User talk:Jimbo Wales

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251: 10 days

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

This talkpage has been mentioned by a media organization:

Matthew Gault (8 December 2021). "Wikipedia Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Wikipedia Edit". Vice Media. The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.

ANI v. WMF time frame

I know this might have gotten lost in the shuffle, but I'm planning to start an RfC regarding the "office" action in that case. Do you know, or know who to ask, regarding how "temporary" the "temporary" takedown of the page is? I'm not asking for some exact date, but rather some estimate, or even just an order of magnitude (days|weeks|months|years). If we're talking "Wait a couple of weeks until the appeal is filed", that's a very different conversation than "We might, if we're lucky, have it back in five years." Do you know that, or know who to ask about that? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend against an RfC at this time, it seems unlikely to accomplish anything positive in any way. I would say that specific questions like that are not answerable at the present time for legal reasons. The best thing to do here is assume good faith that the legal team know what they are doing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith can be assumed to a point. But at some point, "What exactly are you doing, why, and how long will it be?" needs to get an answer, not "Well, legal reasons...". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We know that "technical issues" for the comparatively-simple matter of graphs meant "completely broken for 18 months". One can only imagine what "legal reasons" for a political court case in India means—perhaps a decade? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe even more [1]. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an rfc would achieve anything as Office actions can't be overruled by any editor. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overruled, not per se—but we can certainly object to them and register disapproval. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is a good idea and I certainly won't object to it. Maybe we can create a new page like WP:FRAMBAN and seek the community's view. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Seraphimblade: @AirshipJungleman29: WMF has agreed to handover basic subscriber information of editors who edited Asian News International page to Indian court.[2]. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, see discussion at WP:VPWMF. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That, and it was under some type of "sealed cover" arrangement. I don't even pretend to know the first thing about the Indian judicial system, so I don't know what that means or how it would affect things. I will certainly say that the question of disclosing any information to an opposing party, or to any court which might disclose it to such a party, should be the reddest of red lines and the hardest of hard "No"s, even more so than the article takedown. If refusing to do that means "WMF will have to pull out of India and they'll block Wikipedia there", we absolutely should do that instead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason the open letter already has 50+ signatures. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot more than that now. Jimbo—this isn't flying. We're going to need a lot more information and a lot less stonewalling, at the very least. I hope you'll get that message to the right people. What's so godawfully important here that we should be caving like this, when we never have before? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Note that you are jumping to conclusions and you're wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade could we take the tone down just a notch please? I completely understand everyone's anxiety over this specific case and the precedent it sets. I genuinely believe the WMF are fighting this tooth and nail but they also want to fight the case on its merits and it's hard to that if you publicly state that you have no intention of obeying a court order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I shared your optimism, and I hope that in the end, you are right and I am wrong. What we know so far is that the WMF will not draw a line at endangering or harming our content if India's courts tell them to, so that's not the "Absolutely not past here" red line. Will they draw that line at harming our editors, if the court tells them to? Apparently (at least if one believes what Valereee said about it, and I certainly have no reason to believe she is not being honest), what they told the editors in question wasn't very comforting, and they've not given us an answer to that at all. So—I really do wish I shared your optimism, but I'm afraid I don't, and if it comes up to the point of the WMF possibly being willing to endanger real people? Well, that's not a dispute over source reliability or the MOS, or even a dispute over banning someone from the project. That's actually doing real-world harm, and I think that needs condemnation in some pretty strong terms. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd be banging the drum right next to you but I don't think we've quite reached that point. Regardless of what will actually happen, the WMF cannot just announce that it won't comply with a court order. Or perhaps it could but that closes off every legal avenue in the original defamation case. We should also bear in mind that these internal discussions are still public and anyone can read them, including the court and the other party. Which (to me) explains why the WMF are so constrained in what they can say. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and along with that. Who are these "fellow travelers", exactly, and why have none of them come publicly forward to support what you're doing? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 400 signatures now. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has passed 600 now. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has passed 800 now. Is there any time frame for updates here? Tazerdadog (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF has been ordered to reveal the subscriber details to court in sealed cover, a redacted copy of the affidavit will be given to ANI, ANI can also approach the judge to seek details of the editors if necessary. [3] WMF is maintaining its intermediary status, thus all responsibility falls on the editors to prove the content is not defamatory(which will take years and losing means paying 2 crore in damages and taking down the article), in short the letter failed. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Has been ordered" doesn't necessarily mean "has". The idea is for them not to; if it goes to the court, they could reveal it to the other party (or the public, or anyone else) at any time, and no one could stop them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation shares ANI lawsuit updates; first admin elections appoint eleven sysops; first admin recalls opened; temporary accounts coming soon?

In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel

Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship

Gallery: Why you should take more photos and upload them

In focus: Questions and answers about the court case

Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?

Technology report: Wikimedia tech, the Asian News International case, and the ultra-rare BLACKLOCK

Humour: Man quietly slinks away from talk page argument after realizing his argument dumb, wrong

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation legal case

Hello Jimbo,

You and your talk page watchers may be interested in this open letter: Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. Cullen328 (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now also on WP:CENT and as a watchlist notice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is to be hoped that with almost 600 signatures, the letter will help the Wikimedia Foundation to protect the identities of contributors from the Delhi High Court at hearings on 11 November and thereafter.--Ipigott (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything (anything) that you can give editors concurrently regarding the protection of the anonymity of Wikipedia users in relation to the trial? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to say anything about an ongoing legal matter as this is a very public forum. All I can say right now, and this should be clear enough, is that you know my principles and ideals, and I am comfortable with the approach that the WMF legal team is taking at the present time.Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding, Jimbo. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the protection of anonymity: User:Valereee seems to be in contact with one of the affected editors. See Wikipedia:Community_response_to_Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation (Section "Contacted by one of the editors"). A fair bit of insight there. I also read a rather clear cut statement by one of the WMF accounts that the identity of the editors will not be disclosed but I can't find it anymore in all the chaos. --SchallundRauch (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: a proposal for a blackout or work stoppage. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 16:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think we yet need to undertake further action, we urgently need explanations on the significance of the "sealed cover" approach to revealing the names of the three targeted contributors to the Delhi High Court via their emails, etc. Will this protect them from wider revelation of their identities? What could be the worst case consequences?--Ipigott (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, you may feel that this is too public a forum to say anything. However, if you don't, there is quite the chance that the matter will become far more public than you like—the sort of public that comes with a daily audience of 360 million people. Beware of the monkey's paw! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And action: WP:VPR#RfC: Should a blackout be organized in protest of the Wikimedia Foundation's actions? [moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2024 Wikipedia blackout] 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 17:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far, ~~18 20 26 36 47~~ 55+ yeses. ~~2 4 9 15 21~~ 30+ nos. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 18:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~62-54~~ More oppose and neutral than support right now. I abstained. I'll just add a reminder that Appeals here may apply in this case. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 23:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this rate, this could be the most stagnantly significant controversy in WP history (and if enabled, lead to a site-wide blackout), certainly in the last 6 years (and I've seen everything). 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 19:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might not even get any better... Unprecedented, unless Reddit counts. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 21:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he responded - Very basically, "premature" and "what's to protest?" 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 22:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well he would oppose this criticism of the board, wouldn't he? Sincerely, Dilettante 22:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by that. My opposition to the protest is that what is being protested hasn't happened and, being privy to the discussions behind the scene, I am being as clear as I can in terms of telling you, speaking only for myself, that in my view there's nothing to protest. To be clear, a protest like this is not going to help our case in court in any way, quite the contrary. And if it's meant to be a protest of the WMF doing something wrong, well, I'm just telling you, I'm not personally worried that the WMF is going to do anything wrong.Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not saying you're objectively wrong to oppose this. I'm just saying that thus far you've defended the board's actions, and it's not a surprise you'll do so, especially given you're obviously involved with the WMF. I do respect your opinions and input in this matter; I mean this particular message is nothing unexpected.Sincerely, Dilettante 22:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite to the contrary, if the WMF does something wrong, I'll be happy to join a protest. Protesting things that haven't happened and that I'm telling you I don't worry about happening, is not really a good use of anyone's time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware you're willing to disagree. I'm just saying no-one was expecting you to disagree with the WMF just yet.

In what way does this not violate WP:RFCNEUTRAL? Anyone opening the page can read the table of contents, and the section "Note from Jimbo" is pretty prominent therein. Please remove the sentence The tl;dr is I strongly recommend against this as being both counterprodutive and unnecessary. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tl;dr is a neutral summary of my position, and the information that I'm brinigng to the community here is crucial for people's opinion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is your position at the top of an RFC? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pretty obvious. I'm bringing information to the community that is highly relevant to the RfC, and giving advice from a privileged position as to the best course of action. Burying that in amongst all the other comments would be unwise, as it could easily lead to some of the many misconceptions of what is going on being the basis of people's !votes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey, Just a friendly, curious question. I noticed you wrote something on User:Wik's user page. Was Wik fictional? What happened to him? Thank you for founding wikipedia! Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember anything about that particular case at this point, but my broad advice stands - if someone wants to walk away with dignity, they should be allowed to do so, without further fight or quarrel.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 23:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The Resistance Is Not Coming to Save You. It’s Tuning Out."

link to article An interesting look at a lack of one by Michael Schaffer of Politico. And in light of this stuff, might not be the least of our collective worries. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 11:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important to remember

...that sometimes the community does have valid complaints. Just not today.

Anyways, would it be a good idea to get rid of the list of roles mentioned on Legal:Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program on foundation.wikimedia? Polygnotus (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 100% definitely! The WMF isn't perfect, I'm not perfect, the board isn't perfect. Constructive work to improve things is always super welcome.

I'm not sure what you mean about the list of roles, are you suggesting an edit to the page, or a change in policy? I just read it for the first time in a long time, and it seems right to me. For avoidance of doubt, the users in question in the ANI situation have qualified and the WMF is paying for their legal fees.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]