Talk:Jimmy Wales

If you need to contact Jimbo about something, please do so at his talk page, not here. As Jimbo explains... "People who are trying to leave messages for me will likely be more satisfied if they leave messages on my user talk page than if they leave them here. This is the talk page for the article about me, not a place to talk to me. I rarely read this. --Jimbo Wales 06:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)"

Role within Wikipedia

There should probably be a paragraph or section on what Wales' role/position is within Wikipedia. At one point the page says he has been described as a 'benevolent dictator', but there is nothing else to indicate he has any more power than any other admin. --Helenalex (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that on a day to day basis, he doesn't have any more power above the norm, although for specific purposes, Jimbo can, and will, assume powers on a temporary basis for specific cases. This is transparent for all practical purposes, and is exercised so rarely that I don't see it as an issue worthy of mention, beyond that in most cases where this has been done, it does not seem to be notable enough to warrant mention here otherwise than in the most general terms. However, I personally don't know what the "Founder" permission flag implies; but neither do I assume that Jimbo is likely to abuse it. In general terms, to reply to your comment, I'd assume that Jimbo can do anything permissible by the technology we have. Why should this article imply otherwise, or even set it out? --Rodhullandemu 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

He definitely does have a role within the arbcom elections. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be best to write text according to a reference. First find the reference and then we can add something to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

how notable is this man?

Is he worthy of his own article? Wartortle28 (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think the cited sources are inadequate to establish notability?--Rodhullandemu 21:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was asking to hear other people's opinions Wartortle28 (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Those opinions are set out in the cited sources and it would appear that consensus is that they satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO. --Rodhullandemu 00:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting he isn't notable, Wartortle28?⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL! with some of the bio's on wiki, Jimbo is THE most deserved person for a bio !
If you dont believe me, go and look at his talk pages and see how much work he does and has done for this and other projects
Chaosdruid (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of us do work for this and other projects. That does not establish notability. What does, however, is the abundance of reliable sources reporting on Jimbo and the widely popular and notable website that he co-founded. He is unquestionably notable, and the person who asked apparently already knew that. So let's not waste time on the equivalent of discussion whether or not water is wet, and instead go do something productive. لennavecia 16:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

lol - that sounds like a Jimbo-ism (Zebras are black and white etc) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As if to prove a point... --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

USA Network "Character Approved" Honoree

I was surprised to see this on television today: http://www.usanetwork.com/characterapproved/honorees/wales/index.html --Antoshi~! ^{T | C} 15:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Twitter

I added the Twitter feed to "Websites" in the infobox. Not sure whether it's relevant, but he does update it increasingly regularly and he has over 4500 followers at present. Not quite Stephen Fry level, but quite a lot. --TS 20:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I keep removing it from articles on the basis of WP:ELNO in that it is little more than a blog and doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic purpose. However, that's in the External Links sections, not the infobox. Even so, I feel it's stretching it a bit to include it. --Rodhullandemu 20:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's linked to from his blog. Don't see much reason to put it in the infobox. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth

This change makes the sentence correct but failed verification. I agree that Wales has historically been known as co-founder. See WP:Consensus, not truth. QuackGuru (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus not truth ?? you might as well say that genocide is ok because its the minority that are being killed. I along with a great many other editors spend hours ensuring we give fact and prove it by citing refs !

"Jimmy Wales jwales at bomis.com Tue Oct 30 22:02:03 UTC 2001 ... After a year or so of working on Nupedia, Larry had the idea to use Wiki software..." An idea is not the basis for credit as co-founder, however involvement in the setting up of the infrastructure coupled with sending out encouraging e-mails is a possible reason for assuming co-founder, however by Larrys own admission, this was not the case (see below) and as it was mentioned by Ben Kovitz, I do not see how Larry can possibly claim to have had the idea. That's like someone claiming to have the idea to wash when someone hints to them about soap and water.

"Wikipedia, the brainchild of Wales and its full-time editor Larry Sanger" This statement cannot apply, as it was not Wiki that Sanger was full time editor of, but Nupedia. He was employed by Jimmy and worked on the projects as such (and as soon as the money ran out so did he IMO) and Wikipedia was editorial contributions by anyone.

Most importantly there is an email form Larry Sanger that states "It was the first I had heard of Jimbo's idea of an open content encyclopedia, and I was delighted to take the job.

Def of "Founder" - One that founds or establishes :-

Def of "Found" - (noun)

1: to take the first steps in building

2: to set or ground on something solid As in to hit a sand bank

3: to establish (as an institution) often with provision for future maintenance

In my opinion Jimmy was the founder, he took the seed provided by the three of them (including Ben Kovitz as it seems they all had the conversation together and it was Ben him that brought up WikiWikiWeb) and Jimmy that then provided Wikipedia with everything it needed and the impetus from that point onwards.

