WMF's latest scam "report" - Participatory grantmaking

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:39 am

SB_Johnny wrote:
thekohser wrote:
thekohser wrote:
WMF Liars wrote:The Wikipedia article on Participatory Grantmaking was written in part by Wikimedia Foundation staff...
In part? Are you kidding? About 98% of the content was written by Wikimedia Foundation staff.
I see that the addendum now magically reads "primarily" rather than "in part". Why doesn't the WMF just skip the do-si-do and just hire me as their communications ombudsman?
In fact the only other contributor before Dan's tagging who seems to have made a "manual edit" (as opposed to a script or bot) appears to be a paid advocate of some sort. How terribly embarrassing.

One of life's tiny coincidences. His name means nothing to me, and I have no opinion on his Wikipedia participation (since I haven't looked into it) but since I was a reporter in Southeast Asia for a decade overlapping with him, I guarantee I know lots of people who know him (The Cambodia Daily was a bit of a sweatshop for Brits and Americans and Australians who wanted to break into foreign reporting).

Producer Rich Garella lived in Cambodia for most of 1995 - 2003. He was managing editor of The Cambodia Daily, and later worked as press secretary for Cambodia's main opposition party. He co-wrote and produced Polygraph for MoveOn.org's "Bush in 30 Seconds" project in 2004; the ad was broadcast nationally. With Eric Pape, he wrote A Tragedy of No Importance, about the 1997 grenade attack against the Cambodian opposition.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 11:17 am

SB_Johnny wrote:I agree, a great post. I tried to leave a link to it from Jimmy's page just now but apparently examiner.com is blacklisted outright.

Outrageous! You'll have to find an admin over there who can de-list it.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:01 pm

Poetlister wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:I agree, a great post. I tried to leave a link to it from Jimmy's page just now but apparently examiner.com is blacklisted outright.
Outrageous! You'll have to find an admin over there who can de-list it.

...and build enough support to have that stick, of course.

lonza leggiera · Unread post by **lonza leggiera** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:14 pm

SB_Johnny wrote:
Cedric wrote:
thekohser wrote:
thekohser wrote:Wikimedia Foundation caught self-promoting on Wikipedia
by Gregory Kohs; Examiner.com - 21 February 2015
Only 69 page views and one reader comment in about 22 hours. Typically, my Examiner stories pick up around 150 to 200 page views on the first day. Honestly speaking, would you all describe this particular story as less enticing or less important than my typical Examiner fare?
Actually, I regard it to be one of your best articles yet, cutting right to the chase of the insular, chummy and largely boys club atmosphere of "The Wikimedia Movement" and its {insert favorite Kafka or Orwell analogy here}. However, I don't participate on any of better-know social media sites (or any of them, actually), which has a fair amount to do with my own Wikipedia experience. This is why I cannot comment there.
I agree, a great post. I tried to leave a link to it from Jimmy's page just now but apparently examiner.com is blacklisted outright.

You can currentlybut probably only until they plug this loopholeget around the blacklisting by replacing the domain name in the URL with its IP address: http://108.166.10.199/article/wikimedia ... -wikipedia .

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 3:24 pm

thekohser wrote:A certain citizen journalist has published a story about this fiasco.

Wikimedia Foundation caught self-promoting on Wikipedia
by Gregory Kohs; Examiner.com - 21 February 2015

...None of the employees had disclosed on Wikipedia that the Wikimedia Foundation was a paying client of the source's author, which may have been a violation of the foundation's own "Terms of Use" regarding disclosure on Wikipedia. After a long day of evasion by both the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and the consulting firm, the foundation finally relented and published an attempted clarification on its blog, on February 20. But other evidence suggests the WMF may still be a long way from explaining itself.

Kabamb! that's a good one Greg.

thekohser wrote:Oh, boy... look out!

Jimbo is going to "have to look into" this matter. Heads are going to roll when he sees how his Bright Line Rule was largely trampled upon. Right? Jimbo wouldn't just say that he's going to look into it, then let it disappear off his Talk page, never to be discussed again. You think?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:40 pm

Although I'm neither shocked nor particularly offended by the article, I've decided to run the Wikipedia article Participatory grantmaking (T-H-L) through Articles for Deletion to see whether people feel the neologism passes GNG.

