Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:27, 16 October 2006

Template:Trollwarning

Something fun from Jimbo for the politically inclined

• ]

Archives
as of Jan. 16, 2003 Sept. – Dec. 2005 January 2006 Jan. – Feb. 2006 February 2006 Feb. 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 May24 - July 2006 July 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 -

Hello From Homestar Runner Wiki

Hello, Mr. Whales! My name is Brightstar Shiner and I would like to say hello on behalf of all of us at the Homestar Runner Wiki...for no particular reason at all, as it turns out. No I'm not a sysop or a beauracrat or anything, but I'm a nice plain user from over here. You should visit us sometime and talk to more important people like JoeyDay, the proprieter of our wiki. -216.255.63.167, a.k.a. Brightstar Shiner

Possible origin of Wikitruth

I only recently stumbled across "Wikitruth". Could it be that this anti-Misplaced Pages site has been created by multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias User:NightCrawler and his many other sockpuppets? DW was under a hard ban since 2003 (see ) and "has been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales", etc. in 2005. See , . One of the criticisms against Misplaced Pages centers on you and the Misplaced Pages:Office Actions page which deals with certain legal issues. Ted Wilkes claimed to have much legal knowledge and used this knowledge in his mud-throwing campaign against arbcom member Fred Bauder. Wilkes, who plumed himself on being one of the best and most active contributors to Misplaced Pages, was blocked by arbcom ruling on 19 March 2006 for one year. See . Is it just mere coincidence that Wikitruth was started shortly after that date, on 20 March 2006? His alias NightCrawler had much trouble with administrator Angela, ironically wishing Angie "WikiLove," etc. See , . Significantly, Angela Beesley is attacked on the Wikitruth pages. Furthermore, administrator FCYTravis is one of Wikitruth's whipping boys, perhaps because Ted Wilkes had some trouble with this administrator on the Talk:Nick Adams page. See, for instance, . Wikitruth also frequently claims that too many vandals and trolls "game the system" on Misplaced Pages. Is it just by chance that Wilkes and his supporter User:Wyss frequently accused user Onefortyone of gaming the system, being a troll, the "most dangerous vandal", etc., falsely claiming that this user's edits were fabricated, unfounded, or unwarranted and therefore must be removed. See , , , , . Wyss even accused administrator Mel Etitis of being a troll. See . For a summary of the facts, see also , . Significantly, Wikitruth is recommended on Wyss's user page. See also . So much for my suspicion concerning the origin of Wikitruth.

The End is Nigh

Mr Wales,

I am a disgruntled former Misplaced Pages editor, and I have come up with the perfect plan to destroy your tax-shelter, Misplaced Pages. My plan is much better than that amateur Daniel Brandt's. I won't be doing any whining, but I will be exercising only my freedom of speech in a perfectly legal manner. After I finish with you, the only money you'll be getting in donations is from your pals in the porn industry, and you'll have to start using banner ads. I have resolved to destroy you, but I could be appeased and persuaded not to do so if you clean up your filthy act. Here's how:

1) Crude sexual humor (i.e. Cleveland steamer) and its ilk must be deleted. 2) The Gay Nigger Association of America must go immediately. 3) Initiate a means of asking editors and readers if they are over 18 when accessing explicit content. 4) Delete Daniel Brandt's article, Angela Beesley's article, and the article of anyone else who has a reasonable request for deletion. 5) Shut down AfD and delete things on your own. 6) You have spoilers before content from a film, but your pervert users cry "censorship!" when someone wants a warning before a picture of, say, an erect penis or a toilet full of human feces. You will offer warnings. 7) Transfer all fanboy junk to Wikia and delete. I suggest giving the dorks a month to transfer their junk articles on phasers and such and then a mass deletion should ensue. There should be only one article on Star Trek.

Should you block the account this came from (Instant Karma), the plan will automatically go into operation, and negotiations will cease. Even when you find out who and what you are dealing with, you will not be able to stop this little plan from going into operation. (See doomsday device and deterrence.) The same will happen if this message is erased. That means you, you petty little satraps known as "admins", and you, Mr. Danny "Yes, I'm a flak." Wool. Remember, you cannot hurt me, but I can do a lot of damage to your enterprise.

Zorro

Instant Karma 23:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales: Do you expect me to reformat Misplaced Pages to suit your whims?

Instant Karma: No Mr. Wales. I expect you to die.

