Jimbo causes Blofeld to quit Options

[thekohser]

I don't know why so many "long-time editors" seem very surprised and indignant to discover that Jimmy Wales is a horrible manager of communities, and that he's basking in success and fame on the thankless labor served up by grunts who don't realize that Jimmy Wales keeps the architecture deliberately labor-intensive, because it's so addictive.

Good luck on the "outside", Blofeld!

[Theanima]

I don't know why so many "long-time editors" seem very surprised and indignant to discover that Jimmy Wales is a horrible manager of communities, and that he's basking in success and fame on the thankless labor served up by grunts who don't realize that Jimmy Wales keeps the architecture deliberately labor-intensive, because it's so addictive.

Good luck on the "outside", Blofeld!

In short, Dr. Blofeld retires again.

[gomi]

For those unwilling to sort through the rubbish of Jimbo's talk page, here is the comment that Blofeld made, and Jimbo deleted, citing "trolling":

''Me'' pay attention to the facts of reality? That's coming from you who makes claims in the public every week about our "efforts to improve quality" and your naive claims that you aim to dramatically increase the number of female editors. You expect things to happen which are beyond your control and you expect people to go out of their way to get things done for you. Maybe if you actually offered decent incentives to editors to get much needed work done for you you'd attract better contributors and more female editors instead of expecting everybody to pussy foot around you while you reap all the rewards. As a leader I'd expect you to respect people's viewpoints instead of dismissing them like you have done here. As a leader you are often very narrow minded and often shockingly ignorant of people's viewpoints to develop the project. I've often had good ideas which I think will dramatically improve the project and proposed them to you in the uttermost good faith as I want to see the project grow and you and Sue have been about as helpful as goldfish.♦ [Dr. Blofeld] 14:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion yet on the underlying topic, but Jimbo is certainly thin-skinned about criticism. That said, the "listen to me, listen to me!" nature of the comment is a little shrill.

[Ottava]

Jimbo never accused me of being a sexist or a troll. Maybe a troll behind my back. I feel left out. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[RMHED]

For those unwilling to sort through the rubbish of Jimbo's talk page, here is the comment that Blofeld made, and Jimbo deleted, citing "trolling":

''Me'' pay attention to the facts of reality? That's coming from you who makes claims in the public every week about our "efforts to improve quality" and your naive claims that you aim to dramatically increase the number of female editors. You expect things to happen which are beyond your control and you expect people to go out of their way to get things done for you. Maybe if you actually offered decent incentives to editors to get much needed work done for you you'd attract better contributors and more female editors instead of expecting everybody to pussy foot around you while you reap all the rewards. As a leader I'd expect you to respect people's viewpoints instead of dismissing them like you have done here. As a leader you are often very narrow minded and often shockingly ignorant of people's viewpoints to develop the project. I've often had good ideas which I think will dramatically improve the project and proposed them to you in the uttermost good faith as I want to see the project grow and you and Sue have been about as helpful as goldfish.♦ [Dr. Blofeld] 14:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion yet on the underlying topic, but Jimbo is certainly thin-skinned about criticism. That said, the "listen to me, listen to me!" nature of the comment is a little shrill.

Jimmy defines "trolling" as any opinion he takes a dislike to.

Blofeld will be back very shortly, he's given too much to Wikipedia, there's no easy way out for an addict like him.

[Milton Roe]

Jimbo never accused me of being a sexist or a troll. Maybe a troll behind my back. I feel left out. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

So? Did you ever go to his TALK page and write: "Maybe if you actually offered decent incentives to editors to get much needed work done for you you'd attract better contributors and more female editors instead of expecting everybody to pussy foot around you while you reap all the rewards."

I think if you had, it probably would not have stayed long.

[Milton Roe]

I don't know why so many "long-time editors" seem very surprised and indignant to discover that Jimmy Wales is a horrible manager of communities, and that he's basking in success and fame on the thankless labor served up by grunts who don't realize that Jimmy Wales keeps the architecture deliberately labor-intensive, because it's so addictive.

