| Revision as of 20:50, 15 March 2008 view sourceLadyofShalott (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators57,118 editsm Reverted edits by 64.229.229.92 (talk) to last version by Christopher Parham← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:53, 15 March 2008 view source 79.101.225.53 (talk) ←Replaced page with 'I am going to kill myself nown'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| I am going to kill myself nown | |||
| {{Calm talk}} | |||
| {{usercomment}} | |||
| </div> | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |counter = 34 | |||
| |algo = old(5d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=2|target=./Archive 34|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot III}} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>|indexhere=nein|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}} | |||
| {{archives|small=yes}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The last fund raising campaign did not give the desired result. Neither the unified login nor approved versions are in production use yet. Let alone the WYSIWYG feature or other MediaWiki improvements that could make the life of Wikipedians so much easier. It seems to me that Misplaced Pages is stuck in a stalemate. On the other hand, if advertisements were radically introduced, Misplaced Pages would lose many editors; the little advertisement in one of the earlier fund raising campaigns was not received well. But what about a less radical attempt? Perhaps Misplaced Pages could start with an advertisement only on the main page and gain some experience with that. Such a conservative attempt would not face the NPOV issues that have been put forward as the main argument against ads, at least not in the same way. I know that I am certainly not the first user to suggest this, but given the stagnating state of the project, I think that things need to be reconsidered. I find it strange that the Misplaced Pages:Advertisements article does not mention such a moderate, tentative solution but only radical attempts to introduce advertisements in all articles (be it optional or not). Also, it doesn't give crucial arguments such as the possibility to use parts of the money to buy copyrights and put the associated works into the public domain. If people see that they get something back for the advertisements, tolerance would perhaps increase even for putting them into regular articles. --] (]) 08:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| While I continue to oppose the introduction of any advertising in Misplaced Pages, I also continue to agree that the discussion should evolve beyond a simple binary. I believe that if we looked at putting ads into the search results page (only), with the money earmarked for specific purposes (with strong community input into what those would be, either liberation of copyrights or support for the languages of the developing world or...). As the Foundation continues to evolve into a more professional organization capable of taking on and executing tasks (yay Sue and the growing staff!), it begins to be possible to imagine many uses of money that would benefit our core charitable goals. | |||
| Lest I be misunderstood: I am not saying anything new, but saying exactly what I have said for many years.--] (]) 10:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : RE: ''Misplaced Pages's tin-cup approach wears thin'' http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wikipedia10mar10,1,6437552.story. I fail to see what would be the *problem* for allowing, for example, a couple of text Google adwords, as a subsection of the external links sections on articles. With the number of page views Misplaced Pages has today, allowing such ads for a couple of months a year, will generate enough income to support the project for that year, and expand and explore new uses of Misplaced Pages that cannot be considered today for lack of funding. Why would such activity be considered "commercialization of Misplaced Pages"? Unless there is an issue with the 501(c)(3) status , which I doubt, why not to openly explore this? A vigorous debate may be needed about this, but I think it is time. ] <small>]</small> 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :In addition to the search results page, another place to consider the placement of text ads would be anything marked as a stub. We're already admitting that these are pages where we don't have as much information about the topic as we should, and that further information is (supposedly) easy to find. When we consider all that could be done with the project if there were even a small amount of cash infused (paying more coders, getting graphic designers involved, commissioning articles on topics that are embarrassingly sparse (e.g., dance history)), we need to find a compromise between the all or nothing approach. Adding stub articles to the list of ad-supported pages would greatly increase the number of funding sources without greatly altering the feel of Misplaced Pages. -- ] <small>]</small> 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you == | |||
| For obvious reasons, I won't be commenting publicly anytime soon about any of the recent gossip. I just wanted to put a note of thanks here for those who have supported me, and for those who have honestly questioned me. (Those who assume the worst and just attack me, well.... thanks I guess to you too for speaking your mind.) | |||
| Misplaced Pages is a remarkable and ever growing phenomenon. The values that brought us all together are real, and Misplaced Pages is real. Yes, we will have problems, and yes, I am just a man and not perfect. But I always have put my passionate heart into our work, and I will continue to do so. I believe in NPOV, and I believe that our processes are working to get things right in the long run. We are strong and getting stronger. | |||
| The Wikimedia Foundation is growing, becoming more professional, finally becoming able to execute on more than just simply continuing to keep the servers running. I am here standing beside you, as I always have been, a volunteer pouring myself into my work to make our dreams come true.--] (]) 10:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Well put. ] (]) 11:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hardly an answer to very serious and important questions. I think at this stage a string of platitudes is not enough. Giano's suggestion of letting this blow over is hardly workable either. ] (]) 16:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nothing I could say personally would satisfy some critics, of course. They will continue this nonsense no matter who says what. But honest critics must surely take into account the direct statement of Brad Patrick, the ED who went through the relevant expenses line by line with me to review them. "'''Regarding the issue of the expenses at issue here, Jimmy and I worked through them very carefully line by line. For every expense, we either documented it with a receipt, or Jimmy paid it personally. As confirmed by the successful audit, there is no reason to speculate about financial impropriety.'''"--] (]) 12:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Nice strawman. Of course the books will have to be OK in the end - although the delay in the audit indicates that this was difficult enough. The allegation is that you have ''tried'' to use foundation funds for personal expenses. Did you or did you not say in connection with a money dispute with the foundation that your wife needed a washing machine? Did you or did you not try to get a massage parlour visit funded? And what, in your view, caused Danny, whom you apparently worked with well for some time, to make this stuff up if it's not true? And, while we're at it, have you or have you not read any of the Misplaced Pages press releases describing you as co-founder before 2004, and if so, why didn't you say or do anything about it before 2004? You know, answering questions like these ''could'' satisfy critics. ] (]) 14:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Bramlet Abercrombie, don't you think the crimes you are alleging are petty if not laughable?--] (]) 21:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I am not alleging crimes but actual or possible unethical behaviour. And no, I don't think attempting to use foundation funds as a personal piggy bank is laughable. So far the official line only seems to be that in the end the foundation paid only for legitimate expenses, which only means he didn't ''succeed'' in any attempt to misuse foundation money. I'd like to know if there was such an attempt, as alleged by Danny and confirmed in leaked mails by Florence too. ] (]) 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''I am here standing beside you, as I always have been, a volunteer pouring myself into my work to make our dreams come true.'' For the better part of a whole week your sole act of "standing beside us" was posting a breakup notice on wiki, an act of such stupidity that I still fail to understand what drove you to conclude that you were fixing this by doing that. This despite the fact that you were clearly online enough time the other night to exchange e-mails with JzG yet you couldn't spend the 10 minutes or so it took you write the above. You may think people like me, who have donated and contributed thousands of edits, are attacking you and criticizing you dishonestly. Therein lies the problem Jimbo. You fail to understand that not all criticism is dishonest. If you truly want to fix this then hire a PR company and at least for the time being disassociate yourself from the running of enwiki. As for Giano's comment below... I have been putting my money where my mouth was for 3 years... so shut up. ] (]) 13:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just let it go. Everyone can draw their own conclusions just as I have. Nothing here will change. You can keep believing that but it won't. Then again you are free to believe that no change was needed in the first place. If Jimbo believes that constitutes an attack despite significant donations and almost 3 years of contributions (counting the time as an anon) then that's how it is. It is, after all, just a website. There is no holy mission. If anything, this goes to show that reality applies to Misplaced Pages too. Maybe we needed that wakeup call to put things in perspective. Unfortunately the above statement does very little to show that this is understood. Oh well. Time to move on or as Jimbo would say it get a new hobby. Take care. ] (]) 17:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It's unfortunate that the R.M. fiasco and the financial allegations appeared in the same week. If I were Jimbo I would wait until his clothes were off eBay before commenting on the R.M. fiasco. He shouldn't put it off much beyond that though. One thing that the press got right is that articles relating to R.M. have been a war zone for two years; there are some lessons for Jimbo and for our culture here and we need to figure out what they are. I have no opinion on when he should comment on the financial stuff. ] (] | ]) 17:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would assume that "antime soon" would mean not until his divorce is finalized. That's probably more important than the eBay drama in the long run. were good ones though. I hope you get an answer. ] <small>( ] • ] • ] )</small> 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for the useful insight, Kla’quot, there are lessons for us as a community to take on board, and I'm sure Jimbo will help out in due course, but of course has other priorities to deal with first. .. ], ] 22:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you too, Jimbo, for all the good things you've done to help Misplaced Pages. We all need to look at this an an opportunity for growth and positive change. Misplaced Pages is useful and every year more useful than the last. Misplaced Pages governance changes every year too, as it must to adapt. So, what can be done to further improve Misplaced Pages governance? Increased transparency? An academic-based content-arbcom? Outside evaluation of articles that have been identified as suspect due to Misplaced Pages COI? Professional public relations management? Every problem is an opportunity. ] (]) 17:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Half and half here.. indeed, your sex life is your business - although I would just say you should have known better getting involved with a FOX News Channel person. However, the issue of questionable financial happenings needs to be responded to, and not just with lip service. It may boil down to a he said/he said type situation but until you prove otherwise, you'll always have the stigma that you can't be trusted with the Foundation's money. Financial issues deserve more than "I'm sorry", regardless of what Giano says. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">✰</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">✰</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| You have my sympathy. I'm divorced and have also been through the other thing too (though that was before eBay, so it wasn't exactly the same). There are obviously some financial and COI questions that need to be answered (and at this point, at least based on what has been made public, they are still questions), but I trust that you and the Board will answer them in good time. ] <small>( ] • ] • ] )</small> 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * and comment from Wikimedia. ] (]) 19:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :So we should take the word of a paid spokes<s>model<s>person/current employee, over that of a ''disgruntled former employee''?