Talk:Jimmy Wales

If you need to contact Jimbo about something, please do so at User talk:Jimbo Wales, not here. As Jimbo himself 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)"

Template:WP1.0

Lead

It should be mentioned in the introduction that he is the founder of Wikipedia as that is his main claim to fame. --thedemonhog 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, albeit in a limited way to avoid POV. -- Zanimum 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate removed

I removed the birtdate per discussion above. I notice that there was a newspaper source on one instance, and the paper does indeed give a birthdate, but it does not mention a source for that. For all we know, the paper used this article as a source for that date. Since the subject obviously does not want his birtdate in the article, I removed it. Crockspot 18:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Times of London not being considered an acceptable source == LOL. Quatloo 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Normally, it would be, but they do not state where they got the date, and there are no other sources to be found, so I highly suspect they got it off of one wiki or another. Since this is a BLP article, the subject is resistant, and the information from the Times cannot be verified independently, it shouldn't be used. Crockspot 16:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In any case BLP specifies that we should generally remove it if the person complains anyway 203.109.240.93 16:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I readded it without realizing it had been discussed. I'll go remove it again. —Angr 12:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's sitting in the article again. I'm not going to remove it, because this whole thing is ridiculous. Jimbo needs to step up and state clearly what he wants. He should also apologize for the inexplicable contradiction and for deleting the diff, which has confused and obscured the situation. Everyking 10:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The diff may be gone but the page still exists where he says what his birthday is. BrianH123 01:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodness

"Using a wiki to create an encyclopedia was publicly proposed by Larry Sanger on January 10, 2001,[8], and the two became two of the founders of what would become Wikipedia[9][10]"

Well, gee, if there could be a worst possible version of this, I suppose that would be it. To my knowledge, no one has ever argued that there were MORE than two founders, unless we count my noting that if Larry is to be considered a co-founder then we might as well consider dozens of people co-founders.--Jimbo Wales 18:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the sorry state of this article (and it is in a sorry state) is to some degree due to Jimbo Wales. I won't touch this article due to his heavy hand. Perhaps others feel likewise. 4.250.177.172 21:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC) User talk:WAS 4.250

Oh, come on guys. You just need to learn how to navigate the waters and learn by experience what to leave in and what to leave out:

• It was Wales' company and money and stuff. He was in charge and he did the authorizing.
• No need to state how Nupedia ended. Just let it trail off and if the reader is so interested, they can go find out on Nupedia's page what happened to that project.
• Sanger independently thought of the idea and he got the idea to the "public" first and he was involved for the first critical year.
• Wales installed the wiki software on the first server and he was involved in that first year, but let's avoid trying to assigning percentages of credit.
• Let's just avoid the whole founder/co-founder mess. It is just a word.
• Sanger "resigned from the leadership of Wikipedia".

See how that works? Be terse. Heck, be vague if you are going to get bogged down in controversy. Just state the facts that we know with certainty. No hurt feelings: strictly business and good ol' volunteerism.--70.231.137.18 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Obligatory pointer to some facts in the archives: http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html --Larry Sanger 22:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, would it be that bad to say, "Jimbo Wales founded Wikipedia, along with Larry Sanger, and dozens of other volunteers?" Titoxd^(?!?) 03:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's our hairsplitter for us...

This thread was started by indefinitely-banned Amorrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka Fplay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka Pinktulip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka as various other titles. He is to be blocked on sight, and everything he does is to be reverted. I've removed the entire thread, as it looks as if all the different IPs came from the same user. Musical Linguist 20:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jimbo-wales---fosdem-2005.jpg

This is a good image, but most of it is empty space. I was going to crop it myself, but since it's JPEG and since I'll almost certainly degrade the quality when I save the cropped version, I'd rather let someone who knows the basics of working with JPEG images do it. The image would look much better cropped, as it would leave more space on the left for text and would display a larger thumbnail in the article. Richard001 22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Save it as a PNG; lossless, so no degradation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.251.125.85 (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Picture of the Year 2006 - voting is open

Voting is open until Feb 14th for the election of the 10 finalists of the competition Commons:Picture of the Year/2006. The final will take place from 17-28 Feb. We would be honoured with your vote. Alvesgaspar 14:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone is creating re-directs to Jimmy Wales

Please see the history diffs. Sorry about the db-attack on the article. One of the re-directs put the tag here it appears. First redirect was at 18:02 local (about 58 minutes ago). Second one at 17:39 local. May have been one more in between. All the re-directs are not showing up in on my Watchlist. Very sophisticated user/vandal at work. Ronbo76 03:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No there's nothing sophisticated about it at all. Just garden variety, moronic page move vandalism. Although this one managed to get more page moves done than usual before being stopped. older ≠ wiser 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Boomis babe jpg in article

Probably should be deleted as the image does not appear or is nominated for deletion. Ronbo76 01:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP and its treatment of Presumption in favor of privacy

Here is what WP:BLP#Privacy of birthdays says:

Privacy of birthdays Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.

Now, please see the Ralph Alvarez's diff where the category for Date of birth missing was removed.

In Wales' case, it is very possible/probable that he considers exact date of birth to be private information (my emphasis which comes from the WP:BLP paragraph above). Furthermore, it is known that he has indicated the exact date is incorrect in public accounts.

Now, if we to follow the last statement in the cited WP:BLP paragraph, only his year of birth should be listed. I agree with the recent post to this talkpage by user:Everyking that Mr. Wales should make his preference known either via the means of contact in WP:BLP. Then, either he or someone from the WP:BLP admin board should post here exactly what birthdate info should be posted to this article.

Based upon the last statement in the WP:BLP Privacy of birthdays, I will now revert the birthdate to the year only and place a non-printing statement next to this info. Ronbo76 14:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is one of hypocrisy: This site divulges tens of thousands of other exact birthdays , criminal records, marital infidelities etc., of living people, often reveling in the notion that permission is not necessary.--64.9.237.117 17:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a unique facet of Wikipedia. This is the free encyclopedia built on user edits. Anyone is free to edit any article (provided it is not protected). If you look at this page's fourth tag, a bio tag header, and/or that of any other talkpage bio tag header, they read:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Most editors that I know along with myself follow that paragraph's guidelines as best we can. Unfortunately, we cannot be everywhere and sometimes stuff or bad edits fall through the cracks. Poorly source info or slander in the articles I watch is hammered out or goes to the noticeboard. If you know of any bio containing items you allege, I encourage you to click on the noticeboard link and submit a report. I can tell you honestly that when I first made a report, I was very impressed by the noticeboard editor who dealt with the problems I noted within minutes of submission. Ronbo76 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how is Mr. Wales "marginally" notable? Little things like this are distracting from more important content matters on the article. Just H 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention in my post that he is marginally notable (but I will cover that in the next paragraph for educational purposes). If you have WP:BLP on your watchlist like I do and follow its talkpage discussion, here is the paragraph that several leading BLP editors use in citing the paragraph I did: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Dates of birth for living persons. In a nutshell, here is the key statement that is cited in removing exact birthdates: Absent such evidence, we ought to have a presumption toward privacy and ought not to be disclosing someone's exact birthdate.

There also has been discussion about changing the words about marginally notable to a better term that connotates what level of notability should be used as the threshold. As with any talkpage for discussion of an improvement to a key policy, that discussion has lapsed and as not been seen as keen. In effect, BLP editors would rather err on the side of privacy for those notable individuals who are not full media types (meaning they have chosen to divulge their private life details by virtue of the concept of are they are a semi-private individuals caught up in the bigger media market). I probably am not conveying the total or best interpretation but trying to give fellow editors a view shared by other editors.

My prime reason for putting here on the talkpage improvement is to show other editors/readers that I am not doing this on a whim but with guidance that I have seen in the treatment of other bios that I watch. As with any other article that an editor makes a contribution or revert to, it should be discussed on the talkpage if it could be deemed controversial. Hope this helps. Cheers, Ronbo76 22:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Parroting . . .

Bomis was a "guy-oriented" search engine that often sold erotic materials, and it was described as similar in nature to "Maxim" magazine with sometimes scantily clad women.

Wales described Bomis as a "guy-oriented search engine", with a market similar to that of Maxim magazine.[4]

Er, just a thought, but shouldn't the "encyclopedic" content not sound like a parroting back of Jimbo's own words? --Dookama 23:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely, this is one of the discussions that seems to have gone on for a long time. Wales gets to have his own words here because of his connection on Wikipedia - there are very, very few articles where people would be a supline as they are here. Tompagenet 11:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bomis

Should it be included that Bomis has been described as softcore pornography in the career section? I think it deserves at least a passing mention like I put in this revision (which was reverted). --Dookama 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There were no objections, so I added something in. --Dookama 11:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Another addition here. How about ending the first paragraph in the Career section with something like

The nature of Bomis is disputed — Wales describes Bomis as a "guy-oriented search engine" that often sold erotic materials which was similar in nature to "Maxim" magazine with sometimes scantily clad women when confronted with the opinion that Bomis dealt in "soft-core pornography."[11]

where the citation would be the same Wired article cited in the controversy section. (I actually implemented this sentence earlier, but Leflyman reverted it. If you wanna see it in the article, here you go. --Dookama 01:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Again, this is already in the Controversy section; what use is it to repeat the "soft-core pornography" claim other than to deprecate the subject of this article? --Leflyman^Talk 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Dookama asessments. You have added details and accuracy, thus improving the article. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Why present Wales' side of the argument but not the other? Doesn't sound very NPOV. --Dookama 01:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• What other side? The nebulous "Some Wikipedians have described it as soft-core pornography" side? In fact, the Wired article makes the claim that "Rogers Cadenhead said other Wikipedia editors described Bomis Babes as 'soft-core pornography'" -- which does not even match the claims being made put forth that Bomis itself was thus described. --Leflyman^Talk 01:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly, I could use a diff as a source for other Wikipedia editors describing Bomis Babes as such as a second resource. Tertiary and primary sources there -- should I hunt for a secondary? --Dookama 02:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Nevermind about the hunt, first or second Google hit on a search for bomis babes softcore pornography [1]. And a diff [2] --Dookama 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• 1) You've just pointing to another article with the exact same claim by Cadenhead that was in the Wired piece-- that doesn't make it a different or better reason to repeat something already in the Criticism section; 2) Wikipedia doesn't cite itself, or diffs of articles as sources -- that's a basic principle. --Leflyman^Talk 03:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say I'd just cite Cadenhead, but Wikipedia doesn't allow citations from blogs, does it? The policy in this joint is so disjointed that I have a hard time remembering. --Dookama 04:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Right; but you still haven't answered how or why another reference to the claim that Boomis Babes were pornographic is relevant or necessary in this article. What is the point, exactly?--Leflyman^Talk 04:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• How about agreement between different sections of the article (statement of something as fact under career, but say that it's disputed elsewhere)? Maintaining NPOV throughout (since there's obviously a POV opposing the "let's skirt the subject through semantics" stand)? What reasons would you provide for its exclusion?--Dookama 05:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I still agree with Dookama. No reason has been given to skirt this issue. A detailed description of both sides of the issue is relevant. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sister

He has siblings, whose friends he posts pictures of on his Flickr account. Sadly, Flickr's not a reliable source, I presume. -- Zanimum 17:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia revisionism

writing under this section is the funniest $h!t i've ever read in wikipedia. just wanted to point that out. 128.253.53.140 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Article

• Article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EnviroGranny (talk • contribs) 10:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

"Role in founding" and NPOV

Danski14 recently changed "best known for his role in founding" in the introduction to "best known for helping found". We all know that there is a dispute between Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales about who founded Wikipedia: Wales says he was the founder and Sanger was an employee who helped, whereas Sanger says that they founded Wikipedia together. I think that the NPOV policy requires that the article not take sides in this debate. Therefore, I suggested the "role in founding" wording for the introduction, since both Sanger and Wales would agree that Wales had a role in founding Wikipedia: they just differ on what Sanger's role was. I think that "helping found" is too POV towards Sanger's perspective. Similarly, I think that the statement "Wikipedia was founded by Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales" is too biased; the article presents the two men's claims, and the early evidence on the subject, in the "Wikipedia revisionism" section. If people think that the article can say "founded by Sanger and Wales", they should explain how that's compatible with the NPOV policy (and yes, I do realize that the NPOV policy was written by Sanger). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree your phrase best summarizes Jimmy Wale's position without going into any details. Like you I was also worried about NPOV, but I can't say I helped much, looking back there is not really any connotative difference between "role in founding" and "helping found"... but I think your's sounds better. The stuff I had read on the founding was Sanger's account, ([3]), and I somehow felt perhaps he wasn't getting enough credit. However, I think you make a good argument overall...Sanger's role is explained later on. Danski14 15:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

chess?

Is it true that Wales likes to play chess? If so, that should be added to the article. Bubba73 (talk), 16:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems a little esoteric, but it probably should be in "Hobbies and Interests" or something ^TalkFissionfox 11:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you got a citation? And even if it was true it probably shouldn't go in the article. Picaroon 01:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Duplicates of sections

Why is the Bomis search engine listed in two different sections (career and controversy)??? Isn't one enough? ^TalkFissionfox 11:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-locked?

Just a suggestion: if you look at the history for this page it seems like there are dozens of acts of vandalism every single day. Wouldn't it just make sense to make it semi-locked os only users with a certain level fo experience can edit it? it seems like non-users (only shows IP) are the ones committing vandalism. I know people are diligently checking for vandalism, but there's just so much of it everyday. I mean just a few moments ago it said "and hired a whore to be its editor-in-chief." Davelapo555 15:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I requested it to be semi protected, and my request was approved. DietLimeCola 16:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That should avoid most if not all of the vandalism that was occuring daily on the page. Davelapo555 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Is it ironic that the article about Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales™, founder of Wikipedia™ - the Free Encyclopeida That Anyone Can Edit™ can not be edited by anyone? Or is it just stupid?

yo

after spending countless, and mostly fruitless hours on myspace, i wanted to let you know that i am now able to put my rhetoric and articulated vocabulary to good use. this place is well, good. the_undertow ^talk 10:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Putting an edit-counter?

Hi Jimmy, I use another wiki called Shetlopedia, is there anyway of getting an edit counter on my page over there? JAStewart 16:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As it says on the top of the page, Jimbo Wales rarely looks here. This is the encyclopedic article about him, not a place to talk to him. I'd advise either asking him on User talk:Jimbo Wales, which is the place to talk to him. Or, you could ask your question in the Village Pump, where someone might know the answer to your question, and it'll certainly be answered faster there. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalking allegations

This and this are clearly unacceptable and bizarre personal attacks. I dont believe DXRAW has any justification for such a bad faith claim and would like him to calm down and stop making wild accustions. I have a history of editing this article and this is pretty much a criminal accusatioon he is making against me, SqueakBox 21:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Only famous people can be stalked or have criminal accusations made about them... and you're not famous, no matter how often you visit Jim Wales's article. 207.69.140.35 00:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. Regular people can be stalked and have criminal accusations made on them--$UIT 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia founder says he's no businessman"

Was rather surprised to see this article in the nz herald [4], he is after all a rather succesfull businessman! Probably should be included into the article his views expressed in this article about him. Mathmo ^Talk 14:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy - Porn Oriented Site (or whatever)

Fair enough, these controversies should be included in the Controversy section, however shouldn't we delete the same content in the Career Section then? I don't think we should be repeating the same allegation twice in one article.

Just a thought.