RfB

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:46 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:Although I'm neither shocked nor particularly offended by the article, I've decided to run the Wikipedia article Participatory grantmaking (T-H-L) through Articles for Deletion to see whether people feel the neologism passes GNG.

RfB

You da man.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 6:16 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:Although I'm neither shocked nor particularly offended by the article, I've decided to run the Wikipedia article Participatory grantmaking (T-H-L) through Articles for Deletion to see whether people feel the neologism passes GNG.

RfB

Isn't it part of WikiCourtesy to notify the principal authors of an article, when you nominate it for deletion?

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 6:28 pm

thekohser wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Although I'm neither shocked nor particularly offended by the article, I've decided to run the Wikipedia article Participatory grantmaking (T-H-L) through Articles for Deletion to see whether people feel the neologism passes GNG.

RfB
Isn't it part of WikiCourtesy to notify the principal authors of an article, when you nominate it for deletion?

आप एक मतलब हो मतलब है, यार

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 6:40 pm

Comment - AfD policy says, "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." It appears that this has not been done. Also, those evaluating this AfD should be advised and aware that a permanently banned Wikipedian, Gregory Kohs, with his commentary on Wikipediocracy and on his news story at Examiner.com ("Wikimedia Foundation caught self-promoting on Wikipedia", Feb 21) is largely responsible for the attention being given to this Wikipedia article. Your Delete decision may be interpreted by some as a show of support for Mr. Kohs' tactics. - 2001:55810:2C22:7EAC:8121:DDB6 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That was the first edit by that IP.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:24 pm

Lukeno94 wrote:
Comment - AfD policy says, "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." It appears that this has not been done. Also, those evaluating this AfD should be advised and aware that a permanently banned Wikipedian, Gregory Kohs, with his commentary on Wikipediocracy and on his news story at Examiner.com ("Wikimedia Foundation caught self-promoting on Wikipedia", Feb 21) is largely responsible for the attention being given to this Wikipedia article. Your Delete decision may be interpreted by some as a show of support for Mr. Kohs' tactics. - 2001:55810:2C22:7EAC:8121:DDB6 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That was the first edit by that IP.

Someone should investigate that IP address!

eppur si muove · Unread post by **eppur si muove** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:32 pm

thekohser wrote:
Lukeno94 wrote:
Comment - AfD policy says, "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." It appears that this has not been done. Also, those evaluating this AfD should be advised and aware that a permanently banned Wikipedian, Gregory Kohs, with his commentary on Wikipediocracy and on his news story at Examiner.com ("Wikimedia Foundation caught self-promoting on Wikipedia", Feb 21) is largely responsible for the attention being given to this Wikipedia article. Your Delete decision may be interpreted by some as a show of support for Mr. Kohs' tactics. - 2001:55810:2C22:7EAC:8121:DDB6 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That was the first edit by that IP.
Someone should investigate that IP address!

And people thought that Mr 2001 was you when it is clearly a disgruntled Comcast customer with a grudge against you and your co-workers.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:37 pm

thekohser wrote:
Lukeno94 wrote:
Comment - AfD policy says, "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." It appears that this has not been done. Also, those evaluating this AfD should be advised and aware that a permanently banned Wikipedian, Gregory Kohs, with his commentary on Wikipediocracy and on his news story at Examiner.com ("Wikimedia Foundation caught self-promoting on Wikipedia", Feb 21) is largely responsible for the attention being given to this Wikipedia article. Your Delete decision may be interpreted by some as a show of support for Mr. Kohs' tactics. - 2001:55810:2C22:7EAC:8121:DDB6 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That was the first edit by that IP.
Someone should investigate that IP address!

It's ineffable. isn't it? I've been racking my brains, but it beats the shit out of me.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:47 pm

Jim wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Lukeno94 wrote:
Comment - AfD policy says, "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." It appears that this has not been done. Also, those evaluating this AfD should be advised and aware that a permanently banned Wikipedian, Gregory Kohs, with his commentary on Wikipediocracy and on his news story at Examiner.com ("Wikimedia Foundation caught self-promoting on Wikipedia", Feb 21) is largely responsible for the attention being given to this Wikipedia article. Your Delete decision may be interpreted by some as a show of support for Mr. Kohs' tactics. - 2001:55810:2C22:7EAC:8121:DDB6 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That was the first edit by that IP.
Someone should investigate that IP address!
It's ineffable. isn't it? I've been racking my brains, but it beats the shit out of me.

