Wikimania 2014

[Midsize Jake]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =262127800

Good point; that would tend to explain the knee-jerk reaction to the word "market" and apparent refusal to read it in its intended context.

[Notvelty]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =262127800

Good point; that would tend to explain the knee-jerk reaction to the word "market" and apparent refusal to read it in its intended context.

I probably wouldn't go that far. I recognise that Tim's views on markets are likely to be different (from mine, for example) but I'd prefer to find some common ground for definition, rather than demand he change his beliefs to match.

I'm sure he'd be happy to answer the questions if they didn't assume a world view he doesn't hold.

[Vigilant]

"Market" implies the buying and selling of a commodity. There is no "market" for Wikipedia content.

Please elaborate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =262127800

[Zoloft]

Here, Randy, free of charge:



Eject, eject, eject!

[Randy from Boise]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =262127800

Good point; that would tend to explain the knee-jerk reaction to the word "market" and apparent refusal to read it in its intended context.

It's actually the B.A. Economics part of my biography.

If you all could admit you're worried about the "annihilation of a POTENTIAL market," we could probably move on to talking about serious things like Jimmy Wales' tummy and so forth...

RfB

[Kelly Martin]

"Market" implies the buying and selling of a commodity. There is no "market" for Wikipedia content.

Balderdash. Of course there is. It's just that Wikipedia dominates that market by virtue of its low selling price, and has pushed out all the other market players as a result.

The fact that something has no cash price does not mean that it has no price. Your conceptualization of market economics is woefully naive, your BA in Economics notwithstanding.

[thekohser]

WP is not being run as a "loss leader" for a commercial product either...

I guess you also buy the whole "Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation are completely separate entities" bit, then, too?

[lilburne]

There is always a market for accurate information. Creating that information is expensive. As an example WP has been going for more than a decade and most of its articles are woefully inaccurate and incomplete, partly because they have chosen an incredibly inefficient method for building it, and partly because it is being built be leaf-cutter ants, and the fungus has been taken over the nest appears to be psilocybe.

This would in itself be OK. The problem is that WP has displaced informative web sites. WP is to accurate information what a Happy Meal is to nutrition. We all suffer as a result.

[Cla68]

You have to search for "conceited".

There you go. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a Wikipedia bigwig got the word wrong, got the poster wrong, blamed one of us for something someone else said that we didn't necessarily agree with, or simply lied outright. In fact, it would be more like the 21,345th time.

But that goes with the territory. Like I said earlier, don't even give it a second thought - if Matthews wasn't arrogant, wasn't a wiki-narcissist, and didn't have a dangerously weak ego facade, he wouldn't even remember having been insulted in any specific way in the first place, because he'd be confident enough in his own moral/ethical virtue to not care about how others perceive him. In fact, he's not that confident; none of them are; none of them could be.

And Matthews is actually one of the better ones. Not saying much, to be sure, but there you have it.

A significant plot theme in books like Catch 22 are egomaniacal and deeply insecure characters obsessing over perceived slights from others. It's interesting to see Wikimedia personalities acting in the same way.

[Randy from Boise]

WP is not being run as a "loss leader" for a commercial product either...

I guess you also buy the whole "Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation are completely separate entities" bit, then, too?

Ha ha, now that's a situation where you and I have some considerable agreement, I suspect.

Is there a WikiaZero as part of WikipediaZero???

That would be a different kettle of fish. Or rather: that would be a kettle of fish instead of an apricot tree.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

"Market" implies the buying and selling of a commodity. There is no "market" for Wikipedia content.

Balderdash. Of course there is. It's just that Wikipedia dominates that market by virtue of its low selling price, and has pushed out all the other market players as a result.

The fact that something has no cash price does not mean that it has no price. Your conceptualization of market economics is woefully naive, your BA in Economics notwithstanding.

"Cash price" and "price" are the same thing. Perhaps you mean "the fact that something has no cash price does not mean that it has no value." (or: "...has no cost.")

Somehow the techies among you see a (potential) "market" being flooded with a free product, potential competitors being destroyed with monopoly-like behavior of the sole surviving provider of the "internet encyclopedia commodity" the negative result. I see y'all projecting the arguments made against Microsoft, Google et al. in the "free" browser anti-trust debates of ten years back... Of course, we all now clearly see that browsers have huge income-generating potential. I just don't see that analogous with Wikipedia, which has no commercial component.

Our disagreement has this semantic element: Unpriced goods are not distributed by a "market." Market economics is all about markets, the interrelationship between price and quantity supplied and price and quantity demanded (supply and demand curves).

So, hey, how about Jimmy Wales' tummy?!?!

RfB

[thekohser]

Is there a WikiaZero as part of WikipediaZero???

There doesn't need to be. Let me spell this out for you.

The poor African girl goes on WikipediaZero to learn about bootlegged games, since she's heard that this might be a good business to go into if she wishes to survive next year's famine. So, she reads the Wikipedia articles about Micro Genius (T-H-L), NTDEC (T-H-L), and Thin Chen Enterprise (T-H-L), and what does she notice?

She notices that all three of those articles point to this tantalizing website called "Bootleg Games Wiki", at Wikia.com. Maybe she realizes that "Wikia" is a pay-data site, or maybe she thinks that "Wikia" is similar enough to "Wikipedia" that it's still a free session on her mobile phone. Whatever the intent, she clicks on over to Bootleg Games Wiki, and now the GENEROUS AND INNOVATIVE mobile phone company is charging her for minutes that without Wikipedia she may have never gotten into. And also, the THOUGHTFUL AND LOVING Jimmy Wales is getting the benefit of some much-needed African ad impressions on Wikia, in which he owns (potentially) millions of dollars worth of stock.

The African girl, through the magic on Net Un-Neutrality, is now sending money toward the mobile phone company and to Jimbo.

Try not to look so stupid, Tim.

[Vigilant]

Is there a WikiaZero as part of WikipediaZero???

There doesn't need to be. Let me spell this out for you.

The poor African girl goes on WikipediaZero to learn about bootlegged games, since she's heard that this might be a good business to go into if she wishes to survive next year's famine. So, she reads the Wikipedia articles about Micro Genius (T-H-L), NTDEC (T-H-L), and Thin Chen Enterprise (T-H-L), and what does she notice?

She notices that all three of those articles point to this tantalizing website called "Bootleg Games Wiki", at Wikia.com. Maybe she realizes that "Wikia" is a pay-data site, or maybe she thinks that "Wikia" is similar enough to "Wikipedia" that it's still a free session on her mobile phone. Whatever the intent, she clicks on over to Bootleg Games Wiki, and now the GENEROUS AND INNOVATIVE mobile phone company is charging her for minutes that without Wikipedia she may have never gotten into. And also, the THOUGHTFUL AND LOVING Jimmy Wales is getting the benefit of some much-needed African ad impressions on Wikia, in which he owns (potentially) millions of dollars worth of stock.

The African girl, through the magic on Net Un-Neutrality, is now sending money toward the mobile phone company and to Jimbo.

Try not to look so stupid, Tim.

Come on, Greg.
That's just cruel.

Why not just ask him to eat four raw pigs for breakfast?

[Midsize Jake]

Our disagreement has this semantic element: Unpriced goods are not distributed by a "market." Market economics is all about markets, the interrelationship between price and quantity supplied and price and quantity demanded (supply and demand curves).

If you're concerned about semantics, howzabout we go back to the original comment, which was, "when sites use their political power to gain market advantage..."? Are you really trying to say that a company distributing a free product that competes with non-free products can't "gain market advantage" over those other products, using political power or whatever, merely because the product is free? That it somehow operates in a completely different plane of existence or something, just because it minimizes its labor costs by having its own customers do the work, and generates income by optional donations?

It's not a "disagreement"; what you're saying simply makes no sense, unless you're talking about a completely different economic concept that has no relevance here, or at least not to competition between websites. Personally, I would prefer to believe that these "Zero"-style business models won't significantly affect the demand curve for conventional internet services and web content, but the more I think about it, I realize: How could they not?

And again, it's not just the "encyclopedia commodity," whatever you conceive that to be. This affects every informational website in the world.

[HRIP7]

I wouldn't say there isn't a market when things do not have a price tag. The way people pay for things is changing; there are more and more business models that give things away for free to create goodwill and achieve market penetration, but are perfectly happy to accept donations or other income. Amanda Palmer's Kickstarter bid to have fans finance her record is an example. Indeed, using Google doesn't cost anything – it's a free service – yet the company is raking in tens of billions of dollars. Monopolisation of any commodity – and information is a commodity today – is not just a concern because of prices charged to an end user.

[Randy from Boise]

Is there a WikiaZero as part of WikipediaZero???

There doesn't need to be. Let me spell this out for you.

The poor African girl goes on WikipediaZero to learn about bootlegged games, since she's heard that this might be a good business to go into if she wishes to survive next year's famine. So, she reads the Wikipedia articles about Micro Genius (T-H-L), NTDEC (T-H-L), and Thin Chen Enterprise (T-H-L), and what does she notice?

She notices that all three of those articles point to this tantalizing website called "Bootleg Games Wiki", at Wikia.com. Maybe she realizes that "Wikia" is a pay-data site, or maybe she thinks that "Wikia" is similar enough to "Wikipedia" that it's still a free session on her mobile phone. Whatever the intent, she clicks on over to Bootleg Games Wiki, and now the GENEROUS AND INNOVATIVE mobile phone company is charging her for minutes that without Wikipedia she may have never gotten into. And also, the THOUGHTFUL AND LOVING Jimmy Wales is getting the benefit of some much-needed African ad impressions on Wikia, in which he owns (potentially) millions of dollars worth of stock.

The African girl, through the magic on Net Un-Neutrality, is now sending money toward the mobile phone company and to Jimbo.

Oi, that's a stretch...

Sure, Wikipedia articles have been themselves been commercialized, made into advertising. (I am preaching to the choir, yes?) Sure, there are links extant to Wikia, from which Jimmy Wales himself derives financial gain — along with millions of other links to other commercial sites.

All that granted.

The bottom line is the bottom line, however: Wikipedia is an unpriced, non-commercial product, deriving no monopoly benefits from its advantageous position.

Jeez, how'd we ever get on this subject? It's not like I even care.

RfB

[thekohser]

Jeez, how'd we ever get on this subject? It's not like I even care.

Your depth of thought on the subject reflects that.

I suppose those WMF donation checks just pour in by magic, and companies like Google and Telenor partner with "Wikipedia" just for the good feelings it provides.

[Textnyymi]

There is always a market for accurate information. Creating that information is expensive. As an example WP has been going for more than a decade and most of its articles are woefully inaccurate and incomplete, partly because they have chosen an incredibly inefficient method for building it, and partly because it is being built be leaf-cutter ants, and the fungus has been taken over the nest appears to be psilocybe.

This would in itself be OK. The problem is that WP has displaced informative web sites. WP is to accurate information what a Happy Meal is to nutrition. We all suffer as a result.

Between the obesity epidemic in USA being caused by poor quality food which displaces good food, and the disinformation epidemic caused by poor quality information which displaces good information, there are some things people can do: search and analyze for themselves what can be better for them.

Just like it can look very convenient to go to a McD at the first corner and get some burgers for cheap pennies, and go to the first result page on Google and get some information which looks accurate, people can decide to go a bit further to buy healthier food somewhere else and get better information from say page 10-20 for any search.

More quality, more costs. Less quality, less costs.
And there's still the problem with people admitting defeat immediately or not caring so they get whatever they can for free without checking quality.

[Randy from Boise]

Jeez, how'd we ever get on this subject? It's not like I even care.

Your depth of thought on the subject reflects that.

