Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:12, 3 August 2017

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats until Wikimania 2017 are Pundit and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation's Director of Support and Safety is Maggie Dennis.

Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here

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 Misplaced Pages? 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, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Wiki for you! 😂

hi

.#users of earth

Thank you--سرما(Talk) 04:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the fascination with this? Also, the image is nominated for deletion on Commons, because it is probably a copyright violation.--♦IanMacM♦ 05:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not have access to it--سرما(Talk) 05:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Now I am genuinely curious what the image was. 2405:4800:1484:9559:4927:6ABD:69A:C5E3 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

If you've missed it, it was the cartoon in this blog.--♦IanMacM♦ 05:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fake evidence maybe planted by police

News reporters think they have direct proof of U.S. police "planting evidence" at crime scenes in Baltimore, Maryland, as supposedly where the bodycam captured video before police officers realized the camera was recording them (see: CNN, 20 July 2017, ). Of course, "everyone" in the U.S. knows how police plant evidence to fake a crime when they get tired of suspects evading conviction, well not everyone, as jurors tend to believe police testimony rather than other witnesses. In the Baltimore cases, the police body cameras have a 30-second video-cache buffer to record the active scene before an officer activates the audio+video recording mode (noted in CNN source as: "record 30 seconds of video without sound before an officer actively turns on the camera"). Allegedly, the video cache shows police putting evidence into the pre-searched location(s) before the main video records them finding the evidence some minutes later. So that is another method to catch corrupt police putting the falsified evidence into a crime scene, and might apply in similar situations. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"Police stitch bloke up shock horror!"- what's the gen here? — fortunavelut luna 08:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Better guilty escape than one innocent suffer: I tend to favor the view of Benjamin Franklin (grandfather of America; age 70 in 1776), in the quote: "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved" (1785, Bartleby 953). Although, others favor 10 guilty escape versus one innocent be convicted. If you're the one innocent, might agree the 100-to-1 balance is better, so perhaps Ben Franklin knew personally of those suffering for wrongful convictions. I guess another major problem with false convictions is the real culprit(s) escape to harm others, although they tend to get caught later for other crimes, as many tend to be repeat offenders. Also perhaps 50% of inmates are illiterate, as link between poor education and crime, or perhaps between high intelligence and evading police, as in white collar crime which might make robbery seem trivial x 1,000. To avoid fake news or fake evidence, then Wikipedians must beware common tricks used to deceive the public or reporters, even in wp:RS reliable sources. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand this correctly. Are you suggesting that Wikipedians' "judgement" (AKA POV) about notable criminal cases should take precedence over RS? Scaleshombre (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The belief in "editorial judgment" is indeed one of the most pernicious myths of Misplaced Pages and of the press in general. Whether it is a newspaper editor spiking stories or a Wikipedian throwing alphabet soup at you, there typically seems to be a paymaster or a censor behind a judge pulling the strings. The position of an encyclopedia should be to report that the woman did float -- but to cite the deduction that she is a witch to the appropriate source, keeping it at arm's length. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Section 230 reversal - is WMF monitoring this?

This article describes a Senate bill and a House bill that would revoke some of the protections web services have against being sued over contributors' content. It seems clear that this bill is not targeted at Misplaced Pages, but at sites like Backpage.com that were notorious for having ads for prostitutes, some of which turned out to be underage. That said, Backpage.com itself was already affected by other legal actions and according to our article gave up on having any section for "adult services" more than a year ago. As censors are inherently underhanded, I am suspicious of intentional "unintended consequences", and in any case, WMF should look for any sharp edges on this instrument, especially since it has the deepest pockets in the room, and the latter bill expressly denies any need to show intent for liability to apply.

