Difference between revisions 939872376 and 939883700 on enwiki

{{noindex}}

{{Stb}} 
{{Usercomment}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp-sock|small=yes}}}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an [[open door policy (business)|open door policy]].'''<br />
'''He holds the founder's seat on the [[WP:Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]]'s [https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board/ Board of Trustees].<br />The current [[m:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees#Current_members|trustees]] occupying "community-selected" seats are [[User:Doc James|Doc James]], [[User:Pundit|Pundit]] and [[User:Raystorm|Raystorm]].<br />The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is [[User:JEissfeldt (WMF)|Jan Eissfeldt]].'''}}}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, <br> [[User talk:Jimbo Wales/Unprotected|you can leave a message here]] '''}}}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Wikipedia:TPS/banner}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(2d)
| archive             = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 239
| maxarchivesize      = 350K
| archiveheader       = {{aan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft      = 5
}}
{{Centralized discussion}}
__TOC__
{{-}}

== A question for Jimbo about the constant never ending argument about subject specific guidelines ==

In AFDs and elsewhere there are always some who stubbornly insist that the subject specific guidelines don't matter, only the general notability guidelines do.  I think [[WP:NOTABILITY]] is quite clear.  "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline".  It can be one or the other.  Otherwise the subject specific guidelines wouldn't exist.  But some do stubbornly keep arguing otherwise regardless.  How do you feel on this?  Could it be written even clearer than it is now somewhere to avoid constant pointless arguments and bad nominations for deletion? [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 19:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
: You need to go and amend [[WP:NOT]] to remove the line "Wikipedia is not a directory". GNG defines what can be sourced by reference to reliable independent secondary sources. SNGs as I understand them describe the sort of subject likely to meet GNG. SNGs as you define them aim to completely cover all subjects of a specific class, regardless of the existence of sources (because if they met GNG there would not be a problem). So: asserting that X is notable if it meets A, B and C criteria regardless of the existence of reliable independent secondary sources is a direct conflict with [[WP:NOTDIR]] and also, in the case you're involved in right now, invites the creation of biographies of living people sourced from a single results list and nothing else. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 19:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
::You misunderstand what the rules say.  I hate having this same argument with you and others constantly so I want clarifications.  As I recently explained to you, when the notability guidelines were being discussed and created years ago, it was determined what would qualify things of being notable enough for a Wikipedia article.  Just getting covered in a couple of random news sources was one way.  Scientists are notable for their accomplishments, musicians for how well their songs sold, actors for how notable their films were they were a significant part of, etc.  Whether or not you did a lot of interviews or were interesting enough for people to write about, is irrelevant, Wikipedia isn't just popular culture. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 19:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
:::Nothing is static and expectations move on..[[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 21:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
::: Dream Focus, what role do you think the word "presumed" plays in the guideline? --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 21:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
:::"Whether or not you did a lot of interviews or were interesting enough for people to write about, is irrelevant" You should stop and think about what "notable" means. It means that people took note of something or someone. Like, literally. If something wasn't "interesting enough for people to write about", it isn't notable (and obviously there would be a lack of sources for a decent article here). [[User:Bitter Oil|Bitter Oil]] ([[User talk:Bitter Oil|talk]]) 00:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Dream Focus}}, The "rules" say that Wikpedia is not a directory and doesn't cover subjects unless they have been the focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources.  
:::Here's a challenge for you: my childhood swimming coach Bill Thornton medalled in two different events in at least two games. See if you can find any sources beyond namechecks and listings. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 09:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