*cue dramatic music*

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I see Instant Korma (must say I prefer rogan josh myself) thought he'd covered all bases by threatening to activate doomsday if Jimbo blocked him. Unfortunately, someone else blocked him, so I guess the world is saved. Yay! --Sam Blanning 01:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and.... whatever.
 -- John Lennon (no doubt rolling over in his grave)

--EngineerScotty 04:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making me laugh out loud. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Lock up your wiki, lock up your editors, lock up your computer and run for your life, 'cause I'm DIS-GRUNT-LED! ~ Flameviper 17:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Centrx

User:Centrx just recently deleted Naruto2.0's userpage and talk page, for no reason. This is very bad behavior for an admin.--B&W Anime Fan 20:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You were serious. He did not give a reason in the reason box. The most I saw was that the userpage had userboxes. Anomo 00:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A) This doesn't look like a matter where Jimbo needs to leap in to save the day. Might I suggest asking, well, perhaps the guy who actually did it for a start. You can contact him at User talk:Centrx. B) If you're talking about a specific page, it helps to link to it, since there was never any User:Naruto2.0 (though Centrx did delete User:Naruto 2.0) and guessing games aren't what people come to Misplaced Pages for. C) The user in question had no contributions whatsoever outside his userpage, despite being here over a month, and was pretty blatantly using Misplaced Pages as a free web host a la Myspace. Centrx's deletion was quite obviously correct. --Sam Blanning 01:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My guess had been that it had personal attacks burried somewhere and that was the reason. Anomo 05:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed to wide agreement in favor of the deletion, at . It also had fair use images. —Centrx→talk • 19:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales at WP:FAC

I've nominated the article about you to be promoted to FA status. As I was reading over the comments, one Wikipedian remarked (emphases mine):

-- Selmo 02:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is that the article sucks. It contains serious errors, errors which are directly driven by trolling users who refuse to abide by our editorial standards for WP:RS and WP:NOR. --Jimbo Wales 16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You know that Andrew Orlowski is going to have a field day with that one.  :) --EngineerScotty 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll be on wikitruth and wikipedia review, too. Ah, well. One of the great strengths of Misplaced Pages is that we are prepared to fix things that are broken, and have never ever been afraid of criticism or self-criticism. :)--Jimbo Wales 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please place specific objections at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. WAS 4.250 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I put some comments in my vote on the FAC nomination, those could be copied there for now? And if I get a chance in a couple of days... --Jimbo Wales 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Request

Please make your talk pagemore accessible by keeping it a managable size. Archiving is a very simple procedure. Thanks. 58.152.138.204 09:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is automatically archived by Werdnabot, so it is a lot better than it used to be!--Jimbo Wales 16:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Instant Karma, "The End Is Nigh"

Response to Instant Karma, "The End Is Nigh", to wit:

Dear Zorro (aka Instant Karma),

If you had done your homework e-signment on fanboy/fangirl (fanyoungperson?) junk, you would know that your use of the nomenclature "phaser" is highly malaprop here, as NanoSoft files are transferred via communicators and GigaHard copies are transferred via transporters. You really need to read Wikipetia more before you seek to criticize it. Now beam us all the hex outa here, Scotty. Temporary Dharma, Stardate 12:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Temporary Dharma, I think that you may have misread Instant Karma. The pharse "I suggest giving the dorks a month to transfer their junk articles on phasers and such and then a mass deletion should ensue", though potentially ambiguous, probably was not intended to mean that they should "(transfer the articles) on phasers" but that they should "transfer (the articles on phasers)". It's what Spock would call a "non-associativity property" of Federation Standard English, a property that Vulcanash most felicitously does not share. Hope that clears things up. Aston Martian 14:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is addressed to the people who made fun of Instant Karma. I think you should be ashamed of this way of acting toward a member of our community who is experiencing obvious pain and suffering and maybe having troubles expressing what they want to say in a clear way. Just because someone talks in a funny way or is angry out of bad experiences is no reason not to wish or try to figure out what is the honest way that they came to this state of mind. And besides this is also the sort of thing that gives the people who make fun of Misplaced Pages a lot of grain for their mills. I think that you should think about the gold rule and how it would be to be in their shoes. Anyway, that's what I believe. Idis Yutu 11:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL troll post. About 5 minor edits + post to Jimbo's page in the sock thread = obvious sock. Anomo 12:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We're supposed to treat people who make silly demands, backed up with threats of some unexplained "doomsday device" plan, as members of our community with a legitimate complaint? *Dan T.* 16:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion to remove the possibility of further misunderstanding: The sentence about phasers could be understood in more than one way; I think this is why each and everyone of us should start using the language Lojban instead of English. It's designed to only let sentences be understood in one possible way. (Sadly, also making it a hard language to make jokes in.) :) Delta Tango | Talk 00:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be more appropriate in the Lojban Misplaced Pages than the English one. (I note that the language code for Lojban is 'jbo', which might just stand for Jimbo!) *Dan T.* 03:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Instant Karma, he CAN damage you. What you did can be interpreted as blackmail. --Kitch 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It could be that "Instant Karma's gonna get you" is contemplating Mutually Assured Destruction, in which he/she/it is perhaps ruined him/her/itself, but brings down Misplaced Pages at the same time. *Dan T.* 17:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Or it could be that IK is a troll who should be ignored, and that this particular dead horse has now been beaten to dust. :) --EngineerScotty 18:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Slogan?

