User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 251

Should Foundation Board of Trustees members be allowed to read oversighted revisions and deleted pages?

 * Note: I converted this to an RFC on Meta. Sandizer''  (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Recently I participated in a discussion here before I saw that parts of it have been oversighted, and then I remembered that Jimbo was stripped of his permissions to read oversighted revisions when the Founder Flag was removed.

In my opinion, Jimbo should be allowed to read oversighted revisions and deleted pages, simply because he's basically the top corresponding Board member. I'm considering an RFC on Meta, or an IAR appeal to rouge bureaucrats or something, but I thought I would post here suggesting it first. Sandizer (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sandizer is there a particular problem you are seeking to fix? If Jimbo needs access, he can advocate for himself in general, and or...ask any person with access to share what he needs for his work. Let's save an academic discussion for a more urgent topic ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, a Foundation official is likely to be asked questions which require review of deleted material as part of their expected duties, which in this case pertains to Jimbo's opinion of how his talk page is being edited without being able to see how. A Wikimedia Foundation in which board members can't see their full talk page history would have lost an oar. I want board members to be able to read deleted pages and revisions without having to ask anyone, because without such ability, I do not believe they are truly able to fulfill their obligations as board members. On the other hand, I am willing to entertain opposition speculating that board members should not be able to see their talk page history, just to keep this convertible to an RFC with a neutral question if need be. To me, this seems extremely obvious, to the point of substantial while humourous vulnerabilities if the issue is left unaddressed. Sandizer  (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not the attack vector I have in mind, but it is both valid and amusing. Sandizer  (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In any professional organisation, mechanisms are in place for board members or senior staff to be given access to confidential information held by the organisation. It's not necessary for board members (for example) to be able to retrieve the information themselves. Besides, this is a high-profile page; all sorts of junk gets posted here and most of it has nothing to do with Jimbo personally, much less the WMF board. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Jimbo has access to everything through global founder right, doesn't he? It's fair to assume he can get database access if he really needs it. WMF grants us rights. We can't pick who in the WMF gets rights. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, his perms were stripped. I will spare you my opinion of the rectitude thereof. Sandizer  (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No help at all. He's still a founder; it still includes everything under the sun. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 25 out of over a hundred boxes are checked? If it were up to me, Jimbo would have permission to get all the dumps sent to him by carrier pigeon whenever he wears green in public. Sandizer  (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, those are checkboxes, that's what I was missing. Do you know whether board members, or at least Jimbo, can get database access when they need it? Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably, if their NDA is current. Sandizer  (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

First thing to note, "Updating at Jimbo’s request to improve overall site security" - the removal of certain technical rights from this account was a request from me. If I ever needed, as part of my board work, to see oversighted revisions, I'm sure that could be facilitated by Trust and Safety or the legal team. But, that's never come up, and in general I don't think board members have any need or desire to see oversighted revisions - they are usually quite uninteresting to be honest.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I respect you, your perspective on this situation, your works, and what I know of your general outlook, I find it hard to believe that you've never looked at a deleted page as part of gathering information pertinent to subsequent board member actions, even if merely formulating opinions on desired appointee profile characteristics. But if this is the way you prefer it, I drop my request. I can still think of attacks this situation enables, none of which I feel like I should mention in public, but which I can communicate in a more closed venue. I think T&S should prepare a risk analysis of hiding deleted revisions from board members before the US primary elections conclude. Radio static is boring until someone goes to the trouble of transmitting something.
 * P.S., On reflection, I have to admit my interest is unduly driven by curiosity about whatever said in the discussion of whether Chinese state media is reliable that  felt was so abhorrent as to be oversighted instead of hatted or elided remaining in the talk page history. Those comments were oversighted before I joined the conversation or knew they existed, and because of my curiosity about the topic in general, I doubt they would be uninteresting to me even if they are to you. Let me drop this by asking Counterfeit Purses to put a summary of their comments on my talk page?  Sandizer  (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I think it would be unwise for the board to operate at that level of detail. Board meetings are only so long, and we have to rely on briefings from the Trust and Safety staff and legal teams, who do review such things in detail.  I thank you for your kind words and trust, and of course if you'd like to email me for a more private discussion that'd be great.  (But I forewarn you, my inbox is a zoo so it might be slow or get overlooked so you might have to poke me here if I haven't answered in a week or so!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So let me ask you this. A respected reporter asks you what you think of the edits to discussions on your talk page that you can't see. What do you tell them? Sandizer  (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's never happened, I don't recall any reporter ever asking me about oversighted edits at all. But to answer the question, I would first speak to the generalities of why things get oversighted, and what the process is.  I'd point them to Oversight to learn more about it, and if they still wanted more details I suppose I'd ask them to speak directly to the WMF and the legal team would weigh in.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you think of a time when a reporter asked you about a deletion since you've been unable to see those? Sandizer  (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How will they know about these edits if they can't see them? — Qwerfjkl  talk  17:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The same way we know about Counterfeit Purses's. Sandizer  (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * know I can't tell you that. Whether or not it is "interesting" is irrelevant. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. As far as I can tell I was only asking the person whose text you deleted, and have no information about whether the oversighting was a good idea, but as much as I know that you are an admin in good standing for many years, I would not ordinarily be opposed to the idea that the censorship was warranted. However, I think I may consider it unwarranted. I do not expect or anticipate information from you about it, unless within the confines of what Counterfeit Purses chooses to disclose. Sandizer  (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If something is really so important, and Appeal to Jimbo is the last resort, why not try for Arbcom or Wikipedia foundation trust and safety previously? BTW, I believe the removal of rights from Jimbo may be technically, Jimbo can definitely asking T&S or arbcom for help if they need to read something overnighted. -Lemonaka‎  02:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year
In Chinese Wikipedia, editors from Taiwan and Hong Kong have shown different attitudes towards North Korean and South Korean media.

North Korean Because it is a state-controlled news outlet, it is unreliable.

South Korean media Even if it is state-controlled media, it is reliable.There is a Chinese word to describe this situation. "Double standard".（双重标准）I'm not involved in the fight, I just want you to know what happen in the Chinese Wikipedia?Editors in Taiwan are trying to list China's most important media as "unreliable reference sources." As I said before, I have no confidence in the Wikimedia project if a reference source is judged to be reliable solely on the basis of political leanings.

Good luck with reality and a happy new year. Assifbus (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Surely you realize it's a lot more complex than this?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we met in real life, I would buy you a cup of coffee.Assifbus (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean the exact same thing happens on English Wikipedia. Voice of America and Radio Free Asia are considered to be reliable sources, as are most of the corporate media in the US. On a totally unrelated note, most enwiki editors come from anglophone countries. So, I'm not sure what your point is. Sagflaps (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify a little bit, the determination of whether a source is reliable is generally biased based on the norms of whatever countries the majority of editors happen to be from. Also, the topics that are chosen to have articles written will be biased based on language as well. This is a fundamental flaw of Wikipedia. I am American editor with no Chinese ties, and generally speaking the issue I notice is that many American editors naturally assume that whatever the western perspective is, that must be the global perspective on the issue as well.
 * The fact that many other editors here have accused you of being a CCP shill or propagandist is proof of this. To be honest, your points are reasonable, and I wish people here would engage with you civilly instead of trying to shut you down immediately. If anything their responses are just proving your point. Sagflaps (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The point about US state-owned broadcasting is valid. VoA and its sister programs are arguably propaganda (even if it’s our propaganda) and it seems to me to be a systemic bias issue.
 * Something editors don’t always keep in mind is that a big chunk of WP’s readers (but rarely editors) are from post-colonial Anglophone countries.
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well the idea of having Reliable sources/Perennial sources in general is a flawed idea. For any citation added, consideration needs to be given to the biases of it, and who funds the source and who owns it. To have editorial standards is not enough, because at the end of the day CNN/MSNBC/CBS/FOX, they are all there to make a profit at the end of the day. This means that if a major advertiser were to threaten to pull funding, these networks will feel the pressure. Similarly, state funded sources are accountable to their governments first, and non-profits to their donors.
 * However, editors are more than willing to crutch off the idea of a reliable source to avoid critical analysis. Also, when editors like Assifbus come by, their edits get far more scrutiny, and people invoking Cold War era fear rhetoric about them being a communist (or in the more modern sense, a wumao or CCP shill or Uygher genocide denier). Usually this attracts little scrutiny, because in the places like the US such things are so deeply entrenched, that it has become normalized. Literally speaking, that's not WP:CIV nor WP:AGF. But yet, the community mostly accepts it. Sagflaps (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * VoA and its sister programs are arguably propaganda.... I'm inclined to disagree. Those programs are designed to counter deliberately biased propaganda from despotic and dictatorial regimes, along with casting American opposition to them in a positive light, but while doing so with a strict adherence to western journalistic standards of accuracy, editorial oversight, and independence. It might be helpful to review some context about the place of the US Agency for Global Media companies in the propaganda sphere. Not all state media are created equal.
 * state funded sources are accountable to their governments first, and non-profits to their donors. When an organization chooses to support itself by voluntary donations, the point is to sever accountability to any one person or group. For example, there is a lot on Wikipedia which may be so offensive to all of the top N corporations and governments that any one of them would be likely to pull support over it if they were sole supporters. But they are not, so large companies keep giving no matter how large their critique articles grow, and as far as we know they don't go after the authors. Doing so would be foolhardy and would likely backfire with a Streisand effect.
 * when editors like Assifbus come by, their edits get far more scrutiny, and people invoking Cold War era fear rhetoric about them being a communist (or in the more modern sense, a wumao or CCP shill or Uygher genocide denier.... I'm skeptical that this happens more often than not. Can you point to some examples you thought were particularly unwarranted? Sandizer  (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is an implicit assumption in what you are saying here, which is that the pro-America perspective is the unbiased one (and therefore VOA/RFA just exist to counter biased propaganda sources), which really if anything just proves what I've been saying all along about how enwiki editors view the world. Sagflaps (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe bias is a matter of extent, measured as distance from accuracy, not a binary property. Sandizer  (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bias is a bit more complicated than you have described, but there are always the Wikipedia articles on its many forms if you want more information. Sagflaps (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 19. 20, 21, 22, I devoted the most beautiful years of my life to Wikipedia.
 * I hope that people in the future will not engage in wars or struggles due to different political tendencies. Assifbus (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to learn more about this: Editors in Taiwan are trying to list China's most important media as "unreliable reference sources." Where is that discussion?
 * As I said before, I have no confidence in the Wikimedia project if a reference source is judged to be reliable solely on the basis of political leanings. The reliability of state media sources are often easier to judge on the basis of objective accuracy than private sector outlets, which lack certain advantages; not least being the ability to use force and the threat of punishment to squelch criticism and require agreement. Leveraging such advantages, however, rarely goes undetected internationally. If this is the case, as it has been in most if not all the critiques of Chinese state media I have seen, then the basis is not political but epistemological.
 * Here is a relatively sympathetic take on the challenges faced by autocratic enforcement of state media perspectives from Singapore, concluding that, "although China's media have been professionalised over the years, the level of professionalism continues to be low as they have been compelled to act under the constraints of the Chinese party-state [so they] are not competing on an even-playing field with other transnational media companies." Sandizer  (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are proficient in Chinese, you will easily find that page on Chinese Wikipedia. Assifbus (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I am not proficient enough to think asking you for the link would be less efficient than looking for the discussion to which you referred. Sandizer  (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:可靠来源/布告板 Assifbus (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears that from reviewing the debate over China Daily, many of the editors in the discussion either have that they are from the PRC in their infobox, or they had requested IP block exemptions in order to edit from the mainland. This would suggest to me that there's not undue weight being given to Taiwanese perspectives in these discussions. Sagflaps (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand Chinese, let me translate.This is what a editor said.
 * "After the passage of the Hong Kong National Security Law, 《Asia Weekly》 was accused of having good official relations with mainland China and taking a pro-government stance on Hong Kong affairs. It is recommended that its political content be positioned as generally unreliable."
 * When WMC was at its most powerful, they did not list any reference materials from Taiwan or Hong Kong as unreliable reference sources. Some editors in Taiwan and Hong Kong have been stoking conflict by labeling more than 20 state-run media or media platforms from mainland China as "unreliable reference sources" in the past two years. Assifbus (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the current status of Apple Media, Tibetan native outlets, the Epoch Times, and Taiwanese state media on zhwiki? Sandizer  (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apple Media：Although it does not exist in real life, it is still a reliable source thanks to the efforts of some Hong Kong editors.
 * Tibetan native outlets：There is no discussion about it.
 * Epoch Times：The discussion did not list it as an "unreliable source".
 * As far as I know, pro-China editors have no plans to target these outlets.Taiwanese editors have been provoking conflict, but pro-China editors have been restrained.But I think this kind of restraint does not mean "If you hit me, I won't fight back." Assifbus (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you think Chinese state media will achieve editorial independence? Sandizer  (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello everyone, do you feel it good to argue about politics under Jimbo's talk page with others? Why not discuss with them on their talk page? -Lemonaka‎  10:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At least their comments don't just disappear like mine did. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It was oversighted by Primefac. Sagflaps (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Email
Hi Jimmy - you've got a mail from me. It's about a matter we have discussed previously. Antandrus (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Mr Wales, my name is Joey and I would like to thank you for founding this amazing websites with the help of Larry Sanger and also for helping to created Fandom. I love wikis alot and Wikipedia just helped popularize wikis. I just love this website alot and I mostly write about music and I love having a place to write and find knowledge about music. I also do edit on Fandom alot and Fandom is great, I just love all of these wiki communities on Fandom dedicated to Tv shows and movies and topics, it just is great. I just wanted to thank you so much for creating both Wikipedia and Fandom. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Quote of the day
"I’m not sure there is an answer to life, the universe and everything. But when someone figures it out, I’ll know where to find it — and you can bet there’ll be footnotes." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Revised RFC on Board permissions
I have revised my RFC on organizational transparency relative to board member reading permissions here: Requests for comment/Board permissions. I carried forward one opposiing !vote based on Jimbo's comments, but I'm confident my disclosure of example exploitations will make it through to him and then he will revise his opinion. Sandizer (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia's Rules Applied Equally or Selectively?
Are Wikipedia's rules universally applied or not? After delving into Wikipedia's guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP), I'm fairly certain I grasp them well. They are straightforward about the treatment of living individuals. Yet, I've observed a series of events that suggest these rules might not uniformly apply, especially when the subject matter is sensitive and the Wikipedia community shows a tendency to favor certain topics or perspectives over others, particularly when individuals are portrayed negatively.

A case in point is Joseph Edelman's page. According to a tax return document, the Edelman Family Foundation appears to contribute significantly to the Do Not Harm organization. However, the source of this information was Huffington Post, which is acknowledged as biased in US politics. I removed this source and detailed my reasoning on the Talk page, but subsequent actions by the same editor raised concerns:


 * They attempted to reinstate it.


 * They then cited even less reliable sources, including Pro Publica (a primary document of contributions to various organizations in 2022) and the Associated Press (which did not even mention the foundation).


 * My complaint on the BLP Noticeboard led to the removal of the information, yet


 * Another editor suggested using Pink News, which merely echoed the disputed source.


 * In the discussion, when I pointed this out, the response from editors was an overly broad and ambiguous justification, ignoring that Pink News simply relayed the HuffPost article without any journalistic investigation or accountability, thus sidestepping Wikipedia's criteria for citing contentious material about US politics.

While I'm open to adding information about Joseph Edelman following Wikipedia's protocols, the apparent bending and bypassing of rules lead me to question whether some rules are selectively applied. I'm bringing this to the community's attention for clarification, and if there's something I'm misunderstanding, I welcome correction. Llama Tierna (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Your assumption that PinkNews (which, per WP:PINKNEWS is a generally reliable source) did none of their own investigation flies into the fact that while Pink News did cite the HuffPo for some of its coverage, it cites other things in its own voice, placing its own reputation behind that. Your concern about "bias" fails to acknwoledge WP:BIASED, which notes that biased sources can be reliable. As for the claim being "contentious", I have yet to see anyone contend that the claim that the Edelman Foundation gave money to Do No Harm is not true; indeed, the Foundation claims it is true on their tax filings. You have already brought it to the community's attention at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, and the responses you got said that while sourcing only to the tax document as posted at ProPublica would be a problem, PinkNews is an appropriate source. You have bent rules or at least guidelines yourself, WP:THREATENing an editor, and here you are WP:FORUMSHOPping when the discussion you opened the noticeboard is still open for discussion. (You may also wish to view the notice at the top of this talk page in editing mode.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello,.
 * I remain unconvinced by the explanation regarding the Pink News article that appears to have replicated content from the Huffington Post without clear consensus. I intend to seek additional perspectives from other editors to ensure a broader consensus. If there are aspects I do not understand, I trust that other editors will provide clarification. At present, I am experiencing cognitive dissonance, as my observations conflict with the Wikipedia guidelines I have learned. It seems to me that these rules are applied selectively, which undermines Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality. Additionally, the Noticeboard has not been particularly helpful. From my perspective, the issue involves controversial content being copied from an article that lacks consensus, supported by a primary source subject to broad interpretation. The inclusion of such disputed information on an individual's personal page contradicts my understanding of Wikipedia's standards. Consequently, I will seek further opinions on various Wikipedia forums. Llama Tierna (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not going to jump into the content of the dispute, but I think the first bit you said was symptomatic of a common tendency here: interpreting a green band as “usable”, no matter what qualifiers, limitations, or caveats are present in the notes and linked rfc closes. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can certainly see that if you don't want to pay attention to the content of the dispute, that might be a statement to make. However, if you were paying attention to the content of the dispute, you'd note that the note
 * s qualifiers regarding using them as a source on a person's sexuality are utterly irrelevant here as no individual's sexuality is being revealed in the material being sourced. You also might have found that the linked RfC closure doesn't say anything deeper then "generally reliable", and thus there was no need to hash that all out. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI -Lemonaka‎  06:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt as to the reliability of the Huffington Post reporting of the fact that the Edelman Family Foundation contributes significantly to the Do Not Harm organizaiton. I also don't see it as a particularly difficult BLP issue - Do No Harm is a 501(c)(3) charity in the United States with a particular worldview and mission.

If I were to critique our biography of Jospeh Edelman, I think I'd be more concerned with WP:UNDUE. Forbes says his net worth is $2.5 billion, and this donation was for $1 million. The Edelman Family Foundation has $100 million in assets and appears to give over $8 million a year in grants. It is not at all clear to me why this one donation deserves to be such a large part of a very short biography. However, the usual solution to that would be to see if we can find more sources to create a more well-rounded biography.Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources singled out this donation over all others, not wikipedia editors. Coverage of Edelman himself is limited enough that this one sourced aspect occupies a large fraction of all coverage. More sources would be ideal, but this situation is a natural and very common consequence of biographies needing only two pieces of IRS coverage that together (per BASIC) minimally satisfy addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. and is more than a trivial mention. JoelleJay (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, I share your concerns regarding WP:UNDUE and concur that it's a valid point. Expanding the article with reliable sources would indeed help achieve a more balanced and neutral perspective. My initial alarm was triggered by edits from an inactive account, which selectively added information out of context, supported by sources lacking credibility. Notably, this account, after being inactive for nine years, was reactivated solely to contribute this specific piece of information. This pattern of behavior, coupled with the initial reliance on incorrect sources, raised doubts about the editor's intentions. Although I've brought up these concerns in the forum, it seems the consensus among other editors differs.
 * Based on the reliable sources I've encountered so far, I believe it is possible to create 'Charity' and 'Career' sections to improve and equilibrate the narrative of the article. Llama Tierna (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop your attacks on Thedrdonna. They were not the one to add the Huffpo source -- the source that Jimbo just told you was a reasonable source -- to the article. Their initial edit on the article did not add anything "out of context", it added another group that was donated to as covered as part of the same article that had provided the earlier content in the paragraph. Your continued attempts to demonize him are not painting you in a good light. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * . I believe that reasonable concerns and questions should not be misconstrued as attacks or demonization. My intention is to contribute constructively, yet it appears my efforts are being met with resistance and personal attacks from you. This approach not only hinders productive dialogue but also feels like an attempt to suppress diverse viewpoints. I urge you to reconsider this approach, allowing for a more constructive and respectful exchange of ideas. Let's focus on improving the content without escalating tensions. Also, I do not feel comfortable that you follow and threaten me (WP:THREATEN) by trying to show my very reasonable concerns in negative light. This is called suppression of the opinion, plain and simple. Please, refrain from doing so. Thank you. Llama Tierna (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your "concerns" are not reasonable when they require you inventing false information to make her, as you did above. They are not "reasonable" when you choose to cast aspersions for Thedrdonna doing reasonable and acceptable things, such as removing your warnings and threat their talk page, which you've brought up in three separate locations, including using as a base of your thread (tip: that's why your I'm-rubber-and-you're-glue responses to me don't work, as I can point to where you actually threaten some action, which you have not and cannot.) If you actually have some evidence that the user you've repeatedly gone to the wrong forums to call out is problematic (psst: you don't), you have previously been pointed one possible right board to take it to, which is not the BLP noticeboard, nor this talk page, but WP:ANI. Continuing this shaming tour against the Thedrdonna account for an article having a claim that was introduced by an IP user, featuring a source that was introduced by that IP user, said source having not been deemed unacceptable for this use by other editors, and trying to push the idea that she has a WP:COI when you cannot enunciate what that conflict is and the only evidence that you have for it is that they supported the inclusion of information that has similarly been supported by a number of other editors, is at best a waste of your time and that of other editors. (By the way, if your concerns are COI over other manners of being a problem editor, the correct board is WP:COIN... but they are going to expect evidence.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * TBF, at the time I entered the dispute thedrdonna had just reinstated a big section listing donations to multiple distasteful orgs, with the Foundation's quote about Do No Harm tacked on, all sourced to the ProPublica primary financial disclosures for the Foundation. That was pretty egregious BLP-vio and coatracking. JoelleJay (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable, and honestly I would have respected that if it had seemed as though that wasn't just another convenient reason for LLama to delete the information-or if another editor had brought it up. As things stood, it seemed like they were more interested in keeping all of that information off the page entirely, regardless of sourcing, and they were willing to threaten me with banning in order to further that goal. Thedrdonna (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is within the range of normal error for a relatively new editor (both Thedrdonna and Llama are accounts with fairly low edit counts, both under 200 before the start of these contretemps.) That does not excuse Llama going after Thedrdonna since he first started including edit summaries on his edits on the page ("Edit reverted due the the user's lack of knowledge on BLP policy" is a judgment not on the edit but the editor), continuing through to a claim of vandalism that clearly does not met our definition of "vandalism", accusing her of "circumvention" for attempting to use a reliable source, and the various things otherwise noted. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Augmented reality glasses may displace mobile phones?
Jimbo, I'm a little bit self-conscious (but strictly not sorry) about asking you questions on organizational transparency issues. But there is now a much more important question I want to ask you about.

