User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:51, 8 October 2011 view sourceJimbo Wales (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,541 edits →A question about truth ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:44, 19 January 2025 view source ArionStar (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,113 edits →Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/delist/Jimmy Wales: new sectionTag: New topic
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-sock\|small=yes}}
	{{NOINDEX}}
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	{{usercomment}}
			{{noindex}}
	{{same page other wikis\|commons\|meta\|message=Please choose the most relevant.}}
			{{Stb}}
			{{Usercomment}}
			{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|autoconfirmed\|}}
			{{Notice\|1={{Center\|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an ].'''<br />
			'''He holds the founder's seat on the ]'s .<br />The current ] occupying "community-selected" seats are ], ], ] and ].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is ].'''}}}}
			{{Notice\|1={{Center\|1='''This page is ] and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, <br> ] '''}}}}
	{{Talk header\|search=yes}}		{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}}
			{{annual readership}}
			{{Press
			\| subject = talkpage
			\| author = Matthew Gault
			\| title = Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit
			\| org = ]
			\| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit
			\| date = 8 December 2021
			\| quote = The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.
			}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\| algo = old(10d)
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K
			\| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
	\|counter = 85
			\| counter = 252
	\|minthreadsleft = 2
			\| maxarchivesize = 350K
	\|algo = old(1d)
			\| archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
			\| minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\| minthreadsleft = 3
	}}		}}
			{{Centralized discussion}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index\|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>\|indexhere=no\|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}}
			__TOC__
	{{archives\|age=1\|target=./Archive 69\|dounreplied=yes\|index=./Archive index\|bot=MiszaBot III\|archivelist=User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivelist_manual\|collapsed=yes\|search=yes}}
			{{-}}
	{\| align="right" style="clear:both"
	\|]
	\|}

			==]==
	== Infoboxes in biographies of classical musicians ==
			]
			]
			Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.

			Could you or your page watchers help me with ]? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.
	Hi, wondering if Jim or a page watcher would care to look at the discussion at about the appropriateness and usefulness of infoboxes in the biographies of classical musicians and related articles. I was so astonished at the stance there I briefly dipped into some facetiousness before hauling myself back out. ] (]) 22:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

			], standing beside a collection of Maori carvings, including two fire-screens, carved by her father Albert Percy Godber]]
	Huh, if theres one thing you should avoid on wikipedia is adding infoboxes to classical music biographies. They are strongly detested by the opera group.♦ ] 06:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
			I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. ] (]) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:If Godber is not ], which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. ] (]) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::] is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? ] (]) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I dunno, but ] wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. ] (]) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			]
			::::And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". ] (]) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Godber's photographs include "views of the ] including large numbers of cars traveling to ], and the ]. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the ] Homestead in ] with scenes of farm life, including ], ] sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the ], ], ], the ], and the Hillside Railway Workshops); ] (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, ], ], ], ] and ]. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the ], and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the ], ], ] area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori ] and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." ] (]) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. ] (]) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. ] (]) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ==
	:So I discovered yesterday. My question is, what does Jimbo think about a bloc of editors commanding such power over a complete set of articles? ] (]) 13:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
	* That is why we need more rules to deter bullying which stops improvements. Perhaps they should read "]" as to how using infoboxes speeds translation of thousands articles into many other languages, because the infobox is standardized for simplified bot translation of many article stubs. Is there some hidden reason why they will not allow infoboxes when traditional theaters have "]es"? -] (]) 14:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
	**Any examples of such articles created by bot translation? I was not aware that this really happens and is approved on Misplaced Pages. I know that some of the artificial language wiki's are populated by bots translating articles on populated places, but I don't think that giving any support for such fake encyclopedias is what we want to do. I haven't noticed any biographies being translated from or to English by bots at all though. ] (]) 14:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
	::: There are a lot of bulk-load edits of new articles, but I do not know of any interwiki bot translations yet. Most of the copied infobox stubs seem to be from people repeatedly hand-translating stubs. -] (]) 15:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
	::::So basically your argument pro infoboxes was baseless? Please refrain from introducing such arguments in discussions, they only serve to muddy the waters. ] (]) 06:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
	::Would never get consensus to do so on here. Although I'm thinking of proposing a bot which translates German/French/Spanish/Poish wiki articles using google translate into the wikipedia work space and which can be moved into the mainspace once proof read and sourced. But given that articles need to be proof read it would just as easily be done manually whenever an editor wants to translate one. If google translate was perfected a bot translating articles would be useful but the articles would still need to be placed in categories of "needing proof reading" and given the millions of articles needing translating and lack of editors would be years before they could all be checked and in the meantime could contain mistranslated and incorrect info so overll would be a bad idea... In regards to infoboxes I quite like the fact that composer articles just have a photograph, in fact I dislike infoboxes in biography articles. I only see their use really for articles which have a lot of facts like aircraft etc or to display pin maps for places and buildings.♦ ] 15:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
	::: In 2004, ] was formerly translating articles correctly between several languages, including conjugation of verbs and ] of nouns, with proper word-order placement. However, I think it was considered "too slow" or limited to just a dozen languages. If we could find another old-style language translation site, then we could quickly expand the "big articles" to have text from other Wikipedias, by copy/paste/translate, with first masking "Frankenstein" as "XFrankenstein" (or such) to avoid getting "French stone" in the translation. Some of the Google Mutate results are totally incomprehensible, and take hours to re-translate. However, as I remember, translation from Swedish-to-English was better, so perhaps find a German article, get the Swedish and translate that as a start. -] (]) 15:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
	What of course we are trying to achieve is for there to be the same quantity and eveness of coverage and quality of articles across all 260 wikipedias and some sort of system where as every article (missing) is created on another wikipedia we have the chance to have it started at the same time in english and in any other language so the effort put in by any wikipedian in any language can benefit all of the other wikipedias. Maybe in the future if google translate is perfected we could have a go at sorting a bot to bridge the gap in badly needed areas where the general quality on the other wikipedia is high. Ultimately of course we want everything to be human written and checked but it could certainly be very useful to do to gruelling work needed initially on articles such as our empty one liners on German municipalities and French communes in fleshing them out..♦ ] 16:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

			That doesn't sound good. From '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	I find it curious that half of the infobox supporters in a recent straw poll there (]) are ] regulars. Rather than asking "what can we do about a bloc of editors commanding such power?", perhaps the question would be "why do a bloc of editors insist on imposing editing styles on a wikiproject?" As noted in the discussions on that page, boxes are not mandatory. ] (]) 17:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
	:This has absolutely nothing to do with the ARS. DGG and Michael are ARS regulars, sure, but they are both also heavily involved in numerous areas on Misplaced Pages. And i'm not sure if any of the other supporters are members, i'm not going to bother checking though I believe Noleander is, but unless you're saying that all 300+ members of the ARS are "regulars", you have absolutely nothing. Now I would respectfully ask for you to stop badmouthing the ARS everywhere you go when we have absolutely nothing to do with a discussion. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 19:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
	::Actually I often save articles from AFD and I voted oppose..♦ ] 20:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
	::Seren's spirited defense of his cohorts aside, the question remains; why are editors trying to impose infoboxes onto a project that feels the articles are better off without them? Wikiprojects do not own their respective articles, sure, but they are more familiar with the subject matter than non-members are at times. This seems to be one of them, and editors trying to enforce some sort of "there must be infoboxes everywhere!" sameness/uniformity is a bit pushy IMO. ] (]) 21:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
	::::Please be more careful in alleging conspiracies. You are mistaken, at least on my part. Please answer my question instead of posing your own.<br />
	::::My answer to yours: Speaking for myself only, not editors, plural (There is no cabal.), as a user--and I use much more than I edit--I appreciate uniformity for multiple reasons.
	::::*First and foremost, I know where to find things. If editors on any given page had the leeway to choose different styles for titles and subtitles and general outlines--that is, if each page had its own look--it would be confusing. (And, yes, editors do have the leeway to include or exclude infoboxes; I'm just answering your question.)
	::::*Second, uniformity gives the encyclopedia a more professional appearance.
	::::*Third, uniformity makes for easier editing. This is a case in point. Never did I imagine there was a bloc of editors who closed ranks against infoboxes. So here I've waded into something I very reasonably thought was an anomaly--and it is, really, compared to the bulk of WP where I've never encountered a dislike for infoboxes--because of a lack of uniformity. Having different rules for different pages creates confusion.
	::::*Fourth, and this is in regards to infoboxes specifically, not uniformity in general, the infoboxes are a great aid to the general reader who perhaps never heard of the subject before. The opera group (There is no cabal.) seem to want to have a snooty enclave in Misplaced Pages aimed at <s>scholars</s> opera experts. Now, I could be mistaken about this, and please point to the policy if I am, but I understand the project is aimed at informing the general public, not scholars. Scholars supposedly don't use general-reference encyclopedias, anyway.
	::::*Last, this seems like a struggle: is each Wikiproject a sovereign entity, or is Misplaced Pages one big umbrella project with many sub-projects?
	::::Well, in any case, as a drive-by editor, I'm respecting the consensus on those pages. Thanks to each for your perspective and best wishes to all. ] (]) 23:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::Making any sort of connection between infoboxes and subject specific knowledge of a user (Wikiproject or not) is a fallacious argument. Infoboxes are not subject matter, they are a formatting opinion. The opinions of users in regards to them all count equally and members of any Wikiproject, regardless of their subject specific knowledge, does not count any more than any other user. Infoboxes are purely an opinion and the use of them should be done through consensus. That is what was done in this situation and done properly, consensus was re-established and there is nothing wrong with that. Please stop trying to make it seem like there is some sort of infobox conspiracy going on. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
	::::Oh seren, if only it really were as simple as you proclaim. However, we have the topic initiator who is "astonished" that a "snooty enclave" wasn't interested in his infoboxes, and came calling on Mr. Wales for his input. Then Wnt decries the "bullying" by the opera project members. Yopienso drops "bloc" into his commentary several times, which is indeed asserting that the wiki-project is acting like a cabal, despite his protests that he never meant that. Yes, infobox use can come about by consensus. The consensus rejected the usage, but Yopienso and Wnt come here to Mr. Wales talk page acting like a pair of missionaries who just can't understand why those operatic heathens couldn't accept their enlightened view of the Wiki-world. I also noted how some of the usual players in these sorts of things cropped up in the original discussion, which made you extra-testy. The matter here is quite simple; an editing proposal was made, consensus came down against it, and the originator is complaining about it. ] (]) 01:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not even going to bother. Your constant incivility is the worst out of anyone on this site. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 03:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
	::::::Yopienso's summary was well put. I expect "snooty" referred to some statements in the infobox discussion, particularly the one stating that readers should have to read the entire article, not encouraged to skim an infobox. iow, implying Misplaced Pages is not here for the convenience of our readers, but to "educate them" in the precise way a few contributors deem correct and proper. Whether that was the consensus of the group or the opinion of a specific Wikipedian wasn't clear. (Tarc, thank you for pouring petrol on the fire. You never fail to delight in that regard.) ] (]) 15:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::You're quite welcome, Roi. Pontifications aside, is is still puzzling to see why this matter ever came to Jimbo's page at all. If editors have reached a consensus that a box detracts from the article rather than enhances it, and no policies are being violated by this consensus, then is there a legitimate beef here? All it seems to boil down to here is "I disagree, so I will appeal to another authority", similar to the sentiment that one sees in many flawed DRV filings. ] (]) 16:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
	::::::::Tarc, did you miss the memo? Everyone, for whatever reason, is allowed to post here, without being accused of forumshopping, canvassing, or anything else (at least, without being accused of these things by Jimbo, what other people think of it may be different...) ] (]) 18:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::::I didn't say "''don't'' post here", I asked "''why'' are you posting here?" Yopienso begain this discussion in a fairly combative tone, and I think it is fair to ask of him and his supporters just what is to be accomplished by this. ] (]) 16:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

			:Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	Given the division of opinion over infoboxes I'm not sure why the option in "my preferences" isn't introduced to hide all infoboxes and those who want them can have them and those who detest them can simply hide them and by default just feature whatever photo is in the infobox to be thumb nailed at the top. Flexibility is the key...♦ ] 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
			::Thanks! ] (]) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:And where does that end, exactly? The real issue is: '''What constitutes a consensus?''' The people who happen to be working on a particular article or project at that particular moment in time? (Remember: no canvassing!) What about overlapping projects, such as Biography and Opera, which come to different consensuses? What about the views of users/readers which are currently only being represented by editors? Editors who are purportedly mostly young educated males from western countries, according to Sue Gardner? What about those who lose a given argument, but simply wait a bit until a new group with a different consensus shows up? Or run to a different but similar article? And then the 'other side' does the same? This is the same problem ''every single online volunteer community project has faced'' as volunteers and users and popularity hit the tipping point. Volunteers often start in some particular area of interest. As they contribute (and look) beyond that, and as time passes and others do the same, they expect some consistency: "We've tried several alternatives, now let's settle on some standards for a better user experience." That's when these arguments start and long-time volunteers disappear. It's pointless to spend time and effort if your contributions will likely be deleted at some point in time, on the basis of whim or personal preferences of a few people wearing the cloak of "consensus". Those contributions aren't likely to be restored later, as who would even think to search for them? You don't know what you do't know. All it often takes is once. It's pointless to spend time and effort if one's contributions have to be re-justified in each and every article when the facts and reasons are the same, but the "consensus" (meaning the people participating) varies. It becomes a charade, and we lose contributors. This is our biggest current problem, and won't be solved by Eddie Haskell-style "politeness". Truth to power: Solve the problem. ] (]) 19:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
			::Also discussed at ] and ]. ] (]) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to from {{u\|Tryptofish}}?
	'''Jimbo, this is a small individual kerfuffle, but illustrates the general issue of real content writers leaving the Wiki.'''
			:... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, {{u\|Jimbo Wales}} will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than ] was.
	When you have someone actually writing actual content, it is a complete buzzkill to have these Aspie infobox-adders or taggers come by and try to imose their desire for format on articles. It is significant valuable work to read books, structure a page, write multiple paragraphs, decide what to exclude versus include...all the work of composition...and even worse having to do it in the wiki markup language and a non WYSIWYG window. Oh...and no lectures about everyone is equal or AGF or NPA please. This is a serious thing to let Jimbo know. We are ten years into this thing and vast spaces of vital articles are not written. There is a reason. The real content contributors are turned off by the over aggressive gnomes and bullies. They vote with their feet...07:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
			:Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage ''et al.'' is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --] (]) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:'''Agree''' I have no evidence about good content editors leaving due to nonsense like this, but I have seen a small number of similar cases where the people who have actually created excellent content have been confronted by a passer by ''on a mission from ]'' to make some essentially trivial adjustment to an article: "fix" the reference style; change heading levels; add infobox; remove external links; and more I can't think of at the moment (I generally favor pruning external links—in this context I am talking about a case where an article has a reasonable number of links to reasonable sites). Sometimes the passer by will be quite aggressive and pepper the talk page with links like ] and ] and they must cause a great deal of damage by driving off some content creators. Yes, aggressive pruning is sometimes required when a few editors have erected a walled garden—I am talking about cases where the article is encyclopedic and excellent, and it is unfortunate that some passers by cannot distinguish between cases when rules are helpful and when they are not. ] (]) 22:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
			] (]) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	::That's a two way street, though. I remember a relatively new user had created an article for some obscure British composer, and as soon as they had added the article to the relevant WikiProject, someone from that project came by, ripped out the infobox, and left. No one from the WikiProject had been involved with creation or improvement of content, but by God they got that infobox out of there! It wasn't just ownership; it was ''abstract'' ownership. --]] 03:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::'''I am against that.''' But I think you will find the aggressive gnomes doing a lot more of that sort of thing (pushing a format on articles they don't write) than the real content editors. Wiki turns off/away people who are content experts and good writers. Who wants to stay and have some Aspie wargamer fucking with your hard work? (And it's not some evil ownership. Many eople welcome strong players adding useful things or fixing small wrong things...but the taggers and infoboxers. UGHH!
	People, come on. The Misplaced Pages ''does'' turn away people who are "content experts and good writers" ''and cannot collaborate'', and this is intentional, or at least an inevitable effect of our structure. There's really nothing to do be done about this, for better or worse. Part of "collaborate" is "accept the good-faith contributions of others, even if they don't leave the work the way you, personally, would have preferred". If someone is putting in false information or messing with the refs or pushing a POV or deleting whole good paragraphs or whatever, OK, it's good to get upset. But if someone puts in an infobox and this is causing you to become emotionally upset, I would recommend seriously that you toke up or something.

			:Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.
	And the alternative to that is defend your work (which is sometimes necessary), by which I mean engage the editor, and if necessary bring in other editors to consider the matter. If the other editor's contributions clearly and incontrovertibly and prima facie make the article worse, your defense of the status quo will likely be crowned with success, right? And if they ''don't'' clearly and incontrovertibly and prima facie make the article worse, maybe the other editor is right. Or maybe it doesn't matter.
			:As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Suddenly ] going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. ] (]) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.}} Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. ] (]) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] ==
	In a case like this (infobox/no infobox), where about ten editors are saying Yin and ten are saying Yang, then the changes do ''not'' clearly and incontrovertibly and prima facie make the article worse (or better), so how about just letting it go?

			Hey Mr. Wales, there's a discussion on ] about what image should be used on your Misplaced Pages entry. Figured you may want to chime in with personal opinion about the recent freely-licensed images of you that are presented, as there hasn't been much engagement there at the time of my post. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	I know, I know. I have favorite articles that I wrote or worked on a lot that other editors have changed and I look at them and say to myself "gee, I kind of liked it better before". On the other hand, this is balanced and greatly ''over''balanced by the favorite articles that I wrote or worked on a lot that other editors have changed and I look at them and say to myself "wow, look at that new image/new ref/new external link/new cat/cool new way of organizing the information/whatever, that rocks". That is Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 05:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
	:IMO having no infobox on all classical musician articles ''might'' do harm. Love 'em or hate 'em, infoboxes are a standard part of Misplaced Pages's look and feel. When this one corner of Misplaced Pages defies convention, a casual user who clicks on ], for instance, will be surprised by the inconsistency and will think the article looks incomplete - I know I did. This is a violation of the ] and can detract from the user experience. (and greatly so if that user decides to add an infobox, and then gets their comeuppance!)

			== ''The Signpost'': 15 January 2025 ==
	:Someone mentioned this being a question of states' rights, and I think that's a good description. Sure, WikiProject Composers or whatever has some say over the look and feel of the articles within their scope, but doesn't Misplaced Pages have a say over the look and feel of the site?

			<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2025-01-15}} </div><!--Volume 21, Issue 1--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 07:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
	:I'll bet if you put a poll over the picture of Mozart asking "Should this article have an infobox?" so some such the answer would become clear. --]] 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1269316164 -->

	== ~~Talkback~~ ==		== A brownie for you! ==

			{\| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
	{{Talkback\|Maunus}}
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]

			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| brownie :D ] 19:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Ohio politicians ==

	{{hat\|Too early for me to get involved in this dispute--] (]) 17:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)}}
	PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE help to stop the terrible attacks and deletions of articles pertaining to Ohio politicians by User:Marcus Qwertyus. He has consistently been on attack against one user and is now creating a terrible drain of information on Misplaced Pages. EVERY and I mean EVERY article he has deleted has been stocked with credible sources and are liable. He is creating a great disservice to individuals in Ohio, especially in an election year. Can you please see that each of articles on a Ohio politician that he has deleted are has submitted to be deleted is reinstated. I am willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that this does not continue to happen. I am greatly outraged! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::This editor is a serial copyright violator and the ] is not working. ] ] 17:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

	I've been watching Marcus Qwertus' actions for awhile now and from what I can see they are constructive in helping against this copyright violation guy, but are very nonconstructive in terms of allowing individuals who can vote in Ohio know about their politicians. I've tried to look at Misplaced Pages periodically in regards to Ohio politics, and it's going in the wrong direction because of this guy Marcus. I felt it was finally time to say something by creating an account. Please do what you can as the head honcho around here and make sure this kid from St. Louis isn't hampering the ability for Ohio residents to know about their legislators... especially in this election time. Please put this articles back into place. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	{{hab}}

	== "Carpe diem. Seize the day." ==

	The obscuring of Italian Misplaced Pages emphasized to me the somewhat vulnerable nature of access to Misplaced Pages, and, by extension, to the Internet, because of legislative, technical, economic, or environmental factors. Remembering that continued access is not absolutely guaranteed, I ask myself how I can best spend my time if this is my last day or week or month. I need to prioritize the ways in which I contribute and also the ways in which I benefit. The expression <i>]</i> ("Seize the day") is timely. Steve Jobs made some comments about the use of time. () <br>
	—] (]) 21:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

	== Thanks! ==

	{\| style="background-color: #A0C544; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''A belated thank you'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| Thanks again for coming out to ] last month! I wanted to share some WikiLove, courtesy of my son Teddy: {{listen \|filename=Misplaced Pages Song by teddy.ogg \|title=Misplaced Pages Song by Teddy\|description=Teddy (Age 3) made up his own song about Misplaced Pages.}} ] (]) 23:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
	\|}		\|}
	:Also, here are the images from your visit: ]. ] (]) 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
	::I brought this back because I have a fun response... coming soon.--] (]) 16:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::After much anticipation, having had to wait to return home to listen - I can safely safe the Jimmy version defied all expectations. Teddy thinks it's "so silly!" which is high praise. "Silly" is his version of what others would call "epic" or "awesome." Thanks for the smiles! Made my week! (Month?) Best-- ] (]) 18:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


			== ] ==
	==A question about truth==
	Is this quote which was attributed to you correctly attributed?: "''Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view''." if it is then how does that relate to your statement on my talkpage that "Truth is a huge concern, and the new version makes that clear".? To me this looks like a contradiction, although I guess it might be a matter of context. In any case the first quote is a very big part of what I find Misplaced Pages to be about - presenting different views weighted in accordance with their level of acceptance, not presenting truths. I think that the proposed policy change basically suggests that notions of objective truth or untruth trumps views to the contrary. Perhaps I am wrong again, but maybe you could explain to me why?]·] 18:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

			You're the subject on a delist FPC. Please, give us your feedback. ] (]) 01:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:We want everything in Misplaced Pages to be verifiable. We also want everything in Misplaced Pages to be true. Because people may not always agree on what is true, we very often need to 'go meta' in various ways, one of which is to write about what people believe.
	:Another way you might think about this: because we want everything in Misplaced Pages to be true, and because we write it using an open process of dialogue, a useful set of techniques for getting at the truth include depending on reliable sources (which are judged to be reliable because they say true things more often than unreliable sources), and going meta when beliefs about what is true differ significantly. Far from verifiability coming about because we don't care about the truth, verifiability is useful because we care so deeply about the truth.--] (]) 18:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:44, 19 January 2025

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy.
He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees.
The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Rosiestep, Laurentius, Victoria and Pundit.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.

This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead,
you can leave a message here

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.

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: 10 days

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:

Matthew Gault (8 December 2021). "Misplaced Pages Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Misplaced Pages Edit". Vice Media. The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.

Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Albert Percy Godber

Happy New Year Jimbo!!! I hope all is well with you and your team.

Could you or your page watchers help me with Draft:Albert Percy Godber? The draft has been declined and tagged up. It was then deleted years ago. I had it restored today after I came across one of his photos. I think he and his photography are fascinating for capturing aspects of New Zealand's transportation and industrial history. His work is in museum and library collections. At least one of his photographs has been used in a book. He photographed Maori sites.

I'm sorry I haven't been able to work the draft up enough to get it admitted to mainspace. It does make me wonder about what we do and don't include, our notability criteria, Articles for Creation (AfC) process, and collaborative ethos. Thanks so much for any help or guidance you can offer! Have a great 2025 and beyond. Thanks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

If Godber is not WP:NOTABLE, which is what the draft reviewers say, then Wikipedians can't fix that. Polygnotus (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

user:Polygnotus is he "notable" and should we have an entry on him? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I dunno, but User:Sulfurboy wrote that the draft did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject at that point. Polygnotus (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

And this a request to revisit his finding. We have a photographer from more than 100 years ago who documented areas of New Zealand's North Island. We have his work in a National Library collection. We have his work discussed as iconic for one of his Maori related photographs. We have his work revisited in a 2018 exhibition. We have descriptions of him related to his photographs, his career, and we have the photos themselves documenting the areas industries, sites, infrastructure from more than 100 years ago. If I was satisfied with the previous conclusions I would not be here. So I ask again, should we have an entry on this subject? Should we just attribute his photos where we use them to an unlinked name with no explanation or discussion of who he was? I think the answer is clear, and I wanted to hear Jimbo's opinion. I am aware of what was previously stated. Years have passed and I believe it's time to reevaluate and consider. I also think it's worth reflecting on our article creations processes more generally and how we apply our conception of "notability". FloridaArmy (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Godber's photographs include "views of the Hutt Valley including large numbers of cars traveling to Trentham Racecourse, and the Hutt River. Another group of images relate to a holiday at the Mendip Hills Homestead in Canterbury, New Zealand with scenes of farm life, including haymaking, merino sheep, and farm buildings. During their stay in the South Island Godber also took photographs of Dunedin (including the Ross Reservoir, Otago Boys' High School, Seacliff Mental Hospital, the 1926 Dunedin Exhibition, and the Hillside Railway Workshops); Invercargill (including the Invercargill Railway Workshops); Stewart Island, Moeraki, Tuatapere, Waiau River, Oamaru and Port Chalmers. Various railway stations in Canterbury and Otago, the Burnside Iron Mills, and the Rosslyn Mills. Godber was a volunteer fireman with the Petone Fire Brigade with the album including views of the building, groups of firemen, fire engines and other fire fighting equipment, and a building in Petone damaged by fire. In his work with New Zealand Railways, mainly at the Petone Railway Workshops, he took interior photographs of various buildings, including the Machine Shop and finishing benches, the engine room, lathes, boilers, and fitting shops. He also took photographs of many of the steam engines that were built and worked on at the workshops. One scene shows a group of men watching a fight. Many images show his interest in logging railways, particularly in the Piha, Karekare, Anawhata area. Scenes of logging camps, various methods of transporting logs including bullock teams, logging trains, and dams created and then tripped to send logs down by river, and timber mills. Other topics covered in Godber's photographs are scenes at Maori marae and meeting houses, with some of the people identified; Maori carving and rafter designs; beekeeping, and gold mining." FloridaArmy (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
It's hard to choose which photos to share. Historic views areas, industries, bridges, natural features, railways and bridges, crafts. Here's a link to his photos on Misplaced Pages Commons. Many already illustrate our entries on various subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If you really want to help him, get a couple stories published about him in newspapers. Notability here will follow. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors

That doesn't sound good. From The Forward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. CMD (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Also discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Edit_request and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Heritage_Foundation_planning_to_dox_Wikipedia_editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Jimbo, could I ask you please to respond to these concerns from Tryptofish?

... it's not just if you've edited about Israel-Palestine. It could be if you've edited anything about climate and fossil fuels, gender, immigration, vaccines, and of course, American politics. I doubt that they have the bandwidth to actually identify and harass every editor who could possibly be seen as editing information that goes against a MAGA POV, but they will likely find some easily identified targets, whom they will use to "set an example", as a way of instilling fear in our editing community. I fully expect that, in the coming months, Jimbo Wales will be hauled before a hostile and performative Congressional hearing, much in the manner of university presidents. I hope very much that he will be better prepared than Claudine Gay was.

Yeah, I know this is grim. But I believe the first step in dealing with this is to go into it with our eyes open, to know what we are dealing with, what motivates it. And, more than harming individual editors, the real objective of Heritage et al. is to instill fear in the rest of us. If we become too fearful to revert POV edits, they win. In a very real sense, we have to keep doing what we have been doing, and continue to be a reliable resource for NPOV information. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Sita Bose (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Misplaced Pages) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you "out" yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.

As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Suddenly ANI going to court to get user-data seems like the model of gentlemanly behavior. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face. Unfortunately, the scales have been inexorably slipping out from beneath the foundation's abilities or willingness to protect its volunteers for my entire wiki-career. There's no balancing force at work. The private equity community has made gadflies out of what we used to label reliable local news media; Alphabet and Meta are actively coopting precision, privacy, and the public domain, while attempting to minimize the effectiveness of good faith actors like Internet Archive. Now suddenly en.wikipedians are facing the sort of personal threats long experienced by volunteers at ru.wiki and zh.wiki. The forces now arrayed against free information don't need to be actively coordinating in order to rapidly bring us to 2+2=5 territory. Any established editor could reasonably see Western culture has been under relentless attack for a long time. Here comes the Heritage Foundation's leaks, hot off Heritage's bangup release of Project 2025, leaking articles through partisan outlets apparently intended to make it appear (in one case) the ADL's recent reliability downgrade at RSNP was anyone else's fault but the ADL's own writings and actions. The news of such activity appears to threaten the community members directly and personally. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Newer_2024_image?

Hey Mr. Wales, there's a discussion on Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Newer_2024_image? about what image should be used on your Misplaced Pages entry. Figured you may want to chime in with personal opinion about the recent freely-licensed images of you that are presented, as there hasn't been much engagement there at the time of my post. Barnt Toust 21:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)