User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 37
| Archive 38 →


Contents

Good Evening...

...or morning, depending on when (or if) you read this. Just wanted to say hello to you (and every other editor who has this page watchlisted.) - Hello *waves*. Thank god for wikipedia, or I would have nothing to do when work gets slow... ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Work is still slow, well, i just can't decide whether i want to serve the person waiting, or leave it to my colleague. So instead I thought i would give you my newly created award:
The WikiHaggis
I hereby award you the WikiHaggis! This means you are slightly nutty, sorta spicy, and maybe resemble stuffed pig intestines.

Pass this WikiHaggis on by putting {{subst:WikiHaggis}} on someones talk page!
← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Imagine a world

FYI: That stupid old quote of yours is now being translated to Aramaic (Assyrian), currently the 174th biggest language of Wikipedia, see User talk:Chaldean#Re: Translation. --LA2 (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of user discussion page

To All: Please note that this discussion page is meant for suggestion and discussion of improvements that can be made to Jimbo and not to crazy people (or at least crazy people not named Jimbo). --Lemmey talk 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There I've made him bold. Thats better. --Lemmey talk 22:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was the initial reason for the page. Now it's more of a beehive for crabby IP's and trolls. What a shame. :-( --Koji†Dude (C) 23:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It has always been a bit of a circus here. I sort of enjoy it. :) And there is often useful stuff in amongst the weirdness. And a lot of nice people!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
True-er words were never said - and I have to add that I find it problematic that intelligent people like Seth can't seem to accept that people can do things partly because it benefits all mankind and partly because it benefits oneself. Really Seth, must morality be binary? You are smart enough to see that reality is not black and white. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
AHEM!AHEM!AHEM! ... I hate to pull rank, but after more than a decade of involvement in Internet freedom-fighting, which cost me a small fortune and many other personal sacrifices, please consider that I do indeed have a well-formed basis for my views. That is, it's not that I don't understand, but rather that I understand all too well. I'm somewhat constrained from going further, as Jimmy Wales has raised certain concerns, and I've elected not to push the matter too much. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Unquestionably this is one of the most useful pages on wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Seth, you are not pulling rank; you are merely offering evidence of your bona fides. If you did that more often, we could call it promotion (a necessary task in capitalism). If you then combined that with a few interesting speeches on freedom (a crowd pleaser in America); instead of costing you money, you could be making money. Doing well by doing good. Why don't you see if Jimbo can hook you up with some friends of his and you can help provide additional leadership to the free culture movement? WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm admittedly bad at promotion, which is a problem. I did try the leadership route, e.g. see speech on freedom. Unfortunately, by itself, that doesn't pay the rent, buy the food, or get health insurance. It didn't work for me. More deeply, I've ranged myself thoroughly against the way of making money by constructing data-mining systems where a tiny, tiny, elite at the top makes out like bandits while everyone else gets nothing (if nothing else, my sense is that I'm a lot more likely to end up as one of the masses of unpaid laborers who get nothing, rather than as one of the fortunate few). To walk a fine line replying here, while maintaining respect for Jimbo's sensibilities about this page, I suspect he and I don't have much mutual business overlap. However, I want to make the point that I been extensively involved in netroots issues (anti-censorship, software freedom, even changing the world) for many many years, and what I say is in fact from a longstanding cultural "insider" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, each to his own. Not every one is cut out to be a free-content rock star. For myself, I like being able to walk down the street and not be bothered by anyone; or dump a girlfriend and not have it make the news. Anyway, for what its worth, I hold you in high regard, Seth. Cheers. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Imagine A World, In which every...

Hi. I am the host of the new Radio Wikipedia, a community news radio broadcast. I was wondering whether I could use your voice saying "Imagine a world in which...", in a broadcast. Could I take it from one of your videos. I would like to have an appeal for donations at the end. StewieGriffin! • Talk 12:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. StewieGriffin! • Talk 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC) You are the best.

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
You are the creator of Wikipedia a.k.a. my life. Thank You.RETIRED 20:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

LoJack content dispue and social (ir)responsibility

If you don't mind, please look at the following content dispute (all related):

Thank you. Finell (Talk) 22:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted in the AN/I thread. While I have no particular opinion on this specific case, I did want to back you up on the general form of argument: it is valid to take into account things like public safety when working on editorial judgments about what goes into Wikipedia, and simply saying "Wikipedia is not censored" really misses the point. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I hope my comments are helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Finell (Talk) 23:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The generic blanket statement that many editors use, citing Wikipedia rules, that "Wikipedia is not censored," is obviously not completely true. Wikipedia cannot publish content that violates the law. Such is not the case here, though. Wikipedia editors typically debate issues such as verifiability, notability, and neutral point of view, and possibly legality. That is, is there a reliable reference, is the information important, is there an agenda being pushed, and does publishing the information violate the law. The editors in this case have not made any such challenge. They have merely made the "what if" argument. Free speech and free press require a "clear and present danger" of harm to individuals in order to be restricted, for example "yelling fire in a crowded theater", or committing libel or slander. The challengers would have a very difficult time making that kind of argument, given that the information is already widely available. So if they want to fight the information, they need to offer a challenge that involves other grounds such as I've mentioned here: verifiability, notability, and neutrality. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Then you disagree with Mr. Wales, which is your right to do. In the United States (but not in GB or Continental Europe), based on the freedom of speech and freedom of press clauses in our First Amendment, government may not prevent others from publishing anything except in case a of a clear and present danger or a few other, narrow exceptions. But as Wikipedia editors, we can and should take other factors into consideration, such as social responsibility, decency, and good taste, in exercising editorial judgment over what we ourselves choose to publish. Wikipedia's standard is not and should not be, we publish it unless the government stops us or unless we are sued. This principle is broader and more important than the particular dispute about the LoJack article. Wales concluded, "You can't simply dismiss concerns about ethics by saying "Wikipedia is not censored" and "Talk to the legal department". We are better than that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)" Some editors, apparently, do not want to be "better than that." Please re-read what Mr. Wales said above and at WP:ANI. Then please tell us if his position, like mine, is "bogus" (to use your word). Finell (Talk) 06:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No, he's right. But since the information is widely and routinely available (e.g. at the Radio Shack stores), none of the factors that he lists apply in this case. Feel free to argue about notability or neutrality, though. Preferably on the article's talk page, as it's getting hard to follow the various places you've posted this complaint. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 : - )

Hello everybody! Hope y'all are having a good day : - ) 24.184.46.196 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I initially reverted the above. That's up to this page's user to decide. Sorry. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Either way.  :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thread involving your userpage on ANI

Hello Jimbo.
I just wanted ask for your input on this thread. Considering that it is your userpage, your opinion would greatly appreciated.
Cheers!
J.delanoygabsanalyze 23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, on AN/I you say "The real issue is with the violation of NPOV all over Wikipedia due to POV pushing in article space. Of course, harassing another user (even me) is a blockable offense, but whatever, I am a pretty easy going guy, so I would recommend that everyone just relax. :-) The best response to this is to fix the neutrality problem in Wikipedia." which I agree with 100% as I'm sure every good-faith contributor to wiki does. But can't you see that's exactly what some people may see as a problem is with your userpage? If you are an easy-going guy, which I think you are, couldn't you just change the wording a tiny bit so everyone is happy and it adheres with what most WP:RS say? No offence meant or anything like that, and I hope I don't get reverted by anyone watching this page as 'trolling' as that is not my intent, and I expect you to respond amicably to my comment, as that's the kind of person you are.:) Sticky Parkin 02:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to apologize for not letting you know. I deserve to leave Wikipedia Forever. *Imagine a giant ogre with blonde hair getting ready to cry with his arm over his eyes* Away I go. Well not really. But again sorry. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A letter to Mr. Wales, saying thank you

Mr. Wales,

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for founding Wikipedia. I am enjoying myself immensely. I think I should clue you in to what it has done for me, and let you know why I should write to you. I am not ostentatious; in a crowded room I'm the person who sticks to the back in near-darkness. I prefer to watch people. It sounds creepy, but it's what I like to do. You can call it shy or socially inept, but it is the same. Every once in a while, though, I approach someone to thank him or her for doing something I admire.

Wikipedia gives me an opportunity to express my intense interests though I am no authority on them. I have so far written six Featured Articles and few Good Articles on topics that move me. I'm on my way to writing more. Most of the subjects of articles I have written are ones for which I have also stepped out of the dark corner to say thank you, if possible. These are not mere fleeting interests, these topics. The subject of my first edit and my first Featured Article, Ann Bannon, is now a personal friend of mine (I'm stupefied). Barbara Gittings' surviving partner and I have a correspondence. I wrote to Harper Lee when I wrote the article for To Kill a Mockingbird, though I knew she would not write me back. If I could find an address to write to David Lynch for making Mulholland Dr., I would. It's something I believe in: telling someone you appreciate what they have done, even if if comes from a complete stranger. It's good energy that should be shared.

Today I visited your user page for the first time. I don't know why I hadn't before. I also don't know why I haven't written to you. But what you have created is more than code. I'm sometimes overwhelmed that someone who is completely plain and unremarkable such as I am, shapes knowledge that is read by millions. So—thank you for making this outlet for my personal passions, and for giving me the opportunity to be a better writer.

Sincerely,

Moni3 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


hi there Jimmy Wales

I'm the so-called troll who beens vandalising your page. Firstly I would like to apologise for calling you a hypocrite, that was uncalled for, secondly I wanted to let you know that I love Wikipedia I believe in Wikipedia and I believe in you, as the de facto leader of wikipedia do the right thing aknowledge larry sanger or make A compromise. :)Wannabe Wiki (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wannabe Wiki (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Stepping away

To Mr. Wales,

I grow tired as I write this, so I'll be brief. I am stepping away from Wikipedia, at least for a time. I have a logjam of final work to do for college before the term ends in July. And I notice I have been less and less well, more eaisily tired as of late. Perhaps it's stress. But in short, I have resigned from editing, at least for now. I'll return in time, likely when summer break is finally come. Until then, God Bless you brother. ForeverSearching (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ForeverSearching is a suspected sock puppet of ESCStudent774441, and has been blocked indefinitely. -- Fawn Lake (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at this

Wikipedia:Retitling of positions--Serviam (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as the drawbacks go I think we'll be ok now that Germany has been accepted to the european union. Would this mean that each of the projects would now be a sort of city/state?--Kumioko (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo

Hi my name is wikieditor222 and I am a big fan of you. do you think i could make you a custom sig.SexySeaClownfish 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

here is the sig. tell me if you like it.JimboWales

Here's the link:[[User:Jimbo Wales|<b style="background:gold;color:silver">Jimbo</b>]][[User talk:Jimbo Wales|<b style="background:silver;color:gold">Wales</b>]] .SexySeaClownfish 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I like to try to leave everything set to the default. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

where is the policy on deliberately divulging others' personal information?

