User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Line 159: Line 159:

:Jimbo, with how visible your user page is, please keep in mind that a message like this comes across as [[WP:CANVASSING]], as you seem to be asking help to change the article in a specific direction. Notices pointing towards discussions should be worded neutrally, per [[WP:INAPPNOTE]]. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 20:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

:Just wanted to say that I disagree with alot of the criticisms of your involvement on that page. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia anyone can edit and that includes you if you want to state your view you are fully entitled to do so and it is not overreach or disrespectful. [[User:GothicGolem29|GothicGolem29]] [[User talk:GothicGolem29|(Talk)]] 20:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

::If he wants to act in his capacity as “any other editor”, without his “founders hat” on or as a member of the board, imo he should create another account. His OP is very clearly “a founder dives in to save the day and tell everyone the page diverges from his founding vision”. His above comment and the OP prejudices discussion, it is non-neutral because he deems it so regardless of what the community thinks; ~~its~~ dictatorial. I know that was very likely unintentional, but an “I think” would have gone a long way. Moreover, he is actually arguing against policy, on an article talk page, which is [[WP:DISRUPTIVE|disruptive]]. If he wants to change policy, this should be discussed at the [[WP:VPP|village pump]] or the relevant policy talk page. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 20:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

::If he wants to act in his capacity as “any other editor”, without his “founders hat” on or as a member of the board, imo he should create another account. His OP is very clearly “a founder dives in to save the day and tell everyone the page diverges from his founding vision”. His above comment and the OP prejudices discussion, it is non-neutral because he deems it so regardless of what the community thinks; dictatorial. I know that was very likely unintentional, but an “I think” would have gone a long way. Moreover, he is actually arguing against policy, on an article talk page, which is [[WP:DISRUPTIVE|disruptive]]. If he wants to change policy, this should be discussed at the [[WP:VPP|village pump]] or the relevant policy talk page. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 20:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

:::@[[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]]: calling this ‘dictatorial’ is not really conducive to civil discussion. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 20:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

::::Rephrased to make clear that was how I received it. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 20:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

== NPOV-specific research and its application ==

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.

Can you provide a rationale for the WMF Board removing qualified candidates from the ballot for the WMF Board immediately before the election for reasons? Please help those of us who haven’t drank cult koolaid understand how such Politburo-like self-selection of candidates for a body by that body protects and expands what should be our core values of democracy and popular participation. Thank you. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR (USA) //// Carrite (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a relevant link for anyone who, like myself, had no idea what this was talking about: Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § About the 2025 Board of Trustees Elections. Graham87 (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was just about to ask. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. As far as I’m concerned, WMF is a private foundation, and they can do as they please if they believe it is best for the mission. I trust Jimbo and the Cabal! Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Governance is hard, and WMF appears to have fallen into a familiar pattern of mistakes. The criteria to stand as a candidate should be stated up front and applied uniformly at the start of the process. Why didn’t they do that? Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Maher was all over Twitter all the time tweeting about various social justice issues. I tried asking her to tone that down and focus more on building a neutral, fact-based encyclopedia as I didn’t think such constant, blatant editorializing from the top was appropriately serving Wikimedia’s public image, but she never stopped. That all finally came back to bite her when she was picked to lead NPR. And now you pull the rug out from under someone, who, following the model set by Maher’s lead, was on social media talking about social justice matters of even more import than the stuff Maher was covering. Why wasn’t Maher fired for that? I’m assuming this is all because AIPAC and their friends got to you. – wbm1058 (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Are you asking Carrite, to whom you apparently replied, or Jimbo?~~

As for Maherkr, she has been able to raise about $55 million in excess of previous years’ income since this summer’s CPB defunding crisis, requiring only $8 million in cuts across the network.[1][2][3] In comparison, her predecessor John Lansing was unable to increase NPR fundraising during the pandemic-induced collapse in corporate sponsorship, which required around $20 million in cutbacks.[4] Sure she got bit by the Republican congress and administration, certainly in part because of her outspoken support of human rights and left-liberal values while leading the WMF, but clearly her board is a heck of a lot happier with her getting them off the government teat (which has been nothing but anti-journalism leverage and unavoidable conflict of interest, frankly — remember back in 2003-09 when NPR forbade its correspondents from mentioning “torture” in favor of “enhanced interrogation techniques“?[5]) than they are with anyone who has served in her current position.

