Wikipedia

User talk:Jimbo Wales#Developer support for parser function

    Face

    [edit]

    Do you think articles like Mar-a-Lago face and Republican makeup with shoddy highly partisan sourcing are appropriate for Wikipedia? Where can equivalent articles on the plastic surgery practices of Democrat politicians be found? How about the tendency on the Left to lie about their ethnicity and heritage?

    Does Wikipedia need outside intervention or do you think the horrific bias and poor treatment of minority viewpoints among editors can be handled within the website's community? FloridaArmy (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh wow. excessive or uniform plastic surgery interventions such as lip augmentation, Botox, and jaw contouring, coupled with heavy makeup, spray tans, fake eyelashes, and dark smoky eyes. isn't exactly a trend exclusive to Republican/conservative women. Just watch any reality TV show. Some1 (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase "appropriate for Wikipedia" does not mean anything because Wikipedia is not censored. A similar topic for liberals would be blue-haired liberal. You also haven't provided any sources that support "lying about their ethnicity and heritage", which is a really broad claim and difficult to verify. For example, has Zohran Mamdani lied about his heritage?
    "[O]utside intervention" on Wikipedia is a form of canvassing. As for "horrific bias and poor treatment of minority viewpoints" - the articles you linked are about plastic surgery trends, how is that about mistreating "minority viewpoints"? Regards, --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 17:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpreted "outside intervention" to mean something similar to Ed Martin's letter to the WMF. Some1 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken on multiple fronts here, I'm sorry. Wikipedia is not censored manifestly does not mean, and has never meant, that literally everything under the sun is appropriate as a Wikipedia entry. I think you probably know better than that, and a mere moments reflection will make it clear. We have extensive guidelines and policies about what is appropriate for Wikipedia. Outside intervention is not necessarily canvassing, and a too quick reach for "canvassing" is often a clear tell of a very unWikipedian perspective: "I don't want people who don't agree with me to edit Wikipedia, because I like the bias that I'm pushing and I am concerned that new editors will overturn it." Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding 'horrific bias', to my mind, one of the most insidious examples of such that the English-language Wikipedia suffers from originates from those that think that 'neutrality' should somehow be defined according to the narrow and right-shifted talking-points of US political discourse. This is a global project, and not subject to facile 'equality between negative coverage of two political parties' rules. Not for the US, and not for anywhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    pester there is no such article on Wikipedia titled Blue-haired liberal. There is a redirect created with the edit summary " R from related topic and non neutral name" linking to section of text identifying such descriptions as a partisan slur. FloridaArmy (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence why I said "a similar topic". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so you can expand the section if you want to. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 09:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is Censored. For years we have had the biased coatrack attack page Racial views of Donald Trump while Racial views of Joe Biden is not only deleted but edit protected in mainspace and even in draftspace so no editor is allowed to work on it despite the widespread coverage of Joe Biden's racist statements and actions. I would very much like to hear from Jimbo Wales about the problem of bias, censorship, and BLP violations on Wikipedia. This is his talk page and he is the community's leader. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with what AndyTheGrump said above, and it also applies to this. Wikipedia tries very hard to maintain a neutral point of view, which is not a right republican point of view. English Wikipedia is a global project, because English is a global language. (I myself do not live in the USA.) --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 10:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is due to being a widely used language, English Wikipedia is hijacked by all partisans for propaganda and agitprop. The solution is a Deseret script Wikipedia as a secondary, less vulnerable Wikipedia for example, or any other English related script or language. I advocate for this. Hydrogenbicycle (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "biased coatrack attack page" Think there's an issue? fix it. Complaining about a potential issue isn't going to improve Wikipedia.
    "widespread coverage" ...yet the article topic had so little coverage it was deleted. Not that I like Joe Biden, but the deletion discussion was closed as delete for a reason.
    "he is the commmuity's leader". With all respect possible to Jimbo Wales for what he has done for Wikipedia over the years, no he isn't. The leader of Wikipedia is consensus.
    And no, Wikipedia is still not censored. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 10:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia tries very hard to maintain a neutral point of view by hosting attack pages against Republicans and blocking editors from editing subjects about the misdeeds and foibles of Democrats? Where is coverage on Wikipedia about Nancy Peloai's plastic surgeries that made her face immovable? If Wikipedia isn't censored why aren't editors allowed to make edits to an entry on Joe Biden's long history of racist statements and actions in mainspace or draftspace? Because we're worldwide it's okay to promote smears and slurs against parties that aren't favored among a majority of editors? FloridaArmy (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're assuming that everyone who doesn't support republicans is a democrat. That's not true. Unlike the USA, most countries do not have a two party system. You won't see it (not your fault; nobody does), but you're biased as well. Just as I am! We're all biased. But the sources tend to be less biased, which is why they're the base structure of Wikipedia articles.
    And you are allowed to make a page on the "long history of racist statements" made by Joe Biden if you can show that the notability is met. (Also, it's highly possible that there's just more coverage of Trump than Biden, hence why the page on racial statements by Biden did not meet notability at the time.) Complaining and loudly requesting external intervention will not help.
    I'm going to stop replying to you now because I don't want this to descend into a long political argument - that would be contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. I recommend you do the same, but you have not listened to me yet so I don't imagine this recommendation will go far.
    Happy editing :) --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 10:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to consider whether you are listening with empathy and kindness to what FloridaArmy is saying. In any event, I don't see your response as actually addressing the concerned being raised. FloridaArmy said nothing (at all) to suggest a view that "everyone who doesn't support republicans is a democrat". Nothing. What he did identify and ask about is a valid question: is it ok to host attack pages against Republicans while not allowing such pages about Democrats? And the only possible Wikipedia answer to that question is not a straw man attack on what wasn't said, but to say "FloridaArmy, you are right. We should not host attack pages on anyone, and we should make sure that our coverage of all politicians and all living persons is clear, fact based, and neutral."
    You could be an ally here, or you could persist in not listening. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I chose to leave the discussion because it's pointless political talk. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 10:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this is a worldwide project, it is highly unlikely that there are any political parties that are favoured by a majority of editors. If you could only get out of your narrow US-centric mindset for a second or two, maybe you'd realise just how ridiculous that statement is. We don't demand that every potentially-negative article concerning the Austrian People's Party is balanced by one on the Social Democratic Party of Austria. And we certainly don't measure 'neutrality' on our article on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea by the standards of North Korean domestic politics. Instead, we base coverage on what the sources we have available have to say. Can that lead to bias. Yes, obviously - both in bias within the sources, and the bias in the way we decide whether a source is appropriate. What the English-language Wikipedia does have to its advantage however is that its broad contributor base helps counter the narrow political mindset of those obsessed with imposing the obsessions of the US on anything and everything. Clearly, there is still a lot of work to be done in this regard - there are far too many articles, on far too many subjects, that simply assume that the reader is only interested in US-related content - but at least there is something countering it. And despite any bias (real or imaginary), it seems that the English-language Wikipedia is still attracting both readers and contributors in large numbers: unlike at least one alternative online encyclopaedia I could name, which is both explicitly based around US content, and which appears from its statements regarding 'neutrality' (admittedly rather confusing and ill-defined), and from its new content (most is still just Wikipedia clone), to define it in a manner far closer to the preferred viewpoint of the US right. As a simple look at that project's 'recent changes' page will illustrate, it simply isn't attracting the contributor base necessary to make it a viable long-term alternative. And nor is there much in the way of evidence that it has any enduring readership base. I strongly suspect that the reason for this is simple - most of those to the right of the US political spectrum aren't particularly interested in reading online encyclopaedias, and very, very few are interested in donating free time to maintaining them. The Wikipedia you get, and the alternatives you don't, are the direct consequence of demographics, and no doubt also of the political leanings of those who contribute to it - an entirely unsurprising result, and one that nobody in their right mind could think could be fixed (if it actually merits 'fixing') by attempting to impose external political standards. That is both morally obnoxious, and likely to result in the readers and contributors rejecting any such politically-motivated interference, and looking elsewhere to continue as before. In summary, Wikipedia is what it is, and for all it's failings (it has many) it seems to be what the readers want. Call that market forces if you like. Just don't kid yourself that you can 'fix' it by whining about a lack of an article about Joe Biden... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The US-side of things does sometimes get a lot of weight, like at Moses#Legacy_in_politics_and_law. The cure is of course editors being arsed to work on it. I haven't been, so far. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then go to the salting admin or WP:DRV and present the brilliant sources you intend to use for your Draft:Racial views of Joe Biden and get the salting overturned. That was done 5 years ago, new sources may very well exist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @FloridaArmy: Feel free to start a draft article for racial views of Joe Biden in your userspace, and submit it to AFC if you find enough sources to make it notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that both articles are terrible and not worthy of keeping. They are obviously not NPOV. Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you going to nominate the article(s) for deletion? Some1 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: The fact a subject is not neutrally presented is not a valid reason for deletion. The solution for lack of neutrality is to fix the article, not delete it. And I'd note that both articles seem to cite some pretty hefty sources. If this was an article about Austrian politicians say, with good sources, but in German (per my earlier comments) a 'delete as non-neutral' AfD might have sneaked through. Here though, no chance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, but the lack of NPOV is far from the only problem. I do not agree that the sourcing is "hefty" in the relevant sense. Basically these are extreme WP:COATRACK articles "In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and if there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate." That sounds right to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I marked them for AfD. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? There aren't popular or widely discussed cosmetic trends with liberal politicians, except maybe the blue-hair thing, which I can't even think an example of. I do think the blue-hair thing has potential to be an article of its own. Also, where on earth are your claims even coming from - tendency to lie about heritage??? Again, the article is about politicians, how many politicians have done that for it to be such a notable topic? I can think of one, and he swings right. jolielover♥talk 17:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    politicians and prominent right-wing figures, I'll amend my point jolielover♥talk 17:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pussy hats, maybe? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think that populating a government with people who all look like they were ordered from the Fox News rent-a-mouth store is appropriate? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to note that what I think, what you think, whatever any of us think, is not really relevant in any way - or shouldn't be. If we are writing hatchet job articles because we think some people who look a certain way shouldn't be in office, that's a problem, as I'm very sure you'll agree. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. We have an article on Trump Derangement Syndrome. This is bollocks, of course, but it's notable bollocks. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I made Mar-A-Lago face in the first place. I kept seeing it all over the news, in discussion, and even psychology contexts. It was surprising it didn't exist at the time. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy answer even without evoking NPOV: these both fail WP:NEO. I know there terms are memes out there but they should still be taken as that and not serious topics. Masem (t) 20:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling BS on the assertion that these are backed with "shoddy, highly partisan sourcing." Republican makeup shows Women's Wear Daily, Glamour, New York Times, Financial Times, Guardian, El País, and on and on. We could argue about whether those two articles should be combined leaving a redirect (they should), or we could argue whether the titling of Mar-a-Lago face is appropriate, but there is no arguing about whether the topic meets WP's notability standards. It does, to a Snow Keep level. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    AfDs:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Sca
    APPEAL regarding the ANI complaint filed against me today by JJARichardson here, and the subsequent note, posted here by User:rsjaffe, although possibly (?) by the complainant himself.
    The Complaint (No.50) states: "User:Sca is engaging in persistent disruptive editing on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. This includes tendentiously dismissing nominations as "promotional" and describing historically significant images as "old news". Here he engages in personal attacks and admits to "trolling" with tendentious comments. JJARichardson (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)"
    The complaint errs in exaggerating the magnitude of my votes at WP:ITNC, since most of my posts there have been and remain non-counting comments, rather than actual votes for or against "promotion" (approval) of nominations – which in any case are not binding with regard to Main Page POTD choices, made by users who are not generally involved in ITNC anyway.
    Further, my contested comments are neither argumentative nor polemical, but rather intended to support ITNC's modus operandi under its Criterion 3, which states in part that 'promoted' FPCs should be
    a) Of a high technical standard.
    b) Have good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral color balance.
    c) Show no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies.
    d) Have its main subject in focus, a good composition and no highly distracting or obstructing elements.
    In general some, but not all, questionable ITNC nominations deal with ephemeral events, past entertainment items, or other topics that seem to lack broad reader appeal or serious topical import (i.e. EV = encyclopedic value).
    Nevertheless, let me point out that all nominations may draw comments or be voted upon by all Wiki participants. Accordingly, increased participation by users who aren't 'regulars' at ITNC may bring more insights and perspetive to this primarily discussion forum, the importance of which is considerable in inciting interest among the millions who peruse the Main Page every day.
    All of us are here to serve the public, and as User:Jimbo Wales said a couple months ago advised to "direct our attention toward activities that inspire trust.” – Sca (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, for transparency. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I closed both as snow keep.--Launchballer 18:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't snow keep an afd if it has a delete vote in it specially as an NAC Sir Joseph (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does it say that? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It says that you shouldn't close as snow even if it's reasonable to expect an outcome. You should let the discussion run its course. I confused speedy with snow, but the fact remains that it should not have been closed with almost no discussion. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions Sir Joseph (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a deletion discussion that is ongoing, so starting a new one is inappropriate. If you want both pages instead of just one removed then go discuss over there. A speedy keep is otherwise good enough for an out of process nomination, I don't think you'll find much sympathy at DRV with that at least. CNC (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As this debate won't end

