Wikipediocracy

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, who goes by the user name Jimbo Wales on the site, saw the autofellatio page as important enough to begin its debate on image use in February of 2005. “I invite people to think carefully about this photo in the context of an overall view of our charitable, humanitarian, educational mission,” he wrote, “and not be distracted by arguments about censorship and prudishness, which are very much beside the point here.” Yes, there was a penis being thrust into a man’s mouth on this page. But that penis needed to be “charitable, humanitarian, and educational” in addition to being covered in saliva.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jackstuef/insid ... ibitionism

EricBarbour wrote:He also seems to enjoy censoring things he shouldn't censor, although much less in recent years, esp, since the "founder's flag" was removed. Not all were on his talkpage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =135288385
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =142911822

HRIP7 wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:He also seems to enjoy censoring things he shouldn't censor, although much less in recent years, esp, since the "founder's flag" was removed. Not all were on his talkpage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =135288385
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =142911822

There were a few hundred votes in Meta once to remove the founder flag, but that's as far as it got; the flag was never removed.

The final vote was 405 to remove, 125 to keep. Please note that a large percentage of the votes were made by sockpuppet accounts.

"I wanted to be quite thoughtful about my approach to another relationship".

Wales's line was that you really need to see the Muhammed images to "think thoughtfully" about the controversy.

We did get rid of VNT <verifiability, not truth> as a formulation because it was confusing people - stated out of context it was leading people to the conclusion that we should repeat falsehoods supported in reliable sources even when the consensus of thoughtful editors is that they are falsehoods, which is clearly not the case.

My position on working with companies and organization in difficult jurisdictions is, I think, thoughtful and nuanced,'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z2FytmmCNB

I have not given this enough thought yet to have a strong view, but I'd like to re-iterate David in DC's request that we proceed slowly and thoughtfully and get consensus before we move forward.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]]) 21:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

thekohser wrote:

I have not given this enough thought yet to have a strong view, but I'd like to re-iterate David in DC's request that we proceed slowly and thoughtfully and get consensus before we move forward.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]]) 21:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, our rules should be formed in such a fashion that an ordinary helpful kind thoughtful person doesn't really even need to know the rules. You just get to work, do something fun, and nobody hassles you as long as you are being thoughtful and kind.

User talk statement (7 April 2005)

The real struggle is not between the right and the left but between the party of the thoughtful and the party of the jerks.
"How a ragtag band created Wikipedia" - TED Talk (July 2005)

We are Wikipedians. This means that we should be: kind, thoughtful, passionate about getting it right, open, tolerant of different viewpoints, open to criticism, bold about changing our policies and also cautious about changing our policies. We are not vindictive, childish, and we don't stoop to the level of our worst critics, no matter how much we may find them to be annoying.

Wikipedia-l mailing list (18 December 2005, 15:39 UTC)

EricBarbour wrote:Here's an idea: instead of finding stuff like this (amusing though it might be), how about you guys
go thru his talkpage archive, year after year, and add up all the instances of him deleting criticisms
or other things he "doesn't like"? I suspect there's more of those than of the word "thoughtful".

TungstenCarbide wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:Here's an idea: instead of finding stuff like this (amusing though it might be), how about you guys
go thru his talkpage archive, year after year, and add up all the instances of him deleting criticisms
or other things he "doesn't like"? I suspect there's more of those than of the word "thoughtful".

In the past, his favorite response to descent has been to call the person a troll. I think he kept that up several years.

TungstenCarbide wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:Here's an idea: instead of finding stuff like this (amusing though it might be), how about you guys
go thru his talkpage archive, year after year, and add up all the instances of him deleting criticisms
or other things he "doesn't like"? I suspect there's more of those than of the word "thoughtful".

In the past, his favorite response to descent has been to call the person a troll. I think he kept that up several years.

dogbiscuit wrote:

TungstenCarbide wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:Here's an idea: instead of finding stuff like this (amusing though it might be), how about you guys
go thru his talkpage archive, year after year, and add up all the instances of him deleting criticisms
or other things he "doesn't like"? I suspect there's more of those than of the word "thoughtful".

In the past, his favorite response to descent has been to call the person a troll. I think he kept that up several years.

...because it then requires no thought.

Like AGF, Jimbo's world is a one way street: he is not required to be thoughtful, he is not required to assume the best of people critical of the project, he is not required to follow the rules if he decides he has a personal interest.

Note from Jimbo: Wow, this is just wildly inappropriate. I spoke to Mr. Pierce by telephone several days ago and the issue was completely resolved back then. I think Zoe's pursuit of this in this way is wildly inappropriate and should cease immediately, and that she should apologize to him for it. I very much do not approve of this kind of random hostility from Wikipedia editors.--Jimbo Wales 09:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

mac wrote:I had never heard this phrase before the Bamkin incident, but now I've seen it a few times, from Jimbo and Wikipedia critics:

Note from Jimbo: Wow, this is just wildly inappropriate. I spoke to Mr. Pierce by telephone several days ago and the issue was completely resolved back then. I think Zoe's pursuit of this in this way is wildly inappropriate and should cease immediately, and that she should apologize to him for it. I very much do not approve of this kind of random hostility from Wikipedia editors.--Jimbo Wales 09:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly off topic, but it seems wildly inappropriate to make a new thread for this.

(Spotted thanks to this post.)

Wales noted: "It is wildly inappropriate for a board member of a chapter, or anyone else in an official role of any kind in a charity associated with Wikipedia, to take payment from customers in exchange for securing favorable placement on the front page of Wikipedia or anywhere else."

I think it is wildly inappropriate for Wikipedia and reflects negatively on the project.

I want to make sure you don't think that the decline of the ArbCom case makes it ok for you to behave in this fashion. This comment was wildly inappropriate.

Censoring such information is wildly inappropriate.

Jimbo Wales wrote:Our responsible and thoughtful editorial judgment must always come first, yes. We should strive for factual, neutral, high quality information. In the current situation in Russia, entire topics of human knowledge have been declared off limits for discussion. This is a deep human rights violation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)