Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:45, 11 July 2007

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

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

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

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hoopedia

This site, sponsored by the NBA is copying pages by Misplaced Pages without giving Misplaced Pages any credit. Possible lawsuit? Charlotte provided me these diffs on a separate source: For example, http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php/Hack-a-Shaq is obviously copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/Hack-a-Shaq.

Thanks for your time,

Miranda 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It does give Wiki some credit by using the name "Wiki," but no, there can be no lawsuit, since Misplaced Pages is free and free for distribution, and that goes for its content; and good thing it is in such a way. If Jimbo boy decides one day to sell Wiki for some 50 million bucks, the content will exist on other mirror sites and a new Wiki can be recreated by others. Hopefully, Jimbo will not take this step and the problem will never arise. :) --Thus Spake Anittas 20:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, "wiki" is a generic term not belonging to Misplaced Pages (or anybody else). Its use doesn't state or imply any sort of credit to Misplaced Pages. And Misplaced Pages, though "free", is licensed under a specific copyright license, GFDL, which makes specific rules regarding credit that must be given, which aren't being followed in the NBA wiki. However, any legal action would have to be taken by the creators of the specific content, not Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia themselves, who don't own the copyrights involved. From what I can see, the NBA Hoopedia has no statement of copyright license or credit on its article pages, and the history of that particular page doesn't include any edit comments indicating the source of the material other than the user who directly supplied it. *Dan T.* 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew I should have kept my mouth shut. Yes, you're right on all accounts. Perhaps someone could contact the owner of that site and ask them nicely to comply with the rules. Now, to my next concern: Wiki is free under GFDL, where one must give credit to Wiki for the content used. However, can Wales change the license for the content that used to fall under GFDL to become copyright material? I'm still worried that he one day may decide to sell the site and our work will become copyrighted, while we're pushed out by some bigshot company. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Under GDFL anyone can "sell" our work and make bazillions of bucks. But it would be like selling ice to Alaskans. It's already free, so why pay for it? The one thing they won't be able to do is copyright (other than GDFL) or otherwise take credit for our work. Rklawton 21:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Great to hear; and you're right: it wouldn't work to make Wiki a premium site, but it would work to add advertisement to the site, etc. You could probably argue that there is no need for advertisement because Wiki gets funds that would otherwise not be given, if the site had ads; but that still doesn't change my concerns that: 1) there might be an interest in aquiring Wiki, and; 2) Wales may be willing to sale the site in the future. If not now, then maybe in 10, 20 or even 30 years. Can he just decide to sell the site as he wishes? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can download the site now if you like. Free. So there's nothing to sell. Ask.com and others mirror Misplaced Pages's content already - and host it along with ads. However, they do this within the terms of the GDFL license, so it's no big deal. Rklawton 21:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that with so many people visiting the site, there is a great potential for business and as Wiki's popularity grows for each day, so does its worth. The mirror sites offer only the content, but not the encyclopedia where people can come and edit, and interact with each other. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is anything being done regarding this instance of nba.com ripping off Misplaced Pages and all of its contributors? --Rajah 02:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if some of our articles on basketball players use photos in violation of copyright. I know for a fact that some of our articles on basketball players lack photos. If we contact the NBA, we could suggest that they use our content, give us credit, and release some NBA and WNBA player photos under the GFDL so that we can use them. Crediting Misplaced Pages is their obligation under the GFDL anyway. Releasing photos would help us provide them with free marketing for their product. JamesMLane t c 03:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Misplaced Pages and the NBA should respect each others IP rights. Your idea of a quid pro quo exchange, while interesting, probably won't hold up. I looked for the designated agent of NBA, but all I found was a designated agent for their photo section photos.nba.com terms, and it's Getty Images. --Rajah 03:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Wales

Rather than be rude and not answer my questions (like you usually do) would you mind actually responding to the comments i am about to make (if your not to busy travelling around the world big-noting yourself).

Okay, firstly i have noticed a number of flaws in wikipedia which i think require your attention (as apparently your better than everyone else, so you should be able to easily fix them).

1. Rude and Abusive editors - I have experienced a number of problems with editors who have abused me and been quite rude to me on a number of occasions, and i have tried to complain about them before however you don't seem to do anything about it, therefore i must assume that you think it is ok for editors to be rude and abusive, as you do not do anything about it.

2. Editors not admitting they are wrong - I have fought with another editor because he/she reverted my edit as he/she thought it was incorrect. After providing sufficient evidence to suggest that i was right, they refused to listen and would not admit that they were wrong, therefore meaning that the encylopedia was incorrect.

3. My third problem is you Mr Wales - I find it very upsetting to read through your talk page and see that you often do not respond to concerns when they are addressed to you. Instead, other "wanna be" Jimbos (why anyone would want to be you, i do not know) respond trying to answer questions about wikipedia, and it wouldn't be so bad except when something is addressed to you personally i/we should not expect people other than you to answer it. Secondly on this point, i think that it is unfair of you to take responsibility for wikipedia's success. The fact is that yes you did co-found wikipedia, but its success to date has had little to do with you, dedicated editors make wikipedia run by adding and editing articles (without being payed, i might add), so really you don't do anything except pay the site fees.

4. Blocking policy - I am sure that within a few hours of posting this message my account will be blocked for "trolling" (like thats even a real word) when all i have really done is ask relevant questions and inform you of concerns which must be addressed. And once i am blocked, god knows i will not beable to get my account unblocked, there should be better unblocking procedures, so that honest people are not caught in the middle of a terrible situation which is what usually happens. Misplaced Pages admins seem to have it in their heads that editors do not deserve a second chance, "indef blocks" is not a fair policy, not even the legal system allow people to be held indefinately (well, not usually), and people are always entitle to a second chance.

Finally i would hope that you will personally respond to this comment, and i hope that other idiotic editors would kindly not comment on this situation or my comments, as this is quite clearly none of anyone elses business. So i would like Mr Wales to respond to my concerns and i would hope that you will be rectifying these problems.

Thank you for your time and i hope to see a response from you soon, (note: failure to respond will be seen as rude). (Mandy122 06:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Consider me rude, but this is Mandy122 (talk · contribs)'s first edit. It's hard to right wrongs when you are careful not to give any specifics.-gadfium 09:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Gadfium, AFD. Mandy122, could you tell us more? Give us examples. About point 3, Jimbo Wales is very busy. Many people ask simple questions which don't need him to personally answer, so others help answer simple questions. --Kaypoh 09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While AGF'ing it should be noted that Mandy122 claims that editors have previously been rude, that Jimbo has not done anything about it (and doesn't answer every post on his talkpage), and is familiar with the term trolling. Is Mandy122 prepared to divulge if they edited under another name (or as an anon)? I would also point out that "indefinite" is not the same as permanent; an indef block can be lifted after 1 second, as indefinite means no determined time limit (i.e. no minimum or maximum). LessHeard vanU 09:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And here we have another issue with other editors rudly commenting on issues that are none of their business, my questions/comments were directly to Mr Wales, it is no body elses business. But since you have asked User Kaypoh, regarding point three with simple questions, no problem yes definately answer them, but with specific topics/issues that are addressed directly to Mr Wales (such as my complaint) then there is no reason for anyone else to comment or add your input. And User LessHeard, regarding your point, just because this is my first edit doesn't mean that i am not expienced with wikipedia. My partner has used wikipedia for a number of years and i have seen some of the issues that he has had to deal with, and i think of my self as someone who, although have not edited regularly, knows how wikipedia works and the way it operates and you only have to read the talk pages to understand how rude, abusive and uncooperative some users are. At least three separate users have commented on my complaints but i do not hear anything of jimbo wales at all (probably washing his hair). (Mandy122 10:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