I suppose those WMF donation checks just pour in by magic, and companies like Google and Telenor partner with "Wikipedia" just for the good feelings it provides.

Well, I'll say this, I think one of you needs to write a blog post on the WikiZero bogey detailing the case. I at least understand the perspective now, although I don't accept it. It is very alien to my way of conceptualizing WP and might be a topic interesting to Wikipedians.

RfB

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Lila looks like David Gerard.

You're a harsh man.

Not even David Gerard looks like David Gerard. It would be too cruel, even for him...



Anyway, the nose is slightly wrong...

[thekohser]

Well, I'll say this, I think one of you needs to write a blog post on the WikiZero bogey detailing the case. I at least understand the perspective now, although I don't accept it. It is very alien to my way of conceptualizing WP and might be a topic interesting to Wikipedians.

RfB

You did see this, didn't you?

[Vigilant]

[sparkzilla]

Wikipedia is an unpriced, non-commercial product, deriving no monopoly benefits from its advantageous position.

Spoken like a true Marxist. He didn't understand markets either, although I guess you'll just use the standard get-out clause they all say: "no-one has ever tried true Marxism" It's no surprise that you defend Wikipedia as it is also a deeply flawed Utopian project.

Every Wikipedia article has a value that readers place in it, which has displaced other services, some free and some paid for. The most notable being Britannica. People thought Wikipedia's encyclopedic content was better than Britannica, and that may be true. However, Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia.

Right now the site exercises monopoly power over a huge range of search results, not based on the quality of its content, but on the amount of content. This creates huge distortions in the media market. Companies who would like to create, say, a better quality (more accurate, safer. better presented) medical resource find themselves losing customers to Wikipedia, which due to the large amount of articles on non-medical subjects, still takes the top spot on Google searches for medical topics.

WMF pushes this "mission creep' by using the Utopian slogan "the sum of all human knowledge" which is a green light for ego-driven writers to create weak content solely based on the fact that the content will have a higher search engine rank. The result , however, is poor quality content that is boosted beyond its utility. The readers lose, but guess who gains power?

In time publishers will become more smart and be able to break down this monopoly, but to say that it doesn't exist is plainly false. And medical is just one example. Newspapers, biography sites, car sites, and many, many specialist sites are in competition with Wikipedia's inferior content.

[Hex]

Some people were blinded by the light.

Wikimania (Wikipedia) has changed my life, by "petermr"

I’ve just spent 3 hectic days at Wikimania (the world gathering of world Wikimedians) and am so overwhelmed I’m spending today getting my thoughts in order. ... Very simply:

Wikimedia is at the centre of the Century of the Digital Enlightenment.

We are building the values of the Digital Enlightenment

If you are not using Wikipedia as a central part of your educational process, then you must change the process.

Wikipedia is the centre of scientific research and publishing in this century.

[thekohser]

Some people were blinded by the light.

Wikimania (Wikipedia) has changed my life, by "petermr"

I’ve just spent 3 hectic days at Wikimania (the world gathering of world Wikimedians) and am so overwhelmed I’m spending today getting my thoughts in order. ... Very simply:

Wikimedia is at the centre of the Century of the Digital Enlightenment.

We are building the values of the Digital Enlightenment

If you are not using Wikipedia as a central part of your educational process, then you must change the process.

Wikipedia is the centre of scientific research and publishing in this century.

And David Gerard was right there to cheer him on in the comments.

[Kelly Martin]

Anybody who believes that Wikipedia is the center of any sort of research is, at best, delusional.

[Randy from Boise]

Some people were blinded by the light.

Wikimania (Wikipedia) has changed my life, by "petermr"

I’ve just spent 3 hectic days at Wikimania (the world gathering of world Wikimedians) and am so overwhelmed I’m spending today getting my thoughts in order. ... Very simply:

Wikimedia is at the centre of the Century of the Digital Enlightenment.

We are building the values of the Digital Enlightenment

If you are not using Wikipedia as a central part of your educational process, then you must change the process.


