Open main menu

Contents

Small donations no longer acceptedEdit

Congratulations, Jimbo Wales! Despite your request for donations by the end of June, you have refunded all donations from a small donor. I am glad that Wikipedia is so successful. 84.120.0.236 (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Define "small donations" when you say they're no longer accepted? Looking at the "donate to us" page the minimum donation from a donor in Spain is €3, which is surely small enough (I imagine any lower than that and the transaction fees mean it's not worth the WMF's while to process). ‑ Iridescent 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Iridescent: could this be connected to this recent thread? They both seem as...less than competent as each other :) ——SerialNumber54129 06:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Katherine (WMF) wrote: Renew your donation: €1 »
Jimbo Wales wrote: Renew my donation: €1 »
@Iridescent: From the page you have linked: Please select an amount (minimum 0.87 EUR)
84.120.0.236 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, some less-intelligent trolls have proposed off-Wikipedia that the WMF can be crippled by making small donations and then indignantly demanding a refund. As if an organization with a $100 million budget could be damaged by people acting like fleas and gnats with their one Euro or two dollar claims. Logical thinking is not the trolls' strong point. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
And indeed once money is donated, the recipient is under no obligation to provide a refund anyway. Emails would got ot OTRS where they would get a template response, costing the Foundation precisely nothing. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
So, if no human is taking care of donation messages, could these refunds have been an automated decision? Certainly, the donation process reports an error caused by Wikimedia. After taking measures, Alice has decided to retry her donations. By the way, Bob was refunded Alice's donations. 84.120.0.236 (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
These refunds are not automated. 84.120.0.236 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It could foreseeably be disappointing if you donated your life savings to WP and they didn't bank the money, but otherwise, sitting on the money given in small donations and large philanthropic donations, will not go the way you expected. If they bank most of the money, taking it for granted, donations will dwindle. They will surely amount a few hundred millions into an egg that way, but these millions will slowly lose value without being replaced. What happens then is, to maintain the value, they are forced to invest in the sort of investment schemes which give capitalism a bad name among capitalists. You think Jimbo gets a lot of personal complaints about being a leader now... watch those complaints get injected with vile and venom when the foundation becomes involved with big banking, especially if the investments are successful. They are given the money to maintain, and improve, the sites, and they wisely spend it towards that purpose as currency, rather than taking it as a grant. What might cripple them is if they hold the money for some time, and then larger investors demand it bank. "They've still got it, Your Honour! We want some of it back, we want most of it back and then..." Then it's not for granted any more. Suspicion should definitely not be castigated, however it makes more sense than is immediately apparent to do as they are doing with it, so where your concern is best placed is in exactly how the money is spend rather than if it is spent at all. They are juggling small beans on a large stage in the reality. What is the figure... 16 billion edits a year now? The foundation is receiving what, under 0.01c towards each edit? (not sure if that is totally accurate...) ~ R.T.G 11:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder, wrote on 10 September 2019: I'm asking you, sincerely: please take one minute to renew your €1 donation to Wikipedia.
I find this joke quite funny actually. 84.120.0.236 (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

If only they had kept the tens of thousands of donated Bitcoins when one Bitcoin was worth just a few cents... Count Iblis (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit

Jimbo if paid editing gets approved are you going to set up the general bug bounty-style awards ceremony? EllenCT (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you please reference just what exactly you are talking about? My opposition to paid COI editing is well known, I'll never condone it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Update added "COI" above to clarify.
She’s accusing Laura Hale of paid editing. I believe Laura Hale received some grant money to support her work. It looked like the normal thing we do uncontroversially, but maybe she’s talking about something else. A link would definitely help. Jehochman Talk 09:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, but I mean people might be a little leery of providing links which might imply that (for instance) an actual person and a Wikipedia account are connected, since you can get banned for that without recourse or warning if you're not super careful and have proof, or maybe even if you are and do. Plus of course sometimes it is not kind to do so. But I do believe that what she is talking about is it maybe, while not anything terrible, is still a little bit more than the the normal thing we do uncontroversially. Herostratus (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you I have clarified my comment. I'm opposed to paid COI editing. Some types of editing which are paid do not constitute COI and should be subject to strict scrutiny but are nevertheless not something I'm absolutely against in all cases. I don't know anything really about what is being alleged here, and it's actually better if I only speak to principles rather than attempt to judge a specific case without a requisite degree of study and understanding of what all sides have to say about it. That's not for me to do, generally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
[1] EllenCT (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Then Jimbo Wales I strongly suggest that you spend the time to get up to speed on this so you can comment on it because the potential fallout from what appears to be misuse of Foundation processes and resources for personal gain is something that the public will care about. As opposed to the inside baseball that is FRAMGATE, even though it is set to fundamentally change how English Wikipedia is managed and governed, things get more real when one starts talking about financial controls, actual conflict on interest and money. Just say'n wiki-scandal is a far different beast from the potential of scandal-scandal. Jbh Talk 15:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
When you are talking, in general, not specific to the Fram case, about "bounties" and COI editing, you can tread into outing issues which have taken down several otherwise well-respected editors. Liz Read! Talk! 18:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

WAIT, WHAT?Edit

So... in the area of "paid editing" there are many subtleties. "Taking money from ExxonMobile to put lies in their article, without telling anyone" is 0% OK. Taking money from the British Museum to upload some of their public domain holdings is 100% OK. Working "on the clock" as a professor to add some NPOV material in your field of study, 100% OK.

In between, there a lot of grey areas. Of course there are. One of them is "Well, I genuinely love adding this kind of content. I'd do it for nothing! But thanks to my benefactor, I don't have to! But that's nothing you guys need to know about". There's no bad intent here. But things can slip away... it's better to disclose, is all. If you don't, you can end up starting down a wrong path.

But so anyway, according to Jbhunley (my own memory and records support some of this) we have a situation where:

  1. This Fram person had an issue with someone who he thinks was editing, for pay, without disclosing. With plenty evidence.
  2. And he said so.
  3. And then he got fired.

I really can't add more than that, at least not here. It could all be an amazing coincidence? But it probably sounds awfully close to "Wikipedia is firing whistleblowers who are trying to uncover corruption". Herostratus (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to edit for pay, but not about the organization paying them to edit. In practice, they find people on talk pages to review, sometimes on an expidited basis, I'm sure. Doing it blatantly without seeking review, and then balking at critique, is as far as I know a unique situation among WiRs. 73.222.1.26 (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

A modern form of self-inflicted slavery?Edit

IMO, allmost all forms of paid editing are antithetical to the principles of Wikipedia whether they are promotional edits/articles or not. They all exploit one thing for personal or corporate gain: the unpaid work of the volunteers who build and maintain the encyclopedia for free. This is one aspect of the project that is conveniently ignored. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow under attack and block threat at ANI for postings hereEdit

Hi, Jimbo, The attacks are led by someone who made his first Wikipedia edit 4 months ago and quickly challenged my postings here on your talk page. I am not asking for anything at all from you about this and if blocked I doubt I will appeal. I hesitated about even mentioning it but decided that if I were you I would want to be alerted about this situation. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Best to stay away from this page, is a drama filled time suck. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nocturnalnow: Perhaps the best thing to say is that it's time to move on. If you remember when you first started editing this page I tried to encourage you. Different viewpoints are certainly welcome here, even if they sometimes seem a bit bizarre. But for a long time now, I've just been able to tolerate what often seems like pure nonsense and occasional personal attacks. I've mostly moved now to trying to ignore you. Please take this as friendly advice, I just think that it's time to move on. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
At the top of the edit notice of this page it states:
This is the user talk page of Jimbo Wales.
It is not a place to publicize arbitrary on-wiki disputes.
There are literally millions of other pages you can contribute to if you end up being prevented from posting here. Millions. And their talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 17:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Liz Read! and Smallbones, I take your point as good, friendly advice which I will follow 100%. Thank you for being nice to me:) Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: The suggestion that you be blocked did not come from me. It came from other users who are frustrated with your comments here. And some admins agree with them. You seem to believe that you are being censored. You aren't. You are just being reminded that this isn't the place to talk about the things you like to talk about. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Epilogue
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Solution, I think. I am taking the friendly advice of Smallbones and Liz and will be 100% staying off of Jimbo's talk page going forward. Best wishes to all. Nocturnalnow (talk) 12:26 pm, 7 September 2019, last Saturday (5 days ago) (UTC−7)
Well, honestly, Nocturnalnow, I wasn't considering "100% staying off" any one page (which amounts to a strict topic ban) which means that some editor might try to bring you here if you fall back into old habits. I was thinking about just limiting your activity there to ~10% of your editing which still amounts to some participation and allows you to also spend most of your time working on the encyclopedia. I think it was the imbalance of editing time that got people's attention. SPAs (single purpose accounts) are a red flag to many people and it is clear that you do have some interests beyond Jimbo's talk page. Of course, other admins might have different opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 12:45 pm, 7 September 2019, last Saturday (5 days ago) (UTC−7)

link

Carrite (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Indian Science Ministry to Edit Wikipedia articlesEdit

Turkey’s top court set to rescind Wikipedia ban - pro-govt journalistEdit

Jimbo, any news on this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any news that I can talk about. But I hope that what that report says does come true!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Jimbo Wales".