Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Jimbo)

    Bit of a situation on French WP

    Wikipédia:Lettre ouverte : non à l'intimidation des contributeurs bénévoles, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a really great letter. I'm going to look into this further to see if I can help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, it refers to a notable editor whose contributions have been rather… controversial... and scrutinized by something very sinful. And as the title translates to: “No to the intimidation of volunteer contributors”. Sounds familiar yet? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 00:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying. Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, sorry if you don’t understand me. (Really don’t wanna jog your memory, but…) Is this related or similar to anything ongoing between WMF and India? Any chance this instance that the editor in question, FredD, was looked at by the French Wikipedia equivalent of ArbCom? And, well, has there been internal talks over all this? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 00:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no obvious connection between this thing and Asian_News_International#Wikimedia_Foundation. There is one similarity, a WP-page with a lot of Wikipedians signing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there are two similarities here, the well-signed letters and the news organizations accusing editors of "defamation". QuicoleJR (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I completely get it... Really troublesome. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also should note that the editor was contacted by another newspaper for a exclusive interview of sorts. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    New India-thing

    It seems people watched the biopic-ish film Chhaava, noted that the WP-article Sambhaji didn't match in all details, and started talking about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Also discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Article_being_reported_to_cyber_police. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jimbo Wales, if you could encourage the WMF and the Board to respond swiftly to this, as apparently individual Wikipedia editors are now being targeted, that would be appreciated. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And on to the latest in AI advancements... oh, right, wrong timing.
    Seriously, Jimbo, you should. Within those legal bounds, of course. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 16:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This slippery slope is looking real slippery. Wonder how proud Jimbo is going to be of the WMF this time? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very curious as to what you mean by this.Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but what do *you* mean, I know what I said. Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I tend to mean what I say ;) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This feels rather silly to me. jp×g🗯️ 18:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we are on a real slippery slope. At least someone can see the humour in it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or not...
    In fact, on a Digital Foundry Direct episode published today, someone you may have not heard of reminded me of why this matters.[1] Sure, it relates to how 9th gen has been rather bad, but regarding this, there are very legitimate pressing concerns. It really should be addressed. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In case you'll wonder who they are, Digital Foundry is a video game technology analyzing and reviewer brand that is co-owned by Richard Leadbetter and Gamer Network, which was controversially acquired by IGN last year. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (something must be wrong if you couldn't understand the meaning of a slippery slope) 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 11:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what a slippery slope is, so nothing is wrong there. What I wonder is why AirshipJungleman29 thinks there is a slippery slope here, one that looks real slippery,, and why wondering how proud I'll be. It's as if he knows something that I don't, or is worried about something specific, so rather than just sit here wondering about a cryptic comment, I thought I'd just ask. Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm misunderstanding our Airship, they are referring to a new Indian legal and police matter against four editors for editing Wikipedia. This not only adds to the last case in India but seems to be extending it to being a police matter. If India is allowed to do this without the full weight of the Foundation's legal team and money to hire outside local and expert counsel, might the new laws in England and existing laws elsewhere soon begin to take actions against other individual editors? That seems to define a slippery slope, which is best kept velcroed. As I've suggested about the Elon Musk comments and concerns in the past, the best way for India's officials to approach this may be for them to sign up as editors and argue their case on the article's talk page, and not take individual editors within the nation's police and court systems. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How would the Foundation disallow India from initiating police matters? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it couldn't in the initial contact, but it could immediately respond if a case is brought with lawyers and money, both in-house, local, and hire experts in both local and worldwide legal precedents to argue the case both in India and on an international level (the Hauge, United Nations, etc.). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We are doing all that, so I'm still not sure what the issue is. Obviously we can't stop politicians anywhere from starting something, nor can we do things that are impossible to do. You mention the Hague for example, and that's not something that makes sense as an initial response (or, perhaps, ever) to a local police matter in India. And of course legal matters take time - many times around the world politicians say things in the press, order something to happen, but until something actually does happen, there's not really a way to respond. (To be clear, I'm not personally sure of the exact status of what's actually been filed or not in court, versus some agency just launching an investigation which isn't generally something that can be prevented. I am not personally involved but I know the people who are, and they are very very good at what they do, and very very principled.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know all of what was suggested is already either being done or under consideration (except for the Hauge, where hopefully international courts will at some time further examine freedom of speech and of the press). Thanks, and good luck to the targeted editors and to Foundation success if this moves forward and turns into an actual case. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have liked to see some sort of WMF comment by now, but I also think they need to talk internally before saying something. I also think for their lawyers to get involved with editors, they'd have to know who those editors are, and it's not obvious to me that they do. Fwiw, [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth repeating in this context that particularly when legal threats against individual users are involved, it is wise for the WMF to be very circumspect about what statements they issue and what actions they are taking. User privacy matters a great deal, and user safety (both against such threats but also the potential social media witch hunt that can easily emerge) is paramount. It's generally a mistake to assume that because the wider community can't be brought into confidential discussions and actions of the legal team, those discussions and actions aren't taking place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but is there any reason the WMF can't say "We are aware of this issue and working on it. We can't say more due to legal reasons" Being proactive in communicating even that bare minimum level of information would help build community trust that the WMF is keeping its eye on the ball. As I'm sure you're aware, these cases have larger strategic implications for Wikipedia's work in India, one of the largest English-speaking countries in the world. Statements like that would be more effective than you responding personally to a cryptic comment before eventually saying "we are doing all that [useful stuff]" after being prompted. You shouldn't have to be responsible for WMF's communications with the community, especially so obliquely. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time they said "We are aware of this issue and working on it. We can't say more due to legal reasons" people were still not satisfied and called for actions like a black out of Wikipedia etc.[3][4][5]. Furthermore, the issue is discussed in several venues, so you might have just missed the info [6]. Nakonana (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "DF Direct Weekly #202: GTA5 PC Gets RT Enhancements, Cyberpunk 2 News, Nvidia 5070 Ti Launch Chaos". YT / Digital Foundry. February 23, 2025. Retrieved February 23, 2025.

    The Signpost: 27 February 2025

    Heritage Foundation plans to doxx and target Wikipedia editors

    Hi Jimbo, have you seen this? Carlstak (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    He has. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 02:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]