Jimbo Wales

Hi Jimbo

Re NYT article, I read this article recently:

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/100421_gender.htm

something as simple as a banner with the photo of a girl contributing to wikipedia, its a safe bet that girls are more affected by positive role models than state libraries. ;)

3smeHwp (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

also... keep being awesome! 3smeHwp (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Attach a forum to each article. Wikipedia could become the dominant player in forums, and live off obvious but unobtrusive (ala Google) advertising. I've asked at Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Chit_chat to be pointed to the historical rationale behind the present position on not-a-forum, but no link yet. The only opposition so far, apart from "we don't do that" is concern that it will draw admins away from their real jobs, into dealing with problems at the forum, and concern about the influence of advertising on article content. Neither of which is insuperable.

I understand this is possibly a really dumb idea, but would like to know why, and just want to be sure this possibility has been exhaustively, scientifically investigated, since this project is underpinned by truly creative foundational content and social policy, and so probably has the intellectual resources to implement something like this successfully. That is, unlike the above ISP idea, we'd be dealing with a solution that we (you) have some demonstrated competency in. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

A couple of things. First, we aren't a forum because that's not Wikipedia's role. We aren't here to discuss subjects, merely to have information on them. Second, your idea doesn't affect why we don't take advertising: we want to be free of corporate influence. We don't want to be beholden to advertisers, and it doesn't matter where they advertise. If they give us money, we're beholden to them in at least a limited sense. Also, by advertising on forums for subjects, we would be giving at least the impression that we tacitly approve of the advertisers, and that's not a can of worms we want to open. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

(a) It's not our role: Correct. I'm proposing we assume an additional role.

(b) We want to be free of corporate influence: Correct. A corporate Chinese wall would need to stand between the entity hosting the forums, and Wikipedia.

(c) We would be giving at least the impression that we tacitly approve of the advertisers: It's probably possible to not give that impression.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The more I imagine Wikipedia with ads, the more it gives me the creeps. So I withdraw the advertising part. The current funding model is fine and, if we were to host forums, the public could pay for that. I really like the idea of attaching forums to Wikipedia articles because Wikipedia is an the index of all human knowledge, and it just makes a kind of unexplainable "sense" to me, to host (hopefully scholarly) debate on a forum attached to each item on the index. I believe it would forward cross-disciplinary as well as intradisciplinary debate; while giving Joe public a look at current thought concerning the topic. A big job, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it might be appropriate for another Wikimedia project, but I think the idea lies outside Wikipedia's founding goals and principles. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm aware it would be a radical change for the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

These forums. How would they help us to write a better encyclopedia? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I realize that you are not a lawyer, but I am curious what your thoughts are on this. Do you think vandalism of Wikipedia is a crime under the Florida Vandalism Law (since the Wikimedia servers are in Florida)? According to [1], vandalism is defined as defacing, damaging, or destroying something that's not yours without the owner's permission. Vandalism is defacing Wikipedia content, though the "without the owner's permission" part is difficult, as Wikipedia openly gives anyone permission to edit Wikipedia, but clearly states that vandalism is not permitted. Do you think that the current policies and founding principles of Wikipedia give people "permission" to vandalize Wikipedia? If not, do you think that persistent vandals should be prosecuted under the Florida Vandalism Law, or would that violate WP:NLT? Prosecuting vandals would not be an infringement of free speech since one of the founding principles of Wikipedia is that it is an online encyclopedia, not a public forum. Vandalism of Wikipedia would only be a misdemeanor under this law since reverting the vandalism costs no money. Although you are not lawyer, what are your thoughts on this? --Nat682 (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism doesn't damage anything. It just adds unwanted commits to the records. The real-world equivalent would be to say someone should be prosecuted for putting up a poster. It may be annoying, but all you have to do is take it down. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Terms of service says "Terms of service (commonly abbreviated as ToS or TOS)[1] are rules which one must agree to abide by in order to use a service. Unless in violation of consumer protection laws, such terms are usually legally binding." Wikimedia sites currently lack a TOS. Having one might help such things as teachers assigning students the task of vandalizing Wikipedia. (We have http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use; but it only deals with the copy-left copyright licence.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Throwaway85, vandalism can damage and has damaged reputations, as well as putting users' safety at risk. It is not something to take lightly; I can graffiti pretty pictures on a wall or I can graffiti someone's social security number on a wall or libelous material about Justin Bieber on a music store window. Obviously one is more serious than another. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

In this example we're really talking about two different things. The "vandalism" aspect wouldn't be a crime, however when one breaks wikipedia rules on vandalism, one could also break real laws like libel, defamation etc.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

In the legal sense, vandalism is generally interpreted as willful damage to the value of real property (i.e. damage to a material good that incurs some cost for repair or replacement). Internet sites are not 'real property' in the legal sense, and damage to them incurs negligible repair/replacement costs, so it's doubtful any court would accept a vandalism charge as valid. --Ludwigs2 15:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism has to do with damages, and as others have suggested, fixing vandalism has an almost trivial cost. Vandalism which is also libel or defamation is not a crime because it's vandalism, but because it's libel or defamation, as suggested above. Ludwigs' point is accurate on Wikipedia, but vandalizing (hacking) a commercial site could indeed lead to monetary losses, since those sites sells stuff. We just give it away for free however, so there's not much of a monetary loss. Pain and suffering, however--every time I Huggle I cry. Also, how many of you have tried the new Cluebot-integrated, platform independent, rapidly expanding anti-vandal program STiki made by User:West.andrew.g. Quite good interface, and expanding its capabilities quickly.Ocaasi (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know. =) If it passes, it might make a rather good press release. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia_talk:Hardcore_images#Reverted_userfication. Your input would be appreciated. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Header says it all. You agree with the essay but there are other issues you are ignoring. You are now edit warring. If anyone should be above that you should. If you do not like it simply pull the plug. Do not pretend to give something but take it away when it becomes different than you expected. Admins and editors alike would potentially face blocks for your recent action. And you could also use the talk page or see ANI. Of course, you could take methods such as asking the board to put its foot down but this sort of shenanigans is not acceptable if you are attempting to have some sort of community based system. Legal and PR concerns are an issue but stop pretending. Just say "Yes, we will censor images" and this could all go away.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree that reverting an inappropriate userfication of an essay against community consensus is edit warring about anything. There are no shenanigans here, only an attempt by some people to shut down a perspective they don't like.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply