I've been seeing these popups with your name on them. I can't speak for anyone else, but until you get rid of this "anyone can edit" business and require registration like most every other website, I see no reason why I should contribute a dime to the foundation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Pardon me for a moment of the hard-core egalitarianism for which I am so desperately loved on-project. Forcing registration will have very little effect on salient vandalism - it will put a stop to the kind of vandalistic larks perpetrated by bored 13 year olds, and those edits that seem so terribly, importantly funny to people before they manage to sober up, but it won't even phase the really annoying, troll-like vandals (who will just see the registration requirement as yet another game to play with stuffy wikipedians). More importantly, though, it's an anti-egalitarian move that works entirely against (what I see as) the fundamental principles of the project. The ideal here is to create articles which approach neutrality by getting editors with different points of view to balance each other's biases through sourcing and discussion. Any overt efforts to inhibit a particular 'kind' of editor (even for such stolidly pragmatic reasons as this), ends up inhibiting the encyclopedia as a whole. Wikipedia is the million-monkey encyclopedia, and works astonishingly well given that absurd premise. Let's not muck up the long-term ideal because we're annoyed at a handful of chandelier-swingers. --Ludwigs2 04:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
{{schoolblock}}
I don't think that it would be fair that encyclopedia which become so large and generated so much content because of its openness converts to a closed encyclopedia. Like the GPL license that encourages contributions, in my case it is this promise and fundamental principle of anyone can edit that motivates me to contribute. I would feel betrayed if the registration become necessary, in the same way that I would feel betrayed if its GPL license could be changed. Like the quote from the movie Witness, to paraphrase, "there is always a choice, or there is always more than one option", the technical or policy solution for dealing with vandal IPs should always be looked for instead of thinking of preventing those who want to contribute. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. I'm not fantastically active these days, but as a Crat I'm always interested in RfA. I just caught up with some of the jumble of responses at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_67#Adminship_and_RfA. Do you have any thoughts on how you might drive this forward?
It's long been my contention that the best way to "fix" RfA is to get more old-timers to participate in RfA. I appreciate that not everyone agrees with me on this, but I have found that us longer-standing editors tend to apply different criteria - one significant example being editcount standards. However, unlike content editing, where WP:POLE applies, because of the % nature of RfA, it's quite hard to counter-balance the input of 30-40 newer editors.
No idea how to drive us longbeards back to RfA, especially without falling foul of WP:CANVASS, but hey, you're the creative genius round here. --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thought numba 1: First there was anonymous (mostly) social media sites. Then there was Facebook. Wikipedia is mostly anonymous. Would it be a step toward creeping credentialism to have a opt-in where users are required to identify themselves? a la, not only registering, but using their real names? (perhaps even showing they have a credit cards, or whatever?)
2nd topic: Check out this thought (hat tip: The Daily Dish):
magine an objective standard for deciding who is entitled to have an opinion on a topic. All we need is some sort of wiki (user created website) where the basic facts on any debate can be assembled in the form of an ever-evolving multiple choice test. When you find yourself in a debate with someone who hasn't yet passed the test on that topic with a score of 100%, you declare yourself the winner by virtue of being better informed, assuming you scored 100%. If both of you have taken the test and scored less than 100%, you declare yourselves "not entitled to your opinions" and walk away. If each of you scored 100% then you are, by my definition, entitled to your opinion.
#3 - I predict someday, computer programs will do a lot of the editing busy work on WP (such as fancy algorithms pinging on possible vandalisms, etc.) And, eventually, such programs may well give a test about WP's editing guidelines that a user will have to answer correctly in order for his !vote to be given full weight.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The Thing T/C is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:TTTSNB/Merry_Christmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The Thing T/C 00:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
MERRY CHRISTMAS! Your friend, Jimmy 63.3.15.1 (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
[2] represents what I consider an unfortunate sort of suggestion to use a redirect. I commented out that redirect, and trust that you agree. Collect (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Pursuant apparently to BRD, all the eliminations of the redirect have been reverted. I would ask Jimbo his forthright opinion on the existence of scatalogical "essays" in general, as this 'redirect" is a fairly clear-cut case in the US. Collect (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, how droll! It's nice to see the scrambling to get the house in order. In other news, people have been blocked for calling others WP:DICKs. But there is no scandal in keeping that around, is there? Yes, let's make sure we maintain a connection to that obvious piece of incivility because consensus says so! That soft-redirect is so historical and useful. Besides, I'm sure someone will say something brilliant like, "Acting like a dick and acting like a twat are not even the same thing, whether it's "gross" or not." without slapping a [citation needed] tag on it. Right? Right? jps (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Create alternative essays: Several people were offended by the term "wikilawyering" when that essay clearly stated the word meant acting as a bad (corrupt), devious lawyer. I tried to rename that essay, but was opposed by many. So, I just created some broader, professional alternatives:
By creating better essays (perhaps WP:BULLY or WP:BAITER or WP:LEGALIST?), then there would be incentive for others to use those less-vulgar terms, and expand the new essays to include more cases. For example, WP:FINAGLE warns of people issuing a WP:AfD (or WP:TfD) when the author is on wikibreak (or blocked), as unfairly pushing for deletion when the author is unlikely to defend the page. The obsession with insulting a lawyer had limited what that old, obsolete essay would cover. Hence, create better, specific essays to explain what behavior seems excessive in each case, and broaden the future, not dwell on a few outdated essays used in the primitive days of Wikipedia. To avoid the impression of being personal essays, ask others to help expand an essay: we have changed WP:CANVAS so that it is no longer "improper canvasing" to tell other users a new article or essay exists (typical wiki-collaboration is allowed again!). -Wikid77 (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
hi there,
these guys do make a point. the banner is kind of intrusive, and you are not that handsome. maybe you should make it smaller, or place some landscape photo, or a pretty girl :) 188.2.164.83 (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
A longterm IP editor says Merry Christmas Jimbo! - 220.101 talk\Contribs 23:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I see you are learning German! Du ist lernen Deutsch! I can speak German pretty well, so if you want to know what something means, just leave me a message on my Talk page. Orashmatash (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC) 27/12/10
you really got an ugly mug, Mr. Wales. Must you go on thus?--117.201.240.69 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Wales I have tried to volunteer for OTRS but hotmail is not reconizing volunteers-otrswikimedia.org as a valid email address. is there an alternitive.? Pleaase reply on my talk thanks.TucsonDavidGOD BLESS THE U.S.A. 22:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
So far, essentially zero response to the meta RfC on [4]. I had presented a possible edit, reverted by a sysop at [5]. Thanks (posted here per your UT talk page message at Meta). Collect (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I like the new system for verified edits to avoid live articles from being botched by hacked editing. However, I am concerned that wiki-bots are seriously "botching" articles as well. There was a recent WP:PUMP topic about Bot sessions edit-warring over the same articles, due to conflicting automated styles. Now I discovered that, back in February 2009, the article "Joe Cain" (of Mardi Gras in Mobile) had been re-vandalized by a bot(!), XLinkBot, obsessed with reverting a correction that contained a new Facebook.com link. The prior user, while undoing a large vandalism hack-edit, had decided to also add an external link with Facebook.com. That triggered XLinkBot to revert the whole edit, restoring the massive vandalism hack, rather than simply removing the small link to Facebook.com. Today, I restored that whole text about Civil War veteran Joe Cain returning to Mobile (from New Orleans) during the Union occupation, as he re-started parades after the Boeuf Gras Society (the old Mobile mystic society) had disappeared in 1861 during the war. I never would have imagined how a Bot edit-program would have been responsible for upholding the vandalism that removed such important text from Wikipedia's extensive Mardi Gras articles, for 22 months. As you might know, the U.S. State of "Alabama" is a highly popular international topic, after NY, TX, and California. I mention this Bot problem here just to note the real danger caused by bots reverting edits, unaware the prior edit was even worse, or done by another Bot. Hence, this shows the need to verify what Bots are editing, or to close these loopholes in automated edits. Editors cannot compete with the speed of bots. Wikipedia editors are still working as skeleton crews, because we could not harness the userbase to re-verify the contents of formerly good articles. Hopefully, the new verified-revision system will improve things. That 22-month Joe-Cain problem could have been detected if the Bot edit had been flagged as subject to verification, rather than let the next editor add text without checking the prior. Otherwise, I think people have assumed that Bot edits are not serious vandalism (or re-vandalism), so few people check Bot edits. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Weather Channel meteorologist Stephanie Abrams is a Jew, according to Wikipedia, but (as far as I can tell) not according to any reliable source in the world.
Her Jewish roots were hinted at by this IP editor, who also made her a year older. But, attending a Jewish youth camp doesn't make you a full-on Jew until this IP editor makes you an "American Jew". You get a bit more specific when this IP editor declares that you're a "Jewish American scientist".
Now, I'm not saying Ms. Abrams isn't Jewish. But, I am saying it is extremely unlikely that her religious/ethnic background has ever been given serious attention by the news media.
Do you feel that Wikipedia IP editors (in this case) are carefully following the BLP policy? I've tagged it for references until further reply. ~jcm 17:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I know there's various widely-spread places for this issue to be raised, but because of its importance I feel obliged to alert you to it; advocates of "typographical improvements" to Wikipedia's interface have been applying endashes and emdashes willy-nilly to articles and categories previously using hyphens, with no regard for, and often dismissal of, legal names and long-standing common usages/accepted usages and adjudging that all uses of hyphens are linkages of separate concepts, which they are not (always). By doing so, Wikipedia is creating new names and new conventions in complete apposition to real-world usages, and in effect is promoting/advancing these uses, partly because of Wikipedia's growing influence on language. Similar problems exist with over-application of the lower-case rule onto proper names. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should reflect reality, not seek to order or dictate it or re-create it in its own image. Call the Heisenberg issue, perhaps, and while it may seem trivial it's not at all; see my most recent rebuttal to a reqmove on Talk:Alberni–Clayoquot_Regional_District#Requested_move pls. Add on that the use of endashes sand emdashes in category and article names is also cumbersome for actual contributing editors to use; and I'm of the opinion that a lot of these "improvement" guidelines/"policies' are being arrived at by people who are more involved in Wikipedia as admins and coders, and whose primary role is not in enriching encyclopedia content, but rather in managing it only, i.e. who are not familiar with the material affected and are in no position to establish valid guidelines for it in the first place. Cited names/uses and legally-established usages should override ANY deliberation reached at by Wikipedia consensus/guideline-wrangling.Skookum1 (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I started Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#hyphen_and_emdash_in_proper_nouns. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It's very nice to see that a banner was designed similar to my suggestion on meta. I still think that asking just $1, referring to readers of Wikipedia rather than of the banner, and noting it will be over within hours will be more effective. However, with the banner that is running now, it may be worthwhile to run a trial with $1 and similarly small amounts in other currencies. And if that generates clicks, a trial may be run with the banner referring to "every reader", "every reader of Wikipedia" in Wikipedia's case. Another point to consider is as I suggested, a direct "Donate now" button. -- λόγος Idea → ✉ 03:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of making a seperate wiki-like "pedia" for elections to focus specifically on the matter. but i dont want it to be a competitive one like the various conservapedia-type sites. would it be possible then to start something seperate as part of the wikimedia group to focus on the issue? i think its better served with a focus as such apart from just wikiprojects.
Awaiting your input, regards, (Lihaas (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).