Wikipedia is the centre of scientific research and publishing in this century.

And David Gerard was right there to cheer him on in the comments.

Oh, that's the content-mining guy: a fellow that is machine reading scientific journal pdfs, mining and assembling their data sets, and posting the stuff on Wikidata for adaptation and use by Wikipedia. His presentation at Wikimania was very interesting, I think it is on the live stream from the first day. He's got the right to speak in utopian visionary terms, I think.

RfB

[thekohser]

Oh, that's the content-mining guy: a fellow that is machine reading scientific journal pdfs, mining and assembling their data sets, and posting the stuff on Wikidata for adaptation and use by Wikipedia. His presentation at Wikimania was very interesting, I think it is on the live stream from the first day. He's got the right to speak in utopian visionary terms, I think.

RfB

His ContentMine is funded by the Shuttleworth Foundation (T-H-L). (Yes, their Wikipedia article was mostly built by single-purpose IP addresses.) In his speech, he says, "We are all now scientists. Everyone in this room is a scientist, because they have Wikipedia."

He also says that unless every bit of data is open, you cannot build on it. Then he says, "I give you my promise, I will never sell out to a non-transparent organization." Utterly failing to recognize the irony of saying that at a Wikimedia Foundation sponsored event.

[Jim]

Oh, that's the content-mining guy: a fellow that is machine reading scientific journal pdfs, mining and assembling their data sets, and posting the stuff on Wikidata for adaptation and use by Wikipedia. His presentation at Wikimania was very interesting, I think it is on the live stream from the first day. He's got the right to speak in utopian visionary terms, I think.
RfB

Here: (Start from 3:12:00) http://new.livestream.com/wikimania/friday2014

"But not, unfortunately, in his bear suit..."

Quaint Oxbridge guy with slightly eccentric style, but yes, some interesting stuff.

"We are going to change the world. We are all scientists"

He obviously lives and breathes what he does - they loved him because he is big on "Open Data".

This kind of guy is gold-dust for Jimmy, providing the academic credibility he craves, and ideal for "spiritual" conferences like this, because he talks the free-culture talk, and knows his stuff at a high technical level.

Most of these have been driven away by the ignorant teenage hooligans who run the site and think coding a crappy 20 line javascript "gadget" is IT guru level stuff.

Another good section of the kind of peers guys like this enjoy "working" with are being alienated right now by the BatProtect saga. Way to go WMF.

At wikidata he probably gets insulated from that a bit.

[Poetlister]

Further to the above discussion on economics, I note Gresham's law (T-H-L): "Bad money drives out good" and Wikipedia, being inferior but free or cheap, is driving out products that are better but more expensive.

[Hex]

Oh, that's the content-mining guy: a fellow that is machine reading scientific journal pdfs, mining and assembling their data sets, and posting the stuff on Wikidata for adaptation and use by Wikipedia. His presentation at Wikimania was very interesting, I think it is on the live stream from the first day. He's got the right to speak in utopian visionary terms, I think.

I went to a workshop about Wikidata. During it, a man from ISKO UK asked if RDF triples were involved, to which the man chairing the discussion answered "Could we avoid the acronyms please?" The man from ISKO replied "Resource Description Framework", raising his eyebrows. "I have no idea what that is," came the reply. Moments later the participants began a discussion about how Wikidata would or could identify different instances and types of things, such as a chair in the room and "a chair". At that point I walked out.

If the state of the art on Wikidata is asymptotically approaching the state of the art in Semantic Web ontology development ten years ago, we're not going to be seeing any utopian revolutions in knowledge any time soon.

[Triptych]

Hex, I saw where you said that at Wikimania people were encouraged to snap selfies of themselves while holding a stiff-backed reproduction of the famous and rights-contested black macaque photo. Others here have mentioned this phenomenon, I think it was on Saturday morning, and I also read somewhere that the supply of the stiff-backed photos was removed that afternoon.

Do you know anything more about this that you'll share with us?

