User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Template:Fix bunching

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251Auto-archiving period: 1 days

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Template:Fix bunching

Template:Fix bunching

This section, or comments from this section, was/were incorrectly removed in this edit. It/they have been restored. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already made a thread at ANI [1] about this, so I do not want to forum shop (and do not expect an answer specific to the question at ANI) but I think this is an important core issue. Basically, is hate speech / inciting to violence allowed in Wikipedia when it is sourced? Phoenix of9 03:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior and attitude in the ANI thread is not ok. I recommend that you sit back and rest from this issue for awhile.

To answer your specific question to me (which was asked in a highly biased way, once I went to see what the real issue was), yes, of course it can be perfectly fine to quote hate speech or incitement to violence in Wikipedia, when it is relevant and a part of the history of some particular aspect of the world.

To answer your specific question over at ANI, first, I will say that it is a content issue best decided on the talk page of the article, but one that is a legitimate content issue that you can't short-circuit by simply screaming 'hate speech' about a quote from the Bible! In an article on same sex marriage, it seems rather obvious to me that at some point Biblical views need to be covered, and one very likely way to explore and explain to the reader the historical roots of traditional Christian opposition to same sex marriage would be to quote from the Bible. I'm not taking a firm stand on whether or not that quote should be included - that's up to a discussion on the page. I'm just saying that it's a worthwhile and perfectly reasonable discussion for people to have.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on this in the ANI thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will take your advice and rest from this issue for awhile.

But, I am not sure if you misunderstood me or if I am misunderstanding you. I'm not saying any quote from the bible is "hate speech"; I am talking about "Leviticus 20:13" which seems to call for killing of gay people. And this is not strictly historical, eg: Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which some Christian groups in that country support and it could be argued that the basis of that bill is largely Christian/religious.

So, my final 2 questions: 1) Are you are saying that a reference to a specific text which calls for death of gay people is OK in a gay related article?

2) And the larger question is if incitement to violence is ok in Wikipedia (even if it is a current issue and not necessarily historical) when there might be a relevance to a certain Wikipedia article? Phoenix of9 16:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, an article on Adolph Hitler would not be able to reference Mein Kampf. It doesn't make sense. The proper response to obnoxious statements is not to pretend that they weren't said. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not a correct analogy. The correct analogy would be adding references to Mein Kampf into Jewish People article under a section like "Contreversy". Phoenix of9 22:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone posts Lev. 20:13 as their personal motto, that's an incitement to violence. To state Lev. 20:13 called for the death penalty for homosexuality is a fact that may be legitimate historical encyclopedic content. As Looie496 says, there are plenty of things in the encyclopedia that would be inappropriate for an editor to promote as their personal opinion, but have a contextual and encyclopedic place in an article.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if you are reading my answers. I already clarified that I am talking about a possibly current context, rather than a historical one. Phoenix of9 22:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current religious teachings for the most part are based at least in part on historical teachings and/or traditions. If being used in the context of discussing certain religions objections to same sex marriage I would not consider it "an incitement to violence." As a content discussion it may not be appropriate for the article in question. It may be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH if there's no secondary sources connecting that verse to official doctrines. Possibly other issues. But that's a content question.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources indicate that Lev. 20:13 is in some people's opinion relevant to their views on same-sex marriage, then it would be perfectly acceptable to reference it in an article on same-sex marriage. Of course, one would have to consider what weight to give it, and if, on that basis, it merited mentioning - but at a guess I'd say that's quite possible. That some people are offended by those views in neither here nor there. Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with the question of whether article content might offend (see WP:NOTCENSORED). Indeed any editor wishing to exclude content merely on the grounds that it is "hateful" hasn't really understood the meaning of Wikipedia's neutrality. Wikipedia takes no position on whether gay-marriage is good, bad, sacred, or even merits the death penalty. My (or your) views on such matters are wholly irrelevant.--Scott Mac 23:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Might I ask how Leviticus is relevent to Same-sex marriage? That section that is quoted and is referenced by various religious groups, along with other sections in the Bible, all refer to homosexuals having sex. The sections are not about marriage. So how is including that really relevant to the topic of marriage between homosexuals? It seems to me that having it in the article is trying to push a bit of an agenda. Silverseren^C 23:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's directed at me I'm not sure it is 100% relevant. However there's a difference between a content question on "does the verse belong" and declaring it an "incitement to violence" in multiple venues.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott MacDonald, I see your point and that answers my question to Jimbo Wales. However, the final thing I'll say is, we have a higher sensitivity when it comes to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I think it doesn't make sense that such standards aren't also applied to incitement to violence and you have to engage in prolonged debates to remove WP:OR. Phoenix of9 00:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is OR or not is a normal content decision for the talk page, and nothing more. This gets decided as a content level and nothing more. You don't get to seek an advantage in deciding content by claiming something is "hateful" or "incites" this or that. This is exactly the same game that's been tried by Muslims wanting special treatment over images of the prophet and it was rejected then. BLPs are only different to the extent that we insist that things are verifiable and neutrally presented. Saying "Leviticus says x, and some people, in this basis have argued y" and giving reliable sources, can be perfectly factual and neutral. The fact that some people don't like it is their problem. Frankly, the way you've argued this, and the emotional way you've behaved, gives me concerns that you don't get the basic idea of what Wikipedia is. We deal in sourced facts. If the facts are unpleasant for some people - tough.--Scott Mac 02:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images of prophet is not a good analogy as those didn't suggest violence. And it is unlikely that you can gauge emotional reactions from written text accurately. Finally, while we deal with sourced facts, because of things like WP:UNDUE, it is not always an exact process. Phoenix of9 02:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And since it isn't an exact process we have content discussions on the article talk page to reach consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh! I don't believe in same-sex marriage or just same-sex. IMHO, sex should be different each time. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must be single LOL The Eskimo (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI thread was closed.[2] It is not unreasonable to cite source material or to discuss the beliefs that people have; but I would be concerned that this seems like an issue best covered in an article about some anti-gay perspective and only covered in "WP:summary style" at the same-sex marriage article, which might mean not placing WP:Undue weight on any one quote. One can vigorously contest the idea that because an anti-gay statute is in the Old Testament, and Christianity is based on the Old Testament, hence Christianity condemns it. After all, the Old Testament similarly condemns wearing a garment made out of two different kinds of thread. Its rules are reported to be designed to make Abraham's seed as numerous as the dust of the earth, as opposed to, say, establishing peace on earth and good will toward men. Christianity includes an injunction to "keep the commandments", but the definition of the latter may be open to debate; in any case they don't include the great bulk of Israelite dietary laws. And then, you might cover Jewish, Muslim, and other non-Christian perspectives. Wnt (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite evident that when the Western liberalism of most Wikipedians comes into conflict with the stated project aim of neutrality, that neutrality loses. I stay well away from all such articles because there's not a hope in hell of neutralising the obvious agendas.--Scott Mac 00:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the discussion on this feed. Just for context, the challenged article text at issue here currently reads as follows (it originally didn't have the footnotes, which was my fault):

Some religious arguments against same-sex marriage are based upon Old Testament biblical passages such as Genesis 19:4-11, Leviticus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13,^[1][2][3][4] while others are based upon New Testament biblical passages such as Romans 1, I Corinthians 6:8-10, and Jude 1:7.^[5][6]