  • where is the policy on deliberately divulging others' personal information on Wikipedia via email, in conversation with and about other Wikipedians? If there isn't a policy against it, there certainly should be. It... is disgusting. Potentially dangerous. Possibly illegal? I can't say. It is the lowest of the low. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:Oversight<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Mmm. doesn't look the same. That talks about *removing* the info. I mean, where is the policy that forbids it? Plus i corrected my question above. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
There isn't one. And realistically, it could only be enforced on-wiki, if at that. The huge number of Wikipedia editors who provide their own personal information on and off the site (whether deliberately or without thinking about it) would make it impossible to enforce. Remember that, except for oversighted information (which must meet a certain level of privacy violation), anything written here is retained. See this essay for further thoughts. Risker (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
But think, then. Imagine you have reason to want to hide your private info. Then imagine you and I become great and good friends, and you share that info with me privately. Then we have a falling out, and i email-spam everyone I know and say user:Risker is really Phyllis Diller and lives at 123 Elm Street!! There should be on-wiki consequences, such as desysopping without need for process, and banning non-sysops from ever becoming a sysop anywhere on Wikipeida, Wikiquotes, Wikimedia, wiki-anything. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Erm, User:Dihydrogen Monoxide? :(<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Of course. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • sigh* If you really want to get more opinions/policy notes, I suggest take it to WP:AN/I or the sort instead of Jimbo's talk page. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question, Ling.nut, is don't share the information in the first place. Period. I've been here for a long time, I communicate with many Wikipedians, and only two know my first name. None know my surname or the name of the place where I live. Real world 101 says the only way to keep a secret between two people is if one of them is dead, to quote an old aphorism. Don't use an email address that contains your name. Don't use your business email address. Don't put userboxen on your page that point people to your personal information. Don't upload your photograph. Really...the answer to how to protect one's privacy is exactly the same on Wikipedia as it is in the rest of the world. Risker (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course that's true, but where are the consequences if that does happen? I copied this thread over to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard Ling.Nut (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Aside from some social ostracism, probably none. People are personally responsible for what information they choose to share about themselves. This is the internet, the electronic equivalent of the Wild West. Very few of us know each other as complete human beings, we know each other as keystrokes on a screen revealing only what we choose to reveal. I urge you to sit down and really think about this. Risker (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." (Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment, see that policy page for context). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"particularly severely."... And yet I have admins telling me I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You are. It does not apply to information voluntarily given out. Risker (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To make things easier and out of respect for the user's talk page, can the discussions be held at WP:AN?<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. Permission was not given for the info to be broadcasted. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess not. What's the purpose of the AN thread? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent). Ummm, my last comment meant, "I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill. permission was not given for the editor's personal info to be broadcasted by the second party" Ling.Nut (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC) I understand, but this is a User's Talk Page. There is already a thread at WP:AN, I think any subsequent comments should be made there, that is all. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to report that I do not know the specifics of the case in question at all. So I can only offer some general thoughts. I think that good judgment should be used and that in general it is wrong to broadcast people's personal information without their permission, whether it was given our voluntarily or not. Having said that, it is also important to realize that some people will violate personal trust and so it is also wise to not give out personal information in the first place. Context matters, and I think there is no easy rule. Efforts to treat others with dignity and respect, even when there has been a conflict, is always admirable.
I agree with Tinkleheimer that other than asking me for some general thoughts (which I have given and I am happy to elaborate upon if anyone asks), this is not the best place for this discussion. If this is about a live dispute, it should move forward in the dispute resolution process. If this is a question of changing current policy, well, I am not about to intervene and change policy unilaterally, so that, too, should go through the usual process. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

lack of clarity is a ticking bomb

To answer the original question, I don't think this is that complicated. Violating someone's trust, such as disclosing the private information, is the matter primarily of ethics, not policies. It is not, and has not become, a matter of policy for the same reason as the rules of ethics do not make it into laws, such as criminal or administrative codes, at least not directly.

Someone guilty of unethical conduct usually faces the ostracizing in the society and loss of trust of his peers but usually not direct legal consequences.

In some cases, the trust violation can bring real life consequences and the victim can pursue the grievances in RL courts of law. I can imagine that this may be possible if the person suffers a demonstrable damage by having his/her info whose privacy s/he could reasonably expect under circumstances violated.

If this is done by a Wikipedia editor (or even an admin) the Wikipedia or the WMF do not fit into all this. By far more important is taking the precaution that such info is not disseminated by the person acting on the foundation's behalf, that is by arbitrators, checkusers and whoever has access to the info protected by the legally binding privacy policy.

The (possibly deliberate) opacity of who has the checkuser access and the rules of handling such info is a ticking bomb. To this day there is no (that I am aware) document that Checkusers have to sign where their responsibilities as well as consequences of violating them are outlined. To this day, the process of giving the checkuser access remains murky. To this day, there is no even clarity on whether the checkuser is the policy issue, ArbCom issue or a foundation issue. It is made look like it is a little bit of all three and there is no way that I am alone in recognizing the grave dangers of this situation.

As for the original question and the incident that prompted it, violation of trust by the RfAdm candidate was an ethical issue, not a policy one. --Irpen 16:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability question for you

After participating in an Afd I was curious if this deletion follows some notability guideline. While it is an older edit; and being a non-admin I can't see the original article, I can't find anything that says "high school athletic conferences are not notable". I know many editors watch this page, so if anyone knows where the guideline is at please jump right in! Thanks for your time. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No clue. In general, though, I would guess that such information can not be verified or confirmed by other editors and should therefore be omitted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

IRC

IRC, w00t!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reason why IRC is w00t?! /me thinks I'm missing an IRC joke ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 02:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he was identifying himself on IRC for me (Warpath), too many fake Jimbo's around :P .....--Cometstyles 02:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia

I think that for starting wikipedia, you deserve a cookie. It's the least I can do.

Candleguy1994 (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, coookie! Me like cookie!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! Is it a cookie!? Oh my goodness... Raymond "Giggs" Ko 06:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

majority rule

Dear Jimbo Wales,

I have noticed that your word has rather a lot of influence on wikipedia (which makes sense to me, since you founded the project). Looking at this remark, I would like to ask you to clear something up :

In the NPOV policy we (the wiki community) agreed to give significant minority viewpoints fair coverage (but no undue weight). Do you feel this should be done even when we "know" that the SigMinView is "wrong"? Or should wikipedia then take the majority scientific viewpoint?

Example 1: Terror attacks of September 11: What if several former Ministers of major countries, as well as members of Congress, and several retired US Generals, appear to be holding such a "false" Minority-view ?

Example 2: Homeopathy: what if millions of people use these treatments; what if countless studies have shown effects beyond the placebo effect (and countless studies have found no effect)? Should wikipedia take the majority scientific (industry) view, that homeopathy is silly? Or should it remain neutral, and risk being laughed at, as for instance Haemo is said to fear

Haemo: What matters is the effect on the encyclopedia, and that's the same either way: the encyclopedia is compromised, corrupted, made to look ridiculous, or even all three at once.

I would appreciate to learn your thoughts on this matter !

(just for your information, I am topic-banned from 9/11 articles)

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statements and questions here would indicate that in your opinion a scientific viewpoint should be black and white, cut and dry and it usually isn't. For instance, choosing example 1 what if I where to tell you that I believe that both sides are scientifically true..and heres why. The reasons we went to Iraq (to find WMD's) turned out to be false, BUT there was very good evidence that he had the capabilities and even if he didn't there are several neighboring countries that for a fact do and he had friendly relations to them. With that said now that we are there we MUST finish the job or else the entire country would tear itself apart and we WOULD be to blame. On the otherhand the generals, ministers and others that you speak of also have compelling arguments against the war in Iraq and they are right too. But which is more right, do we stay or do we go? Both have positives and negatives just as science has protons and neutrons, in the end the science of should we stay outways the science of should we go because from a simply humanitarian aspect if we leave before we build the infrastructure back up we are worse or at least as bad as than the regime we replaced. If not in act in complacency. Just because you can prove something scientifically true, you can also scientifically prove that its not. There are entire buildings of physicists who study these paradoxes and even then seldom can they make sense out of them for the rest of us.--Kumioko (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nations at war do not tell the truth. As Wikipedia is about providing sourced relevant claims in an encyclopedic format, this need not concern us. We merely report who said what when in an encyclopedic format. "According to Source ____, on date ____ President Bush said ____." and so on. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Jimbo, and others, would you please reply: does knowing which view is right overrule WP:NPOV, yes or no?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No. It is in response to this "But I know the Truth!" attitude that we put "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth" in the WP:V policy. On the other hand, if there is a consensus that some claim is unreliable because it is a typo or is out of date or some such thing, then it is entirely appropriate for the editors of that article to not use that claim in that article. Consensus here does not mean majority; it means that you actually convince the other editors, not drive them away or outvote them. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Playmate Statistics On Wikipedia

The playmate statistics (measurements, age, place of birth, etc.) listed on the article entitled "Stephanie Adams" have been repeatedly removed by a group of rather "unusual" users as an attempt to inadvertently and indirectly harass the person being written in the biography. If you can review the article and place the statistics back again, it would be consistent with every other playmate's article on Wikipedia. Best Regards, 66.108.144.201 (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that someone already added it back a few times, including today, and each time, it gets removed again. Perhaps if you make a note somewhere in the discussion or add it back yourself, they might realize that it is a form of vandalism and leave the article alone. Have a good night. 66.108.144.201 (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, virtually all such statistics should be removed with extreme prejudice as being from unreliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
And what would count as a "reliable source"? Tabercil (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
While fact boxes are inappropriate for questionable data; it is common in the text to provide information from questionable yet notable sources; such as saying "According to the Playboy edition in which she was featured as a playmate, her statistics were as follows: ____" with a source. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Providing the information that way seems to me like it almost begs having it tagged and/or removed as trivia. Whereas if its in an infobox, it's less likely to be culled out. After all, isn't the purpose behind a infobox to provide common information in one place? Most biographical infoboxes provide details such as birthdate, birth location, real name, image, etc. In the case of the Playmate, it's placing a common piece of information in one location. Tabercil (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Some bio facts are notable, don't change, and are not usually exaggerated for commercial reasons. These belong in an info box. If you think it may be deleted as trivia, then add a sourced claim for why it is not trivia: "According to ___, her breast size, claimed to be ___, was a key marketing point in her career as a model." WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but unless they are removed on EVERY playmate's article, they should not be discriminately removed from just one. 69.22.240.169 (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Captcha

As a former blind wikipedian, I'm reposting the following part of a conversation from my talk page, in hopes that it will raise more awareness of wikipedia's major accessibility problem. Requiring an admin to create accounts for a user who can't see the captcha is not an okay solution. It says that blind people are third-class users who are not welcomed to the website at the same level as "regular" users. It also says that wikipedia does not believe we have the same rights as other users, IE the rights to indipendantly create accounts and edit pages. As well, on a blocked IP (like a school, small country, or workplace) it might not be possible to ask an admin for help creating an account. So: are audio or text captchas ever coming to wikipedia? If not, why not? For that matter, why don't we have them already?

begin conversation snip.

If you post to User talk:Jimbo Wales, I'm sure he - or one of the army of admins who watch his page - will create an account on your behalf, if the captchas are causing a problem. (I'd do it myself, but I've never understood how.) For all its many faults, Wikipedia does at least try to be inclusive. — iridescent 02:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is, in this case, not even trying to be inclusive. Many, many open source, accessible audio captchas exist. Wikipedia admins and developers have been asked, repeatedly, to use them. Plugins for the mediawiki engine that create accessible captcha solutions have been written. Wikipedia refuses to use them. Until Wikipedia stops treating me like a third-class user, I will not edit on a regular basis, and thus don't need to worry about accounts. When the captcha becomes accessible, I will begin editing wikipedia once more. I still have an account from the days before captcha. However, I won't use it until other blind folks who didn't sign up before wikipedia put up its giant "no blind editors allowed" sign get the oppertunity to create accounts, as well. The only reason I edited at all tonight is because it looked like a quick, easy change that would take half a minute, and was requested by someone else. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. Needless to say, I do not donate to wikipedia, and have no plans to until this is fixed. 206.126.88.124 (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

end conversation snip. 206.126.88.124 (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As a "troop in the army", I just wanted to clarify that, as you point out, it is not only blind users who are subject to this. Wikipedia:Request an account exists for those users unable to create an account for themselves because of blocks, firewalls, or other technical restrictions and includes ways to contact administrators and account creators via e-mail or other means. So while I think you have a valid concern, please don't think that this is being done to single out blind users or, indeed, any single group of potential Wikipedia users. --jonny-mt 08:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Also just wanted to add that a bug report has apparently already been submitted about this (Bug 13938). --jonny-mt 08:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I fully support that we should be as fully accessible to blind people as we practically can be. I recommend raising the question with Brion Vibber. Someone up above suggests that open source audio captcha's exist, although he or she incorrectly attributes our not using them to "not even trying to be inclusive". I do not know the reason some solution has not been implemented, but I am sure that Brion has one. I will raise this issue with Sue Gardner when I am better informed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Having audio captcha's sounds like a good idea and the fact we don't have them is far more likely to be an oversight than a lack of care about the disabled. I would point out in response to the suggestion that this community is unwelcoming to the blind and does not accord them the status of "regular users" that to my knowledge at least 2 administrators on the English Wikipedia are blind. WjBscribe 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Starling seems to think that audio captcha are infeasible, (User:Tim Starling/Weekly reports/2008-W09), and Brion has said that the only reason there aren't audio captcha is that no one cares to work on it ([1]), he has also pointed out that captchas on wikipedia are should be a relatively rare events ([2]). 89.138.74.123 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that captchas on wikipedia are "rare". They happen if you want to sign up. They happen if you forget your password or make several (three, I think?) failed login attempts. They happen if you want to post a link. They seem to happen if you want to edit semi-protected pages. This is not what I would call rare. Also, if I understand how account requests work, requesting an account from an admin means the blind person must give that unknown and untrusted (by the blind user anyway) user private information: the email address of the account, the username/password of the account, and the users IP address (if the request is made on a talk page). 206.126.88.124 (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, please remember that we're not just talking about wikipedia. Captchas happen on all wikimedia projects. Captchas happen when signing up for every wikia wiki. Captchas lock blind users out of any mediawiki website using the default captcha extension. 206.126.88.124 (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
More updates on this. Captchas are required after just *one* incorrect login attempt. Also, it appears the password is autogenerated in the case of an account request (or does the account creator just make it up?). Admins still get the username and email of the requester; I don't know if they get an IP address, as I can't tell what, exactly, the provided form does, and they may no the password of the new account if they set it rather than having it generated. As well, apparently without an account I can't create a user page for my own IP address; this is, thus, another limitation placed on blind users. I'd be happy to move my captcha updates to my user page, but I can't create it, as I just said. I've been trying, off and on, to get wikipedia to fix this captcha problem for something like a year now, with no results. I've got free time all summer, so I'm going to try and stay on top of this for the next three months, anyway. Is there anything more official than posting on this talk page that I should be doing? 206.126.88.124 (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the information from this section is now on my user page. I am 206.126.88.124 and have recovered my account for this spacific purpose. I will update it if/when anything changes or I find out anything more. Fastfinge (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Birth names of porn actors

Any chance you'd care to weigh in here? David in DC (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In the cases in question, the claim that the names are "well-sourced" appears to me to be wrong. The sources do not look very good at all to me, one of them is a random blog as far as I can tell.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot

Just in case you have not noticed this discussion. We would like to hear you opinion about this -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 08:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I support continued discussion, and it seems like the discussion is mostly going well. This is a Big Deal and proceeding slowly and thoughtfully sounds to me like a very good idea. I am not the best person to decide, so other than offering my usual advice to seek compromise and a middle path which addresses the concerns of everyone as best we can, I have no particular thoughts. I would be opposed to randomly unleashing a bot which generates 2 million articles overnight without a HUGE amount of community oversight. I would also be opposed to simply saying "no" to the whole project. So, other than those two extreme positions which I think no one is advocating, I think there are many valid options in the middle and trust that the community will work to figure out a decent compromise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Random Padlock Award

Zebra Stripe Padlock
To Jimbo Wales, I present to you a super snazzy, totally razzy, zebra fur padlock! I've awarded this to you because you have a cool userpage and because you are literally Mr. Wikipedia ...and because it's furry! Who can resist soft plush fur? Don't worry, it's not made from real animals, of course! --.:Alex:. 17:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
(The manufacturer does not guarantee that no fat striped zebras were harmed in the production of this padlock)

WP:ACC

I noticed you (or another user claiming to be you) have recently requested an account for the ACC tool on the toolserver. Please can you verify that you did make this request, by replying here, or on my talk page. Thanks. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(The toolserver tool referenced is [3]) SQLQuery me! 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Must be a fake. Was not me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem, locked out (I doubt you'd need access to that tool, let me know if you do, I'll rename that account) SQLQuery me! 18:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)