[neved]

Hex, I saw where you said that at Wikimania people were encouraged to snap selfies of themselves while holding a stiff-backed reproduction of the famous and rights-contested black macaque photo. Others here have mentioned this phenomenon, I think it was on Saturday morning, and I also read somewhere that the supply of the stiff-backed photos was removed that afternoon.

Do you know anything more about this that you'll share with us?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... report.pdf

[neved]

In his speech, he says, "We are all now scientists. Everyone in this room is a scientist, because they have Wikipedia."

It is hard to imagine a more idiotic statement. It reminded to me THREE MEN IN A BOAT (to say nothing of the dog) by JEROME K. JEROME. Remember a young man read a few books on medicine and decided he suffers from practically every illness and every condition described there?

I sat and pondered. I thought what an interesting case I must be from a medical point of view, what an acquisition I should be to a class! Students would have no need to “walk the hospitals,” if they had me. I was a hospital in myself. All they need do would be to walk round me, and, after that, take their diploma.

Same here. Basically that academic is stating that students would have no need to go to libraries, to read books, to attend museums, to make their own researches, and to be able to defend their diplomas. To become a scientist it is enough to contribute to wikipedia, or maybe even just to read it. What an utter BS!

There's also another good point to be taken from the same book by Jerome K. Jerome:
a young men decided he suffers from most illnesses (that he actually did not have at all) after reading the books, which means that a layperson cannot get educated just by reading scientific books, leave alone reading wikipedia.

Another question I'd like to ask. A free education has been available in many countries for many years. Has it create more scientists? Education is a great thing, but to be a scientist one also should have a talent, and if anything wikipedia could only kill these talents.

[mac]

Hex, I saw where you said that at Wikimania people were encouraged to snap selfies of themselves while holding a stiff-backed reproduction of the famous and rights-contested black macaque photo. Others here have mentioned this phenomenon, I think it was on Saturday morning, and I also read somewhere that the supply of the stiff-backed photos was removed that afternoon.

Do you know anything more about this that you'll share with us?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... report.pdf

This link might also prove useful: https://twitter.com/search?q=%23MonkeySelfie&src=tyah&mode=photos

[EricBarbour]

I'd like to shove stroopwafels up all of em, where the Wiki don't shine. Better yet, get Fae and Russavia to do it.

[neved]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =621112307

Keep. No more offensive (indeed, a lot less offensive) than Jimbo's recent ramblings at Wikimania. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Does somebody know what "Jimbo's recent ramblings at Wikimania" Black Kite is talking about?

[Midsize Jake]

Does somebody know what "Jimbo's recent ramblings at Wikimania" Black Kite is talking about?

Given the context ("brat in a bubble" apparently is a reference to young childless white males who live in basements and make up most of the WP demographic, and who tend to act like assholes at a higher rate than, say, women), I'd say he's referring to his speech at the closing session when he essentially stated that people who produce quality content but fail to act in a civil manner while doing so should be "shown the door politely but firmly."

[Vigilant]

Does somebody know what "Jimbo's recent ramblings at Wikimania" Black Kite is talking about?

Given the context ("brat in a bubble" apparently is a reference to young childless white males who live in basements and make up most of the WP demographic, and who tend to act like assholes at a higher rate than, say, women), I'd say he's referring to his speech at the closing session when he essentially stated that people who produce quality content but fail to act in a civil manner while doing so should be "shown the door politely but firmly."

I can imagine the mumbling that Black Kite was doing during his penning of this Magnum Opus, "What? What?!?! Is he talking to MEEEE?"

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Does somebody know what "Jimbo's recent ramblings at Wikimania" Black Kite is talking about?

Given the context ("brat in a bubble" apparently is a reference to young childless white males who live in basements and make up most of the WP demographic, and who tend to act like assholes at a higher rate than, say, women)....

Warning:

Referring clueless administrator-wannabes hyperactive at ANI, as they have been trained by Worm That Turned and Demiurge1000, as "boys and young men", is a banning offense.