Probably Jimbo

Unread post by **tarantino** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:49 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Jim wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Lukeno94 wrote: That was the first edit by that IP.
Someone should investigate that IP address!
It's ineffable. isn't it? I've been racking my brains, but it beats the shit out of me.
Probably Jimbo

It's Coretheapple's friend, Mr 2001.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:31 pm

Well, if it was "Mr 2001", then I was dumb enough to walk into the trap. Oops. Amusing how Gamaliel threatened me with a block and generally acted like a tit though - apparently WP:BITE is now grounds for removing a post you don't like!

eppur si muove · Unread post by **eppur si muove** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:41 pm

Our censoring friend Gamaliel has a "Je suis Charlie" banner on his talk page and had been invited by Cirt to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speech just before he took this action. I doubt that he can see the irony in that.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:13 am

Looks like a snowball of an AfD.

Don't panic.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:19 am

thekohser wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Although I'm neither shocked nor particularly offended by the article, I've decided to run the Wikipedia article Participatory grantmaking (T-H-L) through Articles for Deletion to see whether people feel the neologism passes GNG.

RfB
Isn't it part of WikiCourtesy to notify the principal authors of an article, when you nominate it for deletion?

I'm just happy to get one of those things launched without breaking the wiki, so excuse the lack of such niceties. What a ridiculously complicated process (complete with three successive edit conflicts...)

I don't think such notifications are actually all that common, although somebody mentioned it in the debate, indicating that my not doing so was very Kohsian — or words to that effect. Maybe people nominating via automated tools do that automatically, not sure.

RfB

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:15 am

eppur si muove wrote:Our censoring friend Gamaliel has a "Je suis Charlie" banner on his talk page and had been invited by Cirt to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speech just before he took this action. I doubt that he can see the irony in that.

Seeing irony requires a modicum of intelligence... so no. I think Cirt blanket invited everyone, because I got a notification about that WikiProject as well.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:24 am

thekohser wrote:Oh, boy... look out!

Jimbo is going to "have to look into" this matter. Heads are going to roll when he sees how his Bright Line Rule was largely trampled upon. Right? Jimbo wouldn't just say that he's going to look into it, then let it disappear off his Talk page, never to be discussed again. You think?

Greg, you're such a cynic!

Jimbo Wales wrote: I'm in Bangladesh for the 10th birthday of Bangla Wikipedia. It will be when I get back when I will have time to review.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:57 pm

And, whoosh!

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:01 pm

Ya think the WMF might have somebody run by the overly eager puppy dogs that produced that "article" and tell them that they are NOT the pointy end of the PR stick?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:26 pm

DanMurphy wrote:And, whoosh!

I'm not really sure what the rush was, deletion debates are supposed to run 7 days and it wasn't exactly 57-0.

RfB

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:29 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:And, whoosh!
I'm not really sure what the rush was, deletion debates are supposed to run 7 days and it wasn't exactly 57-0.

RfB

Perhaps, but when so many experienced editors have voted delete, and there is not a single keep - or anyone even hinting at a keep - there's also no real need to leave the AfD open, I guess.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:31 pm

Vigilant wrote:Ya think the WMF might have somebody run by the overly eager puppy dogs that produced that "article" and tell them that they are NOT the pointy end of the PR stick?

I'm sure there was a lot of "oh, shit, oh, shit, oh, shit!!!" going on at a couple desks in San Francisco when this blew up a little. It's probably a relief to the creators that their piece went down the memory hole....

Of course, JW might be all over the case when he gets back from Bangladesh. ...said the straight man to the comic

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:54 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Ya think the WMF might have somebody run by the overly eager puppy dogs that produced that "article" and tell them that they are NOT the pointy end of the PR stick?
I'm sure there was a lot of "oh, shit, oh, shit, oh, shit!!!" going on at a couple desks in San Francisco when this blew up a little. It's probably a relief to the creators that their piece went down the memory hole....

Of course, JW might be all over the case when he gets back from Bangladesh. ...said the straight man to the comic

RfB

"Wha? Oh...Well...I've been out of touch for a few weeks and it looks like it's been handled thoughtfully and carefully ... ::archiving::"

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:01 am

Now covered in The Signpost.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:32 am

HRIP7 wrote:Now covered in The Signpost.

Nice work.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:33 am

HRIP7 wrote:Now covered in The Signpost.

Congratulations, that article manages to be well written, controversial, and to me, utterly hilarious.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:58 am

Zoloft wrote:Congratulations, that article manages to be well written, controversial, and to me, utterly hilarious.

Agreed. The whole thing still stinks, but admittedly, not as much as it did at first. So I guess this Signpost article is sort of like spraying a can of air freshener on the situation.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:09 am

From San Francisco I hear the frantic muttering again.... "oh, shit, oh, shit, oh, shit!!!"

Hopefully this is the proverbial "teachable moment" and they don't all get Stierched by hypocritical bosses....

RfB

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:11 pm

Apologies for having jumped to some (logical) conclusions about the exact origination of the Wikipedia article, but in my defense -- the "open and transparent" Wikimedia Foundation would not publish my comment on their blog piece, and they would not respond to any of my requests for clarification, so I was left with examining what public evidence there was. And, the Wikipedia article did get deleted rather quickly once reviewed by the wider Wikipedia community, so it strongly suggests that the article did *not* meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, which is something that advanced-level Wikimedia Foundation employees should have been able to muster (or discuss) before creating the article.

In all, a bunch of time wasted for at least a half-dozen individuals (including myself), all thanks to a policy of non-response from the Wikimedia Foundation.

Note: I wonder why neither of the Signpost writers reached out to me for any comment. Cold shoulder, or just that I had stated everything clearly already?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:09 pm

Looks like Smallbones wants a little war to make himself feel important on Wikipedia. Imagine that.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:33 pm

thekohser wrote:Looks like Smallbones wants a little war to make himself feel important on Wikipedia. Imagine that.

They invented the word shitheel purely because language didn't cover that guy.
I can't cite that, but I invite arguments to the contrary.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:06 pm

Zoloft wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:Now covered in The Signpost.
Congratulations, that article manages to be well written, controversial, and to me, utterly hilarious.

It's not often much can get me to laugh over there, but this did:

With recent changes within the WMF's grantmaking department's structure, Maher was not able to provide an exact date of when the WMF commissioned Lafayette to write the report.

I'm also not inclined to believe Bartov:

(Bartov) told us that he was not aware of any relationship—potential or real—between the two organizations at the time he wrote the article. Had this been otherwise, he wrote in no uncertain terms that he "would not have created the article at the time, given its strong dependence on [Lafayette's] first report as a source."

He would have us believe that it was a complete coincidence that 3 WMF staffers collaborated on an article about an obscure term invented by an obscure consulting company - as far as I can tell the only English Wikipedia article any of the three has written - the very same week that the WMF hired the obscure consulting company to write a report tying the WMF to the obscure phrase.

Pull the other one, as they say.

Adding: And one more example of "the rules of the boring old world do not apply to our revolution!"

From the WMF, Maher strongly rejected the notion that there was a conflict of interest in this case; in their view, WMF staffers—in their personal capacities, with the goals of Wikipedia in mind—contributed to the article and were never directed to do so by their supervisors or anyone else.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:47 pm

DanMurphy wrote:the very same week that the WMF hired the obscure consulting company to write a report

Can you provide a link showing that the WMF hired LaFayette Practice in late July 2014?

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:56 pm

thekohser wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:the very same week that the WMF hired the obscure consulting company to write a report
Can you provide a link showing that the WMF hired LaFayette Practice in late July 2014?

The earliest edit mentioning Lafayette came on July 22, when Alex Wang, the WMF's Project and Event Grants Program Officer, added them to the Wikimania schedule.

Can I prove they hired them? No. Does my experience tell me that discussions about hiring them and scope of work was well advanced before July 22? Yes. Is the claim they have no documentation of when precisely they hired these people laughable? Also yes.

The WMF is basically a flimflam factory.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 10:19 pm

thekohser wrote:Oh my God.

And the Wikipedia article is almost entirely sourced to one reference: Who Decides?: How Participatory Grantmaking Benefits Donors, Communities, and Movement by... guess who? The Lafayette Practice!

The Lafayette Practice was founded by Matty Hart.

Here he is visiting the White House.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 10:25 pm

tarantino wrote:
thekohser wrote:Oh my God.

And the Wikipedia article is almost entirely sourced to one reference: Who Decides?: How Participatory Grantmaking Benefits Donors, Communities, and Movement by... guess who? The Lafayette Practice!
The Lafayette Practice was founded by Matty Hart.

Here he is visiting the White House.

Perfect.

Hart may be best known for founding Spiral Q, Philadelphia’s nationally acclaimed nonprofit arts organization that unites communities and promotes social justice through parades and pageantry.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:50 pm

I wonder what it would be like to get Matty, Shankbone, and Fae in a room together for cocktails?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:35 am

thekohser wrote:I wonder what it would be like to get Matty, Shankbone, and Fae in a room together for cocktails?

It would be a seminary.

(I'll show myself out.)

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:38 am

tarantino wrote:
thekohser wrote:Oh my God.

And the Wikipedia article is almost entirely sourced to one reference: Who Decides?: How Participatory Grantmaking Benefits Donors, Communities, and Movement by... guess who? The Lafayette Practice!
The Lafayette Practice was founded by Matty Hart.

Here he is visiting the White House.

Now that's disrespectful. If you're going to do something like that, put some commitment into it, like climbing up and peeing on the picture. Reagan deserves an all-American effort.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:39 am

thekohser wrote:I wonder what it would be like to get Matty, Shankbone, and Fae in a room together for cocktails?

Kato · Unread post by **Kato** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:22 am

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:30 am

The Blue Balls Group!

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:32 am

thekohser wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:the very same week that the WMF hired the obscure consulting company to write a report
Can you provide a link showing that the WMF hired LaFayette Practice in late July 2014?

The LaFayette Practice's first report on participatory grantmaking in April 2014, "Who Decides: How Participatory Grantmaking Benefits Donors, Communities and Movements." doesn't mention the wmf.

MZMcBride · Unread post by **MZMcBride** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:19 pm

Jim wrote:
thekohser wrote:Why doesn't the WMF just skip the do-si-do and just hire me as their communications ombudsman?
I think they just don't like you. Otherwise you'd be a shoe-in.

Shoo-in.

DanMurphy wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:The terms of use actually even allow people to add paid-for content as long as they point that fact out on their user page. (In this case, they are obviously arguing that the content wasn't paid for.)

There is no question that none of this meets the "not even an appearance of impropriety" standard.
Ties right into Golumbia's article posted in the "wikignome" thread:

At the next level of abstraction, perhaps the most important one, the Wikimedia Foundation’s endorsement of Giraffedata’s work as among their “favorite” displays a kind of agnotology—a studied cultivation of ignorance—that feeds structureless tyrannies and authoritarian anti-hierarchies. In order to rule over those whose knowledge or expertise challenges you, the best route is to dismiss or mock that expertise wholesale, to rule it out as expertise at all, in favor of your own deeply-held convictions that you trumpet as a “new kind” of expertise that invalidates the “old,” “incumbent” kinds. This kind of agnotology is widespread in current Silicon Valley and digital culture; it is no less prominent in reactionary political culture, such as the Tea Party and rightist anti-science movements.
They are building a brave new world and musty old rules and conventions about conflicts of interest no longer apply. They have new, special, better rules.

I quite enjoyed this post and Kelly Martin's reply. I find discussion of the intersection of self-righteous obsession, Wikimedia, and Silicon Valley/California computer culture pretty interesting.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:13 pm

Looks like Jimbo might be back from Asia, but still no comment on ParticipateGate.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:00 pm

thekohser wrote:Looks like Jimbo might be back from Asia,

Heh.

OK, ya'll.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It's y'all. --DHeyward (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Jimbo was trolling. Perhaps even intentionally.

thekohser wrote:but still no comment on ParticipateGate.

He's thinking. Lovingly.