Good luck on the "outside", Blofeld!

Consider the rather pathetic sweetness and social cluelessness of Blofeld thinking that he can somehow change Jimbo's mind, or Wikipedia, by showing up on Jimbo's TALK page and complaining. As though Jimbo would pay any attention. As though the comments would be allowed to stay long enough for anybody ELSE to pay attention. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) It's even funnier when you consider the username Blofeld has chosen for himself. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Hey, Blofeld! Would-be Bond-villain! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) Wikipedia Review exists as a separate website, and not as a TALK page of Wikipedia, for a very good reason. No really pointed criticism of the S.O.P. at WP, or management at WMF, will ever be hosted by WP. They can't abide it.

That's why we do it all from our secret lair, here under this fake volcano. And Alison: that helmet-suit you're wearing in the lair doesn't fool us one bit. You walk like a girl!

[Ottava]

Jimbo never accused me of being a sexist or a troll. Maybe a troll behind my back. I feel left out. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

So? Did you ever go to his TALK page and write: "Maybe if you actually offered decent incentives to editors to get much needed work done for you you'd attract better contributors and more female editors instead of expecting everybody to pussy foot around you while you reap all the rewards."

I think if you had, it probably would not have stayed long.

I keep trying to but for some reason the system wont let me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

But yes, anyone else think it is odd how Blofield thinks his "contributions" are anything more than what a bot could do?

[Eva Destruction]

But yes, anyone else think it is odd how Blofield thinks his "contributions" are anything more than what a bot could do?

Much as it pains me to do so, I'm going to defend Blofeld on that score. Don't let the flood of bot-generated substubs he created hide the fact that he did a lot of substantive work on important-but-unfashionable topics which went generally unnoticed, as they're neither in English-speaking countries nor ever mentioned in The Simpsons—Deforestation in Brazil, Sharabha or Maiden Tower (Baku) for instance. If Wikipedia is ever going to become a credible reference work, those are just the kind of significant-but-not-covered-by-Britannica topics which it ought to have.

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction:

[Ottava]

But yes, anyone else think it is odd how Blofield thinks his "contributions" are anything more than what a bot could do?

Much as it pains me to do so, I'm going to defend Blofeld on that score. Don't let the flood of bot-generated substubs he created hide the fact that he did a lot of substantive work on important-but-unfashionable topics which went generally unnoticed, as they're neither in English-speaking countries nor ever mentioned in The Simpsons—Deforestation in Brazil, Sharabha or Maiden Tower (Baku) for instance. If Wikipedia is ever going to become a credible reference work, those are just the kind of significant-but-not-covered-by-Britannica topics which it ought to have.

Okay, okay, I'll grant you that, but still - those super stubs are still mind boggling.


(As a note, not Blofield but Blofield did do a lot of work on the article).

[Malleus]

Okay, okay, I'll grant you that, but still - those super stubs are still mind boggling.

They are indeed. Dr. Blofeld and I recently had a little spat after I called him the king of the micro-stubs, but to be fair he's done a lot more than that, and a lot more than many others, including Jimmy Wales.

[CharlotteWebb]

Jimbo never accused me of being a sexist or a troll. Maybe a troll behind my back. I feel left out. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Only because you want every thread to be about you.

[Malleus]

Jimmy defines "trolling" as any opinion he takes a dislike to.

Quite. But that seems to be the generally accepted wikipedia definition of trolling.

[The Adversary]

A few notes:
To Blofeldt: Of course Jimbo has nothing but contempt for Blo´s contribution.....but then Jimbo has nothing but contempt for any of us suckers who works for free (for him, he hopes). I thought that had been quite obvious for years?

And the question at hand: I, for one, was completely dumbfounded by the ...the...., let us say "shortness of vision" that Gardner showed in her now infamous and much repeated statements about lack of women in wikipedia. (But, that maybe because I am not very interested in the articles about Jimmy Choo & Manolo Blahnik. Or even their shoes.)

Being female, and contributing in the Israel/Palestine-area....where Wikipedia has a reputation of matching Göring and Goebbels output of hate and propaganda (hi, Goodwin!)....is a slightly more troublesome aspect, I would have thought. And the same problem is present in several other areas. And Jimbo just doesn´t get it.

(And I´ll leave Gardner´s total over-sell of her own "achievements" on wikipedia: just a typical "climber" self-promotion that few would have reacted against if she had been a man (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) )

Ah, but the pair of Gardner and Jimbo: where did you ever see such a fine pair of intellectual .. pygmies?

There is some good stuff on wp, (to quote Leonard Cohen: there are flowers on the garbage-heap), but apparently the current leadership does not see any need to weed out the garbage. And with their self-serving attitude, I do not expect much from them in the future.

The only solution, I think -sometime- in the future, someone else will develop the idea of online encyclopedia...hopefully taking the "good" stuff from wp.

That would leave wikipedia behind; sort of letting wikipedia be to online encyclopedia what altavista has become to online search engines: "the great new thing" one day.... totally forgotten 15 years after.

(Note to self: spend more time on licensing-issues.)

PS: I could say a lot about Blofeldt...but since this thread is about Jimbo (Thanks, Greg)..I´ll leave it for now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[BelovedFox]

I've caused Blofeld to "retire" at least twice. He seems to do it often. Whether or not a lack of validation is the straw that breaks the camel's back in this instance is another question.

To Blofeld, I can only recommend that if he really feels as he does on his user page, there are plenty of other places to write and numerous places to get money and/or cash at the same time. <If I were Kohs, ad goes here>

Contributing to a freely editable reference work out of some expectation of validation is not a great motivation. Some are ignorant, others just don't care about Jimmy and the WMF because the sausage is more interesting than how its made.

[Milton Roe]

(And I´ll leave Gardner´s total over-sell of her own "achievements" on wikipedia: just a typical "climber" self-promotion that few would have reacted against if she had been a man (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) )

Have to disagree, there. Resume-padding may be common, but any male-dominated or technical organization has a way around it. There's a bull session, and it doesn't involve how many women you've slept with (or how many grandchildren you have). It's to find out if you can be trusted to hold up your end. So inquiry is made to see if you speak the lingo, how many base jumps you have, how many logged dives, how many hours of flying time and in what sorts of aircraft, what weapons have you qualified with, what is your batting average, how many class 5 climbs have you done, and where, did you ever lead anything above 5.1, and so on. Whatever the honest metric of competence is, in the task at hand. In this world-- the world of competence-driven authority, not formal organization-assigned authority-- Sue wouldn't last 10 minutes before being pegged as a poseur.

Does all of this correspond with "formal rank" in human organizations? No, indeed! The biggest friction in any organization is the basic friction between people who have the assigned authority to tell others what to do, and those people who SHOULD have it, by way of competence and experience. Wikipedia has not solved this problem, either. However, most volunteer organizations and recreational organizations (especially those involving dangerous activities like climbing, diving, etc) do a far better job of solving it than Wikipedia has (and indeed, than WMF has).

[A Horse With No Name]

Blofeld needs a new hobby. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[The Adversary]

(And I´ll leave Gardner´s total over-sell of her own "achievements" on wikipedia: just a typical "climber" self-promotion that few would have reacted against if she had been a man (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) )

Have to disagree, there. Resume-padding may be common, but any male-dominated or technical organization has a way around it. There's a bull session, and it doesn't involve how many women you've slept with (or how many grandchildren you have). It's to find out if you can be trusted to hold up your end. So inquiry is made to see if you speak the lingo, how many base jumps you have, how many logged dives, how many hours of flying time and in what sorts of aircraft, what weapons have you qualified with, what is your batting average, how many class 5 climbs have you done, and where, did you ever lead anything above 5.1, and so on. Whatever the honest metric of competence is, in the task at hand. In this world-- the world of competence-driven authority, not formal organization-assigned authority-- Sue wouldn't last 10 minutes before being pegged as a poseur.

Does all of this correspond with "formal rank" in human organizations? No, indeed! The biggest friction in any organization is the basic friction between people who have the assigned authority to tell others what to do, and those people who SHOULD have it, by way of competence and experience. Wikipedia has not solved this problem, either. However, most volunteer organizations and recreational organizations (especially those involving dangerous activities like climbing, diving, etc) do a far better job of solving it than Wikipedia has.

Are we not talking about two different things, here?
One is the internal "pecking-order" in an organization. Wikipedia equivalent of # of base jumps or logged dives is to ask how many DYK, FA, and FAs have you achieved, your edit-count, your articles created, your barnstars, block-record (or lack of it), bla, bla bla.
(And yeah; much can be said of the merit, or lack of it, of these "measurements", but, as this Blofeld -case shows: all the "normal" wikipedia "measurements" counts for absolutely nothing if you do not kiss the behind of The Great Leader.)

However, another thing is the "spin" presented to the "outside"...which is what Gardner is/was guilty of. Note the forum: she isn´t presenting herself as a great editor inside the organization...that would be too stupid. No, she is presenting her spin to the (gullible) outsiders (read: newspapers).

Which is, to me, completely unsurprising.

Now; what is more interesting is that her lack of logged dives wikipedia-edits, and/or a lack of ...shall we say, "intellectual stature", gives her such a shallow insight into fundamental problems of wikipedia. But that is something she shares with Jimbo.

Which is, to me, far more astonishing.

[Kelly Martin]

The biggest friction in any organization is the basic friction between people who have the assigned authority to tell others what to do, and those people who SHOULD have it, by way of competence and experience.

I know someone (working for a large US corporation) whose job largely consists of, whenever there is a problem to be fixed, finding out who is responsible for getting it fixed, finding out who can actually fix it, and making sure that they don't talk to one another, so that the problem will actually get fixed in a timely manner.

[KStreetSlave]

(And I´ll leave Gardner´s total over-sell of her own "achievements" on wikipedia: just a typical "climber" self-promotion that few would have reacted against if she had been a man (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) )

Have to disagree, there. Resume-padding may be common, but any male-dominated or technical organization has a way around it. There's a bull session, and it doesn't involve how many women you've slept with (or how many grandchildren you have). It's to find out if you can be trusted to hold up your end. So inquiry is made to see if you speak the lingo, how many base jumps you have, how many logged dives, how many hours of flying time and in what sorts of aircraft, what weapons have you qualified with, what is your batting average, how many class 5 climbs have you done, and where, did you ever lead anything above 5.1, and so on. Whatever the honest metric of competence is, in the task at hand. In this world-- the world of competence-driven authority, not formal organization-assigned authority-- Sue wouldn't last 10 minutes before being pegged as a poseur.

Does all of this correspond with "formal rank" in human organizations? No, indeed! The biggest friction in any organization is the basic friction between people who have the assigned authority to tell others what to do, and those people who SHOULD have it, by way of competence and experience. Wikipedia has not solved this problem, either. However, most volunteer organizations and recreational organizations (especially those involving dangerous activities like climbing, diving, etc) do a far better job of solving it than Wikipedia has (and indeed, than WMF has).

I wish I could frame this post.

The biggest friction in any organization is the basic friction between people who have the assigned authority to tell others what to do, and those people who SHOULD have it, by way of competence and experience.

I know someone (working for a large US corporation) whose job largely consists of, whenever there is a problem to be fixed, finding out who is responsible for getting it fixed, finding out who can actually fix it, and making sure that they don't talk to one another, so that the problem will actually get fixed in a timely manner.

Is that a local policy at your acquaintance's office? Or is it a corporate policy at all locations?