User talk:Jimbo Wales

Leave messages for me here:

Message at en.wiki

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Well, just in case you don't see, I left a message at WP.--LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Deleting modules

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please delete the modules that you want to delete properly. Deleting only the cover pages isn't enough. Moreover, if you are waiting around solely in order to provide time for people to copy the content, don't. If anyone has a GFDL wiki that they want the content transwikified to in the future, I can temporarily undelete the modules, transwikify them, and re-delete them. Uncle G 16:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Actually I wanted to just delete the front page for now, I don't want to cause too much trouble for anyone. Yes, the temporary undeletion thing could be done, but I'd hate to have you have to go to all that trouble.--Jimbo Wales 16:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's not an enormous amount of trouble. I have tools that make such transwikification relatively easy that I use, which I deliberately designed to be readily adaptable to arbitrary wikis; and I've already been through this specific process with the Body Parts Slang list, which I temporarily undeleted at Wikipedia in order to transwikify it to Wiktionary (for incorporation into WikiSaurus, which is now proceeding). Actually doing the work itself didn't take very long at all. A manual transwiki would be tedious and require a fair amount of effort. But my transwikifications are semi-automatic. (I don't copy, paste, and reformat author histories by hand any more. ☺) I could readily set up a one-off script to transwiki the entire Jokebook to another GFDL wiki, for example. (I've been through that process before, too. I've just transwikified the all of the reader and editor Help pages from Meta to here under script control, as a matter of fact.) Uncle G 17:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

What a bookshop is

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

By the way, if you are going to continue using the "books one might expect to find in the non-fiction section of a bookshop" metaphor, you can clarify what you mean to everyone by specifying what kind of bookshop you are talking about. See Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks#Headless_chickenism. Uncle G 18:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I'll start doing that.--Jimbo Wales 21:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for responding

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I appreciate your comments left on my discussion page. I will email you tomorrow. I'm just beginning to learn my way around here. Frog One 04:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Misquote

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think I owe you a personal apology for misquote, I often do a lot of errors but not all cause misreperesentations, you did say It isn't an order at Staff lounge, but for a minute it read It is an order to me, an worse of all it made sense, I feel terribly guilty. --Gnomz007 02:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

no misquote on truth:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=1398351&oldid=1373360 boxingwear the innocent lamb!

games people play...this message deleted at your wikipedia box

Hi there, Jimbo. Lets see, my story is pretty simple. I stood up to one "mongo" for better than a dozen ad hominem attacks, and assorted seriously fallacious reasoning, including blocking somebody else for changing a pov term "conspiracist" (patent characterization, invalidation and republican talking point) to "Independant Researchers." I stood up to mongos obvious abuse of admin powers, and was blocked by tony sidaway without just cause indefinitely. The reason for the block? "Stupid." Thats the reason tony gave. He called me "stupid." Now that we know that tony had no valid reason to block me, and that he used an ad hominem as a justification, I am sure you will be happy to do the ethical thing and unblock me. However, if not, this is the way i see things.

I have posted several different peices to your talk page regarding the out of control abusiveness going on over at wikipedia. To wit, and to be specific, Mongo, Tony Sidaway, Inshanne, Fred Bauder, and probably other people are with certainty pov warriors with admin powers. (and in the case of bauder, arbiter powers.)

Nobody should be subject to this abuse, wikipedia has become abusive (extremely abusive) ad hominems are the standard fare of such as tony and mongo and inshanne, and editors are complaining and leaving for good reason.

Wikiepdia is in fact extremely abusive right now, and I'd like to fix it. I'd like to help you out. I'd like to see your adventure work out for the best. But if you can't get this three ring circus together for something other than animal cruelty, somebody needs to stand up to it, and that person is going to end up being me.

Let me tell you what I have in mind. I think I will start by starting a hundred different conversations on the net at assorted places talkign about how corrupt and abusive wikipedia has become. Then, I'll post questions on yahoo Q+A such as "Is mongo a pov warrior?" and show links to his assorted pov warring and abuse. Then I'll go chat up all the anti wikipedians i can find.

And to frame this for you in even more tight of a perspective, I have expert knowledge of sociology, Psychology, and Logic, So my argument versus the corruption and abusiveness is going to come from my depth knowledge. This isn't going to be like the people who mock you and aren't taken seriously. This is going to be 20 page essay, distributed to hundreds of different places on the net.

Now, I am sure that you and everybody else are saying "hey, now thats not nice, and, its against the rules, since its a threat."

People who are abusive, and corrupt must have consequences for their actions. The public needs to know that Wikipedia is abusive unless wikipedia can quit being abusive. You can call it a threat, you can call it a plea for help, you can call it whatever you want. The facts still remain; Wikipedia is corrupt and abusive. And the ethical thing to do is to warn people not to become involved in an abusive relationship.

"vanish witnesses and evidence"

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
Become incredulous and indignant
Create rumor mongers
Use a straw man
Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
Hit and Run
Question motives
Invoke authority
Play Dumb
Associate opponent charges with old news
Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
Enigmas have no solution
Alice in Wonderland Logic
Demand complete solutions
Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
Vanish evidence and witnesses
Change the subject
Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
False evidence
Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
Manufacture a new truth
Create bigger distractions
Silence critics
Vanish

Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist ~

Avoidance
Selectivity
Coincidental
Teamwork
Anti-conspiratorial
Artificial Emotions
Inconsistent
Newly Discovered: Time Constant

Your "wikipedia" has become flagrantly abusive, you have 48 hours to respond, or i will fullfill my obligation to the public to warn them about the abusiveness here.

You have never faced a person as rational, as smart, or as determined as I am regarding. -prometheuspan-

starting rough

thought i'd keep you appraised of the progress on what you now have about 24 hours to look foreward to appearing all over the net. (unless you can be civil and be bothered to answer and resolve this.) This is of course just a stream of consciousness rough... I still have 24 hours to work on it.

I started my journey with Wikipedia several months ago. After using it on a few occasions as a handy resource, I became intrigued with it because it’s general conceptual Modus operandi matched my own personal objectives. Wikipedia exists to create an online encyclopedia, the largest and most complete ever. For many years, and since well Before Wikipedia, my personal goal has been to participate in a collaborative Textbook Writing experience, and to use good information and lucidity to end the age of propaganda and start a genuine age of information. As a child, I learned to speed read, And managed to read thousands of textbooks. This put me in a unique position to integrate the concepts from many different sources, and to try to solve apparently unsolved problems. As I explored Wikipedia, I found an article which was very poor in overall quality and Very skewed with patently bad information on a topic I am an expert in. The Wikipedia Article “psychonaut”. This article still stands as a good example of the problem with Wikipedia. Drug using self justifying people have written an article about Psychonautics Which frames Psychonautics as being about drug use. Psychonautics is not about drug use, it is about the exploration of the psyche. I made an effort to improve the article, and succeeded in getting the definition changed, but it became rapidly apparent that I was facing ignorant people who didn’t know what they didn’t know and who were prepared in any case to fight to defend their turf. After giving them a very complete outline, and starting a professional level conversation with them, all they could do was include A few minor points in a new version and otherwise tell me more or less to shut up and go Away. This alerted me to the problem, which I will now try to define.

The primary problem with Wikipedia is that it is in fact written by everybody collectively, and, THERE IS NO MECHANISM TO PREVENT DRIFT TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. Expert level knowledge is irrelevant; because what goes into the article is what 10 uneducated people want in the article, not what is True, important, or most useful or informative to the general public. This ends up meaning that if you are an expert on a topic and want to participate in Wikipedia, your Real task is an uphill battle that may take months or years just over even a single Article. This problem could be theoretically dealt with if there were lucid rules to deal with content disputes. However, Wikipedia offers exactly the opposite. If you are in a conflict on wikipedia, there is almost no recourse for you if the other person is both abusive, but clever enough not to violate only a very few insufficient rules. You can be attacked and maligned at any time, and there is no real recourse for you. There is a rule against personal attacks, but it is really only enforced on Wikipedia by admins using it for Personal warfare purposes, and otherwise, you are more or less swimming alone. Wikipedia is thus completely vulnerable to the Tyranny of the majority. Wikipedias articles in general character are very low in quality, and the reason for this is simple; The people writing the articles are factually ignorant, and any interference from somebody who knows what they are talking about will only cause that person to get ganged up on and abused.

The next biggest problem on wikipedia is the way that it handles neutrality. Wikipedias definition of neutrality is that something is neutral if the “mainstream press” has said it. The problem is that the mainstream press isn’t neutral, and the mainstream press is by vast majority republican owned and operated. This skews wikipedia badly towards the right, which doesn’t stop the left from being represented. Wikipedias policy is that articles should be written from a “neutral point of view”. This is called the NPOV Policy. The problem with this policy and how it is actually applied in practice is that In the first place, “neutrality” is never rationally defined. Neutrality doesn’t just consist of neutral language, and it doesn’t just consist of giving equal time to different sides of an argument. It also requires a real understanding of the difference between opinion and fact. There is no method for pointing out the difference between opinion and fact. On Wikipedia. Wikipedia side steps the issue by calling something a fact if somebody else said it. It requires only references, not a cogent evaluation of those references. References are only required to be mainstream, there are no criteria and there is no methodology for determining if a reference is itself biased. The result of this is that “neutrality” as such Becomes incredibly vague and hard to pin down, and, more importantly, “neutrality” As such is only what the local administrator says it is. These admins are not required to understand logic, aren’t required to know how to evaluate fact from opinion, and, aren’t even required to follow the rules set for mere editors. It is factually common practice for admins to verbally attack others, and there is no recourse for the abused.

Wikipedia has thus become a battleground, not an encyclopedia. There are no real Criteria set forth to limit persons from becoming admins, and so eventually, those who seek power for nefarious purposes, including Trolls, can become administrators on Wikipedia. Once a person is an admin, they are essentially above reproach. Confronting an admin over abuse is enough to get people banned. (Or blocked.) Wikipedia essentially has become nothing more than several different point of view camps, which war with each other in never ending battles to twist the truth and facts Their way.

The proof that this is true is actually written all over Wikipedia. Any given exploration of a science topic will demonstrate quickly that the information presented is substandard and often not even factual, just well sourced. With a million articles, you would think that by now a single textbook worth of material on some topic or another Would have been generated. Not so. Check out the “portals” on Wikipedia. “Portals” Are ways of grouping articles together by subject. Any cursory examination of the portals Shows that there wouldn’t be enough material out of any given portal to justify a whole Textbook. So what are 1 million articles covering? Everything you can think of, and mostly noise, nonsense, drivel, entertainment, Movies, Television, Games, Politics, Biographies, and so forth. Wikipedias content is by vast majority “non-encyclopedic.” If we define “encyclopedic” material as being that which would be found in some given textbook, or if we define an encyclopedia as a topic orientated textbook, Wikipedia is Already a gross failure. This proof is content driven, but there are more and better proofs that Wikipedia Is a battleground of point of view warriors. Perhaps the best proof is Jimbos talk page. Jimbo is the person who came up with the idea of Wikipedia, and he is the defacto Dictator of Wikipedia. Jimbo is a pretty kewl dictator as far as such go, because he believes in consensus process. But the point is, if you read his talk page, every third entry Or so is somebody making an appeal to him versus outlandish abuse. And he doesn’t answer these people, and the abuse goes on. At the top of Jimbos Talk page is a message saying to take such complaints to and Administrative page. Good luck. If your complaint for instance involves an admin, they might just delete the complaint and block you. If you are being personally attacked, the standard answer is to go “work it out yourself.” Of course, there are other methods to deal with problems on Wikipedia, and to be fair, we should discuss them. There is in fact an entire dispute resolution process. The first step is called a request for comment, or RFC. Here, you are invited to make a page, list your evidence, and make a complaint. The reality is that you are just drawing a big bull’s-eye across your forehead. It’s not against the rules for others to seek the help of all of their friends, and “consensus” process thus really amounts to nothing more than a popularity Contest. If you are new to wikipedia, or an expert with less time to devote than the next Whole month, you are pretty much out of luck. You’ll be crucified, happily, and if you get upset about it, and do anything other than allow yourself to become a good well behaved martyr, you are likely to get blocked or banned. After all of that trouble, and we will say a minimum of 5 days, an RFC must in theory be filed before any other complaints, but an RFC carries zero weight of authority. So if you are being abused, you just lost five days fighting where it doesn’t really matter, and on top of it all you have been tricked into criticizing Wikipedia, and thus have become a defacto enemy and Scapegoat for Wikipedias pov warriors and ignorant admins. Now that things have escalated, you can start a new process that will last a minimum of five days, and which also carries zero actual weight of authority called mediation. Here, you are expected to compromise and give in and allow others to assault you, mischaracterize you, and insult You, and further scapegoat you. There is no recourse here to logic or fair play, and despite rules that supposedly require civility, nobodies required to stay civil except you. Any admin can attack you, and, you simply are required to endure it. So now you have spent a minimum of ten days, nothing has changed, and nothing has been done about your complaint. Your article may have been nominated for deletion and been deleted by then, Before you even have a chance to seek genuine authority to resolve the dispute.

The next and last and final step, is called Arbitration. Unlike two prior steps, Arbitration actually has authority and weight to actually make people do things or face consequences. However, you should know that there are Arbiters who are pov warriors, and that the process only requires one arbiter to more or less act as facilitator. So if you are lucky, and you get an arbiter who favors you, you are in luck. But if not, you are basically in a court of law where the main judge is also the prosecution against you. You aren’t allowed to defend yourself versus the arbiter, nor to cross examine the arbiters case or logic. By now, the people you were in the conflict with have had at least 10 days to attack you, bait you, and abuse you. There is an evidence page where you get to make your case, but arbiters aren’t required to read it, and most don’t. Instead, the facilitating arbiter makes his or her case, and the other arbiters vote to agree with or disagree with the facilitating Arbiter. The page on which that happens you aren’t allowed to even make comment to.

So justice is elusive at best, and impossible at worst on Wikipedia. This creates a host of other systemic problems. It means that in the end, 99 percent of the participants put up or shut up, and learns to go along with the flow of apparent “consensus”. (Which is often generated by only a single admin.?) The idea here is that conflict takes time and process to resolve. The problem is, nobody in their right mind is going to put up with all of that. Wikipedia thus chases away anybody of decent or high caliber unless they are for whatever reason truly dedicated, and willing to spend hours and hours and hours being abused in order to accomplish writing a short article which will then probably degenerate into noise anyways.

Wikipedias government is thus definable as a tyranny of the majority based in pack psychology and anarchy. Its claim to consensus process is totally illusory, in fact it practices a perfect example of the now well discredited Delphi process. It forces false consensus via threat, intimidation, and manipulation.

Nowhere does this become more apparent than in trying to specifically bring these problems to the attention of Wikipedia. Like all bureaucratic monsters, Wikipedia isn’t Really interested in criticism, and serious critics are punished by intimidation, threat, Blocking, and banning. Standing up to an abusive admin is “asking to be banned.” Standing up to wikipedia as a whole on account of this problem was a lesson is doublethink and pack psychology. Being blocked for defending somebody else against blatant admin abuse (and reckless flagrant disregard for the rules) demonstrated the simple truth. People are blocked or banned from wikipedia simply for the crime of standing up for their rights, or other people’s rights, or for demanding that the rules be followed. The rules are followed selectively and at the convenience of the admins. Personal attacks are the modus operandi of admins, Votes for deletion, and even arbiters. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia; it’s a political battleground, a war zone of ideologies, Complete with total blatant and flagrant corruption.

Now, having made my case against Wikipedia, the next question is why bring this up With you? The answer of course is that I am interested in collaboration of the type that Wikipedia promises but cannot hope to deliver. For over 15 years, my goal has been to Write Textbooks or Tomes on those subjects which are most contended over, and to use truth and knowledge and logic and reason and fact to facilitate real change and evolution In our society towards the better. Specifically, I am interested in getting together with others and building a knowledge base prequel to writing textbook tomes on the following subjects. Ethics, Psychology, Sociology, Metaphysics, Philosophy, World Religions, Politics, Psychonautics, Permaculture, Arcologies, Architecture, Space Exploration and Colonization, Physics, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Herbology, Botany, Aerodynamics, Computer Sciences, Robotics, Alternative energy,

actually, i decided to have a weekend.

thats another 48 hours. see ya mondayish

well, you can't say i didn't try to warn you or work things out

they have archived all of my hard work over on your wikipedia talk page.

oh well, this is apparently an exercise in futility anyways.

http://tribes.tribe.net/vswikipedia?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B28362beb-251c-4adc-b9f4-152a0137b629%5D

http://tribes.tribe.net/omnipedia

in case you are ever interested...

i suppose that this will be the last time i bother to try to contact you.

I'm sure it will be painful soon enough.

ta ta

certain topics

Certain topics seem to generate unusual problems. Try to say something bad about Uncle Joe and . . . it gets deleted. Who's Uncle Joe? He was shortnamed UJ by 2 World War II leaders, one of whom is shortnamed FDR. Still can't guess?

Think of the 3 names associated with the largest number of killings in the 20th century.

One has a last name starting with "H"
One has a name starting with an "M" (for Chinese names, Last / First may confuse some)
S T A L I N

TODAY IS JULY 4 - let's see how long this stays here

De-adminship

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, As all administrators at the English Wikibooks, you are subject to de-adminship if you are inactive for over 1 year, which is currently the case. The request will be made at Meta one month from today. If you would like to object to the de-adminship, please do so at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access

Thanks for your time of service as an administrator at English Wikibooks.

– Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Rename user

In view the login provided by the unified goal [1], ask the reaname of User:Chico, currently without any contribution in the project. The rename may be something like User:Chico-Old. Thank advance.

-q:pt:user:Chico (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

World History

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would suggest that you add your name to the World History/Authors page. You created the book (I also seem to recall that it was your first-ever Wikibooks edit) and you deserve to be recognized for it. --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 00:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is User:Jimbo Wales the official account of Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia)?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is User:Jimbo Wales the official account of Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia)? What is the purpose of this account? And why was it created? Numbers-Mathworld (discuss • contribs) 10:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's his account, yes. The purpose? Same as any other account - he created it to edit Wikipedia (and the other projects). MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply