SOPA and a strike, Jimbo requests comments Options

[cookiehead]

This brings up a point I think often overlooked by the WP Elite in their disdain for "IP editors"....IP editors are actually more trustworthy stewards of the WP community..."you know where they live" so to speak....the rest of us Anonymous kooky name alias editors get to hide who we are and where we are editing from (like what company or government agency). Some anonymous editors even use more than one alias.

IP editors meanwhile are easily traceable by all WP editors. You can "geolocate" if someone is a corporate or government "lobbyist" without having to be a part of the Wiki Police. No favors required.

WP should allow editing only with a verified "real name" or otherwise post IP addresses next to each edit/alias.

But I guess that would take the fun out of what appears to be WP's #1 goal, to be a social media game.

[The Joy]

Professional lobbyists are a waste of money. They're just in it for the paycheck. Better to have Jimmy Wales and some Wikipedians go to Washington, and present their case with all sincerity. They can learn what they need along the way, using the internet if need be.

Wikify Washington?

[Peter Damian]

Meanwhile the news leaks out onto the internet. http://torrentfreak.com/wikipedia-mulls-to...se-sopa-111212/

"Yeah let's do it man!"
"Awesome"
"Censorship sucks"
"Wikipedia sucks but let's do anyway man!"

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 12th December 2011, 9:40pm

[SB_Johnny]

Interesting:

CODE

    (del/undel) 10:52, 10 December 2008 Secret (renamed) (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Dow Lohnes" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising: spam, the external links just kill it for me,) (view/restore)

22 edits, created May 2007 by a throwaway account.

[Detective]

No Wikipedia article about Dow Lohnes. Must be an insignificant, non-notable firm without any substantial accomplishments.

Come off it Greg! You of all people know that there are loads of notable firms with no WP article, or at least they wouldn't if you hadn't created the articles!

Dow Lohnes seems to be a long-established (founded 1918) and substantial firm, at least as lawyers. Maybe they're not significant as lobbyists, though.

Say, while I'm writing this - why don't you explain to them they need a WP article to improve their credibility, especially if they intend to act for WMF. I'm sure they'll want you to write it.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Interesting:

CODE

    (del/undel) 10:52, 10 December 2008 Secret (renamed) (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Dow Lohnes" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising: spam, the external links just kill it for me,) (view/restore)

22 edits, created May 2007 by a throwaway account.

With Jimbo's bashing of Bell Pottinger still fresh in our memories, this is hilarious.

[Ottava]

Professional lobbyists are a waste of money. They're just in it for the paycheck. Better to have Jimmy Wales and some Wikipedians go to Washington, and present their case with all sincerity. They can learn what they need along the way, using the internet if need be.

It doesn't work that way. Scheduling alone and knowing where and when to get to is quite a lot to learn. Then you have to learn the key people who can get different language changed, the staff members to get items to someone's attention, etc.

A good equivalent is saying that if you are in a court that you can pick up how to defend yourself. Sure, you could. But you wont know about various precedence, have the research, etc. These are professionals that assist you in getting all of the stuff you need because there are a lot of people and a lot of agencies.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Mon 12th December 2011, 10:38pm

[Cla68]

I asked for more information.

Jimbo answers, but not before scolding Cla68 for asking such a "hostile" and "bad faith" question!

Jimbo views wikipedia editors as subordinates. He thinks they work for him.

The question itself was a valid one, but we all know that Cla68 was there posing the question in an accusatory "what are you hiding?" manner. As scurrilous as Jimbo may be, don't pretend that much of the WR regulars are any better.

Better to ask a question like that in a direct manner. I didn't use a hostile tone, Jimbo responded the way he did because I have been giving him a hard time lately. Anyway, I just asked Ms Gardner for more information.

[lilburne]

Third, I am hopeful and optimistic that the OPEN Act is a viable alternative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim..._some_questions

Now there is fuckwittery of the Godwin kind.

See here in partuicular "How Different are the Definitions?" and "More US Control over the Internet?":
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/12/open-act-s...ening-thoughts/

[EricBarbour]

New Register article.

[mbz1]

SOPA and Wales role
Sue,
Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans?
TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo's acting as CEO of Wikipedia

Officials were absolutely stunned when a bloke showed up at a UK airport claiming to be the CEO of Wikipedia.

[SB_Johnny]

I doubt Jimbo will have any trouble getting this covered by the press, even if no "strike" takes place.

You ain't just whistlin Dixie... check out the newsfeed today.

[thekohser]

And, as usual, Seth Finkelstein is brilliant in how he calmly points out how foolish is the Wikimedia Foundation management.

[radek]

I doubt Jimbo will have any trouble getting this covered by the press, even if no "strike" takes place.

You ain't just whistlin Dixie... check out the newsfeed today.

That probably accounts for the recent uptick in the particularly dimwitted "support" rationales.

[Michaeldsuarez]

New Register article.

I wonder whether Jimbo will take all this media attention to mean that the poll results have become tainted. I see that there are plenty of anons and new, throwaway accounts voting in the poll. Most of these anons and new accounts are responsible for the mountain of "Firmly Support" votes at the top of the poll.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Tue 13th December 2011, 1:44pm

[mbz1]

Jimmy is still unhapy about Cla

:As I've said elsewhere on the page, neither Sue nor the Board has ever suggested in any way that I need permission from them to ask a question of the community. The would frankly laugh at the notion, to be honest. It's a fantasy of people like Cla68 who has no business commenting on anything given his track record.

What track record jimmy has in mind, this one?

[cookiehead]

Cla68 does not profit off of Wikipedia, yet contributes 10,000% more to it than Jimbo. Jimbo profits from his "founder" status on Wikipedia.

Why is Jimmy so hostile to Chuck Ainsworth?

Because Chuck is in the right.

[radek]

I doubt Jimbo will have any trouble getting this covered by the press, even if no "strike" takes place.

You ain't just whistlin Dixie... check out the newsfeed today.

That probably accounts for the recent uptick in the particularly dimwitted "support" rationales.

Just to illustrate the average quality of the "support votes":

*'''Strongest Possible Support''' The threat that SOPA presents can not be understated.

which even allowing for hyperbole is not what I think the user meant. Unless, again, someone's being sarcastic - I make these kinds of comments when I'm trying to be funny - but I think I have lost the ability to distinguish.

And Cla, judging by the comments, their intelligence might indeed be low enough.

This post has been edited by radek: Tue 13th December 2011, 10:56pm

[Cla68]

Jimmy is still unhapy about Cla

:As I've said elsewhere on the page, neither Sue nor the Board has ever suggested in any way that I need permission from them to ask a question of the community. The would frankly laugh at the notion, to be honest. It's a fantasy of people like Cla68 who has no business commenting on anything given his track record.

What track record jimmy has in mind, this one?

Ms Gardner has been more patient and forthcoming with her answers to my inquiries, but I'm waiting for her to answer my latest follow-up questions. I think she can probably come up with an adequate answer as to how and why the WMF retained a paid lobbyist without any of us knowing about it until now, but I suspect that she might struggle to answer the question of why it's ok for Jimbo to pretend to be nothing more than a WP community member while at the same time acting on behalf of the WMF as self-elected spokesman and a member of the executive board.

[thekohser]

Cla68 does not profit off of Wikipedia, yet contributes 10,000% more to it than Jimbo. Jimbo profits from his "founder" status on Wikipedia.

Why is Jimmy so hostile to Chuck Ainsworth?

Because Chuck is in the right.

I like your Wikipedia User page, Cookie:

I like to go round articles putting {fact} in for minor claims of no controversy whatsoever, because I'm trying to pad my edit counts. It's important to me. [citation needed]

I like to open up articles with absolutely no sourcing, and make spacing edits to info boxes. Article content be damned.

I'm also now "on record" by some social climbing whack job who goes around looking for anti-semites where they aren't, instead of improving wikipedia articles.

Learned today that there's a hidden "site I like" qualifier in WP:RS.

I'm very popular in Canada, where block evading ninjas consider me a sexist.

This user thinks User:Cla68 is a benefit to Wikipedia

They haven't banned you yet? Just *who* are you?!

They're going to start thinking you're me!

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 13th December 2011, 11:10pm