User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Old stuff cleared out.)

Please don't remove other people's messages from here, even if they are just being mean to me or complaining about something stupid. Yes, you're probably right that I don't need to see all that, but my concern is just that I might overlook something that ends up being important later.  :-)

User:Mats Halldin

This user is harrassing me to no end. Whenever I contribute anything, he calls me a troll and gets me blocked on the Swedish Village Pump. He's trying to do that here, too at the English Wikipedia. I was complaining about being sabotaged by some other Wikipedia user I don't know who, but likely on the English Wikipedia. What happens is, I open the English Wikipedia and it gets moved to another website. This effectively blocks me from seeing any articles and learning the things I want to know. I have two spy/ad/malware blockers and two web browsers now to combat this garbage. I hope the problems goes away soon because this behaviour is completely unacceptable no matter who it's done to. The website isn't supposed to be tampered with. I am very sure that it is only the English site that doesn't work when I have a problem accessing Wikipedia. Lord Kenneð Alansson 00:28, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See User Talk:OlofE about possible implications in relevance to the Trump Family(Donald and Matthew) of NYC. Lord Kenneð Alansson 13:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Have you tried mediation? Basically, you and Mats can email each other through a mediator, and resolve your disputes in private. I don't think Jimbo needs to deal with this; we have a mediation committee to handle battles between users. Samboy 22:48, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

{{noncommercial}} images

Michael Snow has just made your decree to get rid of all "non-commerical use only" images known to the greater Wikipedia community by posting a note on WP:CP.

Some comments and questions on that:

• I really, really dislike it when such far-reaching decisions are made in a secluded place like the mailing list without input from the greater community of Wikipedia editors. Most people who edit here are not subscribed to the mailing list and do not follow its discussions. I for one don't; I only check the archives of wikien-l from time to time.

The mailing lists are the primary place where fundamental policy decisions are discussed. It has always been that way. There is nothing 'secluded' about the mailing lists, they are as easily and widely accessible as any other part of the project. There are a number of technical and practical reasons why a mailing list is better for such discussions than a wiki.

This is entirely understandable, but surely in the interests of getting policy changes through smoothly and maintaining a harmonious community it would be a good idea to put proposals agreed on the mailing list forward to the wider community so that a consensus can be reached. The mailing lists can still be the primary place where policy decisions are discussed, but these decisions should only be actually taken once a consensus has been reached on the wiki. All this would have involved in this case would have been to put forward the idea months ago instead of sitting on it until deletion time. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Also, if you decree something, it should be communicated to the community promptly, and preferrably by you, not through some bystander. Four months later is way too late.

Absolutely nothing has been done yet about the issue of noncommercial images. What was decided in the ensuing discussion is that the absolute first thing we need to do is properly tag all the images with license information and source information; until we have done that, it is premature to get into wholesale deletions of images that don't meet our standards of freedom.

I wasn't thinking about "wholesale deletions", as you put it, but if the decree had been announced earlier and more widely, more people would have stopped uploading such images. Lupo 14:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and maybe you could clarify Michael Snow's comment on WP:CP. I have the feeling that it risks that people may think that "wholesale deletions" were in order. Lupo 14:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Does your decree apply only to en: or also to other Wikipedias?

There can be some policy differences with respect to legal matters in different languages, depending on the likely needs of redistributors in countries where those languages are commonly spoken; the issues surrounding this are complex. However, one constant across the entire project is that this is a GNU-free encyclopedia, so images that are licensed under non-free licenses are not going to be acceptable anywhere.

• Where is the previous agreement to get rid of {{noncommercial}} images Erik alludes to in his e-mail? I haven't found any policy discussion on this in a scan of the archives of the wikien-l up to December 2003.

I am not sure about exactly what agreement Erik is alluding to, but most likely it was hammered out on the meta wiki. This illustrates what's wrong with using a wiki for policy discussions -- the discussions end up buried in article history and are impossible to follow or reconstruct at a later date.