I would note, by the way, that none of the NPR board members are elected by its correspondents or listeners: “NPR’s Board of Directors consists of 23 directors — 12 Member Directors who are managers of NPR Member stations and are elected to the Board by their fellow Member stations, 9 Public Directors who are prominent members of the public selected by the Board and confirmed by NPR Member stations, the NPR Foundation Chair, and the NPR President & CEO.”[6]

That is not to say I agree with the WMF Board’s removal of the two candidates immediately before their election, which I do not. Doing so was a serious mistake which I think Jimbo needs to address as the longest-standing member of the WMF Board. TestUser345 (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet of WMF-banned User:Nrcprm2026. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for anyone who’s interested that Clovermoss started a petition on Meta-Wiki to reform the Board of Trustees. That said, I would be interested to hear Jimbo’s thoughts on the matter. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimmy, I just wanted to invite you to respond to my “Nine Theses on Wikipedia.” Please have a look. Larry Sanger (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope User:Jimbo Wales responds to this! Would be really interesting to see his thoughts. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check the NYT-interview discussed above, there’s some Sanger-related stuff there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice to see Jimbo reply here I think. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry, and others, I would like to respond at some point but I’m very much swamped with preparations for my book launch next week, and will be doing a lot for about 2 weeks after. And Larry spent months working on his theses and it wouldn’t be appropriate to dash off a quick response. The main thing I can say is that I don’t find most of his proposals persuasive, but I think there are elements that are worth considering. For me, the important thing is what I said many many years ago: NPOV is non-negotiable. Many of Larry’s proposals would make the situation worse and not better, and it’s worthwhile to explore why I think so. I do think that, without a doubt, there are areas where we have a lot of room to improve – as has always been true and I presume always will be true.–Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the NY Times piece you were quoted as saying, “In many cases, what’s happened is a real lack of understanding by politicians and leaders of how Wikipedia works.” I think Larry addressed this head on with a clear and detailed proposal which would benefit from the two of you working together in my opinion. I hope that Larry and you can find common ground on some of these things and really move towards implementing some improvements to Wikipedia. Some of them seem more obvious than others, such as “Repeal Ignore All Rules”, as this tends to empower the powerful with even greater authority and acts as a “power for me, but not for thee” sort of “rule”. Curious about your thoughts on that one, and on other areas where you and Larry might agree. Personally, I’m less interested in what you disagree on, because that leads us nowhere as an encyclopedia, and as a community. What you agree on though can be really interesting. I listened to your podcast interview with Lex Fridman from a couple years ago (2023 I think?), and I was intrigued with what you had to say, but it struck me also as perhaps very naive compared to the real approaches to reform that Larry Sanger has proposed, which, if accepted, I think might actually result in the higher trust in Wikipedia which it seems is your priority Mr. Wales. I grew up with Wikipedia, and I hope my kids can too. They won’t though unless proposals like those Mr. Sanger, who clearly spent a great deal of time and careful thought considering, are taken under consideration by the community. Your joint leadership on this would be amazing and could shake the world to its foundations. It would be like the Pope and Martin Luther deciding to set aside petty differences, to cast away indulgences, and to make the church truly reformed, without the need for senseless bloodshed for centuries to follow. Now wouldn’t that be great? How rare such things are though… how rare. Wish you both the best. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Lex Fridman would take you both on and mediate a healthy and important conversation between you both about the future of Wikipedia? Here’s to hoping! Iljhgtn (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I pre-ordered a copy of your book @Jimbo Wales and I am eagerly looking forward to reading it. Did you have time to address anything from Larry’s WP:9T in your book? Iljhgtn (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh no, the book was done months ago. But there may be some relevance to some extent, but nothing would directly respond. I speak highly of Larry in the book. Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there going to be an audiobook too? I might buy that as well if you read it. I like audiobooks only when the author reads their own book.

Also, any thoughts on a joint session with Larry Sanger? I think that would be really great to have the two of you in a room talking about the past two decades. I think it would really be some of the healing that the world needs right now. Especially with a good host. My vote (or !vote haha) would be for Lex Fridman, but I’m sure you two could find someone that would host this on neutral territory. What is the Wikipedia Switzerland, maybe Richard Branson would host this on Necker Island or something? Would be a conversation for the ages! Iljhgtn (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the audiobook, which was a very fun process!

