User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Is this what you intended when you started Wikipedia?

    Jimmy, you may have heard about the recent incident in which a Pennsylvania man killed and decapitated his father? I can only assume that he was mentally unwell. This is a tragic incident and the family must be devastated. I am disappointed to see that an editor added his name to a list of people with the same surname. The incident has also been added to a list in Beheading video.

    When you started Wikipedia, did you think that it would one day be used to track videos of people being beheaded, or to spread the name of someone who commits such an act? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I can't speak for Jimmy, but while it's a disgusting phenomenon, it is a real and notable one, and this seems to be a noteworthy occurrence of it. Wikipedia isn't only here to provide information on nice things. Also, I cannot find that the articles link to the video itself, just to news stories about it, and I don't see that any of them show the video either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seraphimblade I know that Wikipedia isn't here to just document the nice things, but sometimes it feels to me like certain editors are here to venerate mass murderers and spree killers. It might be nice if Wikipedia had more restrictive guidelines about such things as adding their names to lists of people with the same surname or from the same place. Just as an example. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seraphimblade The person who allegedly committed this act has not been convicted of the crime. Is it ok for Wikipedia editors to state outright that he did it in beheading video and list of people who were beheaded? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than drawing further attention to it, would it not be more prudent to remove the content yourself (as has already been done)? Inappropriate entries are added to disambiguation lists all the time, and not every such case is worthy of a protracted discussion on Jimbo's talk page. --Kinu t/c 23:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kinu Do you think anyone would have removed it if I hadn't brought it up here? And what's the policy or guideline that's going to keep it out? His name is currently in two articles saying that he beheaded his father. Yes, that's what he is accused of, but he hasn't been convicted yet. You're apparently an admin and you (should) know that's not right but you want me to "so fix it"? I would prefer not to get into an edit war with Wikipedia's murder junkies, thanks very much. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    editors won't appreciate being called murder junkies, i imagine. ltbdl (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I should have said "true crime enthusiasts"? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick google news search reveals that the name in question appears in tons of reliable sources, and so I don't really see what the problem is supposed to be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jimbo Wales Have you read WP:BLPCRIME lately> Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this thread a thing? There was no article on the individual in question and it would have taken less time to snip the non-link from the list than it would to complain about it here. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Carrite I started this thread to draw attention to a situation and to ask Jimbo a question. After I started it, someone removed the addition that had caught my eye. I dealt with the other instances myself but, as expected, they did not go unchallenged. With the help of other editors at the BLP noticeboard a compromise was reached. That took somewhat longer than "complaining" here. I SOFIXIT'd it, but that didn't fix it. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    should Jeffery Dahmer not have a Wikipedia page because he's a baddie? what about Ronnie McNutt? are they too scary for you? christ. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 18:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dialmayo Jeffrey Dahmer was tried and convicted. The person I am talking about has not been convicted or even faced trial. If they are convicted, there will probably be an article about the incident. There will not be an article about the person, just as there is no article about Ronnie McNutt. The point here is that people who have been accused of a crime should not be named in Wikipedia as having committed that crime, even if they are accused of something particularly sensational. There's even a policy about it. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, we are also expected to go based on the spirit of a policy and not an overly strict reading of it (per another policy - WP:NOTBURO). BLPCRIME can be read in a strict sense as 'do not name, ever, unless someone is convicted'. Or a less strict reading of it is 'do not suggest someone did a crime if it could harm their reputation and the only sources saying they committed this act are tabloid/non-reliable sources'.
    If there is little doubt that someone committed a crime (example - they confessed, or made a video before their crime of their intentions of commiting the crime), and the media has provided substantial coverage of the crime, there is nothing saying we can't write about what the sources are saying, but we should use caution. That is sticking with a NPOV presentation of what the sources report. The media can also elevate an individual into a public figure with considerable coverage (For a recent example of this, see the RfC on Talk:Gilgo Beach serial killings.
    Awshort (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Awshort I understand what you are saying about the interpretation of policies, but I think you will agree that there is a difference between an serial killer who has been sought for years and someone who is involved in one incident. You will notice that the incident is included in an article but the name is not. Anyone who looks at the references will find the name very easily. This was agreed in a discussion on the biographies of living people noticeboard where other editors affirmed that WP:BLPCRIME applies to this case.
    I think you have a misunderstanding of what "a public figure" means. The fact that the media reports on someone or some incident in which they have been involved does not make them into a public figure. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to write a response before this auto archives - Will edit this further later tonight following work, and ping.
    Awshort (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Counterfeit Purses:
    I do agree that there is a difference between the serial killer/ one crime example above, as you noted. I do disagree regarding my understanding of public figures, however.
    We do usually cover individuals and their involvement in incidents and not just incidents based on the coverage of both the incident and the suspect in secondary sources.
    A perfect example of an incident where the individual was named prior to conviction off of the top of my head is Bryan Kohberger with regards to the University of Idaho murders, who has still not been convicted but is named.
    It is worth noting that one of the original people who helped form BLPCRIME, a user named SlimVirgin had the following to say during the initial proposal/early days of BLPCRIME :
    An accusation can be enough to make a person well-known. We judge "well-known" (or public figure status) by the extent of high-quality secondary coverage. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    And if we are going by the default definition of public figure as defined in our own public figure article on here -
    A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest.
    And while I understand several users agreed on BLPN regarding the name of the beheading suspect, it also was partly a one sided argument in my opinion; no notice was given of an ongoing discussion on the articles where it was removed from originally, and it was removed after several users agreed with you within one day. One thing that also stood out is one of the users who pointed to a previous discussion,@Zaereth:, who said
    They still always go in favor of waiting for a conviction before naming the suspect, which isn't exactly correct. Per their comments here as well as here which point out that someone can rise to the level of public figure and be named based on the coverage from an incident, usually prior to a conviction.
    I personally feel if the name was in an article such as 'Killing of (victim)' that it was being removed from with a notice posted to get arguments from both sides it would possibly be a different outcome.
    Just my random thoughts of the day :)
    Awshort (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem, as I see it, is as you said, people tend to define the term "public figure" based on their own understanding rather than the actual definition, and these understandings vary considerably depending on how each person wants to interpret them. To some, a single mention in the newspaper would be enough to label someone a public figure. However, the term "public figure" is a legal term first defined by the Supreme Court in 1964. The law makes exceptions for public figures in defamation cases, recognizing that they don't have the same rights of privacy that private individuals do. Laws that apply to Wikipedia and its authors just as much as they do to journalists. And the legal bar for becoming a public figure is very high. The summarized definition is: "a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero." A public figure cannot sue based on claims of harmful or even incorrect information published about them, but a private individual can.
    Certainly a person can rise to the level of public figure simply because of the crimes they allegedly committed, but the bar is just as high for them as it is for celebrities or rock stars. Charles Manson is a great example. If his crimes happened in Somewhere, Nebraska, he might have gotten 5 minutes in the spot light and faded away into obscurity, but because they happened in Beverly Hills it generated intense public interest and more press coverage than you could fill a dump truck with, so he reached that celebrity status while millions of crimes far more brutal than his fade off into the abyss.
    If someone reaches that level of celebrity status, then certainly we would be remiss in not reporting it here. If they haven't, then their name is really meaningless to the average reader. Might as well be John Smith or Joe Schmo for all the help it gives the reader in understanding the story. I've never seen a case where replacing a faceless name with a generic descriptor made such a story any less coherent and understandable, so unless the person is already a household name (like, for example, Casey Anthony was) then it still seems better to me to err on the side of caution and leave it out until a conviction is secured. It's not just about doing what's legal, but what is ethical. But things like this are better argued at places like BLPN rather than a user talk page. Zaereth (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    French Wikipedia's new trans MOS

    What's your opinion on French Wikipedia being straight up transphobic the new deadname MOS on frwiki? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ...( Q1 ) The S 1 majority of the community believes that it is necessary to mention in the introductory summary the pre-transition name of a transgender person who has acquired sufficient notoriety under this former identity to meet the eligibility criteria. This is the same guidance we have on en.wp. JoelleJay (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not, JoelleJay. They're insisting on including the deadname even if it was unknown prior to transition. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 18:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how I read it. It seems to say it should only be included if the person was notable under their pre-transition name. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, then let's talk about how they rigged the RfC to exclude most comments against the inclusion of deadnames, shall we? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 19:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the exclusion of !votes blatantly canvassed on Mastodon and Twitter? JoelleJay (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced on this, JoelleJay. Unless you link me instances of canvassing, I won't believe you. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this work for you? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean... sure. Canvassing is the least of the issues, though I won't be able to elaborate on this in public. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How wonderfully mysterious. Pity we're on the most public user talk page on the project. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's literally in the discussion you linked. Did you read it at all? JoelleJay (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unfortunately unable to read the discussion linked above, as I don't speak French, but based on the replies in this thread, I think this seems like an attempt to assign a motivation of bigotry that likely isn't there to a good-faith policy dispute. We've had quite a few discussions on this exact topic here on enwiki and there is room for reasonable people to disagree. We ought not to assume that frwiki reached a different consensus than us entirely because of "straight up transphobi[a]". Partofthemachine (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone for changing the heading of this thread to "English Wikipedia and blatant francophobia"? DeCausa (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's a tad imprecise. How about "One editor and good faith-phobia"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Disappointingly lacking in outrageous hyperbole...do we really have to go with accuracy? DeCausa (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Piling on much? Maybe what I said was a bit too emotionally charged (it happens with me sometimes), but those snarky comments aren't deserved at all. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Really? I wonder what those good faith French-language editors would feel if they read your comments about them (on the most prominent user talk page on the whole of WP)? Perhaps you wouldn't get any snark if, earlier, you simply acknowledged that you got it wrong. You could still do that. DeCausa (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I did get a lot of it wrong, yes. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Fair enough. Striking my snark. DeCausa (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For the interested, press: Wikipedia's French-speaking community is torn apart over 'deadnaming' trans people Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Email notification

    Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
    It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clovermoss (talkcontribs) 18:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noting that I sent a follow up email in regards to your follow up email as well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]