in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, for example."

So how has Misplaced Pages coped in the intervening years with the arrival of contributors from eastern Europe editing articles about their own countries? Not very well I am sad to say. It is rather unfortunate that a certain sector of established editors and admins have reacted adversely to this influx of new editors who have challenged their established notions. Their response has been to characterise these newcomers as "nationalist POV-pushers", for example , regardless of the fact that these multi-lingual east Europeans may actually know more about their own country's history than many of these mostly US based editors could imagine. In fact one admin even characterises this influx of contributors as a "plague" (User:Moreschi/The Plague) that must be eradicated in the most draconian manner.

This intolerant attitude by an established sector against these newcomers is driving these newcomers away. These people, who have much potential to contribute in east European topics due to their intimate local knowledge and language skills, are essentially being vilified for the fact of their east European origin and their sincere intellectual effort is dismissed as "axe-grinding" without any further thought . Their departure is a far greater loss to Misplaced Pages than any alleged disruption these established editors and admins believe they are fighting against.

Case in point. We had a number of new editors from the former Soviet Union country of Estonia who joined the project mid year and who greatly expanded Wikiproject Estonia and contributed to a variety of articles concerning Estonia. They also challenged the established concensus through articles like Occupation of Baltic states. Add into the mix around the same time in May of 2007, the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn incident occurred where a monument to the Red Army was moved from downtown Tallinn to a military cemetary. As you may be aware, rioting among young Russians broke out in Tallinn and Estonia was also subjected to severe cyber attacks apparently orchestrated within the Russophone blogosphere. This conflict appeared to have also spread into Misplaced Pages with a number of established editors conflicting with these new Estonian editors. The result was significant disruption to almost exclusively Estonian articles which these Estonians either created or greatly expanded, ranging from Estonia-Russia relations to country specific articles such as Estophilia (which btw was initially speedy deleted by an admin who believed it was WP:POINT creation as a part of this conflict), Monument of Lihula, Jüri Uluots, Lydia Koidula, Estonian Government in Exile, Rein Lang, Erna Raid, etc. Given that many admins seem to believe in the "nationalist plague" view, these Estonian editors on balance seemed to have come off worst in terms of blocks. In one extreme case an Estonian editor was blocked for one week for the nominal reason of reverting the article Anti-Estonian_sentiment one single time, while extensive page move disruption of Soviet occupation by an established editor earned a mere 30 minute block.

Anyway, all this culminated in a case being brought to ArbCom Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, where the complainant wanted ArbCom to initially investigate all Estonian editors. The outcome of this case was User:Digwuren and User:Petri Krohn banned for a year. The justification for this remedy was this particular finding of fact "In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia." Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#At_wit.27s_end. However there were no reasonable attempts made in the case of User:Digwuren. Mediation or a RFC/U, which is is customarily required before taking a case to ArbCom, was never under taken first.

While ArbCom may have became increasingly frustrated at the numerous cases before them concerning Eastern Europe, including:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Ghirlandajo
• User:Durova/Mediation
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Molobo
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Irpen
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Halibutt
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Irpen

it must be noted these cases were primarily between Russian and Polish editors (hence the east European tag). This conflict came to a head in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus, the outcome being a general amnesty for those participants. Given that these Estonian newcomers who arrived around May 2007 were not a party to these earlier cases and hence had no knowledge or participation in this past disruption, it was assumed that this amnesty would also be extended to them too . However these Estonians appear to have carried the brunt of ArbCom's frustration and resultant draconian measures, in other words they were collaterally damaged by an earlier conflict not of their making. In essence, User:Digwuren was banned for a year for defending articles about his own country, which he either created or significantly expanded.

Let's not throw the baby (these new editors) out with the bath water (disruptive practices). With a country of only 1.4 million, the demographic of university educated Estonians is already small, the demographic of university educated fluent english speaking Estonians willing to contribute to Misplaced Pages is tiny. Due to this hostile environment against any east European who may challenge the comfortable concensus acheived by established editors mostly based outside Europe (i.e. USA), we have seen the exit of:

1. User:Constanz ,
2. User:3 Löwi ,
3. User:Erik Jesse ,
4. User:Klamber , the departure of
5. User:Sander_Säde , who was instrumental in getting Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Estonia off the ground as Project_Estonia coordinator, and finally
6. User:Termer , who was the driving force behind the establishment of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Baltic states military history task force.