• Why do you want to get rid of {{noncommercial}} images? I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a non-commercial project... In what way are they detrimental to Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is a noncommercial project, but it is also a 'free' project, free in the sense of GNU, in the sense of libre. Nonfree licenses are therefore unacceptable.

• Why not also delete all fair use images? It seems to me that these are far more questionable from a legal point of view, and pose much greater problems for any reusers of Wikipedia content, for these would have to re-check every single "fair use" image themselves to see whether they could use it in the jurisdictions they're in. "Non-commercial only" images at least are clear: if somebody tries to sell a Wikipedia copy for profit, he cannot use the image. Period. Note that the presence of "non-commercial use only" images poses no problems for somebody trying to sell a Wikipedia copy and charging only for packaging/support/media. (IANAL, but I know that the related GPL for software allows such uses; there are whole companies whose business model relies on charging for packaging and support of GPL'ed software. I suppose the GFDL is similar in that respect.)

I disagree with you that a non-commercial use only image poses "no problems for somebody trying to sell a Wikipedia copy and charging only for packaging/support/media". Of course the GPL allows packaging and support of GPL'ed software, that's because the GPL is a free license, not a "noncommercial only" license. A noncommercial-only license would prevent people from doing something that we want them to do, which is to take our content, and sell it at a profit if they like. This is critical as a mechanism for getting our content distributed widely, particularly in poorer parts of the world. The ability for a small-scale publisher in Africa to print up some copies, sell them at a profit, to put food on the table and knowledge into people's hands is going to be essential.

But they can do that even if nc images are present in Wikipedia—they just have to omit these images. Other nc instances of Wikipedia (such as Wikipedia itself!) could continue to use them. Lupo 14:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair use is an entirely different matter. We need to be conservative and cautious about our fair use images, and we need to replace fair use with freely licensed images wherever possible. We ought not to have fair use images when a free alternative could be easily available to us. But in some cases of very famous works, or photos of people who are dead, the only way we can have a photo at all is to have a fair use photo.

Fair use is a part of copyright freedom, it is something that we promote as being a perfectly valid limitation on copyright.

I encourage you to join the mailing list and start a discussion. And please be assured that it is not my intention to surprise anyone with anything. There will be no wholesale or rapid changes to anything that we are doing without a significant amount of input from a variety of people.

Nor did I intend to surprise anyone, which is why I wrote a general statement instead of simply starting to list images for deletion. Admittedly, I hadn't been monitoring the extent to which noncommercial-use-only images were still being uploaded. I will try and make the announcement more broadly, since apparently the community hasn't truly absorbed the information. One of the difficulties we have is that there is basically no place where we can count on everyone seeing any given announcement. Ultimately, these images still need to be deleted unless fair use can be claimed. --Michael Snow 16:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But there are a few things which have always been true of Wikipedia, and that I don't intend to see changed. Wikipedia is a free 'encyclopedia'. Wikipedia is a 'free' encyclopedia.

Of course, and we are all agreed on that, but it seems reasonable to have a very minor part of our content, ie these non-commercial images, as an 'extra', instead of not having them at all. With the appropriate use of tagging these images can be removed from commercial reproductions of Wikipedia content very very easily. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lupo 11:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Lupo 14:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: Maybe you could point me to the relevant discussions on Meta, I haven't found anything there either... Lupo

Lyndon LaRouche

Yes, User:Herschelkrustofsky is also subject to the no personal attacks policy. Could you please give me a link to the attack you speak of? When I have that I will see what I can do. I think the case is still open enough that a ruling could be added. Fred Bauder 11:29, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

A good place to look would be Herschelkrustofsky's own user page in which he writes about "organized groups of malicious editors" who "impose the most blatant and obvious propaganda". A quick perusal of Herschelkrustofsky's contributions gives a pretty good idea of whether or not he's likely to ever become a useful contributor. Jimbo Wales 20:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, he is quite hostile to Wikipedia and feels his favorite subject has been dumped on. The question I have for you though, is other than applying sanctions for personal attacks, and restricting his editing (idiosyntric material attributable to Lyndon LaRouche may be removed on discovery by any user) what do you think ought to be done? Fred Bauder 13:10, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I offer no particular opinion, only an observation. Adam Carr was banned for a day for personal attacks. Herschelkrustofsky? Jimbo Wales 13:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A short ban has been proposed and is being voted on. I think our editing restriction (and I still advocate 86ing him from the Lyndon LaRouche article) pretty much address the question of "only reason for being here is to promote LaRouchism". If he can't do that he will probably go away.Fred Bauder 14:51, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

