User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III.
Any sections older than 2 days are automatically archived here. An archive index is available here.
Archive
Archives

Undated
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Press screenings of upcoming films

Jimbo, I hve question. I work for a market research company that conducts screenings of films prior to their release, and naturally, I have the opportunity to see films in this manner now and again. Yesterday, I attended a press screening of The Incredible Hulk, and added the plot synopsis to the article, feeling that the movie was the source I was citing. I'm an editor and administrator in good standing, and I think that should go to Good Faith reliability that the source is valid, since it's coming out in a week. I had a feeling someone might revert it, and sure enough, someone did, saying that the movie isn't out yet. Do I really have to wait until the 13th to add the information from the source I indeed viewed? Are press screenings not valid? What about midnight showings of films that occur prior to the day of release? While I wouldn't cite a research screening, since those are held months or years before release, and the film is still considered a work in progress at that point, and subject to change, press screenings are presentations of the final product to the press, and are common in big cities (I live near Manhattan). At what point is it considered believable that I saw the film in question? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you are an expert with a conflict of interest (your job depends on communicating information about movies) doing original research. I should ban you right now. - Fawn Lake (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC) (joking, of course)
Adding information that can not currently be verified from a published reliable source is a violation of the WP:V policy. After the movie is available to millions at the price of a ticket, it is considered "published". But it is also a primary source, and must only be used for obvious claims and not for original research. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is an interesting and important question. I do agree with WAS, and I fear that much of what we have in some categories (episodes of series) veers very very far into original research. But a basic plot synopsis should not be problematic. So then we are only left with WP:V issues. And I don't know where the cutoff should be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Rarely is any film shown for the first time at pre-premiere press screenings; there are almost always film festival screenings, even for Hollywood films. So there should be something from a festival catalog or festival press coverage to cite. (Films that debut at festivals have their publicists ask for "capsule" reviews, and to hold full reviews for theatrical premiere). Additionally, for theatrical release press screenings, there should be press releases and presskits that have a plot synopsis to cite. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There were no press kits that I was aware of at the screening. If there were, I didn't not see or receive any, since I'm not a member of the press. I was a guest of the market research company that the studios (in this case, Universal) hires to arrange the screening, and to recruit citizens to fill seats. Moreover, the synopsis I wrote has a bit more detail in it than would be found in a press kit. So should I restore the material, or not? Nightscream (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy is reasonably clear: if you cannot cite reliable sources that others can check, then the material is OR, and not appropriate for an article. Your word, my word, even Mr. Wales's word, in and of itself, is not a reliable source. In short, "no, not yet". ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll wait until the 13th. Nightscream (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Does Nightscream's market research company not have signed non-disclosure agreements with its client companies? -- Fawn Lake (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In the first place, the screening wasn't conducted by the company I work for; it was arranged by one of our competitors. Because I'm friendly with the recruiters from that other company, I managed to get them to allow me to attend. While there is probably some type of nondisclosure understanding, implicit or explicit, no one can prevent a civilian respondent attending a screening from revealing anything in the film, and I was attending the film in that capacity. They even stopped having the respondents sign such cards stating as much years ago. Second, nondisclosure is more important when a film is in the research stage. Research screenings are held months or years before a film comes out, the film is still a work-in-progress, the respondents are given questionnaires regarding their reaction, and the final cut is determined in part by this. This was a press screening, in which the final cut has been determined, there are no questionnaires, and the film is screened for the press just prior to release so they can write their reviews. So my describing the plot in Wikipedia, with only minimal details, a week before release, would hardly trouble anyone at Universal or the m.r. company in question. Nightscream (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to consider posting reviews of movies at our sister project http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page. They allow original research. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Nightscream, your story still sounds amiss. So, this competitor market research company was somehow engaged to facilitate the press screening? What kind of market research company (supposed to be neutral, unbiased) also engages in promotion and public relations (by definition, non-neutral and biased)? It just sounds like you're acting unprofessionally, to assume that what you're doing would "hardly trouble anyone" who has put millions of dollars behind the product. Were the members of the press in attendance asked to embargo their stories until the day of the release? If so, you jumping the gun on Wikipedia is just unethical. -- Fawn Lake (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The material in question was not a review, WAS. It was a plot synopsis, as I made clear above, and as can be seen by clicking on the relevant version. While I have posted my personal reviews on my MySpace page and Nitcentral.com, I don't know how to go about doing so on Wikinews, as a search for "Incredible Hulk (film)" turned up no results, and I'm not that familiar with contributing to that sister project.