    [edit]

    A merge was forced through without consensus from Mar-a-Lago face to Republican makeup, so now we are apparently caught up in a new mess here:

    This is why letting emotions and ego ever trump WP:RS and WP:V causes mayhem. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I thought the consensus was to merge it the other way around. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If wikipedia was a soda flavour, what would it be like?

    [edit]

    And would it be possible to sell it at Wikipedia conventions in hopes of fundraisings?

    I can answer more questions if you wish.

    GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hop water. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see that, what about Cream soda? GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On a good day, Wikipedia is like that particular Coca-cola I had one hot summer day in Alabama when I was 8 years old after playing a long game of kickball with friends. Sweet, satisfying, and a perfect moment in life. On a bad day, it's a watered-down diet Coke when the machine wasn't functioning. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Water, and that's a good thing! Neutral, but vital and good for you. Probably won't have much luck selling it for fundraising, though. — Czello (music) 10:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Root beer. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    opencola. ltbdl (master) 15:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good one! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Carbonated green tea. Refreshing and healthy. Carlstak (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK Soda. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha. Its own advertising called it "carbonated tree sap". That doesn't sound too bad, really—I suppose it would be maple-flavored. Carlstak (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, it was okay. Tasted more like when you were a kid and you mixed all the sodas at the soda fountain in one cup. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    From Open Encyclopedia To Ideological Weapon: Wikipedia’s Hidden War On Truth

    [edit]