I was thinking that to stop vandals, we could think of a catchy slogan. Perhaps "Every time you vandalise... Jimbo kills a kitten" or "Big Jimbo is watching YOU". Perhaps think about that. (You don't really have to kill a kitten every time there's a vandal, but they get the point.) ~ Flameviper 17:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Fair use" turning into "frivolous use"

Sory to bother you, but I believe a problem with images is growing. People tend to interpret "fair use" very liberally. The last example is template {{HistoricPhoto}}, which basically says "if you cannot get this anywhere else, you may steal this and it is OK in the US." I noticed it was voted for deletion, but kept. I believe copyright issues must be decided by lawyers, not by crowds (or, rather by crowds of lawyers), therefore I am addresing the question to you.

If you agree that "fair use" is problimatic, I can provide other examples of frivolous interpretation for images. Mukadderat 17:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic photograph, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the photographer who took the photograph or the agency employing the photographer. It is believed that the use of this photograph

• to illustrate the event in question where:
• The photograph depicts a non-reproducible historic event, and no free alternative exists or can be created, and
• The image is low resolution and of no larger and of no higher quality than is necessary for the illustration of an article, and the use of the image on Misplaced Pages is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright,
• on the English-language Misplaced Pages, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Misplaced Pages:Fair use for more information.

If this does not accurately describe this image, please remove this tag and provide a different fair use rationale.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Misplaced Pages:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

Anyone who can't tell the difference between the above and "if you cannot get this anywhere else, you may steal this and it is OK in the US" should stay away from fair use discussions and choices. Copyright is a nonnatural government invented artificial monopoly allowed in the US solely to promote specifically named things (in the constitution) that contribute to the welfare of the people. Fair use is a specific verbalisation of that constitutional right to the copying and use of representations of ideas. The ability to profit from the government created concept of intellectual property is an artifitial creation to benefit the people, and not a natural moral right that fair use allows the theft of. WAS 4.250 18:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Geez man, you need to lighten up. The guy made a common mistake.--KojiDude 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about these libertanianism ideas that government is bad. We are talking about law. The template text "No free alternative exists or can be created" exactly means "if no free, then just go get it". It addition, the template says "It is believed that", i.e., it is a speculation of the creator of the template: they believe it is OK to take a photo from a newspaper just because only a single journalist happen to take this photo, and hence he can be robbed of his copyright because he was too lucky.

If I made a common mistake, I am humbly ready to hear an explanation or reference in my talk page. Also how the hell you know that the "the value of the copyright" will not be decreased? wikipedia is ubiquitous now. If the resolution is low, then the photo is useless to illustrate the event. Who needs blurred photos in wikipedia? They only diminish quality and lead to annoyance of readers. Mukadderat 21:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Readers should be given the option to view those images; they can ignore them if they don't want to see them.--Tekleni 21:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And users with the name Tekleni should not be wikistalking me. Mukadderat 22:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, wikistalking you... Like only you have Jimbo's talkpage on your watchlist - it's the heart of Misplaced Pages :-) --Tekleni 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (also, see WP:AGF)

RFA

I wondered, have you ever supported or opposed an RFA? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 02:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Scince no one wants to answer your question-- No, he hasn't.--KojiDude 03:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Founder

I wonder who the true founder(s) of Misplaced Pages is? It seems like Larry Sanger was also a co-founder who supplied the idea so it is unfair not to list him as one. Isn't it rather unfair for someone to do work and not be credited with anything? Although I understand that he was being paid by your company to set up and run both Misplaced Pages and Nupedia, shouldn't he still be credited with the work? It's a bit unfair to name yourself the sole founder, especially when newspaper reports at the time when Misplaced Pages was set up differ. Reading your user page alone, it seems that you were the sole founder of Misplaced Pages and that Larry Sanger didn't play a part. --218.186.8.12 16:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard Stallman is the spiritual founder and leading free culture prophet. Jimbo is the financial founder and Misplaced Pages community leader. Larry is the paid administrative founder and highest visibility disgruntled wikipedia ex-employee. Clifford Adams is software founder. WAS 4.250 20:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How can one claim he is the founder of something when there were other people as well? How about, one of the founders? I don't understand what a "financial founder" is. Found the money? Founded the money? If you are talking providing the capital, I don't think one who provides money is sufficient to be called the "founder" you know. Of course Larry Sanger is disgruntled. Ever imagine creating one of the world's most famous international projects and getting sacked instead of recognition for it after it was successfully set up? And I'm not supporting anyone in this, just want to clarify. --218.186.8.12 12:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Stable versions software limitation?

I have been following the implementation discussions for 'stable versions' on the German Misplaced Pages and, unless I am translating incorrectly, it seems like there is a technical problem which could block your idea of 'unprotecting the Main Page' and increasing 'openness' overall. Specifically, template transclusion and image display wouldn't currently access the 'tagging' data to pull up an older 'safe' version and thus would always show the current copy. Which, of course, leaves every page with an image or template on it (i.e. nearly all of them) open to possible vandalism unless that image/template is protected. Given that the Main Page itself has little more than formatting for the many templates and images displayed on it this would mean that the displayed content would still be uneditable by all but admins. I think the concept you have been advancing of 'stable versions' allowing us to be "more wiki" is an excellent approach and the right way to go with implementing this feature, but for that to work it will need to extend to 'stable image and template transclusion'. Which currently isn't in the 'German plan' and may require coding alterations. --CBD 18:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Brion's wikimania presentation stated that images and templates should be accessed as they were when the page was tagged. This might be a bit complicated though, especially if a template is moved or revisions removed from a template/image.Voice-of-All 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy proposal

Normally, I would not bring a policy proposal to your attention, but this one is a biggie: Misplaced Pages:Attribution has been proposed as a replacement for WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. (I'm still undecided on whether this is wise or not--but a significant overhaul of policy like this needs to be done carefully). --EngineerScotty 16:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not an "overhaul of policy". It is an overhaul of the excessive verbage used to descibe policy. Policy itself will not be changed by the proposal. "A picture of a pipe is not a pipe" for the humanities people and "a pointer to a data element is not that data element" for geekdom. WAS 4.250 16:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words, This Is Not a Pipe Dream. =P (NOTE: Damn, seems Barry Kornhauser and his plays aren't articles yet. *sob*) --Kitch 01:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

One click on the red links above will solve that problem. --EngineerScotty 04:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Map/territory relation - WAS 4.250 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll agree this is the intent; though I will reserve judgement when the proposal is finalized and put forth for consensus. Attempts to rewrite things are always risky--were politicians to announce a proposal to "rewrite" the US Constitution to remove "excessive verbage" while preserving the meaning and intent, I'd be highly skeptical. Fortunately, I have greater faith in Misplaced Pages editors than I do in the US body politic; Misplaced Pages is a far more democratic place than Washington.  :) Hopefully, this will be an improvement. --EngineerScotty 17:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo

Most likly you are not going to respond to this but I have a question. Does it bother you that you are constantly made fun of on Unencylopedia? You are a very nice person and I think that is often overlooked . And thank you for giving the world an encyclopedia of infinate knowledge that grows stronger each and every day. Have a nice day, and thank you for helping make the internet not suck--Seadog.M.S 21:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I love Uncyclopedia. For a long time, I avoided reading the article about me there, because I did not want to be upset and angry at Uncyclopedia, given that I love it so much. But finally I did, and I did not mind it at all. The great thing about Uncyclopedia is that everything is constantly made fun of, but not in a mean-spirited way expressing hostility.--Jimbo Wales 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry

Don't worry, you're not alone. =/ --KojiDude 03:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Slow images downloading

Hello Jimbo! Must tell ya that we're having problems with downloading of images in all wikipedias. i think that the following is your job. Cheers. West Brom 4ever 19:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Kissimmee, Florida : 6-8 November, 2006

Hi Jimbo. What going on in Kissimmee? Is it related to wikipedia or are you "going to DISNEY WORLD"?--Justanother 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your bio

I replied to your comment on my talk page, and have further replied on WP:BLPN. Made some further edits, but I have two uncertainties: Are you disputing the accuracy of the Wired article regarding your trading career? The statements do seem to reflect the source, so I am not sure how to reconcile that. Also, self-published sources are allowed to be used in articles about the sources themselves. So Wikimedia sources could obviously be used in the Wikimedia article. But the appropriateness of using or not using them in your bio is not fully clear to me. You are not Wikimedia, but you are the head of the organization, so it could be argued that WM sources could be used in your bio in the context of your activities on behalf of WM. It seems to be a grey area that I am not sure about. Crockspot 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I did some further removal of wiki sources. The by-laws are still there, and I think they are probably reliable, being "official" and uneditable. There are still two Sanger sources that I question, his user page, and his lecture from meta.wiki. They are self-sourcing claimes of what he stated, but verifiability may be an issue. I am still not sure about those. Some of the other wiki sources were not even needed, the claims being already covered by other sources cited nearby. I also removed quite a few unsourced statements. I noticed that Jossi put an attribution to one of the Wired cites, and that seemed like a good way to address the questionabililty of the information, so I followed her lead and attributed the other ref tag for Wired. I'll take another pass through it over the weekend after my head has cleared. Crockspot 20:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use images

Greetings. These is widespread confusion in the Misplaced Pages community about replaceable "fair-use" images, and any comments you have would be highly appreciated.

As I understand it, "reproduceable" non-free images are not allowed on Misplaced Pages. (Here is a typical example.) For some time, there has existed a {{Fair use replace}} tag which was designed to fix the problem. Unfortunately, the tag is simply ignored 99% of the time. The tag also says that violating images should be replaced "as soon as possible", but allows the images to exist on Misplaced Pages until then. But as I understand it, these images are not allowed on Misplaced Pages at all, and should be deleted (rather than kept until a replacement is found, if one ever is). With that in mind, I created a new template that tags offending images as violation WP:FUC #1, and says they may be deleted in seven days if no one contests the assertion that the image is "replaceable". Discussion is ongoing here. Again, it would be helpful to all of us to hear your views on the matter. All the best, – Quadell 20:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Proud ;)

I've started new image policy on Bosnian Wiki more than month ago. Now there are PD and such tags, before this there were only 4 templates for images. The number of images there has dropped to ~2400. P.S. I feel really strange editing this...someone is watching me? I'm a sysop on bs wiki with 9000+ contributions, don't worry. ;) --Emx 00:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Lost

Hi Jimbo,

Just thought I'd spoil it for you and tell you what the actual go with Lost is:

• It's all on TV. It's not real. You've "Lost" many hours of your time to it, however...

So, not in purgatory or any of that other bollocks :) And just randomly, Hi! I'm Michael, I'm new, and trying to help out by reverting vandalism (including your userpage) and nonsense and keeping articles neutral. You're Jimbo, hungry, a little tired, and you missed a spot when you cleaned the kitchen. Pursey 10:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians declaring that Misplaced Pages has a structural unreliability problem

Hi Jimbo,

This point is partly related to the above #Policy proposal. In the policies and guidelines currently considered for compacting (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, ...), a rationale that turns up is that there is a structural problem for any Wiki system to become reliable, because (giving some samples of this kind of rationale:) "anyone can edit it", or, in a differently worded version, "it is a self-publication".

For me, up till now, the thing was simple, and could be worded thus: if someone thinks that a system that allows anyone to edit is structurally impaired to reach an acceptable level of reliability, well, then, maybe there are other systems that person could turn to, like Sangers new Citizendium project, or whatever fork (wiki or non-wiki) one would like to start.

But this use of the argument "Misplaced Pages is unreliable because anyone can edit it", shared by many faithful wikipedians, has too much the taste of a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

And one doesn't particularily need this argument to write a good version of the WP:V/NOR/RS/... guidance. For instance, that Misplaced Pages can't use itself as a source, is in principle already covered by Misplaced Pages:Avoid self-references. One doesn't need declarations about Misplaced Pages's alleged unreliability to point out that Misplaced Pages can't use itself as a source. And what if, in the next test by Nature, Misplaced Pages turns out to be reliable to a level of an average encyclopedia? The "unreliability" argument would become useless then, but I'd say that at that point Misplaced Pages can still not use itself as a source because of the "circularity" or "self-reference" argument.

More on this on these places:

• (in an archive:) Misplaced Pages talk:Copyrights/archive6#Using long passages from an article in another article
• (active discussion page:) Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources#A point of discussion: rationale regarding "Using Misplaced Pages as a source"
• (part of the new proposals:) Misplaced Pages:Attribution/FAQ#Are wikis reliable sources?

--Francis Schonken 12:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

PS, and then there's this quote – I'll leave it unnamed, but I suppose you'll recognise it: " is sourced to a cut and paste from Misplaced Pages (original research), " - pointing out "unreliability-due-to-the-fact-that-anyone-can-edit-it" doesn't seem to play a direct role here, or would you say it does? --Francis Schonken 12:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

While it would be silly to use H5N1 as a source to verify H5N1, it makes perfect sense to say "H5N1 is a pandemic threat" in another Misplaced Pages article and expect the reader to go to H5N1 for verification of that fact; in a sense using the sources provided in one Wikiedia article to source a statement in another Misplaced Pages article. As for reliability, our implementation of some version of what is being tried out in the German wikipedia will help with that. WAS 4.250 13:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Returning to the example I used in the PS above (sorry, I should've explained this clearer I suppose): as far as I understand, Jimbo doesn't think it a good idea to write

(born August 7, 1966)<ref>{{cite web | last = Wales | first = Jimmy | title = Wikimedia Foundation Inc.: Board of Trustees | url = http://wikimediafoundation.org/search/?title=Board_of_Trustees&diff=prev&oldid=406 | accessdate =2006-07-15}}</ref>

in main namespace. My question to Jimbo was why he doesn't think it a good idea to write that in the main namespace. Jimbo referred to the "no original research" concept, and above (#Jimmy Wales at WP:FAC) also to WP:RS. My question is whether, in that context, Jimbo sees "wikis are in general unreliable because anyone can edit them" as part of that why, or not. --Francis Schonken 15:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo once half jokingly said something like its best to ignore people who give "Jimbo said so" as a reason; and in the same vein its best to ignore arguments based on the self-contradictory mess at WP:RS. But seriously, everyone has lots of opinions, but most of us are experts at only a few things. For sourcing in wikipedia SlimVirgin is a good person to talk to. If you are being exact and literal rather than asking a broader question, he already gave the reason: His birth certificate says something else. Of course using information from what he says is in fact nonverifiable and original reseach unless he wants to record it somewhere authoritative ... like maybe at wikimediafoundation.org (on a no-edit page, naturally) ... for example ... WAS 4.250 16:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales/In many languages...

Being the person that created this page at the first time (just for testing what would be happen, and also to write your name in Hebrew in your page), I was wondering what's your opinion about it. :-) Hillelg 19:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

is wikipedia anti-Maharashtrian ?

Dear Sir, I am extremely frustrated by the working of wikipedia.The article Belgaum_border_dispute and other articles related to Maharashtra, a Indian state are in bad condition and biased.Editors from our neighbouring states push their POV and a user User:Dineshkannambadi (Dinesh kannamdbadi) is manipulating history articles by citing a fanatic source.He's busy associating his state and language Kannada with every great thing or people. Is wikipedia anti-maharashtrian??? for god's sake take some measures to combat biases and implement NPOV. Mahawiki 06:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am unqualified to really analyze this, but there are many good editors at Misplaced Pages:Notice board for India-related topics, and you should raise your concerns there.--Jimbo Wales 14:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Table

Hey Jimbo, I heard that you were varnishing your table, so here is a good guide.

1. Set out a layer of newspapers to protect the work area. Make sure the areais well-ventilated.

2. Set the room temperature between 70 and 75 degrees F, which helps the varnish dry quicker without causing air bubbles and streaking.

3. Gather your disposable foam brushes, clean rags, steel wool pads and mineral spirits so that they are nearby when needed.

4. Strip any pre-existing finishes with a paint stripper. Wear gloves and a face mask while you work.

5. Clean the wood to be treated with a steel wool pad dipped in about 1 c. mineral spirits mixed with 2 tsp. linseed oil.

6. Use a clean rag to dry the wood.

7. Pour enough varnish into a separate container to do the first coat, and dilute it with 20 percent mineral spirits (one part mineral spirits to four parts varnish). This coat seals the wood. (Read the label before use and follow the manufacturer's warnings and suggestions carefully.)

8. Use the foam brush to apply this diluted varnish into the wood. Work with the grain.

9. Let that coat dry at least 6 hours, but not more than 20.

10. Apply the second coat (nondiluted) with a new foam brush.

11. Put on up to five coats, depending on how much wear you anticipate the surface to receive. Use a new brush for each coat.

12. Dispose of rags, brushes and remaining stripper as advised by the stripper's manufacturer.

Hope that helps you Jimbo. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 06:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages

Dear Mr. Wales,

This one is a pretty long garbled post on your talk, but please, Mr. Wales, bear with me and read it thru. I have used wikipedia since it was still called Nupedia, and only till recently have I became more involved in its editing. But since then, I have been nagged by one question that's been bothering me. Well, it all started with a quarrel I got with another editor, and it stressed me a lot. I didn't understand what's going on. (I'm not gonna go in depth on that issue, it's personal and I got over it) So, I dig around and found lots of organization such as the esperanza, and concordia, and I joined them. From them, I learned about wikiquette, and many other wikipedia related issues, like right to vanish, how to be firm but still polite, and wikilove. Since then, I've encountered several more editors whose attitudes seems aren't very wikified. So, why does this happen? why doesn't wikipedia have a training rute? You know, like some sort of quick tutorial that one could go thru? (these aren't the question that nags me but I think it still burns) Instead, when you sign up you'd just be given link and you'd have to dig around to know how to be a good wikipedian. (when you eventually finds out what is a wikipedian and a word good in prefix)

The principles of wikipedia is very good not only for one being a wikipedian editor, but it's also, applicable to life in general. From wikilove, to be bold, be civil, there's a ton of good stuff on WP:LOP. I could name at least a hundred people I know who could learn a thing or two from the behavioral section. And some genuine encyclopedia entry could use the rest.

My digging around then led me onto a more disturbing issues. You see, some of my friends and I talked a lot about wikipedia. In fact my first edit was on wikibooks (an under-represented section, IMHO) as a request. I didn't get addicted into editing then, however. But one of the things we used to talk about was how accurate wikipedia articles are. Even stubs like astral microtubules are at least pretty accurate for the unknowledgable. That perception is shaken when I found the criticism aimed at wikipedia. Particularly one I read from a neurologist about his/her contribution screwed by an "unknowledgable" which led to the editor's retirement.

I know, there's so much hostility against wikipedia right now, that I might get some flak by even bringing this up, but please don't take this as an attack, Misplaced Pages is the site where I spend most of my online time. But I am going to pour an opened can of worm. Just like: only when a hero falls, that his/her greatness will become apparent. Anyway, on my digging around, I found many retired editor just fed up with "unknowledgables" ruining their professional edit. But wikipedia is always a work in progress, there is now way an article can be declared finished. And I believe that, because knowledge, by nature, is evolving. The day we stop knowing new stuff is the day we die. But a work in progress is also a double edged sword, progress can be forward or backward, or, according to backward peoples, backward or forward. Misplaced Pages's solution to POV, is concensus.

Although one critic has said that concensus does not mean truth, and the Simpsons keep teaching us that democracy doesn't work, the wisdom of the crowd, is almost always approximately correct, while so many scientist's postulations are disastrously wrong. Wouldn't it be best if the crowd would correct the scientists while the scientists correct the crowd? Like when they said that the world was flat and they got burned at the stake? Then that guy stumbled on an island he thought was India? Boy, imagine the red faces on those guys, eh? :D Well, it's one example of not listening to other people's criticism. If you think one thing is right, and you won't change your mind no matter what, you could get stuck on the stick during bonfires. And vice versa, when crowds don't like a leader's decision, like the war on iraq, they would voice their objections. On some country, like Indonesia, if you say something negative (publicly, of course) towards a leader, albeit it be that you're reporting an official's corruption or criticizing their policy, you will get tried and imprisoned.

