Full Version: 10 Questions for Jimbo
We can pretty much tell that boy reporter, William Lee Adams, is a Wikipedia editor. My question is:
Is he an administrator, too?
See also Gaydar.
I don't think this interview got the attention it deserved here, especially as it pertains to ads on WP. In response to a question about corporate sponsorship, Jimbo says:
And lest my earlier comment about gaydar be misunderstood, here is a quote from Gaydar:
QUOTE
What we have always said is that we are opposed to having advertising in Wikipedia but we've never said "absolutely not, absolutely never" because we will do what it takes to keep Wikipedia alive. So, yeah, we wouldn't shut down Wikipedia, but in the event that we did have some kind of a serious problem where the public was no longer willing to support us to the degree that we need, we would first look at cost-cutting measures, we would eventually have to look at putting some ads in some obscure part of the site to keep bringing a little bit of money or something like that, but it's not on the table at all. It's not something that we really are considering or even think is likely to happen, but, no, we're not going to shut down Wikipedia - Wikipedia is important.
And lest my earlier comment about gaydar be misunderstood, here is a quote from Gaydar:
QUOTE
William Lee Adams, replicated earlier work by his advisor, Nalini Ambady (now at Tufts University). Ambady's original study, published in 1999, showed that homosexuals were better at correctly identifying sexual orientation from silent videos and photographs than heterosexuals were. Adams' research, started in 2004, focused exclusively on the face; the focal point of most social interaction.
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 30th January 2011, 11:42am) 
And lest my earlier comment about gaydar be misunderstood, here is a quote from Gaydar:
QUOTE
William Lee Adams, replicated earlier work by his advisor, Nalini Ambady (now at Tufts University). Ambady's original study, published in 1999, showed that homosexuals were better at correctly identifying sexual orientation from silent videos and photographs than heterosexuals were. Adams' research, started in 2004, focused exclusively on the face; the focal point of most social interaction.
It would otherwise have been misunderstood, yes. I did find this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=26022944
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 30th January 2011, 6:45am)
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 30th January 2011, 11:42am)
And lest my earlier comment about gaydar be misunderstood, here is a quote from Gaydar:
QUOTE
William Lee Adams, replicated earlier work by his advisor, Nalini Ambady (now at Tufts University). Ambady's original study, published in 1999, showed that homosexuals were better at correctly identifying sexual orientation from silent videos and photographs than heterosexuals were. Adams' research, started in 2004, focused exclusively on the face; the focal point of most social interaction.
It would otherwise have been misunderstood, yes. I did find this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=26022944
What's with those commas in the first sentence of the quoted material there?
And, looking at the link that Peter Damian provided -- it's interesting to see how an undergraduate study is tolerated in Wikipedia, the home of "no original research".
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 30th January 2011, 5:42am)
I don't think this interview got the attention it deserved here...
I'm not so sure about that. This is just another non-journalist throwing softball "questions" at Jimbo and getting the usual lies and garbage-answers that he's given elsewhere.
For example, in question 3 (or 2?) he's asked about censorship, and Jimbo tries to make the distinction between censorship and what he calls "editorial judgment." He doesn't say that on Wikipedia, "editorial judgment" doesn't exist in any meaningful sense of the term since it's routinely replaced with "supremacy of the loudest and most obnoxious group and the most persistent POV." It's pure deception. He even repeats the bald-faced lie about not having "anything whatsoever" to do with WikiLeaks - he could be honest about that and come up with some sort of excuse for the fact that his company owns several WikiLeaks domain names and has negotiated their status with Julian Assange directly, but he can't do that, because he just isn't an honest person.
As for the gaydar thing, I guess there are some cases where gay guys can figure these things out more quickly than straight guys, but in this particular case, the difference between 2 seconds and maybe 4 or 5 seconds for someone like me to figure it out is just not all that significant in terms of real-world social situations.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.