Jimbo reassesses WR, His totally unself-interested reaction Options

[Eppur si muove]

Jimbo has posted on Cla86's page again.

I took you seriously

So I thought I'd go see what's up with WR. You gave a passionate defense of it as somehow useful to Wikipedia.

What was just about the first thing I found? You speculating in a disgusting, juvenile, and insulting manner about my personal finances.

I was disappointed, but I also must admit: it's about what I expected from you and from WR.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

[mbz1]

Jimbo has posted on Cla86's page again.

I took you seriously

So I thought I'd go see what's up with WR. You gave a passionate defense of it as somehow useful to Wikipedia.

What was just about the first thing I found? You speculating in a disgusting, juvenile, and insulting manner about my personal finances.

I was disappointed, but I also must admit: it's about what I expected from you and from WR.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Does somebody know what thread Jimbo is talking about?

[Eppur si muove]

I assume that it is "aggressive trolling not welcome here". (If someone can PM to let me know how to link it, I will do so)

The fact that Jimbo went straight to a thread about himself and not the ones on Featured and Critical Articles does show how he has identified WP with himself.

[TungstenCarbide]

Jimbo has posted on Cla86's page again.

I took you seriously

So I thought I'd go see what's up with WR. You gave a passionate defense of it as somehow useful to Wikipedia.

What was just about the first thing I found? You speculating in a disgusting, juvenile, and insulting manner about my personal finances.

I was disappointed, but I also must admit: it's about what I expected from you and from WR.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Woooooo! struck a nerve did Cla68.

Does somebody know what thread Jimbo is talking about?

maybe this?

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[thekohser]

Does somebody know what thread Jimbo is talking about?

Cla68 has most recently discussed Jimbo's personal finances (or "lifestyle") in this post. It is easy to assume that Jimmy went first to the folder labeled "The Jimbo Phenomenon", because he is a very self-interested individual.

[thekohser]

(If someone can PM to let me know how to link it, I will do so)

You seem otherwise very smart, but you haven't figured out the "Insert Link" button?

I hope that this helpful image will assist in your learning this important feature of our (and many other) message boards.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Everybody wave to Jimbo! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:

[Michaeldsuarez]

(If someone can PM to let me know how to link it, I will do so)

You seem otherwise very smart, but you haven't figured out the "Insert Link" button?

I hope that this helpful image will assist in your learning this important feature of our (and many other) message boards.

"Eppur si muove" has used the BBCode markup for inserting links in the past:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=289897

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=289873

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=289861

Maybe "Eppur si muove" wanted to know how to find the anchor id to a certain post. If so, then he or she could look at the upper right-hand corner of the post. There should be "post: #<some_number>" (use CTRL+F if you can't find it) in that concern. If you hover your cursor over the anchor (the underlined "#<some_number>"), the text "Show the link to this post" should appear. Check on it, and a box should appear. CTRL+C the URL that appears in the box. There's your anchor to that post.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Ottava]

Cla shouldn't feel bad. I have never attacked Jimbo here or done anything negative or even neutral (mostly, just straight positive) and Jimbo has still attacked me before about my using WR. I don't think Jimbo will ever really be happy unless you just go away.

[Eppur si muove]

(If someone can PM to let me know how to link it, I will do so)

You seem otherwise very smart, but you haven't figured out the "Insert Link" button?

I hope that this helpful image will assist in your learning this important feature of our (and many other) message boards.

"Eppur si muove" has used the BBCode markup for inserting links in the past:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=289897

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=289873

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=289861

Maybe "Eppur si muove" wanted to know how to find the anchor id to a certain post. If so, then he or she could look at the upper right-hand corner of the post. There should be "post: #<some_number>" (use CTRL+F if you can't find it) in that concern. If you hover your cursor over the anchor (the underlined "#<some_number>"), the text "Show the link to this post" should appear. Check on it, and a box should appear. CTRL+C the URL that appears in the box. There's your anchor to that post.

Thanks. Yes I've done the mark up by hand as you said and did not know where to find the post's url.
Most of my discussion of the internet users a system based on CoSy (computer conferencing system). This 1980s technology is supplemented by a 1990s offline reader which I also use for my emails. This clicking on post numbers is far too 21st century to fit into my main experience.

The plus-side of this ancient technology is that I'm immune to most email viruses as they expect a much more advanced mail reader than I use.

[thekohser]

Thanks. Yes I've done the mark up by hand as you said and did not know where to find the post's url.
Most of my discussion of the internet users a system based on CoSy (computer conferencing system). This 1980s technology is supplemented by a 1990s offline reader which I also use for my emails. This clicking on post numbers is far too 21st century to fit into my main experience.

The plus-side of this ancient technology is that I'm immune to most email viruses as they expect a much more advanced mail reader than I use.

Regardless, I'm glad that we could help you figure it all out, Dad.

[Eppur si muove]

Regardless, I'm glad that we could help you figure it all out, Dad.

I'll have no more of this cheek from people born in the second half of the decade, young whippersnapper.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Jimbo has still attacked me before about my using WR.

It seems like lots of people have.