And seems to me, that also has happened with wikipedia. Some folks has been burned for voicing an unpopular vote. Granted, some of them are uncivil etc.etc. and got banned. But some are pretty nice on their comment. (albeit unpopular) But many of the criticism has fallen on deaf ear. This is the one thing that nags me and kept me asking: Why do they choose a "silent" reply to criticism? Did they have achieved a concensus to silence this? But concensus is a great thing to have, look at the WP:LOP what a great concensus, no matter who thought it up, it was the result of the wisdom of the crowd. What was I criticizing, well, they are all standing criticism on wikipedia. (I think that article needs a cleanup -and ironically, incomplete, IMHO) -oh, how I'd get some "Well, why don't you fix it" post on my talk for that -- so I'll preanswer it: Because wikipedia is a work in progress. -- And how some of it falls on deaf ear.

Some criticism, is easy to understand if you've been roaming wikipedia for a while, like Trustworthiness, Errors and omissions, Systemic bias, Standards etc. the answers are at Misplaced Pages:Replies to common objections But the reply page omits some of the most crucial criticism against wikipedia. Like Abuse of Power. I think article gives a rather "NPOV" third person perspective on the issue of "King Jimbo". I know, the founder reserve the veto right on everything wikipedia, but I just wanted some questions answered since I, like many other, donated my time (and ultimately, money in terms of ISP dollars) to contribute to wikipedia, and at least we'd like to have some justifications for what many perceive as unjust or criticizable issue. Since, quote the article: "The last six months haven't been kind to Misplaced Pages. Not only has the project lost some of its most respected contributors, but some of its proudest supporters have cooled on it, too." And it was written in april.

If you beared with me and read this thru up to here, thanks :)

And now, we have citizendium built by Larry Sanger. The guy that the wikipedia founder chose not to credit as co-creator. And as the Register's article pointed out, the article Larry Sanger was personally edited by the Grand Master himself. Which, after digging into the article history turns out to be lousy stinkin words removed. Which led to a long term issue. Now, one thing, you can't deal with every measly stinkin' things that they say against you. I learned that from all those teachers who screwed me in high school. But in the end, if the issue remains standing for some time, you just gonna have to stand up for yourself and explain everything some way.

Citizendium, is gonna be a fork of wikipedia that I think, seems to answer some of the most important standing issues on wikipedia, at least in principle. Says them...

The solution to the "knowledgables" issue: Interim Chief Subject Editors for the major disciplines. These are people who will work both on the wiki and on discipline-specific forums or mailing lists to help. Where, it seems, people with credentials would apply for a certain position and would then, although they haven't decided, probably be "elected" in some way.

The solution to the "Absolute Ruler" issue: From the citizendium.org mainpage: When the charter is adopted, Larry will be fully beholden to whatever processes it defines. He might then lose his role as editor-in-chief. He's willing to take that chance in order to set up a community that is healthy, vibrant, responsible, and self-managing. In fact, Larry is committed to stepping down from the leadership of the Citizendium within two or three years at latest, to set the healthy precedent of allowing others--members of the volunteer community--to take over his role.

Although, not to be a traitor, I've signed up with citizendium's pilot project. I don't know if I'd be approved or not even though I'm still not sure if the second part would really solve the issue, since as it said, things are still uncertain. The page and a New Compendium of Knowledge will explain things better than what I can condense in this post. I wonder if you've read it?

So, to wrap things up, thank you for reading this through, and please don't take this as an attack, but as I said, I had that question that's been bothering me. And the itchy needs scratchy scratchy.

The name citizendium doesn't even contain the prefix "wiki" which has now been associated and spread like wildfire across the internet. But then again, we might see "endium" suffix start to spread within the next few months. Please Mr. Wales, speak up and resolve standing issues with wikipedia. I have come to love this encyclopedia and I don't think we need another mirror of it. Answers.com crowding up google searches has been quite annoying to me. I think if the issues citizendium is trying to address can be resolved within wikipedia, there won't be any match against wikipedia for the forseeable future.

Feureau has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Feureau 10:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

PS> Please take my userpage with tongue on your cheek. Many things said there are out of date. I'm just too lazy to edit it out and it makes the page longer so it'll at least look better to hold more userboxes. If you know a good one, would you recommend me? -userboxes that is- :P

Hello there

Sorry if this is a waste of your time, just doing my job... *flees* :P -DarknessLord | T | C 22:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)