Now I do not wish to open up any wounds, but it seems to me that not only should the date be left in, but the "co-" should be taken out - by Larry's own admission he clearly states that it was Jimmy's idea.

so there we have it, the debate continues, but I for one will not, after seeing and reading those emails, believe that Jimmy was anything other than the founder, with help from his paid staff, Larry, and after hearing about WikiWikiWeb from Ben

Please do not shoot the messenger ! --Chaosdruid (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Jimbo in 2001, "After a year or so of working on Nupedia, Larry had the idea to use Wiki software for a separate project specifically for people like you (and me!)"[1] QuackGuru (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did put that in the prev post ↑ --Chaosdruid (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) see my ref no2 -Chaosdruid (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The "2001" part failed verification. According to what policy we can use a reference and write text that is not given in the citation. As editors we don't decide truth. We write text according to the references presented. Wikipedia policies are to be respected. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite follow you - are you accusing me of not following Wikipedia policy ? I have shown the refs in this chat page and I am not deciding the truth, I am merely showing what the refs say. The refs are to emails written and articles written and are correctly cited by me and so as they follow Wikipedia policy, guidelines etc they should be credible enough to be used. I have not decided any truth, the truth is that those emails were written and they say what they say. Wikipedia policies are to be respected and that includes the truth by consensus or any other method. --Chaosdruid (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not seek truth by consensus. We seek to write text according to the references presented, not truth.

I have followed the reference currently being used. It failed verification. No part of the current ref in the article uses the date "2001".

If we want to include the "2001" part we need to use a different reference and rewrite the text accordingly.

It would be best we use references from the body of the article. This would best summarize the article. See WP:LEAD.

The current text: Although Wales has been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia since 2001, he disputes the "co-" designation,

Change back to: Although Wales has long been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, he disputes the "co-" designation,

I suggest we restore the text to the verified version unless there is a good reason to violate policy. See WP:Consensus, not truth. QuackGuru (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to keep directing me to the page WP:Consensus, not truth - I have read it and I understand it. What you are saying is that the reference cited does not refer to the "since 2001" statement which I fully understand, but which you keep referring to as if I do not. Simply change that from 2001 to 2002 and that is satisfied with the ref [2]

What I am saying is that by Sangers own admission Jimmy instigated the idea of Wikipedia [3] and that by Jimmy's admission (which you yourself tried to show me even though I had already quoted it) Larry was the one who suggested Wiki software [4] which implies to me that it would be ok to remove the "co-" suggestion as here not only do we have the 2002 date needed for the "long been" but also Sanger saying it was Jimmy's idea all along.

--Chaosdruid (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The current ref used in the article does not say 2002.

This reference[5] and this reference[6] is not specific to the text currently in the article.

Sanger did not say Jimmy instigated the creation of Wikipedia. Sanger conceived of Wikipedia and gave this project its name.

We should not change the date to "2002" when it would still fail verification. QuackGuru (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have cited references that clearly state information and yet you choose to ignore them.
From the third ref in your previous post Sanger writes :- "It was the first I had heard of Jimbo's idea of an open content encyclopedia, and I was delighted to take the job."- how is that not relevant to the article
I know the current ref doesn't say 2002 that's why I said change it to 2002 and use the ref I gave which you obv did not read. It is the same one, it say Jimmy's idea for open source Wikipedia, and it was 2002 - how is this not correct ? --Chaosdruid (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sanger was writing about the job at Nupedia. The idea Sanger was writing about was Jimmy's idea for Nupedia.

You have cited references that fail verification. This is current ref we are using. The other references are not a replacement to verify the text.

Only one ref verifies the text: Although Wales has long been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, he disputes the "co-" designation,[7]

Confounding different references together to draw a different intended conclusion would be WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a reference on Larry Sanger's page "My role in Wikipedia (links)" which would suffice? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The refs from Larry Sanger page would not verify the text long been cited or since 2001. We write text according to the reference presented. We would have to rewrite the sentence and start over if we used a ref from the Larry Sanger page. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well this ref [8] does show it was at least 2002 so are we going to change it to 2002 and add that ref ? --Chaosdruid (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We would have to rewrite the sentence and no specific replacement text has been been. Adding the ref would be confounding two refs to come to a new conclusion. That would be a direct violation of WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That is just nonsense, if we put the date to 2002 and change the ref to the one I have given, it would not be OR and it certainly would not be confounding anything, it would just be stating a fact and citing the ref. Why are you against that being put in there -Chaosdruid (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If we switched references we would have to rewrite the text to match the different reference. No specific proposal has been made.

2002 may not be accurate because there is The New York Times dated 2001 describes Wales as the co-founder of Wikipedia. Per WP:ASF, we should not assert it as fact when dates differ. There is disagreement over the dates. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'v said my peace. I'll defer to other editors here. Let me know on my talk page if I can be of assistance. I have other things to do. QuackGuru (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the "fv" template in the lead with a ref tag going to the NYT article which was already cited in the body of the article. "Although Wales has been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia since 2001<ref name="sanger-NYTimes"/>". I think this is good enough. Someone might want to try tweaking the words: "at least since 2001", "at least since the year Wikipedia was founded", "was cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia as early as 2001" or something. but I think it's good to try to keep the lead short and simple.

Oh. I said in my edit summary that citations are not necessarily required in the lead, but I just read WP:LEAD#Citations and I guess in this case (BLP, controversial matter) they are. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy or James

Just confirming - is his birth name actually "Jimmy," as the opening paragraph suggests, rather than "James"? — SteveRwanda (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Britannica says it's Jimmy.[9] I don't know of any source that suggests otherwise. Skomorokh 18:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)