Jimbo and handwriting analysis, autographs and signatures, oh my! Options

[thekohser]

When asked if he would provide a digital scan of his signature, Jimmy Wales was blunt with his negative response:

I agree with Fram. We really should not have images like that. Certainly, I wouldn't upload mine.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 08:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, all joking aside about what it means to "agree with Fram", an idiot in his own right, isn't Jimbo being a bit silly about this autograph thing, considering his signature is a matter of public record, not only with Pinellas County (Hi, Christine!), but even with the State of Florida (Sorry, Alex Roshuk!).

Per usual, Jimbo also contends that it's perfectly okay for Wikipedia to feature signatures of other people, just not his own.

Anybody know any handwriting analysts, or is that all bunk?

[One]

When asked if he would provide a digital scan of his signature, Jimmy Wales was blunt with his negative response:

I agree with Fram. We really should not have images like that. Certainly, I wouldn't upload mine.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 08:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, all joking aside about what it means to "agree with Fram", an idiot in his own right, isn't Jimbo being a bit silly about this autograph thing, considering his signature is a matter of public record, not only with Pinellas County (Hi, Christine!), but even with the State of Florida (Sorry, Alex Roshuk!).

Per usual, Jimbo also contends that it's perfectly okay for Wikipedia to feature signatures of other people, just not his own.

Anybody know any handwriting analysts, or is that all bunk?

So I suppose you think most people would happily upload their signature upon request? Really? Where's yours?

EDIT: What I'm trying to ask is: what has Jimmy done wrong here? Let's pretend he's not Jimmy Wales and you're not thekohser. From this initial position, what signatures should be in a encyclopedia-like reference work? It seems to me that the answer here is "the famous ones," and that Jimmy Wales is not doing anything shady by agreeing with that standard.

This post has been edited by One: Tue 8th June 2010, 5:04pm

[Milton Roe]

EDIT: What I'm trying to ask is: what has Jimmy done wrong here? Let's pretend he's not Jimmy Wales and you're not thekohser. From this initial position, what signatures should be in a encyclopedia-like reference work? It seems to me that the answer here is "the famous ones," and that Jimmy Wales is not doing anything shady by agreeing with that standard.

Surely he is. Because Jimbo has never adequately addressed the question of what it means to be "famous" (for which the moving line on WP is called "notable"). Wales figures he himself is notable enough for a BP, but not notable enough to let other people add embarassing info to it. Carolyn Doran was notable enough for a BP when she was WMF's COO, but BECAME not notable when it came out that she had a big criminal record for DUI and battery and had been arrested yet again for yet another DUI plus parole violation, plus had used the WMF credit card to make bail. There are new mugshots and national news articles about the case of this felonius COO, but now she's NOT notable. You see the problem?

[dogbiscuit]

When asked if he would provide a digital scan of his signature, Jimmy Wales was blunt with his negative response:

I agree with Fram. We really should not have images like that. Certainly, I wouldn't upload mine.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 08:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, all joking aside about what it means to "agree with Fram", an idiot in his own right, isn't Jimbo being a bit silly about this autograph thing, considering his signature is a matter of public record, not only with Pinellas County (Hi, Christine!), but even with the State of Florida (Sorry, Alex Roshuk!).

Per usual, Jimbo also contends that it's perfectly okay for Wikipedia to feature signatures of other people, just not his own.

Anybody know any handwriting analysts, or is that all bunk?

To be fair, he was doing his "You are not going to like this answer but I don't think there should be signatures, but I am not going to say it directly, oh, and you are not going to make me part of the argument because I might get screwed over by my own site" thing.

A more charitable view is that he is brewing up to suggesting a SLP policy (no Signatures of Living people) though dear old Hipocryte is certain that the world must have signatures of "public sector executives" (presumably along with senior oil executives too), a particularly bizarre selection criteria to me.

[thekohser]

I find it humorous, too, when someone forgets to sign their middle name!

"One", my signature needn't be given over to the free culture movement that you are a part of because I didn't solely found Wikipedia, nor do I have an article about me on Wikipedia, which we all know is the final arbiter of whether a signature ought to be uploaded under a free license or not. There are 1,435 of them, you know.

But, to be fair to you free culturists, I tried finding a public record of my signature in either New Castle County, Delaware, or in Chester County, Pennsylvania (where I've owned homes), and it seems that PA has truncated the files to only include the first couple of pages, and Delaware requires you to have a paying account set up to access files. So, if you can find my signature online, I'll be happy to post it to Wikipedia Review.

Oh, maybe Florida would have my signature, since I got married in the same county in which Jimbo married Christine. Talk about STALKING!

Edit: Whoops, Florida makes it more difficult to get marriage records than they do property transfers.



This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 8th June 2010, 5:33pm

[One]

"One", my signature needn't be given over to the free culture movement that you are a part of because I didn't solely found Wikipedia, nor do I have an article about me on Wikipedia, which we all know is the final arbiter of whether a signature ought to be uploaded under a free license or not.

I disagree with this standard. Jimmy Wales explicitly does, and it appears you do as well.

It appears the vast majority of them are dead or people with arguably notable signatures (presidents). Very low on the list of BLP problems.

There are also pictures of people clutching their genitals on Wikipedia. If Jimbo were to decline to post such a picture of himself, and opine that perhaps we shouldn't have such pictures to begin with, that wouldn't make him a hypocrite. That would make him right. He seems to be right on this issue.

[John Limey]

"One", my signature needn't be given over to the free culture movement that you are a part of because I didn't solely found Wikipedia, nor do I have an article about me on Wikipedia, which we all know is the final arbiter of whether a signature ought to be uploaded under a free license or not.

I disagree with this standard. Jimmy Wales explicitly does, and it appears you do as well.

It appears the vast majority of them are dead or people with arguably notable signatures (presidents). Very low on the list of BLP problems.

There are also pictures of people clutching their genitals on Wikipedia. If Jimbo were to decline to post such a picture of himself, and opine that perhaps we shouldn't have such pictures to begin with, that wouldn't make him a hypocrite. That would make him right. He seems to be right on this issue.

I tend to agree that Jimbo's action do not, at this point, constitute hypocrisy. If, however, someone were to upload a copy of his signature and add it to the article, then he removed it while maintaining that other living people's signatures do belong on Wikipedia, then his actions would be hypocritical.

[gomi]

There are also pictures of people clutching their genitals on Wikipedia. If Jimbo were to decline to post such a picture of himself, and opine that perhaps we shouldn't have such pictures to begin with, that wouldn't make him a hypocrite. That would make him right. He seems to be right on this issue.

Why don't we simply start IdentityTheft-o-Pedia? We can post people's signatures, Social Security Numbers ("not to be used for identification!"), and so forth. That surely makes sense?

Meh. Greg, I hate it when you force me to agree with One / Cool Hand Luke. The question of whether or not to post anyone's signature is not informed by the distinct question of whether to post the signature of a President of the US.

On the other hand, I would support posting a picture of an Arbcom member clutching Jimbo Wales' genitals. That would be encyclopedic.

[victim of censorship]

There are also pictures of people clutching their genitals on Wikipedia. If Jimbo were to decline to post such a picture of himself, and opine that perhaps we shouldn't have such pictures to begin with, that wouldn't make him a hypocrite. That would make him right. He seems to be right on this issue.

Why don't we simply start IdentityTheft-o-Pedia? We can post people's signatures, Social Security Numbers ("not to be used for identification!"), and so forth. That surely makes sense?

Meh. Greg, I hate it when you force me to agree with One / Cool Hand Luke. The question of whether or not to post anyone's signature is not informed by the distinct question of whether to post the signature of a President of the US.

On the other hand, I would support posting a picture of an Arbcom member clutching Jimbo Wales' genitals. That would be encyclopedic.

Posting pictures of JIMMY WALES genitalia on Wikipedia would be the problem due to the small size of said genitalia

[Moulton]

On the other hand, I would support posting a picture of an Arbcom member clutching Jimbo Wales' genitals. That would be encyclopedic.

Especially if it were a Michael Jackson song parody video.

[Kelly Martin]

I am of the opinion that the only signatures that are of encyclopedic interest are those of heads of state, those acting in the stead of heads of state (e.g. ambassadors), and other parties who have signed documents of great cultural significance such as the Magna Carte, the US Declaration of Independence, or the Instrument of Surrender ending World War II. As far as I know, Jimmy Wales falls into none of these categories.

[Milton Roe]

I am of the opinion that the only signatures that are of encyclopedic interest are those of heads of state, those acting in the stead of heads of state (e.g. ambassadors), and other parties who have signed documents of great cultural significance such as the Magna Carte, the US Declaration of Independence, or the Instrument of Surrender ending World War II. As far as I know, Jimmy Wales falls into none of these categories.

Good luck with the signatures on Magna Carta.

[thekohser]

I am of the opinion that the only signatures that are of encyclopedic interest are those of heads of state, those acting in the stead of heads of state (e.g. ambassadors), and other parties who have signed documents of great cultural significance such as the Magna Carte, the US Declaration of Independence, or the Instrument of Surrender ending World War II. As far as I know, Jimmy Wales falls into none of these categories.

What about the document that formally declared that the Wikimedia Foundation would not be the membership organization that attorney Alex Roshuk had drafted it to be, but rather a non-membership organization entirely controlled by a board of trustees, as attorney Brad Patrick believed it should be?

We have a signature of Jimmy Wales on that document.

I'm really disappointed that some of the participants here have forgotten who coined the vision statement:

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.

(source - July 28, 2004)

What is it about the word "all" that we're having trouble with here?

How's this -- I'll take down the signatures when Flagged Revisions goes live. How's that?

[Moulton]

The problem with the sum of all human knowledge is that those holding the power cards on WP are not bothering to consult the most important legacy of that body of knowledge, as it informs those in power how to use their power wisely and ethically for the benefit of all mankind.

[Milton Roe]

I'm really disappointed that some of the participants here have forgotten who coined the vision statement:

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.

(source - July 28, 2004)

What is it about the word "all" that we're having trouble with here?

The part where it's understood with the traditional qualification that "all" means "all that doesn't violate the law or embarass Jimbo Wales."

The history of WP criticism is the history of outrage that the WMF in general, and Jimbo and Wikia in particular, do not think that the rules which apply to everybody else, should apply to them.

Yes, I know that's freshly shocking every time we run up against it.

But there it is.

[gomi]

I'm really disappointed that some of the participants here have forgotten who coined the vision statement:

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.

(source - July 28, 2004)

What is it about the word "all" that we're having trouble with here?

Knowledge ≠ Data
Wikipedia ≠ Knowledge

[Cedric]

I'm really disappointed that some of the participants here have forgotten who coined the vision statement:

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.

(source - July 28, 2004)

What is it about the word "all" that we're having trouble with here?

The part where it's understood with the traditional qualification that "all" means "all that doesn't violate the law or embarass Jimbo Wales."

The history of WP criticism is the history of outrage that the WMF in general, and Jimbo and Wikia in particular, do not think that the rules which apply to everybody else, should apply to them.

Yes, I know that's freshly shocking every time we run up against it.

But there it is.

Well, I suppose that I would be embarrassed if I had handwriting like this childish-looking scrawl. But then, it's too small a sample to conclude much from anyway; maybe he was sick the day he signed that. In any event, I suspect that handwriting analysis has some limited uses, and beyond those is a bunch of hoodoo.

[EricBarbour]

On the other hand, I would support posting a picture of an ArbCom member clutching Jimbo Wales' genitals. That would be encyclopedic.

The history of WP criticism is the history of outrage that the WMF in general, and Jimbo and Wikia in particular, do not think that the rules which apply to everybody else, should apply to them.

FTFY

This post has been edited by Somey: Wed 9th June 2010, 12:20am

[anthony]

Now, all joking aside about what it means to "agree with Fram", an idiot in his own right, isn't Jimbo being a bit silly about this autograph thing, considering his signature is a matter of public record, not only with Pinellas County (Hi, Christine!), but even with the State of Florida (Sorry, Alex Roshuk!).

Is this about the T-shirt?

EDIT: What I'm trying to ask is: what has Jimmy done wrong here?

Argued for security through obscurity?

[thekohser]

Here you go, all you haters! My signature does, in fact, grace a public document in Monroe County, Florida.

Furthermore, should Wikipedia Review ever become a Top 20 worldwide website, I will happily provide electronic signature autographs to 20 sycophants per month, provided that they ask nicely, with a proper deferential tone.