User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 251

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 245 ← Archive 249 Archive 250 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 | 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[1]; it still includes everything under the sun[2]. 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 Counterfeit Purses said in the discussion of whether Chinese state media is reliable that Primefac 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 Wikipedia: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? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The same way we know about Counterfeit Purses's. Sandizer (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
You 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 wikipedia: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)
@RadioactiveBoulevardier: Well the idea of having Wikipedia: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)
@Sandizer: 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)
@Assifbus: 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)
@Assifbus: 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)
@Counterfeit Purses: 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: meta: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 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 Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Joseph_Edelman, 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, @NatGertler:.
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 @Jimmy Wales:, 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)
@NatGertler:. 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? ltbdl (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
@MPinchuk (WMF): 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! ~~ 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 ? —TheDJ (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 | 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)
Fine

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)
A copy-pasted response. Am I not a harbinger of insightful thinking?
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,
~~ 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 {{Deceased}}, 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 {{death}} 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-2000 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)

@The Master of Hedgehogs: 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? LilianaUwU (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. LilianaUwU (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 | 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? LilianaUwU (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. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Does this work for you? ~~ 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. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
How wonderfully mysterious. Pity we're on the most public user talk page on the project. ~~ 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"? ~~ 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. LilianaUwU (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. LilianaUwU (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

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— 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/c 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. ltbdl (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)
@Counterfeit Purses:
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 SlimVirgin 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,@Zaereth:, 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)
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)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
thanks for making wikipedia CianPolonorte (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy April!

April fools! File:Thebelltolls.png 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.[April Fools!] TheTechie (formerly Mseingth2133444) (t/c) 16:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

A Special Barnstar for you

The Special Barnstar
A huge thank you also from me for creating Wikipedia.

JacktheBrown (talk) 09:27, 2 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: ...a selected few contributors feel that as Jimbo Wales is the founder/co-founder of Wikipedia that it would be best to appeal to him directly. The theory behind this is that their appeals will be heard and Jimbo will latch onto the argument in full agreement with the petitioner. Thereafter, Jimbo will logically smite the wicked editor who dared raise concerns about their behaviour/fundamentally change existing policy/delete the offending item from Wikipedia. The unfortunate news here is that it almost never works. ~~ 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.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You should love yourself... NOW!

File:Love yourself.png LowTierGod's Blessing
Your life is EVERYTHING! You serve ALL PURPOSE! You should treat yourself NOW! And give yourself, a piece of that oxygen, in the ozone layer, that's covered up so then you can breathe in this blue trapped bubble! 'Cause you know I'm here for it! To worship YOU! Love YOURSELF! I mean that with a hundred percent! With a thousand percent! EpicMagicBoi6 (talk) 03:06, 11 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_251&oldid=1220412489"