--] (]) 21:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Of course. You can't take criticism seriously when it comes from someone who's disgruntled. He must be on some vendetta. Not worth wondering ''why'' he's disgruntled. This, however, settles the matter: "Jimmy is a good guy, a modest guy, he has never done anything wrong." Well put. And she must know, since she was appointed (one-fourth) by Jimmy. Reminds me of how Nixon put all those malicious rumours to rest when he clarified that he was not a crook, or how Clinton cleared away those unsubstantiated allegations when he explained that he never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. ] (]) 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you're disgruntled and want to have a moan instead of waiting to get full and proper information from a proper source. You're on the wrong page, here. .. ], ] 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::What proper source would that be? The Foundation? Sue Gardner already decided explicitly against this: ''"Over the past few days, I've been struggling a little with how to respond to this. I don't want to get drawn into a long back-and-forth in which Danny makes an ongoing series of loose insinuations, and the Foundation then needs to painstakingly reconstruct past events in order to refute him point by point. So I'm going to make one simple statement: Jimmy has never used Wikimedia money to subsidize his personal expenditures."'' Yes, that's so much easier than having to reconstruct past events (which indeed Sue would have to do to know the truth herself, since she wasn't there when the events in question occurred), especially when it might turn out that those ''won't'' serve to refute Danny. So let's just make a diversionary statement which actually leaves open the possibility that Wales ''tried to'' use Wikimedia money to subsidize his personal expenditures. ] (]) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks, Jimbo, your commitment and the treasure you've done so much to create for all of us is very much appreciated. As you say, the Wikimedia Foundation is growing and becoming more professional, and that's very much necessary as Misplaced Pages grows and inevitably changes. Ways of working have changed and developed, not always for the better, and we're all going to have to review the lessons from this case to consider how we can get things working better and more professionally, without losing that fine and friendly spirit of working together that's done so much to build this project. .. ], ] 23:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :According to who the former employee is disgruntled? Is that the spin of the Wikimedia Foundation or fact? I think it is a fact that Wales used the foundation's credit cards. We can get to the truth if the credit card bills were reviewed in detail. Financial issues (the Wikimedia Foundation's money) has not been completely addressed here. ] (]) 23:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why, of course he must be disgruntled, or else he wouldn't criticize Wales. But you don't have to bother with his criticism, because he's just disgruntled! ] (]) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::And evidently you're disgruntled or you would be doing something productive instead of girning here. Durova is right, proper accounting and audit is needed, and will assuredly be done. .. ], ] 00:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The COI/financial issues should have digital and/or paper trails. As a working assumption, until evidence demonstrates otherwise, I'll suppose this is a good faith misunderstanding that got out of hand. These matters don't resolve themselves instantaneously: years-old files do take a while to locate and review and people have other obligations on their schedules that can't be ignored. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Most likely, there is a paper trail. Hopefully, the Wikimedia Foundation will release it to the public to clear the air and for everybody to move forward. ] (]) 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Some of the comments here are now bordering on the extreme ignorant.Almost all senior executives get to use a company credit card, in almost all companies. The credit card bills are all audited and reviewed in minute detail by accountants - have you any idea what you are talking about? It is one of the most secure ways of handling expenses, that is why it is done. It is very common to have a claim rejected by the company finance department, as some expenses fall into grey areas, depending on differing company policy. If there was anything concerning I would be the first to point it out, there is not. This is just a bog standard list of claims and sundries that has been placed in the public eye (and we can all imagine why - what coincidental timing) with a nasty spin, even the massage parlour will, doubtless, boil down to something as dull as a bad back, lap tops were made to be stolen and lost, it is hardly an unusual happening. This is just a list of run of the mill business-traveling happenings that has been spun out of all proportion and seized on by an all too willing group of people. If people want a change, and want rid of him then be honest and say so, but this manufactured character shredding, leaping on the bandwagon, witch hunt of the last week is wrong. ] (]) 23:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Doubtless'' boil down to nothing? ''Manufactured'' character shredding? You know, you would be credible if you were merely arguing that the allegations were ''unproven'' and he should be considered innocent until proven guilty - but how can you possibly pretend to positively ''know'' he's innocent? And if so, what's your theory as to ''why'' people are "manufacturing" all this? They want to be rid of him - sure, but why? You make it sound as if there's some contradiction between criticizing him and wanting to be rid of him. Or rather you confuse cause and effect, as if people out of the blue decided they want to be rid of him and then would make up fake reasons for that. Instead, they have reasons and ''therefore'' they want to be rid of him. I will say quite openly I think he should be gone - and I'm giving my honest reasons for that. I assume the same goes for Danny. ] (]) 00:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Give it a rest Bramlet. If ''anyone'' has credibility here, it is surely Giano. Take a look at his history on this project and explain what particular ax Giano is grinding. He's just bringing clarity to the storm. You're bringing clarity too, you say you want Jimbo gone - hopefully you've got more than expense accounts and personal life to base your argument on, 'cause that ain't gonna cut it. Good luck. ] (]) 03:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I can only speculate about Giano's motives, but ultimately they don't matter. I deal with what he says without regard to his history. And he's not bringing clarity, he's bringing a blind defense of Wales that makes little sense (he just "knows" there was nothing unusual about the expenses, he "knows" that in any case Wales' expenditures are worthwhile because he brings in big donations, for which he can't provide evidence). But maybe you can explain what particular ax ''Danny'' is grinding that allows you to simply dismiss what he says. ] (]) 03:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Have you ever represented an organization where you are expected to promote that organization? Nothing of what Giano has said is "blind", nor is it a "defense", it makes great sense because it is a simple statement of reality. Giano has only said that there is nothing unusual in incurring expenses to promote your organization, he has further said that expenses are ''always'' scrutinized, approved and sometimes denied. He has also said that expenses have a certain scale, i.e. you don't win people over by buying them hot-dogs (my wording) and I see nowhere that Giano has said that Wales has brought in big donations, whereas I have seen a few people say that there is a strategic and tactical basis to obtaining donations over a long-ish timeframe, and buying hot-dogs isn't part of that. I appreciate your turn of question in lieu of an answer, all I can say about Danny is that he is evidently no longer part of the organization; denied expenses are in no way unusual in corporate life; and even having your company credit-card taken away isn't a big huge deal. Sometimes it means that you are really lame at keeping receipts and filing expense reports on time. Been there, done that, personal experience (I kept the card though - nyaa, nyaa). ] (]) 07:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Inasmuch as Giano has stated facts, they are irrelevant and miss the point, since the allegations clearly go beyond routine denied expenses. Trying to use the foundation as your personal piggy bank is not usual business; those are allegations that need to be investigated. What does the fact that Danny is no longer part of the organization have to do with anything? He doesn't have a reputation of being loose with the truth, unlike "sole founder" Wales. Giano is also strangely not questioning for a moment whether Wales' expenses (even where following normal business practice) are worthwhile, since there's no evidence so far that big donations attributable to Wales exceed the excessive travel budgets he spent. Not to mention that fundraising is clearly not his main activity on his travels, and the foundation hardly benefits from him travelling around the world just to hold speeches, for which he pockets the fees and which he also uses to promote Wikia. ] (]) 13:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I need to clarify: I have mixed feelings on this, so it's difficult for me to leave a consistent remark here. | |||
| You seem to ''mostly'' have two groups here: | |||
| *People who don't seem to have any regard for your feelings, Jimmy, given the fact that extremely personal information has just been revealed to the world, and who aren't going to question Marsden's or Wool's credibility at all and that "there's no story here." | |||
| *People who ''do'' have a strong regard for your feelings, but believe all of the evidence here should be totally ignored. | |||
| Both positions are untenable. On the one hand, I feel really sorry for all of the attacks against you over your sex life, because I've had similar experiences with women in the past (specifically, a stripper\ex-girlfriend who revealed extremely embarrassing secrets to friends). If I were you, I'd be totally freaking out right now and I hope you're doing okay. | |||
| '''''However''''', Marsden's remarks, the chat logs, and Danny Wool's remarks are all circumstantial evidence, which corroborate one another. They're very disturbing and <small>(removed another BLP violation ] (]) 10:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC) )</small> it's difficult to completely dismiss Marsden and Wool as both liars, and the chat logs as fake. | |||
| Furthermore, as others have noted, this kind of thing could easily be dismissed by more ''thorough'' financial disclosure than the very brief summaries in the Foundation's financial reports. Publishing idividual salaries (possibly left anonymous, for privacy reasons) and more detailed ''individual'' expenses is a reasonable request. | |||
| Keep in mind: There were rumors of financial impropriety (beyond the typical "Misplaced Pages=Wikia" nonsense) ''before'' this story broke. A person connected to the Foundation accidentally revealed to me, a couple weeks before the financial report was released, that the financial report was released several months ''late'' precisely ''because'' the figures looked bad, so it took more time for the auditors to dig through all of their records very carefully. <font size="4">]</font> <font face="impact"> ]</font> (]) 00:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, Sue Gardner's remarks here are a bit condescending to the Misplaced Pages Community: | |||
| ::{{Quotation|"We want to disseminate Misplaced Pages to people off the Internet."}} | |||
| ::So, the intelligence of internet-users is somehow sub-par? | |||