In addition several others like User:Alexia_Death have reduced their involvement considerably. Without this core group of enthusiasts putting energy and vitality into WikiProject_Estonia, it is essentially dead, with now only a minimal amount of house keeping edits now being done by people without the background, language skills or interest needed to create and further expand Estonia related articles.

I don't know how to fix this apparent systematic bias, dare I say xenophobia, against east European editors that seems to held by a section of established editors and admins within Misplaced Pages. Perhaps you could reflect on Caroline's words form 2004 and think about how best Misplaced Pages could end throwing the babies out with the bath water. If you believe that Misplaced Pages is enriched by the inclusion contributors from other communities and countries, perhaps you could encourage ArbCom to look favorably at the proposals here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Requested_motions_to_.2FDigwuren, maybe some of this damage can be undone and these editors may be encouraged to return. Martintg (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm gone now too for all practical uses. I will not let our history get distorted again beyond belief as it was when I joined and I fully expect harsh times even with this little involvement. But I will not put more into this project. Giving and only receiving abuse is not worth more. Ive tried to make proposals to break the cycle of power, they have gone unheeded because those that have it will not give any of it up. I wrote it on my userpage the day my final disillusionment came and now I repeat it here.

Misplaced Pages is said to be a libertarian anarchy. It no longer is because the liberties are going away one by one. Now its just an anarchy with ever-changing rules on what you are not allowed to do interpreted at seen fit by admins. Where are the liberties? Policies that state what are my rights? They do not exist because on Misplaced Pages you have NONE. You are at the mercy of the admins interpretation of the rules. If expressing an opinion countering the ruling clique or an admin in your own user space earns you a block and a gag, then things are much worse than I suspected.

All in all the whole experience has been depressing. Just like you don't want to know exactly what goes into your sausages, you don't wish to know how Misplaced Pages is made and how much of what goes into it is actually meat over the odd bits of beast not presentable enough to go anywhere else. You just cant ever look at a sausage the same way once you do...

--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have one last proposal to add to this. Make adminship available to anyone who gives up their real life identity. Who state clearly who they are and can be validated to tell the truth like Sander, who now has left due to anonymous trolls. Admins would thus be responsible for their actions as people and wont be able to hide in their decisions behind the safety of anonymity... Give these users more credit and right than the anonymous ones and there may be hope still. Tarnishing ones name is a strong motive to keep honest.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear, on your last suggestion. Anonymous people always do nastier things, which is why so many IP vandals exist. Even making people pick an anon user name makes them more responsible! Also nastier, are people who have little fear of being held responsible for petty viciousness, which the average admin does not (not really-- have you ever seen anybody get desysoped for an indefinite block which wasn't justified?). As to your suggestion about a Bill of Rights, it's an old one in other contexts. The first thing the English wanted after their revolution in the 17th century was a Bill of Rights for the common citizen (in wikispeak that would be the common nameuser). When the Americans had their own revolution a century later, they wanted a Bill of Rights because the English had one. A bill of rights protects the lowest of the low against those in authority. In medicine, we have a Patient Bill of Rights. Nothing of the sort exists on Misplaced Pages. About all you get is the "right" (if you can figure out how to do it) to petition the Lord High Appeals Court for clemency, if you get zapped by the cops. That's no way to run any organization. SBHarris 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Before today, I have had no interaction with Alexia Death so I comment solely on her ideas and not her editing character or behaviour: her ideas are intriguing and thought provoking and I recommend them to Wikipedians with an open mind who are interested in improving our project:

User:Alexia Death/Community Court for community issues

User:Alexia Death/Accusations of collaboration: 3RR hurts Misplaced Pages

Alice 08:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Following on from User:Alexia_Death's essay on 3RR mentioned by Alice above, I've added a proposal to the Village Pump here: Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#A_better_3RR_policy. Martintg (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont feel there is very much love and harmony going on, if any. This says alot right here Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vintei/shop Sirkad_talk 05:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"(if you can figure out how to do it)" as mentioned by Sbharris sums up your rights within Misplaced Pages. I come from the UK rather than Eastern Europe, but I found that all it took was to be labelled a "vandal only account" by one arrogant admin, and I was doomed. There was no way I could figure out where or how I was meant to appeal, and it eventually lead to a life ban. Personally I believe the whole Wiki project is a great idea, and morally I don't feel the ban was in any way justified, so I carry on contributing via an IP address. But you've got to realise you've created a "community" somewhat akin to any fascist state - most of the dirty work is conducted by a group of narrow minded admins, with little or no accountability for their actions, with an appeals system which is entirely inaccessible except to those whose want to use it as a stick to beat you with. There would be far less need to go round awarding each other smilies and barnstars (surely the most childish way to spread WikiLove - why not just encourage a polite (and adult) "thank you" where necessary?) if the entire project wasn't built upon a foundation of suspicion, officiousness and WikiHate. --91.104.41.177 (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a great technical achievement, but more thought must be given to the human/organisational aspects of running an encyclopedia. Requiring admins to give up their anonymity would be a step in the right direction. Martintg (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems you have all misunderstood my statement above. I don't think admins should be forced to give up anonymity, I don't think anybody should. I said that anybody who does should be eligible for admin rights(you know, with the rights everybody used to have...) without vote.

Also, the talk about preserving ones anonymity... Its tall tales and sugar dreams, If you are in a content dispute you can bet on it that you wont be allowed to keep it. I would have been blocked not long into my membership as a sock and so would have been Sander Säde, if we had not chosen to reveal much more about us than we ever intended, by a simple check user process. Accusation of being someones sock is fast and dirty way of either getting a content opponent blocked or banned.

There must be tons of new users gone this way and let me tell you, its rather insulting to be declared a non-individual. There must be rights granted to common name users and given a path to file a complaint against and admin that cannot be gagged and will be acted up on by a neutral party. Nobody should be promptly permanently banned based on solely sock accusations to a known troll. And the list goes on. A change is needed to mend things.

Sigh... None of it would not even be an issue without 3RR. 3RR is where it all starts to run wrong. Consensus or content polices no longer matter, the one with the biggest gang wins. Admin elections suffer from this phenomena too. I doubt any admin can say that they have the support of even 10th of community. Its too large for this. So there are two ways of making an improvement. Make removal of admin privileges very much simpler(complaint threshold+jury duty by common users) or devaluate adminship by giving it to anybody who asks it under their real name and has some Wiki experience to show. The name may be only known to the Foundation, but it must be verified.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more idea for you: An admin is somebody that has an "admin contract" that sets some rather clear and rights granting boundaries to admin action. This contract is signed by the admin and protected. This contract has an extra where all complaints against an admin can be filed. The complaint list has an edit limit before a higher party must review the complaints, remove patently false ones and if enough is left take the matter for community to decide on notifying all that have filed complaints. The result of this is a decision if a breach of contract has occurred. If it has then the rights are removed without a chance of getting them back.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a recipe for limiting the power of admins to act as they see fit without getting paranoid while increasing the power of disgruntled non-admins. so it sounds like a bad idea to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Then apparently you are an admin. Having to account to nobody in exercising power is a recipe for a police state. Is that any better? --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Squeakbox is a very long term ordinary editor with a remarkable talent for being bold.

