User talk:Jimbo Wales

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

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

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 Wikipedia? 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: 2 days

Archives

Index

-index-

As of January 16, 2003

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by .

LoJack content dispue and social (ir)responsibility

If you don't mind, please look at the following content dispute (all related):

Thank you. Finell (Talk) 22:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted in the AN/I thread. While I have no particular opinion on this specific case, I did want to back you up on the general form of argument: it is valid to take into account things like public safety when working on editorial judgments about what goes into Wikipedia, and simply saying "Wikipedia is not censored" really misses the point. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I hope my comments are helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Finell (Talk) 23:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The generic blanket statement that many editors use, citing Wikipedia rules, that "Wikipedia is not censored," is obviously not completely true. Wikipedia cannot publish content that violates the law. Such is not the case here, though. Wikipedia editors typically debate issues such as verifiability, notability, and neutral point of view, and possibly legality. That is, is there a reliable reference, is the information important, is there an agenda being pushed, and does publishing the information violate the law. The editors in this case have not made any such challenge. They have merely made the "what if" argument. Free speech and free press require a "clear and present danger" of harm to individuals in order to be restricted, for example "yelling fire in a crowded theater", or committing libel or slander. The challengers would have a very difficult time making that kind of argument, given that the information is already widely available. So if they want to fight the information, they need to offer a challenge that involves other grounds such as I've mentioned here: verifiability, notability, and neutrality. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you disagree with Mr. Wales, which is your right to do. In the United States (but not in GB or Continental Europe), based on the freedom of speech and freedom of press clauses in our First Amendment, government may not prevent others from publishing anything except in case a of a clear and present danger or a few other, narrow exceptions. But as Wikipedia editors, we can and should take other factors into consideration, such as social responsibility, decency, and good taste, in exercising editorial judgment over what we ourselves choose to publish. Wikipedia's standard is not and should not be, we publish it unless the government stops us or unless we are sued. This principle is broader and more important than the particular dispute about the LoJack article. Wales concluded, "You can't simply dismiss concerns about ethics by saying "Wikipedia is not censored" and "Talk to the legal department". We are better than that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)" Some editors, apparently, do not want to be "better than that." Please re-read what Mr. Wales said above and at WP:ANI. Then please tell us if his position, like mine, is "bogus" (to use your word). Finell (Talk) 06:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's right. But since the information is widely and routinely available (e.g. at the Radio Shack stores), none of the factors that he lists apply in this case. Feel free to argue about notability or neutrality, though. Preferably on the article's talk page, as it's getting hard to follow the various places you've posted this complaint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

I think that for starting wikipedia, you deserve a cookie. It's the least I can do.

Candleguy1994 (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

: - )

Hello everybody! Hope y'all are having a good day : - ) 24.184.46.196 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I initially reverted the above. That's up to this page's user to decide. Sorry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thread involving your userpage on ANI

Hello Jimbo.
I just wanted ask for your input on this thread. Considering that it is your userpage, your opinion would greatly appreciated.
Cheers!
J.delanoy ^gabs analyze 23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo, on AN/I you say "The real issue is with the violation of NPOV all over Wikipedia due to POV pushing in article space. Of course, harassing another user (even me) is a blockable offense, but whatever, I am a pretty easy going guy, so I would recommend that everyone just relax. :-) The best response to this is to fix the neutrality problem in Wikipedia." which I agree with 100% as I'm sure every good-faith contributor to wiki does. But can't you see that's exactly what some people may see as a problem is with your userpage? If you are an easy-going guy, which I think you are, couldn't you just change the wording a tiny bit so everyone is happy and it adheres with what most WP:RS say? No offence meant or anything like that, and I hope I don't get reverted by anyone watching this page as 'trolling' as that is not my intent, and I expect you to respond amicably to my comment, as that's the kind of person you are.:) Sticky Parkin 02:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to apologize for not letting you know. I deserve to leave Wikipedia Forever. *Imagine a giant ogre with blonde hair getting ready to cry with his arm over his eyes* Away I go. Well not really. But again sorry. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A letter to Mr. Wales, saying thank you

Mr. Wales,

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for founding Wikipedia. I am enjoying myself immensely. I think I should clue you in to what it has done for me, and let you know why I should write to you. I am not ostentatious; in a crowded room I'm the person who sticks to the back in near-darkness. I prefer to watch people. It sounds creepy, but it's what I like to do. You can call it shy or socially inept, but it is the same. Every once in a while, though, I approach someone to thank him or her for doing something I admire.

Wikipedia gives me an opportunity to express my intense interests though I am no authority on them. I have so far written six Featured Articles and few Good Articles on topics that move me. I'm on my way to writing more. Most of the subjects of articles I have written are ones for which I have also stepped out of the dark corner to say thank you, if possible. These are not mere fleeting interests, these topics. The subject of my first edit and my first Featured Article, Ann Bannon, is now a personal friend of mine (I'm stupefied). Barbara Gittings' surviving partner and I have a correspondence. I wrote to Harper Lee when I wrote the article for To Kill a Mockingbird, though I knew she would not write me back. If I could find an address to write to David Lynch for making Mulholland Dr., I would. It's something I believe in: telling someone you appreciate what they have done, even if if comes from a complete stranger. It's good energy that should be shared.

Today I visited your user page for the first time. I don't know why I hadn't before. I also don't know why I haven't written to you. But what you have created is more than code. I'm sometimes overwhelmed that someone who is completely plain and unremarkable such as I am, shapes knowledge that is read by millions. So—thank you for making this outlet for my personal passions, and for giving me the opportunity to be a better writer.

Sincerely,

Moni3 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping away

To Mr. Wales,

I grow tired as I write this, so I'll be brief. I am stepping away from Wikipedia, at least for a time. I have a logjam of final work to do for college before the term ends in July. And I notice I have been less and less well, more eaisily tired as of late. Perhaps it's stress. But in short, I have resigned from editing, at least for now. I'll return in time, likely when summer break is finally come. Until then, God Bless you brother. ForeverSearching (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ForeverSearching is a suspected sock puppet of ESCStudent774441, and has been blocked indefinitely. -- Fawn Lake (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi there Jimmy Wales

I'm the so-called troll who beens vandalising your page. Firstly I would like to apologise for calling you a hypocrite, that was uncalled for, secondly I wanted to let you know that I love Wikipedia I believe in Wikipedia and I believe in you, as the de facto leader of wikipedia do the right thing aknowledge larry sanger or make A compromise. :)Wannabe Wiki (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wannabe Wiki (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Look at this

Wikipedia:Retitling of positions--Serviam (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the drawbacks go I think we'll be ok now that Germany has been accepted to the european union. Would this mean that each of the projects would now be a sort of city/state?--Kumioko (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo

Hi my name is wikieditor222 and I am a big fan of you. do you think i could make you a custom sig.SexySeaClownfish 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here is the sig. tell me if you like it.Jimbo Wales

Here's the link:[[User:Jimbo Wales|<b style="background:gold;color:silver">Jimbo</b>]][[User talk:Jimbo Wales|<b style="background:silver;color:gold">Wales</b>]] .SexySeaClownfish 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I like to try to leave everything set to the default. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

majority rule

Dear Jimbo Wales,

I have noticed that your word has rather a lot of influence on wikipedia (which makes sense to me, since you founded the project). Looking at this remark, I would like to ask you to clear something up :

In the NPOV policy we (the wiki community) agreed to give significant minority viewpoints fair coverage (but no undue weight). Do you feel this should be done even when we "know" that the SigMinView is "wrong"? Or should wikipedia then take the majority scientific viewpoint?

Example 1: Terror attacks of September 11: What if several former Ministers of major countries, as well as members of Congress, and several retired US Generals, appear to be holding such a "false" Minority-view ?

Example 2: Homeopathy: what if millions of people use these treatments; what if countless studies have shown effects beyond the placebo effect (and countless studies have found no effect)? Should wikipedia take the majority scientific (industry) view, that homeopathy is silly? Or should it remain neutral, and risk being laughed at, as for instance Haemo is said to fear

Haemo: What matters is the effect on the encyclopedia, and that's the same either way: the encyclopedia is compromised, corrupted, made to look ridiculous, or even all three at once.

I would appreciate to learn your thoughts on this matter !

(just for your information, I am topic-banned from 9/11 articles)

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements and questions here would indicate that in your opinion a scientific viewpoint should be black and white, cut and dry and it usually isn't. For instance, choosing example 1 what if I where to tell you that I believe that both sides are scientifically true..and heres why. The reasons we went to Iraq (to find WMD's) turned out to be false, BUT there was very good evidence that he had the capabilities and even if he didn't there are several neighboring countries that for a fact do and he had friendly relations to them. With that said now that we are there we MUST finish the job or else the entire country would tear itself apart and we WOULD be to blame. On the otherhand the generals, ministers and others that you speak of also have compelling arguments against the war in Iraq and they are right too. But which is more right, do we stay or do we go? Both have positives and negatives just as science has protons and neutrons, in the end the science of should we stay outways the science of should we go because from a simply humanitarian aspect if we leave before we build the infrastructure back up we are worse or at least as bad as than the regime we replaced. If not in act in complacency. Just because you can prove something scientifically true, you can also scientifically prove that its not. There are entire buildings of physicists who study these paradoxes and even then seldom can they make sense out of them for the rest of us.--Kumioko (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nations at war do not tell the truth. As Wikipedia is about providing sourced relevant claims in an encyclopedic format, this need not concern us. We merely report who said what when in an encyclopedic format. "According to Source ____, on date ____ President Bush said ____." and so on. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where is the policy on deliberately divulging others' personal information?

where is the policy on deliberately divulging others' personal information ~~on Wikipedia~~ via email, in conversation with and about other Wikipedians? If there isn't a policy against it, there certainly should be. It... is disgusting. Potentially dangerous. Possibly illegal? I can't say. It is the lowest of the low. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Oversight<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. doesn't look the same. That talks about *removing* the info. I mean, where is the policy that forbids it? Plus i corrected my question above. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one. And realistically, it could only be enforced on-wiki, if at that. The huge number of Wikipedia editors who provide their own personal information on site (whether deliberately or without thinking about it) would make it nearly impossible to enforce. Remember that, except for oversighted information (which must meet a certain level of privacy violation), anything written here is retained. See this essay for further thoughts. Risker (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]