This sentence is in the religion subsection of the controversy section of an article on same-sex marriage. I must say that I am truly dismayed that another editor would write to the founder of Wikipedia and make accusations of violent hate speech on the basis of this sentence. 184.74.22.161 (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might have phrased what I said above better. To have a sentence like this in the article is better than nothing — it's just a very narrow look at a broad set of issues. It should be developed further using more scholarly references that review a broader range of Christian beliefs and interpretations. But I should have been clear that it is completely wrong to accuse a contributor of "hate speech" for documenting an argument. Wnt (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using a primary source (such as the Bible) is usually a violation of the No Original Research policy. For example, should someone be allowed (on Wikipedia) to argue that the God of the Old Testament is actually the Devil based on the Bible's claim that God mass-murdered all humans and all other species other than the specific entities that were on Noah's Ark? - WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we could certainly reference a Manichean sect's statements advocating such a point of view. Wnt (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source can certainly be used to substantiate statements about that source. It would be ridiculous, for example, if an article about the Ten Commandments was unable to refer to the Bible. Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that reality is ridiculous. For example, we do need to use secondary sources on an article about the Ten Commandments. Research "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth". You could begin that research with Catholic Religion Purposely takes out one of God's Ten Commandments and There are 613 commandments, not 10. By the way, other than Seventh Day Adventists, how many Christians "Keep the Sabbath (Saturday) holy"? Religious doctrine is only taken seriously by those who have not studied it. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the challenged sentence cited some religious groups opposed to gay marriage. Depending on the level of collaboration these groups use in creating published statements of their common beliefs, these fairly may be viewed as "secondary", though partisan, in nature. Secondary sources from a broader and more "neutral" perspective are somewhat more desirable and certainly needed to complete the coverage of the topic, but we shouldn't create a tyranny of the liberal arts commentators. Wnt (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section, or comments from this section, was/were incorrectly removed in this edit. It/they have been restored. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few days after you made a personal appeal banner in which you're asking us to donate a sum of money to Wikimedia, it has since been a subject of various parodies and spoofs. Do you find this insulting, or do you consider it as a form of good-natured mockery towards you? Blake Gripling (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to Encyclopedia Dramatica and leave Mr. Wales alone. He's busy raising funds for a good cause. They're busy raising funds for a bad cause. Need I elaborate? --harrybagatestes@gmail.com (IP address useless, I live in Torpark.) Now quit your crying and go back to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.15.255.234 (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, just a suggestion -- it works for politicians! You should have a family portrait (you know, you, your wife, your daughter) and feature that image on one of the appeal banners. It would work! -- 72.244.44.131 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you fit Rachel Marsden in the picture?76.177.47.225 (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, my apologies to the individual whose user talk page this is for my posting comments which may be better placed elsewhere. If anyone thinks these matters would be better discussed on a separate page, please feel free to tell me or even move the comments directly to the better choice of pages.

I know that there have been previous attempts to have somewhat reliable "opinion" pages on major issues, which have, basically, failed. It seems to me at least in part that the failure may have been based on the pages being structured to basically advance what might be a single opinion on an issue, rather than in a point/counterpoint format, or maybe in a format which would allow for multiple "position of (X)" sections. However, I do think that there might well be a use for such content, particularly regarding the upcoming US presidential election in two years. Yes, it is two years away, I know that. None of the candidates have (so far as I know anyway) even announced yet. Personally, I think that makes this the best possible time to establish ground rules for such material, if it were to be developed, so that we don't have any more individuals clearly advocating for a particular candidate or position than possible.

Maybe, and this is obviously just a maybe, somewhere, maybe in Wikibooks, we could create a location for multiple pages discussing the relevant issues, perhaps one page per issue, with separate sections on the stated or implicit positions of candidates or parties and for any "outside" entities which have addressed the issue. Exactly where to place material regarding, for instance, the clearly conservative Cato Institute might be somewhat difficult to decide, but I think that it could reasonably be done. And, perhaps, in a worst-case scenario, the pages might be placed under full protection rather early on, with changes only made after consensus on the talk page by people from multiple positions. That would entail having individuals state somewhere their own opinions, and having those who make the changes be comparatively neutral, and both of those might be difficult to achieve, but I think it could, maybe, be done.

In any event, if it is possible, I think having some sort of informative guide of as neutral a kind as possible would definitely be both useful for anyone considering a vote in that election, and probably be a major feather in the Foundation's cap if it could be done. If it succeeds in the US, where I think there are probably enough interested parties to make it workable, it might be adapted to work in other countries as well. Maybe. Anyway, just throwing the idea out there, and, again, my apologies to Jimbo if these comments would be better made elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Brian G. Crawford. I have part or much of what you requested from me. Email me via facebook to get it. I think I ran afoul of an impostor. 184.15.255.234 (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC) (I'm on Tor, sorry)[reply]

Shouldn't Wikipedia have a special logo for its tenth anniversary by putting a cake with 10 candles on top of the Wikipedia logo? What do you guys think? WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Maybe not necessarily a cake. Perhaps a ribbon or something. But I agree it would be fitting to have something present to mark the occasion. At the very least, I hope it appears in the "On this day..." section of the main page. Make it happen. Mr Wales! --Dorsal Axe 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Anniversary#Anniversary symbols. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tenwiki:Design. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested in this NY Times article on the website today[3], quoting the Turkish prime minister as saying the following: “First, let’s wait until Wikileaks spill all the beans, and then we would check how serious or unserious they are,” Mr. Erdogan said. “Because the seriousness of Wikipedia is doubtful." The Times should have pointed out that there is no connection between Wikipedia and Wikileaks. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jimmy is doing whatever he can to assert that we are not connected to wikileaks, I saw a quite lengthy interview with him with Adam Boulton on Sky news focused on that point at the week end. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, all around. I think the key is that Mr. Assange should start helping with the clarification.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, are you (are are you able to be) in communication with Assange? There's a wide-held perception (not just by Mr Erdogan) that websites starting with "Wiki..." are all Wikipedia, or, at the least, part of the Wikimedia Foundation. Anything formalised you could do beyond Sky News? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what troubled me was that the Times didn't point out Erdogan's error. If I wuz Mr. W I'd fire off an email to the Times. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this is a constant problem, and it's critical to clarify things especially now more than ever because of all the recent news hype coinciding with the fundraising drive. Many people will be hesitant to donate if they think we're affiliated with Wikileaks. Hopefully it won't affect it too much but we'll have to see. -- œ^™ 09:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, some may be especially willing to donate if they think we are connected with Wikileaks. Of course we should clarify this on principle, no matter what the influence on the donation stream is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be relevant to point out that [insanely] it sounds like Facebook may get a trademark on the word "face" in any compound at all in their area of business.^[4] I doubt this is the kind of IP precedent anyone at Wikipedia would approve of; nonetheless, I wonder if it is potentially a bargaining chip Wikipedia could use to demand that Wikileaks make a statement distancing itself on its website. Wnt (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something occurred to me. Unlike the UK where images of most villages can be uploaded from http://www.geograph.org.uk/ there is a considerable problem for many places in the US and Canada obtaining a plentiful supply of decent freely useable photographs for small towns, and even larger ones, one example I can think of is Calabasas, California.... I was wondering Jimmy if your foundation would endorse the idea of running a US version of geograph to photograph every grid square or whatever you use for the United States. Sure it would be an ambitious project, but not as ambitious as wikipedia... This would not only solve our problem of having a poor supply of photographs for many places in the United States but it would build up a highly valuable bank of images over time under a Creative Commons/GFDL license which I am certain many people would find very valuable. I wonder how many times somebody has looked for a freely useable image of a small US town or unincorporated place and found no images on it. Given that geograph is clearly a massive success and has suppled the majority of British villages with images, I wonder if it would be too much to ask if the foundation could host a US version of such a project to attract people into a project which would photograph the United States in such detail? I know that the United States is considerably larger than the UK but I don't see why such a project couldn't be a success for most places with a high internet population. If I can get some sort of backing I'll make a formal proposal on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second this - if this can be made viable, it would be a great idea. (It's actually something I've considered before; trouble is I'm not net-savvy enough to know where to begin in creating it.) I've done enough photographing of backwoods Virginia to know that free images for much of the country are next-to-impossible to come by at the moment, even for some of the larger/more notable places (see Big Stone Gap, Virginia for but one good example). I know it's a huge country, but the population is pretty large - I don't see why this couldn't work. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a question regarding the copyright status of National Labratories in the US. Does the WMF have legal counsel which could comment at Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE#Template:PD-USGov-DOE_Laboratory_image_use? It's probably best not to stagnate this into what happened with US government portraits.Smallman12q (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would email legal@wikimedia.org to inquire.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have some cats in their hats. That would be a fascinating experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.173.155 (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were you just preparing to start a new article? -- œ^™ 09:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. She was just recently elevated to the peerage and we don't have an article on her. I am not 100% sure I will have time to create an article, so I thought I would at least post the links I found to assist someone else who may wish to do it. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the money's going. Somehow I knew it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can one be an arb and not a checkuser? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. Technically it should be trivial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Arbs are or have been. Historically, no Arb has not been an administrator - but since that is nominally an indication of length of editing history and knowledge of WP policy it should be recognised that Giacomo Returned also qualifies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One can be arb and not checkuser. One cannot be arb without identifying to the Foundation, though.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]