Jimbo Wales

Possible solutions of preventing disinformation on non-English Wikipedia with better efficiency

As the 2020 US election voter frauds have gained substantial traction in both the US and beyond, Wikipedia inevitably becomes an obvious target of spreading the disinformation. While I am by no mean claiming the English Wikipedia is perfect, deprecating the news outlet which spread the conspiracy theories duly slows down the disinformation campaign. A new problem arises when multilingual editors spread the disinformation on non-English Wikipedias when no consensus has been reached against controversial sources such as OAN which have already been deemed unreliable on English WP. Initiating another round of RfC of reliable source on non-English Wikipedia would be incredibly counterproductive, because many foreign Wikipedians are not knowledgeable enough about the English sources thus the discussion will suffer information asymmetry. When attempting to cite the consensus from English WP, we always meet with the most convenient argument possible "foreign WP editorial policies does not affect local WP."

Spreading disinformation via non-English platforms has become a growing problem as it would receive less scrutiny for a variety of reasons. This issue is obviously not new to Wikipedia projects, but as the disinformation campaign of US politics has intensified since the 2020 US elections and is not going to go away even after Biden has taken office, some kind of blanket action should be taken by the WMF against blatantly unreliable sources across all sister projects. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Board of Trustees terms

Dear Jimbo,

Please fight the disrupute into which the current questionably legitimately constituted Board of Trustees is plunging the Foundation by your continued failure to elect an entirely democratic, fully community-elected Board of Trustees. If the elected Board feels that they must appoint unelected members, certainly you can appoint such to committees or subcommittees. Are you afraid that your own seat would not be safe if subject to the scrutiny of the traditional community election process? Poppycock! 50.242.125.195 (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Making Earth better

	Our tiny blue marble
	thank you for the work you have done and continue to do, which helps make this planet a better place to live in :) Yitz (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Attest

In a previous section you wrote "I'm sure there will be sources to attest to that if true."[1] See How the U.S. Could Double Vaccination Pace With Existing Supply, New York Times, Jan 22, "President Biden’s promise to administer 100 million vaccines by his 100th day in office is no longer a lofty goal; it is attainable at the current pace at which shots are going into arms."

Although the above article says one thing, some other reliable sources give a different impression. Regardless of what the news media says, I think the bottom line when it comes to administering doses is the data, and that can be found in the source that I mentioned in that previous talk section [2]. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I have seen today a headline that the goal may be raised to 1.5 million per day. [3].--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:2019–20 Coppa Italia Serie C

Good evening Jimbo. I ask you to delete the page Draft: 2019-20 Coppa Italia Serie C. This is an article that I created in the form of a draft which I then moved to the mainspace as soon as it was completed Dr Salvus (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I deleted it for you. You can delete your own pages by adding {{db-author}} to it. This isn't something Jimbo needs to address. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Appeal request

Dear Mr. Wales, would you please advise on the following situation:

WP:UNBAN states three times that in case of “… serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure”, a community imposed ban may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Unfortunately, the reply to my appeal request made clear that Arbcom is/was unaware of this provision. The reply suggested that I familiarize myself with the various possiblities of appealing a block, even though I’m not blocked but topic banned. This left me with the impression that my request was not read carefully. [4] As a consequence the Committee referred me back to the community.

However, the principle behind the provision to request a neutral review of the procedure, if I understand it correctly, is to establish whether some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, and the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad.[5] The details listed below show that no fair discussion took place and that the sanction is excessive.

Details of the topic ban :

1. Admin Rosguill, who decided to ban me [6], tells me that they deliberately ignored my rebuttals to the allegations filed against me at ANI.[7]
2. The ban decision was based mainly on a reading error by Rosguill. I supposedly deflected a request to supply sources, but I did actually answer that request in detail.[8] To stress the extent of the miscommunication: I had already explained this in my rebuttals, the ones Rosguill ignored, see:[9].
3. When their mistake came to light, Rosguill did not revert their ban decision but quickly came up with another reason to uphold it.[10] However, this new reason is not valid either. Rosguill argues about the right interpretation of a source. Aside from the fact that they're not an expert on the subject, a difference of opinions about subject matter content is not evidence of serious disruptive behavior.
4. Additional reasons which Rosguill provided to justify the ban turned out to be an old issue and two innocent remarks. See the discussion: [11].

While I've been trying to adapt after my block in December, it might be helpful if editors and admins who scrutinize my behavior ask me questions and consider my explanations. As the reading error and content dispute demonstrates, the subject matter and the Talk page discussions are more complex than people realize. My aim, still, is to improve the content of Wikipedia articles in the areas I'm knowledgeable about. NB: I have sent this information also in an email. Saflieni (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

As I understand Jimbos stance he does not interfere with Admin decisions, he does not act as a final right of appeal.Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Slatersteven. The policy pages on Banning policy ("Any arbitration decision may be appealed to Jimbo Wales.") and: Appeal of decisions suggest differently. On a sidenote: This Saturday I watched Mr. Wales speaking to the BBC about the difference between Wikipedia and other internet sources where the accuracy of information is concerned. I thought he might want to check if that assumption still holds true, taking the subject behind this case as an example.Saflieni (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello Jimbo,

I want to kindly ask, if you want, to read this too, if you don't mind.

Thank you for your time. Lukan27 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

As I understand Jimbos stance he does not interfere with Admin decisions, he does not act as a final right of appeal.Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Simple Age Old Question, Don't Ignore It, Ignorance Does Not Resolve Problems But Makes Them Worse...

Hi Jimbo; you have nothing to do with simple wikipedia? Why are you, the co-founder of wikimedia afraid to edit there[12]? Everybody knows others are doing edits for you across wikimedia, this way you avoid embarrassment. Simple wikipedia has many wmf banned editors, yet they have 1000s of edits and always same people edit. Wikipedia culture is eating itself away to the bone...[13]74.83.78.47 (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)