2. The company in question does not handle promotion or public relations, and I never indicated that it did. It simply recruits civilian respondents to fill seats at research and press screenings. At research screenings, they're recruited in order to give the studio/producers/director pre-release feedback that can affect the final cut or some aspect of their approach to marketing it. This is market research, not public relations or promotion, because market research is conducted privately and quietly, before a final product is decided, and is therefore the opposite of "public". At press screenings, they're recruited because the press likes to see the film in a "natural movie setting" in order to see how the public sitting around them reacts to the film, as this is something that critics like to factor into or mention in their reviews. While I would not add a plot synopsis when a film is still in the research stage, I see nothing unprofessional about describing the plot within a week of release if I was one of the guests viewing it at a press screening. The only considerations would be spoilers (now a moot point, since Wikipedia itself did away with spoiler warnings some time ago on the grounds that readers can gauge for themselves the danger of reading a spoiler), and verifiability, for which I acquiesced to Jimbo and WAS's admonitions above. As for critics, I know of no practice of "embargoes", but keep in mind that critics write reviews, not plot descriptions in encyclopedias. I very much doubt that studios want them to hold off publishing their reviews, especially if they're positive, since the studios want such publicity. Nightscream (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

1: You said "The material in question was not a review, WAS. It was a plot synopsis [...] and I'm not that familiar with contributing to that sister project.'" I know. I was suggesting that you do something different. Sometimes that requires learning something new.
2: The people giving you money are promoting the film, whether you know it or not, and whether that was a part of what they said they paid you for or not. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fawn Lake is banned user User:MyWikiBiz. DNFTT. PouponOnToast (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence, Poupon? As for Nightscream, thank you for your added clarifications above. - Fawn Lake (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Okay, thanks, but I'm not interested in expanding my Wiki activities at this time. I just recently began uploading files to the Commons, and I think that's enough for now. I already posted my review on my MySpace page and at nitcentral.com. If you want to read it, it's here. Spoiler warning bookends are placed around any spoilers, and are formatted to be hidden unless you highlight them.

2. The people who fill the press screening with non-press (what I understand you meant by "promoting the film") are not "giving me money", and have never "paid" me for anything. I do not work for them, and never have, as was made clear in two different posts above. Nightscream (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No big deal?

I'm sure you remember your "Sysop is no big deal" remark. It's often quoted on User pages (usually admin's) and it's a nice, refreshing idea. That's what the Wiki community should be like. I came across that quote a while ago, after reading some requests for adminship. The gap between theory and Real Life could hardly be bigger.

As far as I can see RfA requests have turned into an exam where candidates have to answer numerous questions and where their edit histories are scrutinized as if we're nominating a Supreme Court justice[1]. In my opinion the general atmosphere there is elitist and slightly arrogant, and some of the stuff the candidates are asked to go through borders on the ridiculous [2]. And then candidates still fail because 67 "yes" votes against 28 "no" is not enough [3]. That's "no big deal" in action?

In the same quote you say you sometimes consider giving out admin rights semi-random, just to make the point. As far as I know you haven't done that yet. If that's the case, may I suggest that you do it? Just to balance things a bit?