    From The Daily Wire, for your whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unreliable source employs unreliable research company to find out that Wikipedia disfavours unreliable sources, including the one that hired them. And now here's Dunning and Kruger with the weather. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If an unreliable source employs unreliable research company, does that mean this will work like a double negative and the result will be reliable? ...No, it doesn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • As usual for me, and no one will be surprised by this, I think the right approach to a critique like this is to work very hard to understand what they may have gotten right. Sometimes that's nothing - this is an ideological opinion piece, after all - but very often there's something there that we could take away and improve. This piece focusses on our list of perennial sources, and my own view is that we should constantly re-examine it for political bias. It also focusses on WikiEducation, with a lot of completely false suggestions of underhanded control and whatnot, but of course we should say: ok, what is WikiEducation funding, does it have balance, does it encourage POV editing, etc. Maybe the answer is: it's fine, this is crazy. Or maybe the answer is: gee, this does look like something we could improve.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, we absolutely are at war with Truth. Because Truth has declared war on facts.
      For most of my adult life, conservatives have sought to replace empirical fact as the arbiter of reality with ideological truth. The most obvious example is climate change denial. The companies that funded climate change denialism, knew full well that fossil fuel use was changing the climate and warming the planet. In fact, it's why they started: they knew that the inevitable action would be economically devastating for them.
      Fast forward to the present, the Truth of climate change denial is treated as superior to the fact of climate change, almost without exception, by the political leaders of the right, be it Farage or Trump. Today, on TV, Stephen Miller proclaimed the Truth that immigration causes crime and wrecks the economy, when the facts say the exact opposite. Every question of fact is reframed as competing Truths, and if the facts contradict a deeply held conviction - especially one held by religious conservatives - the facts have to be ruthlessly suppressed. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If you don't mind me asking, what do you mean by Truth has declared war on facts.? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe what they're referring to more specifically is post-truth - the idea that some individuals hold "personal truths" they believe in despite being provably false i.e. Alternative facts. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Back in the 17th Century, the word "fact" was adopted as a loanword from law, meaning "that which was done". This coincided with the rise of experimental measurement, and the growth of science out of natural philosophy. In natural philosophy, the strength of rhetoric determined reality. For Aristotelians, heavy bodies fall faster than light ones, because the argument for that truth is stronger. Empirical evidence, however, shows the fact that heavy and light bodies fall at the same rate.
      Truths are creatures of rhetoric and belief. For a creationist, the truth is that God created the Earth and all life on it, in more or less its present form, in six literal days. Back in the real world, the fact is that the Earth is billions of years old and live evolved by random mutation and natural selection. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To quote Sean Spicer, "sometimes we can disagree with the facts". And that's the truth. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A different angle: CAIR and 42 Organizations Call on Wikipedia to Oppose Censorship on Gaza Genocide Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Powerful stuff, thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that Wikipedia is not a Unreliable source for some peoples. I noticed in Daily Wire article claim right-wing websites is not "Unreliable source", while sources with progressive bias like The New York Times is reliable source behind paywall. Also, I also noticed a comment in that article saying: Buy-bye Wikipedia, hello AI. (Grokpedia?), someone was always suspicious of Wikipedia, wikipedia is full of false information.
      I know that if a article has a false information contents, fix yourself, adding correct sources.
      I also has some critics of Wikipedia, like: notable article getting deleted (For example BFDI, which was only allowed to be recreated in 2025), blacklisted source and vandalism. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To quote one Michael Huang about 2 weeks ago, [1], "Now finally it deserves one, it meets the requirements." But that's just his opinion, of course. If anyone didn't know, more backstory at WP:BFDI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the FTC: Wikipedia does not engage in trade, nor does it have fair or unfair commercial practices. It does not do anti-competition, by virtue of not being commercial. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article floats around a valid point but completely misses it, in that when we are writing on politically-oriented topics that are based on highly subjective viewpoints (eg where DUE woudl apply), editors tend to use RSP as a tool to block any commentary from sites that are unreliable or the like, even though the viewpoints includes are opinions and similar non-factual reports from reliable sites, and when this is a left-versus-right wing issue, we tend to immediately assume a self-feeding loophole that because these right wing sources are unreliable, their opinions are not appropriate to include, and because those opinions are not in the major reliable sources, they fail DUE or are FRINGE. First, we should be trying to urge editors not to incorporate as many opinions, or at least opinions coming directly from opinion pieces but those filtered through third-party sources so that we can argue "we're summarizing the debate as presented by reliable sources that otherwise aren't offering input on the debate". But if we are using opinion pieces directly from reliable sources, then immediately that should allow the use of opinions from normally unreliable sources in appropriate proportion, and that's likely a can of worms few editors really want to engage in. That all gets tied up in how bad of a job we are doing when it comes to writing about highly-charged political news events and why we need far better moderation from editors to keep these event articles to surface level details rather than trying to deep dive to build out reaction sections so quickly. Masem (t) 01:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I broadly agree with you, Masem. These articles end up not as an interesting and useful documentation of a particular meme or subjective viewpoint, but as one-sided junk. It's not good enough. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is the Wikipedia logo ball shown in the image on your userpage captioned "Wikipedia is yours, and I trust you."?

    [edit]

    Can I get it on the Wikipedia store? Could it be possible for that to be on the Wikipedia store?

    VidanaliK (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really know where it's from. I found a reference on the image page to a creator who may have made it, but I found a bit of a dead-end in my research! Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jimbo Wales In your user page. Here you say: Wikipedia is yours, and I trust you. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 15:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No what I mean is - the image is an image from a Wikimedia publication a few years ago. When you click on the image and go and look at the media file details, there some more information, and I did a few minutes of research but I am not really sure where the object came from. [2] Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So whose crazy idea is next?

    [edit]

    Hi @Jimbo Wales,

    I have just read and loved your book, The Seven Rules of Trust, including its last line, "Whose crazy idea is next?" ... at which point I was saying, "It's me! It's me!"

    I wonder if you would have a look at the readme page of the GitHub repo, Links? The project is pinching a lot of reputational architecture that you will recognise very well ... and trying to apply it to two types of difficult questions (1) How will we govern super-intelligent and potentially malicious AIs, and (2) How do we organise ourselves in the face of questions that require collective action?

    I'd love to hear your feedback.

    Cheers, Joe. JoeRasmussen (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Block on User Sca

    [edit]

    The Signpost: 17 December 2025

    [edit]
    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    God Jul!

    [edit]

    Hello Jimbo Wales: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

    Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]