Trying to depersonalise this a little, the country where Squeakbox originates from has no written bill of rights or constitution but regards it as important that policemen are able to be identified by the numbers on their shoulders; that seems to jive with your ideas on identifying admins outlined above... Alice 08:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Martintg is right that edit warring and conflicts in wikipedia are on the rise, which forces many good people to leave the project. This problem might be addressed by focusing on this encyclopedia content, rather than on people's personal problems. Perhaps we need an editorial board that would deal with content disputes, unlike ArbCom that deals with behavior problems. To be efficient, this board would reply to only one specific type of question: "should a disputed segment of text remain in article X as sufficiently sourced and relevant?". Two sides would simply provide a disputed segment of text and their very brief arguments. Any person from the editorial board could take a look and just tell quickly: "please leave it there", or "delete it" (or else modify the disputed segment himself), without any voting and negotiations/arguments of the sides. Perhaps this member of editorial board should not be from Russia or Estonia if he judges an article about Russia-Estonia relations. Then, vast majority of disputes would be resolved immediately. That would be much better and easier than eviction of good and productive users, such as in the Digwuren case, when all sides were disappointed with the ArbCom decision, and perhaps some clemency is needed: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Requested_motions_to_.2FDigwuren.Biophys (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Another excellent idea for improving our encyclopedia and reducing editor stress.

Is there a page on Misplaced Pages where all these suggestions are collected together? Alice 14:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not really know. My point is very simple. Some people spend may be 50% lot of their time arguing with others or in "conflict resolutions", instead of productive editing. How to make their work more efficient? The existing "Conflict resolution procedures" are extremely time-consuming. Instead of looking for an impossible reconcilation with another person who holds an opposite view, I would prefer an impartial person (who thinks about WP benefits and good content rather than anything else) just take a look and decide what is the best. I think we have to sacrify some democracy here for the sake of efficiency and articles quality. I think we actually need some draconian measures, but with respect to the content, not people. We suffer from too much anarchy. An editorial board must control production of any good encyclopedia.Biophys (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, since the issues have been brought all the way to this talk page, and I see my username mentioned, I guess it’s not going to hurt in case I’d throw my few cents in here even though it most likely is not going to make any difference and it’s going to be buried in the archive soon. The reasons I’ve chosen to withdraw from WP:
First of all, I don’t think there is anything wrong with the written policies. And therefore all those suggestions above are not going to make a difference I think. WP:Five pillars as the constitution would do just fine in case the rules were followed and enforced. Most notably the WP:NPOV, if it was respected the way it has been laid out : The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly, It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics and everything would work just fine. Everybody would just feel free to add whatever viewpoint they might like to pick and cite from verifiable, authoritative sources side by side and it would be the end of the content dispute. The problem is, the consensus building on WP is not based on the WP:NPOV policy and citing verifiable, authoritative sources but it’s enough to have one guy who can take a position "I don’t like it" and is free to spam articles with the totally-disputed tags thereafter, and start a content dispute based on his/her opinion without bothering to put any effort into improving an article according to the viewpoint he/she might support or referring to any sources to back up the opinion whatsoever. Also, as it has became evident, it’s tolerated to back up such opinions with ethnic epithets instead and in case some editors might think this kind of arguments are way out of line, they actually end up getting warnings of incivility by themselves. So, I’m sorry, I just can’t take it seriously how the project is governed. In case in the future there might be a chance that the rules of WP, the five pillars are going to be followed and enforced without exceptions and applied to everybody the same way, not according to who is my friend or not etc. I’d be gladly willing to participate in the project as long as playing by the rules is going to be the name of the game, instead of the project being ruled by editorial and administrative opinions, that is the status quo for the way it's been run in my opinion. And sorry but that’s just not going to work for me.Thanks!--User:Termer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.108.240 (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone who lived in the Soviet Union, I must admit: this is a typical political repression and censorship that must be stopped immediately. Welcome to Glavlit Web 2.0! Not surprisngly, people from the former Soviet "socialism camp" are running.Biophys (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is no coincidence that many of the blocks issued by admins were given in response to editors disputing the earlier actions of admins as being overly arbitrary. There needs to be a balance struck between giving editors free rein to express themselves and admins imposing sanctions. I applaud the approach taken by ArbCom in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles/Proposed_decision. Hopefully the Working Group that will be formed as a result, will come up with a solution. I think the last thing we all want is for Misplaced Pages to gain the dubious distinction of becoming the world's first cyber orwellian regime. Martintg (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles/Proposed_decision was handled by ArbCom much better. It very narrowly defines the subject of an editorial conflict, instead of punishing all editors on the Eastern European subjects, "broadly defined". Main question however is how well the remedy works in practice. I simply do not think that all these warnings have been properly issued, after looking at the edits histories and arguments of the sides. This negatively affected all work in the "Eastern European" sector, a result that should be avoided.Biophys (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wei Wenhua

For posterity:

• User talk:Jimbo Wales, blanked for 24 hours - 13 January 2008
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Statements of support

Mzoli's

Do you still have those photos of Mzoli's you said you had in September? I haven't seen it but I'm not sure the current picture is the clearest of views. BigBlueFish (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Along the same line, have you come across any new sources we could use? (That is, sources about the restaurant, not stuff like this.) Zagalejo^^^ 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Europe getting botched

Jimmy, what do you think of this map of Eastern Europe? Furthermore, which article about the Music of Eastern Europe do you prefer? The version of the article from March 2005, or the version from January 2008? I thought that Misplaced Pages is constantly improving. These examples have been discussed extensively on a site that more than a few Wikipedians have dismissed, labeling those sites as "full of banned trolls." These lousy examples of scholarship -- signaled on a site critical of Misplaced Pages -- have remained untouched for weeks, if not years. Is this failure to address problems brought to light on "bad" sites part of the WP:DENY campaign? - John Russ Finley (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• • No, I think it is rather that no one has noticed the debates on that site who also felt qualified to improve the article. The article does suck, there's no denying that. But I am not sure what else you want me to say. Some articles in Misplaced Pages need attention to be brought up to our usual standards? Yes, of course.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• It is a very strange map. I do not understand what orange color is suppose to mean, probably Commonwealth of Independent States, but while Crimea is not the same color as the rest of Ukraine and Kaliningrad Oblast is not the same color as Russia is beyond me. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. Surely we have another map of Eastern Europe somewhere. But it is unclear to me whether this article even addresses a cognizable topic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Five maps and six definitions in Eastern Europe (all of which disagree btw), but Music of Eastern Europe is just as much as an unsourced OR-fest in 2008 as it was in 2005. Boowah59 (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Glad to see it being addressed finally. I'll be keeping my eye on that "bad" site. It's been awfully useful in pointing out some glaring flaws with Misplaced Pages, another of which I'll comment about below. - John Russ Finley (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Africa wiki projects

Just to let you know in case you are interested we've set up around 50 Category:WikiProject Africa projects to beginning assessing African articles by country towards developing the encyclopedia in the areas which we talked about previously. This a big step towards organizing a vastly undeveloped part of the project and to build upon this by increasing the coverage of articles and content by each of the countries. At present membership of these groups needs to increase but it is the organization benefits of it I feel are necessary. I hope you are pleased with these developments and appreciate the work done here. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 18:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Boy Scouts are for spanking?

Mr. Wales, it may be time for you to either pay more attention to what's happening with this Misplaced Pages/Wikia relationship, or begin setting down some rules at Wikia along the lines of, "Don't embarrass Wikia or the Misplaced Pages project with your actions on Wikia or Misplaced Pages." You'll wonder what I'm talking about? I'm delighted to see that Misplaced Pages has a GFDL image of some boys involved in the Boy Scouts mission. I'm not so delighted to see that photo copied into a Wikia called "Spanking Art", to enhance an article about Boy Scouts that reads:

While nowadays the Scouting movement prohibits the use of corporal punishment as part of its activities, this was not always so, and in spanking stories they often go hand in hand, especially with Beaver and Cub Scouts. There are also some spanking drawings that show young scouts, e.g. by Comixpank.

Because of the connotations of discipline that comes with scouting, some adult spankophiles like to roleplay/ageplay a boy or girl scout (similar to playing schoolboys).

Exactly what kind of perverts are Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation enabling, by allowing them free and unfettered access to simple pictures of boys, that are then twisted and exploited on your for-profit company's website, so that they are interwoven into adult perversions and roleplay?