No, I haven't had an RfA fail and no, this isn't some sort of revenge against admins (some of my best Wiki-friends... etc). I honestly believe the RfA proces is turning into a monster and I'd like to know what you think about it. Kind regards,  Channel ®   14:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to observe how the process has evolved since this, which is around 4 months after the "no big deal" comment.
Regarding my view, I think of Wikipedia as the tree of knowledge - in a garden where all its visitors are entitled to be gardeners. Thus administrators are not janitors but groundskeepers, that's all. They just have a slightly bigger toolbox. Being a sysop is surely only a big deal to the extent that one is responsible. Should it be decided that someone might capably and trustworthily carry the keys to the proverbial bigger garden shed, then per no big deal, anything that helps hand them over as undramatically and smoothly as possible is a good thing in my book.
I have never participated in RfA more than commenting on someone's candidacy. I understand the above editor's sentiment but I don't think we can inherently label it a hoop jumping process, even if it might feel like it. If it can be improved, great, but we must realise that Wikipedians ultimately want good administrators and recognize and respect the community's wish to choose them discerningly and carefully. I agree that such methods should always be proportionate, but I'd wager that this will always be the evolving lynchpin in the process. Those are my musings anyway. Regards from WilliamH (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be pretty helpful if you could go to WT:RFA and clarify your thoughts on the process now, so your "no big deal" statement will be cited the way you intended it to (however that is).--Koji†Dude (C) 17:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think a few 'crats should "Be Bold" and go and give a few hundred rollbackers that they know personally adminship without discussion. That out to teach us that it is no big deal. (note this is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point because they are following Jimbo's command "no big deal".) Zginder 2008-06-07T18:05Z (UTC)
Not entirely without discussion! You would have to get the permission from the user involved first, as not everybody wishes to be an admin. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"command"?--Koji†Dude (C) 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Fellow editors, it has long been my view that the remark, made (as noted above) when Wikipedia was in its infancy, needs to be better interpreted than we sometime see.
  • Being an admin is no big deal - i.e. bragging about it is hardly likely to win you friends down the pub.
  • The actual admin tools, however, are a big deal, as the technical ability to replace the main page of the 7th/8th most popular website in the world with a giant phallus is not handed out lightly.
However it would be nice for Jimbo to actually state this (or state this assesment of mine is utter tripe) due to the repeated valueless discussion the quote has generated. Pedro :  Chat  21:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • With all due respect to Mr. Wales, once the community feels adminship is a big deal, the fact is that it's a big deal.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
To Pedro: Thanks for calling my question (and other people's contributions) valueless. Very kind, much appreciated.  Channel ®   21:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you missed Pedro's point. He was agreeing with you that the quote has to be re-visited by Jimbo. By "valueless discussion" he meant the times it has been used as an argument in RfA.--Koji†Dude (C) 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Koji, that was exactly what I meant. Channel R, my apologies that evidently my remark was not couched correcly and seemed offensive - it was not your comment that was without value - indeed a clarification of the "No Big Deal" comment is long overdue and I thank you for this thread. I was referencing the many, many times the quote has been ill-used (IMHO) at WP:RFA and WT:RFA and the debates that inevitably follow. Again, my apologies for presenting my input in a way that you took offence from. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[Hitting the strike-through button] Thanks for the explanation, both of you, and sorry for misunderstanding. I must admit I'm a little touchy when it comes to this subject so I guess I jumped to conclusions. Apologies from this side too.  Channel ®   21:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The advantage of the current system is that people have to be pretty motivated to want to become an admin, and random giving it out to "trusted" users would not, IMO, be in any way a good idea. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a bigger deal than it used to be. That has some good points and some bad points. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Certainly the ethos of the RfA process has changed even in my short time here; on the one hand it could be argued that these things move in cycles abone an underlying trend and it certainly isn't easy to analyse the process; on the other hand you could go by impressionistic evidence and claim that RfA is more political than it used to be (and I can't say that); that it's tougher than it used to be (and I could, given time, support that); that it's more of a beauty contest than it used to be (in the sense that you have to tick the right boxes, and if you miss a few with the wrong people, you are doomed); that it's harder to rebound from one error of judgement in that context, since all your conduct is under the microscope, etc. All in all, I would not be happy going through the process again right now, and I know great editors with the proper attitude and capacity for judgement who would make great Admins, but don't want the stress of the process itself or what might follow a successful RfA. That's a great loss of talent to the project. We are incorrectly seen by some as whippers, and by others as whipping-boys. I have no idea at present how and in what direction this should progress, but I think it should be looked at. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 00:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, realizing that you want to avoid giving a statement that people start taking as the new law "because Jimbo said...", your original statement has taken on a life entirely of its own over at RfA. I think everyone has qouted it at least once in some context (which is probably a little spooky). Bearing this in mind, the RfA process would probably benefit greatly if you could just give it a look, and make your opinion of it known. Something as basic as "this seems really dumb" or "eh, this doesn't bother me" would do. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Poor Jimbo "Brian" Wales. Jimbo has said "Don't use that I said something as an argument." Wikipedians chant in unison, "Write that down, we must use that as an argument." The Lord's Prayer in the New Testament is the most ironic example I know of that illustrates the human desire to be told what to do (so long as they are not being told to think for themselves). The disciples want to know how to pray. Jesus says don't just repeat words like a magic incantation or formula. They say well give us an example. Jesus does. Now that example is repeated like a magic incantation or formula. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
We're on the same page WAS. The problem is that this is exactly what has happened already. The People's Liberation Front of Big Deal is fighting the No Big Deal Liberation Front. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It is my humble opinion that anyone who doesn't think that being an admin is a big deal, doesn't truly understand what they do. The admins have a lot of tools and access that can do a lot of good or harm depending on how they are used. I understand the work they do and I still failed my RFA. I think that the comment that Jimbo made is OBE and should be revised if not overwritten (no offense Jimbo). With that said I do think that the current RFA process needs to be seriously reviewed and replaced with a better, less arbitrary one. It is also my personal opinion that not everyone who wishes to do administrative tasks need be an administrator. I believe a lot of good would come form unbundling the admin package and allowing experienced users to request those tools rather than the mop as a whole. It worked for rollback and didn't cause the mass chaos that was feared I believe it will work here too. Additionally, as wikipedia grows you should have different tools available to different users who intend to perform only specific tasks. This will also relieve some of the burden from the admins. Just me 2 cents.--Kumioko (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks man

