→Question about WikipediA logo: new section |
100.36.12.11 (talk) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit |
||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
Thanks in advance for any info. [[User:Academc|Academc]] ([[User talk:Academc|talk]]) 21:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC) |
Thanks in advance for any info. [[User:Academc|Academc]] ([[User talk:Academc|talk]]) 21:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
==Unban Kumioko== |
|||
its time to unban Kumioko. Let's get a good editor back instead of treating them like the enemy. [[Special:Contributions/100.36.12.11|100.36.12.11]] ([[User talk:100.36.12.11|talk]]) 22:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:17, 11 July 2018
Moratorium?
I would like to propose a six-month moratorium on bitcoin-related posts on Jimbo's talk page. Who is with me? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Guy, do you know about FoldingCoin? As in, like this for that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0esAwZoFxcw P.S. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA12wOtr-0k EllenCT (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Drat! Normally, I scan posts before reading them and skip anything that certain people write, but that blue YouTube link right before your blue signature fooled me this time. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Guy, I asked you about whether you like protein folding instead of hash collisions as a basis for a cryptocurrency, and you reply that you are sad your self-censorship didn't prevent you from seeing the question? Is that your idea of meaningful discourse? EllenCT (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] EllenCT (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Drat! Normally, I scan posts before reading them and skip anything that certain people write, but that blue YouTube link right before your blue signature fooled me this time. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Okay no bitcoin, but what about blockchains? Everything is better with blockchains! PackMecEng (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: thanks for the feedback. I understand that some folks, myself included, can get carried away with their latest projects, so I'd enjoy hearing from others on this. This one, however, has gotten under my skin. It looks like, to all intents, the bitcoin folks have created a monster bubble (there are lots of references for this) and a lot of people are being taken advantage of, (as in losing their life savings or similar). And since bitcoin has been closed off of other forms of advertising, Wikipedia is an important forum for them to get their message across. And besides, Jimmy has expressed some interest in the topic - even going out on a limb in the press to say a few similar things. I'll tend to follow his advice on the moritorium. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sound reasonable. I just wish that the message would go out somewhere else. What say you, Jimbo? (...he said, in the hope that Jimbo will be too busy talking to EU politicians to respond until after the big vote...) I do have a question for you, Smallbones; Honest question, not trying to be confrontational: there are other people who feel that Wikipedia is an important forum to get their message across. Abortion, Gun control. Various religions. Trump. Hillary. Climate change. Splitting California into three states -- the list goes on and on. Should we also welcome them to get their message across on Jimbo's talk page, or should the page be reserved for things that are at least somewhat related to Wikipedia and other WMF projects? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: Honest answer - I do see lots of "big issues" discussed on this page, e.g. Trump, Hillary, climate change (but not splitting California into three states). Most even have some relation to Wikipedia. Folks do use this page as a forum to gain public attention on certain issues - I've even seen people campaign *against* donating to Wikipedia on this page.
- My main interests in posting here however are to communicate with Jimmy (unusual here I know), deal with the Wikipedia issue of crypto ads in our articles (important because crypto ads are cut off in many other places), and sometimes even just blowing off steam - NPOV editing of articles can be extremely frustrating at times when clearly biased or conflicted editors are working against you. My apologies for blowing off steam. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't apologize. I rather like your posts. They are always interesting and thought provoking. And of course we have an article on the proposed split -- Yes California -- and about previous proposals; Partition and secession in California. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oops. confused two different things. I don't think we have an article on this: Radical plan to split California into three states earns spot on November ballot. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't apologize. I rather like your posts. They are always interesting and thought provoking. And of course we have an article on the proposed split -- Yes California -- and about previous proposals; Partition and secession in California. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- In his defense, I don't think he's trying to promote a viewpoint. He's just being friendly because he knows I have an interest in the area. I'm happy to ask that we not talk bitcoin here, unless there is some Wikipedia angle, though, because although I do find bitcoin and crypto to be an interesting topic, I follow the news reasonably well on my own. For Wikipedians with an interest, I do recommend following David Gerard on twitter or facebook, as he's wickedly funny and very insightful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, censorship is a slippery slope and there is too much of it everywhere already, and increasing exponentially, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Any undue messaging by stakeholders here will be ignored or removed anyway, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please see above. It's not about censorship IMHO. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly so. Censorship is when someone stops you from talking or writing about a subject. It isn't about someone deciding not to allow you to place your message on their talk page, and it certainly isn't about someone allowing you to place your message on their talk page followed by someone questioning that decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- ) I should have known better than use the "C" word :), I agree, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with a User, in this case Jimbo, choosing for him/herself not to allow a topic to be mentioned on their talk page ( that's what we are discussing, I think,) and there is nothing wrong with you, Guy Macon, questioning a User's decision in that regard, but we must differentiate between messaging, discussion, and a post being allowed by a User. The decision rests with the User, I'd say, about something as innocuous, imo, as bitcoin. I just do not like the whole concept of suggesting to someone that they ban an innocuous topic on an absolute basis...if you had questioned the decision that would have been different, imo, from suggesting a decision .. maybe I am being too paranoid about this subject, I just hate "C" and I tend to see it places where maybe it is not. Apologies if that's the case here. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly so. Censorship is when someone stops you from talking or writing about a subject. It isn't about someone deciding not to allow you to place your message on their talk page, and it certainly isn't about someone allowing you to place your message on their talk page followed by someone questioning that decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please see above. It's not about censorship IMHO. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sound reasonable. I just wish that the message would go out somewhere else. What say you, Jimbo? (...he said, in the hope that Jimbo will be too busy talking to EU politicians to respond until after the big vote...) I do have a question for you, Smallbones; Honest question, not trying to be confrontational: there are other people who feel that Wikipedia is an important forum to get their message across. Abortion, Gun control. Various religions. Trump. Hillary. Climate change. Splitting California into three states -- the list goes on and on. Should we also welcome them to get their message across on Jimbo's talk page, or should the page be reserved for things that are at least somewhat related to Wikipedia and other WMF projects? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: thanks for the feedback. I understand that some folks, myself included, can get carried away with their latest projects, so I'd enjoy hearing from others on this. This one, however, has gotten under my skin. It looks like, to all intents, the bitcoin folks have created a monster bubble (there are lots of references for this) and a lot of people are being taken advantage of, (as in losing their life savings or similar). And since bitcoin has been closed off of other forms of advertising, Wikipedia is an important forum for them to get their message across. And besides, Jimmy has expressed some interest in the topic - even going out on a limb in the press to say a few similar things. I'll tend to follow his advice on the moritorium. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- On this US Independence Day let us reflect that our forefathers died so we could have the freedom to discuss bitcoin. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Reality check: No offence but I'm pretty sure the Brits have as much freedom to discuss bitcoin as Americans. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I will just leave this here:[6] [7] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Damn, Guy, that's the best entertainment I've seen in a helluva long time :). Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- You might also like Game of Thrones: Libertarian Edition, Star Trek: The Libertarian Edition, and Star Wars Libertarian Special. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- [8]. Should we take solace that Trump gives Socialists and Libertarians ample common ground? EllenCT (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is the hardest to even think about, much less accept. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Nocturnalnow: In that video Bush is, as always, misleading. In order to cut the ten hijacked planes down to four, Osama bin Laden said the U.S. had to pull its troops out of the Land Of The Two Holy Mosques, so the U.S. pulled its troops out of Saudi Arabia, though not quite as quick as they repatriated the bin Laden relatives. In order to make this not look like an abject surrender, the U.S. had to have a reason for pulling them out, which was that the threat from Iraq they had been defending against was neutralized. The rest follows. Wnt (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Wnt, that is too complicated and conspiratorial for me. In fact, I would have preferred that General Wesley Clark had not gotten into the "oil" explanation/speculation. His first-hand eye witness whistle blowing in the video is important enough, in and of itself, for me. If anybody, even a USA President, plans and implements a scheme that includes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and over 4,000 American troops, especially under false pretenses, I personally don't give a shit what their motives were, I'd just like to see them on trial for their crimes.Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Nocturnalnow: In that video Bush is, as always, misleading. In order to cut the ten hijacked planes down to four, Osama bin Laden said the U.S. had to pull its troops out of the Land Of The Two Holy Mosques, so the U.S. pulled its troops out of Saudi Arabia, though not quite as quick as they repatriated the bin Laden relatives. In order to make this not look like an abject surrender, the U.S. had to have a reason for pulling them out, which was that the threat from Iraq they had been defending against was neutralized. The rest follows. Wnt (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- While Luke Skywalker reads Friedman, we can take comfort in this note from bitcoin. Apparently "cryptojacking" (hacking people's computers to make bitcoins) is replacing "ransomware" (the main reason why ordinary people might decide they need bitcoins). More supply, less demand ... where is your hype now? And who wouldn't feel safer knowing their financial transactions are certified by a global network of computer viruses? ;) Wnt (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is the hardest to even think about, much less accept. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- [8]. Should we take solace that Trump gives Socialists and Libertarians ample common ground? EllenCT (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- You might also like Game of Thrones: Libertarian Edition, Star Trek: The Libertarian Edition, and Star Wars Libertarian Special. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Damn, Guy, that's the best entertainment I've seen in a helluva long time :). Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I will just leave this here:[6] [7] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Client-side cryptocurrency mining is the new abundance. Anyone know what Guy might want me to do to make up for whatever is keeping him from weighing in on how much time FoldingCoin would save vaccine developers if Bitcoin miners mined it instead? EllenCT (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Much as adblock is a thing, so is minerBlock. SQLQuery me! 00:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that it is or is not a viable business model as Moore's Law marches forward, but presumably a whitelist is easy enough. What about my question; how much time do you think vaccine development time would be cut by if cryptocurrency miners stopped using hash collisions and started doing Folding@Home? EllenCT (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Short answer: the bitcoin miners in China (Inner Mongolia) who now dominate the "mining industry" based on the cheap electricity they have there from coal get big coins from doing it. They would not switch to folding proteins just for kicks. The folks who would likely be interested in using their computing power to help fold proteins would likely not be affected unless they get their electricity from Inner Mongolia. More likely, the Chinese would just stop burning so much coal (which they may do anyway - they've banned bitcoin trading), and we could all breathe easier. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that it is or is not a viable business model as Moore's Law marches forward, but presumably a whitelist is easy enough. What about my question; how much time do you think vaccine development time would be cut by if cryptocurrency miners stopped using hash collisions and started doing Folding@Home? EllenCT (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
You guys are doing a terrible job of having a moratorium on bitcoin discussions. It's been 6 days since I said I wouldn't start another discussion on bitcoin for 6 months and still you keep going. For every day this discussion continues, I'm reducing my promised moratorium by 1 month! If this thread is here next Tuesday, I may well post a 10,000 word analysis of the entire cryptocurrency industry! Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Error on Special:Search
When I put in a page name on the special page for search it says the following: "An error has occurred while searching: Search is currently too busy. Please try again later." It never happened before in my experience here. Any explanation? Felicia (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Could it be -- and I am going out on a limb here -- that search was too busy? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Felicia. I'm not aware of any ongoing issues with search. It could be just a temporary hiccup. If you (or others reading) notice ongoing problems, please let us know over on WP:VPT on in Phabricator. Not a lot of WMF folks frequent Jimbo's talk page, but we do try and keep up with the various Village Pumps. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
We're Number Ten!
[ https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Two places behind XNXX, and we don't have an article on it. (A small draft, though) People have always come to the internet for knowledge ... mostly carnal knowledge. ;) Wnt (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Top factual content site in the world. It's a big responsibility. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's an even bigger responsibility when you consider the other top sites classified as "reference". Many of those I really don't see as "factual content", others like Archive.org we work with closely, and some are actually part of the WMF. A selected list:
- June 01, 2018
- 1 wikipedia.org
- 2 quora.com
- 4 answers.yahoo.com
- 5 archive.org
- 7 wikihow.com
- 8 2gis.ru
- 9 wikimedia.org
- 11 wordreference.com
- 14 thesaurus.com
- 15 wiktionary.org
- Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's an even bigger responsibility when you consider the other top sites classified as "reference". Many of those I really don't see as "factual content", others like Archive.org we work with closely, and some are actually part of the WMF. A selected list:
- SimilarWeb has Wikipedia at #10 but Alexa has us at #5. I wonder what the difference in counting is between the two. Related, there are some known improvements being worked on regarding the technical aspects of the sites to help in this area. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- One difference is that Alexa appears to count www.example.en and www.example.fr and separate websites while counting en.example.org and fr.example.org as the same website. So the fact that Google chose the URL www.google.fr while Wikipedia chose the URL fr.wikipedia.org makes a difference to Alexa.
- Related: [9][10] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Relations between Commons and en-Wiki
I don't post here very often, but I would like to point to a discussion at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#What appears to be an inappropriate indef block of User:Rowan Forest and following. That's because the discussion has brought to the fore some significant and troubling underlying tensions between Commons and en-Wiki, a sort of clash of cultures between the communities of two Wikimedia projects. Obviously, anyone who wants to can take a look, but I'm specifically drawing this to Jimbo's attention because, after all, you have a particular stake in how the various projects work together. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Question about WikipediA logo
Hi Jimbo! I was told to ask this question to you directly since you might have the finer details: I've been searching for information about the typography/casing of Wikipedia's written logo (rather than the puzzle globe), particularly with respect to the design choice to capitalize the last letter, A. In other words, why "WIKIPEDIA" and not "Wikipedia"? Is this practice used elsewhere or does it have a history? Any info on the design philosophy as explained by the logo designer?
Thanks in advance for any info. Academc (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Unban Kumioko
its time to unban Kumioko. Let's get a good editor back instead of treating them like the enemy. 100.36.12.11 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)