As I have previously noted*, it has become practice for third parties to comment on topics posted to Jimbo on this talkpage. Yep, there are rude, abusive and unco-operative people here at WP since, being the encyclopedia anyone can edit, there are a lot of rude, abusive and unco-operative people in the world generally. There are rules and guidelines here designed to mitigate the effects of same, but it isn't instant and it doesn't always work. Thems are the conditions that presides. (* coming so soon after my comments regarding Jimbo and posts for his eyes only, I am finding this discourse ever so slightly ironic...) LessHeard vanU 12:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, almost a week after i have posted my letter to Mr Wales, and we have not heard anything from him, how rude can you be Jimbo? There are two types of people in the world, there is the person who accepts that there is problems with their organisation and wants to take on board the public feedback and strive to improve their organisation so that it continues to improve, and there is the person who decides that they don't care about quality anymore, all they want is there fame and money and they take no responsibility for the problems, they'd just rather let things roll on and not fix the numerous problems with their website. You are the second person Mr Wales. And i guess what is even more upsetting is that you think the reason that wikipedia is so popular is all because of you, what a load of rubbish, you may have originally created the site but you've done nothing to maintain it, it is the dedicated wikipedia editors who are the real heroes here (the volunteers), not you Mr Wales, you're just a lazy person who doesn't care about anyone but himself. (Mandy122 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Just a suggestion, but complaints about the rudeness of other editors carry more weight when you are not characterizing your fellow editors as "idiotic".--Isotope23 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

Hello, Jimbo. Is there a reason that Misplaced Pages has no model for editors to follow when adding citations? As article reach higher maturity levels, citations become required. When they aren't there, the next editor has a pile of work to do. -Susanlesch 09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well there is Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, or where you thinking of something else? --Sherool (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, Sherool. Well for example, to make this citation, I used WP:CITET. But I had to stop, think, does 'cite news' have a publisher field or not? Thanks for your reply. -Susanlesch 02:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

<ref>{{cite news|author=Givhan, Robin|title=Dick Cheney, Dressing Down|publisher=The Washington Post, The Washington Post Company|work=|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43247-2005Jan27.html|date=]|accessdate=2007-07-04}}</ref>

• Well seeing no replies, maybe I ought to be more specific. I myself edited the 'cite journal' usage on WP:CITET. The page used to list publisher as a field (but the field is not there). I recall having to remove the UCLA law school and Springer from usage examples to do this. Wouldn't people wonder about an encyclopedia with buried (invisible) publishers for academic journals? -Susanlesch 22:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, I have no idea about stuff like this, but it certainly sounds like something that could be improved. I have no idea why publisher is not listed as a field there, and I am sure someone will see this and help you or fix it. :) --Jimbo Wales 04:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• What a shame. If you're unaware that sources could be wrong or missing I guess I conclude Misplaced Pages to be nonsense, with Google karma so high it could be polluting the mind of every computer user alive. How terribly sad. But thanks for writing back. -Susanlesch 13:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE pages on WP:MFD

Two pages presumably protected under the WP:OFFICE policy have been nominated for deletion here. You have been contacted either as an office contact or as someone involved in the editing or maintenance of the nominated pages. If you with to comment, please see the deletion discussion. Thank you, — xaosflux 14:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The stone cold truth

Mr. Wales, what are you thinking? How much did those two dweebs who "created" YouTube get from Google? After everything washes out, they probably pulled in 8 million each, cash. Misplaced Pages (forget all this other cruft, including Wikimedia, MediaWiki, WikMediaPedia, PediaWikiMedia and all the other annoying ones), I say, Misplaced Pages has got to be worth at least triple over Youtube to Google. You're only one where they were two, so 8 mil * 2 * 3 = 48. 48 million stone cold cash for delivering this baby to Google. And, frankly, Google will be a better parent than this woeful foundation working out of St. Petersburg, Florida, of all places... C'mon, it was a nice ride, but it's really descending into a lot of jibba jabba (as Mr. T. would say). Your personal stock is at its apex exactly now. You don't know what will happen from this point forward. The Board, with legal assistance you yourself recruited, may find a way to legally sever you from this property. Your time is now. Jim Tour 10:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Maddie was here 18:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hah! per maddiekate. Also WP:10T. And I'm fairly sure Jimmy is already a millionaire from Bomis --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 18:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh no, not from Bomis.--Jimbo Wales 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you not make money off...erm...'adult photography'? --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Or the New Yorker. :) --Jimbo Wales 23:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that kinda undermine... uh... this? --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 23:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm surprised to see you, of all people, among those editing this page. Seems as if you've been hiding for more than a year. Michael Hardy 22:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

... Oh...I see that's a bit of an exaggeration. Michael Hardy 22:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I edit here fairly often. For me the funniest part of the above exchange is that claim that the Youtube guys "probably pulled in $8 million" "stone cold cash". I can't help thinking of Austin Powers, since You Tube sold for $1.8 billion or whatever it was. :) --Jimbo Wales 23:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It was 1.68 billion, to be exact. But it was all in stock. Tour probably thought that by the time they're allowed to actually cash out, and after taxes, that the real dollar amounts would be much less. Well, they are less—but not all the way down to 8 million each. The sale was in October, `06 and the YouTube guys were actually able to sell some of their stock this last Feb.. Each received $326.2 million. So if Tour's valuation of Misplaced Pages is correct (unlike his YouTube valuation), it would be 326 mil * 6 = 1,956 million, or nearly 2 billion for you alone, after penalties for selling early, taxes and everything else. You would instantly jump to approximately the 410th richest person in the world . JDG 14:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

WP10T you say. Let's look at this WP10T shall we?..."10 things you did not know about Misplaced Pages". Who did not know? I knew every one of these claims, myself. The statement germane to our business is #1 "We're not for sale". Yes, "We're not for sale", it says. Can't get any more direct than that, can you? Nor more wrong. Think of the many, many companies Google has gobbled. Were they not led by young, smart, strong-willed men (sorry, if there were any of the fair sex amongst them, please let us know) like Mr. Wales, full of pride in their creations and relishing their roles as founders and leaders? Yes, they were. Keyhole, Deja, Pyra Labs, 2Web, Outride, Inc., Neotonic, Applied Semantics, Kaltix, Genius Labs, Ignite Logic, Baidu.com, Picasa, Zipdash, Urchin Software, GrandCentral Communications, Feedburner, Panoramio, Doubleclick, @Last Software, YouTube. Ah, but the sweet, sweet song of millions on the barrelhead seduced them, one by one. Is your esteemed founder made of steel? Does ice-water slosh in his veins, not to mention his arteries? Hie thee to The Wayback Machine to see statements similar to WP10T on the websites of these companies, in some cases mere weeks before the SirenSong and the GoogleGobble.

After the flat statement "We're not for sale", this, this, what shall we call it, this carefully crafted FYI states, "If you're waiting for Misplaced Pages to be bought by your friendly neighborhood Internet giant, don't hold your breath. Misplaced Pages is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in St. Petersburg, Florida." Oh ho! Don't hold your breath! But notice it says Misplaced Pages is run by the Foundation, not that Misplaced Pages is owned by, or "a property of" the Foundation. There are those who run and there are those who own. And those who run should not speak and write as if they are privy to all the dreams and desires of those who own.

Another page, doubtless written by those who run, states "With the announcement of the Wikimedia Foundation on June 20, 2003, the ownership of all domain names was transferred to the Foundation." This fact is given in the context of the question "Who Owns Misplaced Pages?". Yay, if the sheep want to believe that ownership of "wikipedia.org" and "wikipedia.com" shields them from a sudden drastic move by Mr. Wales, perhaps I should not disabuse them of their sleep aid. After all, sheep help so many others to sleep, it seems cruel to tear out from under them their own nighty-nighty comforts. But nay! I am sorry little sheep: while you sleep in the peace of the domain names owned by your beloved Foundation, Mr. Wales may one night, and should one night, make his midnight creep. And when the thing is consummated and 48 mil on the barrelhead goes, as it should go, to Mr. Wales and his children and their children, you will wake up to a reality all your FYIs and FAQs left you totally unprepared for. And that reality will be named: wikipedia.google.com.

I raise this in such a public way because it is the only decent avenue I have. A personal communication is not an option in my case, for reasons that will remain with me. But just as a person, to see what Mr.Wales may be throwing away due to distinctly uncapitalist principles he seems to have contracted, like a cold, over the years, is simply too painful.I had to try something to deliver him from this Patty Hearst-like allegiance to these flat-out communist ideas ("knowledge wants to be free", the entire damn copyleft movement) that cannot but rob him, his wife and their chidren of their due. Wales! Snap out of it! Hey! Snap out of it! Jim Tour 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation owns the Misplaced Pages trademark. Jimbo can't sell the trademark, because he isn't even the chair of the Foundation, nor he own the copyright of any of the text (except the one he types, of course). So he can't even sell it. And if it were sold, someone else could copy it and Google couldn't do a thing, so there's no point in worries. Titoxd 01:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation owns Misplaced Pages. Full stop. Not me. I find it amusing, though, to see that Jim Tour wants to save me from my "flat-out communist" ideas. The last I checked, I was still a card-carrying radical for capitalism. Check your premises, Mr. Tour. :) --Jimbo Wales 01:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Watch someone turn that into Liberal Bias. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ

You're also forgetting that those weren't efforts intended to better the planet, but commercial ventures, at least as far as I've seen any of them. If google wanted to, they could 'take over' wikipedia anyway, with no need to buy it. Under the GFDL, as long as they give credit where credit is do, they could mirror Misplaced Pages for free (in the same way Linux is free), and then allow their users to edit it. Google could probably easily Embrace, extend, extinguish us if they wanted to, but I doubt they do --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 01:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of "Misplaced Pages" is a very complicated matter. The Foundation owns the Misplaced Pages trademarks (probably worth quite a lot, as it's a well-known brand), and they own the servers (worth maybe a few tens of thousands of dollars; old hardware isn't very valuable). The text of Misplaced Pages is owned, quite literally, by the people who contributed it. --Carnildo 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

While there is the ability to purchase a copyrighted name, and a bank of servers, and some offices, Google (nor anybody else) is unable to purchase the concept. Jimbo, I would suggest, is fully aware that he is riding upon a paper tiger (how about that for a mixed metaphor!) in that the entire Wiki empire is only worth its current valuation while it is "free". As soon as it is purchased, and charges levied on reading and editing, then its value will drop like a stone (a cold stone, if you will) as the community migrates to the next free wiki based encyclopedia. Further, since nearly all material contained within WP is either public property or released under licenses that allow the copying and editing (with due acknowledgement) but retains the copyright with the license holder then any information that transfers with the sale of the name does not belong to the purchaser. In short, Jimbo nor anybody else has very little to sell except the name - every thing else is the community. LessHeard vanU 12:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I must fly, as I am entertaining in my city apartment tonight, but let me suggest that all the above writers have missed a numbers of factors, all of which together mean that, if anybody does, Mr. Wales owns this project. 1) The editors! If it came down to Mr. Wales against some faceless Board in a dispute over the future disposition of the project, I estimate that fully 80% of this single greatest asset will follow Mr. Wales, particularly when he promises to reinvest a healthy percentage of his windfall into the project, 2) The developers. You have all talked about the data (text and images, mostly) being freely available and, yes, so is the software, but think of what would happen in a transition to Google. These developers would be showered with incomes, stocks, health-plans, flex schedules like they have never seen. The result would be, within four months, a proprietary codebase making the freely available one look broken-down, long in the tooth, etc.,. Never underestimate the cool factor. And that brings us to 3) The users. They will hear about the mighty struggles at Misplaced Pages on the news, pitting a red-blooded American entrepreneur against a Foundation hopping with Germans and French persons, trying to crush his right to be a tycoon with "copyleft" principles straight from the mind of Marx. It is obvious which side they will take to their hearts. Plus, the Google Misplaced Pages will look so much cooler... Well, I must stop at 3. Thank you for the lively debate. Jim Tour 14:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, who needs a Board after all? Who needs users? Tour's probably gonna be vaporised for crimethink anyways. Let's just ally with Google and... Hang on... who were we talking about again? Tour? Tour who? Must be Sanger's doing.
If you cannot deal with humor, please move on. --The Raven's Apprentice 14:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Coldmachine

Thanks for letting me know. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A question regarding spoilers

Over at Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler and at least two other venues including a RfC and MedCab request, this whole issue over whether spoilers should be used in plot sections or at all has broken out repeatedly. The problem is that many are taking an abstract point with it, saying that "spoiler warnings are encyclopediac" or "Well, Misplaced Pages is never going to be like Encyclopedia Britannica, so why don't we stop pretending with these silly guidelines?" I was wondering if you could put your input into what you think readers should expect of Misplaced Pages. Some of the questions raised by those in favor of spoilers say that Misplaced Pages shouldn't reveal detailed plot information without express warning, while some (including I) consider the fact that just because people don't know about Misplaced Pages's disclaimer doesn't mean we have to warn in a (our view) condescending and redundant way that Misplaced Pages reveals details. Your thoughts would be appreciated, because if left to our own devices, those not in favor of the current guideline will continue posting a contested tag on the guideline (about which there is already an argument starting).