[Midsize Jake]

Warning:

Referring clueless administrator-wannabes hyperactive at ANI, as they have been trained by Worm That Turned and Demiurge1000, as "boys and young men", is a banning offense.

Good safety tip, but of course that's why I'm saying it, and not necessarily expecting those who actually have WP accounts to do the same.

Do you think they'll actually move to ban User:Montanabw (T-C-L) though, under these circumstances? I don't see how they can get away with it - we know her mostly as a supporter of Cymhiraeth (T-C-L) and ColonelHenry (T-C-L), both of whom are a constant danger to articles about the physical sciences, but to ban an established female user for griping about sexism and male-dominated demographics... that would be a pretty big step, PC-wise.

Also, we're getting somewhat off-topic here.

[Anthonyhcole]

EDIT: I saw where someone wrote our contributor Anthonyhcole (who is not an administrator) flew in from Australia. Maybe he'd tell us if he got compensated or if he applied to?

I am sure he can answer that. As far as I know - we met and discussed a number of things while he was here - he paid for his own flight, and stayed with family in London.

Yep. I paid my own way. I didn't apply for support.

[neved]

Also striking was in the closing speech by Jimmy, where he noted the problem of editors who contribute excellent content to Wikipedia but who have a toxic effect on the community because of their incivility. These people should be shown the door 'in a nice way' but firmly.

The crowd gradually broke into applause, turning into a thunderous ovation. Jimmy beamed.

It was like the two minute hate, really. Chilling. I did not applaud.

[edit] Oh yes, another presentation suggested the idea of a 'civility toolbox'. Containing riot shields, truncheons and tear gas, no doubt.

I am not sure if it was discussed here already, I am sorry, if it was, but I think some thoughts from this thread are rather interesting.
For example:

Looking in on Wikipedia from the semi-detached vantage point of the Island of Suppressive Persons, the more I come to believe that the only thing that can save Wikipedia now is Jimmy Wales being shown the door. It's increasingly coming to look like a religious cult in which any off-the-cuff remark of Jimbo's is treated as holy writ by some and as a declaration of war by others—this was always the case to some extent, but the shrinking and hyperspecialization of the user base has made the die-hard pros and antis for more powerful than they ever used to be. – iridescent 2 16:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It's taken you this long to come to the conclusion that Brandon Harris is a completely self-centred nutcase? "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. What a powerful idea that is. The Mission (and I always capitalize it) is what's important here. We are here to educate, to open minds, to make the world a better place. I believe in this so much that I had it tattooed on my arm" didn't do it for you? (And, who could the WMF possibly have had in mind here?) – iridescent 2 16:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I also like this

(Jimbo:)
As of course I do not worry that some content must be found,
I've got a little list — I've got a little list
Of civility offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
There's the pestilential nuisances though content they may write —
Say all sort of naughty words, and who just may who knows be tight
But at peer review do dominate, though saying words like "twat"—
And get articles through FAC, and little things like that —
But in spite of all of this, to say “fuck” they do insist —
They'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed!

(Chorus of WMF sycophants:)
He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed.

(Jimbo:)
And although I don't write content, and could sink without a trace,
At least this is the gist — Put Eric on the list!
He's of course a bit annoying, and can get some in your face,
He never would be missed — he never would be missed!
In my speech I've just applauded, with enthusiastic tone,
How the 'pedia is trusted, in every country, and my own;
Though it oddly has escaped me, to ask the question "Why,
Is it that they trust articles, and rate them rather high?";
It's that singular anomaly, the content specialist! —
Somehow he won't be missed — I'm sure he'd not be missed!

(Chorus:)
He's got him on the list — he's got him on the list;
And I don't think he'll be missed — I'm sure he'll not be missed!