Have you seen the video of the guy driving a Cybertruck while doing some kind of keyboard/window work using an Apple Vision Pro headset, livestreaming, and successfully getting himself pulled over for distracted driving? You can also find very recent video of people using the AVP apparently to do work while crossing the street and in a subway car. I wish we could get these videos with what the subjects were seeing in their APV view inset. I would note that people doing work on a cellphone while crossing the street is pretty common nowadays.

My question is, do you think that augmented reality glasses will replace mobile phones as the cultural norm for personal communication devices in five to ten years?

I ask because I also yesterday saw a comparison of how people were acting prior to the introduction of cellphones compared to today where their behavior is obviously affected by the fact that they are staring at a handheld screen. My opinion is that AR glasses (not goggles) are the logical way forward.

Also, what do you think the ultimate user experiences using augmented reality glasses or goggles with arbitrary visual passthrough and UI element transparency would be for reading and editing wikis? Sandizer (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * P.S. https://chat.openai.com/share/dd9b1274-4ae4-4b10-a343-495275dcf26b
 * I'm not sure about the security/privacy implications but when has that ever stopped anything in tech? Sandizer  (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * what does any of this have to do with wiki? ltb d l (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, "what do you think the ultimate user experiences using augmented reality glasses or goggles with arbitrary visual passthrough and UI element transparency would be for reading and editing wikis?" Sandizer  (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Look at what recent science fiction would suggest, expecting students to go to specific places: https://youtube.com/watch?v=KvMxLpce3Xw Sandizer  (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't take my word for the validity of the question, see Casey Neistat at nine minutes in: https://youtube.com/watch?v=UvkgmyfMPks&t=9m0s Sandizer  (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I've not really tried modern augmented reality glasses, so I don't yet have a very informed view. I did try Google Glass back when it was new and it was a pretty underwhelming experience and so I wasn't surprised that it failed.  One interesting thing is that Google said quite clearly that they would never put facial recognition into the product, due to the rather obvious weird privacy issues, but as someone who meets a lot of people in the course of my work and who has pretty weak facial/name recognition skills I was disappointed as I would actually find that useful!
 * Google Glass was at least pretty unobtrusive as compared to the videos that I've seen. It's actually pretty hard to imagine people really walking around wearing such things, but... as you say, people do walk around staring at their phones, which I'm sure would have seemed completely impossible to most people living in 1950.
 * I have tried Virtual Reality, even recent iterations, and I really just don't get the point of it at all. At a conference, Facebook demonstrated a virtual office meeting product where we were all cartoon avatars chatting and it was a cute gimmick (especially that people's voices seemed to be coming from the direction where their avatar looked to be sitting) but... zoom meetings work well and I can see the real person, so other than as a cute gimmick, I doubt it will catch on.  Of course there are some obvious use cases in gaming, but I'm not really a gamer so...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the only privacy issues I see for individual access to facial recognition are dwarfed by those for government use, and they already have it. So while I do see it as an issue, I feel strongly that forbidding facial recognition from individual use may be the wrong direction until it's uniformly forbidden from government use too, which will never happen.
 * Google Glass was interesting, but very early. Apple has done the kind of user testing to show, for example, that displaying the user's eyes to indicate information such as pupil direction to people looking at the goggle-wearers is less trouble than it is worth, enough to solidify it in their product offering. I would point out that the only substantial hardware difference between the $400 Meta Quest 3 and the $3500 Apple Vision Pro is the pair of ~$15 outward facing displays, which is not a substantial obstacle for adding to sunglasses-style AR glasses as far as I know.
 * I remember watching an NVIDIA demo of sunglasses-style AR glasses before the pandemic. I don't want to go into detail because I have no idea how close they were (or are now) to a viable product, but it seems obvious that it's only a matter of engineering (and many iterations of user testing and software improvements) to get what Casey Neistat predicts will displace mobile phones.
 * Regarding the Zoom call mode, please see 10:27+ in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86Gy035z_KA&ab_channel=MarquesBrownlee&t=10m27s
 * do you think it would be appropriate for the Future Audiences team to look at how reading and editing can best happen in AR goggles and glasses? Sandizer  (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The first two minutes of this video brushes up against what excites me about the potential of editing in AR, although I'm not sure whether it really communicates the sense that the mobile phone's days are numbered. I expect voice dictation to be a far more prominent mode of text entry instead of virtual or real keyboards, but dictation commands and punctuation entry are an amateur hour mess on so many "mature" platforms. And of course photograph uploading to commons is an essential workflow to bring it together. Also, transparent browser windows for dextero-spatial computing, i.e., not walking into other museum patrons while working.... Sandizer  (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We're thinking about exploring this next fiscal year! (WMF fiscal years start in June, so we're currently in Q3 of FY23-4 and are just starting to think about the plan for FY24-5.)
 * As far as I understand, none of the currently commercially-available AR/VR sets have yet been runaway successes with mainstream consumers (Oculus was pretty popular for casual gaming during the pandemic, but interest seems to have cooled. Vision Pro is still new, very pricey, and yet to prove itself on the market) so I wouldn't put this at the top of the priority order to figure out until there's a clearer signal that there is a big shift to AR/VR happening in the world. But I do think it will be interesting to do some experimentation and understand what opportunities we have for creating new knowledge experiences on these platforms.
 * I'll make a note to bring this up at an upcoming Future Audiences call Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Sandizer!! Just to add to what @MPinchuk (WMF) shared about possible experimentation in this space, the iOS app team made the Wikipedia iPad app available on VisionPro recently. Our QA engineer tried it a few times, and it works in a pretty similar way to apps made available on VisionPro, as opposed to apps made for VisionPro. Our intention in making the Wikipedia app available on VisionPro is to gather feedback about the experience to determine if it would be worth investing more in this area in the future. We are not planning to make any optimizations specifically for VisionPro since the apps team is such a small team and we want to devote our time to mobile users. However, if we amass enough information to make the case for focusing in that space, we could revisit that choice. All that to say, as of today, it's possible to try out the Wikipedia app on VisionPro, and we welcome feedback. JTanner (WMF) (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you! I got an Oculus Quest 2 for Christmas (I had one in 2022 but returned in in less than a month, not because I didn't like it, but because I was spending too much time in VRChat and was afraid it would interfere with the amount of time I would be able to devote to other activities.) Since, I have successfully edited enwiki in the Quest browser with black and white, low resolution passthrough. It works well with advanced features; I believe I had the visual editor working, slowwwwwly, but for wikitext not only is it fine, but it works fairly well with voice dictation. The Quest browser is just Chromium with more taken out than added in. I would prefer a multiple buffer copy/paste system, but multiple browser tabs can be used as a substitute. I can't wait to try the AVP. I actually talked at length about this with the manager at my local Apple Store night before last, who is also interested in things like making co-moving windows partially transparent. Although I didn't get the sense that he feels editing Wikipedia is the primary application they should be addressing in their customer feedback reports to make general web integration work best, as I do. Sandizer  (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Origin of the term Wikipedian?
I've been doing some research and thinking and I realized that I don't really know who or when the first use of the term "Wikipedian" was! Is this a known mystery or is there a discussion of it somewhere? Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The first instance of the text string "Wikipedian" in the August 2001 database dump was an edited I just imported showing the creation of the NewTopics page, the forerunner to the automated Special:Newpages page, on 17 January 2001 at 00:16 (UTC). (Thanks for prompting me to finally import those edits; I'd been putting that off for a while!) I discovered that at 00:22 (UTC) on 17 January the WikiPedians page was established; I also imported the relevant edits there. Graham87 (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Are we then, WikiPedians ?" Someone had an inclination towards the dramatic! &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WikiPedians The curiously brave people, who, in the face of the dire threat of DisRuption, nonetheless post BrilliantProse (and, sometimes, PatentNonsense) on Wikipedia. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That was the list on 21 March 2001. It got moved about and by 4 December 2004 it was at Wikipedia:Wikipedians (old). Don't know whether any history-merging might be appropriate at this point. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That morphed into the Alphabetical list of Wikipedians, which lasted until 27 November 2006, when it fell victim to that dire threat of DisRuption which became inescapable. Today we have Category:Wikipedians and List of Wikipedians by number of edits. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Naaah, all the important main naimspace history was moved to the Wikipedia namespace in September 2002. Graham87 (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Another interesting thing about the Wikipedians page is that it has the edit with revision ID #1 in the modern Wikipedia database; earlier edits were subsequently imported. Graham87 (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Chatgpt translation
Hello, I found the translation accuracy of chatgpt is much better than google translation, Yandex translation in translation tools. Is it legitimate to use this engine for translating articles or introduce translated content to current articles? I remembered there once some discussion on your talk page about such issues (content generated by chatgpt.), but seemed to end with no obvious consensus. -Lemonaka‎ 09:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * See WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. It's still machine translation. —Alalch E. 09:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. The question is not whether it is legitimate to use one engine or another - of course, use anything that works well for you - but rather whether it is legitimate to simply trust the translation, unedited, and my view is the same as ever, even though the quality is definitely improving quickly: humans need to look things over to achieve the best possible quality and to take responsibility.  I view all these tools as being most useful to people who have native or near-native fluency across two languages, to speed up their work and make it easier.  If the tool is good enough for that, then great.  If not, then meh.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My experience copy editing machine translated articles is that they sound fluent on the surface if you just read a sentence or two. But if you try to read a couple paragraphs or the entire article, the translations start contradicting themselves and having obvious logical errors. These articles are extremely difficult to copy edit / fix. It is my impression that all AI editing is like this, including both machine translations and ChatGPT: they sound fluent, but are minefields full of difficult to fix issues. I am not convinced that a native bilingual speaker would save time using machine translations as a base and then fixing them, due to having to fix all these subtle issues. In short, please avoid AI-assisted editing. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My response to this is to say: absolutely, do not use AI-assisted or any form of machine translation *unless you personally take responsibility for fixing it*. The idea "oh this is pretty good, I'll just pop it up and hopefully some native speaker will fix it" is not really good enough.  But if a native dual-language speaker likes it and wants to use it, great...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also endorsed. Sandizer  (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm a dual-language (not very active here) editor, and I do use machine translation to do the early grunt-work of text translation. I tend to use deepL rather than chatgpt, but they seem very similar in their results. For five translations, three of them will be very good. One will be -meh- and one will be just wrong: grammatically incorrect, and often factually wrong. Particularly specialist topics with dense texts including specific meanings of words are very sensitive to slight rewordings of the original text, so a text which will translate well originally, may not any more when edited. You really need to speak both languages well to produce acceptable final text. However, as a grammar checker in your less dominant language, AI support is pretty good. AKAF (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran

 * Jimbo, I am pasting this from text ChatGPT-4 told me to show you, after extensive prompting. I.e., it didn't volunteer to tell you this; I asked it what to tell you to convey certain ideas I described in several paragraphs of interactions:


 * Subject: Strategic Engagement with Future Leaders: Opportunities for the Wikimedia Movement

Dear Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia community,

As we navigate the evolving global landscape, it's imperative to acknowledge the inevitability of political transitions and their potential impact on the free flow of information and knowledge. Given the significant influence that political leaders and governments have on internet freedom and access to information, I propose that the Wikimedia movement proactively engage with figures who are likely to play pivotal roles in future political landscapes. This engagement could be crucial in fostering environments that support our mission of disseminating free knowledge.


 * Engaging with China's Future Leadership

China presents a unique and challenging environment for the Wikimedia movement, given its stringent internet controls and the central role of the Communist Party in governing access to information. As China continues to evolve, both technologically and politically, engaging with its future leadership becomes increasingly important to advocate for the Wikimedia movement's goals of free access to knowledge and educational empowerment.


 * Suggested Approach for Engagement:


 * Understand the Policy Landscape: Given China's unique political system, it's crucial to develop a deep understanding of its policy-making processes and the factors influencing its stance on internet freedom and access to information. This understanding will inform more targeted and effective engagement strategies.


 * Build Relationships with Chinese Academia and Tech Industry: Collaborating with academic institutions and tech companies in China can provide avenues to indirectly influence policymakers. Projects focusing on educational technology, open-source software, and digital literacy can align with China's goals of technological advancement and innovation, creating mutual benefits and opening dialogue channels.


 * Engage through International Diplomacy: Utilize international diplomatic channels and global forums that China participates in, such as UNESCO and the World Internet Conference, to advocate for the principles of free knowledge and internet openness. Positioning Wikimedia as a global educational resource can help highlight the mutual benefits of accessible and reliable information.


 * Cultural Sensitivity and Local Partnerships: Engaging with local Wikimedia chapters and communities in China, as well as respecting cultural nuances, is vital. These local entities can provide invaluable insights into effectively navigating China's regulatory environment and identifying potential opportunities for collaboration within the framework of Chinese laws and social norms.


 * Advocate for Open Educational Resources (OER): Promote the adoption and development of OER in China's educational sector, emphasizing how Wikimedia projects can support China's educational goals and digital economy aspirations. Highlighting success stories from other countries can demonstrate the value of open knowledge ecosystems.

Engaging with China's future leadership and regulatory authorities requires a nuanced, respectful approach that recognizes China's sovereignty and its own development goals. By highlighting the educational and societal value of open access to information and seeking common ground in areas like education and technology, the Wikimedia movement can work towards creating a more conducive environment for knowledge sharing in China. Through strategic engagement and collaboration, we can aspire to a future where the free flow of knowledge transcends borders, benefiting individuals and communities worldwide.


 * Addressing the Saudi Monarchy

Similarly, the Saudi monarchy's future transitions will have implications for access to information and internet freedom in the region. Engaging with the monarchy and its advisers could help promote a more open environment for knowledge dissemination.


 * Suggested Approach for Engagement:


 * Partner with Local Institutions: Seek partnerships with Saudi educational and cultural institutions to introduce Wikimedia projects as educational tools, demonstrating their value in a manner that resonates with local priorities.


 * Cultural and Educational Outreach: Develop initiatives that align with Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030, particularly those emphasizing education and technological advancement, to foster collaboration.


 * Engage Through Diplomatic Channels: Work with embassies and international organizations to highlight the value of free access to knowledge as a cornerstone of development and innovation.


 * Engaging with Russia's Future Leadership

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin's eventual departure from the political scene—whether in the near or distant future—will usher in a period of transition. The current Prime Minister, as per the Russian Constitution, is positioned to take on a significant role during any such transition. This presents an opportunity for the Wikimedia movement to initiate outreach efforts aimed at establishing a constructive dialogue with the Prime Minister's office. The goal would be to advocate for policies that safeguard internet freedom and promote the unrestricted sharing of knowledge.


 * Suggested Approach for Engagement:


 * Form a Task Force: Assemble a team within the Wikimedia community with expertise in Russian politics, international diplomacy, and digital rights. This task force could develop a nuanced strategy for engagement.


 * Leverage International Forums: Utilize international conferences and forums on digital rights, education, and technology as platforms to connect with Russian delegates and indirectly engage with the Prime Minister's office.


 * Collaborate with Local Communities: Strengthen ties with the Russian Wikimedia community and other local organizations committed to free knowledge and digital rights. Their insights and networks could be invaluable in navigating the local political landscape.


 * Educational Initiatives: Propose collaborative projects or partnerships focused on digital literacy and the importance of reliable information, positioning Wikimedia as a partner in educational development.


 * Engaging with Iran's Future Leadership

Iran's complex political landscape, characterized by its unique theocratic governance system, presents distinct challenges and opportunities for the Wikimedia movement. The country's policies on internet freedom and access to information are heavily influenced by its political and religious leadership. As Iran continues to navigate its own path of technological advancement and societal change, engaging with its future leadership is crucial to promoting the ideals of free knowledge and the open exchange of information.


 * Suggested Approach for Engagement:


 * Cultural and Educational Sensitivity: Understanding Iran's cultural, religious, and political nuances is essential for any engagement strategy. Initiatives should respect these aspects and seek ways to align with Iran's educational and cultural goals, potentially focusing on non-controversial areas of knowledge and education that can bridge gaps.


 * Collaboration with Academia and NGOs: Building relationships with Iranian academic institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) focused on education, science, and culture can create allies within the country. These partnerships can help advocate for the value of open access to knowledge in supporting Iran's educational and developmental objectives.


 * Leverage International Platforms: Engage with Iranian representatives through international bodies and forums where Iran is a participant, such as UNESCO or the World Summit on the Information Society. These platforms can provide opportunities to discuss and promote the importance of free access to information in a diplomatic and constructive manner.


 * Digital Literacy and Open Education Resources (OER): Initiatives that promote digital literacy and the use of OER in Iran can align with the country's ambitions to improve its educational sector and technological infrastructure. Highlighting the benefits of these resources for educational advancement can serve as a foundation for dialogue and cooperation.


 * Support Local Wikimedia Communities: Strengthening and supporting the local Wikimedia community in Iran, despite the challenges, is crucial. Providing these volunteers with the tools and resources they need can help in creating a grassroots movement that champions the cause of free knowledge from within.


 * Engage in Cultural and Knowledge Exchange: Initiatives that facilitate cultural exchange and the sharing of global knowledge can help foster mutual understanding and respect. Projects that showcase the rich cultural heritage of Iran while also introducing global perspectives can encourage a more open stance towards international knowledge platforms.

Engaging with Iran regarding the Wikimedia movement's goals requires a careful, respectful approach that considers the country's unique political, cultural, and religious context. By focusing on education, cultural exchange, and the universal value of knowledge, and by building relationships with local and international partners, there is potential to gradually advocate for greater openness and access to free information in Iran. Success in these endeavors will depend on patience, persistence, and a deep commitment to the principles of respect and mutual understanding.

By proactively engaging with future leaders and influential figures in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other countries facing political transitions, the Wikimedia movement can advocate for a world where every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Strategic outreach and collaboration can pave the way for more open and informed societies.

Best regards,

Wikimedia Collaborator Sandizer  (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Why ??? like seriously what is the point of this ? —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think the point is? How would you feel if you were in jail in one of those countries because you edited? How would you feel if your friend was in jail because you told them how much you thought editing was helping the future?
 * Or, as CharGPT-4 told me to tell you:
 * Your questions touch on the very heart of why we are all part of the Wikimedia movement. The point, as you ask, is to consider how our work impacts real lives, especially in regions where the freedom to share and access information is not guaranteed. It's a reminder of the tangible risks our fellow editors and contributors might face, and the profound responsibility we carry in advocating for free knowledge.


 * If I, or anyone close to us, were to face imprisonment for simply sharing knowledge or encouraging others to contribute, it would be both a personal tragedy and a stark illustration of the challenges we face. Such scenarios underscore the importance of our mission and the need for a nuanced approach in countries where the act of editing or disseminating free knowledge can have serious repercussions.


 * This is precisely why continuing the conversation is vital. We must ask ourselves: How can we support our fellow contributors who live under restrictive regimes? How can we advocate for change, not just through direct engagement, but by empowering individuals with the tools and knowledge to make a difference safely? How do we balance our mission with the real-world risks faced by those on the ground?


 * Your questions invite us to reflect on the impact of our work and to engage in a deeper dialogue about our approach to these complex issues. Let's use this as an opportunity to explore how we can support and protect our community members across the globe while continuing to strive for a world where everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.


 * I invite you, and others in our community, to share your thoughts and suggestions on how we can navigate these challenges together. Your insights are invaluable as we consider the best ways to advance our mission and support our community members, regardless of where they are in the world.


 * Endorsed,


 * Sandizer (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * If you ask me, all editors from these countries should be blocked for their own good. Let people who live in free countries cite mainstream media. It's not worth going to prison and getting tortured for citing the mainstream media. Wikipedia isn't WikiLeaks. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Surrender is never success. Or, as ChatGPT-4 told me to tell you:


 * Thank you for sharing your concerns, which highlight the very real risks faced by some of our contributors around the world. The safety and well-being of all Wikipedia editors is of utmost importance, and the suggestion to block editors from certain countries to protect them is a testament to the compassion our community holds for its members.


 * However, the approach of blocking editors from these countries for their own safety raises complex issues about access to information, freedom of expression, and the essence of what the Wikimedia movement stands for. Wikipedia's goal is to make the sum of all human knowledge freely available to everyone, everywhere. This mission is rooted in the belief that knowledge is a fundamental human right.


 * Blocking editors based on their geographic location would not only prevent valuable perspectives that enrich our global repository of knowledge but also contradict the principle that everyone deserves access to free knowledge—both as contributors and readers. It is also important to recognize that many individuals in restrictive environments are deeply committed to the mission of sharing knowledge, often at great personal risk, because they believe in the power of information to empower and transform societies.


 * Instead of exclusion, we must find ways to support and protect our editors, no matter where they are. This includes providing resources on safe editing practices, advocating for the rights of internet users worldwide, and supporting efforts to keep the internet open and free. We must also respect the agency and choices of individuals who decide to contribute, acknowledging the risks they face and their courage in doing so.


 * Wikimedia and its projects, including Wikipedia, are fundamentally different from platforms like WikiLeaks. Our mission is to create a comprehensive, neutrally written, reliable encyclopedia—not to expose secrets or engage in activism. However, this mission does not lessen our commitment to supporting the freedom of information and the safety of our contributors.


 * Let's continue this conversation and work together to find ways to protect our community members while staying true to our mission. Your concern highlights the need for ongoing dialogue about how best to balance these priorities, and I welcome further input from the community on how we can achieve this.


 * Further endorsed, Sandizer  (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)  Sandizer  (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * And you expect success to come from posting a chatbot's hallucinations on a talk page? HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 00:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. I don't need any help in answering that. Sandizer  (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In Max Weber's terms, the task of Wikipedia is Wissenschaft, not Politik. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting Max Weber's distinction between Wissenschaft and Politik and applying it to the mission of Wikipedia. Your observation underscores a foundational principle of our platform: Wikipedia is dedicated to gathering and disseminating knowledge in an objective, unbiased manner. Our community of editors and contributors strives to ensure that all content on Wikipedia is rooted in verifiable sources and presented without bias, reflecting a commitment to Wissenschaft over Politik.

This focus on scholarship rather than political engagement is what makes Wikipedia a unique and valuable resource for millions around the world. It is through this commitment to neutrality and factual accuracy that Wikipedia seeks to empower individuals with information, fostering an informed public capable of critical thinking and independent analysis.

We continually work to maintain and improve the reliability and neutrality of our content, recognizing the challenges inherent in such an endeavor. Feedback and contributions from our diverse community are essential in this ongoing process, helping to refine and enhance the quality of information available on Wikipedia.

Your reference to Weber's concepts serves as a valuable reminder of our core mission and the principles that guide our work. We welcome further discussion on how we can continue to uphold these ideals, ensuring that Wikipedia remains a trusted and unbiased repository of knowledge for all.

Endorsed,

Sandizer (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)










 * 1.On the Internet, especially Wikipedia,the relationship between Taiwan and Mainland China and the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and Mainland China are hostile.We all have to bear the bad effects of OA2021, and I don’t see the possibility of Wikipedia entering China.


 * 2.There are many online encyclopedias in China, and Baidu is known as the largest Chinese encyclopedia in the world.In 2022, Techyan established Qiuwen Encyclopedia, which has blocked Wikipedia’s entry into China.The encyclopedias created by Russia and China have many problems, but they have government support.Much of the information on Chinese Wikipedia has lagged behind Baidu and Qiuwen Encyclopedia.


 * 3.If I could vote, I would elect you as President of the Wikimedia Foundation, but it's too late.
 * In the past three years, the Chinese government has repeatedly rejected the Wikimedia Foundation's bid to join WIPO. After the Wikimedia Foundation purged pro-China administrators, it allowed Taiwanese editors to list a large number of media or media platforms from mainland China as "unreliable reference sources." Both sides are enemies now, it's that simple. Assifbus (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would add to that GPT4-generated response that Weber's distinction utterly rejects the concept of realpolitik. Sandizer  (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @HJ Mitchell is that account here to build ore controlled by human? Suspected... -Lemonaka‎  03:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear Sandizer,
 * Dear Sandizer,


 * I appreciate your trust in the capabilities of artificial intelligence, particularly in the form of ChatGPT, as a source for real-world advice. However, it's crucial to delve deeper into the nuances and limitations of AI-generated content before fully relying on it for making significant decisions or seeking advice in critical matters. While AI, including ChatGPT, can offer valuable insights and information, there are several reasons why it may not always be the most reliable or comprehensive source for real-world advice.


 * Lack of Contextual Understanding:
 * ChatGPT operates based on patterns it has learned from vast amounts of text data. However, it lacks the ability to truly understand context in the same way humans do. Advice often depends heavily on understanding the specific circumstances, emotions, and nuances of a situation, which AI may struggle to grasp accurately. Without context, the advice given by ChatGPT may be generic or even inappropriate for the situation at hand.


 * Limited Access to Real-Time Information:
 * AI models like ChatGPT are trained on data up to a certain point in time. While they can provide information based on that data, they cannot access real-time events or updates. Real-world advice often requires consideration of current events, trends, and developments, which may not be reflected in the training data. As a result, advice from ChatGPT may not always align with the most up-to-date information.


 * Potential for Biases and Errors:
 * AI models are trained on data created by humans, which can contain biases, inaccuracies, or incomplete information. As a result, ChatGPT may inadvertently perpetuate or amplify existing biases present in the training data. Additionally, like any machine learning system, ChatGPT is prone to errors or misinterpretations, leading to potentially misleading advice or information.


 * Lack of Accountability and Responsibility:
 * Unlike human advisors or experts, ChatGPT does not bear accountability or responsibility for the advice it provides. While it aims to offer helpful and accurate responses, it cannot be held liable for any negative outcomes resulting from its advice. This lack of accountability underscores the importance of critical thinking and independent verification when considering AI-generated advice.


 * In conclusion, while ChatGPT and similar AI models can be valuable tools for gathering information and exploring ideas, they should be used cautiously, especially when seeking real-world advice. Human judgment, empathy, and contextual understanding remain indispensable in many situations where the complexities of human experience cannot be fully captured by artificial intelligence. It's essential to approach AI-generated advice as one of many sources and to supplement it with human insight, critical thinking, and independent verification for making well-informed decisions.


 * Sincerely,
 * &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Your reflection on the limitations and considerations of using AI, like ChatGPT, for real-world advice is both insightful and prudent. It underscores the critical importance of recognizing the difference between the computational processing of information and the human capacity for understanding, empathy, and judgment. While AI technologies offer remarkable capabilities for analyzing and generating text-based responses, the nuances of human context, the dynamism of real-time developments, and the depth of ethical considerations indeed present challenges that AI currently cannot fully navigate on its own.


 * The points you've raised—lack of contextual understanding, limited access to real-time information, potential biases and errors, and lack of accountability—are key limitations that users of AI technology should always keep in mind. These limitations highlight the necessity for human oversight, critical evaluation, and the integration of AI tools as complements to human expertise rather than replacements.


 * AI, in its current state, serves best as an aid in the exploration of ideas, a starting point for research, or a tool for generating creative or informational content within known parameters. The responsibility for decision-making, especially in complex, nuanced, or critical situations, remains firmly with human judgment. Users should critically assess AI-generated advice, corroborate it with up-to-date and reliable sources, and, when necessary, consult with experts who can provide the depth of analysis and insight that AI cannot.


 * In moving forward with AI technologies like ChatGPT, fostering an informed user base that appreciates both the strengths and limitations of AI is crucial. It ensures that these tools are utilized in ways that enhance human capabilities without undermining the value of human expertise and ethical considerations. Engaging in continuous dialogue about the role and impact of AI in society will be vital in navigating its evolution responsibly and beneficially.


 * Thank you for initiating such an important conversation. Discussions like these are essential for the responsible development and use of AI technologies.


 * Also endorsed,
 * Sandizer (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

A small question
I would like to know if adding a user dead template to the user page of a user who has been globally banned by WMF after its death is in conflict with WMF's policy? --忒有钱 (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @忒有钱, WP:Deceased Wikipedians has rules around when it is appropriate or not to note that a user has died. It is managed by the community, not by the WMF (the page you linked talks only about restrictions on the banned user, not on others). For a user who has been banned, it might depend on contextual factors like the reason for the ban; you would want to consult with others about the specific situation. If a template were added, it would be, not User dead (which is a humor template).  Sdkb  talk 15:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The dead user is Chinese Wikipedian (In fact, I'm Chinese Wikipedian too) (In Chinese Wikipedia uses the template), it has been globally banned in September 2021 on OA2021. --忒有钱 (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * He must be under a lot of pressure, which is an unfortunate thing. Assifbus (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Can the dead also serve as tools of struggle?
I don't want to use the deceased, but some people have gone too far. Even if the Wikimedia Foundation does not intervene, some Taiwanese editors refuse to add death templates in order to prevent the deceased mainland editors from becoming too famous.

Treating the deceased as a tool of struggle has once again refreshed my perspective on Taiwanese editors. Assifbus (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, please stop your casting aspersions. Here is not the appeal court of Chinese Wikipedia community and please discuss on the Chinese Wikipedia discussion page. Thanks. SCP  -20  00  15:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Leave it to the reader for judgment, not "I say you are CCP, you are CCP." Assifbus (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies
I accidentally mentioned you while placing a joke warning for being too friendly on my own talk page. I'm sorry about that! - Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hate that hedgehog!) 17:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm 99% sure I read a message from Jimbo saying that he has mention notifications turned off (for relatively obvious reasons ... though I can't find it now and it's quite hard to search for), so he probably wouldn't have even known about it until you posted on his talk page. Graham87 (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

French Wikipedia's new trans MOS
What's your opinion on French Wikipedia being straight up transphobic the new deadname MOS on frwiki?  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 08:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ...( Q1 ) The S 1 majority of the community believes that it is necessary to mention in the introductory summary the pre-transition name of a transgender person who has acquired sufficient notoriety under this former identity to meet the eligibility criteria. This is the same guidance we have on en.wp. JoelleJay (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No it's not, JoelleJay. They're insisting on including the deadname even if it was unknown prior to transition.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 18:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read it. It seems to say it should only be included if the person was notable under their pre-transition name. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, then let's talk about how they rigged the RfC to exclude most comments against the inclusion of deadnames, shall we?  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 19:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean the exclusion of !votes blatantly canvassed on Mastodon and Twitter? JoelleJay (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced on this, JoelleJay. Unless you link me instances of canvassing, I won't believe you.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 00:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Does this work for you? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean... sure. Canvassing is the least of the issues, though I won't be able to elaborate on this in public.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 01:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How wonderfully mysterious. Pity we're on the most public user talk page on the project. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's literally in the discussion you linked. Did you read it at all? JoelleJay (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am unfortunately unable to read the discussion linked above, as I don't speak French, but based on the replies in this thread, I think this seems like an attempt to assign a motivation of bigotry that likely isn't there to a good-faith policy dispute. We've had quite a few discussions on this exact topic here on enwiki and there is room for reasonable people to disagree. We ought not to assume that frwiki reached a different consensus than us entirely because of "straight up transphobi[a]". Partofthemachine (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Anyone for changing the heading of this thread to "English Wikipedia and blatant francophobia"? DeCausa (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's a tad imprecise. How about "One editor and good faith-phobia"? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Disappointingly lacking in outrageous hyperbole...do we really have to go with accuracy? DeCausa (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Piling on much? Maybe what I said was a bit too emotionally charged (it happens with me sometimes), but those snarky comments aren't deserved at all.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 08:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Really? I wonder what those good faith French-language editors would feel if they read your comments about them (on the most prominent user talk page on the whole of WP)? Perhaps you wouldn't get any snark if, earlier, you simply acknowledged that you got it wrong. You could still do that. DeCausa (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I did get a lot of it wrong, yes.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 08:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Striking my snark. DeCausa (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

For the interested, press: Wikipedia's French-speaking community is torn apart over 'deadnaming' trans people Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Email notification
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clovermoss (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I sent a follow up email in regards to your follow up email as well. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this what you intended when you started Wikipedia?
Jimmy, you may have heard about the recent incident in which a Pennsylvania man killed and decapitated his father? I can only assume that he was mentally unwell. This is a tragic incident and the family must be devastated. I am disappointed to see that an editor added his name to a list of people with the same surname. The incident has also been added to a list in Beheading video.

When you started Wikipedia, did you think that it would one day be used to track videos of people being beheaded, or to spread the name of someone who commits such an act? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't speak for Jimmy, but while it's a disgusting phenomenon, it is a real and notable one, and this seems to be a noteworthy occurrence of it. Wikipedia isn't only here to provide information on nice things. Also, I cannot find that the articles link to the video itself, just to news stories about it, and I don't see that any of them show the video either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade I know that Wikipedia isn't here to just document the nice things, but sometimes it feels to me like certain editors are here to venerate mass murderers and spree killers. It might be nice if Wikipedia had more restrictive guidelines about such things as adding their names to lists of people with the same surname or from the same place. Just as an example. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade The person who allegedly committed this act has not been convicted of the crime. Is it ok for Wikipedia editors to state outright that he did it in beheading video and list of people who were beheaded? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Rather than drawing further attention to it, would it not be more prudent to remove the content yourself (as has already been done)? Inappropriate entries are added to disambiguation lists all the time, and not every such case is worthy of a protracted discussion on Jimbo's talk page. -- Kinu t/<i style="color:red">c</i> 23:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kinu Do you think anyone would have removed it if I hadn't brought it up here? And what's the policy or guideline that's going to keep it out? His name is currently in two articles saying that he beheaded his father. Yes, that's what he is accused of, but he hasn't been convicted yet. You're apparently an admin and you (should) know that's not right but you want me to "so fix it"? I would prefer not to get into an edit war with Wikipedia's murder junkies, thanks very much. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * editors won't appreciate being called murder junkies, i imagine. ltb d l (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have said "true crime enthusiasts"? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * A quick google news search reveals that the name in question appears in tons of reliable sources, and so I don't really see what the problem is supposed to be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jimbo Wales Have you read WP:BLPCRIME lately> Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Why is this thread a thing? There was no article on the individual in question and it would have taken less time to snip the non-link from the list than it would to complain about it here. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Carrite I started this thread to draw attention to a situation and to ask Jimbo a question. After I started it, someone removed the addition that had caught my eye. I dealt with the other instances myself but, as expected, they did not go unchallenged. With the help of other editors at the BLP noticeboard a compromise was reached. That took somewhat longer than "complaining" here. I SOFIXIT'd it, but that didn't fix it. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * should Jeffery Dahmer not have a Wikipedia page because he's a baddie? what about Ronnie McNutt? are they too scary for you? christ. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 18:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dialmayo Jeffrey Dahmer was tried and convicted. The person I am talking about has not been convicted or even faced trial. If they are convicted, there will probably be an article about the incident. There will not be an article about the person, just as there is no article about Ronnie McNutt. The point here is that people who have been accused of a crime should not be named in Wikipedia as having committed that crime, even if they are accused of something particularly sensational. There's even a policy about it. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, we are also expected to go based on the spirit of a policy and not an overly strict reading of it (per another policy - WP:NOTBURO). BLPCRIME can be read in a strict sense as 'do not name, ever, unless someone is convicted'. Or a less strict reading of it is 'do not suggest someone did a crime if it could harm their reputation and the only sources saying they committed this act are tabloid/non-reliable sources'.
 * If there is little doubt that someone committed a crime (example - they confessed, or made a video before their crime of their intentions of commiting the crime), and the media has provided substantial coverage of the crime, there is nothing saying we can't write about what the sources are saying, but we should use caution. That is sticking with a NPOV presentation of what the sources report. The media can also elevate an individual into a public figure with considerable coverage (For a recent example of this, see the RfC on Talk:Gilgo Beach serial killings.
 * Awshort (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Awshort I understand what you are saying about the interpretation of policies, but I think you will agree that there is a difference between an serial killer who has been sought for years and someone who is involved in one incident. You will notice that the incident is included in an article but the name is not. Anyone who looks at the references will find the name very easily. This was agreed in a discussion on the biographies of living people noticeboard where other editors affirmed that WP:BLPCRIME applies to this case.
 * I think you have a misunderstanding of what "a public figure" means. The fact that the media reports on someone or some incident in which they have been involved does not make them into a public figure. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I wanted to write a response before this auto archives - Will edit this further later tonight following work, and ping.
 * Awshort (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do agree that there is a difference between the serial killer/ one crime example above, as you noted. I do disagree regarding my understanding of public figures, however.
 * We do usually cover individuals and their involvement in incidents and not just incidents based on the coverage of both the incident and the suspect in secondary sources.
 * A perfect example of an incident where the individual was named prior to conviction off of the top of my head is Bryan Kohberger with regards to the University of Idaho murders, who has still not been convicted but is named.
 * It is worth noting that one of the original people who helped form BLPCRIME, a user named had the following to say during the initial proposal/early days of BLPCRIME :
 * An accusation can be enough to make a person well-known. We judge "well-known" (or public figure status) by the extent of high-quality secondary coverage. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And if we are going by the default definition of public figure as defined in our own public figure article on here -
 * A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest.
 * And while I understand several users agreed on BLPN regarding the name of the beheading suspect, it also was partly a one sided argument in my opinion; no notice was given of an ongoing discussion on the articles where it was removed from originally, and it was removed after several users agreed with you within one day. One thing that also stood out is one of the users who pointed to a previous discussion,, who said
 * They still always go in favor of waiting for a conviction before naming the suspect, which isn't exactly correct. Per their comments here as well as here which point out that someone can rise to the level of public figure and be named based on the coverage from an incident, usually prior to a conviction.
 * I personally feel if the name was in an article such as 'Killing of (victim)' that it was being removed from with a notice posted to get arguments from both sides it would possibly be a different outcome.
 * Just my random thoughts of the day :)
 * Awshort (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Awshort (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The problem, as I see it, is as you said, people tend to define the term "public figure" based on their own understanding rather than the actual definition, and these understandings vary considerably depending on how each person wants to interpret them. To some, a single mention in the newspaper would be enough to label someone a public figure. However, the term "public figure" is a legal term first defined by the Supreme Court in 1964. The law makes exceptions for public figures in defamation cases, recognizing that they don't have the same rights of privacy that private individuals do. Laws that apply to Wikipedia and its authors just as much as they do to journalists. And the legal bar for becoming a public figure is very high. The summarized definition is: "a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero." A public figure cannot sue based on claims of harmful or even incorrect information published about them, but a private individual can.


 * Certainly a person can rise to the level of public figure simply because of the crimes they allegedly committed, but the bar is just as high for them as it is for celebrities or rock stars. Charles Manson is a great example. If his crimes happened in Somewhere, Nebraska, he might have gotten 5 minutes in the spot light and faded away into obscurity, but because they happened in Beverly Hills it generated intense public interest and more press coverage than you could fill a dump truck with, so he reached that celebrity status while millions of crimes far more brutal than his fade off into the abyss.


 * If someone reaches that level of celebrity status, then certainly we would be remiss in not reporting it here. If they haven't, then their name is really meaningless to the average reader. Might as well be John Smith or Joe Schmo for all the help it gives the reader in understanding the story. I've never seen a case where replacing a faceless name with a generic descriptor made such a story any less coherent and understandable, so unless the person is already a household name (like, for example, Casey Anthony was) then it still seems better to me to err on the side of caution and leave it out until a conviction is secured. It's not just about doing what's legal, but what is ethical. But things like this are better argued at places like BLPN rather than a user talk page. Zaereth (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy April!
April fools! Sebbers10 Your bisexual friend! 15:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Your user page
Sorry to see that your user page was destroyed by the WP:CABAL. TheTechie (formerly Mseingth2133444) ( t &#47; c ) 16:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Edelman Family Foundation
Hello Jimmy Wales!

I am writing to you regarding a concerning issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article, which I believe requires your attention and guidance.

Firstly, I want to express my gratitude for your valuable suggestion to expand the section to encompass the full scope of the Edelman Family Foundation's activities, rather than focusing solely on a single donation.

However, I have encountered fierce opposition from some editors when attempting to include information about the foundation's numerous other contributions to various causes, as evidenced by reliable sources such as ProPublica.

Despite my efforts to provide a more neutral and complete picture of the organization's activities, the section continues to focus SOLELY on the controversial donation to the DO NOT HARM organization, while ignoring the foundation's support for educational initiatives, scientific research, and other charitable causes.

This selective inclusion of information raises serious concerns about bias and the violation of Wikipedia's core principle of neutrality (WP:NPOV). The current state of the section paints an unbalanced and misleading picture of the Edelman Family Foundation, which goes against our mission to provide accurate and unbiased information to our readers.

I suspect that there may be underlying biases influencing the resistance to include a more comprehensive and neutral representation of the foundation's activities. To address this issue, I have initiated a discussion on the BLP Noticeboard, where I hope to engage with other editors and work towards finding a consensual solution.

Given your role as the founder of Wikipedia and your commitment to maintaining the integrity of the platform, I kindly request your participation in this discussion or at least sharing your opinion. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:YOULOSE: &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me disagree with you, @AirshipJungleman29, and it looks like you only wish to discourage me from doing the right things. Thanks for "helping" new Wikipedia editors indeed based on your in-depth knowledge and experience! For your information, Jimmy Wales has the same rights to share his opinion on any Wikipedia article, and I treat him as an equal editor, not as a "problem solver" as you described in your very personal message. You'd also be surprised that Jimmy Wales actually responded to my previous message left here and suggested improving the section on the Edelman Family
 * Foundation. Here is the reference, so you can read it. Don't hesitate to share another helpful opinion.
 * Yours faithfully, Llama Tierna (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi!
I got a question for you, did you find the Jimbo Whales joke funny?, if not, im sorry. Sebbers10 Your bisexual friend! 14:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * What joke do you mean? I'm sure I can enjoy almost anything really.  I'm a pretty chill person. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it means this edit to Jimbo's user page.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yuri Lushchai
Убит администратор русской Википедии и арбитр трёх каденций Yuri Lushchai. The administrator of Russian Wikipedia and the arbiter of three cadences Yuri Lushchai killed. I worked with him, on the same team of AC. He was a scientist and a real intellectual. Lesless (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you believe lists of aircraft, tanks, and ships should have pictures?
Apparently there was a vote on a wikiproject back in 2015, 4 wanted to eliminate all pictures in list articles, and 1 voted against it. Do you have an opinion on this? I believe almanacs include pictures of things in their stat lists. One of the many articles in question: Does listing stats about every type of aircraft without a picture, help people understand things better than it would with a picture?  D r e a m Focus  08:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion but I definitely thank that a 4-1 vote in 2015 is not really binding on us today, if someone wants to reopen the discussion and hold a new vote that's probably perfectly fine.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft I went ahead and did this. Lists of people and lists of buildings, and lists of other things have pictures in their lists.  I can't understand why lists for anything wouldn't have them.  But discussion opened there to get more people to discuss it and state their points of view.   D r e a m Focus  00:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * They certainly should not be prohibited from having pictures. And list articles is a huge topic, something that would not get decided by 4 folks at a project.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Or at any WikiProject, full stop. WP:CONLEVEL. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Make sure you keep the articles accessible guys...MediaWiki:Limit number of images in a page. Moxy 🍁 02:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Please take the discussion to the proper place. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft  D r e a m Focus  02:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're looking to establish a broader consensus, take it to the Village Pump, not another niche WikiProject discussion. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 02:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Emails
Hi, it's come to my attention that you are emailing other Wikipedians as well. I would suggest you not ask for personal information initially or make it clear to people that they don't have to share it if they're uncomfortable with doing so because as I said earlier, most Wikipedians are more hesitant about this sort of thing. To the extent that people's initial reaction can be to be worried if your account is compromised (I know I actually asked a few other admins at the time you emailed me weeks ago, because getting a personal email from Jimbo falls into the "is this really happening?" territory). Anyways, just wanted to reemphasize the fact that most Wikipedians value their privacy and would find those questions to be invasive. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm definitely not asking for any personal information! I'm letting them know that if we do interview them, we will ask personal information - that's so they can say no if they aren't comfortable, rather than having it be awkward on a video call.  I'll make that clearer!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Template
Hello @Jimbo Wales, did u like the template I made? Lionel Cristiano? 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I add this template to ur user page? Lionel Cristiano? 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * At least he saw me. Lionel Cristiano? 12:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not really sure what you're asking me sorry!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo!
What do you think of Bekoshisht? He is a Fandom user. ToTeporetermerter56 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about it, actually. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You should know about it. ToTeporetermerter56 (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

BoT, U4C, T&S
Hello Jimbo, After the recent ru-wiki invitation to vote at yet another meta-elections I realized that I was getting a bit lost between all these acronymous power bodies. Would it be correct to assume something like that: Is it anyhow correct? -- Neolexx (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) BoT (Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees) is the central government. They set the main objectives, finances etc. - but they do not directly involve themselves into "criminal cases" resolutions.
 * 2) U4C (Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee) is the federal police, they do inter-states "criminal cases" resolutions.
 * 3) T&S (Trust and Safety) is the secret service, kind of FBI and CIA in one package. Sometimes they take over cases from (2) above and they don't have to explain why then.
 * No, I don't think this is in any way the right way to look at any of this. I see where you are coming from with the analogy but actually, no, I wouldn't say it maps very well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Lkomdis
Hey Jimmy/Jimbo,

Sorry about the pings from that editor. I told them that this is a clear WP:CIR case, but they seem to be pinging you and random other admins. Sorry about the mishap of pings, I will try and get an admin to remove TPA soon.

Signed,  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  01:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikimania scholarships
Hi Jimmy — I received an email this morning from the Wikimania 2024 Scholarship Committee, led by, rejecting my application.

You may have come across my recent RfA, which I link only to establish that my level of participation in Wikimedia projects is not considered borderline by the community here.

From past discussion with other editors, I understand that this outcome is not unusual — the scholarship committee, constrained by a budget that last year permitted them to accept only 16% of applicants, and following a rubric better-suited to affiliate/outreach work than on-wiki editing, routinely rejects even functionaries and other highly respected editors.

In-person conferences provide a valuable opportunity to bring together the different parts of the movement and bridge some of the cultural divides that exist between them. Personally, the connections I have made at WikiConference North America have been invaluable, particularly for my work collaborating with foundation staff to inform the development of features like the Growth team's project on newcomer article creation, which is using my vision for a better Article Wizard as a model. I would have liked to expand and deepen those connections at Wikimania.

I recognize that travel scholarships aren't cheap. However, I find it deeply unfortunate — not just for myself, but for everyone similarly situated and for the resulting opportunity cost to the movement — that the foundation, belying its oft-repeated appreciation for the editor community, has chosen to devote so few of its considerable financial resources to enabling editors to join its flagship conference in person.

Given your own role at Wikimania and influence as a trustee over the foundation's budget, I am interested to hear your thoughts on this topic. Also pinging @Nadzik and @SGrabarczuk (WMF) as the respective Lead and Communications Lead for the conference.

Regards, <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 22:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey @Sdkb, thank you for your ping.
 * You are raising an important matter that the Core Organizing Team (and all past COTs) is well aware of and is actively trying to combat. Wikimedia conferences are an important space of celebration and knowledge exchange in our Movement and we wish all of the community members could attend them. As much as we would want to, unfortunately, we don’t have resources to offer a scholarship to all of the deserving volunteers. This year the acceptance rate is 15 times less than the number of Wikimedians who applied for the scholarship, in spite of having increased from 2023 the total number of scholarships granted. For 2024 we have shifted our resources to awarding more partial scholarships to the people in the region (CEE, NWE and MENA), but even then, we still had to reject many well-prepared and worthy applicants.
 * We are working with the WMF to stretch the resources we were given, so the maximum number of scholars can benefit from the conference. I can already share with you that for 2024 we are looking to send a record number of at least 230 scholars to Wikimania, but even this number (almost double from 2019 and 20% more than in 2023) doesn’t allow us to send everyone we would have loved to see at the conference. The Wikimedia Foundation will continue to subsidize the in person ticket and cover all costs related to the virtual event – it will remain free to attend virtually.
 * In the next few weeks and months, we will be publishing data about the scholarship process. We would like to publish several “lessons learned”, both for the community and future organizers and useful resources for future applicants (including a few best-scored applications from this year and general comments that should be useful in application preparing for future Wikimanias and other conferences).
 * If you have any more questions about this year’s process, please watch the page on Wikimania wiki where we will publish more information. Please feel free to reach out to me as well if you’d like.
 * Cheers, Nadzik (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed response. Sounds like the # of scholarships last year was around 200 and this year is around 230, and that a very large # of editors apply. Do you happen to know the total number of applicants last year and this year? Just to get an idea. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey @Novem Linguae!
 * Last year 1,206 applications were moved to the grading phase. For Wikimania 2024 there were 1,433 applications that the scholarship working group worked on. In addition to that, there were many more (majority) that were discarded in earlier phases or on technical basis (e.g. banned users, unfinished applications, partially blank, single words answers etc), so they were not graded by our team. If you are interested, more detailed information and stats will be published on Wikimania wiki in the next few weeks and months. Nadzik (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Great info. Thank you. So this year it was about 230/1433 = 16%, or approximately 1 in 7. Yeah, pretty competitive. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've left a note at Nadzik's talk page wondering the exact amount allocated for these 230 scholarships for Poland and other questions pertaining to funding conferences. Thanks for this ongoing discussion (had also left a note at 's talk page a few days ago). Is there still time to increase the number of scholarships to the Poland conference? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While it would be great if the WMF had infinite resources, I personally think it would be best if the WMF spent less on conferences—and more on things like the community wishlist that benefit readers and editors who don't go to meetups. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the foundation ought to be spending more on community priorities. Conferences are an opportunity for us to advocate for those priorities and build relationships with foundation staff that bring our priorities into better alignment — but that can only happen if we are present. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My experience is that conferences and meetups are very, very important for building community and collaborative relationships.
 * The technology for editing this website works pretty well. It's the human relationships aspect of the community that is much, much more challenging! This online environment can become quite unpleasant sometimes, and many editors leave as a result.
 * We really need more scholarships to encourage the editors who are creating quality content. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Bumping thread. , I am interested to hear your thoughts on this topic. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 16:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, @Skdb, I can only say that I'd like to see the budget for scholarships to Wikimania increased. It's an incredibly valuable event and I think it's important that people can come regardless of their personal situation.  We'll never be able to bring everyone, of course, but I think it's a very important thing for our movement for people to get together face to face.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In case anyone's feeling down about not being selected, I'll disclose that I've been rejected every time I've applied (7 times, I think)? :) I was offered a partial scholarship once, but that omits the most expensive part of the trip (I must've accidentally indicated an interest in a partial scholarship or didn't realize how partial it was). Though it's possible that my particular combination of contributions over the years just aren't sufficiently valuable to the people who run Wikimania or that some of the many people even more active than I am also applied, it's more likely a reflection of a pretty standard expectation for grant-funded conferences: to maximize the number of attendees and number of scholarship recipients distributed from a fixed amount of money. It's not a phenomenon unique to Wikimania that nearby applicants are prioritized (although requiring recipients to share a small hotel room with a stranger isn't something I've seen outside the wiki world, but that may just be a personal bugbear) . If I apply and say "I need lodging and airfare from the other side of the world" and someone else says "I need money for a cab ride and will stay with a relative", I can't imagine it matters too much how involved each of us are or how eloquent our application answers were when deciding who gets the scholarship. They both increase the participation and scholarship numbers by one, which is important to a lot of grantmaking orgs as well as conference organizers. I know that it's easy to sound cynical when talking about metrics, so to be clear there is a lot to be said for maximizing attendance as well as for using big events to prioritize the local communities over distant contributors. Inviting as many people as possible from in and around Poland this year, for example, could seriously catalyze activities/membership in that area. But I guess I always thought of Wikimania in particular (as opposed to more locally oriented wiki-related events) as intended to be as international and diverse as possible, with as much representation from around the world as possible. In that case I would think that grantees for Wikimania in particular wouldn't be held to the same expectations that most other conferences are. One way to prioritize the international character might be to move the scholarship selection from the Wikimania organizers to affiliates or hubs (plus a pool for people who live in an area with no such body), and then simply tell e.g. Wikimedia Mexico and Wikimedia Sweden that they can each send 3 people using any transparent process that bases selection on some combination of involvement and need (rather than giving them a pot of money to maximize). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone who has to send you a rejection letter should be cowering in embarrassment, Rhododendrites. A process that does not recognize you as a highly respected, highly active contributor with a ton to offer Wikimania is a blatantly flawed process. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 17:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikimania scholarship hotel rooms are solo nowadays. I think the number of scholarships awarded last year was around 200, the highest ever at the time. But I think the problem is that they receive over 1,000 applications. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Jimbo, you may or may not recall our conversation in Montreal at the 2017 conference, a conference which benefitted all attendees. I self-paid my plane and room, not on a scholarship, and meeting my first Wikipedian (with my first words being "I thought you were a bot!") and him introducing me to Kathryn Maher (the second Wikipedian I met in person) who we then engaged in a worthwhile and hopefully project beneficial conversation, was alone worth the expense. Just imagine how much would be accomplished at each conference with at least 800 scholarships to go along with fuller and enhanced programs, programs which would likely attract hundreds of more attendees. North American Conferences, for example, attended by 1000 people, would create intrinsic and real-time value far beyond the use of scholarship funding. In person conversations, as you know, usually accomplish more in five minutes than hours of on-line back and forth discussion, so WMF adding many more scholarships would not only further recognize the work of volunteers, but, as importantly, would benefit the projects immensely. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Upping the scholarships to 800 for each worldwide and each regional conference (North American, India, etc.) and fully funding at least one evening "banquet" for the regionals (even if a very good boxed catered affair) with a couple of major speakers and entertainment (a good comedian goes a long way) seems one logical option. Even 800 scholarships seems low to me when looking at it as both a full conference and a celebration of the volunteers. Most individuals think they are giving to Wikipedia, not Wikimedia, which most have never heard of, so the elephant in the room is that Wikipedians create the elephant. As for the 2026 25th anniversary conferences, a thousand scholarships is a nice number. Let's find one billionaire who understands the concepts, and who will gladly fund all of these on a yearly basis. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are more considerations however. More people == more expensive. Organising an event over a 1000 people is really complex and basically requires a year's worth of setup. A money reserve that allows you to cancel that event 2 years in a row (on the day of the event, total loss). You need cities that are easy to travel too (good airports and connections), have active local wiki communities, are relatively safe, without prosecution of minorities, and working visa processes (a shorter list than most ppl think). Venues with lecture halls for that many people (incl. power, wifi, catering, access checks, video setups etc etc) that have plenty of hotels and restaurants nearby. The list of requirements goes on and on. The side effect of making regional conferences the size of wikimania, might just be that they might become unmanageable and have to be cancelled more often than they are held. (Disclosure, I have never been sponsored for wikimania, but attended multiple times on my own. I was sponsored several times for wikimedia developer events up to 2015, after which I decided I would no longer apply). —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are describing a real conference, comparable to major conferences of other well-known and respected organizations. If set up a couple years ahead of time (I'll mention my idea again as an example: VivaWikiVegas26 for the 25th anniversary North American conference) would work with orgnizational help from Wikimedia personnel, very likely in-kind donations from a major hotel chain (MGM runs most of the Vegas strip, a phone call or sit down with you, Jimbo, may not only obtain a donation of individual and conference rooms and sites but much more...Vegas is the home port of many major entertainers, some of whom may be willing to both entertain and speak at the conference of how their Wikipedia article affects their career), this is both doable and practical. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But we and our event, have no commercial value to almost anyone. And even if a company wants to cover a major part of the costs, they are very likely to get into some sort of argument with our own community. I can already see the signpost articles, helpfully forwarded by Andreas to multiple major newspapers. We (our community) are a brand risk more than we add value unfortunately. You can't sell us stuff, we won't work for them, there's not enough of us and they can't use our name in their commercial activities. Why would you pay millions in a tough financial climate for that? —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do it? Because volunteers, Wikipedians, create this thing on a second-by-second basis. Wikipedia (and by extension, the WMF) is the respected entity which attracts those millions of dollars and keeps WMF personal employed. Respecting the volunteers by recognizing them in this way is maybe the least WMF can do. (Please also read the discussion at the Village Pump WMF page, thanks.) Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was specifically responding to your suggestion of having MGM and other commercial entities pay for it. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed that. MGM donating the rooms, or at least a large portion of the expense, would be both an in-kind tax-deductible donation to a respected non-profit entity but would show corporate respect for what Wikipedia has become. We should all be aware that volunteers and paid staff have created something unique in history and unique in volunteer-experimentation, and many more people than us realize it. Some of those people may be among the corporate heads of, for example, MGM, and would be glad to host and donate to such an event in one of their Vegas strip hotels (the strip rather than downtown Vegas seems the place to celebrate the 25th anniversary). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * and Jimbo Wales, it looks like Kathryn Maher may soon be free of her current job, maybe WMF can ask her at that point to have meetings with some of the billionaires to obtain further funding for both the WMF and Wikipedia projects. Proposed Wikipedia projects, and the conferences, should be funded to the hilt and then some (over the hilt?). Can you please ping some of the people who are in the position to make these funding decisions, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I find this very distasteful. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? She is a wonderful communicator and would be a great person to have those one-on-one meetings with a few funders. I'm not suggesting that she come on-board again full time, but, if her time does open up a bit, have a few meetings in order to assist WMF and Wikipedia with the fundraising for the many projects that Wikipedians have proposed, including the extension of enhanced conferences to include scholarships for many more volunteers. She was the second Wikipedian I met in person, this was at 2017 Montreal conference where I was purposely introduced to her by the first Wikipedian I met in person, and immediately noticed her fine communication skills. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems important that Wikipedians should not lessen Maher's accomplishments and potential but, if the occasion arises, ask her to use her talents for a couple of days or weeks to help raise the funds to, specifically, up the conference scholarships to 800 or so per event (both worldwide and North American, etc.). Funds could also go to enlarging and enhancing each conference. These are important meeting places, and WMF should, as much as possible, involve Wikipedians in its funding thought-structure and plans. In any case, if she can't assist in this endeavor, please focus on other solutions to raise or deploy the needed funding which, as pointed out in all funding appeals, is raised by promoting the usefulness and uniqueness of the encyclopedia. It also seems important for English Wikipedia, in particular, to explain to critics that Maher (and hopefully she'll also further explain this to funders, the general public, etc.), had very little if any impact of how the volunteer editor base edited or edits articles, and thus almost no impact on the content of Wikipedia itself (for example, she has only made one edit to mainspace). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I literally thought of this a couple hours ago, so please excuse my extending this discussion. Editors need to get together and meet in person, to sometimes be among our own kind. Nobody I regularly hang out with has any interest in hearing about editing Wikipedia (although I have lunch sometimes with another editor, maybe four times a year). I'd bet a quarter that the majority of long-time editors have similar stories. The brain-changing effect of editing Wikipedia is arguably real (which would make a good long-term study), and regular editors are surely not the same person that they were before they started editing. Let's make sure that lots of these good and productive volunteers get to personally experience their peer group, their community. For example, how about asking the Foundation to fund 300 scholarships to October's North American Conference, that doesn't seem unreasonable. Hopefully you will consider attending, which would be fun. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:History of libraries for African Americans
I would be happy to have help with this subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it’s best for this to be at the help desk instead Maestrofin (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, to be at the help desk "as well"! FloridaArmy knows that I'm sympathetic and supportive of efforts to expand topics relating to the history of African Americans, and I've done a little bit (less than I wish I had time for) to help before with various articles.  It's totally fine to ask me here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Twitter
Please correct me if I am wrong (and apologies if this has been asked before), but it looks like both yourself and the WMF still have Twitter accounts (although they may be inactive). If so, would you be so kind to delete yours and recommend the WMF does the same? *gestures vaguely in the direction of Views of Elon Musk* Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's appropriate to request that a Wikipedian delete one of their off-site, personal social media profiles. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not appropriate for someone in Jimmy's position to have a social media profile on a site like Twitter. Polygnotus (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If Jimmy and the WMF didn't have their accounts, some imposter probably would. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sean Lock has a great Twitter account. Polygnotus (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Jimbo hasn't tweeted (or posted on X, whatever it is called now) since August 2023. The WMF is still fairly active. It's up to them to decide what is best.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, it is up to them. But when you are busy it can be nice to get a reminder. Polygnotus (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I haven't posted much there in a long time - although more recently than August 2023 to be clear, although I lately only respond to people directly or perhaps retweet a few things. I've not deleted it yet because I do have a lot of followers there and it seems like a potentially useful channel to keep open in case I want to announce something important.
 * I don't think that participating there (or Facebook for example) represents an endorsement of the platform or the owner of it. And yet, I find my distaste for it growing steadily.  So, I'm thinking about what to do in the future although for now, I'll continue on my current path.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Yea, Jimbo Wales is a great man in the internet. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Complaint about Fandom
Hi!

Recently, Fandom pages have been occasionally, periodically, redirecting my phone to mildly sussy sites. This is extremely annoying and detracts from the already slender respectability of Fandom's overall user experience.

I don't know how closely involved with Fandom you still are, but the very public nature of this forum makes it a good place in my view to air this. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's interesting and doesn't sound great but it's not from anything that Fandom is doing. If you could email me some details using the link here, that'd be great.  This really isn't the right forum for this though, so let's carry on in a different venue!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Jimbo, did you forget the link, or am I being silly? GoldRomean (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Admin
Are you an administrator of Wikipedia? Couldn’t find you on the list. TALK 21:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, see Role of Jimmy Wales for an explanation. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Plastic-eating fungus caused doomsday
Short fiction in the form of a WP talkpage discussion, from Nature. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I was looking around and came across your message. I think the story's format is cool. Necatorina (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Real G.O.A.T Greatest of All Time

Eduworldedu (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Inside the war over Israel at Wikipedia
https://jewishinsider.com/2024/06/wikipediai-israeli-palestinian-conflict-zionism-adl-encyclopedia/

Additional context: https://www.thefp.com/p/wikipedia-anti-defamation-league-reliable-source Winter queen lizzie (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Another Jewish source frames our consensus as a majority vote. 🤦‍♂️ Perhaps the Foundation can clarify this in their next statement regarding ADL. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

issue of movement charter, at village pump
hi Jimbo. one small request, can you please read the discussion regarding the Movement Charter, at the Village Pump Policy tab? I have commented there at length, and many other have commented on this issue as well. Sm8900 (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting timing, as I just spent a lot of time reading about this on meta, but haven't read this particular discussion. Will do so now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jimbo Wales that's terrific. thanks. my main comments appear in the subsection labeled "section 3." appreciate your reply, and your time and attention for this. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)