Your the BEST website creator hit me on my talk page User: SPBLU

[edit] Economist

I see that The Economist knows you exist. But they think you made your money from Bomis. Are they confused or am I? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume this http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11484062 is the article in The Economist. 63.3.15.1 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The Economist is confused on that point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What do you think of this picture (the left one) compared to the current one (the right one) on your user page?

LiteralKa (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this one captures his personality more:
Looks just like him.--Koji†Dude (C) 01:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm serious LiteralKa (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I have never liked the one on the left, but it is popular in Asia for some reason. The one on the right captures my personality more, I think.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think that the colors, and the rounded edges on the left one look amazing; And without the "O Wiki" caption, it would be serious too! LiteralKa (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
...So that's a no on the Chuck Norris idea, then?--Koji†Dude (C) 01:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Apparently it's a no according to BJBot. BradV 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The one on the left is more popular in Asia because you're wearing a blazer. Seriously. If you'd like to know the reason, I'll try to explain Asian culture to you as much as I understand it, from having lived over here for over seven total years. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Does it have something to do with authority? I'm an Asian, but the only thing I fancy wearing is a longcoat.
I think the right picture looks better; that "O WIKI?" text on the left image puts me off completely. In addition, Uncyclopedia seems to like using that image as well. I mean, just look at this... -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's got a gun?

Hi Jimbo,

So for whatever reason I just got it in my head to take a trip back in time and look at your earliest contributions and, well...is there something you want to tell us? =) --jonny-mt 15:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Jimbo used to work articles! Jon513 (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Tells me that if 5 monkeys can create an encyclopedia, then 1,000,005 can create quite a good encyclopedia.  :-) 63.3.15.1 (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
So Jimbo, why don't you just take a day or week to chill and edit some articles? ;-) CWii(Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
After the Mzoli's farce who could blame him for not doing so, and besides the point of wikipedia is to get the rest of us to edit or play other roles (administrate etc) in creating this project. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HumanBeigns

I am sorry if (on that wiki) my comments seem bad, however are you a member of this wiki. Is a vandal pretending to be you? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not him. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. --StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey dude

Man, I cant believe you founded this joint. So you would know some pointers. What should I get involved with so that I am ready for a RFA.Gears Of War 13:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you get an admin coach. I am not advertising, but you may have a better chance if you sign up to other wikis (or have you?) StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks I've already gotten some advice if you want to add more advice do so or copy the old one you just posted here.Gears Of War 17:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Work on other wikis is not a factor of consideration for becoming administrators here. This is especially true of some of the "nonsense" wikis that are cropping up a lot lately. Metros (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Being an admin on another wiki will not help you become an admin on Wikipedia. No wiki can help you become an admin in particular on wikipedia. If you are an admin on another wiki, the only thing that you will learn is the buttons. But do you know who to use them properly in wikipedia related tasks if your an admin on another wiki? No, not at all. -- RyRy5 (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)