::::Good example.  And one of the problems with the term 'notability' (which might plague any term) is that it can feel demeaning or insulting to say that someone isn't "notable".  Bill sounds great and interesting to me but we can't possibly write a '''biography''' about someone about whom there is too little public information.  In some cases, if someone bothers to do the work, local news reports could very well be enough.  But not always.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 10:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::They are currently debating whether being in the Olympics is enough to quality for a Wikipedia article or not at [[Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Change_to_WP:NOLY]].  Then you got AFDS like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (4th nomination)]] where even though most people said to keep the article, that the person passed the subject specific guideline for entertainers at [[WP:ENTERTAINER]] "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." by having over 645 million YouTube views, and media mentioning him as a "internet idol." and other coverage, it still got deleted.  Sometimes passing a subject specific guideline results in an article being kept, and sometimes its deleted anyway even if there is a proper article already written, not just a stub.  And of course if anything doesn't get deleted the same nominator can just send it to AFD again less than a month later and try again as happened here and many other places in the past.  The results are always the random opinion of whoever shows up to argue in the deletion discussion and the person opinions of the random administrator who shows up to close it.  How about some clear rules that get enforced always instead of the nonstop relentless arguing over the same thing all over the place where people can just argue that any notability guidelines they don't like don't count, and only the one they do counts instead? [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 12:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Dream Focus}}, the problem is that SNGs are often written in a way that implies membership of certain categories is automatically grounds for inclusion, when Wikipedia core policy says it's not. You can't fix this by writing repudiation of core policy into the SNG, as Jimmy says. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 13:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::: Somewhere or other (ANI?) I saw someone suggest the use of list-type articles for this purpose ([[Turkmenistan in the 2004 Summer Olympics]] or what-have-you).  This seems like a really good compromise: an article on an unquestionably notable subject that can include whatever information is available about less obviously notable individual competitors. --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 00:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Joel B. Lewis}}, this has obvious merit, I would say. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 22:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::: ETA: it was [[User:Reyk]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=938393071&oldid=938392519]. --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 00:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: Thanks for the ping. I do think people are misunderstanding "presumption of notability". It's just an acknowledgement that, for some classes of articles, sources probably exist and they might be hard to get at, so we can afford to lay off insta-deleting them right away. It's not an automatic entitlement to a shrine, and it's not a permanent exemption from [[WP:V]] or [[WP:N]]. We do eventually expect to see sources. For obscure sportspeople, where the only sources are that they competed at such-and-such event, list articles are a better way to present information like this than a cloud of substubs. I've suggested similar things [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_lesser-known_Sri_Lankan_cricketers|before]], and got my head chewed off for it, which just means I must be on the right track. When you have a bunch of purely statistical information, present it as a list or sortable table. The benefits are that the reader doesn't need to scuttle from page to page looking for tiny scraps of info, being able to compare similar entries at a glance adds utility that individual articles don't have, and you don't fall into the trap of claiming more than the sources do in the attempt to bloat stats into prose. [[User:Reyk|<b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|<b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b>]]</sub> 01:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|Reyk}}, I broadly agree. The problem at the moment is caused by the rapid creation of vast numbers of articles whose only sources are results lists. This would also be better handled by a list article, and splitting out as more sources become available. Either way, list articles should be a great starting point, and full articles without sources should then be unnecessary. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 22:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Jimbo Wales}}, Bill Thornton was a top bloke and very inspiring both to me and to my late sister, who became a lifesaver and competitive swimmer. It's a source of great regret to me that I cannot find the necessary sources to write an article. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 13:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
{{od}} So here's the deal with SNGs, in my view. Some are just guidelines that are superseded byt the general notabilty guidelines ([[WP:GNG]]), , while others de facto supersede the GNG and denote notability by themselves. It's a political issue, ''and that's fine''. Humans are political. Politics ''can'' be toxic, but here's it's benign and functional.
  
For baseball, we have an SNG which says that anyone who has appeared in even one major league game gets an article. This we have articles on people where we don't even know their vital dates and all we have is bare statline from the baseball encyclopedia -- [[Ed Brown (baseball)]] for instance. (Railroad stations, chemical compounds, and various other subjects get the same treatment.) It's fine. Those articles aren't hurting anyone. They're not breaking out thru people's monitors and ordering pizza on their credit cards. It's OK; relax.

The reason for this is that baseball is very popular. There a lot of people who are really interested in baseball, both editors and readers. And they're completists, a lot of the ones who are particularly interested. These people form a strong political faction. Again, that's fine. That's life. Popular subject, strong faction -- why not? 

So if you try to delete an article such as Ed Brown on the grounds that he doesn't meet theGNG  and that should supersede [[WP:NBASEBALL]], you will get pushback. You will be outnumbered. You will be given the argument that treating WP:NBASEBALL as as top-level notability guideline that supersedes the GNG rather than being subsidiary to it gives an objective measure that prevents a lot of useless squabbling about whether of not ''this'' player meets the GNG and ''that'' player doesn't, which is a reasonable argument. You will probably fail in your attempt to delete [[Ed Brown (baseball)]]. That's politics. 

On the other hand, if you try to delete an article about a very obscure person who meets [[WP:NCYCLING]] but not the GNG, you probably ''will'' succeed. Cycling not a big deal in the English-speaking world. There's much less political strength around it. Thus [[WP:NCYCLING]] is treated differently then [[WP:NBASEBALL]]. 
 
You can call that politics, or you can call that popular subjects properly getting more coverage. What's wrong with that? If there's some rule somewhere that says that says WP:NBASEBALL shouldn't be treated as it is, so what? We are not rulebound here. Twelve people got together in 2009 and made a rule, so what? The river of people that is the Wikipedia can't be constrained that tightly, and shouldn't be.

We're not running out of paper. We're not losing readers because articles like [[Ed Brown (baseball)]] or [[Cape Boothby]] or ''[[Vendomyces]]'' exist even if they don't meet the GNG. we're not offending people, or getting flak from governments, or getting negative publicity, because these articles exist. Relax. It's OK for politics to play a role in what we cover. It's alright for some SNGs to be treated differently than others. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 16:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Herostratus}}, a SNG cannot override policy. GNG supports policy, including [[WP:NOTDIR]]. We should not have "biographies" with one watcher that are drawn from a single results list in a single event. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 16:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

== Endowment board and Wikimedia governance ==

I'm curious about something relating to the Wikimedia Endowment Advisory Board, and since you are, to the best of my knowledge, the only member who does any on-wiki communication, I figure you're the best person to ask.

The [[m:Wikimedia Endowment/Meetings/January 17, 2020|public agenda]] of a WMEAB meeting that happened a few weeks ago (kudos to the WMEAB for posting those publically, btw; I wish more off-wiki groups were as transparent) mention 35 minutes being devoted to the WMF's Rebranding effort. (I assume you're aware of the [[m:Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia|ongoing uproar]] about the rebranding proposal, with 92% opposing it at the first consultation, and then 91% of the 336 commentors in the current RfC opposing the WMF & co appropriating the Wikipedia brand, and many particularly upset about the [[m:Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia#Can_you_confirm_that_numbers_mean_numbers?|misrepresentation]] of community opinion by the WMF.) My question is, why is the rebrand proposal a topic of discussion for the WMEAB in the first place? Does it influence WMF decisions on things like this? Does the Wikimedia Endowment Advisory Board hold a position of general importance/influence on Wikimedia Foundation decisions? Or was this just a general "Keep up with what's going on, in order to be able to make more informed decisions on the Endowment"?

Thanks. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 22:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

:Hi Yair, great question.  The Endowment board members spend a lot of time pitching companies and very rich people to give us money, to leave us money in their wills, etc.  What we often find is that there is a big confusion at the start - you can try it yourself - go up to someone who you know but who doesn't know about the Wikimedia Foundation and ask them: "Would you donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation?" versus asking "Would you donate money to Wikipedia?"  To me it is rather obvious that there are good reasons to abandon that distinction and I would think most opposition to it might come from projects like Wikidata, Wikinews, Wiktionary, etc., out of a fear that they will be neglected going forward.

