Jimbo reassesses WR, His totally unself-interested reaction Options

[gomi]

2) Anyone who is giving you something in exchange for an agreement from you -- for example, Wikipedia in their (nascent) Terms of Service -- can put conditions on that. So Wikipedia can say, in their ToS, that you may not post on the Review. Now, the only remedy that they likely have if you violate this term is to terminate your account, but they can certainly do that. They probably cannot (successfully) sue you, because there has been a tort (damage) to them.

Are you certain about this? I mean the WMF constructing a ToS stating that your account will be terminated if you posted on WR - which is, realistically, how they would have to do it? As I say, I'd like to see that play out on the world's courts, US especially. If they argued anything, it would probably be along the 'damage to WP' line. (unsuccessfully though surely in their case). It would surely be a question of context - ie what WP is, does, and is about.

I am certain about it, but again perhaps I am again being unintentionally misleading. As we all know, Wikipedia can (and does) terminate accounts for any reason they wish, or for no reason at all. They would be unlikely to actually spell out that posting on Wikipedia Review was a bannable offense, but since they are extending a service to which you have no inherent right, they can terminate your account if you part your hair on the left instead of the right, or fail to change your underwear every day. Taking them to court will get you nowhere, as you have suffered no damages. You have no right to use Wikipedia (or any other website).

One's only claim might be if they were to discriminate against you because of your race, or some other status protected by law. Even then, the odds of being able to prove a tort are infinitesimal.

[cookiehead]

Jimbo should be very proud of his co-creation.

Where else can anyone take a lovely self portrait like this and put it up on a WP article for the kids to use at school?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Perianal_hematoma.jpg

[thekohser]

...since they are extending a service to which you have no inherent right, they can terminate your account if you part your hair on the left instead of the right, or fail to change your underwear every day. Taking them to court will get you nowhere, as you have suffered no damages. You have no right to use Wikipedia (or any other website).

One's only claim might be if they were to discriminate against you because of your race, or some other status protected by law. Even then, the odds of being able to prove a tort are infinitesimal.

This may be, but wouldn't it be a piece of cake to thus get their 501-c-3 status revoked? The federal government wouldn't want to appear to be providing tax exemption to an organization that had such foolishly discriminatory terms of service, I should think.

(Of course, this is just one of those stupid tangential arguments on WR. Rather pointless, since the real-world potential is nil.)

[mbz1]

Taking them to court will get you nowhere

Actually only mentioning of taking them to court will get you somewhere...
it will make you blocked.
wikipedia has policies for every imaginable and imaginable situations
For example a mention about court will get one blocked for a legal threat.

[Cla68]

For whatever it's worth, the number of watchers of my user talk page has, over the last several days, increased from around 130 to over 200. I appreciate their interest in what I've been doing lately, and the comments of support, but my talk page is usually much less exciting than the last several days would indicate.

[Eppur si muove]

For whatever it's worth, the number of watchers of my user talk page has, over the last several days, increased from around 130 to over 200. I appreciate their interest in what I've been doing lately, and the comments of support, but my talk page is usually much less exciting than the last several days would indicate.

Others seem to be looking to bring attention to you as a heretic at AN/I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464192903

Cla68, if you had bothered to read my comments above you would have seen that I've opposed a topic ban on Off2riorob and have suggested constructive things he can do to avoid such problems in future. He's responded positively and he and I have been in touch off-wiki to discuss the issue in a friendly fashion. Get your facts right in future - he doesn't need you to defend him, particularly given your own peculiar approach to Wikipedia. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 10:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464216909

Cla68, I think it would be helpful if you actually read this section, rather than the distortions and prevarications posted on off-wiki bulletin boards run by people banned from Wikipedia. That way you'll become more familiar with the actual issues raised here, and be able to respond in a more constructive manner. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 14:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464241469

Jayjg, I'm sorry this seems to have got hijacked - a few days ago on Jimbo's talk page, I criticised Cla68 for his involvement in a banned user's campaign against Wikimedia UK and since then he has been on a hate streak against me on and off-wiki, apparently out of revenge. It is all rather petty and pathetic.

"Burn the heretic" seems to be the message even though they've not yet started a thread on you. Good luck.

[Eppur si muove]

...since they are extending a service to which you have no inherent right, they can terminate your account if you part your hair on the left instead of the right, or fail to change your underwear every day. Taking them to court will get you nowhere, as you have suffered no damages. You have no right to use Wikipedia (or any other website).

One's only claim might be if they were to discriminate against you because of your race, or some other status protected by law. Even then, the odds of being able to prove a tort are infinitesimal.

This may be, but wouldn't it be a piece of cake to thus get their 501-c-3 status revoked? The federal government wouldn't want to appear to be providing tax exemption to an organization that had such foolishly discriminatory terms of service, I should think.

(Of course, this is just one of those stupid tangential arguments on WR. Rather pointless, since the real-world potential is nil.)

I am not sure whether such stuff would stand up in a UK court either. Contract law, at least in England and Wales, is based on the concept of consideration whereby both sides get something out of the contract. When you edit Wikipedia, Wikimedia get your work out of you, but what do they give you?

I can't see how a charity advances its charitable purpose by banning people for writing things they don't like.

[thekohser]

For whatever it's worth, the number of watchers of my user talk page has, over the last several days, increased from around 130 to over 200. I appreciate their interest in what I've been doing lately, and the comments of support, but my talk page is usually much less exciting than the last several days would indicate.

You even got serial revenge-pushing sockpuppeteer Bill Huffman to come out of "retirement" and chastise you! Bill, never one for drawing appropriate conclusions also thinks he's paying Jimbo a compliment by suggesting that Jimmy probably uses sockpuppets to execute most of his Wikipedia article editing. Because, you know, Jimmy's doing so much editing of Wikipedia, and he doesn't feel the need to take personal credit for his work.

[powercorrupts]

I think when it comes to issues over 'Rights', the questioning often happens after the event. Wikipedia (theoretically - yes obviously) could give a "no WR" ToS a go, the problems for them would come when people complain. We do have some things supporting us in the west at least, however flimsy it may sometimes all seem. The US of course has its bill, which as I say, rulings over which are bound to depend on many factors (what is Wikpedia?), as life is complex.

[Eppur si muove]

The Jimboid has returned to the thread he started.

Possibly. I will just state some facts in response to the shocking falsehoods that Cla68 and others have put forward in this thread. 1." Furthermore, at least in the past, on your advertising page for your public speaking business, you said that you would only fly first class." - absolutely false, I have never said any such thing anywhere at any time
2.The Wikimedia Foundation pays me no salary and no expenses of any kind. No plane tickets. No hotel rooms. I sometimes accept a meal at a board dinner, and once they organized and paid for a taxi for me to the airport in San Francisco - over my objections.
3."I am Wikipedia" is something Cla68 accusing me of "milking for all its worth" - that's false. I never say anything like that, I do not believe anything like that, and indeed put forward the opposite view at every opportunity.
If Cla68 wants to be taken seriously, he needs to grow up and cut out the snarking and assumptions of bad faith.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

[Emperor]

I find it really hard to believe that someone obsessed with the internet wouldn't be tempted to read all the crap said about him over here.

Nothing wrong with that, just I like honesty. That's why the claims of independent wealth pissed me off so much. The founding of Wikipedia shouldn't be some made-up legend.

Another nice thing Mr. Wales could do to update his BLP would be to mention his second kid in an interview somewhere, so the weenies that write Wikipedia could finally acknowledge it. I mean, it's supposed to be a reason for celebration, right?

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464383268:

As far as reliability for accuracy, WR gets a D at best. While not absolutely useless, whatever tiny morsel of factual investigative tidbids that can be gleemed from the site are buried under a mountain of conspiracy theories.[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 15:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Jimbo and MONGO. Cla68 is becoming pretty popular.

[mbz1]

The Jimboid has returned to the thread he started.

Possibly. I will just state some facts in response to the shocking falsehoods that Cla68 and others have put forward in this thread. 1." Furthermore, at least in the past, on your advertising page for your public speaking business, you said that you would only fly first class." - absolutely false, I have never said any such thing anywhere at any time
--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe I found a confirmation that Jimbo is not always flying first class

American Jimbo Wales started Wikipedia which brought him universal fame and admiration. He is considered one of the Gurus of the internet. An intellectual giant and visionary, Jimbo has a turbulent personal life with 2 divorces and a very public breakup with a feisty girlfriend. On this flight from Chicago to New York, Jimbo was in the economy section.

And actually Jimbo himself said in his flickr account:

I rode with Amma from Chicago to New York on a flight. She was in First Class, I was in coach.

So I believe we should play it fair, and let it go now.
I personally apologize to Jimbo for suggesting he flies first class and his tickets are payed by WMF because I'd rather apologize to a guilty one than to accuse an innocent one.

On the other hand there is an article that was probably discussed here already

"Jimbeau [Wool's nickname for his former boss] was certainly not frugal in his spending on his endless trips abroad, but when it came to handing in receipts, he could be somewhat careless," Wool wrote in a post on his personal blog.

"At one point he owed the Foundation some $30,000 in receipts, and this while we were preparing for the audit."

Wool said Wales, 41, later tried to claim the cost of a $US0.50 ($0.54) train ticket in Moscow, a trip to a massage parlour in Moscow and $US650 spent on two bottles of wine during a dinner for four in Florida.

Wool later said he believed Wales' questionable use of the foundation's funds stopped in 2006 after his credit card was taken away.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Tue 6th December 2011, 4:52pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

I personally apologize to Jimbo for suggesting he flies first class and his tickets are payed by WMF.

http://gawker.com/365219/modest-frugal-jim...ies-first+class

Read this transcript of a chat between Wales and ex-girlfriend Marsden, as he debates whether to go first-class or business-class on a junket to Korea in February, and judge for yourself.

Does anyone have a copy of that transcript, or was it deleted from the Internet?

[mbz1]

I personally apologize to Jimbo for suggesting he flies first class and his tickets are payed by WMF.

http://gawker.com/365219/modest-frugal-jim...ies-first+class

Well, here's a deal. If I accuse anybody in something I have to present some evidences. This could be an evidence, or could be not. If I were Cla, I would have linked it to the statements he made at his talk page,
but as I mentioned above I'd rather apologize to a guilty one than wrongly accuse an innocent one. It is just the way I am, maybe because I myself was accused wrongly by many people including wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales.
Here's the transcript

This post has been edited by mbz1: Tue 6th December 2011, 5:16pm

[gomi]

...since they are extending a service to which you have no inherent right, they can terminate your account if you part your hair on the left instead of the right, or fail to change your underwear every day. Taking them to court will get you nowhere, as you have suffered no damages. You have no right to use Wikipedia (or any other website).

One's only claim might be if they were to discriminate against you because of your race, or some other status protected by law. Even then, the odds of being able to prove a tort are infinitesimal.

This may be, but wouldn't it be a piece of cake to thus get their 501-c-3 status revoked? The federal government wouldn't want to appear to be providing tax exemption to an organization that had such foolishly discriminatory terms of service, I should think.

I am not sure whether such stuff would stand up in a UK court either. Contract law, at least in England and Wales, is based on the concept of consideration whereby both sides get something out of the contract. When you edit Wikipedia, Wikimedia get your work out of you, but what do they give you? I can't see how a charity advances its charitable purpose by banning people for writing things they don't like.

Let me explain it this way. If your charity runs a soup kitchen that nominally serves all comers, and you systematically turn away white men in tailored suits who arrives in sports cars, you may be discriminating, but you are within the law. If you turn away old black women and only serve the white men, you may be violating the law.

"Discrimination", or the right not to be discriminated against, is not in fact a right of any sort in the US, unless you are a racial minority, handicapped, or over 60. Even in those cases, the restriction is largely on public accommodation and employment. Wikipedia can "discriminate" against those non-protected classes all it wants (within the law) and it will have no affect on its 501(c3) status or anything else. It might offend your sensibilities, but no one else will listen.

(Of course, this is just one of those stupid tangential arguments on WR. Rather pointless, since the real-world potential is nil.)

Bingo! You win the prize. Talking about the "right" to this and that here is just that -- talk. It has no grounding in actual law or practice. It won't be listened to by the people who police non-profit status (largely the IRS and state attorneys-general). Why I get caught up in trying to explain that here is beyond me. Must be a handicap of some kind.

[Kelly Martin]

"Discrimination", or the right not to be discriminated against, is not in fact a right of any sort in the US, unless you are a racial minority, handicapped, or over 60. Even in those cases, the restriction is largely on public accommodation and employment.

Or over 40, under 18, married, married with children, gay, a hillbilly, a veteran, a descendant of a former subject of the Kingdom of Hawaii, or a member of a political party. (Not all of these apply everywhere or in every context.)

If your charity runs a soup kitchen that nominally serves all comers, and you systematically turn away white men in tailored suits who arrives in sports cars, you may be discriminating, but you are within the law. If you turn away old black women and only serve the white men, you may be violating the law.

But you're entirely within the law if you require everyone who asks of your largess to first recite a pledge to serve, honor, and obey the noncorporeal entity or entities of your choice, and refuse to serve those who won't do so, or whose recitation fails to meet your standards, which can be almost entirely arbitrary. (This may not apply if you actually accept public money to operate your kitchen, as opposed to merely using private funds donated to you under the special tax treatment afforded to charities and those who donate to them.)

[SB_Johnny]

"Discrimination", or the right not to be discriminated against, is not in fact a right of any sort in the US, unless you are a racial minority, handicapped, or over 60. Even in those cases, the restriction is largely on public accommodation and employment.

Or over 40, under 18, married, married with children, gay, a hillbilly, a veteran, a descendant of a former subject of the Kingdom of Hawaii, or a member of a political party. (Not all of these apply everywhere or in every context.)

Or of a particular religion (though not subscribing to a particular faith doesn't seem to give one a status). But what does that have to do with Jimbo?

Jimbo's method of leeching isn't through a paycheck anyway, as we've gone over again and again on various threads. He simply tries to get everyone to call him the founder, then gets paid for speaking engagements as "the founder". He doesn't "officially" work for the WMF, he just does the things the WMF apparently wants done without all the complications about being an employee.

It kind of reminds me of a discussion on a radio show yesterday about how politicians tend to get in a lot of trouble for sex scandals (easy to understand), but tend not to get in trouble for actual corruption (which is far more difficult to lay out in a soundbite). Jimbo has manipulated the laws and a lot of (mostly well-meaning) people so that he has the power and money without any real responsibility.

Giving him crap that he can "plausibly deny" really does make WR an asset for him, since the real problems are buried deeply in threads that are derailed by discussions of Ottava's amazing editing skills, evil Jews/Muslims/Communists/Libertarians, and so on. You can be damn sure he won't comment about the real issue, of course.

[powercorrupts]

...since they are extending a service to which you have no inherent right, they can terminate your account if you part your hair on the left instead of the right, or fail to change your underwear every day. Taking them to court will get you nowhere, as you have suffered no damages. You have no right to use Wikipedia (or any other website).

One's only claim might be if they were to discriminate against you because of your race, or some other status protected by law. Even then, the odds of being able to prove a tort are infinitesimal.

This may be, but wouldn't it be a piece of cake to thus get their 501-c-3 status revoked? The federal government wouldn't want to appear to be providing tax exemption to an organization that had such foolishly discriminatory terms of service, I should think.

I am not sure whether such stuff would stand up in a UK court either. Contract law, at least in England and Wales, is based on the concept of consideration whereby both sides get something out of the contract. When you edit Wikipedia, Wikimedia get your work out of you, but what do they give you? I can't see how a charity advances its charitable purpose by banning people for writing things they don't like.

Let me explain it this way. If your charity runs a soup kitchen that nominally serves all comers, and you systematically turn away white men in tailored suits who arrives in sports cars, you may be discriminating, but you are within the law. If you turn away old black women and only serve the white men, you may be violating the law.

"Discrimination", or the right not to be discriminated against, is not in fact a right of any sort in the US, unless you are a racial minority, handicapped, or over 60. Even in those cases, the restriction is largely on public accommodation and employment. Wikipedia can "discriminate" against those non-protected classes all it wants (within the law) and it will have no affect on its 501(c3) status or anything else. It might offend your sensibilities, but no one else will listen.

(Of course, this is just one of those stupid tangential arguments on WR. Rather pointless, since the real-world potential is nil.)

Bingo! You win the prize. Talking about the "right" to this and that here is just that -- talk. It has no grounding in actual law or practice. It won't be listened to by the people who police non-profit status (largely the IRS and state attorneys-general). Why I get caught up in trying to explain that here is beyond me. Must be a handicap of some kind.

Does that 'prize' have a silly graphic? I've seen it given by WP admin a number of times. You do realise that you are being (essentially, that is to a significant extent) disagreed with? The "handicap" of WR, if you ask me, is how quickly it dissolves in tone.

"Discrimination" is only half the story - didn't this begin over mbz1 questioning the right to free speech? I entered the discussion because the West was compared to the Soviet Union - and it became partly philosophical. I'm not significantly 'pro West' at all, but 'Rights' to amount to something that becomes tangible - however they might be abused, and however fucked up life can be, they just do.

If Wikipedia (in some strange dimension) does end up with a "No WR" ToS, another part of society and yes - law - would come into play, and it simply wouldn't last. WP is just not the right kind of place for it, and at very least it would have to structurally change to retain it. Laws are not quite as all-consuming and one-dimensional as you seem to think.

For newcomers to this side-discussion - nobody (gomi, me, anyone) is saying the WMF are likely to ban people going to WR! As I say, the way they deal with dissent, regardless of anything, is to apply stready pressure within from their SS-like administration class. It's clever (in a basic way), it's brutal, and it works for them.

[cookiehead]

Wales trolling Cla68 to raise up his rabble of pimpled 14 year old admins to bait & ban Cla68 after he reacts to the trolling would make a great Cade Metz story.

Cade would love the part about Wales's financials dug up by Kohser, and contrasting with the earlier Wired piece. And, of course, Cla68's long history as a mature, coherent, productive adult on WP that doesn't succumb to sycophantic power plays. A rarity.

But have some sympathy for Wales. Divorce is expensive, and he's made a habit out of it.

Not very impressed by Wales' intellectual output on that page. Has he had any minor strokes lately?

This post has been edited by cookiehead: Tue 6th December 2011, 7:07pm