[gomi]

Isn't this offer restricted your freedom of speech?

In the U.S. and much of the world, anyone other than the government may (attempt to) restrict one's speech. Many forms of doing so (e.g. contracts) are perfectly legal and acceptable. In theory, at least, Wikipedia's terms of service could include a clause prohibiting Wikipedia account holders from posting here at the Review (or at cuddly-kittens.com for that matter).

[mbz1]

Isn't this offer restricted your freedom of speech?

In the U.S. and much of the world, anyone other than the government may (attempt to) restrict one's speech. Many forms of doing so (e.g. contracts) are perfectly legal and acceptable. In theory, at least, Wikipedia's terms of service could include a clause prohibiting Wikipedia account holders from posting here at the Review (or at cuddly-kittens.com for that matter).

It is a very interesting information. I was deprived from the freedom of speech, when I lived in Soviet Union, and I was sure that nobody has the right to ask me to give up my freedom of speech in a free world. I see I was mistaking. Thank you for your clarification!

[lilburne]

It is a very interesting information. I was deprived from the freedom of speech, when I lived in Soviet Union, and I was sure that nobody has the right to ask me to give up my freedom of speech in a free world. I see I was mistaking. Thank you for your clarification!

You have the right to say what you like, you just don't have the right to paint it over my wall.

[powercorrupts]

Isn't this offer restricted your freedom of speech?

In the U.S. and much of the world, anyone other than the government may (attempt to) restrict one's speech. Many forms of doing so (e.g. contracts) are perfectly legal and acceptable. In theory, at least, Wikipedia's terms of service could include a clause prohibiting Wikipedia account holders from posting here at the Review (or at cuddly-kittens.com for that matter).

It is a very interesting information. I was deprived from the freedom of speech, when I lived in Soviet Union, and I was sure that nobody has the right to ask me to give up my freedom of speech in a free world. I see I was mistaking. Thank you for your clarification!

I'm not saying we are particularly 'free' in the west (we are hardly at all in many ways), but gomi is somewhat misleading you here - though he does say contracts can "attempt" to ristrict free speech.

The reality is that there is normally a monetary (or other) benefit behind the kind of contracts he is suggesting, which people forgo if they break them. (A legal exception would be state-issued disclosure rules). Where is that kind of money - or even 'reward' - in Wikipedia? The kind of 'No WR' contract gomi is suggesting is possible for Wikipedia would surely be deemed unlawful. In other words, we have laws to stop people controlling others in this way, even if there is an initial element of choice in participants. Having said that, a lot of contracts are underhand or 'below-board', where people find themselves in difficult situations. The Church of Scientology is a dramatic example that springs to mind, but such exploitation exists across society really in various forms. The cunning element is to tie people up somehow in a way that isn't strictly illegal. Obviously, lawyers are making millions debating these kind of 'situations' as we speak.

On a side note, I think that a main reason Jimbo is constantly getting people to say he "founded" Wikipedia (ie beyond just his ego and ambition) is to give the actual encyclopedia (not the foundation) the identity of a tangible 'charitable' business - rather than just a development owned by all civilisation that was simply going to happen sooner or later. It would be interesting to see the debates in court if the WMF were mad-enough to pull a contract like this on their signed-up 'Wikipedians' (it will never happen of course - they just steadily oppress contributors who don't fill their body-snatcher image, via their ever-ready admin class. Much easier!).

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[jd turk]

It is a very interesting information. I was deprived from the freedom of speech, when I lived in Soviet Union, and I was sure that nobody has the right to ask me to give up my freedom of speech in a free world. I see I was mistaking. Thank you for your clarification!

The government cannot restrict speech. Everyone has the freedom of speech, but everyone is also responsible for the repercussions of that speech.

[gomi]

I'm not saying we are particularly 'free' in the west (we are hardly at all in many ways), but gomi is somewhat misleading you here - though he does say contracts can "attempt" to ristrict free speech.

I am sorry if I was misleading, but I was really just trying to be brief. Here is a slightly longer guide:

1) Your employer may ask you to sign a non-disclosure agreement, or other agreements as a condition of employment. When you depart you may be asked to sign another such non-disclosure agreement, or (for example) a non-disparagement clause. You can decline to sign these agreements, but you may not get the job, or if leaving, you may not get some benefit that you would otherwise get. If you violate these agreements, you can lose you job and/or be sued for civil damages.

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.

3) If you are engaged in any legal action that gets settled (e.g. sexual harassment (as in the recent Herman Cain scandal), employment discrimination, etc), then the settlement can include a "gag order" or similar clause that conditions your settlement on your silence. This can be broken in some ways, but not others.

I could go on, but I keep reminding people that their U.S. First Amendment "Right to Free Speech" is in fact no such thing. It is a prohibition on the government from passing laws restricting your right to speak. After all, the text is:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...

And even this is subject to all sorts of subsequent interpretation, as there are various Secret categories and other things that can be very, very closely protected. Courts have ruled on some differences between political speech and commercial speech, and so on.

I just meant that if you think you have a "freedom of speech" that is essentially unlimited, you are mistaken.

[powercorrupts]

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.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts: