This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) at 23:53, 22 November 2011 (→Discussion regarding a message of yours re Misplaced Pages and democracy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:53, 22 November 2011 by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) (→Discussion regarding a message of yours re Misplaced Pages and democracy)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
There are also active user talk pages for User:Jimbo Wales on commons and meta. Please choose the most relevant. |
(Manual archive list) |
Any guarantees?
Hi Jimbo,
Two years ago Misplaced Pages user donated $1,000 to Misplaced Pages. Then the user told you about the donation.Surprisingly the user was blocked for this post, and his post was deleted from your talk page.Do you believe you could provide some guarantees that anther substantial donors would not be blocked for donating to Misplaced Pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.129.254 (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Financial contributions are appreciated by all of us who edit Misplaced Pages articles, but they do not buy the right to disrupt the encyclopedia. The editor was not, of course, blocked for donating, but for severe and often-repeated disruption. Looie496 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, to suggest that a specific editor was blocked for giving a donation, or for simply talking about his donation is laughable. Giving money is only a "get out of jail free" card in some countries. There's a lot more to that block that the simplistic, misleading, and possibly even juvenile reasoning provided by the OP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. But at least it was a short and relatively intelligible post. pablo 19:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Amadigi di Gaula
Could I ask you a favor? Could you take a look at Amadigi di Gaula and tell me your opinion. Someone who seems to follow me and behaves as a troll added flags there. This person thinks I did something wrong, by adding a few lines from two articles which I found on internet. I contacted one of the authors, and he does not seem to be annoyed, on the contrary he is willing to help. But I really think I did not do something wrong. In fact I made references which is usually enough in academic circles. I contacted an experienced scientist and he told me if this person is not the author, I should not worry. But this wikipedian has different ideas, probably because he does not like me for some time. Nobody else seems to bother. The article is very poorly visited.
This person earlier hijacked George Frideric Handel's art collection which I started. He removed all the links to the Dutch and Italian painters and thinks he did a good job. I don't think he is a good pedagog. The link to this article from the main article Georg Frederick Handel is poor too, so nobody is going there to investigate. Taksen (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- You do not appear to understand Misplaced Pages's copyright policy. You must never copy material directly from a source without putting it in quotation marks, "like this", or in a quotation box. Never. Never, never, never. No matter how nice it is. When you do that, you put Misplaced Pages in the position of breaking the law. If you don't follow this rule, you will have to be blocked from editing. Looie496 (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I followed your advice. I hope it works.Greetings from Amsterdam.Taksen (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
P.S. In my point of view the English Misplaced Pages changed into something that reminds me to the GDR, where you cannot trust anybody. They are unwilling to help and might attack you not understanding the culture or on your language. Besides the rules on the continent are more layed back. We don't have as much lawyers as you have who would like to make a buck, and I can compare because I have experience on the Dutch, German and French Misplaced Pages. Taksen (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am stunned (and utterly demoralized) that this has landed here. Please see my response here (or preferably, since this is incredulous, please don't be bothered to see it). GFHandel ♬ 08:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think this study explains a lot: Can undergraduate students determine whether text has been plagiarized?. Taksen was clearly plagiarising, but may well not be aware of the fact. Hans Adler 09:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- The funny thing about that article is that even its author doesn't actually understand the rules: he thinks that paraphrasing is okay if the wording is altered enough. That's not true: plagiarism occurs whenever the wording is derived from the wording of the original version, regardless of how extensively it is modified. The only way to avoid plagiarism is to write entirely in one's own words (or to indicate explicitly that the wording of the original is being used). Looie496 (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- "plagiarism occurs whenever the wording is derived from the wording of the original version, regardless of how extensively it is modified" -- I don't think you can put it that way. When you summarise someone else's text it is perfectly normal and desirable to use the key words from the original text and follow its necessary structure. Plagiarism is when you also use non-essential aspects of the original text such as accidental formulations and accidental structure. Or when you get this right but omit the citation.
- Can you point me to evidence that the author of the study really got this wrong? Hans Adler 17:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- My guess is that Looie496 is referring to the ethics of the situation: I would call it plagiarism if someone were to copy a few paragraphs from a source, then massage each sentence with the intention of making the result acceptable to copyright defenders, then paste it into an article. In such a case, the editor acted merely as a robot to perform a copy-with-modification. Misplaced Pages's reputation would be damaged if that occurred frequently. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's definitely not what I described as acceptable, and I am not going to re-read the entire study to see if they somewhere say something indicating that the examples they considered acceptable were in fact not acceptable. Maybe Looie496 has seen the actual questions somewhere? I would be very much interested in seeing them. Hans Adler 22:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- My guess is that Looie496 is referring to the ethics of the situation: I would call it plagiarism if someone were to copy a few paragraphs from a source, then massage each sentence with the intention of making the result acceptable to copyright defenders, then paste it into an article. In such a case, the editor acted merely as a robot to perform a copy-with-modification. Misplaced Pages's reputation would be damaged if that occurred frequently. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Mumbai protests - poor reporting
- - BJP youth wing protest against Misplaced Pages's map of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jimmy, several media organizations have either retracted or altered their articles about the event. I've made changes to the article accordingly. It seems there has been some poor media reporting and it doesn't make an article we can keep anymore - I've voted to have it deleted. I apologize for some of the content based on these sources. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think I pretty obviously have a COI and so won't be participating in the AfD. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion regarding a message of yours re Misplaced Pages and democracy
FYI there is currently a discussion on a policy talk page in the section Misplaced Pages is not a democracy regarding a previous message of yours that is linked to from the policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
P.S. The discussion is just in the first part of the section, not the subsection. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a particular question that you or someone else has? For what it is worth, I don't agree with Septentrionalis. Misplaced Pages really is not a democracy. Misplaced Pages is also not an experiment in consensus. Misplaced Pages is a project to write an encyclopedia. Anyone who thinks any other goal is higher has missed the point. As a project to write an encyclopedia we have elements of consensus, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. All of those elements are valid so long as they serve the purpose of building an encyclopedia, and invalid when they get in the way of that. People who treat the project as a political game are missing the point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)