Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheDJ (talk | contribs) at 13:24, 28 November 2009 (→an international Supreme Content panel ?: advisory board ?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 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 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 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 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2 is now Closed

I have closed this Request for Comment. My detailed review of the issues and the results of that discussion may be found here. To summarize, I found that consensus exists as follows:

• The Arbitration Committee shall consist of 18 Members elected to 2 Year Terms.
• Arbitrators will be elected by Secret Ballot using the Securepoll extension.
• Ballots will invite editors to Support or Oppose candidates.
• Voters must have 150 mainspace edits before the election cycle to vote (Status Quo)

Questions or comments may be posted at The RFC's Talk Page. Thank you to all who participated. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I will follow these requests when I make my appointments. I may make some adjustments to existing terms, subject to prior community approval, so as to make a fair and calm transition to the shorter term structure.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned about the forced notion of an 18-member committee should the support tallies for the 8 top candidates fall below 50 to 60%. The minimum support issue wasn't raised until November 16-- well into the RFC and well after most editors had opined-- so the unintended consequences of a vote for an 18-member panel in the event support tallies are low might not have been apparent to voters. The RFC was flawed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that worried, personally, but I think you've just stated a fairly good argument why it remains important to keep a bit of flexibility when doing the actual appointments. — Coren  18:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am worried this year, because the candidate pool isn't particularly strong. Since this aspect of the RFC was flawed, I do hope Jimbo will retain the discretion to weigh all factors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not like the RfC overturned Jimbo's longstanding comment that he would "not appoint someone with less than 50% support" (I can't seem to find a diff, but he's said it often enough). — Coren  19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

But plenty of editors are interpreting the RFC as a mandate for an 18-member committee, regardless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not accept an appointment with less than 50% support (I had ~40% last year when I dropped out). You should ask the other candidates what they think. Perhaps this is a matter that can be resolved with minimal fuss. Jehochman 19:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cite this diff in agreement with the above: I too will not accept an appointment without at least 50% support. I think after the elections, another, calmer RfC should be constructed to put these issues to bed - doing it just before the election with the inherent time imperative was always going to be tricky Fritzpoll (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be flexible, and attempt to implement the spirit of this RfC as best I can, given the results. Last year, when I made my appointments, they were very popular and the reasoning I gave for how I did it was quite detailed. I think we want to maintain flexibility but also reduce the flexibility over time. There's no particular reason why I should in the long run have anything other than a ceremonial role here, but in the meantime, I want to act as a 'constitutional safeguard' to ensure that any changes don't accidentally have bizarre and generally unwelcome unintended consequences. I won't appoint anyone with less than 50% support. If we end up with fewer members on ArbCom as a result, we will deal with it at the time by having a thoughtful discussion and either (a) stretch a few terms of experienced members if they are willing (b) call for a second round of candidates to run to fill vacancies or (c) suffer through with a smaller group.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Whew; that's all I wanted to hear :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's very sensible, thank you.  Skomorokh, barbarian  20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 21:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense.--Tznkai (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Not meaning to sound argumentative or negative here, but it might be a good idea come the elections to stress that voters should cast opinions on all the candidates. Having been involved in a lot of votes over my mumbledy-mumble years on this planet, I have regularly seen it happen that at least some people only cast votes for the candidates they are most supportive of, and leave a lot of the other candidates without a pro or con vote. I don't know how many such votes to expect this time around, but if there is a large enough number of such voters that could seriously play hob with the 50% threshold. John Carter (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