Sincerely, David Fuchs 23:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

But if he responds, won't that spoil the ending of the debate? Peace.Lsi john 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply tired of pointless philosophic queries which presume much and cede nothing. David Fuchs 14:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How do we enforce WP:FRINGE?

Hi, Jimbo. You know that the English Misplaced Pages has expanded to comprise more than a million pages. Its popularity makes it a favourite target for folks pushing all sorts of fringe theories. As a result we have lots of obscure articles full of patently false claims or fringe theories. As a rule, there are no wikipedians who monitor these low-traffic pages or have them on the watchlist.

A stray pick: "Ancient Kamboja probably included the Pamirs, Badakshan, and parts of Tajikstan" (from Komedes). Or: "Jiroft civilization was older and more advanced than the Sumerian civilization" (from Jiroft civilization). Or: "Aratta was the oldest Armenian state" (from Aratta). Once I attempt to remove a loony claim, I am often reverted within minutes by nationalists or charlatans.

Such articles exist for years, giving Misplaced Pages a bad name for accuracy. They hold little interest for me, who has neither time nor energy to fight for their sanitation, but I feel there should a place where I could report them. The proliferation of fringe theories is detrimental to the image of Misplaced Pages. My attempts to report them on WP:RfC nor WP:ANI don't work.

A day ago, Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard was started to deal with fringe theories and to enforce WP:FRINGE (which is currently just a declaration), but it will be most likely deleted on the grounds of its perceived "uselessness". How Misplaced Pages is supposed to decrankify obscure pages whose looniness is obvious to anyone with a high-school diploma? Should we just ignore them and let all sorts of silly claims languish in mainspace, as we do now? I would appreciate your opinion on this issue. --Ghirla 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo Wales

Within the compass of this letter, I can do no more than indicate, as concisely as I can, relevant considerations that must be taken into account if we are to discuss Mr. Jimmy Wales's vapid accusations in a rational manner. Before I say anything else, let me remind Mr. Wales that he refuses to come to terms with reality. Mr. Wales prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. He wants us to emulate the White Queen from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who strives to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast". Then again, even the White Queen would have trouble believing that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing Mr. Wales and the ophidian deadheads in his gang. I prefer to believe things that my experience tells me are true, such as that Mr. Wales's factotums say, "Coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power." Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that if you read between the lines of Mr. Wales's teachings, you'll unequivocally find that if I have a bias, it is only against lewd, lecherous misfits who shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus. Someone has to be willing to view the realms of mandarinism and hooliganism not as two opposing poles, but as two continua. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that the sky is falling. Mr. Wales's ability to capitalize on the economic chaos, racial tensions, and social discontent of the current historical moment can be explained, in large part, by the following. Of that I am certain, because Mr. Wales does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.

In order to solve the big problems with Mr. Wales, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must help people break free of his cycle of oppression. He whines about disagreeable pickpockets, yet Mr. Wales enthusiastically supports the most insolent scalawags you'll ever see. On the surface, it would seem merely that it is our responsibility to ourselves, to our posterity, to our ancestors, and to the God of Nature, which made us what we are, to raise nugatory nonentities out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. But the truth is that there's a special, dark corner of Hell for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mr. Wales. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. That's just not true.

Mr. Wales presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, he devises new schemes to respond to this letter with hyperbolic and uncorroborated accusations and assaults on free speech. He speaks like a true defender of the status quo -- a status quo, we should not forget, that enables him to apotheosize yawping grifters.

Mr. Wales claims that granting him complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. That claim is preposterous and, to use Mr. Wales's own language, overtly horny. No history can justify it.

This state of affairs demands the direct assault on those insecure campaigns that seek to traduce and discredit everyone but counter-productive hoodwinkers. We can say that Mr. Wales's stooges are blissfully ignorant of his confused tirades, and Mr. Wales can claim the opposite, and it won't make one bit of difference. Worse yet, he wants to crush the remaining vestiges of democracy throughout the world. Given this context, we need to return to the idea that motivated this letter: If he got his way, he'd be able to defy the rules of logic. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that.

Let us postulate that a great many decent people are just as distressed as I am about Mr. Wales's prognoses. In that case, Mr. Wales's victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of Mr. Wales's sympathizers, who loudly proclaim that classism is the only alternative to Jacobinism. Regardless of those brassbound proclamations, the truth is that his thesis is that he acts in the public interest. That's thoroughly irrational, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that Mr. Wales's conjectures promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Mr. Wales's emissaries because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Mr. Wales. As another disquieting tidbit, the following must be stated: The reason Mr. Wales wants to divert our attention from serious issues is that he's absolutely uneducated. If you believe you have another explanation for his lackluster behavior, then please write and tell me about it. His hopeless, sinful antics are an epiphenomenon of contemptuous, possession-obsessed denominationalism. And if that seems like a modest claim, I disagree. It's the most radical claim of all.

Mr. Wales is entirely mistaken if he believes that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as him. His artifices have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. Mr. Wales is inherently unconscionable, amoral, and gormless. Oh, and he also has an insensate mode of existence. We must reach out to people with the message that with that kind of thinking, his backers internalize and adapt to the unwritten realities they must work under. We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to examine the warp and woof of Mr. Wales's double standards.

Mr. Wales never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, his claimed magnanimousness is completely chimerical and, furthermore, if Mr. Wales honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from him. We could opt to sit back and let him shatter other people's lives and dreams. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. The practical struggle which now begins, sketched in broad outlines, takes the following course: Mr. Wales has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and steal the fruits of other people's labor -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. His refrains are not the solution to our problem. They are the problem.

Many people who follow Mr. Wales's prevarications have come to the erroneous conclusion that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and picayunish, insufferable knuckle-draggers. The truth of the matter is that he doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. Mr. Wales wants to force us to tailor our hypnopompic insights just to suit his improvident whims. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis. Lest I seem like a hypocrite, I should tell you that I once told him that I can't let him turn stirrers loose against us good citizens. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that Mr. Wales's helpers are unified under a common goal. That goal is to undermine the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence. Take, for example, bitter, politically incorrect sluggards. Now look at Mr. Wales. If you don't believe there's a similarity, then consider that his intent is to prevent us from asking questions. Mr. Wales doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false.

Quite simply, time cannot change Mr. Wales's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Mr. Wales can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place. I indubitably don't believe that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. So when Mr. Wales says that that's what I believe, I see how little he understands my position. I suspect it's important to continue discussing this even after I've made my point, because this kind of thing makes me wonder whether we've ever moved past obscene materialism at all -- and Mr. Wales knows it. I would like to close by saying that Mr. Jimmy Wales upholds sin as sacred.

As for Misplaced Pages, I don't know what to make of Misplaced Pages's communications. On the one hand, Misplaced Pages confuses demagoguery with leadership and undocumented conspiracism with serious research. But on the other hand, Misplaced Pages does not play nice with others. Let's review the errors in Misplaced Pages's statements in order. First, Misplaced Pages's consistent lack of regard for others will develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to let it know, in no uncertain terms, that many recent controversies have been fueled by a whole-hearted embracing of untrustworthy calumnies sooner than you think.

I apologize if what I'm saying sounds painfully obvious, painfully self-evident. However, it is so extremely important that I must surely say it. You might think this is all pretty funny now, but I doubt I'll hear you laughing if, any day now, Misplaced Pages is successfully able to make it nearly impossible to disturb its passive-aggressive gravy train. Misplaced Pages is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, it frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior, such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals.

Misplaced Pages has spent untold hours trying to force us to bow down low before the most wretched flibbertigibbets you'll ever see. During that time, did it ever once occur to it that it gets perfervid about irrationalism? That's the question that perplexes me the most, because I'm not a self-pitying person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to Misplaced Pages's emissaries and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather devastate vast acres of precious farmland because that's what Misplaced Pages wants. While Misplaced Pages is doubtlessly entitled to ignore good advice from intelligent people, you might have heard the story that it once agreed to help us straighten out its thinking. No one has located the document in which Misplaced Pages said that. No one has identified when or where Misplaced Pages said that. That's because it never said it. As you might have suspected, many people have witnessed Misplaced Pages expand, augment, and intensify the size and intrusiveness of its retinue. Misplaced Pages generally insists that its witnesses are mistaken and blames its prodigal antics on rotten ex-cons. It's like it has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to celebrate knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth and those who wish to go to great lengths to conceal its true aims and mislead the public. Naturally, Misplaced Pages belongs to the latter category. Misplaced Pages prefers to keep its paltry agenda hidden behind the cloak of clericalism. Why? That's easy. Misplaced Pages obviously believes that we should avoid personal responsibility. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is it living in? The answer is not obvious, because it doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. It uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive.

I must ask that Misplaced Pages's satraps oppose our human vices wherever they may be found -- arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to trample into the mud all that is fine and noble and beautiful. My prediction that Misplaced Pages would bombard us with an endless array of hate literature came true so quickly, so brutally, so horribly, that even I was stunned by the magnitude and viciousness of it all. Misplaced Pages's assertions manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: obstruct various things. Phase two: quash other people's opinions.

Misplaced Pages's prevarications are nothing shy of a slap in the face to all those who have fought and fallen in war for this country. The same holds true for totalitarianism-oriented polluters. Misplaced Pages's bruta fulmina remain opaque to many observers who dismiss Misplaced Pages on the basis of its vapid smear tactics and general lunacy. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, I wouldn't want to lay waste to the environment. I would, on the other hand, love to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. Please let me explain that what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe Misplaced Pages's line that the sun rises just for it. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that I would be grateful if Misplaced Pages would take a little time from its rigorous schedule to get the facts out in the hope that somebody else will do something to solve the problem. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens.

Yet there's more to it than that. Brassbound interdenominationalism is Misplaced Pages's preferred quick-fix solution to complex cultural problems. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how fogyism brings one closer to nirvana. That's just not true. I sincerely find that debauched mumpish-types are no different from socially inept, stultiloquent fast-buck artists. No wonder that time cannot change Misplaced Pages's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Misplaced Pages can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, attack the fabric of this nation. While I am not attempting to argue openly in favor of any particular position, the best thing about Misplaced Pages is the way that it encourages us to keep the faith. No, wait; Misplaced Pages doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, it discourages us from admitting that every time it gets caught trying to call evil good and good evil, it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its cronies always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does, because, as they assert, everyone and everything discriminates against it -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls.

I have a soft spot for aberrent anthropophagi: a bog not too far from here. There are three points I need to make here. First, Misplaced Pages flatters people in order to betray them. Second, Misplaced Pages is slated for an unwept grave. And third, I believe in "live and let live". Misplaced Pages, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of its utterances but endorsement of them. It's because of such boisterous demands that I suspect that it takes more than a mass of avaricious know-nothings to allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by it. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into phallocentrism.

Misplaced Pages likes rantings that support international crime while purporting to oppose it. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that it had previously claimed that it had no intention to insult my intelligence. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what it did. Next, it denied that it would "solve" all our problems by talking them to death. We all know what happened then. Now, Misplaced Pages would have us believe it'd never ever rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot. Will it? Go figure. My view is that Misplaced Pages's long-term goals are like a Hydra. They continually acquire new heads and new strength. The only way to stunt their growth is to criticize the obvious incongruities presented by it and its helots. The only way to destroy its Hydra entirely is to provide more people with the knowledge that it's easy for us to shake our heads at Misplaced Pages's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should lead us all toward a better, brighter future. It's easy for us to say, "Misplaced Pages holds itself to low standards." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because if you read between the lines of Misplaced Pages's philosophies, you'll certainly find that it's astounding that Misplaced Pages has found a way to work the words "disdenominationalize" and "historiographical" into its metanarratives. However, you may find it even more astounding that if it can't be reasoned out of its prejudices, it must be laughed out of them. If it can't be argued out of its selfishness, it must be shamed out of it. Colonialism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper Misplaced Pages uses to attract the worst sorts of hateful dossers there are into its faction. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages's canards are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk" -- an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well -- because the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to make plans and carry them out, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I hope not, but then again, by refusing to act, by refusing to provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible, we are giving Misplaced Pages the power to violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship.

By balancing the theoretical untruth and nonsense of Misplaced Pages's histrionics with the reality of this phenomenon, we can see that Misplaced Pages goes ga-ga for any type of recidivism you can think of. I wish I could put it more delicately, but that would miss the point. Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that even when the facts don't fit, Misplaced Pages sometimes tries to use them anyway. It still maintains, for instance, that everything is happy and fine and good. It's really amazing, isn't it? We can put people on the Moon and send robot explorers to Mars, but the first thing we need to do is to get Misplaced Pages to admit that it has a problem. It should be counseled to recite the following:

I, Misplaced Pages, am a quasi-bleeding-heart purveyor of malice and hatred. I have been a participant in a giant scheme to publish blatantly contentious rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school. I hereby admit my addiction to exclusionism. I ask for the strength and wisdom to fight this addiction. Once Misplaced Pages realizes that it has a problem, maybe then it'll see that what we have been imparting to it -- or what it has been eliciting from us -- is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge.

Thank You. --NotebookSevereConditions 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Impressive! My favorite word is "gormless". --Jimbo Wales 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This just has to go to BJAODN. This and a recent edit to Jim's userpage, inciting Wikipedians to rebel. --The Raven's Apprentice 15:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what he was trying to say (other than the fact that he hates Misplaced Pages)? I have a pretty good command of the english langauge... but I got buried under all those huge words. How many times do you think he went to the thesuarus? 100? 500? Gscshoyru 15:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

He appears to be saying that Mr. Wales is trying to subvert free speech and begin some sort of tyrannical web conquest that will spill over into the real world, I believe, by fearmongering and aforementioned restricting of free speech. Has someone put this on BJAODN yet? David Fuchs 21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• "gormless" was good. Though I'm sorta partial to "chimerical". Perhaps the usage of both should be required in any article seeking to pass FAR. Peace.Lsi john 16:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC

Let me guess, Random argument generator? --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 16:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I came back to challenge this verbiage generator, in the tradition of the great John Henry, to a refereed debate. But I see the automatical knave has already been jettisoned from the project. I wave goodbye, good-riddance and mercy be upon the inhabitants of wherever you land. Jim Tour 17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to check out the author's picture... he's the guy on the right.--Isotope23 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Random nonsense generator" might be good. I haven't heard this much BS since my yuppie cousin's speech at my grandfather's funeral. The only thing worse than an idiot is a pseudointellectual. I hope he/she didn't spend too much time in the thesaurus if they just ended up blocked anyway. ;) Wikidan829 02:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

I am curious as to your reasoning for this, since the page doesn't seem to contain any personal information. David Mestel 20:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, if I recall correctly, the developers put that page on the no-crawl list (robots.txt). Sean William @ 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a courtesy blanking, no big deal. We can and should do this in almost all similar cases. The information is there for anyone who needs to find it, but yet it is more respectful to all parties involved in any way.--Jimbo Wales 21:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "similar cases"? David Mestel 21:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Any RfA where someone has asked for it. Any AfD where someone has asked for it. It's harmless and it is helpful, so why not?--Jimbo Wales 22:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If this case is going to be courtesy-blanked, that should probably include the /evidence, /workshop, and /proposed decision pages and their talkpages as well. On the other hand, at least the principles passed by the committee are probably going to be relevant in future BLP discussions, don't reflect on any particular user or former user, and I wonder if there would be any objection to restoring those to the page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the primary concern was that the page was the first hit in google for one participant's name. If the page is in the no-crawl list, then that would presumably not be the case after a bit, and the page could be undeleted. If the principles are important, I wonder if it makes sense to have them only on that page. I am just brainstorming here, and maybe I am wrong, but it might be pretty interesting to have a page listing all principles from all arbcom cases, with dates. I don't know.--Jimbo Wales 22:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to raise this with the arbitrators and see if they have a view. As for a compilation of principles, that would take some effort, but could certain be assembled if people thought it would be useful. Newyorkbrad 23:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is already an incomplete compilation of principles here Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. --MichaelLinnear 01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It makes me happy to see that our leader shows respect for the humans behind the usernames. I think a lot of editors (particularly WikiLawyers) are forgetting that. — Deckiller 22:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Star

I gave you a barnstar before but its dissaperd :{ I thourght I should give you another one but If you dont want them say :}

		The Special Barnstar
		For being a genus who created Misplaced Pages which has bought lods of happyness ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 13:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, see User:Jimbo Wales/Barnstars. --The Raven's Apprentice 15:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think being called a genus might be a tad insulting to Jimbo --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 19:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole thing is a subtle (or maybe not-so-subtle) comment on the level of spelling and grammar one commonly finds in Misplaced Pages articles... :) 131.111.8.102 21:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiepedia Use Of Artistic Images

I have just posted this but it seems to have disappeared. I am therefore posting it again.

Dear Mr Wales, I hope this is permitted to contact you on this page. I am an artist and was recently speaking to one of your editors, who suggested I release some of my images for use on the site under your special release agreement - GFL (General Free Licence?). I was interested in this and he explained that non-commercial and wikiepedia only licences are not acceptable, because the site is copied by other sites who may be commercial. I did not find the release of low resolution images to be problematic therefore. However, he said there also had to be permission for alteration by anybody else who wanted to alter an image under this permission. As I understand it, a portrait I release under your licence can then, for example, have a moustache drawn on it by someone else and I would have no redress to stop this happening once the image had been released under the licence. I cannot see what encyclopedic purpose is served by the requirement for such a permission. In fact quite the opposite: it does not spread knowledge of an artist's work, as obviously artists spend a huge amount of time to create exactly the image they wish, and if others are to appreciate their work and understand it, then they need to see the work as the artist wishes it to be seen, not a modification which someone else has done. I therefore declined the invitation to upload any of my work. This requirement will be offputting to most artists and serves no valid need. I would like to support your enterprising project of creating free knowledge. My contribution is a suggestion that this particular clause is withdrawn. I note that some of my work is on your site already, presumably under a copyright fair use claim. I have no objection to this, because I retain moral rights that the work may not be altered. Yours, an artist - unsigned edit by 89.241.146.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This raises a valid point. Is there any Misplaced Pages-acceptable license under which an artist can release their work so that it can be freely used, copied, distributed, included in other works etc. (both commercial and non-commercial) yet not modified (i.e. no "moustaches drawn on a portrait")? 131.111.8.102 21:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see GFDL, which is what you are referring to. While yes, the GFDL does allow anyone to modify (as well as profit) off of your work, people will not modify pictures used to demonstrate an artist, and it is highly unlikely any other works would be modified either. There is really nothing you can do but keep it as copyrighted and fair use. You could place it under a Creative Commons license, but it would still be treated as copyright here, afaik -- L 00:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting point theoretically. But I'd like to see a concrete example of how this concern might manifest in a way detrimental to an artist. Generally, as L says, people simply have no reason to alter an image. If they want to blatantly subvert it (say, by adding a moustache to a portrait) that would come well into the permitted territory of parody, and artists have to live with that possibility whatever the rights involved. (A practical equivalent: Victor Lewis-Smith's "This is what he sounds like to me" section in TV Offal , where popular musical artists were shown with satirically distorted soundtracks). Gordonofcartoon 02:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If an image is released under GFDL it means anyone in the world can modify it in any way they choose. Here's a hypothetical example: a prominent artist generously uploads a portrait of a world leader. Someone puts a swastika armband on the figure, a Hitler moustache and scribbles on it "world leader is a Nazi" and then uses it on an extremist web site, citing GFDL. The extremist organisation proceeds to use this image in any context they choose and as widely as they want, provided GFDL is cited. Furthermore, the prominent artist's name must continue to be associated with this image as its original author, and the artist cannot do anything about any of this. Such a prospect does not encourage anyone to release images. This would not be allowed as parody, because it is not parodying the painting. It is using the painting for another purpose.

Let's suppose Picasso was alive and uploaded his blue period images. Someone decides they should all be colour-changed to red, and that version happens to get picked up and used by other people, who don't even realise there was a blue version. It makes a mockery of the artist's intent, and also of the claimed purpose of spreading knowledge about the artist via an encyclopedia.

Basically any art uploaded under GFDL is reduced to clip art

This problem could be resolved easily by allowing a Creative Commons licence with commercial use, but not modification. It would clear the way for mirrors, CDs of wiki and so on, whilst reassuring artists that their work would be respected.