If I might offer an opinion, the real problem is that Wikipedia has no strategy for defending itself against people who do not share its objectives. You may consider me to be rude etc, and that is no doubt true, but my reason for being here is to contribute to building a free-access world-class encyclopaedia, which I consider a noble project. I think you will agree that I have made some contribution to that objective. Herschelkrustofsky's only reason for being here is to promote LaRouchism, as you well know. He makes no useful contribution, and is a disruptive and destructive element. I fail to see why you permit him to be here at all. Wikipedia ought to be a community of people committed to its objectives. Once it is clear that a person does not share those objectives, and is here for some other reason, they should be, after due process, asked to leave. Adam 13:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adam, your point is well taken, but I'm sure you appreciate the procedural difficulties attendant upon making banning decisions that veer so perilously close to political direction of content. It is not impossible in some cases to do so, and perhaps we must. But I think it important that we remain as welcome as we can to as many different viewpoints as we can, so long as the people involved behave in a civilized fashion. (To note; I do not think that promoting LaRouchism amounts to behaving in a civilized fashion, but there is a blurry line sometimes between promoting and just making sure that we have balance. In this case, of course, there is not much blur, because the whitewashing of LaRouche has been so blatant.)

I'm uncomfortable moving in a direction where I (or a committee) decides that certain categories of advocates can be excluded for holding a certain viewpoint. Who is next, the Marxists? The Religious right? Greens? Republicans? It is a dangerous path.

I say all of this while at the same time sharing your viewpoint that building a free-access world-class encyclopedia is incompatible with allowing people like this to write abject nonsense to promote their peculiar political agenda. I'm just saying that no perfect solution exists, as far as I can see, so the best that we can do is grope forward carefully and with love for each other and for the "noble project." Jimbo Wales 18:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I of course acknowledge both the practical and political difficulties in deciding what are acceptable forms of conduct at Wikipedia and then policing those decisions. I don't pretend to have an easy solution to those difficulties. My point is that Wikpedia will eventually have to solve this problem one way or another if it is to achieve its objective.

I was struck by your statement that you are afraid to "veer so perilously close to political direction of content." What, I ask, is wrong with political direction of content? Every other encyclopaedia ever written has politically directed its content, and so does this one. Wikipedia has a clear political viewpoint: it is a western-liberal-democratic-rationalist-secular-humanist political viewpoint, and content which blatantly contradicts that viewpoint is routinely deleted, as it should be. All that is at issue is precisely where the boundary of acceptable political content should be drawn. You ask if Marxists would be next after LaRouchists. In fact, Wikipedia is not written from a Marxist viewpoint, and content which is too blatantly Marxist does get deleted (ask User:Hanpuk). So in fact that decision has already been made. And so on. You might find things easier if you stated this openly and didn't pretend that encyclopaedia-writing can be done without a political standpoint. Then you could clearly state that only people who share that viewpoint (liberally interpreted) are welcome to participate. Adam 02:04, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reverting edits is not important

Guanaco is not doing a good job, reverting my edits, you do not give me or him business like this. You know reverting is not important and it shouldn't be that's why Guanaco has to stop and that's why I fired him, and he keeps coming here. He's fired like Zoe and Hephaestos. -- Michael

Michael, everyone should revert your edits. I'm going to give you a few more days to chat with me in email about this, and if you do, there's a chance we can find a way for you to come in out of the rain, so to speak. But if you won't even talk to me, well, I'm going to just have to give up. At that time I will just tell people to revert you here as well, and then I'll never see your messages at all. Jimbo Wales 18:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)