:I most certainly hope that the WMF Endowment board has "influence" on WMF decisions, just as you do, just as everyone in the movement does.  The question of how the Wikimedia name may impact fundraising is one important factor in the overall decision.  But obviously the WMF Endowment board is completely not the decider on things like that, nor do they wish to be or think they should be in any way.  These are experienced thoughtful professional people who are donating their time and personal connections to raise money for our longterm future.
:And yes, in addition to giving advice, it was also a discussion to allow them/us (endowment board members) to "Keep up with what's going on in order to make more informed decisions".--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 16:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

::Just now hearing about this, but has the board considered "Wikipedia" for the websites ("English Wikipedia, French Wikipedia", etc. as needed) and "the Wikipedia Foundation" (WF? See [https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/WF]) for what we now call the WMF? That might be a lot more acceptable to those who oppose the WMF calling itself "Wikipedia" while still reducing donor confusion. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
:::"The Wiki Foundation" is unencumbered by trademark registrations and would achieve all of the stated rebranding goals without introducing confusion. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 18:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
::::"...without introducing confusion..."<span style="color:#0645AD"><sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Citation (horse)|Citation]] [[Need, California|Need]][[ed (text editor)|ed]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup></span>
::::I think there would be a ''lot'' of confusion. "Wiki Foundation? So you run Wikileaks, Wikihow, and the Minecraft Wiki?" --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 19:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::Is that an actual anecdote or an imagined anecdote? [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 21:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::[https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/wikileaks-not-wiki-wikipedia.html WikiLeaks Is Not a Wiki]: "Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee mistakenly denounced Wikipedia in 2016 for the leaked Clinton emails.".
::::::And of course the template on the right.{{daw}} [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 21:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::That template has been fighting a losing battle since 2010.[https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=wiki,wikipedia] [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 01:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::::That graph tells us nothing about when Wikipedia is abbreviated as wiki. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 20:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
::(Personally, I think having to explain the WMF's status to donors is a feature, not a bug. The WMF isn't Wikipedia, people aren't donating to Wikipedia, and asking for donations for "the organization which supports Wikipedia (among other projects)" is a lot more accurate and informative.)
::Thank you for the explanation. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 21:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Jimbo or {{u|Lgruwell-WMF}}, may we please see the investment update presentation? [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 16:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Ping|Lgruwell-WMF}} also, where are the Morningstar sustainability criteria? [http://ux-tauri.unisg.ch/RePEc/usg/sfwpfi/WPF-1718.pdf] cites the dead link [https://corporate1.morningstar.com/Morningstar-Sustainability-Rating-Methodology-2] on page 6. [https://web.archive.org/web/20161219192334/http://corporate1.morningstar.com/Morningstar-Sustainability-Rating-Methodology-2//] is the latest working Wayback Machine link, and only discusses aggregation methodology without regard to criteria. Do they include employee commuting fuel? Goods delivery fuel? [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 17:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
:Jimbo, would you please reach out to [https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-jantzi-5729312 Michael Jantzi] if we don't have this information? [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 19:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
::In my opinion, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll applies here. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 22:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
:::"A concern troll is someone who disingenuously visits sites of an opposing ideology to disrupt conversation by offering unwanted advice on how to solve problems which do not really exist." Do you think I am opposed to the ideology of sustainability assessment? Do you think I have offered unwanted advice? Which specific problem do you believe does not really exist? [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 22:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
::::Yes. I do think you are a concern troll. I may be wrong, but that is my considered opinion. Pretty much anything that gets posted on Jimbotalk gets a comment from you "expressing concern". You have made 1,459 edits to this page. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 03:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::If you are using the definition you cited, then do you have answers to my questions? Concern trolling is completely different than expressing concern. I am sincere. Might I remind you of [[meta:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Promote Sustainability and Resilience|the first of the current set of strategic goals]]? [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 03:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::No. I am not going to debate you. I have expressed my displeasure with the fact that pretty much any time someone posts a comment here (in this case about the endowment board and WMF's Rebranding effort) they get a response from you attempting to hijack the discussion into some other area that you are "concerned" about (in this case the endowment board's investment strategy). You won't let anyone discuss what ''they'' are concerned about without using it as a coatrack for an unrelated topic that ''you'' are concerned about. I believe that I have correctly identified your behavior pattern. If Jimbo wants to allow this behavior, it's his talk page and that's his business, but I think you either should be limited to X comments per day on this page or limited to new sections that you create.
::::::I will now resume ignoring you according to the basic principle of "Don't Feed The Trolls." --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 14:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I'm sure you know that my request for transparency in the endowment's constituent investments is longstanding. Do you share it? [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 15:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Please stop hijacking discussions by diverting them to what you are ''concerned'' with. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::<small> Don't [[sealioning|sealions]] look even [[Grandstand#Grandstanding as a pejorative|grander]] when [[Gaslighting|illuminated]] in a [[Showboat|show]]? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 23:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC) </small>
::Morningstar has promised to send me the Sustainalytics definitions of their [https://i.imgur.com/Y05RLwZ.png issues such as "Carbon - Own Operations"]. In the mean time, I hope we do get to see the Endowment constituent investments and the performance reports. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 06:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

== Jimmy to speak at Coin Geek London Feb, 20-21 ==

Hi Jimmy,

Please see [https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales-to-speak-at-coingeek-london-feb-20-21-301000172.html]. I asked about a similar speaking engagement last year and was perfectly happy with your reply -IIRC that people wish to pay you to speak and that you just go and speak your mind freely, and that they know about this ahead of time.

But in advertising this speech, they kinda suggest that Wikipedia might possibly consider using Bitcoin SV in micropayments for contributing to Wikipedia.  I'll suggest, if I may, that you completely disabuse the audience of this notion.  It's your call of course.

Micropayments in wooden nickels would be completely unworkable and, if the wooden nickels were actually worth anything, completely against your "bright line rule" about paid editing. If everybody was paid to contribute, nobody would be left to edit the article pages!

Have fun at the conference.  [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 16:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
:Don't worry.  I'll address the issue head-on.  I haven't read that press release yet (will do so in a moment) but if it appears to imply some endorsement of such a notion by either me or the Wikimedia Foundation, I'll complain.  Suggesting such a surprising and obviously wrong thing seems likely to me to backfire on them, as it may inspire journalists to ask me about it, and I'll end up generating headlines smacking it down, having the reverse promotional effect they may have imagined.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 02:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

::I love the whole "yes you can pay me to give a speech but what I say in that speech is not for sale" aspect of all of this. 
::I just read the press release ([https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales-to-speak-at-coingeek-london-feb-20-21-301000172.html Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales to Speak at CoinGeek London]). More on that in a moment. 
::I also watched the following videos about Jimbo's "Information, Trust, and the future of crypto coins" speech at BlockShow 2018:

::* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjeBKz1zLao Jimmy Wales Is Inviting You To Join BlockShow].
::This video got a whopping 37 views. I hope the sudden fame doesn't go to Jimbo's head... 
::* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJKKn6MK7hs Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales: "You Can’t Ban Blockchain. It’s Math!"]
::An interview done shortly after the speech. Watch the speech (below) first. 
::* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmHP-3XK1QM Jimmy Wales: I'm Very Skeptical About ICOs. BlockShow Europe 2018]
::Another interview done shortly after the speech. Watch the speech (below) first. 
::* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoFVkkDz5kw BlockShow Europe 2018. Day 2]
:: The actual speech -- in the middle of nine and a half hours of a livestream starting with nine and a half minutes of their logo. (It sure would be nice if there was a YouTube video with only the Jimbo bits...)

::Here are some highlights:
::9:30:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoFVkkDz5kw&t=570]
::Otherwise boring intro, with one interesting bit. "...secret speech; even we don't know what he will be talking about..." Well played, Jimbo.
::11:20:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoFVkkDz5kw&t=680]
::Actual start of the speech. Jimbo is rocking that exoskeleton, don't you think? :)

::OK, back to that press release. I quote:

:::''"Especially now in the era of increasing fake news, Wikipedia seeks to offer a place where genuine and transparent information can be accessed. Blockchain technology has the ability to both incentivize (through Bitcoin micropayments to users) more reliable information, and create a transparent record of changes to what has been written before. Until the emergence of Bitcoin SV (BSV) to reclaim Bitcoin's original design, no blockchain had the scalability to power micropayments to efficiently reward better user information and handle the staggering amount of data Wikipedia carries. CoinGeek is, therefore, thrilled to have Jimmy Wales as a keynote speaker and looks forward to hearing his views on combating fake news, improving the quality of online information, and how Bitcoin technology might have some of the answers."''

::Wow. Big claims for a speech where they don't know what is going to be said.

::It will be interesting to watch Jimbo give a speech where I suspect that he will say:
::* Wikipedia does not need need micropayments because we don't believe in paid editing,
::* Wikipedia already has a fully functional transparent record of "changes to what has been written before" (our page histories) with no blockchain needed, and 
::* Not only does "Bitcoin technology" have zero answers to the problem of fake news, but that a lot of bitcoin fans are ''generators'' of fake news.
::--[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 06:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
:::Nice [https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/1225606831898333184 tweet], thanks Jimmy! [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 20:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

== [https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1222950224064393216?s=19 Whistleblower] ==

Rand Paul has named on the Senate floor the person who, he acknowledges, is speculated by right-wing media to be the whistleblower - something the Chief Justice twice refused to do during the Senate trial.

Some sources cover this, though almost always without mentioning the name, you have to go through the source and watch Paul's Senate speech to get it. Some Wikipedians are asserting that this is now coverage in RS so we should allow inclusion of the name on Wikipedia and remove [[Special:AbuseFilter/1008]] which prevents addition.

Good idea or bad idea, in your view? '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 17:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
:I'm not sure that Rand Paul can be sued for what he says on the Senate floor, but I'd guess we could be (maybe "reckless endangerment"? IANAL).  We might as well wait until at least one of the following publish it: The NY Times, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post.  [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 20:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
::Snap! Yes, reckless endangerment sprang to my mind, as well. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color: green;">Esowteric</span>]]+[[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color: blue;">Talk</span>]]</b> 20:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
: Honestly, either it is unreliable information (i.e., how does Paul know this?) or it is true & puts the person's life in danger. (There have been death threats against critics of the current administration, although I suspect a large share of them are employees of the Internet Research Agency). In either case, let's not print it. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 23:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
::For me, there is no hurry.  I think history will know the name. But we are not a newspaper.  Let's wait to see how RS handle it.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 23:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Jimbo Wales}}, my thoughts exactly. When it's in the Washington Post, we can include it. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 11:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

== Good news! ==

A U.S. appeals court said that it will not reconsider an October ruling that largely upheld the repeal of landmark net neutrality rules[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/us-appeals-court-will-not-reconsider-net-neutrality-repeal-ruling-idUSKBN20032K]

The net net neutrality rules were in place for roughly two years, created under Obama and repealed under Trump. The Internet is not broken and does not need to be "fixed" by giving the federal government more control over the Internet. Pretty much none of the bad things that were predicted as a result of the repeal actually happened. 

There was one major casualty though; Wikipedia Zero.[https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/web/a8783/sxsw-wikipedia-for-non-smartphones-is-brilliant-here-s-why-15189767/][https://www.accessnow.org/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-wikimedia-turns-its-back-on-the-open/]

For six years (2012-2018), Wikipedia Zero provided over 800 million people -- mostly in developing countries -- with access to Wikipedia and its sister projects free of mobile data charges. Alas, giving Wikipedia away for free violated the Obama-era net neutrality regulations.   :(   --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 11:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)