A message for Jimbo, can't a man get a proxy edit? Options Rating

[thekohser]

In light of Larry Sanger's recent blog post, I would like to ask Jimbo on his Wikipedia Talk page:

Jimbo, could you please explain why in August 2002, you [http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1720 introduced yourself] as "co-founder" of Wikipedia; but in May 2007, you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jimbo_Wales&diff=128756308&oldid=128430391 declared yourself] the "sole founder" of Wikipedia?

I would do it myself, but I'm on a pristine IP address, leisurely ripening one of my "paid editing" sockpuppets (several months of undetected activity now), and I don't want to compromise that account or this IP address.

Could someone be a true gem and post my question for Jimbo, please?

Greg

[Son of a Yeti]

In light of Larry Sanger's recent blog post, I would like to ask Jimbo on his Wikipedia Talk page:

Jimbo, could you please explain why in August 2002, you [http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1720 introduced yourself] as "co-founder" of Wikipedia; but in May 2007, you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jimbo_Wales&diff=128756308&oldid=128430391 declared yourself] the "sole founder" of Wikipedia?

I would do it myself, but I'm on a pristine IP address, leisurely ripening one of my "paid editing" sockpuppets (several months of undetected activity now), and I don't want to compromise that account or this IP address.

Could someone be a true gem and post my question for Jimbo, please?

Greg

What would we achieve by this? Actually asking the question here is a little more effective?

I alrready mentioned it here but I'll repeat it: it's funny that Jimbo walks the Stalin way.

[thekohser]

What would we achieve by this?

Easy, it would instruct users of Wikipedia (at least the many those who don't visit Wikipedia Review) on the duplicity of their leader. They have a right to be informed, don't they?

[Son of a Yeti]

What would we achieve by this?

Easy, it would instruct users of Wikipedia (at least the many those who don't visit Wikipedia Review) on the duplicity of their leader. They have a right to be informed, don't they?

If the edit was deleted within a minute and oversighted shortly afterward, the effect would be close to null.

[Sarcasticidealist]

If the edit was deleted within a minute and oversighted shortly afterward, the effect would be close to null.

I'd put substantial money against that being oversighted.

[One]

If the edit was deleted within a minute and oversighted shortly afterward, the effect would be close to null.

I'd put substantial money against that being oversighted.

I'd bet against it even being deleted. Reverted, perhaps, but even then I think it's even money. Jimbo has tolerated a lot of pointed questions from people he dislikes, and I doubt he'd blow his top over this.

[Alison]

If the edit was deleted within a minute and oversighted shortly afterward, the effect would be close to null.

Oversighted? Absolutely not!!

[EricBarbour]

oh all right.

I'll do it -- but ONLY IF SOMEONE BACKS ME UP.

[Son of a Yeti]

oh all right.

I'll do it -- but ONLY IF SOMEONE BACKS ME UP.

For Those About To Die, We Salute You!

[EricBarbour]

Gee, nobody volunteered to keep me from being blocked.....
so, no joe.

Guess Jimbo will have to learn about these articles
(and this guy) from his Twits.

Which means, of course, he won't.

[Kevin]

What would we achieve by this?

Easy, it would instruct users of Wikipedia (at least the many those who don't visit Wikipedia Review) on the duplicity of their leader. They have a right to be informed, don't they?

Is there any recent evidence of actual leadership?

[thekohser]

What would we achieve by this?

Easy, it would instruct users of Wikipedia (at least the many those who don't visit Wikipedia Review) on the duplicity of their leader. They have a right to be informed, don't they?

Is there any recent evidence of actual leadership?

Sorry, I didn't know which font to use that would convey my mocking tone when I said "leader".

It is truly a shame that Wikipedia Review has lost so much of its once palpable chutzpah, that this simple request today went unheeded. Eric gets a couple of points for at least volunteering to take the charge, but the lack of back-up is... telling.

[TungstenCarbide]

I'd bet against it even being deleted. Reverted, perhaps, but even then I think it's even money. Jimbo has tolerated a lot of pointed questions from people he dislikes, and I doubt he'd blow his top over this.

"Tolerated"? that's a very kind and generous description of 'not censoring'.

Let's face it - you ask Jimbo (or any of a thousand idiot admins) a tough question on Wikipedia and more often than not, you get stomped.

So much for academic rigor.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Sun 5th April 2009, 4:07am

[Jon Awbrey]

If the edit was deleted within a minute and oversighted shortly afterward, the effect would be close to null.

I'd put substantial money against that being oversighted.

WP:Substantial or WR:Substantial ???

Ja Ja

[LaraLove]

Gee, nobody volunteered to keep me from being blocked.....
so, no joe.

Guess Jimbo will have to learn about these articles
(and this guy) from his Twits.

Which means, of course, he won't.

I don't know that I checked in here yesterday. I did not see this thread, regardless, until now. Ask and I shall have your back.

[EricBarbour]

I don't know that I checked in here yesterday. I did not see this thread, regardless, until now. Ask and I shall have your back.

Thanks Jenna. I shall undertake this comedy mission tomorrow at around, say,
noon California time? 3pm East Coast.

Would you please PM me when you're ready?

[LessHorrid vanU]

I don't know that I checked in here yesterday. I did not see this thread, regardless, until now. Ask and I shall have your back.

Thanks Jenna. I shall undertake this comedy mission tomorrow at around, say,
noon California time? 3pm East Coast.

Would you please PM me when you're ready?

What is that in GMT (or BST if you feel like doing the math)? I am active tomorrow evening and can keep an eye on it if it is in my time slot.

[Ahypori]

It's been asked again by a user who just created an account. Will it get reverted this time?

[cyofee]

Still* not removed, wow.




* as of this post.

[Somey]

Still* not removed, wow.

Well, it's Sunday afternoon... You've got to give them at least a couple of hours on a Sunday.

Besides, we already know the answer to this. Jimbo's background as an options trader and porn-link farmer probably didn't give him sufficient knowledge of the work-for-hire provisions in the 1976 Copyright Act to understand what he could get away with, so he might not have even realized that he could claim authorship of the idea for Wikipedia as the person who signed Sanger's paychecks. And, at the time, he probably wanted to keep Sanger happy - allowing employees to retain some credit for their own work is a good wy to do that. Once Sanger was gone, no more need for that!

Frankly, I'd be shocked to learn that Jimbo had anything at all to do with Wikipedia during the inception phase, other than occasionally asking, "hey Larry, how's that going?" ...and then returning to the far more important job of deciding on which Bomis Babe™ to feature on the home page that month.

If he says anything else then he's presumably either lying or "misremembering" it, so why would anyone expect him to say anything at all?