| ::Furthermore, it's difficult to characterize Wool as merely a "disgruntled, former employee" because he blogged that Jimmy's abuse of the credit stopped in 2006. If he had an agenda, there's not much need to clarify that, as he could just make it up and say, "Jimmy's still doing it!" <font size="4">]</font> <font face="impact"> ]</font> (]) 01:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::You lost me there, Zenwhat. How on earth does "We want to disseminate Misplaced Pages to people off the Internet" imply anything remotely like what you are suggesting?--] (]) 12:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Zenwhat, Certainly the finances need to be fully and properly audited, but just publishing the information isn't going to calm the feeding frenzy in the press and gossip blogs or prevent more wild distortions. Care is needed, and that inevitably takes time. As for the point about disseminating Misplaced Pages off the internet, I think it's a simple misunderstanding as that's the explicit aim of various initiatives including the CD version and a recent funraiser, trying to spread Misplaced Pages's usefulness to people who don't have internet access. Wool's accusations of misdeeds which ended more than a year ago have to be taken seriously, and knee-jerk reactions can do more harm than good. As Jimbo said at the start of this thread, he won't be commenting publicly anytime soon about the gossip, and I think that's wise. .. ], ] 09:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Dave, thank you for your comments. It is important to note that the finances have already been fully and properly audited, a long time ago.--] (]) 12:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A fair point, Jimbo. If any substantive points are raised they need to be dealt with carefully, but essentially the complaints seem to be lurid but vague gripes about some claims which were turned down, and the matter fully resolved in 2006. . .. ], ] 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I should think this thread is music to the ears of Wales' enemies, who have orchestrated this. They must be reading it with the same salacious, salivating delight as they did at seeing that tatty T Shirt in ebay, which prompted them into action. Has it occurred to any of you, to wonder why instead of popping and hinting away in blogs, none of these people who hate him so, seem to want to do their duty as responsible citizens and pick up the telephone and report him to the relevant authorities. Could it be they know that the authorities would tell them to fuck off, and take their rubbish with them? Just look at this story, headlines: Heterosexual man bonks a woman. He dumps her, woman is cross. Man loses laptop. Man leaves dinner jacket in hotel. Man gets told his expenses are too high. Four people drink two bottles of expensive wine.... Wow! Hold the front page - do you really want me to go on? Now put all this in a pair of scales, weigh these things up against what Wales has achieved, the Misplaced Pages success story etc., and you want to bring him down for that? If the accountants audit the books, and pass them then there is no irregularity. People demanding that he explain to them personally every bill, is just a cringe making attempt to humiliate him,and it's vile to read. If you want to humiliate him go and bid for his T shirt on ebay, put your money where your mouths are. The only thing this story has proved, is that the higher you climb, the more people love to see you fall all the way down. People are crawling over him at the moment like maggots in wound - and some of the above is shameful to read. ] (]) 09:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Has it occurred to you that no one is accusing him of illegal behaviour that could be reported to authorities? It is about his ethics and character. And the bonking is just a distraction here; if that was all there was, I don't think it should be anyone's concern and I would feel sorry for him if it were exploited by tabloids. But as things are, it's good if it helps to bring the real issues to the fore. Man uses charitable foundation as personal piggy bank - that ''is'' a front page story, and if such an allegation is made by an ex-employee who's not known as a kook, it's not something to be dismissed as "no story". And as to the scales - maybe you can explain exactly what Wales ''has'' achieved. In other words, what do you think would be different if Wales had never existed? Do you seriously want to suggest there would be no wiki encyclopedia project today? The idea is trivial. His lucky stumbling into a first-mover position deserves about as much praise as someone making a "first post" on some Internet forum. And, once in that position, how did he handle it? You speak of a success story, well if you measure success by creating a hyped website which is ultimately more comparable to Myspace than to Britannica, then it's a success. As an encyclopedia, it clearly isn't, seeing how its use is banned in many places of learning. (And here yet again can be seen Wales' dishonest evasiveness: he invariably replies to this that such bans are fine because students should not use ''any'' encyclopedia - even though one rarely hears of a university banning Britannica, or encyclopedias in general.) ] (]) 14:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jimbo's founding of Misplaced Pages is very far from a lucky "being there at the right time." The concept of a wiki encyclopedia, open to contribution from all, with content and behavior filtered by evolved community policies, was and is revolutionary. There is no equivalent effort in breadth and scope anywhere. That some people, including educators, issue an outright ban on its use as a resource, reflects on their lack of understanding. Misplaced Pages's strength is in presenting relevant reliable sources for each topic, along with some descriptive text, in a reasonably neutral fashion. We are the librarian at a library, providing a client with a suggested reading list and a hopefully neutral overview of the topic. When used properly, this is a powerful resource, complementing Google or other search engines. Jimbo had the vision to bring this forward, and the personality to push it along, to where people have voted it as the ninth most popular site on the Internet, and number one general informational site. This is an accomplishment that nothing and no one can take away from Jimbo, and the world owes him its gratitude. ] (]) 18:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::You may consider it revolutionary in terms of its impact, but it was still an obvious idea whose time simply had come (it wasn't technically feasible much earlier) and which, if it weren't for him, someone else would have picked up not much later. And he didn't even have that obvious idea. He admitted as much. Originally he only came up with the non-starter Nupedia. He was told about wikis (1) by Larry and (2), so he claims, by some Jeremy Rosenfeld. That there is now no equivalent effort in addition to Misplaced Pages has to do with the prime-mover advantage I mentioned, since this is a ] with ]. To compete against such a thing is like competing against Windows or Ebay. And by God everyone knows Windows is not in its dominant position because it's so good. Now if you want to argue that Misplaced Pages is mainly providing reading lists, then that's not what an encyclopedia is. An encyclopedia is supposed to provide directly reliable information. Others have suggested before that Misplaced Pages should just call itself "Jimbo's Big Bag o' Trivia", then no one would be misled. Because guess what, websites where anyone could write about anything have existed before Misplaced Pages - such as Everything2. The crucial difference is simply that they did not call themselves, or adopt any of the outward trappings of, an encyclopedia. Accordingly, even the most clueless students figured out that those were not reliable sources. But when they see Misplaced Pages, which calls itself an encyclopedia, and looks like an encyclopedia, they'll assume it is one, even if it fails the test in the foremost criterion, the reliability of its content (otherwise you might as well call the Web-as-a-whole an encyclopedia). Furthermore, an encyclopedia is pretty much by definition a publication, yet Wales can't trust Misplaced Pages enough to take responsibility for its content and therefore considers it in legal terms as a kind of "service provider". How can such a thing be an encyclopedia? To be clear, when used properly, Misplaced Pages has its uses. But not everyone can use it properly, and in that way it also causes a good deal of harm by spreading misinformation. The designation of encyclopedia is rather fraudulent. Finally, you say Wales had the "personality to push it along"? What exactly is that supposed to mean? Larry Sanger actually got it going in the beginning, until it pretty much ran itself. Wales acted as a completely superfluous figurehead, wasting six-figure sums on travel, failing to provide actually meaningful leadership that would have improved Misplaced Pages's quality, and intervening in some governance processes (e.g. appointing arbitrators) which would work just fine (indeed much better) without him, if he had allowed representative government instead of fostering a cult of personality around him. The truth is, the emperor has no clothes (and I'm not talking about his missing shirt and sweater). ] (]) 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, possibly if you were there at the right time, and an apple fell on your head, you would have thought "gravity", too. But in fact, virtually all great ideas and inventions appear "obvious" after the fact. Specifically, even today, with all the countless wikis about, there is nothing that comes anywhere close to Misplaced Pages in quality and utility, as evidenced by its popularity. You are also quite wrong about what an encyclopedia (or a tertiary source) is. The idea is to give the interested reader a reasonably balanced overview, and a reliable reading list. That should be enough to either say, "no, that's not what I wanted," or, "yes, that's the topic I want, let me research this some more." An encyclopedia is ''never'' enough as a sole reference for a serious paper or work on its own. The concept of availability to everyone to edit is what drove WP's success. It has also attracted a lot of trolls, POV pushers and vandals, and this is where Jimbo's balanced guidance has been crucial. Sanger himself admitted that the free wiki encyclopedia idea was Jimbo's alone, and that he (Sanger) just helped implement it, so Jimbo's role as founder is clear. The recent issues have nothing to do with Jimbo's overall vision and personal guidance of the project. Where I come from, we measure results by bottom line, and the fact that our work product is generally Google's number one find, and that there is no other open general information source anywhere close to us, speaks for itself. That there are a lot of envious detractors is only further proof. ] (]) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sorry, but putting the existing concept of a wiki and the existing concept of an encyclopedia together does not require a genius. You must not have read what I said, since I addressed the "nothing comes close" argument before. And as to "utility, as evidenced by its popularity" - well, that obtains only if you use "utility" and "popularity" synonymously. By that standard, porn is also of greater utility than mathematics, since it's undoubtedly more popular. I thought the idea was to become an encyclopedia, not "Google's number one find", but you never learn out. And no, it's you who's clearly wrong about what an encyclopedia is. Look at all the great encyclopedias in history. Reading lists have never been very important parts of them. Britannica's Micropaedia part has barely any references at all. It is itself a "ready reference" and directly gives the reader the answer he wants; he doesn't have to "research this some more" to verify it, only if he requires greater depth. And the latter is also the sole reason why most "serious papers" won't have encyclopedia references - the papers will simply be about more specific topics than are covered by encyclopedias. It has nothing to do with a lack of reliability. This hogwash about "encyclopedias in general can't be references" is another of those myths propounded by Jimbo which you have nicely swallowed. It is probably futile to ask you how "Jimbo's balanced guidance" was crucial in regard to vandals, or what kind of "imbalanced guidance" you think others might have taken in contrast. You are wrong again about Sanger. He did not say the free ''wiki'' encyclopedia was Jimbo's idea, only the even more broad and banal concept of "an open source, collaborative encyclopedia" (pretty much every encyclopedia nowadays is collaborative, not written by a single person). And his attempt at that before he was introduced to the crucial wiki technology was an utter failure. It is not disputed that Jimbo is the sole founder of Nupedia, but I don't think he wants to brag with that very much. ] (]) 23:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Crum375, please read the references. ] (]) 21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::According to the reference: ] (]) 21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: ] (]) 21:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This is what Sanger himself said:{{quotation|To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. ... The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on.}} | |||
| :::::::] (]) 21:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This is what Sanger additionally said: | |||
| {{quotation|So I arrived in San Diego in early February, 2000, to get to work. One of the first things I asked Jimmy is how free a rein I had in designing the project. What were my constraints, and in what areas was I free to exercise my own creativity? He replied, as I clearly recall, that most of the decisions should be mine; and in most respects, as a manager, Jimmy was indeed very hands-off. Nevertheless, I always did consult with him about important decisions, and moreover, I wanted his advice. Now, Jimmy was quite clear that he wanted the project to be in principle open to everyone to develop, just as open source software is (to an extent). Beyond this, however, I believe I was given a pretty free rein. So I spent the first month or so thinking very broadly about different possibilities. I wrote quite a bit (that writing is now all lost--that will teach me not to back up my hard drives) and discussed quite a bit with both Jimmy and one of the other Bomis partners, Tim Shell. I maintained from the start that something really could not be a credible encyclopedia without oversight by experts. I reasoned that, if the project is open to all, it would require both management by experts and an unusually rigorous process. I now think I was right about the former requirement, but wrong about the latter, which was redundant; I think that the subsequent development of Misplaced Pages has borne out this assessment. But I fully realize that all of this is a matter of debate. Some will claim that the experience of Misplaced Pages refuted my original judgment that expert oversight is necessary for a very credible encyclopedia; but I disagree with them. More on this below. Also, I am fairly sure that one of the first policies that Jimmy and I agreed upon was a "nonbias" or neutrality policy. I know I was extremely insistent upon it from the beginning, because neutrality has been a hobby-horse of mine for a very long time, and one of my guiding principles in writing "Sanger's Review." Neutrality, we agreed, required that articles should not represent any one point of view on controversial subjects, but instead fairly represent all sides. We also agreed in rejecting an alternative that (for a time) Tim and some early Nupedians plugged for: the development, for each encyclopedia topic, of a series of different articles, each written from a different point of view. I believed, moreover, that a strongly collaborative and open project could not survive if its contributors were not "personally invested" in the project, and that this required some input and management by its users. So I think it was very early on that I decided that Nupedia should have an Advisory Board--editors, and peer reviewers, who would together agree to project policy--and that the public should have a say in the formulation of policy.}} | |||
| Sanger had a different vision for Nupedia and Misplaced Pages. Wales ascribed the broader idea that non-experts can contribute to Misplaced Pages. Sanger wanted expert oversight to Misplaced Pages. Sanger did not want Misplaced Pages to be open to POV-warriors. See the ] article and its differences in the for a clearly POV article. He wanted an expert-guided wiki. Now the world has ]. ] (]) 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :For factual information Google etc do not begin to touch wikipedia. I can't even read a paepr newspaper any more because I read about somebody I haven't heard of and I want to find out about them from wikipedia. While it clearly is an idea of its time that does nott ake away from its brilliance as an idea, so Thank You, Jimbo. Thanks, ] 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Wale's efforts in creation of Misplaced Pages is indeed very very praiseworthy. --] (]) 10:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Jimmy, it's possible I was reading too much into Sue's comments. i.e., She could've just said, "We want to disseminate Misplaced Pages to people off the Internet," not (emphasis added), "We want to disseminate Misplaced Pages to people '''''off''''' the Internet!" | |||
| Still, I saw her interview on C-NET and it didn't seem very sincere. But then, that might just be because she's in business. All people in business are like that. <font size="4">]</font> <font face="impact"> ]</font> (]) 18:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Jimbo, your personal life is your own business - I don't think many of us on Misplaced Pages have any real intention to pry. What we ''are'' concerned about is the expenses thing, the suggestion from Danny Wool (echoed on This Week in Tech) of an attempt to make Misplaced Pages into a for-profit: these are the things that I for one am concerned about. Given his abrasive nature when he worked on Misplaced Pages I'm not willing to automatically take Danny's word over yours - but nor am I simply willing to accept 'there is no story here' ] (]) 11:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Right thing == | |||
| I think since you're so big on being fair and doing what is right, you should step in and overturn this decision: ]'s ] was closed as '''unsuccessful''' even though the final tally was 237 Support (a record level of support I might add), 39 Oppose and 4 Neutral. It's rather ridiculous to rate successful/unsuccessful on a percentage that isn't guideline or policy. For that discussion, see ]. As was noted in that discussion: | |||
| :''Starting on 1 November 2005, the to promote admins were: "one rule of thumb is that below 70% support compared to oppose generally fails, above 80% generally passes, and you should use discretion in between."'' | |||
| :''That was to read: "the rule of thumb is that nominees with a 75% support:oppose ratio are not promoted without a reason good reason, such as elimination of sockpuppets or bogus votes. Similarly those with more than 80% support generally are, and you should use discretion in between - In the case of bureaucracy be aware that, in a year and a half, no one has become a bureaucrat without at least 90% support and only two have been made bureaucrat with more than two opposes. - If you make a promotion or deny one outside of the above guidelines, or in the area between 75% and 80%, be prepared to make an explanation to any editors who asks in a civil manner."'' | |||
| :''The percentage guidelines were removed on and remain absent from the official guidelines.'' | |||
| The '''overwhelming''' consensus - again 237 supported her (a record for supports), 39 opposed her, and 4 were neutral - and the excellent adminship and editorship of Riana already displayed and in the history books further proves her ability to be a bureaucrat. I'll also refer you to the outpouring of support after the RfB at ]. | |||
| So I'd ask you to use your infallible power and overturn this "unsuccessful" close of Riana's RfB. I'd hate to lose such a great admin over something that isn't policy. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">✰</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">✰</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Ever consider that those 39+4 people, plus the person closing the RfB, might know something you don't?--] (]) 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, but if they don't upload it, it's irrelevant. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. If WBJscribe wants to ignore all rules, the least he can do is say, "I'm ignoring all rules," when he does it, instead of saying, "''I'm sorry... I feel bad... It's appropriate... '''BUT...'''''" There is no but. If he's already apologized, if he feels so bad, and if it's inappropriate, his mistake can easily be undone. <font size="4">]</font> <font face="impact"> ]</font> (]) 23:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I really recommend that you read WJBscribes excellent and honest ]. I know that you have not, because of the erroneous claims you have made on his behalf. Whatever you may feel about the result, do not lay your dismay at the door of someone who had the painful task of closing a procedure where they felt the decision was wrong. ] (]) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Raina is such an excellent admin and devoted Wikipedian that I seriously doubt that the failure to be promoted will engender her leaving the encyclopedia. Is the bar to high for 'crats? Possibly. Is it too high for Riana? NO. I would like to think that Riana would agree that she shouldn't be treated any differently than anyone else in her position. ] (]) 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which is exately why this should be overturned. Others have had less percentage than hers.. but as I said, percentages isn't a policy so it shouldn't be used. 237/39 is a big consensus. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">✰</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">✰</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are you saying that different criteria were used? While it may be difficult quantifying it, it is a serious accusation that needs looking at if true. However, if all applicants were put to the same standard and one failed where another didn't then there is nothing to argue about. I would also note that I didn't mention percentages in my earlier comment. ] (]) 22:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As was pointed out at ]. consensus by silence has very much been that RfBs pass with 85+ percentage of support, and yet this decision seems to operate counter to this. Yes, I'd very much say different criteria were used. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">✰</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">✰</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Allstar. Much as I wish Riana had been promoted, have you even begun to consider the ramifications of Jimbo stepping in and unilaterally overturning this decision? There is enough discussion on this matter across WP, and yet another thread does nothing to help. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Considering there's no review process like there is for deletions and such, I felt this was the only other alternative. A wrong must be righted. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">✰</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">✰</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that running to Jimbo ''less than one day'' after the RFB was rejected is a bit much. <font size="4">]</font> <font face="impact"> ]</font> (]) 23:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (a) I am not running again, but this does not mean I am leaving. (b) I would find it totally inappropriate for Jimbo to unilaterally overturn anything here, and I highly doubt Jimbo would even take such a suggestion seriously. I have also been reasonably vocal about unilateral Jimboisms in the past, believe them to be destructive, and would be hypocritical to take it on in my own case. (c) Join in the discussions on ] and ]. Jimbo has bigger things on his mind right now. ~ ] 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *And this is why I find this b'crat decision wrongheaded to the point of disruptiveness. Such a reliance on a non-existant standard has deprived us (for good, it seems) of a potentially outstanding 'crat. And then we have some 'crats (who shall remain nameless) who seem to never be able to get off their WikiAss to do ''anything'' leaving all the "dirty work" of 'cratship to the good guys like WjB. ] ]] 00:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I see no-and I emphasize '''''no'''''- reason not to have promoted Riana at RfB. Go ahead and tell me to do a modicum of research before commenting. I have, and if someone gets '''237''' for votes to '''39''' oppose and '''4''' neutral, the thing should be SNOWed and said user should be made buro. I'm not saying WjB is a bad guy/girl, I'm just saying that the decision was a little off. '''Support''' Riana being made buro pst-incident. --<font face="Copperplate Gothic">] <sup><font color="#800000">]</font></sup></font> 14:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::And this support expressed for Riana is why we should all heed her words just above and stop talking about this here. But Riana please <u>do</u> think about another run for buro-ship. We'll do it better next time ;) ] (]) 02:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::You really should do your research, Gp75, because WJB in fact supported making Riana a bureaucrat. ] (]) 05:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It's worth noting that there's no real precedent here - ''every'' RfB that's failed has had a lower percentage support, and ''every'' RfB that's passed has had a higher percentage support. So while the 90% rule is a fiction, the "strict vote counting line" could've been on either side of Riana. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd like to make a comment on this as someone who neither participaed in the RfB nor has seen it until a few minutes ago. The main problem that I see here is that in the crat's discussion they seem to have misdirected themselves (and no I'm not wikilawyering). | |||
| ::In the crat's separate discussion which they held over a day and a half there were many, many references to whether or not Riana passed the 90% golden mark which would would automatically establish a positive consensus (the rights and wrongs of this I make no comment on). There was also comments made as to how fair allowing Riana's AfB to pass would be on three other users who had failed previous RfBs. Feel free to criticise my opinion but I believe the results of a previous RfB should have no relevance on a later one when separate people are involved, unless a substantial change to either policy or process is included in one, and having read them I can't see either. | |||
| ::I can make no comment on the merits of the decision in terms of whether or not Riana would make a good crat as that it not what I have read here. I am merely concerned that in a decision that the crats took they did not determine consensus based on the facts of what was before them, but generally on two points (the 90% mark and previous discussions) made arbitrary decisions on numbers alone. It is worth pointing out that alost half (19 as I counted them so plus or minus two depending on opinon) of the oppose noms were as "per FM" (Fellacious Monk) or per another user without adding any further rationale, which did not help to determine consensus and added nothing to the discussion. Searching the same way in the support section (via control + F and users whose only comments wer per above or per another user or similar) I found 11 similar edits which contributed nothing to consensus other than a support or oppose. | |||
| ::One of the crats said "Riana has tremendous support, but does not come close to the 90% gauge set for RfB nominations. Therefore, there is not a community consensus in this case. 90% is the bar and we need to stick to it." I will not name them as that is not fair but I don't believe that a consensus is reached when 90% of people agree with it. A consensus should be a consensus regardless of number, either it is or it isn't. Admittedly for something like cratship a stronger consensus should be needed but nonetheless a glance at WP:CONSENSUS would not seem to eleminate Riana on a consensus basis; WP is not a deomcracy. If someone with 5 times more votes for them than against is not a consensus (even if we do ignore numbers ignoring numbers) then seriously what is? ] | ] 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Oh my God, Oh my God == | |||
| You created Misplaced Pages! WOW! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| ] (]) has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] 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. Cheers, and Happy editing! <br /> <small>''Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''</small> | |||
