Wikipediocracy

thekohser wrote:A couple of "hat note" quasi-deletions by Jimbo today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =567476474

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =567476338

Note that in the second one, Jimbo says "Socialtext no longer exists". That's weird -- they seem to be up and running and thriving.

Inquiry to me based on false claims. I do not sit on the board of Socialtext, and have not for many years. Socialtext no longer exists, and I don't know anyone at the company that acquired them. I haven't looked at the article but of course my view is that if it needs improvement, it should be improved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

HRIP7 wrote:

thekohser wrote:A couple of "hat note" quasi-deletions by Jimbo today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =567476474

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =567476338

Note that in the second one, Jimbo says "Socialtext no longer exists". That's weird -- they seem to be up and running and thriving.

Inquiry to me based on false claims. I do not sit on the board of Socialtext, and have not for many years. Socialtext no longer exists, and I don't know anyone at the company that acquired them. I haven't looked at the article but of course my view is that if it needs improvement, it should be improved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone should update his Wikipedia biography then. It says in the infobox that he is a board member of Socialtext.

dogbiscuit wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:

thekohser wrote:A couple of "hat note" quasi-deletions by Jimbo today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =567476474

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =567476338

Note that in the second one, Jimbo says "Socialtext no longer exists". That's weird -- they seem to be up and running and thriving.

Inquiry to me based on false claims. I do not sit on the board of Socialtext, and have not for many years. Socialtext no longer exists, and I don't know anyone at the company that acquired them. I haven't looked at the article but of course my view is that if it needs improvement, it should be improved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone should update his Wikipedia biography then. It says in the infobox that he is a board member of Socialtext.

...but Jimbo is not a reliable source, I think Wikipedians have already accepted that.

DanMurphy wrote:Wikipedia's article on the more famous of its two co-founders has had a straight error of fact in it for years, according to Jimmy Wales. How could this be?

I'm half minded to write a five graph post about this - contrasting it with his assurances about Wikipedia's thoughtful, wonderful, correction mechanisms.

The article about Wales is the English Wikipedia's 115th most watched article and its 25th most watched biographical article.

Dan Murphy wrote:The article about Wales is the English Wikipedia's 115th most watched article and its 25th most watched biographical article.

Smiley wrote:

Dan Murphy wrote:The article about Wales is the English Wikipedia's 115th most watched article and its 25th most watched biographical article.

I recently asked MZMcBride (T-C-L) for a list of the least watched BLPs..


No response yet.

thekohser wrote:

DanMurphy wrote:Wikipedia's article on the more famous of its two co-founders has had a straight error of fact in it for years, according to Jimmy Wales. How could this be?

I'm half minded to write a five graph post about this - contrasting it with his assurances about Wikipedia's thoughtful, wonderful, correction mechanisms.

The article about Wales is the English Wikipedia's 115th most watched article and its 25th most watched biographical article.

Hit it, Dan. Make it happen!

SB_Johnny wrote:

Smiley wrote:

Dan Murphy wrote:The article about Wales is the English Wikipedia's 115th most watched article and its 25th most watched biographical article.

I recently asked MZMcBride (T-C-L) for a list of the least watched BLPs..


No response yet.

There's a story behind that...

thekohser wrote:

SB_Johnny wrote:

Smiley wrote:

Dan Murphy wrote:The article about Wales is the English Wikipedia's 115th most watched article and its 25th most watched biographical article.

I recently asked MZMcBride (T-C-L) for a list of the least watched BLPs..


No response yet.

There's a story behind that...

Yeah -- a big one. The story being an experiment I did, where MZ gave me a list of unwatched BLPs that had no sources, and I added bogus information to them, using sources that discussed someone having the same name as the subject, but was not the subject. (Example)

Unfortunately, too much was revealed publicly about the experiment before it commenced, leading to my being caught after a few days. Had the experiment not been disclosed in advance, I'm quite sure that 80% or more of the bogus edits would have stuck in Wikipedia for the proposed 3-month test period.

(Incidentally, because my sockpuppets were identified by this breaching experiment, an admin account (of mine / purported to be mine) was also identified, desysopped, and banned.)

thekohser wrote:..an experiment I did, where MZ gave me a list of unwatched BLPs that had no sources, and I added bogus information to them, using sources that discussed someone having the same name as the subject, but was not the subject. (Example)

Smiley wrote:

Dan Murphy wrote:The article about Wales is the English Wikipedia's 115th most watched article and its 25th most watched biographical article.

I recently asked MZMcBride (T-C-L) for a list of the least watched BLPs..


No response yet.

Delicious carbuncle wrote:== Commons is still pining over Beta M ==

Jimbo, I thought you might be interested in this [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... =102120295 recent invocation of your name] on Commons, in a vote about a particular user from COM:AN:{{quote|1='''Btw, [[User:Beta_M|Beta_M]], a productive and mellow user, is still globally banned by Jimmy and his WMF; whereas the account "Penyulap", whose entire contribution to Commons seems to be to inflammate in every possible discussion, still has a ''carte blanche'' for trolling on Commons. I wonder, then - where is the justice?'''}}That statement was made by [[User:A.Savin]], who is a Commons admin. I'm sure you remember Beta M (but probably not because he was mellow and productive). [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 23:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales wrote:I don't see anything productive coming from a discussion of this form, I'm afraid.

Dan Murphy wrote:The article about Wales is the English Wikipedia's 115th most watched article and its 25th most watched biographical article.

EricBarbour wrote:

Dan Murphy wrote:The article about Wales is the English Wikipedia's 115th most watched article and its 25th most watched biographical article.

Those database reports are very, very weird sometimes. I can understand why most of them are highly-placed on the list.....
For example, why is Little Barrier Island (T-H-L) being watched by 3,933 people??

Jaranda wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... view_log=1

Old Main Page move mistake from 2005, and when an article gets moved both the target and the redirect left behind are watchlisted. Apparently there are 3,933 inactive users who had the Main Page in their watchlist when the change occurred and still have it now.

neved wrote:Jimbo doesn't like trout.
"removing sarcastic template which only serves to mock and avoid serious discussion of real issues - it should be deleted in my opinion, as it is not appropriate behavior towards others"

Hex wrote:

neved wrote:Jimbo doesn't like trout.
"removing sarcastic template which only serves to mock and avoid serious discussion of real issues - it should be deleted in my opinion, as it is not appropriate behavior towards others"

Jimbo is right. That template is fucking annoying.

Hex wrote:Trouts are a legacy of IRC "culture", anyway, which is another reason why they should be taken out back, put in a barrel and shot. ()

Hex wrote:Here's an old one from 2005.

Hex wrote:Here's an old one from 2005.

HRIP7 wrote:

Hex wrote:Here's an old one from 2005.

Cute. Here is the equally cute continuation of the discussion between Wales and Austin Knight on AustinKnight (T-C-L)'s talk page.

Wyss, I've now stopped by your talk page and all I can think to say is "brilliant." Your exquisitely lucid comments re. what Wikipedia really is comprised of -- e.g., a mob-driven cultural meta blog pretending to be an encyclopedia, a user base that won't support an encyclopedia built on scholarly standards, a traffic-driven (vs. truth-driven) content model, loopy talk page discussions/scoldings, a cyber-waste dump of coddled trolls, fools and mob-think police, a fame game that is soon to be a code-word-for-trolls "meta-knowledge" site, an E-Bay of opinionated blogs, and, last but not least, too broken to fix and too fixed to break -- are all smack dead-on

rhindle wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:

Hex wrote:Here's an old one from 2005.

Cute. Here is the equally cute continuation of the discussion between Wales and Austin Knight on AustinKnight (T-C-L)'s talk page.

Wyss, I've now stopped by your talk page and all I can think to say is "brilliant." Your exquisitely lucid comments re. what Wikipedia really is comprised of -- e.g., a mob-driven cultural meta blog pretending to be an encyclopedia, a user base that won't support an encyclopedia built on scholarly standards, a traffic-driven (vs. truth-driven) content model, loopy talk page discussions/scoldings, a cyber-waste dump of coddled trolls, fools and mob-think police, a fame game that is soon to be a code-word-for-trolls "meta-knowledge" site, an E-Bay of opinionated blogs, and, last but not least, too broken to fix and too fixed to break -- are all smack dead-on

rhindle wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:

Hex wrote:Here's an old one from 2005.

Cute. Here is the equally cute continuation of the discussion between Wales and Austin Knight on AustinKnight (T-C-L)'s talk page.

Wyss, I've now stopped by your talk page and all I can think to say is "brilliant." Your exquisitely lucid comments re. what Wikipedia really is comprised of -- e.g., a mob-driven cultural meta blog pretending to be an encyclopedia, a user base that won't support an encyclopedia built on scholarly standards, a traffic-driven (vs. truth-driven) content model, loopy talk page discussions/scoldings, a cyber-waste dump of coddled trolls, fools and mob-think police, a fame game that is soon to be a code-word-for-trolls "meta-knowledge" site, an E-Bay of opinionated blogs, and, last but not least, too broken to fix and too fixed to break -- are all smack dead-on

If you emailed me something thoughtful, rather than bile and insults, then there is a very good chance you'll get a thoughtful response. But in the meantime, relax a notch or two and stop yelling at me, ok?--Jimbo Wales 00:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Readers will note that Mr Wales responds to the presentation and tone of the editor's remarks, not the content. This evasiveness is systemic to Wikipedia and directly relates to why the overwhelming majority of its entries don't even come close to any notion of academic reliability and documented authority. Wyss 04:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter Damian wrote:

Readers will note that Mr Wales responds to the presentation and tone of the editor's remarks, not the content. This evasiveness is systemic to Wikipedia and directly relates to why the overwhelming majority of its entries don't even come close to any notion of academic reliability and documented authority. Wyss 04:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That systematic evasiveness, and the obsession with tone and presentation rather than content (plus the spurious and untruthful ‘thoughtful’) has it absolutely right.

Discussing editors behind their back isn't very polite. Please drop a note at [[User talk:NCurse]] or at least ping: {{ping|NCurse}}. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 10:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

thekohser wrote:Poof! (Looks like an edit conflict that Jimbo steamrolled over, because he can't be bothered to yield the floor and re-do his post.)

::::Jimbo deleted my post by accident, of that I am sure now. But, I was never assuming "bad faith" on his part. Just that either it was a mistaken deletion or he didn't approve of the edit (for whatever reason) and that if it was for the latter, he is always good enough to explain why. generaly he will hat, not delete. Also, considering I just did the exact same thing on AN, it is even clearer what happened.--[[User:Mark Miller|Mark Miller]] ([[User talk:Mark Miller|talk]]) 00:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I have received a very strong complaint about this article, and so I have protected this very short version for tonight.

Unlike the normal case where protected articles should not be edited, I want to try an experiment -- admins can edit this article. We need to verify very carefully, with documentable sources, every single fact in the article.

The Adversary wrote:He did not only protect the "short" and "critic-free" version: he deleted the whole old article.

The Adversary wrote: The logs do not reveal anything.

SOPA them. htaccess deny all Safari browsers and iOS devices. Of course the WMF won't do that. Its not an important enough issue like defending Google's right to profit from piracy, counterfeiting, and the selling of chemical abortion drugs without prescription. John lilburne (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jimbo Wales. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. This edit is a personal attack. Accusing people (me?) of wanting to support criminal activities is disgusting and you should not do it again. Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Vigilant wrote:Personal attack?!
John didn't mention any editor by name, therefore it cannot be a personal attack. ARBCOM has ruled this in the past.

Perhaps Jimmy need to find the relevant case and request a change at arb clarifications...

Report his happy ass to ANI. I dare you.

"SOPA boycott Jimmy, dream about a SOPA boycott Jimmy, a SOPA boycott, SOPA boycott"

deleted for nasty tone. Ask again nicely and I'll answer.

thekohser wrote:One must grovel to Jimbo, not address him in a "nasty tone". Or he will delete you!

deleted for nasty tone. Ask again nicely and I'll answer.

again, I will not answer this until you drop the attitude. I hope others will help me enforce this rather than feeding the troll. -- Jimmy "The Coward" Wales

Jimmy, you have been presented twice with ample evidence that Erlend Bjørtvedt, the vice chairman and treasurer of Wikimedia Norway, who also happens to be a vice president of [[Telenor]], is actively editing Wikipedia articles about his company and subsidiaries of his company. The content of these articles is also being edited by User accounts with names like [[User:Telenor Info]] or [[User:Uninor]], as well as IP addresses that trace to Telenor ISPs. The content they are introducing is atrocious (e.g., "Telenor's mobile commitments in Asia and Eastern and Central Europe are becoming increasingly important and to ensure optimal follow-up, Telenor has appointed dedicated Executive Vice Presidents for these regions. Telenor has also strengthened the co-ordination of operational and human resources across all the countries in which the group has operations through the appointment of two new Executive Vice Presidents to the Group Executive Management."). You have recently sealed with a handshake a deal with Telenor to spread Wikipedia to Burma/Myanmar. Do you have any level of concern about what it does to Wikipedia's reputation to have a vice president of Telenor and agents at his company so earnestly editing Wikipedia to enhance their companies' image, all while you are formally aligning the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia with the very same company? I hope that this has been presented politely, and that you will not erase it for even a third time. Thank you for your time. - ~~~~

thekohser wrote:And, of course, a minion is at the ready to make sure even a civilly-worded version cannot be presented.

If anyone is interested in seeing what Jimbo's actual answer would be, if censorship weren't ruling the day, you are free to work from this version, if you'd like:

Jimmy, you have been presented twice with ample evidence that Erlend Bjørtvedt, the vice chairman and treasurer of Wikimedia Norway, who also happens to be a vice president of [[Telenor]], is actively editing Wikipedia articles about his company and subsidiaries of his company. The content of these articles is also being edited by User accounts with names like [[User:Telenor Info]] or [[User:Uninor]], as well as IP addresses that trace to Telenor ISPs. The content they are introducing is atrocious (e.g., "Telenor's mobile commitments in Asia and Eastern and Central Europe are becoming increasingly important and to ensure optimal follow-up, Telenor has appointed dedicated Executive Vice Presidents for these regions. Telenor has also strengthened the co-ordination of operational and human resources across all the countries in which the group has operations through the appointment of two new Executive Vice Presidents to the Group Executive Management."). You have recently sealed with a handshake a deal with Telenor to spread Wikipedia to Burma/Myanmar. Do you have any level of concern about what it does to Wikipedia's reputation to have a vice president of Telenor and agents at his company so earnestly editing Wikipedia to enhance their companies' image, all while you are formally aligning the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia with the very same company? I hope that this has been presented politely, and that you will not erase it for even a third time. Thank you for your time. - ~~~~

Edit: Never mind... Jimbo decided to throw himself a softball, then hit it into a ground-out at first base.

thekohser wrote:And, of course, a minion is at the ready to make sure even a civilly-worded version cannot be presented.

If anyone is interested in seeing what Jimbo's actual answer would be, if censorship weren't ruling the day, you are free to work from this version,

Edits by Vice-Chairman of Wikimedia Norway

[Note: Because the anonymous ip seems constitutionally incapable of asking questions in a civil manner (having tried twice and failed miserably) I am going to write the legitimate questions and answers myself, as an illustration of how to do it.)

Hi Jimbo! In my ongoing exploration of the question of conflict of interest edits in Wikipedia, I found some that I thought worthy of calling to your attention, given your strong position on the issue.

What do you think of these edits to the article about Telenor, from June 2013? Of course we know that not every employee of every corporation is going to be familiar with your "Bright Line Rule" that forbids paid advocates from ever directly modifying a Wikipedia article about their own employer or client. However, shouldn't we expect someone who self-identifies as vice chairman of Wikimedia Norway and as Vice President of Telenor Group to be a little more knowledgeable about best practices at Wikipedia? He also created the Wikipedia article Uninor, which is an India-based joint venture of Telenor Group. It seems particularly problematic and potentially embarrassing since the Wikimedia Foundation has formed an alliance with Telenor to bring Wikipedia free to people in the developing world? This edit also strikes me as problematic since it is an article about a competitor of his employer, in a section about a "dispute" between his company and the competitor. I'd love to hear your comments on this matter. - An anonymous user, you can call me "Greg" if you want a nickname for me.

Thanks for calling this to my attention. The creation of the Uninor article seems to have happened in 2009, well before my formulation and promotion of the best practice of "bright line rule", so I think we can forgive that. But the other more recent edits are indeed highly problematic from the perspective of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I will immediately send an email expressing my concerns and inviting him to come here and explain, and I will urge him to pledge not to do anything like this again.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

neved wrote:Jimbo himself asked himself a question, and himself answered it, and he did it in a single edit!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =581816670

thekohser wrote:...Pretty sad that the "sole founder" of Wikipedia who supposedly helped champion the transition from GFDL to CC-BY-SA doesn't even respect the more lenient terms of the CC-BY-SA license.

TungstenCarbide wrote:

thekohser wrote:...Pretty sad that the "sole founder" of Wikipedia who supposedly helped champion the transition from GFDL to CC-BY-SA doesn't even respect the more lenient terms of the CC-BY-SA license.

I doubt he even understands them.

SB_Johnny wrote:

TungstenCarbide wrote:

thekohser wrote:...Pretty sad that the "sole founder" of Wikipedia who supposedly helped champion the transition from GFDL to CC-BY-SA doesn't even respect the more lenient terms of the CC-BY-SA license.

I doubt he even understands them.

Speaking of which, whatever became of his little war with the commons admins who deleted one of his uploads?

thekohser wrote:He also "must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation".