Wikipediocracy

Jimbo wrote:== Snowden editing? ==
I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere. In the media there have been reports of user accounts used on various tech discussion sites by Edward Snowden. He was apparently quite an active person online, particularly a few years back when he was younger. It seems highly likely to me that he would have edited Wikipedia - most people who fit his profile (tech savvy, internet activist types) will have done so. Do we have any evidence of that, or suspicions about that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo wrote:Fram's disingenuous trolling is not welcome here

Jimmy Wales wrote:An open discussion of matters widely discussed in reliable sources with respect to how it may impact Wikipedia is in no way shape or form "outing". It should be emphasized that Fram has been asked to stay off my user talk page in the past, and that I consider his repeated appearances there with manufactured and implausible complaints like this to be harassment. I am not currently seeking that any sanctions be applied to him for this behavior. The reason that I'm curious is precisely because there is intense press interest in his online activities, and we may rest assured that reporters are already looking for any connections. It would be wise for us to understand the facts completely before hyped up news stories begin to circulate.

I personally think in general Snowden is an "innocent party" - a hero, in fact. Discussion of questions surrounding identity, famous people in the news, editing of Wikipedia, and so on are all well within the scope of discussions about how to improve the encyclopedia. One of the important roles that we play in the world is to encourage and emphasize openness, honesty, and transparency.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Vigilant wrote:

...One of the important roles that we play in the world is to encourage and emphasize openness, honesty, and transparency.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think Jimmy had it in him.

One of the important roles that we play in the world is to encourage and emphasize openness, honesty, and transparency.

thekohser wrote:Mods, it would appear that Marek has given us another thread on Jimbo and Snowden, to go with the first one. Except that he put this one in "News and Media", even though he didn't link to any news or media story about Jimbo hunting for Snowden. Though, there is such a news story out there.

Think this could be cleaned up?

thekohser wrote:Go figure that an Examiner article that I put together on the commuter train ride into work, that I posted largely to keep my payment privileges intact (you have to publish at least once every 60 days to remain an "active" Examiner), would earn over 7,000 page views thus far, from Techmeme, Twitter, Reddit, and others.

Good thing Wikipedia doesn't allow Examiner.com links, huh?

Jimmy Wales: Why does Jimmy Wales want to know if Edward Snowden has ever edited Wikipedia?

Based on everything that I have read so far, I am a big fan of Edward Snowden. I think he has done something courageous and for honorable and principled reasons. One of the things that I really like about what he has done is to be clear that his leaking has been selective and mostly in the abstract. He has not put any actual detailed operations against legitimate military targets in danger, but he has raised to public awareness some activity that is clearly shocking to most people - the sort of activity that deserves an open public debate.

It's well-known that he was active on the Internet as a young person. His youthful posts at Ars Technica have been widely discussed and analyzed, and paint a picture of him that helps us to understand how he grew into the man he is today.

I have invited a public discussion of public facts - NOT outing. It's worth noting that the person who wrote that article is the person who has circulated a photo of himself with a gun and a description fantasizing about a gun battle with me. Do not trust his spin, which is absurd.

As it turns out, it appears that no editing of Wikipedia has taken place by the usernames already discussed in that article. Remember, you can check this for yourself - all edits to Wikipedia are public.

HRIP7 wrote:Tech2: Jimmy Wales causes trouble in Wikipedia paradise as he hunts for Snowden

This story is false. I very explicitly told people not to "out" Snowden. I asked if there had been a discussion (of public information). Please update your story to emphasize that I am a strong supporter of Edward Snowden's actions.

I have invited a public discussion of public facts - NOT outing. It's worth noting that the person who wrote that article is the person who has circulated a photo of himself with a gun and a description fantasizing about a gun battle with me. Do not trust his spin, which is absurd.

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. [...]

Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.

Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly.

Jimbo wrote:== Snowden editing? ==
I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere. In the media there have been reports of user accounts used on various tech discussion sites by Edward Snowden. He was apparently quite an active person online, particularly a few years back when he was younger. It seems highly likely to me that he would have edited Wikipedia - most people who fit his profile (tech savvy, internet activist types) will have done so. Do we have any evidence of that, or suspicions about that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we know what usernames he used on other websites? I expect they might have the same name as a possible account on Wikipedia. However, I'm curious as to why we need to know? — Richard BB 08:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we 'need' to know. I'm just curious, and I imagine many other people would be as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do we care? This violates our outing policy, so please desist from attempting to connect Snowden to some Wikipedia account. Being "just curious" is no reason to out somebody. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to identify any anonymous accounts Edward Snowden may have used to edit Wikipedia though - it's against policy for very good reason - it very rarely ends well - wrong accounts being identified, different people with the same names being mixed up and so on. Nick (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

thekohser wrote:Edit: Wow, it turns out my original account has been unlocked on Quora!

dogbiscuit wrote:Jimbo is a bit thick at times, isn't he?

Smiley wrote:

dogbiscuit wrote:Jimbo is a bit thick at times, isn't he?

Jimbo's a bit thick? ..Never!

Jimmy Wales, Mitgründer der Wikipedia, bittet um Hilfe: Er will herausfinden, ob Edward Snowden in dem Mitmach-Lexikon unter Pseudonym mitgearbeitet hat. Die Suche verstößt allerdings gegen die Regeln der Community.

Midsize Jake wrote: Frankly, I suspect that if Snowden had even tried, he'd probably have given up trying to expose the NSA and concentrated on exposing Wikipedia itself, which in many ways is a much bigger problem.

thekohser wrote:For convenience here, the Twitter feed matching Wales and Snowden is quite interesting. Seems that Wales is the lone voice in the wilderness saying "but I didn't want to out his accounts!"

Wah wah, cry baby.

dogbiscuit wrote:

thekohser wrote:For convenience here, the Twitter feed matching Wales and Snowden is quite interesting. Seems that Wales is the lone voice in the wilderness saying "but I didn't want to out his accounts!"

Wah wah, cry baby.

All rather satisfying that his own words are the greatest weapon against him. Kudos, Greg. Is this the most damage he's had inflicted on him yet? He has just goofed majorly on the top subject of his main supporters, the joys of demographics, and it is all there in black and white and undeniable.

HRIP7 wrote:This French article speculates he may just have been interested in the PR coup. Perhaps he was just jealous of Ars Technica, and feeling left out!

HRIP7 wrote:This French article speculates ...

thekohser wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:This French article speculates ...

Pity how they don't even drop one back-link to the original scoop on Examiner.

(By the way, the Examiner story is up to 11,000 page views now.)

Edit: And so that I'm not a complete hypocrite, I've modified the Examiner article with an editorial note, thanking Wikipediocracy and Mason for first notice of this event. Gave two back-links, so maybe we'll share in some of all that Examiner traffic (though not terribly likely, as the average time-on-page of these recent visitors is only 15 seconds).

Jimmy Wales has made a statement on the event. He says he is a "passionate defender of anonymity and privacy on the web" and dismayed to be presented differently. Following discussions, the Wikipedia community had indeed asked about possible activities by Edward Snowden in the online encyclopedia. He himself however had warned against an "outing".

Gregory Kohs
5 votes by Anonymous, Shawn Mcnamara, Andreas Kolbe, (more)

No need for anyone to read into my "spin" on Examiner. My story was based on facts, and everyone can read the facts -- that (at least initially) Jimmy Wales was encouraging Wikipedia activity that would violate the site's policy against outing of other editors who have not disclosed their identity.

It's also amusing that, since he cannot bring himself to refute the evidence in a one-on-one discussion with me (as an Examiner reporter), Wales resorts to his tried-and-not-so-true "gun battle" scare tactic. The photo of my shooting a gun was not "circulated" -- it was posted to my friends on Facebook. The picture had been published for over a year when I made a silly, throw-away comment to a friend who asked if I was planning on shooting anything with the gun, and I very clearly joked that since Jimmy Wales was a known gun enthusiast, I ought to have some practice in counter-fire. A completely inane comment, which (not surprisingly) Jimmy Wales has co-opted to paint me as some kind of dangerous lunatic.

It's really sad how far divorced from reality Jimbo has become.

This answer may need improvement. (more)

User was previously banned from Quora for multiple policy violations. This is a new account aimed at circumventing ban. This answer has been collapsed and locked.

2 Comments
Thomas Goodwin
Where is the evidence that Jimmy was "encouraging Wikipedia activity that would violate the site's policy against outing of other editors who have not disclosed their identity"?

You quote people who believe he was doing this, but that is their interpretation of a vague ask.


Danita Crouse
Gregory Kohs, you are brand new here on Quora (user #21104308), this being your first and only answer. So far, I'm not impressed. You are not following any topics, or other questions. Your suggested edits to Jimmy Wales answer are questionable and their intention suspect. I wonder about your motivation.

Look, Quora’s the little bitch company of the Valley. No one wants to beat up on it because it’s so sensitive and theoretically erudite and its parents are rich. But everyone knows it’s going to end up dead in an alley in a few years, after its folks finally give up on it and its friends ditch it for being so fucking desperate and whiningly overzealous all the goddamn time. For now everyone just sort of tolerates its little existence, mostly wishing it would just shut the fuck up about how great it is.

Let me tell you what Quora really is: Quora is the plaything of a couple of toddler lucktards who, not content with having somehow pocketed generational wealth by the age of 25, felt obliged to bestow upon us the be-all, end-all: the world’s “best source for knowledge." I’m serious about that shit — it’s their actual tagline. Not the writings of Isaac Newton nor the notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci. Not the dozens of pre-existing question-and-answer sites. Not Wikipedia — a publicly-curated, global encyclopedia containing more than 25 million articles on literally every subject known to man. Not even, fuck, the very rise of the Internet itself — unarguably the greatest explosion of information delivery and content creation in history. No, these were but stepping stones for the unadulterated perfected brilliance that Charlie Cheever and Adam D’Angelo bequeathed in the form of Quora. Inimitable, quintessential Quora.

EricBarbour wrote:Courtesy of Mac, who stumbled onto this while looking for Quora criticism:

Quora! Quora! Quora!?

Look, Quora’s the little bitch company of the Valley. No one wants to beat up on it because it’s so sensitive and theoretically erudite and its parents are rich. But everyone knows it’s going to end up dead in an alley in a few years, after its folks finally give up on it and its friends ditch it for being so fucking desperate and whiningly overzealous all the goddamn time. For now everyone just sort of tolerates its little existence, mostly wishing it would just shut the fuck up about how great it is.

Let me tell you what Quora really is: Quora is the plaything of a couple of toddler lucktards who, not content with having somehow pocketed generational wealth by the age of 25, felt obliged to bestow upon us the be-all, end-all: the world’s “best source for knowledge." I’m serious about that shit — it’s their actual tagline. Not the writings of Isaac Newton nor the notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci. Not the dozens of pre-existing question-and-answer sites. Not Wikipedia — a publicly-curated, global encyclopedia containing more than 25 million articles on literally every subject known to man. Not even, fuck, the very rise of the Internet itself — unarguably the greatest explosion of information delivery and content creation in history. No, these were but stepping stones for the unadulterated perfected brilliance that Charlie Cheever and Adam D’Angelo bequeathed in the form of Quora. Inimitable, quintessential Quora.

He (she?) apparently doesn't know that Jimbo is a principal in Quora, or that Quora mods are squelching all criticism of Jimbo and Wikipedia.
TechCrunch already outed the owner anyway. Looks like a she.

Wer900 wrote:Jimbo's, like Snowden's, sole purpose is to call attention to himself. Snowden accomplished it through the NSA leaks,

Tarc wrote:

Wer900 wrote:Jimbo's, like Snowden's, sole purpose is to call attention to himself. Snowden accomplished it through the NSA leaks,

I'm sorry, what? If you think Snowden did what he did for 15 minutes fame, you're smoking up some choice crack there, bro. Being actively hunted across the globe, currently idling in a Russian airport hotel is not what a 30-something envisions as living the high life.

Tarc wrote:

Wer900 wrote:Jimbo's, like Snowden's, sole purpose is to call attention to himself. Snowden accomplished it through the NSA leaks,

I'm sorry, what? If you think Snowden did what he did for 15 minutes fame, you're smoking up some choice crack there, bro. Being actively hunted across the globe, currently idling in a Russian airport hotel is not what a 30-something envisions as living the high life.

Vigilant wrote:

Tarc wrote:

Wer900 wrote:Jimbo's, like Snowden's, sole purpose is to call attention to himself. Snowden accomplished it through the NSA leaks,

I'm sorry, what? If you think Snowden did what he did for 15 minutes fame, you're smoking up some choice crack there, bro. Being actively hunted across the globe, currently idling in a Russian airport hotel is not what a 30-something envisions as living the high life.

Truly, Wer900.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read here.

The clarification in the final paragraph of Der Spiegel article reads (my translation follows): "Follow-up: Jimmy Wales has issued a statement on this issue. He is said to be a "passionate defender of anonimity and privacy on the web", and is dismayed to be presented differently. Following discussions, the Wikipedia Community did indeed question Edward Snowden's possible activity in the online encyclopaedia; Wales, however, is to have warned against an "outing". Where did the community discuss this issue beforehand? I find it very difficult to reconcile this account of things with the actual chain of events. WilliamH (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Nachtrag: Jimmy Wales hat eine Stellungnahme zu dem Vorgang abgegeben. Er sei ein "leidenschaftlicher Verteidiger von Anonymität und Privatsphäre im Web" und bestürzt darüber, anders dargestellt zu werden. Zwar habe er die Wikipedia-Community nach Diskussionen über mögliche Aktivitiäten Edward Snowdens in der Online-Enzyklopädie gefragt. Er, Wales, habe jedoch vor einem "Outing" gewarnt.

Jimmy Wales has made a statement on the issue. He says he is a "passionate defender of anonymity and privacy on the web" and dismayed to be presented differently. He had indeed enquired about any Wikipedia community discussions about possible activities by Edward Snowden in the online encyclopedia. However, he, Wales, had warned against an "outing".

I was just asking a very simple question: has there been discussion already in Wikipedia of various accounts that might be identified as his in the press. This is not about outing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)")

HRIP7 wrote:It would be a less bizarre statement to make – though it still misrepresents what happened: he didn't warn against outing Snowden until he had been warned by a number of people that his line of questioning was incompatible with the outing policy, and if there had been any community discussions of the type he was interested in, those discussions would have been in violation of policy.

HRIP7 wrote:It would be a less bizarre statement to make – though it still misrepresents what happened: he didn't warn against outing Snowden until he had been warned by a number of people that his line of questioning was incompatible with the outing policy, and if there had been any community discussions of the type he was interested in, those discussions would have been in violation of policy.

Wow. Didn't take long for that one to explode into a big ol' ball of drama. Checking some of Snowden's aliases, I found one account that I'm curious about. Probably not him, and I guess I can't name it anyway. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't be intimidated - that drama isn't about Snowden, it's about drama for the sake of drama. If you aren't sure it would be appropriate to make it public, please do feel free to email me so that I can assess it. It seems likely that this is of interest to reporters as well, and so I think it is important that we be prepared with a full understanding of the facts. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
My concern is that your original post appears to be an invitation to ask people to post here information that risks Snowden's outing. That could have been a slip of the keyboard, but then your response when the outing issue was directly raised seems to suggest that it was intentional and you do not care if your question encouraged people to post such information. Do you think it is acceptable for people to speculate or provide evidence here of Snowden's WP identity? If you do, why isn't that outing? If you don't, why did you take the risk? DeCausa (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not 'outing' when the user ids in question are already published widely in the media in reliable sources. I looked for a couple of variant spellings and found nothing, so I asked to see if others could find anything. I think it is not only acceptable but highly desirable for people to openly discuss such matters. If someone discovers or knows something that they feel would be inappropriate to post publicly, then they should send it to me privately.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We at the NSA applaud our friend Mr. Wales's ingenious suggestion for Wikipedia users to "email" him "privately" with information on our friend Mr. Snowden. We hereby reassure Wikipedia users that we shall of course fully respect the privacy of the emails, in accordance with long-established NSA practice. Writegeist (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally think in general Snowden is an "innocent party" - a hero, in fact. Discussion of questions surrounding identity, famous people in the news, editing of Wikipedia, and so on are all well within the scope of discussions about how to improve the encyclopedia. One of the important roles that we play in the world is to encourage and emphasize openness, honesty, and transparency.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What Snowden has revealed has caused irreversible and significant damage to our country and to our allies.

No Exit (French: Huis Clos) is a 1944 existentialist French play by Jean-Paul Sartre ... It is a depiction of the afterlife in which three deceased characters are punished by being locked into a room together for eternity, and is the source of one of Sartre's most famous and most often misinterpreted quotations, l'enfer, c'est les autres ("Hell is other people"), a reference to Sartre's ideas about the Look, and the constant ontological struggle of being caused to see oneself as an object in the world of another consciousness.[2]

Mancunium wrote:Will he beg for asylum in the nearest Ecuadorian embassy? Will he and Julian be forced to share a small room? Will they and Snowden end up spending the rest of lives together in a hut in the Ecuadorian jungle, like these people?

thekohser wrote:I presume, given the worldwide media attention, that this episode should be added both to the List of Wikipedia controversies (T-H-L) and to Jimmy Wales (T-H-L)?

rhindle wrote:

thekohser wrote:I presume, given the worldwide media attention, that this episode should be added both to the List of Wikipedia controversies (T-H-L) and to Jimmy Wales (T-H-L)?

That now means wikipedia has had at least one controversy for every month this year and we're now half way through with it.

thekohser wrote:I presume, given the worldwide media attention, that this episode should be added both to the List of Wikipedia controversies (T-H-L) and to Jimmy Wales (T-H-L)?

(cur | prev) 23:25, 14 March 2013‎ Ducknish (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (75,024 bytes) (-34)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Grumpanelli (talk) to last revision by Ducknish (HG))
(cur | prev) 23:24, 14 March 2013‎ Grumpanelli (talk | contribs)‎ . . (75,058 bytes) (+34)‎ . . (edit summary removed)
(cur | prev) 23:21, 14 March 2013‎ Ducknish (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (75,024 bytes) (-34)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Grumpanelli (talk) to last revision by TBrandley (HG))
(cur | prev) 23:20, 14 March 2013‎ Grumpanelli (talk | contribs)‎ . . (75,058 bytes) (+34)‎ . . (Reverted vandalism)
(cur | prev) 23:18, 14 March 2013‎ TBrandley (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (75,024 bytes) (-34)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Grumpanelli (talk) to last version by Msundqvist)
(cur | prev) 23:17, 14 March 2013‎ Grumpanelli (talk | contribs)‎ . . (75,058 bytes) (+34)‎

Now what message can we take home from this? Well, I've normally thought of the Spiegel as having a good reputation - I think - but here they seem to have swallowed what less considerate young ladies would have spit out, straight from Gregory Kohs' vaunted Examiner self-publication - complete even with the "co-founder" dig. Wnt (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

SB_Johnny wrote:Wnt offers up a nice metaphor for the cause...

Now what message can we take home from this? Well, I've normally thought of the Spiegel as having a good reputation - I think - but here they seem to have swallowed what less considerate young ladies would have spit out, straight from Gregory Kohs' vaunted Examiner self-publication - complete even with the "co-founder" dig. Wnt (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Vigilant wrote:

Tarc wrote:

Wer900 wrote:Jimbo's, like Snowden's, sole purpose is to call attention to himself. Snowden accomplished it through the NSA leaks,

I'm sorry, what? If you think Snowden did what he did for 15 minutes fame, you're smoking up some choice crack there, bro. Being actively hunted across the globe, currently idling in a Russian airport hotel is not what a 30-something envisions as living the high life.

Truly, Wer900.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read here.