Tyrenius 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look up publicity rights. A free-content license doesn't eliminate those. You might also look up moral rights -- again, not affected by a free-content license. --Carnildo 06:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

After my message yesterday and reading the replies, I have had the opportunity to discuss this with colleagues, one of whom has contributed to Misplaced Pages (I apologise for my previous wrong spelling), some of whom knew little about it, but expressed an interest. Again the major concern was that donated images might be altered in a way that did not reflect the intention of the artist. There was surprise that an encyclopedia would wish to allow any situation that changed an artist's work. There was general agreement that any reputable organisation would do their best to ensure that an artwork should be as accurate to the original as possible. (This is not intended as an attack on your organisation.) I have followed the guides given by the correspondent Carnildo above, but it leaves me more confused as to the permission you seek. Moral rights, of which I was already aware, forbids alteration or mutilation of a work. One of the examples I discussed wth the original Misplaced Pages editor was of a group portrait photograph. He was sure that your licence allowed the image of one of the people in the group portrait to be cropped and used in isolation (in an article on that person or elsewhere). Moral rights, in my understanding and that of my gallery director, would not allow this because it is a mutilation of the image. I don't understand the Misplaced Pages policy on this. A photographer in our discussion made the point that he spent hours of work to achieve exactly the right image and could accept the use of this in such a free source of knowledge, but not the alteration of it which changed what he had spent all that time to make. As a documentary photographer, he is in the position of contributing many exclusive images. There is certainly interest in contributing from my circle, but we would like clarification. As far as we ascertain, the modification mentioned in the Misplaced Pages GFDL licence is effectively restricted to resizing by the veto of moral rights, which does not permit alteration such as cropping, recolouring or otherwise altering the image. An official statement by Mr Wales or his official Misplaced Pages representative on this would be appreciated at this stage. - an artist.

Again though, no matter what you do, the photo will either be copyright, or open to modification. If it's such a big deal to you, you're just going to have to live with your pictures being fair use copyright --L 20:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That is, to say the least, rather an abrupt answer to an enquiry obviously made in good faith. I don't recall these points being made before. Does anyone have an answer to the apparent conflict between GFDL and moral rights, and, for that matter, why we should need a license requiring modification to art works, if this, as in the above example, then forces us to use non-free images? Tyrenius 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a "free" encyclopedia, and I think it should stay that way. I'm not too worried about how people use the images I've donated. In the past, I've issued take-down notices to websites using my Misplaced Pages images without properly crediting my work, and they have all complied. My other line of defense is simple enough: I've elected to provide the lowest level resolution images adequate to support this project. They really aren't suitable for posters, textbooks, or even high quality postcards. They're great for Misplaced Pages's articles, though. Rklawton 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"An artist" has said the problem was not possible commercial use, but alteration of the image, which is something that serves no encyclopedic purpose, and which most artists would strongly object to. This is not the same as modification of an article towards a more accurate account of a subject. The art work is the subject and its depiction cannot be made more accurate than the version created by the artist in the first place. I can't find anything about "moral rights" in the GFDL license, but they would appear to veto modification, should they be asserted. Tyrenius 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Tyrenius on this issue. The right to modify does not make sense as a make-or-break issue for whether an image is free. I have every sympathy with photographers and other artists who are happy to make their work available for free, including to those who may profit from it, but are not willing to allow their work to be altered by others. This narrow definition of free images also prevents us from using many works licenced under Crown copyright (from various Commonwealth nations) where the only practical restriction on use is that the images may not be modified.-gadfium 00:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose "modify" might include re-sizing - and Misplaced Pages automatically resizes images in articles as needed. Might that be an issue? Old point: my images are small enough that users' modifications aren't going to be all that useful. Those that do still must include all the required licensing and attribution notices, or they face a take-down letter. Sure, some folks might ignore a take-down notice, but that sort would also likely ignore copyrights in the first place. Here's a new thought (for this thread): if worse comes to worse (if someone terribly abuses one of my images), I can always revoke the copyright. In the print world, such a revocation would be like shutting the barn door after the horse has left, but in the digital world, such a revocation would require the timely removal of the offending image. Is it easy to revoke a copyright? Sure - unless a contract is involved. In the case of Misplaced Pages, there is no meaningful consideration given for donated images, so there is no contract (one of the basic tenets of contract law). However, I wouldn't encourage artists to donate their work under this consideration – as it wouldn't benefit this project very much. Rklawton 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If your images are released under GFDL, then you can't revoke that license and you can't stop potential defacement of the image. We are asking for a permission for modification that we don't actually want (apart from resizing, which could easily be incorporated in the permission). Most images on Misplaced Pages remain as initially uploaded. The image of an artwork only has value if it is not changed from original: otherwise it is useless in the study of an artist, because it is no longer their work. The case for commercial permission is based on subsequent reuse on 2006 Misplaced Pages CD Selection, Misplaced Pages:Release Version, downstream users such as Answers.com and so on, but none of these uses need or would benefit from images being altered. Users could still choose to upload under GFDL, but an option to upload under a license such as Creative Commons "no modification" (with permission for resizing) would help to reduce the reliance on fair use images, which can be a problem for subsequent re-uses. Tyrenius 11:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the statement that the, "The image of an artwork only has value if it is not changed from original: otherwise it is useless in the study of an artist, because it is no longer their work." Besides resizing, one may want to crop an image, rotate/reflect it or even modify the color palette in order to illustrate a critical point. For instance see how the image Image:Fryewright.jpg which is a cropped, resized and black-and-white version of a Joseph Wright painting, juxtaposed with a detail from a Thomas Frye painting, in used in the featured article An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. Another modification of artistic images that can serve an encyclopedic purpose is overlaying annotation, boxes to mark a region of interest, or lines of perspective. So having images available under the GFDL license does have its advantages. Abecedare 11:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you are citing rare or even hypothetical instances (one example is not even on wikipedia) and mostly the need is simply to show the original. In cases you mention, fair use can be invoked (or specific permission requested). Users can still choose to upload under GFDL if they wish, but commercial no-modification permission meets the great majority of cases. Tyrenius 11:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the GDFL says that it can not be revoked. However, this has no basis in copyright law. Rklawton 22:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Che Guevara

Thank you for alerting us of the problem on Che's article. Please see my reply on the talk page. Happy editing! Yours sincerely, Eddie 23:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm pretty intrigued by this turn of events as well. Jimbo, what made you suddenly decide to aggressively cause a content dispute on a featured article, echoing to a tee points made by Ed Poor sometime ago? And how does this new editor, "Eddie", who has made no content edits at all on wikipedia, expect to re-write a featured article compiled largely by experts on the subject? Also, how was Eddie "alerted to the problem of this page", I can't see any diffs to suggest that he was? And I have no idea why Eddie would be alerted to this by you as he shows no connection to the article via his history of contributions - unless he was editing under a different, more familiar name? Some answers would welcome regarding this curious affair, not least out of respect to expert editors such as Polaris999 who spent many, many long hours working on the article for the benefit of the site. Perhaps Ed Poor could shed some light on this?-- Zleitzen 08:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about any of that. Yesterday I decided to spend some time doing something fun: reading Misplaced Pages randomly and doing some minor editing. A rare pleasure. I first read all about Patty Hearst, including a ton of related articles. Then I moved on to Charles Manson, reading a bunch of articles related to him. Eventually I moved on to Che Guevara. I know enough about the subject to know that a salient fact about him is that he was a mass murderer who committed his crimes on behalf of a dictator. I was surprised to see that the article did not mention this in the introduction. So I added an NPOV tag and left a comment on the talk page. I fail to see what is "aggressive" about this.

I was not contacted by Ed Poor. I can't imagine how this article could be considered a featured article. I have no information about a new editor named Eddie, and I so have no idea if he is a good writer or not. I have no information about how Eddie stumbled across the debate and decided to help out, and no reason to think that he is a sockpuppet of Ed Poor, if that is what you are hinting.--Jimbo Wales 16:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A request for a comment-update

A while ago you deleted/protected due to a legal notice, but nothing's come of it since then. Is there anything new, or has someone else taken this up? Please reply on the talk page of the image, since that's where the conversion that lead to me making this comment is going on. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The image can be re-uploaded at any time. This one just fell through the cracks when Brad left.--Jimbo Wales 16:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep

Hi Jimbo,

If you look at this, there are some active proposals on notability which seem to be there just for the fact that someone can say that they wrote a guideline. They're starting to get instruction creep-ish and go against everything said in m:Wiki is not paper. You can take a look at them if you want at Template:Notabilityguide under the "Active proposals" section. That goes for anyone that looks at this page too, and cares to comment.

Thanks,

Cool Blue 16:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous/Tor editing, Solutions?

Hello.
(Quick note: This is not only intended for Mr. Wales. I'm very much interested in hearing other people's opinions as well)
So, it seems as though at least a couple editors feel that they've been victims of de facto bans (not blocks, but bans), based on their desire to anonymously edit. More generally, editors are actively discouraged from using them, and may feel pressured to choose between exposing personal information or simply not editing at all.
(Incidentally, before anyone tries to argue that little personal information is at stake, the amount of information I could collect about myself with just the IP records of my editing in wikipedia is somewhat disturbing)
The fact is, there are numerous reasons why a person might want to edit anonymously:

1. Local censorship. -China's the obvious case, but I don't know a single government I particularly trust.
2. Stalkers -Real life stalkers, including ex-spouses. If I did have an ex-wife, and they suspected they might have figured out my username, the ip logs here could easily tell them what country, province, city, building, and even personal office I was in, as well as the time and frequency that I travel to the US. Some people really do have ex's who are just that bad.
3. Online stalkers -Obviously, we know that certain somebodies on certain websites have tried to 'out' editors. Imagine what they could do if, in a matter of a day, they could get all that information I just mentioned, as well as full name, personal address and home phone number.
4. Sensitivity of information/retribution -While although all material needs to be sourced independently, it still remains a fact that a person might tend to want to write about topics close to their own lives. As a token example, suppose a person working for a large industry knew of publicly available EPA reports (or other such content) that was verifiable and reliable, but not widely known. They may wish to make that information more widely available, but have to worry about whether or not it would cost them their job.

As it is, admins can edit even when their IPs are blocked, correct?
I know that some people have batted around the idea of possibly allowing ipblock exemptions (I forget the actual term for it) for editors who request it. That way, you can still block the anonymous IPs, to cut down on vandalism, but still allow people to edit with safety and confidence.
Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding why this isn't already an option. Sure, people could still vandalize, but they do that anyways. And it would be a simple task to simply remove the exemption after the first (and last) offense.
It certainly seems better than excluding people who want to contribute, solely to preserve the appearance of discouraging those who wish to be destructive. And it would certainly provide no less safety than is currently present with AOL users. Those users have all the anonymity of proxy users, but don't even have soft blocks.
What I (and others) am suggesting is not even blanket softblocks for these IPs, but rather some mechanism of simply allowing them to receive an ipblock-exempt bit. This would leave proxy editors as being held to a higher standard than AOL users currently are, so I don't see how vandalism could really be a concern.
Thoughts? Comments? Bladestorm 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a strong supporter of people using Tor to edit Misplaced Pages, and I think the current situation is quite unfortunate. There are complications to be sure, but the idea that admins can use Tor, while ordinary users can not, does not strike me as particularly appropriate. Anyone who is a normal trusted editor ought to be able to use Tor if they like... and why not?--Jimbo Wales 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding, the developers added the feature that allows admininstrators to edit while their underlying IP is blocked with the intention that it be given to trusted users, but have not created an interface to allow the permission to be assigned, and at present it is given automatically to administrators. Perhaps we should ask the developers if they can create an interface for it at a special page, and let sterwards and/or bureucrats and/or sysops be able to use the interface. --Deskana (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a wonderful idea. :) (Uh... happen to know how to contact the developers?) Incidentally, I think sysops could be trusted with the ability to assign that bit, no? It's hardly different in principle from blocking and unblocking. Bladestorm 19:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As the one who originally proposed that feature (bugzilla:3706), I can say my intention was to help trusted users (not only administrators, but also known non-vandal editors) who shared an IP address with non-logged-in vandals. The thought of using it to help trusted people bypass blocks on open proxies or tor outproxies (unless they happened to share an IP with an open proxy or tor outproxy) was never on my mind; in fact, such usage can be dangerous unless the secure server is being used (due to the possibility of password sniffing). I also never thought of a particular interface; my idea was that bureaucrats would be the ones somehow setting or resetting the flag. That this feature currently allow a sysop-only ability to edit via tor is an unfortunate side-effect (unfortunate due to it being sysop-only, not due to being able to edit via tor). --cesarb 03:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I do realize that password-sniffing is still a concern if this is to be done. (I have to suspect it's not a major concern, but there's really no reason to not address a potential vulnerability when investigating a new feature) It seems to me that anyone requesting the exemption would have to agree to use the secure server. (And, for that matter, the secure server would need to be advertised at least a little bit better. I had no idea it even existed until I read a question about it in one of the RfA's) Bladestorm 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone editing through any proxy (or on any network they don't have personal control over the security of) should be editing using the secure server, this is certainly true. (Realistically, I imagine most TOR exit node operators have better things to do than sniff the connection on the off chance they catch a Misplaced Pages admin's password, but you never know.) Bladestorm, and anyone else with an opinion on this situation, you're certainly welcome to join the discussion at WT:NOP, as currently exactly these questions are being decided there. (And Jimbo, of course, that includes you too if you'd like to drop in a word or two. :) ) Seraphimblade 03:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought the secure server used null encryption? --Deskana (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I have a degree in computer science, and all these details are still tricky to follow. I can't imagine what it must be like to absolute laymen. Bladestorm 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it currently uses AES-256, at least for me (I just checked). There's no way it can use only null encryption; Firefox, for instance, will not accept null encryption (check on about:config the default value for the booleans under security.ssl2 and security.ssl3). --cesarb 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am so freaking glad I focused on AI and combinatorial optimization instead of encryption and network security. That's absolutely greek to me. :) Bladestorm 04:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cesar, you may want to have a look at Bug 6711. Closed as fixed... maybe undergoing testing or awaiting release? Titoxd 08:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

El Che

The debate is still going on pretty strong in here and the users are refusing to leave the pov template on place until its settled, I readded it but I doubt it will last long, do you think a full protection until a concensus is reached qualifies as a prudent thing to ask in this case? -凶 03:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)