I don’t think it very likely that it would be a useful thing for me to do to have a joint session with Larry. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You both might not like the idea I bet, but I think it would be an important and healing event for the entire world, and all those that care about this great project of providing Free Access to the full sum of human knowledge. If that required two personalities to hold their noses and have a potentially awkward or uncomfortable conversation, I say that is something you both really ought to suffer through for our collective benefit. Though of course Larry might refuse even if you were to agree. I’ll mention it on his talk page too. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

…healing event for the entire world…. What an utterly absurd claim to make. Neither the spat between Jimbo and Larry, nor the underlying dispute about Wikipedia’s approaches to ‘neutrality’ etc, are even remotely amongst the things that most of humanity will consider the slightest of priorities, if they have even heard of them at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is why Jimbo saying we need more “kind and thoughtful” editors of all ideological and cultural backgrounds is sorely needed. I for one would truly love to see them discuss this. If it means that Jimbo sweeps the floor with Larry too by the way, then so be it. Though I really would love to see the two of them just come together and find agreement on some areas that Wikipedia could improve. At least from what I’ve read, listened to, and watched, I find them both to be the sort of men that might be open to such a possibility. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanger hates that Wikipedia has become a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, like Larousse and Britannica. And there are enough right-wing editors, just not of the extreme right-wing. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really interesting to see if there is any kind of mapping of editors based on ideological bias? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jimbo! I was wondering if you own the copyrights to the book cover design for your upcoming book, The Seven Rules of Trust, or if the cover design is owned by the publisher. If you do own the design, would it be possible to release it under a free license for use on Commons and Wikipedia? Thanks, ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? That’s a really interesting question and I have no idea. My initial assumption is that the publisher(s) own the rights, but I’m not really sure. (There are two covers because there are two different English language publishers, Crown in US and Canada, and Bloomsbury in UK/Commonwealth.). (Yes, I know that Canada is in the commonwealth, but that’s the way people in publishing say it haha.) There will also be editions in a total of 18 langauges (so far) that will come out over the next year, generally all different publishers. I know that the German cover will follow the design of the US cover.

In any event, I have a great relationship with the publishers and I can ask them.

Separately, I know that commons is very strict about these matters and tries not to rely on fair use, but for English Wikipedia, is it our usual practice to assert fair use and put up images of book covers. I think it should be but I have to admit that I haven’t thought about it recently and don’t actually know. I just thought up a book at random (Different Seasons) and see a book cover there. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! I am curious to see what the publisher(s) say. Cheers! ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I add book cover images all the time with non-free proper justifications. It is kind of my favorite thing to do on Wikipedia, so I would have added this without issue, but it looks like it is done already. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, enwiki can use non-free book covers. However, some smaller wikis, such as Simple English, do not have a non-free image policy and therefore cannot use non-free book covers. Because of this, it would still be good for the book cover to be public domain if possible, but I would understand if you can’t for whatever reason. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn’t considered the Simple English wiki. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested to read this quote from Jimbo, in a PoliticsHome interview:

mainstream UK publications The Sun, The Daily Star and The Daily Mail are among Wikipedia’s “deprecated” sources.
“Deprecated doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to use it. It just means you should prefer a better source if you can find one…”

That may be what the de jure policy says, but such papers are, for all practical purposes, de facto prohibited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 12:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of these three, that is pretty much the case, if not completely:[7] has 27 hits at the time I post this. This could of course mean that Wikipedians are good at finding better sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those appear to be citations to the Daily Mail. They are either the Charleston Daily Mail, a US publication, or in articles that talk about the (UK) Daily Mail.

And no: there have been removals (or replacement with {{citation needed}}, where there is no other source available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 13:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point, dailymail.com gets you [8] today, but that wasn’t necessarily the case when the cite was written. And I’m sure that happened, but I think there have also been replacing with better sources. I’m not going to try to prove it with diffs, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which will surprise no one. I asked grok.com “Is Wikipedia’s article about Grokipedia neutral?” and it replied in part “In summary, the article is largely neutral and encyclopedic, but its early-stage focus on launch-day controversies introduces a slight critical lean, common for nascent topics with polarized media attention. As more sources emerge, it may evolve toward greater balance.” That’s high praise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Register reports Grok’s analysis of Grokipedia’s article about Wikipedia: “The page is factually dense and cites sources … but it exhibits biases through selective presentation of evidence and heavy reliance on a single critical voice, creating an unbalanced critical lens … The overall framing appeals to concerns about ‘ideological capture,’ potentially evoking emotional responses from readers skeptical of ‘woke’ institutions.”

The Register also asked Grok whether Grokipedia was trustworthy: “‘It’s a critique wearing encyclopedia clothing,’ the bot said.”[9] NebY (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo actually addressed Grokipedia: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales isn’t worried about Elon Musk’s Grokipedia: ‘Not optimistic he will create anything very useful right now’ SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PRWeek has an interesting angle:[10] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A little humor:[11][12]

Wikipedia: JD Vance is a deplorable moonshine-drinking hillbilly.

Grokipedia: JD Vance is a lovable moonshine-drinking hillbilly.

Grokipedia: There are only two genders.

Wikipedia: There are as many genders as there are stars in the sky, with scientists discovering new ones every day, and if you don’t agree, you’re a hateful bigot.

Satire for the people! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Jimbo. I finished your book. I listened to the audiobook version and I really enjoyed your reading of it and the content. I think you sound sincere and truly interested in bringing Wikipedia into the next 100 years. If that is going to succeed, I am curious about the following. Namely, the WP:RSP.

On page 132 of chapter 6 you wrote, “There is no handy, universal list of ‘good sources,’ so editors have to judge for themselves.” What about the WP:RSP? This was something that @Larry Sanger specifically called for abolishing in WP:THESIS3/WP:ABOLISHBLACKLISTS, but I am curious, what are your thoughts on this since you did not mention it explicitly? The RSP is pretty heavily used, and does function as a de facto “black list” or “list of ‘good sources'” at the very least. Footnote 13 in chapter 6 does mention the WP:Reliable sources essay, but that is it from what I can tell. I bought the paperback edition as well as the audiobook just to ensure I did not miss anything! I combed through the notes and did not see a mention of WP:RSP. To me, I think that WP:THESIS3 may be one of the most important of Larry’s WP:9T, and something I would love to see the two of you discuss, even if you disagree on a lot of other things, this one point could really use some further dissecting. As you often said in your book, disagreement is “good”, “fine”, “normal”, as long as it remains WP:CIVIL. I’d think that with Lulu Garcia-Navarro potentially as a host on a round two of “The Interview” the two of you could have a deeply kind and thoughtful, and civil, conversation.

Again, great job on the book Jimbo! Iljhgtn (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After all, I couldn’t say it better than you:

“And whether my ideas work is not really the point here. Starting a conversation is. I hope these ideas inspire others to think and talk and dream. And try. To repeat the famous maxim of the open-source software developer Eric Raymond, ‘Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.’ Let’s get lots of eyeballs on the problem. Let’s generate lots of ideas and give those ideas a try. That is how we’ll make a better future.” (Ch. 9, p. 187)

Beautifully said. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not usually one to leave grievances on the Jimbo user talk page, but this is related to what was said in the recent PoliticsHome piece. I’m really happy with most of it, and I applaud the stance taken. But there’s one part that I found jarring. On the page, it says:

“We’re in talks with Ofcom, but we will not be identifying users under any circumstances. We will not be age-gating Wikipedia under any circumstances. So, if it comes to that, it’s going to be an interesting showdown, because we’re going to just refuse to do it. Politically, what are they going to do? They could block Wikipedia. Good luck with that,” says Wales.
“We didn’t cave into the Turkish government; we didn’t cave into the Chinese government. We have users we know of who are editing in Iran. We have users who are editing in Russia. Their personal safety depends on their privacy. And we think it’s a human rights issue that we’re not going to identify those people.”

