User talk:Jimbo Wales

A star for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		You get so much shit, crap, and flak hurled at you by vandals, et al. that I want to give you something to balance it out. You deserve a lot more of these. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  18:40 8 April, 2008 (UTC)

Bangalore or Bengaluru

Dear Jimbo,

This is about Bangalore article. The city name has been officially renamed to Bengaluru since November 1, 2006 onwards. However, a lot of Indian chic lovers still prefer it to be Bangalore and they are editing/reverting against consensus. Coz, Bangalore sounds more chic and Bengaluru is a local name. The consensus should be clear that it should be renamed since it is a Government order. Since WP stands for WP:TRUTH, I feel it looks awkward seeing in the old name. The page should definitely be moved to Bengaluru. I'd moved it once, but it has been reverted by a minority. Do you have any opinion on this issue? Which name do you prefer? Please comment.
--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 09:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo has no special authority in content matters, so I fail to see why you appeal to him. I also fail to see where the consensus for Bengaluru was established. Opinions are quite equally divided, as far as I can tell. And the Government of India (or any other country or organisation) has no authority over what Wikipedia should use, not has it any authority over what English speaking persons outside India may or should use. Looking at Google News hits for only the past month, there are only 186 hits for Bengaluru[1], and some 12,000 for Bangalore[2], many from Indian sources. The official name is mentioned as such in the first line of the article, so I don't see how Wikipedia is not showing the truth. Fram (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, I think we should use the most common contemporary English names of places and take appropriate note of other names. Redirects can be used to help people find the right article. There will be many difficult borderline cases, and in such cases, I advise people to try to relax as much as possible: that is, I should acknowledge most probably the people who have a different view from me are not doing so out of malice or stupidity, and will eventually be persuaded of the right answer.

In your case, with the official renaming by the government, I can assume that Indian sources and then eventually other English speaking sources will start using the new name in due course. Or, if people do not come to like the new name, the old one will persist for a long time. But it is not up to Wikipedia to decide such things, I think: we are descriptivists, not prescriptivists.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. So I think it is time for me to 'take relax' as you suggested. Let it ‘being bangalored’ in due course. Btw, I imply you to read Indian renaming controversy to get some POV’s on the issue. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Jimbo, thank you for your succinct thoughts on the issue. As an editor who's in the opposing camp as "Tomb of the Unknown Warrior" a. k. a. User:Harjk, I just wanted to rebut his childish trivialization of the stand of editors (the "chic lovers") who oppose "Bengaluru". The reasons for opposition are certainly not as frivolous as "Bangalore sounds chic" or anything of the sort. There are well thought out and well laid out reasons (with quantitative proof) that Bangalore is still indeed the name that most of the English-speaking world recognizes. Also, User:Harjk claimed consensus when there is none (and Fram was wise enough to see through the misrepresentation, thanks Fram). I do not have any axe to grind against this user, but I was compelled to clarify the counter view in light of these statements made by him.

PS: It is endearing to see him say "WP stands for the WP:TRUTH" in all seriousness, without taking a look at what that tongue-in-cheek essay contains :-) - Max ^{- You were saying?} 18:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User: Paul20070

Dear Mr Wales

I am the above user, and have been trying to disappear from Wikipedia, but unfortunately, I am unable to do this because I have salted my password, and right to vsnish appears to require that the request be made from the user account.

I wish disappear because it was recently brought to my attention that sock puppeting activities had been taking place from my PC. I initially thought this might be down to someone having piggybacked my wireless, but later discovered the work to have been the responsibility of two individuals who I had allowed to use my system under the pretence of other purposes - but who then seemed to have been editing Wikipedia under a selection of different usernames.

These appear to have started as good faith edits, but have later degenerated into some limited abuse of editing priveleges. I was recently reported to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check following an exchange between an anonymous IP and a user who I had clashed with in December 2007. This prompted me to wonder why I'd been reported, and to do some investigation. I then discovered the sock puppetry activities, so I made a note of them. I was then reported to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Paul20070 for my troubles.

In the light of this, I decided it would probably be best if I retired, and made a note of this in my userspace, and salted my password. I have since decided that I'd like to completely vanish. However, I appear anable to do this.

I reported the sock puppetry in good faith because I think that sockpuppet editing damages Wikipedia's reputation. I decided to approach you because you're the boss, and I know you will make a fair and honest decision.

I would very much appreciate your help and advice.

Thanks. Paul20070 81.152.149.124 (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you assigned an email address to your account, you can request a new password.

Alas Special:EmailUser/Paul20070 confirms no-email attached. (well he may have opted out, but I doubt it - hence why I didn't suggest this earlier) Pedro :  Chat  15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My email was enabled at one time, but I opted out after receiving a legal threat in August last year [3]. I can provide an email address if there's any way of it not appearing publicly. Paul20070 81.152.149.124 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Now moot. I have deleted the pages. I have left a note that I will restore on demand if this IP is not the user, and posted to various forums to minimise drama. On the face of it we seem to have lost another editor. This is disapointing. However we don't need a multi forum/talk page debate over it. No harm to Wikipedia has occured. Let's move on. Pedro :  Chat  20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again...

I know that this proposal is old and currently out of favor, but as I've gone through the trouble of creating two essays (1,2), two userboxes (1,2), and two user categories (1,2) regarding the opposing views and their rationale, I thought I'd revive discussion of this topic, so here I go "gulp": What if Wikipedia were to require account creation for all users? Even though I edited anonymously myself before creating this account, I've begun to see things differently and now I believe that Wikipedia will benefit as a whole from requiring users to register an account (read the second of the above essays for my rationale). I know that many view just the opposite, and to try to be objective, I've also created an essay, userbox, and category documenting the opposite view. And, just for the record, could you please state your view on this, regardless of what it is?--Urban Rose 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Jimbo made his view pretty clear in the past, he created Wikipedia so that anyone can edit, if he wanted only registered users to edit, he would've only enabled registered users to edit. I think we might benefit from it, but there are a lot of IP users that would be scared away and we'd loose any chances of getting drive-by typo-fixing as often happens. This is never going to happen, possibly stricter IP control, but requiring registration, not gonna happen. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 23:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See also my my post on the village pump. I know that Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but does that mean then that page protection and not allowing anons to create pages go against that principle. Apparently not, whearas somehow requiring account creation does. I just don't get it. Basically I want to hear Jimmy Wales say either "anons should" or "anon's shouldn't" be allowed to edit, not more of this "it's the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" stuff again. Then we can link to his post any time this debate comes up again and the issue will be resolved.--Urban Rose 00:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I think I can predict his answer, if he's going to answer. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope he does.--Urban Rose 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked that question before reading m:Foundation issues. Based on that page, the question is answered, so I have a better question. It's cleat that, while requiring account creation in order to edit all pages is a violation of one of Wikipedia's core principles, restricting the ability of anons to edit some pages is not (per page protection and the inability of IPs to create new pages). What I want to know is where do we draw the line between restricting and allowing anon page editing in order to be in harmony with Wikipedia's core principle. Would semi-protecting all articles about living people be a violation of this principle; would only allowing anons to edit the sandbox be a violation of this principle? As the creator of the site, it's up to you to draw this line.--Urban Rose 15:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Urban Rose, you misunderstand. Being free is the core. Everything else is about making that a reality. Therefore when copyright laws began restricting information and creation of culture, copy left was born. When the internet was created, it became possible for free culture communities to be born. Jimbo Wales then tried to become a part of this with his Nupedia, which failed. He tried again, only this time "allowing anyone to edit". This was Wikipedia and has succeeded beyond everyone's dreams. "Anyone can edit" is not a core value; it is one of the magic ingredients that helped make Wikipedia a success. We tamper as little as possible with it for practical reasons, not core value reasons. When we have practical reasons to limit people's ability to edit, then we do so. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on legal issue

To Mr. Wales,

I haven't been long with Wikipedia. But in the few weeks I have been here officially, I am at odds with some of the policies of Wikipedia. I am lead to believe based on my study of the laws of my home state (It's New York, horse racing central in late summer) that some policies may be contrary to free speech and civil rights laws and the constitution of New York State. Some of the reasons I've seen people blocked seem either unlawful or just unfair. I don't mean disrespect, to you or anyone else. Too bad you don't visit where I live, we'd be able to meet at the race track and watch a few races even though I don't gamble. Just in closing, don't worry about me staying, I've decided to retire. Good fortune be with you sir. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The laws of free speech do not apply to Wikipedia in the way you believe it does. Metros (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Metros, good to meet you. Hope to see you soon. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

People do not have a right to edit wikipedia, it is a privilege that can be revoked. Wikipeida is not a vehicle of Free speech, nor are we required by law to provide you with a forum to do so. Free speech applies only to government censorship, if wikipedia does not allow you to post what you want, you _do_ have the right to post it elsewhere. However, if someone has been blocked in error, you can request for the block to be reviewed in #wikipedia-en-unblocks or on the unblock mailing list. ffm 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Google's "knol" encyclopedia

I've recently come across the news here that google aims to launch a rival encyclopedia to wikipedia. Could you fill me more in on it Jimbo or anybody who knows of it (or email me if you don't want to talk about it in plain view here). I doubt we should be quivering in our boots just yet but the idea seems a daft one to build a different encyclopedia other than wikipedia; obviously they are after more money. Can anybody see it becoming successful and a threat to wikipedia in the future? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No freat. Google can't do anything right. – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't see it as a big threat, launching competition against anything as successful as Wikipedia has little chance of succeeding at this point, especially if it's a for-profit against a not for profit. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 14:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How would the existence of another encyclopedia have any effect, good or bad, on Wikipedia, much less be a threat to it? 71.246.31.82 (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one it could become more popular than Wikipedia and deemed more reliable therefore making Wikipedia look worse, but in my opinion this is unlikely. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 15:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They wont get many volunteers for an encyclopedia whose primary aim is to make money for google and its the volunteer labor that makes wikipedia so effective. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree SqueakBox, not many people are going to volunteer to make Google money, but there could be a few, mostly opposers of Wikipedia and Google employees, I mean what makes people volunteer for Wikipedia? To build knowledge, their encyclopedia would do the same except it would also make money for Google, and if you think about it, they would have a multi-million dollar company backing them. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 16:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the presence of another Wiki-ish encyclopedia is assumed by so many to be somehow bad for Wikipedia. Competition is good. For all concerned. —Chowbok ☠ 04:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems a bit pointless to me to even consider building a different world encyclopedia from scratch. Unless they plan to pay their contributors it will never beat the wiki. Me thinks the googlers are wishing they had started wikipedia now to get their greedy hands on more money through advertising. As if they aren't rich enough huh? Power to the Wales for starting a free encyclopedia I say. I and the white cat salute you sir ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If they launch it and advertise it a lot, then it fails miserably, it'll make us look really good! The Dominator^Talk_Edits 13:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow!

Hey, Don't you find it weird, how a user like me edits more fequently in the mainspace then the creator? Then again your might be working on MediaWiki: or Wikipedia: or other stuff a lot. – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not even slightly strange. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo does far more good for Wikipedia in the real world than he could possibly do by writing in the mainspace. Hut 8.5 16:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is sort of funny. :) But I try to mostly stay out of mainspace editing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can understand. :) It's a battleground out there that I even enter only reluctantly. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  19:48 12 April, 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of wikipedia is a 'free online encyclopedia', so maybe we should write one instead of writing 500000000 rules and write more then 2 articles. There's more Wikipedia:, Project:, Help: and Category: pages then articles. – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There aren't 2 articles, there's 2 and a half million, and the rules are essential to making this encyclopedia. That's like saying "the purpose of having a country is to give people a place to live, so let's do that instead of making laws", you are making very little sense good sir. You criticize the founder for not making many mainspace edits? Are you surprised? I'm sure he's a very busy man, and I'm sure that if he wasn't, he'd want to stay out of trouble with the media as much as possible. It's one thing when somebody complains about Wikipedia's content, it's another when it's the founder who put the undesirable info in the article. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 13:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Certain editors reaction to the creation of Mzoli's is a point in hand as to why Jimbo appears not to have the same freedom to edit as your average unknown editor, that would have been enough to put nayone off editing. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy

Can I copy a few things?

1. The style on your user page, i like it.
2. Your monobook.js

Thanks. – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agh, hell with it, i'll use them anyway. – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jimbo, do you know about WP:FRINGE"?

Hi Jimbo, I just wanted to write you a personal note to see what you think of the Wiki Project known as "WP:FRINGE"? I feel it is the single most dangerous aspect of Wikipedia with the greatest potential to get really out of hand. Its entire purpose seems to be to game the explicit wording of the NPOV policy. Mainly the brainchild of a sysop called DBachmann, the "Fringe noticeboard" attracts the most intolerant sort of editors who like to appoint themselves to decide what everyone else should not be hearing about or accepting - just because their have decided these are wrong ideas in their opinion. This is precisely equivalent to the Spanish inquisition deciding what beliefs held by the populace are to be proclaimed Heresy, and going after them torches in hand, proceeding to expunge every trace from the record. In fact, when an anonymous newcomer recently questioned why the "Kurgan hypothesis" should receive such a favored endorsement over all other hypotheses which are openly ridiculed, and then when he sarcastically suggested that a better name for the project might be WP:HERESY, he was reverted and immediately blocked without even a single warning. If you are not aware of the type of tactics these sysops routinely employ, that is one thing, but if you are aware, that is something else. 70.105.27.58 (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is one of the most valuable projects within Wikipedia and I fully support the concept. As with any area of Wikipedia it is of course possible that an admin will block someone more quickly than necesssary (although I don't know if this happened in this particular case). It is very important that we carefully monitor to make sure that all hypotheses are given appropriate weight (including, at times, a labeling as a minority or unscientific hypothesis), NPOV demands it. I know nothing about the "Kurgan hypothesis" so I am speaking here only of general principles.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)