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.

Internet archive security

The recent ddos attack has taken the whole website down does the wikimedia foundation have a policy to help a third party? who we depend on majorly. And holds pretty much all of the internet content in its archives help with its combatment with the ddos attacks which are seemingly neverending and is exacerbating internet archives recent legal struggles •Cyberwolf•talk? 18:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does WMF have a strategy for how to mirror IA's web archive if they were to go down forever? They have a couple pending lawsuits fighting with the print companies and the record companies, the results of which could prove existential for them. We are seeing this week how big a loss to WP the loss of IA would be. Carrite (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolder statement: WMF needs to start talking to Internet Archive NOW about taking over their Wayback Machine project. IA is headed the way of Napster and that database needs to be preserved and expanded. Wikipedia will be dramatically impacted if IA is disappeared. Carrite (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem for Wikipedia is that all of the archived Wayback Machine external links are down at the moment, and will not return until the ongoing security problems are fixed. It isn't ideal for Wikipedia to rely on a third party for this service, because it has no control over it. As for taking over the whole of the Internet Archive, this is probably outside the scope of the Wikimedia Foundation. It would also be controversial, because copyright holders dislike the Internet Archive and think that there is far too much copyrighted material on it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo. You know what I miss?

Wear the cap and bells! **SerialNumber****54129** 21:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You -- or somebody -- having effective reserve powers. Because, really, there ought to be an ombudsman. A lot of functional organizations have one. Inspector General in governments, that sort of thing.

Editing Wikipedia is really important to me. It's more than just a hobby, it's therapy. It's more than just therapy, it's... well, never mind. And I'm not the only one, that I know.

Sure that's my problem and mine alone (I guess), but I mean after all we are running an "attractive nuisance" here for that sort of thing. Didn't mean to, but people do a lot of things that have effects they didn't mean, and one can't necessarily wash their hands of them always.

And I mean the uh personnel reassignment people here can be ruthless. (I get it, we're a big publishing operation not a tea party.) Anyways, if I'm ever shown the door here -- you never know -- I figured I could maybe email you and beg for mercy. But I guess not.

I'm not asking for any solution to this. There isn't one I don't think. I mean, the Foundation can't help, politically that just wouldn't work. So, I'm just saying.

But! Don't want to be a downer here, so to end on a good note, there was an editor a little while back, self-admittedly a fair bit along on the autism spectrum, got himself into (legit) trouble with obsessing over a particular subject... you know how people can get. Legit he was out of chances. He'd been topic banned but he just couldn't stay away from the topic. He was a goner. But, he pretty much grovelled for mercy on the grounds that editing the Wikipedia was basically keeping him going. And it worked. It worked. We worked out to let him stay, keep in touch with him, got the admins on board with that, finally got thru to him that he needed to obsess about something else, and he's still here. Man, I was proud of the Wikipedia that day. But it doesn't necessarily work out like that. Hence a catcher in the rye would be nice. Just saying. Herostratus (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

For the interested, the Delhi High Court has an opinion on that particular WP-article: Delhi High Court slams Wikipedia for refusal to divulge identity of those who edited ANI's page

"The Court also took strong objection against Wikipedia allowing a page titled 'Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation' to be published in relation to the present case. ... "You are disclosing something about a sub-judice matter," the Court remarked."

Make of that what you will. More coverage:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]