This is a courageous position and is in Wikipedia’s best interest, so why am I frustrated to see it? Because it doesn’t line up with what happened in India and in Portugal. We already know that appetite for a “political showdown” is low, because we caved to these governments as soon as this political showdown became a prospect. Over one thousand editors demanded that we refuse to comply, but were ignored. Now apparently we’re describing user identification as a “human rights issue”. I really want to find a way to reconcile this, because it’s only exacerbating my doubts about Wikipedia’s ability to protect its users and its editorial integrity. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t speak to the Portugal case because I’m afraid I don’t know/remember it clearly. But in India, we did not give up user data, nor did we cave. It was a very complicated situation in which if we didn’t take down a page, we would lose the ability to fight (at all) a winnable case. Not great, but I think we threaded the needle quite well there.–Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the reply. I understand why the ANI vs. WMF article was taken down, and that’s a decision I can get behind given the circumstances. My concern with the India case is that WP:2024OPENLETTER seemed to fall on deaf ears, that there was a disclosure in some form (even if it was under sealed cover), and that we don’t have many details about what was included. I understand that it’s not always feasible or desirable to communicate information while legal proceedings are ongoing, but a consequence of this is that anonymous editors don’t know how much personal risk will be involved the next time this happens—especially now that precedent has been set that organizations can successfully target specific editors by filing a lawsuit.The Portugal issue was the one described at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 11#Office action: Removals on the article Caesar DePaço, where according to Joe Sutherland there was the disclosure of a small amount of user data for eight users who added the material that the courts deemed illegal. My concerns about the Portugal case mirror the ones I described regarding the India case. According to the news article linked at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 11#DN article and further legal threats:Caesar DePaço told DN that this “information, although limited, was sufficient to identify” those from whom he will demand compensation “for damages caused to my good name, my honor, and my reputation”. “I have the full identification of the responsible editors, which will be an integral part of the legal proceedings I will file. Each of them will be called to account, in their own courts, for the false and defamatory information they published and continue to publish, assuming the appropriate civil and, if applicable, criminal liability”, said the Azores-born businessman, who has lived in the United States for three decades. The first lawsuits will be filed in Portugal, but Caesar DePaço says they will also be filed in the United States, as some of the targets are located there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The India situation was complex and I’d best not say too much, but I was very happy with the resolution. Again, I’m afraid I can’t speak to the Portugal case because to speak now would be careless. I’ll look into it and have a private conversation with legal, but it will be a few weeks! Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the response! For now, that’s really all I can ask for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about maintaining neutrality and balanced sourcing in the article Gaza genocide at Talk:Gaza genocide#Statement from Jimbo Wales. I presume many regular visitors to my talk page will find the discussion interesting and may be interested in helping to fix the page to resolve the NPOV issues. Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, with how visible your user page is, please keep in mind that a message like this comes across as WP:CANVASSING, as you seem to be asking help to change the article in a specific direction. Notices pointing towards discussions should be worded neutrally, per WP:INAPPNOTE. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I disagree with alot of the criticisms of your involvement on that page. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia anyone can edit and that includes you if you want to state your view you are fully entitled to do so and it is not overreach or disrespectful. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 20:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If he wants to act in his capacity as “any other editor”, without his “founders hat” on or as a member of the board, imo he should create another account. His OP is very clearly “a founder dives in to save the day and tell everyone the page diverges from his founding vision”. His above comment and the OP prejudices discussion, it is non-neutral because he deems it so regardless of what the community thinks; it comes off as dictatorial. I know that was very likely unintentional, but an “I think” would have gone a long way. Moreover, he is actually arguing against policy, on an article talk page, which is disruptive. If he wants to change policy, this should be discussed at the village pump or the relevant policy talk page. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701: calling this ‘dictatorial’ is not really conducive to civil discussion. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased to make clear that was how I received it. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has your “NPOV working group” considered the implications of these three sources?:

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t speak for the rest of the people, but for me, yes, I’ve considered this work. Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good, because if we don’t apply it here, we lose credibility. Larry Sanger hates our newer understanding and application of NPOV, so we must be doing something right!

— Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that isn’t my perspective on the issue really. I actually don’t agree with the central claim that our understanding and application of NPOV has changed, but of course that’s a somewhat subtle point. It was never the case that we would accept “Some say the moon is made of rocks, some say cheese, who knows?” as a valid position. Fringe views are always to be dealt with as such, and that’s always been my understanding of what NPOV means, from the moment I typed “NPOV is non-negotiable” in the early days.

At the same time, the idea that it’s somehow OK to be biased, and take sides in disputes, as long as the side we are on is often more factual, would be a serious mistake. The danger is that we then suddenly put ourselves into a position of taking sides in real debates, which is not the role of Wikipedia, and a serious violation of NPOV as the policy is in place today and since the beginning. I’m sure you wouldn’t argue that it’s somehow neutral to have a liberal bias, but your essay does have some ambiguous passages.

The best technique that we have for dealing with these complex issues has always been to “go meta” – if there’s a real dispute in the world, then we work hard to attribute views to the relevant parties.

I’ll just give an example that I remember to further highlight what I’m saying. Consider Punctuated equilibrium – this theory in biology was at one point (possibly today) abused by Creationists to claim that Darwinism had been disproven. Pulling quotes out of context, the case was made that the latest science showed that Darwin was wrong. This was no doubt largely bad faith argumentation or at least a jumping to incorrect conclusions. The view that Punctuated equilibrium is somehow supportive of Creationism is, rightly, a fringe view. We quite rightly note in passing, and with nonjudgmental language, how creationists have used the theory. But we also treat as legitimate and have a very interesting discussion of various sides of the actual debate.

I would say that’s a good outcome – reject fringe views and note them in passing where it’s helpful to the reader – but don’t take sides on the actual debate.

One rhetorical move that we have to be vigilant about is the inppropriate characterization of relevant views as “fringe” on the grounds that we (as Wikipedians) judge them to be wrong.–Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply