I've already complained about what Jimbo has been doing on Wikibooks, so this isn't news.
Several of the Wikibooks that Jimbo was complaining about were deleted by him with the admin status he gave himself. That by itself is OK, but he did it with a total disregard to the fact that ongoing community discussion about the modules is going on, and a complete ignorance of what it means to delete a Wikibook in its entirety. Deleting Wikibooks is a very involved process, and removing [[b:Jokebook]] is going to be something that will take several hours to complete by a competent admin and deleting the front page is only going to make things worse.
I don't want to get into an edit war with of all people Jimbo himself, but this IMHO has gone way too far. If he wants to serve some sort of political agenda and disregard the genuine efforts of the community that is building Wikimedia projects like Wikibooks, so be it. He can write everything himself there if he wants to as well.
So long Wikimedia and all of the people here. I have tried. I hope things improve for the better in the future.
I hereby resign my position as admin on Wikibooks and I anticipate that I will be banned there as well. Good luck in the future in ever trying to find people to keep this project going.
Well, as long as you're not over-dramatic abou...
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I've already complained about what Jimbo has been doing on Wikibooks, so this isn't news.
Several of the Wikibooks that Jimbo was complaining about were deleted by him with the admin status he gave himself. That by itself is OK, but he did it with a total disregard to the fact that ongoing community discussion about the modules is going on, and a complete ignorance of what it means to delete a Wikibook in its entirety. Deleting Wikibooks is a very involved process, and removing [[b:Jokebook]] is going to be something that will take several hours to complete by a competent admin and deleting the front page is only going to make things worse.
I don't want to get into an edit war with of all people Jimbo himself, but this IMHO has gone way too far. If he wants to serve some sort of political agenda and disregard the genuine efforts of the community that is building Wikimedia projects like Wikibooks, so be it. He can write everything himself there if he wants to as well.
So long Wikimedia and all of the people here. I have tried. I hope things improve for the better in the future.
I hereby resign my position as admin on Wikibooks and I anticipate that I will be banned there as well. Good luck in the future in ever trying to find people to keep this project going.
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
Several of the Wikibooks that Jimbo was complaining about were deleted by him with the admin status he gave himself. That by itself is OK, but he did it with a total disregard to the fact that ongoing community discussion about the modules is going on, and a complete ignorance of what it means to delete a Wikibook in its entirety. Deleting Wikibooks is a very involved process, and removing [[b:Jokebook]] is going to be something that will take several hours to complete by a competent admin and deleting the front page is only going to make things worse.
No, not in complete ignorance, and certainly not in disregard to anything. Indeed, the reason I only deleted the front page was specifically to make sure that I wasn't doing anything that would be too difficult to reverse.
I don't want to get into an edit war with of all people Jimbo himself, but this IMHO has gone way too far. If he wants to serve some sort of political agenda and disregard the genuine efforts of the community that is building Wikimedia projects like Wikibooks, so be it. He can write everything himself there if he wants to as well.
? Political agenda? Do you mean my insistence that a book advocating white power is not appropriate for any Wikimedia project is a political agenda? If it is, I plead guilty. NPOV is non-negotiable.
So long Wikimedia and all of the people here. I have tried. I hope things improve for the better in the future.
I hereby resign my position as admin on Wikibooks and I anticipate that I will be banned there as well. Good luck in the future in ever trying to find people to keep this project going.
Why would you be banned? Why resign as an admin? I don't really understand this at all.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
? Political agenda? Do you mean my insistence that a book advocating white power is not appropriate for any Wikimedia project is a political agenda? If it is, I plead guilty. NPOV is non-negotiable.
This is a red herring, and I think you know better than to think anyone is seriously arguing that. Nobody is arguing compromising NPOV---the issue is over *what* subject matter is appropriate, not whether it will be treated in a neutral manner, which of course it will be. It appears to be your position that only "serious" subject matter is acceptable for Wikibooks, an opinion not shared by everyone.
-Mark
Hi,
I really think that this Jokebook should be deleted from Wikibooks.
1. Wikibooks is mean to host educational content and textbooks. There is no way that jokes could be included for this purpose. 2. Many jokes are offensive and don't follow the NPOV rule.
If contributors from the project are not able to enforce the basic rules, then others have to do it.
Regards,
Yann
Yann Forget wrote:
Hi,
I really think that this Jokebook should be deleted from Wikibooks.
- Wikibooks is mean to host educational content and textbooks. There is no
way that jokes could be included for this purpose. 2. Many jokes are offensive and don't follow the NPOV rule.
If contributors from the project are not able to enforce the basic rules, then others have to do it.
Why delete the jokebook? Earning my bread from cmedy I certainly see it could be used as an educational tool for people wanting to make their bread as a comedian.
Waerth/Walter
On 11/25/05, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
Yann Forget wrote:
Hi,
I really think that this Jokebook should be deleted from Wikibooks.
- Wikibooks is mean to host educational content and textbooks. There is no
way that jokes could be included for this purpose. 2. Many jokes are offensive and don't follow the NPOV rule.
If contributors from the project are not able to enforce the basic rules, then others have to do it.
Why delete the jokebook? Earning my bread from cmedy I certainly see it could be used as an educational tool for people wanting to make their bread as a comedian.
Waerth/Walter
Can these be moved to Wikicities?
Why delete the jokebook? Earning my bread from cmedy I certainly see it could be used as an educational tool for people wanting to make their bread as a comedian.
Can these be moved to Wikicities?
There is a comedy Wikicity at http://comedy.wikicities.com where jokes can be added if it is decided that they are not suitable for any Wikimedia project. It would be best to wait until Wikicities upgrades its version of MediaWiki before doing any sort of mass import though, since we'd need [[Special:Import]] to be working in order to retain the page histories.
Angela
On 11/26/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Why delete the jokebook? Earning my bread from cmedy I certainly see it could be used as an educational tool for people wanting to make their bread as a comedian.
Can these be moved to Wikicities?
There is a comedy Wikicity at http://comedy.wikicities.com where jokes can be added if it is decided that they are not suitable for any Wikimedia project. It would be best to wait until Wikicities upgrades its version of MediaWiki before doing any sort of mass import though, since we'd need [[Special:Import]] to be working in order to retain the page histories.
Angela
It hasn't been decided that jokebooks aren't suitable for any Wikimedia project. Jimbo has declared by executive fiat that this is the case. Your suggestion is quite plainly unethical, Angela. Keep your advertisements off this mailing list.
Anthony
Hoi, Calling what Angela says unethical is something that I strongly object to. Why would it be unethical to show that there are options when the jokebook IS going to be removed. She gives an answer to a direct question; she even points out what the problems are.
What I object to is that you do not assume good faith. I do not mind that you oppose what Jimbo decreed, but it is no excuse to accuse Angela of being unethical.. Shame !!
Thanks, GerardM
On 11/29/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 11/26/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Why delete the jokebook? Earning my bread from cmedy I certainly see
it
could be used as an educational tool for people wanting to make
their
bread as a comedian.
Can these be moved to Wikicities?
There is a comedy Wikicity at http://comedy.wikicities.com where jokes can be added if it is decided that they are not suitable for any Wikimedia project. It would be best to wait until Wikicities upgrades its version of MediaWiki before doing any sort of mass import though, since we'd need [[Special:Import]] to be working in order to retain the page histories.
Angela
It hasn't been decided that jokebooks aren't suitable for any Wikimedia project. Jimbo has declared by executive fiat that this is the case. Your suggestion is quite plainly unethical, Angela. Keep your advertisements off this mailing list.
Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It hasn't been decided that jokebooks aren't suitable for any Wikimedia project. Jimbo has declared by executive fiat that this is the case. Your suggestion is quite plainly unethical, Angela. Keep your advertisements off this mailing list.
She is just offering a suggestion for a solution. Obviously yu are against it but it is far from unethical to propose it. And I feel that accusing Angela of that is going a bit to far.
Walter/Waerth
--- Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 11/26/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
There is a comedy Wikicity at http://comedy.wikicities.com where jokes can be added if it is decided that they are not suitable for any Wikimedia project. It would be best to wait until Wikicities upgrades its version of MediaWiki before doing any sort of mass import though, since we'd need [[Special:Import]] to be working in order to retain the page histories.
It hasn't been decided that jokebooks aren't suitable for any Wikimedia project. Jimbo has declared by executive fiat that this is the case.
Jokebooks are completely out of place in Wikibooks because they do not serve a valid educational purpose. A textbook on comedy that had example jokes in it would be welcome, however. This type of distinction was decided on when I helped found Wikibooks, so Jimbo is not acting by executive fiat. He is simply trying to put that project back on track.
Your suggestion is quite plainly unethical, Angela. Keep your advertisements off this mailing list.
That is totally uncalled for and I think you owe Angela an apology. Angela is just mentioning a valid alternative place for the content to be placed. Are you aware of another wiki joke book where the deleted Wikibooks jokebook could comfortably go? If not, then keep your unfair attacks off the mailing lists. If so, then please just add that information as an alternative, not as part of an attack.
-- mav
__________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On 11/29/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 11/26/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
There is a comedy Wikicity at http://comedy.wikicities.com where jokes can be added if it is decided that they are not suitable for any Wikimedia project. It would be best to wait until Wikicities upgrades its version of MediaWiki before doing any sort of mass import though, since we'd need [[Special:Import]] to be working in order to retain the page histories.
It hasn't been decided that jokebooks aren't suitable for any Wikimedia project. Jimbo has declared by executive fiat that this is the case.
Jokebooks are completely out of place in Wikibooks because they do not serve a valid educational purpose. A textbook on comedy that had example jokes in it would be welcome, however. This type of distinction was decided on when I helped found Wikibooks, so Jimbo is not acting by executive fiat. He is simply trying to put that project back on track.
Your suggestion is quite plainly unethical, Angela. Keep your advertisements off this mailing list.
That is totally uncalled for and I think you owe Angela an apology. Angela is just mentioning a valid alternative place for the content to be placed. Are you aware of another wiki joke book where the deleted Wikibooks jokebook could comfortably go? If not, then keep your unfair attacks off the mailing lists. If so, then please just add that information as an alternative, not as part of an attack.
-- mav
I'm not going to apologize to Angela for that statement. I stand by it. This message board is not the place to advertise Wikicities.
That said, I'm taking a break from posting to the message boards for the rest of the week.
Anthony
All
Please review, http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Votes_for_undeletion#The_Manual_of_Cr..., on "The Manual of Crime" - this is so absurd and contrary to the mission of wikibooks that I can't believe it is still there.
In addition to not having any class for which it could be a textbook, it is subject to subtle vandalism of the type pointed out by Whiteknight:
I want to draw everybody's attention to some quotes from the manual of crime that got it in trouble in the first place:
*
Many rapists use a gun or a knife to threaten their victims with bodily harm to keep them compliant. You may hear things like "stop, please" but don't let that discourage you. Tonight is your night. Don't let anything stand in your way.*
Tonight is your night"? This isnt a textbook, and this isn't going to teach
anybody, nor is it going to make anybody any more safe by knowing this stuff. This book is disgusting, plain and simple. Now, I would not be against a book entitled "How to Avoid Crime", or "How not to be a victim of crime*",* or "how to survive a violent attack", or something like that. This book however is a blot on the wiki project, and needs to be deleted. So help me, I will get jimbo in here to delete this one personally if the vote here doesnt reach a *delete* concensus. --Whiteknighthttp://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Whiteknight T http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:WhiteknightChttp://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Whiteknight E http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Whiteknight 18:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree this is a blot on the wikiproject. Those that seem to think Jimbo's actions are an abuse, please read the comments on the VfUnD - and help get this project focused through reasoned debate or the board, as a trustee of our reputation, may be forced to take unilateral action again.
Jim -- Jim (trodel@gmail.com) "Our love may not always be reciprocated, or even appreciated, but love is never wasted" - Neal A Maxwell
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Jokebooks are completely out of place in Wikibooks because they do not serve a valid educational purpose. A textbook on comedy that had example jokes in it would be welcome, however. This type of distinction was decided on when I helped found Wikibooks, so Jimbo is not acting by executive fiat. He is simply trying to put that project back on track.
I may be misremembering, but I don't recall an explicit and narrow requirement that Wikibooks be "educational" when it was set up, and certainly not "educational" in the narrow sense of "something that a university would teach". Of course textbooks were a major sort of book that people had in mind, but I don't recall anyone saying that *only* textbooks would be permitted (not to mention defining what constitutes a "textbook"!).
Instead, I recall a focus mostly centered around *format*---Wikibooks was to be a place for book-like things that were of a detail, length, or tone (e.g. how-tos or lengthy narrative exposition) unsuitable for an encyclopedia article and therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia, but still useful as information in some sense. I took as a possibly mistaken implicit assumption that the *content* was to be basically the same as Wikipedia---anything verifiable and neutral.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
I may be misremembering, but I don't recall an explicit and narrow requirement that Wikibooks be "educational" when it was set up, and certainly not "educational" in the narrow sense of "something that a university would teach". Of course textbooks were a major sort of book that people had in mind, but I don't recall anyone saying that *only* textbooks would be permitted (not to mention defining what constitutes a "textbook"!).
Some empirical evidence for this: -- The "about" page has never said it is limited to textbooks---textbooks are only one part of the list of things that Wikibooks is for -- Some of the earliest Wikibooks are non-textbook but informational books, such as videogame walkthroughs
-Mark
Some empirical evidence for this: -- The "about" page has never said it is limited to textbooks--- textbooks are only one part of the list of things that Wikibooks is for
And it was greatly opposed by many in the Wikibooks community - when [[User:Aya]] became a bureaucrat, that was one of the first things that changed, IIRC (it was this user that put down "anything found in your library" line). In the user's critique of Wikibooks, the user felt that the project was a) too narrow in scope, and that b) many of its users ignored it.
-- Some of the earliest Wikibooks are non-textbook but informational books, such as videogame walkthroughs
... which many consider as being inappropriate for Wikibooks and should be transfered to Wikicities (I happen to be in the opposition, though). As a matter of fact, there is a growing movement to either make Wikibooks a Wikicities clone (by, say, adopting its policies) or to just move all Wikibooks content to Wikicities.
The fact is that bold moves are needed to clean Wikibooks up, and the reason that I left the Wikibooks community was that I couldn't see myself in the new Wikibooks, in whatever shape it may be.
Delirium wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Jokebooks are completely out of place in Wikibooks because they do not serve a valid educational purpose. A textbook on comedy that had example jokes in it would be welcome, however. This type of distinction was decided on when I helped found Wikibooks, so Jimbo is not acting by executive fiat. He is simply trying to put that project back on track.
I may be misremembering, but I don't recall an explicit and narrow requirement that Wikibooks be "educational" when it was set up, and certainly not "educational" in the narrow sense of "something that a university would teach". Of course textbooks were a major sort of book that people had in mind, but I don't recall anyone saying that *only* textbooks would be permitted (not to mention defining what constitutes a "textbook"!).
Instead, I recall a focus mostly centered around *format*---Wikibooks was to be a place for book-like things that were of a detail, length, or tone (e.g. how-tos or lengthy narrative exposition) unsuitable for an encyclopedia article and therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia, but still useful as information in some sense. I took as a possibly mistaken implicit assumption that the *content* was to be basically the same as Wikipedia---anything verifiable and neutral.
This is essentially the way I remember it too. I'm sure that if Mav sees it differently he should be able to cite something to support his facts.
Ec
On 11/29/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 11/26/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
There is a comedy Wikicity at http://comedy.wikicities.com where jokes can be added if it is decided that they are not suitable for any Wikimedia project. It would be best to wait until Wikicities upgrades its version of MediaWiki before doing any sort of mass import though, since we'd need [[Special:Import]] to be working in order to retain the page histories.
It hasn't been decided that jokebooks aren't suitable for any Wikimedia project. Jimbo has declared by executive fiat that this is the case.
Jokebooks are completely out of place in Wikibooks because they do not serve a valid educational purpose. A textbook on comedy that had example jokes in it would be welcome, however. This type of distinction was decided on when I helped found Wikibooks, so Jimbo is not acting by executive fiat. He is simply trying to put that project back on track.
Your suggestion is quite plainly unethical, Angela. Keep your advertisements off this mailing list.
That is totally uncalled for and I think you owe Angela an apology. Angela is just mentioning a valid alternative place for the content to be placed. Are you aware of another wiki joke book where the deleted Wikibooks jokebook could comfortably go? If not, then keep your unfair attacks off the mailing lists. If so, then please just add that information as an alternative, not as part of an attack.
-- mav
After further reflection, you're right. I was wrong for making those statements, and I apologize to both Angela and Jimbo for the statements I made.
Anthony
After further reflection, you're right. I was wrong for making those statements, and I apologize to both Angela and Jimbo for the statements I made.
Thank you for the apology, Anthony. I appreciate it. Thanks also to those who defended me on this list. My intention was certainly not to advertise.
Angela
Can these be moved to Wikicities?
There is a comedy Wikicity at http://comedy.wikicities.com where jokes can be added if it is decided that they are not suitable for any Wikimedia project. It would be best to wait until Wikicities upgrades its version of MediaWiki before doing any sort of mass import though, since we'd need [[Special:Import]] to be working in order to retain the page histories.
Angela
It hasn't been decided that jokebooks aren't suitable for any Wikimedia project. Jimbo has declared by executive fiat that this is the case. Your suggestion is quite plainly unethical, Angela. Keep your advertisements off this mailing list.
Anthony _______________________________________________
Angela didn't make this suggestion, I did. She just answered my question.
And even if Wikicities did make this suggestion, so what, it's GFDL.
Don't be a jerk, Anthony
Could the issue of whether jokebook is appropriate for Wikibooks or not be discussed on Wikibooks, please? Thank you.
Robert's mail was only sent to this group to point out action taken by Jimmy that, in his view, was an abuse of power and authority. If anyone wishes to follow up on that, please do so here. If not, find a better place for your remarks than foundation-l. We should *not* be discussing the wikibook itself here. It is not a foundation matter, it's an internal problem of the English Wikibooks and should be (and is being, from what I read) delt with there.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org