I come to you, to bring to your attention the galactically large problem with unsourced articles. I've worked this project off and on for a number of years. It is absolutely mindboggling, to say the least. It could be the largest project on WP. The sheer number of articles doesn't even illustrate the magnitude of the effort required to locate suitable references for these articles. Many articles even defy referencing and thus have sat untouched for 4 years. Frankly I think a new policy needs to be implimented at the highest level of WP, to stop the writing of articles without at least one reference. I think the 'Save Page' button should remained grayed out until at least one inline citation is included. Unreferenced new articles can be put in a sandbox. The quantity of unsourced articles is so large it would likely take a team of hundreds of editors working 8 hour days to whittle it down. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, perhaps this has been addressed elsewhere, but if so I haven't seen it and perhaps other haven't. According to this conversation, Wikipedia servers are now functioning at EvoSwitch and KennisNet in the Netherlands. What are the legal implications of this? Currently the policy at WP:NOTCENSORED states that the Wikipedia is subject to the laws of the United States, where the servers are located. Is this obsolete and should be changed to "....subject to the laws of the United States and the Netherlands, where the servers are located", or what?
If we are subject to Dutch law and are beholden to obey to a cease-and-desist order from a Dutch judge or to libel action in Dutch courts, this would be rather chilling in my opinion, given the Gert Wilders case and and the lack of First Amendment protections in the Netherlands and so forth. (Not saying that Wilders isn't a _____ _____, but still.)
So what's the deal? Herostratus (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Science&HiTechReviewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please see:
I'm pretty uncomfortable with what that editor is doing, and I think s/he is claiming to have had discussions with you about his/her current activities.[6][7] Could you comment at ANI? Thanks. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report.
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
TucsonDavid GOD BLESS THE U.S.A. 13:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
[8] indicates a severe problem at Meta. Single "objections" to any alteration of what we consider a problematic "essay" which has definitely been abused in the past. Perhaos you have a suggestion on how to proceed? The RfC did not show such an objection to be generally held, but Meta does not appear to be a place where one editor can make a difference when entrenched "no change at all"ism dominates (sigh). Thanks. Collect (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
One editor has declined to compromise (not opining on the reversion on the talk page) at [19] by reverting the gist of the edits made. I suggest that a stronger edit ought to be made at that point, any takers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm closing the discussion here, although I was finding it perfectly productive, but in the interest of moving the discussion over to the talk page on Meta.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. I have a question about Wikipedia's tenth anniversary merchandise. On the "thanks" banner, someone is depicted holding a 3D Wikipedia globe puzzle in his/her cupped hands. Have you ever considered having such a globe mass produced in order to be sold to raise funds for the foundation? I would enjoy having one as a paper weight. Regards, and happy New Year.-RHM22 (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The conference was held by Wikimedia Foundation in Japan. (Wikimedia Conference Japan 2009,Wikimedia Conference Japan 2010,Kansai Open Source 2010)These conferences succeeded. However, the earnings call is not yet done. A fee, a donation, the money of which we paid support are unidentified.The reward paid to you and the staff is unidentified.The disposal of remaining assets, the cancellation of a contract procedure of the bank account are unknown.I demand accountability as the sponsor of the meeting from you.--山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
It's so helpful for school reports and my collecting hobbies. It's fun and educational, so I'm always spending time learning new things.
You should be person of the century.
76.200.114.235 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Bobby Powell
Hey, I don't post on Wikipedia very much, so maybe you'll just disregard this, but a friend of mine had an awesome idea. And you like to hear good ideas, right? Here's an idea that will both increase the public's usage of Wikipedia and raise funds much more efficiently than trying to start a Stalin-esque cult of personality via banner ads.
Some background... When friends and I are arguing, we always have to settle the debate by going to Wikipedia. That might make you cringe, but a lot of people do it. And it can be tedious... If there's no internet available, no laptop, etc.. We always say, "Oh I'll check Wikipedia tomorrow" and a lot of times we forget.
I was talking about how awesome it would be if we had real-life "tac-pads" like Master Chief in Halo (don't know if somebody as smart and successful as you plays videogames but w\e -- basically it's like an iPad on your wrist).
Well, a while back I remember you invested in those mini-computers for African children or something, with Wikipedia on them... Why not use that same type of technology to sell pocket-sized versions of Wikipedia? Maybe even with a wrist-strap. Or not, it could be like a pocket dictionary.
And if the anti-Wikipedia freaks start crying, "omg wikipedia's gone commercialized," you can tell them an anonymous Zen Buddhist who rarely edits Wikipedia came up with the idea.
Also, if this is TL;DR maybe one of your underlings at least can tell me why this is a bad idea. Like maybe it's already been done, maybe iPhone apps are just as good, etc.. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Good luck with your coming appearance on The Daily Show! It's my favorite show and I'm looking forward to it. I remember your great appearance on the Colbert Report a couple years ago. Jrobinjapan (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for creating this wonderful resource! Whowhen (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Census data: [23]; to get fellow Wikipedians' attention, WP:2010 US Census, and 2010 United States Census. People, please update the pages. Thanks. Perseus (t • c) 17:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Any idea how I could get a copy of the logs referred to here [24]. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.187.54 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
How does the prohibition on paid editing that you set via WP:JIMBO reconcile with the Wikipedia:Reward board? Could Kohs and everyone else have avoided getting banned if they told their clients to post the article requests on the board? 174.252.107.95 (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed that the International Association for the Study of Pain pay an expert to review and edit Pain. Is there some uncertainty about the appropriateness of that proposal? Anthony (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
You wanted evidence from me that some of your users in this website are out of control? How about this one [25]? A murder/suicide accusation that is not true at all is called libel and slander, and It's not going to be tolerated. Karajou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.57.179 (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm forced to come here real talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.137.48 (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Jimbo, in response to your recent call for donations I want to tell you about the issue that is impairing Wikipedia substancially, which is the reason why I did not donate again at this time. I know, deletions are a hot topic in every Wikipedia. But I personally have seen articles vanishing in the German Wikipedia which were interesting, well written and fairly well referenced. The reason always is: Irrelevant, not "encyclopedish", not important. And I really can not understand:
This is an ongoing annihilation of knowledge, but I always thought Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge!
Often when I read or take part in deletion discussions, it is obvious to me the some admins are really quick with deleting all articles about things they just have never heard of. At the end, the decision is rather personal. "In dubio pro reo" does not translate here, it is more like "In dubio pro deletion".
But I am not just complaining, I have a proposal too: Allow users to find and read deleted articles.
More detailed, introduce a two-step deletion scheme: Full deletions will only be allowed for articles that violate the universal netiquette (like vandalism, slander, obvious promotion). Soft deletions are for articles that are disputed. When a user searches for an article of a deleted topic, the search result will show like: "No article found in main Wikipedia, but there is a disputed article here: (click)"
Or something like this. Maybe it would be better to change the pro-deletion-people's minds, but I do not know if that is possible. Until there is a real solution for the deletions topic, I will rather donate to those projects that save deleted articles. --W-sky (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, like Conservapedia, we could also "reach out" to Deletionpedia? In a quid pro quo, we could negotiate to ensure inappropriate material never sees the light of day again. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems that this idea of soft and hard deletions (whatever they will be called) could be a good one. But the discussion here came to an end - now, what could be the way to make it implemented into Wikipedia? For a start, should it be tested in one language only, or...? --W-sky (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it`s time to clean Wikipedia from advertizing user pages.:Something like [26] could be a good method.--Löschwahn (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. I'm hoping you or a knowledgeable TPS can point me in the right direction. Does WP or WMF have a definitive copyright policy on lists of the type discussed in this AfD? I've been looking around WP:COPYRIGHT and similar and I can't seem to find anything definitive. I'm not comfortable with random AfD passersby such as myself trying to make or interpret WP copyright policy on the fly in an AfD; I'd really like to understand the existing policy (if any) on lists of this nature before !voting keep or delete based on the copyright concerns mentioned. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Jimbo. I hope that you don't mind me posting this here, but our List of common misconceptions has been mentioned on XKCD,[27] a high-traffic web site. The number of edits to this article have increased by orders of magnitude. If anyone has the time (and patience!) to welcome the newbies and explain our policies and guidelines to them, their assistance is appreciated. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
In the XiDan Shopping Centre is a restaurant that serves this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lantrix/5245203240/
You've been in Beijing before; have you stopped by? If not, will you the next time you're there? The restauranteur of that establishment must love our project in order to serve a dish named after your greatest creation! --68.95.116.192 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
or should all bots be compatible with wikipedia licenses? you can see more info here 188.2.168.166 (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
El material sobre personas vivas debe verificar cuidadosamente las fuentes de su información. Sin fuentes terciarias confiables, una biografía podría violar las políticas de Verificabilidad y de que Wikipedia no es una fuente primaria, y podría motivar juicios por difamación.
-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
" ... Vermont's media saw perception management at work in 1978, when a young woman named Kristina Berster was caught crossing the border illegally from Canada into Vermont. The FBI knew only that she was a West German citizen and was wanted for something called criminal association a crime that didn't exist in the United States ... The verdict, delivered on Oct. 27, 1978 after more than five days of deliberations, was a felony and misdemeanor conviction for lying to a customs official, but acquittal on the crucial conspiracy charge ... When Berster returned home to Germany, the old charges against her were dropped. But it also demonstrates how perception management works. Manipulating the press and exploiting fear are powerful tools, and too often used to justify bigger budgets or intrusive security measures ... "
I don't read Spanish either, but the English version Patients' Collective has sufficient BLP issues to validate the concerns.--Scott Mac 23:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Two facts: ClaudioSantos y a sockpuppet of a banned user due to edit warring.
Second, SPK (is well known back from 2005) from using terrorist-like tactics to force their POV into the wiki. Example: [57] where down you get a ver y nasty threats towards two sysops:
Quick translation: we are in an electronic fight and we have names, jobs and full addresses of those two sysops, and we are willing to provide them to anyone asking.
My full support to the sysops involved dealing with these trolls: instead of blindingly revert, you should've engaged in talk there. Jimbo's talk is not an editorial control center over all wikis.
When you're right, discussion and explanation is the way to go, not crosswiki revert. Magister Mathematicae (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Mr. Wales. How are you? Me, I'm fine.
However, I have a big complaint about Wikipedia. It seems nobody is putting their commas in articles. And, on occasion, I catch an article that is riddled with so many missing commas.
Could you maybe put a grammar policy, where users should check punctuation, please? I feel this is going to be benefitial.
Here's an example of what I mean (Though this is only an example. I never saw it in an article):
1. Before they could eat Jim had to call his friend Ellie to confirm a meeting with her. 2. Before they could eat, Jim had to call his friend Ellie to confirm a meeting with her.
Now, from the comparison, Number 2 sounds much better, as it does not sound like they're eating Jim.
But, commonly, I will find something like "In (Insert Show Name) the character Bob (Random name chosen) wished to keep the fact of missing his meeting a secret." .
I hope I don't sound too annoying, but, um, yeah.... if you could make a grammar policy for punctuation, that would be great. Thank you.
And, Happy New Year, eh, Mr. Wales.
--208.96.121.65 (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Please, hide the annoying banner on top of millin of pages. It is really annoying to see the ... Banner tens a day? week by week. It is very big, it uses a big font, images. With this banner I must to scroll down a lot on my netbook. I do scroll on every page I want to open in wiki. I ever dont want to edit something, because the banner will be showed to me 3-4 times more while I will do editing. `a5b (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
As an aside to all of this, the banner can lead to...questionable situations, such as that one on Failblog. CycloneGU (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I was planning to announce today a relinquishment of some of my traditional powers, as I have been doing over a long period of time, however writing that up in a precise manner is proving to be more difficult than I thought, despite my having thought quite a bit about what steps to take next. I will make a further announcement about that soon.— Jimbo Wales, 19:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I was planning to announce today a relinquishment of some of my traditional powers, as I have been doing over a long period of time, however writing that up in a precise manner is proving to be more difficult than I thought, despite my having thought quite a bit about what steps to take next. I will make a further announcement about that soon.
Now that 2011 is in full swing, may I gently remind you of the above? While it may not be urgent, it would be unfortunate to let discussion lapse indefinitely, so if you can estimate when you might be able to make further comment on your position, that would be most helpful.