For example, suppose a new editor turns up and makes a change to the Backpage.com article, something like (I'm making this up!) Child sex ads still run on Backpage.com, but now they're in the used cars section. For example, this ad describes a "sweet black convertible, 12 years old, brand new headlights." If there is a trafficked child involved, Misplaced Pages might end up as the rich player in a lawsuit going after anyone and everyone mentioning the ad. It seems virtually impossible to predict such attacks in advance, and it seems like in some cases even good faith editing could end up being counted as "facilitating" the trafficking. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how serious the threat is, nor am I very sure if there is a practical way to draw a bright line (such as accepting payment for advertising) that would separate Misplaced Pages from Backpage in the text of legislation. But WMF should be aware of the situation and have a response, before it finds itself having to pay online gangs protection money to make sure that mysterious people don't show up posting questionable content that puts the site on hook for millions of dollars in liability. Wnt (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fanmail

I just went on your Misplaced Pages page and saw that your net worth is roughly $1 million. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but the fact is that you are not obscenely rich (though you could do worse). It occurred to me then just how much you've really given - you created WP, one of the most visited sites in the world, and you could have commoditized it, but instead you just give it away for free. As Nixon said, you never profited from your work, you earned everything you've got. So thanks! ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador 14:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of too many people who like to discuss their personal finances on the web, and if somebody does, I wouldn't trust the numbers they give. In short, I wouldn't expect Jimbo to comment on his net worth here.

This doesn't apply to me, however, since like most Wikipedians and journalists I know absolutely nothing about Jimbo's net worth! I'd guess that the number in the Misplaced Pages article is off, if only because it is 4+ years old. And not confirmed by Jimbo. Nonetheless, you might take that number, multiply by the square root of 2, do the hokey-pokey and shake it all about, and then say "plus or minus 300%" IMHO of course. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This is based on the source in The Guardian which says "Wales's 2011 divorce settlement with his second wife put his assets at $943,000, barely enough for a small flat in central London." Perhaps since then Jimbo has moved towards qualifying for The World's Billionaires compiled by Forbes, but this seems unlikely. Anyway, as you say, Jimbo may not be as rich as Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, but money isn't everything.--♦IanMacM♦ 16:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Was that David Nixon, English magician and television personality?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The encyclopedia anyone can't edit, unless they are an IP

If you want to know how IP editors are treated on your encyclopedia, you could do worse than look at ], which is about the frankly disgusting conduct of a group of registered editors on the Talk:Requiem (Duruflé) article and talk page. I have been called a coward, vandal and troll; the lies that have been told in edit summaries and on the talk page connected to that ANI conversation are absolutely disgusting. I have been editing on and off for a few years, all as an IP, and I'm walking away after the treatment that has been meted out to me by an organised group on the Requiem (Duruflé) talk page. 213.205.198.246 (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many thousands of articles that are far more in need of attention than is Requiem (Duruflé). Like Clotilde Rullaud, for example. Although there is a musical connection between them. Just a quiet suggestion. 07:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So let liars and bullies drive me off an article they feel is there personal domain? I'd rather just walk away from the whole website with a rather sick feeling of having been cheated by people who should know a lot better. No wonder I hear more and more people talking about the demise of this website, or about how toxic it is here. 213.205.194.246 (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd assume anyone currently talking about the demise of this website is looking at stats circa 2014. Misplaced Pages:Time Between Edits is not the only indicator to show that things are very different now. ϢereSpielChequers 10:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

IP 213, you are engaged in that discussion on the Talk:Requiem (Duruflé) page in arguing about the most contentious and long-running feud on WP, infoboxes. You could not find a more bitter and acrimonious issue to engage in on this whole site, ridiculous though that is. It has been to WP:ARBCOM several times, without solving anything, and has driven away some of the best editors in the field of music. Yes, there is "an organised group" who turn up whenever there is an argument about infoboxes, I only see these discussions when they are related to music for the most part, so I don't know about articles on other topics, but you see the same editors on music pages whenever there is an infobox issue, several of whom never edit articles about classical music and appear to zero interest or knowledge of it, all they care about is trying to force those boxes into every article. If you really have some interest in Duruflé or classical music outside the infobox issue there is plenty you could be doing to improve this site without being hassled.Smeat75 (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Which would be fine if this IP actually displayed any interest in Duruflé or classical music or anything except arguing and attacking other editors. His sole contribution to the article has been to revert the addition of an infobox four times in quick succession while four other editors have restored it. His many contributions to the article talk page have consisted only of attacks and smears against other editors, without a single post addressing the subject of Duruflé's Requiem. @Smeat75: so if that's the calibre of IP editors you want to attract to WP:WikiProject Classical Music, then you might as well give up on the idea of improving classical music articles right now. --RexxS (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)