How does the voting work? In standing approval voting there is no difference between a "no" vote and an abstention. To get percentage support you just divide number of supporters by total participants in the election. --Tango (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object. Jimbo said that he intends to play only a ceremonial role in this election. Now we see a huge stepping back from this, thanks to SandyGeorgia's subjective concerns. The community has just voted overwhelmingly against a role for Jimbo in determining the number of arbs (1 Support among 117), and term lengths (8 Supports, among them SandyGeorgia, out of 115). On this basis, I have to say that I will rally opposition to any Jimbo-imposed changes, including fiddling with existing terms. This is not intended to give offence to Jimbo—far from it. This is a constitutional matter, and is also related to the fact that the community voted in the RfCs in the knowledge of Jimbo's pledge. Tony (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo suggested fiddling with existing terms as a possible conclusions that could come out of a community discussion. I can't see anything in what he said to suggest he would unilaterally do it, unless I am seriously misunderstanding him. All that Jimbo has really said here is that he doesn't see a clear consensus for eliminating the 50% criterion, so he's going to stick with the status quo on that issue - I think that is entirely correct. --Tango (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Tony1, can you point me to the statement of mine that you're referring to? I want to be careful to do what I have said, and I am unsure about what you're referring to exactly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure Jimbo, and sorry to have been a little negative before. Here's the diff of your statement in October ("I want my 'appoint' role to be purely ceremonial this time around"). The implications of the 50% rule in combination with (1) the Support/Oppose voting system, and (2) a community-endorsed top-up of arbs to 18, were not explored by the recent set of RfCs, and probably should have been. Operating together, there's a chance they may not be mutually compatible. I think that next year the community needs to sort this out. Tony (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, to clarify. I was referring there to not having a desire to make appointments "out of order". Traditionally, I have the right to appoint anyone with 50% approval or more, but I have normally followed the order of the vote, with the exception of a few expansion seats which were used to maintain continuity on the committee. I still intend to be active in the process otherwise, particularly if there are conflicting issues in the RfC. I should also note for the record that I don't think using the Securepoll extension is a good idea, and that it is very likely to lead to a lower degree of consensus and more nasty politics than usual. But, I'm happy for us to try it, and I will be pleased if I am wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And to add one more clarification. Let's move forward as per the outcome of this RfC, and I'll appoint accordingly. And I will also be flexible in case something strange happens, like if only 2 candidates achieve 50%, I'm not going to appoint people below that, and I'm not going to leave us with a tiny ArbCom, and we'll have a conversation about what happens next in that case. The point is, we don't have to design a perfect system a priori as long as we maintain the possibility of flexibility - and we can learn as we go along without risking an entire year of a totally broken setup.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

When President Lincoln violated the US Constitution he said something like "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" or maybe "Ignore all rules"; I never can remember which.  :) WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of us happy about how that turned out.   Will Beback  talk  03:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I had not remembered that Lincoln was a Constitution underminer. Thank you. (All I remembered was that he was a good wrestler 'cause his mom taught him good, else he'd never have whipped those town bullies ... paving the way to political power -- which I now realize was all for evil purposes. ^^ But having never read of the founder having any particular maternal wrestling influence, I'd guess there's little danger on that score here. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Systems collapse when they become ossified or brittle. Flexibility is a virtue. None of us disagree that ArbCom members should have majority support. The point here isn't finding the perfect system - all we need is a system that's good enough to get the encyclopedia written.   Will Beback  talk  09:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

←Thanks for your response, Jimbo. I think the community will be pleased to hear that there will be consultation in the event that a top-up to 18 arbs and the 50% rule are incompatible.
When you say, "I was referring there to not having a desire to make appointments 'out of order' ", do 'out of order' appointments include the re-appointment of arbs whose terms have expired but who have either (a) not stood for re-election, or (b) failed to gain a seat through the relative strength of their vote? If you are not ruling out such appointments/extensions, can we presume that this would be done only with the agreement of the community? I note that your original statement was in response to my explicit question as to "whether you will extend the term of any sitting arbitrator or make any appointment beyond the scope of the election results".Tony (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I shall do as I think best, and I think you should and will support me in that.--User:Jimbo Wales confirmed it's Jimbo's comment, though not his standard sig. Jehochman 21:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, I hope I do see fit to support what you do; but it's now very different from your undertaking to play only a "ceremonial role". Tony (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is different at all. I am confident you will be happy in the end, and I'm sorry that I'm not able to detail every possible happening and how I might handle it at this point. We are about to try a new election method, and we've identified a possible problem. I can assure you that any role I will play here will be as apolitical as possible and will be aimed at longterm stability and drama reduction. I don't think you'll be disappointed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding the "Misplaced Pages principles" template to the bottom of policy pages

I'm not taking a position, but I think we should ask first before invoking your name at the bottom of multiple policy pages. Please see the short discussion at User_talk:Dmcq#WP:EDIT. One option would be to swap WP:IAR in for "Jimbo's statement", and merge some of your content into the "Simplified ruleset", if that works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It reads: A quick note: you can "ignore all rules": any policy, guideline, or other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Misplaced Pages. That is rather vague. In every AFD you have people quoting the guidelines as absolute law. Perhaps alter the guidelines to read "these are only suggestions on how to determine if something is notable, not binding rules, or an excuse to delete something simply because it doesn't meet the current guidelines." The policy should be made clearer otherwise it becomes meaningless and unenforceable. Dream Focus 16:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody 07:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

http://wikimediafoundation.org/Support_Wikipedia2

Couldn't hurt to have a link to wikipedia:Misplaced Pages and User:Jimbo_Wales on that page, so people can read about what they are donating to if they reached the page from somewhere else. CompuHacker (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And another thing...

Additionally, I really wish you/staff/someone would take the account restrictions off wikimediafoundation.org. Either by just quietly opening registrations or lowering the approval standards on the request page to near non-existent levels. CompuHacker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

Please block and ban LKD

A few days ago user:LKD claimed Bertram to deny the genocide commited by Nazi Germany (verbatim: 'Berti denials the holocaust"). That's not chicken feed and LKD was pressed to deliver suitable diff links to evidence this outrageous allegation but never furnished proof (and never ever will be able to provide a diff link for there simply are no diff links). (Meanwile they actually bring forward the 'argument' he who doesn't deny the holocaust on wikipedia must be a holocaust denier because he avoids to deny the holocaust and therfore ist to bee expulsed from wikipedia. Bravos!)

But back to topic. Forced reelection as a sanction for such a defamatory statement is in my humble opinion not good enough by half. LKD is in a very tight corner. But nevertheless LKD's defamation is an undreamt scandal, LKD still isn't blocked and banned. Until now no admin on de.wikipedia.org screwed up his courage.

Well, I'm not here to have a heart-to-heart talk and I don't even say love me, love my dog. But Attention, please. I can't but invite you and the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. to please block and ban LKD.

Yours sincerly

--Bertram calling (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC) ) (that's me: Bertram)

• Dear Bert, I'm afraid that this page here isn't the right place to air your grievances, perhaps you might want to go back to the German Language Misplaced Pages to file a proper complaint there as this here is the English Language Misplaced Pages, please note that administrator(s) on either side generally has no cross-version sanctioning powers. Correct me I'm wrong, anyone else got any thoughts to add? --Dave 08:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dave, I guess Wikimedia Foundation Inc. as an operating company has got cross-version sanctioning powers in a severe case like this. --Bertram calling (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have to say that you are absolutely right about it but this place is English Misplaced Pages, your complaint should thus be directed to Wikimedia instead, don't you think so? Or do you think I'm not trying to help you? There are proper channels and procedures to do thing(s), you don't go straight to the President of the United States to complain if someone in your town calls someone an idiot, right? --Dave 09:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Dave, thanx for trying to help me. I would appreciate it very much if I would volunteer to direct this complaint to Wikimedia. I must admit that I haven't got the faintest idea how and whereto address my complaint. Thanks a lot in advance. Sincerly --Bertram calling (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Look no further than at the "A Wikimedia project" icon located at the left bottom of your browser's page, I'm sure you'll be slapping your forehead now for missing it all this while you had been searching high and low for it, eh? Go there and ask for help, have fun! --Dave 10:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting point. You mean, wikipedia is the wrong address for placing such things? But the donors give their money mostly to create the encyclopedia wikipedia, not wikimedia. And who you think is the right address for complaints about vandalism as this? Regards Mutter Erde 78.55.247.48 (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Bertram has been banned following community consenus on de.wp. --Rosentod (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that perm? I hope it is. (Jew here)--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. --Rosentod (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Good.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

an international Supreme Content panel ?

You might want to read this NY Times Op-ed by Evgeny Morozov. He seems to propose an independent panel of philosophers, journalists, scientists and experts to deal with content issues such as those recently with the Wolfgang Werle case. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Its an interesting piece, though less-than flattering to WP.The suggestion to have an independent panel might have its uses, but it would not address the Werle case. Is he advocating that this panel decide when WP should follow local laws and when it shouldn´t? If it follows some, such as Germany's privacy laws, wouldn't it then be open to arguments from other laws, including Thai laws about their king? If we were to have such a panel, I could see it for resolving content disputes in specialized fields, although we have arbitration committees for this purpose. If WP hasnt followed newspapers and periodicals in having a similar editorial board, it is because we are international and most traditional journal still follow a more local mindset.Thelmadatter (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a pretty offensive piece, actually. He acknowledges on the one hand that Wikipedians produced 60 pages of argument about this case, and boldly insults the participants of that debate by claiming that our process amounts to "the favorite basement project of anonymous 13-year-olds." He claims (correctly) that such decisions are too much and too important to be made unilaterally by one person (even if it is me :-) ), but fails to notice that I had absolutely nothing to do with the Wolfgang Werle decision - or hundreds of other decisions made thoughtfully here every day without me even knowing about it. (What does he suppose people were arguing about for 60 pages? It certainly wasn't about how to convince me of anything, since I don't think anyone would suggest that it is or should be up to me to make detailed content decisions of that type.)

None of that reflects well on his suggestion that we find a board of "experts" to overrule community consensus.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly overstated for effect, particularly the 13 year old bit. But I'd say the rest pretty much hits the mark of showing up the downside of Misplaced Pages's remarkable success. Thankfully he doesn't make the normal error that critics make when they try to combine the "wikipedia is chaotic, and irresponsible" line with "it's all a sinister ploy by control-freak Jimbo to distort knowledge to his favoured version". But beyond that there is a bit of a scattergun approach to it. I'd say the question of responsibility is at the heart of it. Misplaced Pages tends to work best on fairly popular subjects - there's enough knowledgeable people there to correct errors and enough of a cross-spectrum to eliminate the worst biases. On lower interest stuff, it is hit and miss. It may be written by an expert(of whatever age) or it may have been written or changed by a moron, or a fringe nutter (who may be 13, but may equally be 31). However, the other problem is accountability. Most publications are accountable - to the laws of their land - to the laws of libel - to the tastes of the reader/customer - to the desire of the writer to retain professional credibility - and to the ethics of the owner/editor/publisher. Misplaced Pages tends to be written by the anonymous/pseudonymous for whom their are no effective external consequences. Further, there are few internal ones either - sure we ban the worst BLP carefrees - but there is no editor-in-chief saying "I don't care if that's legal - we're not going there". Anti-censorship campaigners may think the German State's "clean start" doctrine is evil (I might even be persuaded to agree) but I'm a lot more comfortable with such decisions being made by a democratically accountable German legislature and judiciary rather than by "whoever turns up" on wikipedia. It is easy to pontificate when you face neither the consequences nor accountability for your decision. PS Jimmy, why do you put "experts" in scare quotes? If that betrays your contempt for expertise, then I am more than a little concerned.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no contempt for expertise! I'm actually quite elitist in my outlook in that regard. I just don't think every invocation of the word 'expert' indicates a real desire for genuine expertise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I too think that the piece is not meant to be offensive, nor should be interpreted like that. The problem I have is that this panel is either gonna be a 24hour job for people, and help issues before they get to court, or can't stop things from reaching court. I also think that court is actually a good thing, because it is the only way any of these issues are ever gonna be settled in international law. Still, much as the Foundation has an Advisory Board, there might be something to be said for a Content Advisory Board. Perhaps we shouldn't dismiss suggestions people make too quickly ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your user page

(en-0) Why don't you protect your user page? There are a lot of vandalism. --79.26.164.143 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Lot of people watch this page and Jimbo is wayyy too trusting.. :) - 4twenty42o (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

1,940 reasons why. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• You mean this vandal? 78.55.51.15 (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't protect his user page because he actually believes in the wiki process, encourages others to edit his user page, and genuinely hopes and expects others will make positive contributions to his user page. He also recognizes that vandalism is easily reverted. —Finell 09:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Jimbo has one essential role for the duration of his association with Misplaced Pages - one that no-one else can ever fulfill; he is a lightning conductor for vandalism, trolls and SPA's. They get drawn to this page, and vandalise it in the certainty that it will be seen by a large audience... Of course, being typical vandalising troll SPA's they don't realise that the large audience means the edits will be very quickly reverted and get them warned/blocked. Bless them, and copper sheathed Jimbo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)