Printable Version of Topic

Responding to the above list supplied by Jimbo;

1) Good for you - however the fact that you may have additional programmes that you'd like to see on this article is irrelevant. If they are of editorial importance to make the article high quality they will be included. If not - not. What "you" want to see is irrelevant I'm afraid.

2) Please post a reliable source (see WP:RS) - ideally a third party source - and this can be fixed - if it is editorially valuable to have the information at all, which is subject to debate of course.

3) As Jimbo says, please use this talk page to avoid a conflict of interest; any links to reliable sources (again, third party if possible) may help. Note also that your disagrement is secondary to the verifiable nature of what you do - as opposed to what you claim to do. Pedro : Chat 20:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth would 2) need a third party source? A self-published source would be perfectly fine. --Conti|✉ 20:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote - I said ideally. Obviously self published is ok (in this respect), but third party is clearly better if available. Pedro : Chat 21:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it would have been nice to clearly mention that in the first place, especially when dealing with newbies. --Conti|✉ 21:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Another thing, Pedro, is that your tone is hostile and annoying. "the fact that you may have additional programmes that you'd like to see on this article is irrelevant" - that's actually an absolutely irrelevant comment on your part. Please go read WP:AGF.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The fact that anyone wants to see or not see something in an article is the start for any good faith discussion on content. I thank the correspondent for bringing these ideas for improvement to editors' attention. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, I think we are getting on track now. I'm not sure what you mean about "acting in both capacities". I am acting solely as a Wikipedia editor here. They approached me as such, lots of people do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry again I had thought you had worked for them as a volunteer advising them on their internet strategy. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC))

As for connections between Wales and Blair, the smirking centrist-hating red in me suggests that it probably has something to do with both those individuals sharing an affinity for the political ideas of Ayn Rand.

Mmm... close, but no cigar. Hint: it's more of a "family" thing.

His fiancee used to work for Blair.

Jimmy Wales is, very much to his credit, attempting to defend his conception of how COI editing should be done — which is to say, through intermediaries. I think a more workable approach would be for him to have said: "Go ahead and edit your page if you feel you can do it non-controversally and in accord with our principles of Verifiability and Neutral Point of View — but be advised that in so doing you are walking a tightrope with no net in front of a large audience with a taste for gore."

It is a very workable solution to hire intermediaries, and I know that many have done so. Of course, it is only working if you have people good enough to avoid controversy and to appear NPOV.