(Jimbo:)
To get articles deleted, like the one about my wife,
I try and do insist — I've got that on the list!
All funny fellows, content men, who have a little strife —
I've got them on the list — they'd none of 'em be missed.
And although I make a living with "God-King" speeches to the folk,
I won't let others earn a farthing, for unpaid must be the Volk.
Wikipedia is trusted, though sometimes when I feel blue —
I realise that others say, "It's not because of you!"
So I think it doesn't matter who you put upon the list,
For they'd none of 'em be missed — no one knows that they exist!

(Chorus:)
You may put 'em on the list — you may put 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — for none of them exist!

[neved]

I had an odd sort of respect for Jimbo who shambled on at the closing ceremony looking like he had just got out of bed, in pajamas. I wonder if that was for effect.

I do not. How one could have any, even odd sort of respect, to the self-proclaimed wikipedia founder, who looks like this
at the closing ceremony of such big event (for them) as wikimania?
I mean I am not saying he should have been dressed in some expensive clothing, but I believe dressing like that demonstrated disrespect to others. He often calls himself "constitutional monarch" he likes to compare himself to the Queen. Have you ever seen the Queen dressed like that?

[The Adversary]

This is how Jimbo looked at his wedding in 2012, quite a difference, no?

Whatever English diet he has been having these last two years: it does not look healthy.

[sparkzilla]

Beer Belly (T-H-L) Replace with the above pic.

[Tippi Hadron]

This is how Jimbo looked at his wedding in 2012, quite a difference, no?

That page links to this topical beauty by The Telegraph's Chief Reporter Robert Mendick: "Tony Blair gives Kazakhstan’s autocratic president tips on how to defend a massacre."

Tony Blair gave Kazakhstan’s autocratic president advice on how to manage his image after the slaughter of unarmed civilians protesting against his regime.

In a letter to Nursultan Nazarbayev, obtained by The Telegraph, Mr Blair told the Kazakh president that the deaths of 14 protesters “tragic though they were, should not obscure the enormous progress” his country had made.

Mr Blair, who is paid millions of pounds a year to give advice to Mr Nazarbayev, goes on to suggest key passages to insert into a speech the president was giving at the University of Cambridge, to defend the action.

Remember, it was Telegraph correspondent Christopher Williams who first reported on Jimmy Wales' wikilove for the Kazakh Wikipedia, his wikifriendship with Mr Blair and his wikibanning of a certain smart and photogenic critic from his wiki talk page. That worked out so well for Wales, didn't it?


See also
http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/12/23/ji ... tor-and-i/
viewtopic.php?p=26199#p26199

[Peter Damian]

I had an odd sort of respect for Jimbo who shambled on at the closing ceremony looking like he had just got out of bed, in pajamas. I wonder if that was for effect.

I do not. How one could have any, even odd sort of respect, to the self-proclaimed wikipedia founder, who looks like this [images] at the closing ceremony of such big event (for them) as wikimania?
I mean I am not saying he should have been dressed in some expensive clothing, but I believe dressing like that demonstrated disrespect to others. He often calls himself "constitutional monarch" he likes to compare himself to the Queen. Have you ever seen the Queen dressed like that?

I was impressed by the contrast between his appearance, and that of Lila's entourage and the WMF senior people, who were all expensively dressed, e.g. Gayle Karen Young.



There was also that slightly fussy, almost precious air of importance surrounding these people, all of them except Jimmy. Perhaps he was recalling the days when they met at a youth hostel in Germany and when there weren't expensive drinks receptions and meetings at high end restaurants and all that sort of stuff

[Tippi Hadron]

Yes, by all means, let's make this all about appearances.

Points for spotting the handsome WO moderator in that picture. Clad in his usual attire of black t-shirt and black jeans. Somebody call the fashion police.

[The Adversary]

Yes, by all means, let's make this all about appearances.

Points for spotting the handsome WO moderator in that picture. Clad in his usual attire of black t-shirt and black jeans. Somebody call the fashion police.

Top left-hand corner, at the outskirt of the crowd.

...and it is not so much Jimbos appearance which I noted, but the change in them.

By the way, Jimbo never went to Kazakstan, did he? And I bet nobody asked him why during Wikimania?