I know I'm not supposed to link there, but you really ought to spend a minute or two reviewing this analysis of what's going on, before you unwittingly spawn a worldwide boycott of Amazon.com, the primary investor in Wikia "Spanking Art", for being a pro-pedophilia corporation. - John Russ Finley (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You're missing a detail here. Misplaced Pages is a 💕. When that photos was uploaded under free use, it became property of anyone and everyone. Uploading it as a free image says "I don't care who uses this and how they use this, as long as we're credited under the GFDL. So, every photo on Misplaced Pages can be "twisted and exploited" in the long run. Metros (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, then it's kinda important to TELL people that. I mean, we encourage people to release their images under a free license. Do we tell them that Wikia can then take their images and use them for spanking art? -Amarkov moo! 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Metros' top two article-space activities center around the lead singer of Fall Out Boy on the one hand, and Jamie Lynn Spears on the other. Thank you for your insight into the GFDL, property law, and photography. How about we get a discourse now about public relations disasters? - John Russ Finley (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A. Yeah, note that all my edits there are vandalism reverts because those are two high targets. B. Also note that I'm an admin on Misplaced Pages, so clearly some people trust me. I would appreciate it if you'd take your ad hominem attacks elsewhere. Thanks, Metros (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Amarkov: the closest equivalent we have is the statement on every edit page that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." and the mention (and link to) the GFDL policy on Misplaced Pages. There is no explicit "here are some examples of how your submission might be used," just those general statements. Metros (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you are complaining on Misplaced Pages when the problem you have is with Wikia? Another site is using our image (or rather the Wikimedia Commons' image) in accordance with copyright in a way that you find inappropriate. There is nothing that Misplaced Pages can do. Mr.Z-man 04:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw above that this is the place to praise Mr. Wales for his development of Wikia, Inc. I assumed that it would also be the place to bring criticisms of Wikia to light. - John Russ Finley (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no scandal here. It is allegorical. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Like most people, Jimbo has an email address and he even lists it on his userpage and like most websites, Wikia has an easy to find "Contact Us" page. I would suggest you use one of those if you want someone to actually deal with this issue. Mr.Z-man 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like Metros to clarify whether the five boys whose faces are shown in that picture were told, "If you don't want your image to be perverted mercilessly or redistributed for profit by 'spankophiles', do not pose for it." Also, does Metros believe that User:Rlevse (the photographer) explained the GFDL to these 11- or 12-year-olds, and did they comprehend it? Does Rlevse have the authority to release the photo without permission from the 5 boys' parents? I suppose he does, just as Wikia Spanking Art has the authority to reprint the photo in a perverted context. I've notified the three regional chapters of the Boy Scouts in the San Francisco / San Jose area (headquarters of Wikimedia and Wikia). If they don't respond to this themselves, then I suppose there is no scandal, and we should applaud the triumph of free knowledge. -- -- Where I chillax (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the image is not being used commercially, and the boys are not recognizable celebrities, there can not be any personality rights issues involved in the U.S., where the First Amendment unequivocally permits all non-commercial publications of photographs that don't infringe on statutes, as protected speech. However, IANAL. MilesAgain (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, in his capacity with Wikia, certainly has the power to get rid of the image even if the use is legally permissible. I am not a lawyer either so I don't know if the use is permissible, but I'm certainly concerned about the possibilities. What do you think the odds are that any person involved in Scouting is going to contribute any Scouting-related photo if a company owned by Jimbo Wales is going to misuse those photos? I can tell you that if this photo stays up, I have contributed my last photo to Wikimedia projects. If this were a third party using it, ok, there isn't much that can be done, or at least whining about it here isn't going to accomplish anything. But it's a company founded/owned/run/whatever by Jimbo and he certainly has the power to do something about it. It's a question of moral obligations. I cannot speak to the legal obligations of personality rights - I am not a lawyer. --B (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The potential for abuse of images, making wiki look bad, condoning child porn here is huge. Please act, Jimbo. If such use is condoned, I will no longer submit images of children to wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys are arguing against freedom. Against free speech. Against free culture. Against the free reuse of media. Against WikiMedia and Misplaced Pages. Go sell your love of slavery elsewhere. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Wie geht es Ihnen? I saw that you had the language template on your page as I was browsing through users' pages and decided to stop in and say hi. I am learning German also, but I really want to learn Romanian too. Bis spaeter! Entbark (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)