Thanks, Geometry guy 21:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I know what such pressures are like, but find upper bounds more helpful that lower bounds: "by the end of January", perhaps? Geometry guy 23:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo announced on the internationally famous show hosted by Jon Stewart that he was, as of now, only a volunteer; and is willing to forego status as founder or co-founder. Isn't that enough? Must this be printed in triplicate and notarized? ("the rabblement hooted and clapped their chapped hands and threw up their sweaty night-caps and uttered such a deal of stinking breath because Caesar refused the crown that it had almost choked Caesar" http://nfs.sparknotes.com/juliuscaesar/page_26.html) Jimbo knows how to play his role. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have a cyberbullying policy, in relation to interactions between editors, administrators, stewards etc? If so, could I be directed to it, please? if not, why not? Thanks. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that even if harrassment is investigated and the accused are cleared of wrongdoing, the accuser generally isnt satisfied. As I've seen, unless the accuser gets their way, they feel everyone else involved is participating in the harrassment and bulleying as Time Will Say Nothing (talk · contribs) is a good example of. By the way, my first time on Jimbo's talk page so *WAVE* @ Mr. Wales!--v/r - TP 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
how did u get the idea of putting the wikipedia image for a typing globe (or whatever that is)?
69.236.166.22 (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. if u reply, please leave a talkback template on my talk page.
Please check Talk:Giovanni_Di_Stefano_(businessman)#Sources. You already replied to a recent thread here, but there are new developments. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Why was the link of the word Undid removed when you press the undo button such as this compared to what it used to be for example? WAYNESLAM 19:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I myself think it's embarrassing to turn to "papa-bear" whenever one might feel their point of view doesn't get enough weight and/or attention at the appropriate talkpage (or even before it's perceived that way). "Papa-bear" can't solve "individual's problems"and shouldn't constantly be ask for his opinion in matters that are meant to be discussed and solved by the community. "Papa-bear" is surely pretty much hooked up with more important things in real live (just like everyone else here?) and will sure voice his opinion in regards of issues he really has an interest in. He shouldn't be bothered [basically forced as this bear is a public figure] with everyday's Wiki-trivia . Maybe "Papa-bear" enjoys having his talkpage used like an internet-forum [Uh, that would be against policy and a potential speedy delete candidate] but one should be aware that he's not here to remove everyone's splinters. He most likely (and understandable to the open minded) has a hard time to voice his opinion openly and I took a blunt and wild? guess.TMCk (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Listened to you on NPR today. Just wanted to say nice job. Funny thing is, I had just started talking to my mom about Wikipedia when we turned the radio to find you just about to start the interview. Funny how life can turn out that way. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
...or so Wikipedia says. Aren't you embarrassed, Jimbo, that Wikipedia is used in this way? The current article on the shooting is written to give the reader the clear impression that law enforcement believes Sarah Palin inspired the deranged shooter to target Giffords . I'm no fan of Palin, but this is shameful. TimBuck2 (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is terrible at teaching it's editors--no matter what we do. We make welcome notices, but they don't seem to help. We try to cooperate with newer users and vandals, but in some cases, they just don't get policy. I think we might need to redesign Wikipedia's "education" system, because whatever we have now, it isn't enough. --173.49.140.141 (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Slightly off topic, but generally speaking, the project's entire user documentation is awful. Basically there's far too much of it, much of it is incomprehensible, and much of it is fudge resulting from various disputes (or attempts at law-making) that doesn't describe clearly - or even accurately - how we do things around here. (But try to reduce or clarify it and you'll soon come up against protests that you're committing the terrible sin of changing "long-standing" guidance.) We need a concerted effort to redesign the whole thing with a focus on making things clear, and not trying (unsuccessfully anyway) to legislate.--Kotniski (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Who was the first user on WIkipedia (besides you), Mr. Wales, if you remember? I found RoseParks on January 21, 2001. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Answer to your comment on my user talk site.
How reliable should that source be? There is a family tree of the Dukes of Devonshire that can be found at the Cavendish Pavilion at Bolton Abbey, Yorkshire (the lower half of it http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/IrishCent/PeerageNews/IMG_1314.jpg).
And another one that was on display at the exhibition celebrating the 90th birthday of Her Grace the Dowager Duchess at Chatsworth House in Derbyshire. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/IrishCent/PeerageNews/IMG_1997.jpg)
I took the pictures last spring during my visit there. IrishCent 09:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishcent (talk • contribs)
Hi, this is user:Pudmaker, journalist of Kyungkyang Daily Newspaper of South Korea.
First of all, I'm very sorry for bothering you. I know you must be fully occupied with your job.
I sent a mail to you, but you still don't read it. I wonder if you are too busy to read it or just forget it.
Please read my e-mail and send me a reply mail. Then I can draw up an article about it, and also introduce your message to Korean Wikipedia community.
Again, sorry for demanding on you.
I think that your e-mail will be a good chance to bring up a mass attention on Wikipedia, and will be an encouragement to ko-wp users.
Hope you to write back to me soon.. Best regards. adidas (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-01-10/News and notes#In brief, the second item is the following.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Getting started
The editors at WikiProject Medicine will happily answer any questions you may have.
Be guided by these important principles
No original research
Reliable sources
Use your own words
Citing sources
<ref>
</ref>
Hi Jimbo. The invitation, with a medical mini-tutorial, has now been placed at the top of 20 medical articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting comments from Jimmy - Interview with the BBC 14 Jan. - Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI Talk:Poland–Lithuania#Requested_move; Wikipedia should seek to represent reality, not redefine and redesign it, as the case is being presented that "Wikipedians decided" [who?] a long time ago that dashes would be applied willy-nilly where hyphens are normally used; when it comes to country names like the ones under discussion, or hyphenated place names in the UK, France, Germany and countless elsewheres, this creates a "new standard" which was never seen before Wikipedia came into existence. The attitude that "Wikipedia knows better" when those speaking are claiming the entire encyclopedia's authority for their own opinion, is very very disturbing. Those advocating that Wikipedia impose its "style" no matter what hundreds, even thousands, of sources adn standard usages are, is just nonsense; it also, as I point out, creates a further load on servers because of all the redirects that will be required to satisfy this very vain demand that we all conform to what "Wikipedia" says. I don't think this was your purpose in creating this encyclopedia, was it? Wikipedia guidelines should not be cited as biblical edict and should certainly not be carved in stone, which is how such people are insisting we regard them.Skookum1 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
A well-respected administrator pointed this out to me. I soon realized that the eradication of these individuals is very difficult especially if one of the WP:SOC is an administrator. They are individuals who seemingly missed the imaginary boat in their life and they use Wikipedia to compensate for their perceived insignificance. They try to use Wikipedia to rewrite the part of history that wasn’t sufficiently rewarding to them. These people are far from being newbees. They appear to be knowledgeable and definite in their opinion. They use references that are mediocre at best. It is impossible to argue with them about highly reliable sources. Since they are WP:SOC and WP:MEAT , they act in concert. If you try to reason they will immediately declare edit war, which you can only lose on the basis of number of WP:SOC and WP:MEAT against you. You can get out of their grip by using highly reliable sources. The idea of Wikipedia as self-purification is an important one but unfortunately it may need some extra impetus. The question is how to go about eradicating WP:SOC and WP:MEAT efficiently while least disturbing the editors at large. Insistence on highly reliable sourced references is the issue rather then gender or identity. I hope that Jimbo can give some advice and encouragement. (Salmon1 (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC))
This is the required official notification that your work is being discussed WP:AN/I. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
HeyMid (contribs) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
I sent an email to WikiMedia Foundation by your guidance, but an answer does not come.
The event of wikipedia10 is done in Kyoto. Are the foundation or you doing the sponsorship to this? The budget accounting is vague though it costs the fee of ￥5,500.This meeting place charter expense is ￥3,500 - ￥6,000 per one.Calculation grounds are unknown. --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations on ten outstanding years of Wikipedia! It's a truly amazing achievement, and the encyclopedia has come such a long way from those first basic edits. Here's to the next ten years, and beyond! --Dorsal Axe 00:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Congrats from me! Drinks all around! JguyTalkDone 17:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
So, does the ampersand character work now? :) — Rickyrab | Talk 03:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for creating Wikipedia. It isn't an ordinary person who can create something that will change the lives of millions if not billions of people, yet you have managed to do that. Wikipedia has become an important part of everyday life (including mine), probably only competing with Google. Its contribution to the distribution of knowledge throughout the world is unparalleled, and it continues to serve as a light for the masses whenever they are lost on a subject. May Wikipedia last forever! Happy birthday Wikipedia, and thank you Jimmy Wales. --Slon02 (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations on 10 years of wikipedia. I bet its developed beyond your wildest dreams, but there is still an enormous amount of work in regards to improving content,research and quality and of course missing articles. I read an article in the Guardian today though Wikipedia unplanned miracle 10 years. Whilst the article was very encouraging I must say I was very disappointed to see somebody's claim that you didn't deny involving wikipedia with the stock market in the future and becoming "a billionaire". Here is the post that concerned me:
"Economist, Guardian and other mainstream neocon imperialist media outlets continue to heap underesved praise for Mr Jimmy Wales's ponzi scheme. Something is fishy in the ongoing media PR campaign.
Wikipedia have been begging for contrubutions however these contributions have become private property of Wikipedia, creators for example cannot remove their articles. Once you wrote it will be there bringing profits for Mr Wales and his ilk.
Presently Wikipedia is officially non-profit organization with lack of transparency regarding donations. It was said to collect 10 times more funds than it's necessary to run Wiki. Nobody knows where 9 parts out of 10 going, in whose pockets.
However Mr Jimmy Wales did not deny in recent interview that in future the encyclopedia will go public issuing shares and listing on stock exchange. Then dear contributors of Wiki you will know how your "free" labour will make Mr Jimmy Wales & Co billionaires."
Is there any truth to this Jimmy?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations... on finally appearing on the Main Page. Oh, and on the tenth anniversary of Wikipedia. It's looking less like Nupedia and more like Oldpedia. But seriously, here's to ten years of a remarkable enterprise on which I am among the proud millions and millions to work. Congrats. Valley2city‽ 16:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
WikiExperts.us Capitalizes on Pent-up Demand for Wikipedia by www.thehostingnews.com —Wavelength (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Perseus, Son of Zeus has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
--Perseus, Son of Zeus 18:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy Wiki Birthday Jimbo! Thanks for creating such a great site 10 years ago today. Did you have a good Wiki Birthday? Thomas888b (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Baseball Watcher Lets Chat has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Slon02 (talk) has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
It'll be better if you eat something to go along with all of those drinks. ;) Once again, thank you. --Slon02 (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo, I heard you say in a recent interview that something like 85% of Wikipedians are male, possibly because of the tech-geek aspect. I have a few suggestions:
Let me know what you think. Sincerely, --Confession0791 talk 23:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict] As I've stated, I'm only replying to what Jimbo said in the interview. My goal is to provide suggestions on expanding the base editors of the site. Maybe I should have approached this from a different angle. WYSIWYG editing may make wikipedia editing more accessable to more people, female and male, who would be otherwise be put off by code of any type. --Confession0791 talk 06:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Since we're talking a lot about admins here, I did a bit of research and made the pie chart (to the right) based on Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active and which option those users have picked at Special:Preferences. In reply to Confession0791, that seems a slightly circular argument, you're saying that to get more female editors, we need more female editors/admins. So therefore we need more female editors/admins? No. I think the main point which has been ignored here thus far, is why do we need more female editors? Once that's answered then it's easier to discuss what course of action to take.Personally I feel the main reason for it is to achieve a diversified userbase, to in turn cover a broader range of content (furthering Wikipedia's main goal). I believe Jimbo has mentioned something along these lines before in some talk: that due to Wikipedia's users being mainly tech-savvy males, Wikipedia's technology related content is very good, but other areas are neglected. So, let's try and focus this conversation a little bit more on content. I feel that part of the reason Wikipedia retains tech-savvy males more is because at the moment, the content (being written mostly by tech-savvy men) is about stuff they are interested in. So there's plenty for them to do in areas they actually find interesting. But it's a less exciting editing experience for women who are more interested in... say, uhh, cooking (just using this topic as an example {{=)|wink}}). If Wikipedia's content was more focused on cooking, I dare say that the userbase would be drastically different, despite it running on exactly the same software. This is more apparent over at Wikia, where they do have a cooking project and many wikis for certain topics. The recipes.wikia has 6 admins out of which 1 is male, 1 female, and the rest unknown. So basically the point I'm trying to make is, it's not just the software we should be concentrating on here. As to actually changing the content to better suit more women (and I know I'm stereotyping a lot in my comment here) this is more complex. Women will only come to edit here if they like the site (i.e. if they like the content here), and they will only get content they like if they start to edit (since not many of our current users are going to want to write about Barbies.. or whatever). So it's again a slightly circular situation. Another point to consider, Wikipedia is on the internet. That Wikipedia's userbase is mainly tech-savvy males makes sense, since it's a website. It's a fairly typical userbase for any website of this type. Using Wikia as an example again. There are undoubtedly more of these "men geeks" interested in editing then women, as evidenced by the bigger wikis being on topics like Runescape, Star Wars, and Star Trek. Some sites of course (I'm thinking Facebook, although I'm not actually sure what their male:female ratio is like) manage to get around this, so there's some slight chance Wikipedia may be able to do so too (I'm thinking this would also require further interface changes, not just content change (as even though content changes improve the ratio (see earlier talking about recipes.wikia and Cooking etc.), they do not help improve the actual volume of female/male editors (as shown by the geek-wikia-wikis being much more popular)). However, so far the approach to making interfaces more "friendly" by both Wikia and Wikimedia (to a lesser extent), seems to be to turn any plaintext or "old" looking links in sight into obtrusive gradient buttons and hope more users turn up. Wikia's interface is now very, very horrible, slow and difficult to navigate (from what I've seen of it, and what their users say), and following them down the path of WYSIWYG editing as suggested (or following them down any path for that matter) is not the way to go (however, I think some users may be surprised to know that some programs such as OpenOffice allow you to export documents into wikimarup). - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
A significant number of women are concerned about cyber-stalking, hence are loathe to reveal identities. The percentage online is, however, vastly greater than the old 10% from the 1980s. I suspect that nearly 50% of users are female now for this project, and about 30% of editors are female. The claim that 15% of sysops are female sounds likely correct. I sincerely doubt that the interface has anything at all to do with these demographics. And with bots chasing down errors in coding, just let folks edit and let bots fix the problems, as they now do for ref tags and the like. Collect (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It would surely help attract and keep more of all of the right sorts of editors, male and female and anywhere in between, if we (a) made the interface better (but we know developers are too busy to make even the most basic improvements, so that probably isn't going to happen unless the board's got some money to throw at the problem); (b) kept the atmosphere pleasant; (c) wrote the guidance for editors in a compact and user-friendly way; (d) found a way of making good, serious editors feel that the system would protect their work against the ignorant or biased ones (I'm not saying I have such a system, but it's something worth thinking intensely about).--Kotniski (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Adding to Kingpin's comments. First, "Wikipedia's technology related content is very good": it is? I don't think so :) Relative to other areas, maybe, but have a look, for example, at Computing and Engineering and technology at Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics#Sep 16 2010. Second, the issue of stalking is a problem for all editors, and just a bigger problem for female admins or editors; becoming an admin (or a higher profile editor) increases the likelihood of harassment or stalking, and is something that keeps many editors from RFA-- not just females. BTDT. Third, why on earth would we want to further the problems in the admin corp by seeking to promote more females? We should promote admins based on qualifications and experience, not gender. And finally, why on earth are we focusing on gender when we have so much sociodemographic underrepresentation on Wiki, and we have several female arbs? We have much bigger problems to address, unrelated to gender and that affect the neutrality of our articles-- take a look at the entire suite of Venezuelan POV articles, as an example. I believe I'm the only female working in that area, but gender is not the problem there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Bullying is a problem in certain areas of Wikipedia. I prefer that people are nice and use constructive criticism, but sometimes an editor just has to have his (and I think it's usually "his") way (as of yet, I haven't come across an obviously female bully on Wikipedia, and hardly any obviously male ones, either). So what to do? Vigorously enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR, I guess. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
One of the things that I have find most difficult to deal with as someone who has publicly revealed that I am female, is the sexually explicit harassment. (For those who are able, take a look at the deleted edits of my user page to see a small example of what I mean.) I'm not afraid to say that women can be sensitive to this kind of thing, and are less likely to stick around after being repeatedly called a "whore" (or whatever), than if a guy is repeatedly called a "homo" (or whatever). On any online forum where people can contribute anonymously, women are frequent targets of this type of behavior, but I think Wikipedia could do better to control it. Too often these harassers have to be given three or four polite little warnings to stop before an admin will consider blocking them. Deli nk (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You know, just as an odd thought, maybe what we need on project is some equivalent of Big Brothers/Big Sisters - not so much mentorship for newbies, but just experienced users who are willing to give a sympathetic ear, moral support, and maybe (occasionally) a small scale intervention while people are learning the ropes. nothing quite like a friend on project to buck up the spirits in a dark moment, yah? --Ludwigs2 02:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I've always found Wikipedia's approach to blocking to be rather perverse. It's used as a weapon against established editors who are perceived to have committed some (possibly quite small) sin, but it is not used (as least, not without fuss beforehand) in the case where it's crying out to be used - against users who have patently come here purely to be disruptive. We should be blocking vandals and the grossly offensive on sight (I don't mean if they've just made one or two edits and gone away, because it's not worth anyone's time bothering about them, but if it looks like they might be going to do more damage, then we certainly shouldn't worry about their feelings if thinking about blocking them). However established editors probably almost never need to be blocked - if their behaviour is inappropriate, it needs to be pointed out to them (with increasing levels of forcefulness) what they're doing wrong, then (if they keep doing it) be expressly forbidden from certain actions, with blocks only being necessary if they can't obey those restrictions. We also need to remember that blocks are not the only remedial action - all edits can be reversed, and the removal of offensive posts should become more routine and acceptable (and restoring them unacceptable), since that not only sends a sharp message to the offensive poster, but also removes the temptation to others to respond in kind (and the poisoning of the atmosphere for bystanders).--Kotniski (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The reason why Wikipedia has less female than male editors is because editing it is a technical hobby. Even today, women are still less interested in technical hobbies than men. This is a purely cultural and sociological problem -- it has nothing to do with how Wikipedia works. I would especially oppose any kind of "dumbing down" of WP to attract more female editors. Let's fix society instead. Wikipedia isn't faulty in this respect. Nanobear (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This whole discussion shows a major flaw: the question "how do we get more XYZ?" is one of those quantity-assumptions (just like people cheered when the 3-million-mark was hit). The question should be "how do we get more good XYZ and get rid of the bad XYZ?"[Sandy is right] Just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
editors are more apt to engage in on-Wiki off-topic banter; we think it helps build community and retain editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, Female "techno-geeks" have the worst time of anyone here, I think! Competence combined with female character that asks instead of shoves seems to attract the harshest form of attack, even if we try to keep our gender unknown -- the style still comes through. Personally, "POV pushers and tendentious editors" are my number one problem, and WP is a place that tends to run off anyone who isn't able to dig in their heels and fight being bullied by a bunch of disgruntled people with poor social skills, of whatever gender. The bottom line is that there DOES have to be a cultural shift overall, but part of it is to recognize that to build an encyclopedia requires discussion and consensus, which are ideals of wikipedia and well-suited to people socialized as female, but the problem is that the ideal is not enforced. The tendentious editor goes on making completely frivolous arguments without being called on their crap, and then when the legitimate content editor finally blows his or her lid, then THEY are the one slapped. That makes no sense whatsoever. As for the "dumbing down," the technical stuff is not that challenging to learn (no more difficult than figuring out the changes Microsoft did to Word this week... we deal with markup commands all the time) but the help pages are pretty daunting to anyone trying to figure things out initially and the wizard is even worse. More user-friendly "how to get started" pages would be a help, I think. I also think a handy-to find, dedicated mentor core for newbies would be nice. As far as female-friendly stuff goes, to be able to touch bases with a live person quickly and easily would be useful as long as it was public, short term and not creepy. IRC probably not suitable, but just having help more accessible would be good. Montanabw(talk) 00:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Many differences between male and females are due to testosterone. Taking testosterone makes females almost as strong as men, as East Germany's sporting achievements demonstrate. Count Iblis (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There's so many sections now but I'll just put this here. This is what I have observed in editing toy related articles. Toys are an interesting section because the gender bias is often inherent (toy cars vs dolls.) Doll articles are much more often questioned: tagged with multiple maintenance tags, PRODed, merged or deleted, while articles on toys aimed at boys (vehicles, robots, construction toys) are allowed to sprawl more freely, both in number of articles and the contents within the articles, which is often fancrufty but goes unchecked. The interesting thing is that the end result is that the questioned areas come out better in the end (more focused, higher quality articles that are accessible to general audiences and not just to those already familiar with the material) while many of the editors are chased off due to the brusque welcome. From what I've seen the (mostly female) editors had no apparent issues with the interface and quickly picked up the syntax. Many had access to high quality offline sources and appeared familiar with academic referencing, and would likely had made excellent editors if they had stuck around. Siawase (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
In regard to the interface issue, there is no question that women are just as capable of men at using the interface. This reflects a similar issue in IT - there is no question that women are just as capable as men in IT. Thus raising issues about the interface isn't about competence. However, I keep thinking there is a second parallel with IT. Back when I used to be (loosely) involved in research on gender issues in IT, it seemed clear that women were heavily involved in content creation with IT, but not necessarily interested in IT development. While there were a lot of reasons for this, (which it wouldn't be worth gong into now, as they aren't necessarily things WP can address), I'm wondering if the interface we use might be a factor in leading people to connect WP with development instead of with content creation. If there is a tendency to equate WP with IT development, then it would be expected that we would get a similar uneven gender distribution as found in other areas of IT development.
As always with this sort of issue, there are two questions: what factors prevent people from getting involved, and what factors prevent them from staying. The latter might come down to issues raised really well in the above discussion (how people are treated, the style of the debate, etc). The former, however, relates to how WP is perceived. Perhaps the interface issues sit on the perception side of the equation. - Bilby (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
In a discussion with another user, I was reminded of the fact that one of the reasons why new users get put off by Wikipedia is because they try to make an article and it gets deleted within moments. I know that this is a subject that has been discussed time and time again, but i'm not sure if there's ever been any firm rules put in place. I know that there is a loose consensus that it is bad for articles to be deleted just after they are created and it is something that is generally frowned upon, but I feel that things would work better if we actually made some rules.
So, I propose that we put in place rules that state that a new article cannot be AfD'ed, PRODed, or CSD'ed within a certain amount of time after its creation. Thirty minutes, perhaps? The exact amount of time is obviously something that can be discussed, but I feel that making rules for this sort of thing will fix one of the issues that drives away new contributors. SilverserenC 18:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the vast majority of newbie new articles are either COI/company advertising or just non notable people/bands. The proportion of actual encyclopedic content created by new editors is low from what I've seen. I must admit though I've rejected speedy tags many times on articles which do meet requirements but weren't formatted/sourced properly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I know your user page said anyone can edit but I am being cautious anyways. I think this graphic {{[[User:Fran Rogers/peek]]}} would be good on your userpage or userpage edit notice. What do you think? Jhenderson 777 19:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
<span style="position:fixed;z-index:-1000;left:0px;top:50px;"><imagemap> Image:Jimbo Peeking.gif rect 0 0 0 0 [[Main Page]] desc none </imagemap></span> --Confession0791 talk 08:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)