| </div><!-- Template:smile --> | |||
| :::Do you have any intentions of contributing to Misplaced Pages? If not, I can request you to be blocked. ] (]) 07:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Give the guy a chance, ok? thanks. gosh. --] (]) 13:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hi there, Jimbo Wales is the founder of Misplaced Pages. You cannot get him blocked for 'not editing'. Many users have not edited for some time, that doesn't mean that get blocked. Jimbo Wales, and other users may actually be busy in ] - so they can edit Misplaced Pages. We are all volunteers here, nobody is 'forced' to edit! --] ] ] <sup>]</sup> 13:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I ''think'' that Joshuarooney was referring to one of the correspondees above, rather than the subject of their posts. ] (]) 14:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yep, I made a mistake there! --] ] ] <sup>]</sup> 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Goodness me that is one ''long'' username. And BTW, Joshuarooney, I do think that it was a rather harsh comment to make. He was after all, only trying to be nice. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">]]</span> 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yes, agreed. ]] 03:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::If you look at said users contributions, all of them are on Talk pages, also, the user has now been blocked because of this username, and I think the message was highly immature. ] (]) 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == advice on this... == | |||
| Mr. Walles, what should you do about this... . Should you call the cops or just the school , or both. This is very serious sir. ] (]) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't the place to post this. Its being discussed at ] Thanks, ] 23:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is most likely going to be a joke. If it was real, then I doubt they'd announce it beforehand. ;-) But no, this is not something Jimbo can sort out. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">]]</span> 14:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Jossi Fresco still 'A Great Wikipedian'? == | |||
| If this guy is the great Wikipedian you claim how come he keeps archiving my discussions about his Master 'Prem Rawat'? ]] NB. discussions which other more neutral editors than he deem quite germane to the article. Seems like he just can't stop asserting that pesky COI.] (]) 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| See ] ] <small>]</small> 01:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Of course Jossi is. I haven't seen him do anything wrong myself. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 01:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Jossi: Did you notice? You archive PatW's comments, and PatW instantly ]. Without comment on the merit of the case; perhaps it's wiser to ] by answering questions and comments in-place (no matter how evil, if evil), even if only briefly (or by linking to previous discussion or etc). :-) --] (]) 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes, I noticed, Kim. But you miss the fact that his is a pervasive behavior regardless of what I do or don't do. I have attempted to stop a ]; I have allowed others to warn him; but it does not work. Some people do not seem to get clued no matter what you do. ] <small>]</small> 01:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Urk. Tricky. ^^;; PatW: What would Jossi have to do, according to you? --] (]) 02:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would (now more politely) urge Jossi to take a less aggressive approach to policing talk:Prem Rawat, exactly as Will has also suggested. ] Since Jossi has a declared COI his 'aggressive approach' towards critics easily comes across as thinly disguised baiting. This is evidenced by the tension on that page and some considerable resentment (even public) to his constant watch over that article and almost all articles connected to the subject. This is also considering that newly arrived neutral editors have recently observed (as I have complained) that he does not extend the same 'aggressive approach' towards editors who are sympathetic towards the subject.] (]) 15:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: There is no need to pursue this here, as this is a user's talk page. The discussion is being held at ] where it belongs. And before you continue casting aspersions on my behavior, note that in Misplaced Pages we have Diffs, and unless you provide diffs, your comments are nothing but ungrounded opinions. ] <small>]</small> 16:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: ]. We can move over later. :-) --] (]) 19:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: So you would just like Jossi to police ] less aggressively? If that's all, that seems easy enough. :-) What can he do to be less aggressive? Also, if that doesn't work out, perhaps you could both agree on a 3rd party to police the talk page instead or as well? --] (]) 19:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I am not sure that I like the framing of this conversation ... as if personal attacks are permissible when there is "aggressive policing", or that the personal attacks are related to such actions. This is not a symmetrical issue and should not be framed as such. Pat needs to make a public commitment that he will not engage in such behavior, as a pre-condition to any further discussion about other editor's behaviors. ] <small>]</small> | |||
| ::::::::::Jossi, that your aggressive policing includes personal attacks has been established before, for instance, you wrote:<blockquote> And do not give me any BS about good intentions, because I see none, Francis. (ref & context: ])</blockquote>I asked you several times to remove that personal attack, allowing for occasional slips of the tongue if you're prepared to correct afterwards. You didn't. --] (]) 08:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I absolutely welcome the idea of a 3rd party to police the Talk Page instead. That is what many people think would be best. I am a critic of Prem Rawat and also well-informed ex-follower. It is therefore most unpalatable to have Jossi exercising 'aggressive authority' over not only myself, but other critics of this Prem Rawat article. It actually turns my stomach as a fifty two year old adult to have Prem Rawat's former personal webmaster (and apparently now) PR guy here, apparently salivating over an opportunity to demand a humiliating public apology and pledge from me. I thought I'd got away from Rawat and his bullying subordinates who I was mentally abused by as a teenager. I consider myself an even-handed person and a I am proud to resist the lies that have crept into that article. Also I have young children who read Misplaced Pages at school. Jossi expects me to make puerile public pledges at his behest (what could be more cultic than that?) and yet he won't even answer my questions in a discussion about the article. Neither will he do so with other so-called 'apostates' whom he has said he will not engage with and frequently scorns. This is not fair and I shall'nt be giving him the pleasure as a matter of principal.] (]) 00:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::How is it possible that Jossi can even participate on the talk page given his COI? ] (]) 03:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Sethie: Because that's the actual location we use for people with (potential) COI, so that they can participate too. :-) --] (]) 03:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: Kim, this usefully brings an issue in to focus; allowing someone to contribute to discussions about an article for which they have a COI is one thing, but a difficulty arises when that conflicted individual acts as an administrator for the talk page and article. PatW may have been at fault, but by the standards seen on many WP talk pages, PatW is a mild mannered contributor whose frustrations have been exacerbated by the somewhat (IMO)harrassing approach of an administrator who has a COI over the article at issue. PatW could be accused of being verbose, but the talk page concerned is full of verbosity, and it is difficult not to see Jossi as behaving partially in this case. To avoid any such concern in future a clear separation of 'policing' responsibility for the Prem Rawat articles is desirable. --] (]) 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I thought the whole purpose of COI was keeping people who had a COI from interfering with articles! Now you are saying talk pages exist so that people with COI's can participate? huh? | |||
| ::::::::::::Jossi's activities are getting a lot of blog coverage. All it takes is one newspaper or one respectable academic to comment- and then wikipedia has another scandal, and for what? How does wikipidia as a whole benefit from his continued participation on those pages? Certainly there are better suited admins to the task? ] (]) 17:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: PatW: Alright. Well, what you're asking isn't hard, and what Jossi is asking isn't really much in return. Will you be following the wikipedia policy on ]? If he didn't say anything, possibly someone else would, because it is the rule, right? :-) | |||
| ::::::::: It's quite possible to stand your ground in a civil fashion, after all. Would you be able to manage that? --] (]) 03:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Absolutely yes of course; but I don't think 'pledges' are the way forward since Jossi apparently has the inclination to use such things against opponents and also for the more emotive reasons above. My main assertion is, and always has been, that in order for civil, constructive debate to occur around that article there need to be truly neutral people there both in an administrative capacity and as editors. I don't believe that a healthy atmosphere can develop until Jossi restricts his participation to non-administrative tasks and abandons 'policing'. That is too much to reasonably expect given the accusations (even from neutral arrivees) that he has established some kind of (quote) 'tag-team' with champion editor 'Momento' and is over aggressive and influential. You have only to glance at the history of this article to see that he and Jossi have controlled it in a highly aggressive manner for years. Jossi and Momento have also cultivated an icy patience about wearing down critics (who don't care to reciprocate such zealous commitment and who have almost entirely fled in exasperation long ago). Some, as we have seen, have resorted to more guerrilla tactics such as supplying newspapers and journalists with information that paints a corruptive picture of Misplaced Pages for permitting this (ie. Cade Metz article). Given that Jossi and Momento apparently are there almost 24/7 nobody else really stands a chance. Especially people like myself who are trying to hold down a day job. You may notice that Jossi is still trying to get me blocked on the AN page using my latest comments as further evidence of 'illegal' attacks on him. Believe me it is rather hard to remain civil in the face of this constant callous admonishment and frankly, hypocrisy. Here is a fellow who is, even here, demanding 'diffs' and other time-consuming answers whilst he won't even answer simple questions to 'apostates' on the Talk Page which pertain to the article, apparently mostly due to his antiseptic scorn of them. I understand Jossi has been involved in court cases in the US (whilst working on this article) with ex-follower(s) of Rawat. I do not know the details but I would have thought that might partially account for his 'over-aggressive' attitude towards critics of Prem Rawat. I have no stomach or time to engage in some kind of 'legal war' with Jossi here either. He will always win as he is a champion on these matters and has apparently even written the rules on some matters of COI. That is why I, as you say, kicked the ball in here. After all Mr Wales apparently has given Jossi some sort of wave of approval which I feel perfectly justifies my calling him on the fairness of that.] (]) 10:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::On the other hand I am coming to realise that I have violated a number of rules here - eg 'soapboxing' which I only recently even heard of, and of course being occasionally horribly rude to Jossi and Momento. I would actually quite like to be given the chance to demonstrate that I can work civilly within the framework here but the message I am getting is that it is too late for that and that I am well on the way to being unceremoniously booted out. I have been (probably) well-advised to rescind of my own accord from here altogether for several months and to delete my talk page which apparently is not the 'honest declaration of intent' that I originally intended but something more sinister. I will sleep on it and if I haven't been forcibly ejected I may simply follow this recent advice. In any case I certainly see the merit in offering some kind of 'olive branch' towards Jossi and the Misplaced Pages community with regard to a commitment towards civility if I am permitted to remain.] (]) 11:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Sure, thanks PatW. Anyone is welcome to participate, if we can do that within the simple (and very human) constrains of civility and mutual respect. I have seen many people that never managed to do that and eventually get "unceremoniously booted out" , and I have seen people that have managed to overcome previous animosity and become excellent contributors. Hope you are in the latter group. ] <small>]</small> 15:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Kim, as per your suggestion above, I have asked Jossi (on the ANI page) if he would agree to someone (you maybe?) choosing a 3rd party to police the article instead or as well as he. How would you feel about that? I have also decided it's best if I personally take some time out there, however I think your suggestion would help enormously to calm tensions there even in my absence :-) ] (]) 16:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I've left this a while now. Should I interpret the lack of response from everyone as a "No, we actually endorse Jossi's continuing to police the article on his own"? In which case how sincere was that suggestion I wonder? I see Jossi has not indicated any intention of agreeing to such an arrangement but proposes to continue, whilst my offer to take a long break seems to have been received with an almost palpable sigh of relief. ] (]) 10:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, the suggestion to drag in a 3rd party takes actual work (especially since no-one has volunteered as yet ^^;;). Let's try this: possibly if both of you just each other with a bit more respect (as promised), the issue will trend towards resolving itself. If it doesn't in ...say... a couple of days, we can take further steps, as needed. Fair? --] (]) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: There are active editors there that can help, (a good example just happened yesterday, in which a more neutral editor archived a commented that was unsuitable for talk page). Article talk pages do not need babysitters, as in most cases people can work out things on their own. Of course, there is always AN/I for reporting disruption, and if all fails there is ultimately ]. (BTW, I have already committed not to archive comments from talk) ] <small>]</small> 20:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK thanks. We'll see how things go.] (]) 22:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm sorry Kim, but with all the good faith in the world, this is not going to work. I have voluntarily withdrawn from the article (as have many in protest over the last few years) and from afar, I observe Jossi still aggressively policing the Prem Rawat article even straight after hinting that he would not do so. I am simply reading this whilst not getting into the fray. The Prem Rawat article remains nothing more than a biased and heavily defended public advert for Prem Rawat as it has been for years. To anyone involved this is plainly the result of a weakness in Misplaced Pages's ability to prevent partial administrators from gaming the system. Sethie is quite right, if nothing is done the inevitable result is more public criticism. It is simply wrong that a man with such COI is allowed to police the article. As long as Jossi is policing there will be no progress and it is a conspicuous ethical failing of Misplaced Pages itself not to address this concern. Jimmy Wales' comment is unfortunate in that it is becoming increasingly obvious that he is not seeing the whole picture in this case. ] (]) 10:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, Pat, what should I say... ''thanks for your vote of non-confidence in those who are putting their best energy in this to get it right''? You could be of much more value for Misplaced Pages if you didn't interlace your discourse with self-fulfilling prophecy, which is bound to be offensive for someone some time. Sorry for the harsh words. | |||
| :::::Which Jimbo Wales comment are you referring to? --] (]) 13:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::After the 'Cade Metz' criticism of Misplaced Pages, Jimmy Wales defended Jossi saying that could find no evidence of improper behaviour and considered him 'A great Wikipedian'. I have every confidence in your patient approach being helpful but it pains me to see that as fast as you balance the article, Jossi and Momento take greater steps in the opposite direction. That is a pattern I have observed over several years which prompts me to, with good intentions, warn you that your work will most likely be wasted as mine and others has been. What I question is that in this system, people like you who are really are giving it your "best energy", are essentially having your time wasted when that could be <i>easily</i> avoided by there being a simple rule that administrators with COI simply cannot police articles that they are affiliated to. I fail to see what would be unfair about that and why it is not blatantly unfair for that not to be the rule.] (]) 15:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Ah, I thought so. I know only about two comments Jimbo made about the issue. Both were addressed at me. You're referring to the one that is still included in ]. The other one I know about is of no relevance here, it was in a private mail to me. | |||
| ::::::::::I don't see how the comment you refer to could be used here as a proof for something it doesn't prove. My reply to Jimbo is still recorded in the archive linked to above. It contained: "A topical editing restriction might be in order . And maybe Jossi would be better to impose that on himself, than that anyone else imposed it on him." - that's what happened shortly thereafter. Maybe it is time to take such topical editing restriction a step further, which already happened in fact. Maybe still further, yes, maybe it's time to discuss that. | |||
| ::::::::::Note that Cade Metz had also written about Jimbo, multiple times, and that Jimbo always said he couldn't find anything reliable in what Metz had written about him. So how would you imagine he would pre-emptively agree with what Metz wrote on others? | |||
| ::::::::::Yes, ] is currently (again) not such a nice spectacle. I just asked another uninvolved admin would look into it (while the last one was asking me to go through 750-odd edits for something not really needed imho to base an assessment upon). Jimbo would be neutral enough to take the task upon him, as far as I'm concerned. --] (]) 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: "Policing" is not a term used in this project. If you refer to asking people to stop making ], asking editors to stop edit-warring, asking editors to work in finding common ground, asking editors to stop mis-using the talk pages for ], working with other admins to negotiate article probation, so some basic discipline can be attained while improving the article, then yes: that is what I have done, and I am proud of it. ] <small>]</small> 16:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: And if you missed it, there are other editors that are working quite nicely there. I am not editing the article. Check the article's history and you will see five or six editors collaborating quite nicely. ] <small>]</small> 16:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Jossi, please don't overblow the nit regarding "policing" you have picked. --] (]) 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: ''Overblow the nit'' ? What do you mean? Not familiar with the term. ] <small>]</small> 01:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::You're nitpicking, and you overblow it. I tend to dismiss things that might be perceived as personal attacks with slightly out of place expressions (as I said at ]) --] (]) 04:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Umm, why is Jossi still allowed to have anything to do with the Prem Rawat articles? This is past ridiculous, please tell him to stay away from them. ] (]) 10:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| It needs to be brought to your attention that ] is using his userpage to host what appears to be child pornography. Despite admins removing the pictures he seems determined to edit war them back in as per , , . His original image was removed via and he has since updated his page with yet another child porn image, the one which is now currently being hosted by wikipedia. Please note that like the previous picture, the current image being hosted has no information declaring that the subject is over 18 years of age, and is found in no other part of the encyclopedia. Given that this user is immune to admin decisions or removals, and in his defense uses comments like , I believe ] must be removed from the project immediately, for the integrity of the encyclopedia. ] (]) 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :What proof do you have that this is child pornography? ] (]) 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I said it "appears" to be child pornography. There is no information on the image that declares that the "nude" is over 18 years of age. I think that wikipedia should err on the side of caution here. ] (]) 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :So nominate the image for deletion on commons. —] 17:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It doesn't look like child pornography to me, the stomach has too many wrinkles and it is a page on the commons. Shaved genatilia in adults and child porn having nothing whatsoever to do with each other. It may be inappropriate for a user page but not for being Child porn, ] is the image. Thanks, ] 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Which is a cropped version of the image at http://www.pixelio.de/details.php?image_id=163978 - it is definitely ''not'' child porn. ] (]) 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As far as I can tell, none of the photos at ] (which is a pretty good listing of nudes on Misplaced Pages) have a notation anywhere saying that they're 18+ or whatever you think is required. ] (]) 17:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :One simple reason that these images don't need a notation saying that they're of people 18 & over is that they're not pornographic. Nudity ≠ pornography. For example, the U.S. age documentation requirement (]) only applies to works meeting the definition of pornography, not to all nudes. To phrase it logically, an image that isn't ] can never be ]. ]. --]'']'' 22:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Two things: | |||
| :# I don't believe the image is illegal in any way. | |||
| :# I still think WebHamster should remove it from his page. It's a bit of a shock to be using WP during downtime at the school I teach at, click on a userpage link, and see ''that'' pop up. In the spirit of community, I'd ask that WH remove the image. I could have gotten in some ''serious'' trouble if even ''one'' of my students had been present when that image came up on my screen. | |||
| *] ]] 18:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is the issue I raise above not an issue at all? I mean, I could have gotten in some ''serious'' trouble when I clicked on WH's username. Fortunately I didn't, but doesn't that carry any weight at all? ] ]] 10:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===] inflammatory comment and forum shopping=== | |||
| I think Prester John should get a block unless he agrees to drop the unsubstantiated and purposefully inflaming "child-porn" rhetoric. This posting makes twice (that I know of, the other was at ANI, where he inititally stirred the pot, but ultimately did not get his way ). Should this go to ANI again? Personally, I'm getting tired of <s>PJ's</s> Prester John's misleading characterizations and efforts to kick up a #%^& storm. ] (]) 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC) edited for clarity per comment below. ] (]) 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is not exactly an accurate description. After the AN/I mentioned above the original image was removed. This is what I wanted. ] has now seen fit to display yet another picture on his user page. What ever the personal opinion of the age of the subject, there is no disclaimer that the "model" is over 18, and there is a fair case that she is under 18. The right to host pornographic images of "potentially" underage minors in userspace is not something wikipedia needs to be involved in. ] (]) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::If your issue is with the existence of the image, you should nominate it for deletion - its presence on a particular page, userspace or otherwise, does not change the issues you are claiming the image has. —] 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm not finding a good reason why this is even here at Jimbo's page to begin with. Forum shopping? <small>] | ] | ]</small> 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Authorities take a very dim view of websites hosting child porn. Given that the buck ultimately stops with Jimbo I think it is necessary to advise him on important matters concerning his responsibilities. This goes way beyond AN/I which has proven not to work in this case. Sure I cross posted to other parties who may have a vested interest in this issue, however I am astounded at the level of resistance to what ultimately is a non-issue. ] (]) 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, especially when you see that he also posted this to Larry Sanger and Mike Godwin's user talks as well. ] (]) 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::comment- diffs for the above: and . note -no further discussion was on those talk pages at this time. ] (]) 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It ''appears'' that PJ thinks that with the trouble Jimbo has had lately that he thinks he can get what he wants by introducing a little "child porn" accusation in the mix. Of course, I don't really know what motivates people, but I have learned today that I can type anything, as long as I put "appears" in front of it (not really). Oh, and agreed on the forum shopping. ] (]) 19:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: So what course of action do we have? This is becoming pretty irritating and is driving off a respected user. <small>] | ] | ]</small> 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would take it to ANI, but I assume that dozens of admins watch this page, so except for recommending a block, and then a delete or archive of this (and the other postings) I'm not sure. ] (]) 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Authorities certainly do take a dim view of child porn but this is not child porn, this is obviously post-pubescent adults with shaved genitalia and if you think shaved genitalia has anything to do with child porn in any way indicates depiction of a child that is your problem not wikipedia's. I think your accusing Hamster of posting child porn on his user page is the only issue at hand at hand here, and it is a terrible and clearly false accusation. Authorities also take a dim view of obvious false accusations, see ]. Thanks, ] 20:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Like I said above, just because you say it is not child porn does not make it so. Is there any indication on the image license that the subject is over 18 years old? ] (]) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Well equally you saying it is child porn does not make it so in any way, shape or form, all these questions have been dealt with thoroughly here in this thread. Personally I am commenting on this thread because child porn on wikipedia is something I am extremely vigilant of, and my own record in keeping pedophilia off wikipedia is possibly second to none. I agree you going on and on does look like trolling given that these images are clearly not child porn, and you should not have accused Hamster of putting child porn on his user page without a scrap of evvidence, such an accusation is disruptive. Thanks, ] 21:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given this communities attitude toward paedophilia advocacy and advocates, I suggest that this appears to be a matter of litigating for a block of the user displaying the image - thus justifying the removal of like images as setting a precedent. I also give kudos to Squeakbox for his unbiased appraisal of the matter. ] (]) 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Squeak, my hat's off to you. Your description of your activities and of this situation is spot on. You even linked in an ] we've both worked on. As a practical matter, the nude photo on ] is a non-issue. It harms no one, and it's clear that it isn't pornography, much less child pornography. In the timeless tradition of ]: "There's nothing to see here; Go about your business." --]'']'' 22:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I thought the fact that the image was cropped from made it already extremely obvious that it isn't child porn. Prester John's complaint here is rather ridiculous as well. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Squeak and SSB are right. This is nothing more than (falsely) using the "pedophilia" panic-reaction to be ]. The image is a non-issue and ]? I also noticed Baley's comment above "I'm getting tired of PJ's misleading characterizations and efforts to kick up a #%^& storm" which made me think if "PJ" was "]". I would hope not, as this sort of firestarting on Misplaced Pages is bad for credibility of users. Anyhoo... this is a total non-issue. The IMAGE page would be the place to take the potential of an illegal image. And Porn? The one that's been linked is '''hardly''' porn. Chill. <!--SIG--><small style="font:10px Arial;display:inline;border:#690000 1px solid;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">''''' • ''''' ]]]]''02:02 (UTC) 11 Mar '08''</small><!--/SIG--> | |||
| :::::: Clarified my comment. . .if there was any confusion, sorry 'bout that. I picked up using initials a while back (and I thought at the time my ref was clear because I spelled out the user account first). Anyway, I think it's crystal at this point, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. ] (]) 09:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: No prob. And to be clear (cause I also wasn't), I'm not saying or thinking that you were saying that P.J. was PJ, but it made me wonder if perhaps P.J. really was PJ... as I understand, Xavier was banned from Misplaced Pages, right? Anyway, I am NOT saying that this is the case, but it made me think/wonder about the possibility of more. If nothing else, there was some ] in that the initials matched! :-) <!--SIG--><small style="font:10px Arial;display:inline;border:#690000 1px solid;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">''''' • ''''' ]]]]''17:54 (UTC) 11 Mar '08''</small><!--/SIG--> | |||
| :I think the people in ] might be underage, someone should check into that. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''11:06, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)''</small> | |||
| == nice userpage == | |||
| you have a nice userpage and give people to privilage to edit, and so I did by adding a ♥. Thats cool. i saw the list of places you've gone to, but why haven't you come to Asia? You always go to 'white skin countries' (no offence). Just come to Asia once and you'll see an array of different people, culture, ways of life and landscapes you can never dream of seeing in europe or australia. its fantastic. i've never seen a single american or european who has said he didn't enjoy asia (countries like india, japan, korea, ceylon, malaysia etc.). Come to see. --] (]) 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If is any indication, he was in Korea just recently. ] (]) 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Why, can't he answer that question himself? Must you even do that for him? Or are you his sockpuppet? --] (]) 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Lol, that is the funniest and most ridiculous sock accusation I have ever heard, and no i don't think Bramlet is Jimbo's sock. Thanks, ] 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm helping him out, he has a hard time answering questions. There are some he has been asked repeatedly for years and still not answered. ] (]) 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Bramlet, what do you mean? Why don't you email me to clarify and I will see what I can do to help you.--] (]) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Do you answer your emails more thoroughly than questions here? I think it is of public interest, so I repeat here what I asked you further up on this page. This has been an obvious unanswered question ever since you claimed to be "sole founder" in 2004: have you not read any of the Misplaced Pages press releases describing you as co-founder until 2004, nor any of the media coverage (such as the major 2001 New York Times story) doing likewise, or if you did, why didn't you say or do anything about it before 2004? ] (]) 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I had not paid attention to the issue much before that time, and I pay little attention to it now. I think Larry's contribution to Misplaced Pages in the early days is significantly under-appreciated and should be much more widely understood. As is well known, I do not agree that "co-founder" is the right description of that role. I regret not paying attention to it and responding earlier, but there you go.--] (]) 14:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You pay little attention to it now? You mean, like when you called people on IRC to help you ? Or when you told the Boston Globe to call Sanger co-founder, or when you told the AP not to ? That is a strange contrast to your silence before 2004. By saying "you had not paid attention to the issue" you are obviously not denying that you were aware of the generally-accepted co-founder view, as you must have been. So either you thought it ''was'' the right description (and thus deliberately tried to rewrite history in 2004), or you thought it wasn't, but for some reason couldn't care less about being falsely described - perhaps because Misplaced Pages wasn't as big yet and you yourself didn't believe in its growth and only in 2004 you considered this an important matter because of the fact that being "the founder" of a huge website can be nicely monetized (speaking fees etc.) in a much better way than by being a mere "co-founder". The question remains. ] (]) 15:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Bram, your talk of money also brings up the fact that Sanger may have financial reasons himself for wanting to be called co-founder, especially now the site has grown, and especially as actually wales is far better known as wikipedia founder and generally than is Sanger. Whioch makes me question your own reasons for so stubbornly insisting on calling Wales co-founder pretty much wherever he is mentioned on wikipedia. Thanks, ] 15:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Sure Sanger may have such reasons for wanting to be called co-founder - but it also happens to be the truth, verifiable by sources dating from 2001. Wales wants to be called by a description that he made up in 2004 and which is contradicted by the objective sources. ] (]) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Oh and by the way Jimbo, remember little exchange we had in December? Seems I was spot on, as Danny has now revealed that Carolyn Doran had temporarily embezzled $5,000 of foundation money and was fired for that. You couldn't possibly have admitted that you made a monumental blunder (which could easily have resulted in a serious loss of money) by appointing an unchecked temp worker as chief operating officer, could you? ] (]) 13:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think the board (which included me as one member) made a bad decision when we chose to hire Carolyn Doran. In retrospect, that is pretty clear, is it not? I do not, however, think it is a bad idea to follow the advice of one's attorney in such matters, and I am glad that the Board did.--] (]) 14:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, in retrospect it is. But if it weren't for the revelations by The Register and now Danny, no one would ever have known anything about it. I think the fact that such bad decisions are hidden is worse than the fact that they are made. And don't hide behind the attorney - there was no legal reason for covering this up. His advice would have been based on PR considerations. ] (]) 15:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In reference to an earlier thread here, Bramlet could possibly (apparently) be some sort of itchy, woolen sock for Jimbo. ;·) --]'']'' 23:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Google him and you will find he has been in India, China, South Africa, and other nonwhite countries. I'm sure he will be in Egypt this summer. ] (]) 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :America isn't really a white skin country either nor should skin colour really make any difference to anything. Thanks, ] 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Demographically, the United States is projected to become a nation with no single ethnic majority some time in the next 20-30 years. --]'']'' 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, I travel all over the world. My favorite place to travel is in India.--] (]) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :May I recommend Varkala? It's gorgeous little town in India ]] 02:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh sorry, I googled and saw you have been to an array of asian countries. But perhaps you should add all the places you've been to in your '''My travel itinerary''' area in the user page. But over there, you've only added those 1st world cities in north america, europe and australia. If you like india so much why dont you add it in together with korea, china, africa, and the other places you've been. no offence. (i'm the same guy who started this topic but now my ip has changed??!!) --] (]) 10:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you and perhaps a collaborator had the time you could perhaps pin the flags of places lived in, visited and hope to go one day on your user page, something various users have done at times, and which would be particularly interesting in your case. Thanks, ] 14:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Maybe you should come to Singapore. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == WP:BLP == | |||
| Hi. I know that you do not often get involved in the intricacies of policy debates, however if you are interested in knowing what is going on with the collective Misplaced Pages psyche in relation to WP:BLP, I believe the following debate, if read thoroughly and carefully, may offer some clues: ]. This is, of course, not to suggest how you should interpret the disagreement. ] (]) 03:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for Adminship == | |||
| Hi Jimbo, hope you are well, and not letting the crap in the press get you down! Quick question: PLEASE MAKE ME AN ADMIN?!!! | |||
| No seriously, What's the process for adminship? Thinking of applying myself and want to nominate someone. | |||
| Cheers | |||
| Randomjack ] (]) 11:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Answered on Randomjack's talk page. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 11:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Oh noes! == | |||
| Hi Jimmy, did you know in the real world, many people believe things based on evidence, not by "checking their source" for WP:V or WP:RS ] (]) 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi Jimbo == | |||
| I'm quite new on Misplaced Pages although I have created ] and a category. However I appear to have lost the ability to create articles. When I want to create one I just type it into the search engine and it says "No page with this title exists" and then provides me with the option to create it however now all it does is bring up a list of articles with similar names. I'm not entirely sure if I'm important enough to speak to you but I couldn't think of anybody else to ask and seeing as you're "the Boss" so to speak I figured you'd know how to get round this. Thank you for your time. --] (]) 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Type it into the search box and then click "'''Go'''". ] (]) 21:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you mocking me? --] (]) 16:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::No he isn't, he is being helpful, as ever on this page. Thanks, ] 17:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Anyway try this ]. Thanks, ] 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi, Mr. Wales == | |||
| Hi, Im new here Wales and I like what you've done with the place. You also need a shave ;)Moosester out. --] ] 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I think it suits him, ] (]) 10:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've linked to the ] here before and if necessary I will do so again. Way to go. Thanks, ] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Larry Sanger "founding issue" Compromise == | |||
| I have seen evidence to show Sanger did have an important role in Misplaced Pages's "founding (although I still won't call him the Founder of Misplaced Pages Jimbo);" however I still think you have a good point about Sanger being merely your employee; so as a compromise between the two sides of the debate why don't call Larry "The Assistant Founder of Misplaced Pages," it sounds like a good NPOV term right? I hope you like it :) | |||
| This way we don't take away from the fact that you were the Founder of Misplaced Pages and it doesn't negate from Larry's key role in "found" wikipedia.--] (]) 04:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| At Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg is known as Founder, and several others known as co-Founders. But I don't think this sort of option is available in this case.--] (]) 13:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == SlimVirgin == | |||
| I made a few reasonable edits and this user came and reverted them, without comment. So I searched on Google for her name. I found a whole host of information about her controversial tenure as administrator on this site... she has apparently used sock-puppets and the like. And yet she is still here, as an administrator no less. As well, none of the facts of her controverial administration are present here... in many cases, they have been expunged. | |||
| Why is this user still an administrator? Surely her aggressive POV-pushing and belligerent manner is a disservice to this site? And given the explosion of non-wikipedia commentary about her, shouldn't there be an objective page HERE about her controverial role on this site? | |||
| I apologize for posting this here, but the complicated and overwrought beurocractic system you have in place for filing motions and what not is, ahem, a little bit too daunting. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :SlimVirgin is a lot like Misplaced Pages itself: useful and better now than in the past. ] (]) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hopefully we are all improving all the time, as editors who have been here a while. Otherwise there wouldn't be much point. Thanks, ] 14:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good questions Oregondesert. I've asked some of the same questions myelf and, like you, haven't received any straight answers. For the time being, if she keeps reverting your edits without comment, leave a note on her talk page asking her to stop that behavior and try to open a discussion about your edits on the article's talk page. ] (]) 10:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggestion == | |||
| I wanted to edit your Page: | |||
| old: "... I trust you. Yes, I really do."<br /> | |||
| new: "... I trust you. Yes, I really do. And if I can't trust you I can trust the next Wikipedian to come along and fix it. ..." | |||
| --] (]) 08:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (in fact ]) | |||
| == I always wanted to give you the finger ... == | |||
| ] | |||
| ... or at least a thumb up! --] (]) 11:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == threats of violence == | |||
| Dear Jimbo, how should editors and admins on this project interpret a threat of violence against a school, person or oneself? Should they pass it off as a cheap hoax or take it at face value and entirely serious? Recently there was an explicit threat against Plano Senior High School which mentioned a day, time and device. The local police stated their desire to know every detail and said any such threats, no matter how vague in the future, should be reported. I am curious to know how you view- should threats be passed off as jokes/hoaxes or taken seriously? ] (]) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It is being discussed at ]. For future incidents, bring it up at ]. ] (]) 15:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I know. I was the one who phoned the Plano police to report the threat. I am just curious as to Jimbo opinion in how to interpret such threats- do we judge them as hoaxes and ignore them (possibly ignoring an early warning), or take them at face value. ] (]) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I seem to recall that he's made statements in the past, either on wiki or on the mailing lists, that these threats should always be reported since it's the police's job, not ours, to decide whether to take it seriously. —] 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, I have heard such. I'm kind of looking for a quote since I cannot find one. Can you point me in the right direction or perhaps I'll wait until Jimbo replies. ] (]) 17:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Might be worth taking a look at ] as well, and seeing if you disagree with anything therein, Jimbo... thanks! - ] (]) 19:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would observe, though, that except to the extent that Jimbo acts in his capacity as a member of the Board of the WMF or pursuant to some designation of the Board (one supposes the Foundation might have, or might sometime take, a meta-position), he offers his views as a "regular" editor (of course, that is always the case with respect to proposed changes to policy—although the community do, to be sure, usually accord certain special considerations to Jimbo's views—but I note it here only because this may be one particular issue about which his views of what ought to be done might differ from those of the community and so about which his expressions should not be understood as particularly dispositive). ] 06:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 1 billion words == | |||
| I don't know if you are aware or even care less, but English wikipedia currently has around 991,000,000 words as of March 13 2008. I thought it would be nice if somebody takes note when we pass the 1 billion word mark as I feel this is a monumental milestone in wikipedia's history. Let me know , the many people who watch this page what you think and whether this should be brought up in the announcements ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd be interested to know what propcedure you used to calculate thios, and how you would intend to measure when exactly a billion words will occur. Thanks, ] 14:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You could presumably work the number of words out from analysing a database dump, but as those are only produced every few months it would be impossible to find exactly when it passed the 1 billion mark. Maybe ] would like to include it in their "news and notes" section. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 20:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''{{nts|{{#expr: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}*435}}}}''' . Well of course I didn't expect anybody to know exactly what the billionth word is. I just thought people should know as I see it as a benchmark. It should be brought up in the announcements I think ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you don't know what the count is, forget it. The media would crucify you. You'd have to compare a regular series of data dumps, I imagine checking the number of blank spaces between all strings of consecutive characters. But I also think the developers have better things to do with their time than such a hugely resource draining analysis. Thanks, ] 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As you noted, Wikimedia doesn't currently have the resources to provide adequate data dumps, without any real excuse for this. It's possible they're working on this behind-the-scenes, but generally, they seem to spend more time making up excuses and covering up mistakes than being open and honest with the public. And then following up by saying, "Well, our ''lawyer'' told us to say these things!" | |||
| Most importantly of all: It isn't the quantity that counts. It's the ''quality''. Let's see Misplaced Pages have featured articles on every subject contained within Britannica (that is, the core encyclopedic subjects) and ''then'' we have a reason to justify self-congratulatory remarks and throw big parties abroad. <font size="4">]</font> <font face="impact"> ]</font> (]) 00:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Zenwhat, Misplaced Pages was born an ''experiment'' to generate content that could be improved enough to be part of the online encyclopedia "Nupedia". It has ''always'' been an encyclopedia-in-the-making. That many people find our encyclopedia-in-the-making good enough to use ''right now'' instead of waiting until we have a finished version is wonderful. That others choose to misunderstand and condemn what they do not understand is less wonderful. Gathering facts before making claims is a good thing. ] (]) 04:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration committee - This three-year harassment case needs a closer look == | |||
| There is yet again a very serious disconnect between the evidence presented and comments by arbitrators. You may recall the . Since then, there was one more arbitration case on Davenbelle (aka Moby Dick). User was eventually banned indefinitely. There is evidence that this indef banned user may have returned editing wikipedia continuing his harassment campaign. | |||
| I was wondering if you would take a look at this case: ]. | |||
| Particularly Kirill Lokshin's comment stated that "I see no evidence that any prior steps in either the dispute resolution process or the sockpuppet identification process have ocurred with regard to Jack" which is in contradiction with is of concern. | |||
| I know from experience that you stay away from such disputes as much as you can, which is fine. But perhaps you can encourage arbitrators to look into this issue more closely. | |||
| --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 14:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :On an unrelated note I emailed you the matter you asked from me in person in Istanbul. Have you had a chance to review it? --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 14:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Question from Nothing444 == | |||
| Where can I find Jimbo Wale's Signature? ]] 15:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've trimmed the grotesquely large 'complaint' box from your request; please don't use it again. Jimbo's signature is easily found further up this page. It appears as | |||
| ::--] (]) | |||
| :in edits such as . ](]) 15:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == BLP discussion on proposed change to make BLP apply "everywhere" == | |||
| Jimmy, I'd like to ask you to read this section on the BLP talk page and weigh in there, as BLP was originally one of your babies: ]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Interestingly I have been watching my nieces and nephews schools in the UK, and what a minefield of BLP issues so yesterday I tagged their school's talk page with BLP . Today I did the same to my old school , but also to the person whose BLP issues are mentioned . I have had no contact with Lawrence re this issue but appear to have been practicing it anyway. Great minds think alike I guess?!? My own thinking is we need to apply BLP to all articles that mention living people, I'll go and post this at the BLP page. Thanks, ] 18:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've been thinking BLP just by default applies to any edit or action that generates anything that can be "seen" on Misplaced Pages, ''about'' a living person. The article about ] may have nothing living people in it, but if I add a sentence to the article that "] enjoys beating children with this fish species in private", and Prince Gaston is a real person, then BLP obviously applies. That was my contention--if you can see it on http://en.wikipedia.org, BLP applies. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 18:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I guess we should be applying it to all articles where BLP is contentious, also IMO to all redirects of living people, just a general extension out of purely biography space into living people affected by what wikipedia says, the headmaster of my old school is a good example but really there are lotsd of articles. I think CV is always an important consideration, if I were a specialist in some ] and mentioned in the article then the article should be tagged for BLP, I guess this is my contention, and one I intend to practice in the tiny area of wikipedia I edit. And what I heard you say Lawrence is that we should be free as responsible editors to aply BLP to any article of given consideration on en.wikipedia.org. Thanks, ] 18:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:53, 15 March 2008
I am going to kill myself nown