Discussion moved from Talk:Essjay controversy

To accomadate relevant discussion, I've moved all further discussion related to Wales and Sanger from Talk:Essjay controversy to here. Since users at that talk page have consensus to discuss it here, restoring it to Essjay's article will result in a block for disruption! --w^{L<speak·check>} 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

continuation of above topic

I added back in the comments that were deleted. This is an ongoing discussion to improve this article. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 06:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, Quack - you only needed to click on the word "show" in the above box for this all to come to view again. Secondly, my position has not changed, Quack. I can live with "a" in and I can live with "a" out. What is not helpful is the continued edit war about this. There are at least as many articles referring to Wales as [no "a"] founder of Wikipedia as there are of him being referred to in any other way. The "a" is not there now. If you would prefer, we can get rid of the Sanger reference and drop any comment about Wales' "founding" role in Wikipedia. The article is not deficient or factually incorrect with the absence of the "a". And most importantly, it is not an article about either Jimmy Wales or Larry Sanger. The issue you are raising here belongs in either one or both of those articles. This is bordering on disruption again, Quack. Please stop. (Apologies to tjstrf for not keeping quiet) --Risker 06:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There may well be more articles that do not use an "a" but they appear to be the more recent ones. Whether you like it or no Quack has a point about revisionist history. David D. (Talk) 07:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He can have whatever WP:POINT he wants, but the dispute is absolutely immaterial to the subject of this article. --tjstrf talk 07:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been brought up at at the administrators' noticeboard. Although there is no problem about disputing who is the founder of WP, what is disruptive is how it is posted at a place where it has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Please take it to the proper channels, and this article will move along with whatever decision is made there. --w^{L<speak·check>} 07:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you posted te wrong link since that is about his right to blank his own talk page, nothing to do with the "a". And Quack is correct, this is relevent to the article. It implies that Wales is THE founder which is arguably false. If you want that sentence in the article then you have to address the issue. Best thing is to just remove the statement, just state what Wales is now, not what he was or claims he was. As you say, Wales' history at wikipedia is irrelevent, who is now is not. David D. (Talk) 07:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

partial reset of indents - Actaully that post is a cross-link between this, and the post I made further down. What weight does Wales being the founder of Wikipedia have with Essjay lying about his credentials on Wikipedia? --w^{L<speak·check>} 08:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In Wales's case, it matters because he is the godking community head for Wikipedia, and that not mentioning this would be a rather glaring deficiency. It also is instrumental to explaining some of the other text on the page. If we cut out the mentions of his Wikipedia role, then it doesn't show how he had the authority to ask Essjay to step down from his Wikipedia positions.

His founder status or his CEO-like status?

My edits were revert with the following edit summary.

08:10 . . (+517) . . Tjstrf (Talk | contribs) (because his Wikipedia founder status (whether shared, sole, or whatever) is instrumental to his appearance on this page.)

Now I'm confused. How is his founder status relevent? Surely it is the fact that he is de facto in charge that brought him here? David D. (Talk) 08:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See my reply I just made above in #continuation of above topic. --tjstrf talk 08:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation does not explain why his role as founder needs to be mentioned. It is his role now that is important to know. That he is founder is incidental. David D. (Talk) 13:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a very good point, David D. So far the only "official" title I can find for Wales is Chairman Emeritus of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. Any suggestions on wording to take that mouthful and make it useful? "God-king" seems so unencyclopedic. Risker 14:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Monarch? :) Actually, I had not realised he had no official position in the wikipedia foundation. So that does make the issue a little more complicated. David D. (Talk) 16:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• How is Chairman Emeritus of the Wikimedia Foundation not an official position? No, it doesn't make the issue more complicated. As stated at the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustee's page: "Jimmy Wales is an Internet entrepreneur and wiki enthusiast, and founder of the Wikipedia project...In 2003, Jimmy set up the Wikimedia Foundation, a Tampa-based non-profit organization, to support Wikipedia and its sister projects."--Leflyman^Talk 16:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• How can Chairman Emeritus of the Wikimedia Foundation be an official position? For this article the point is to cite his current postion. He may call himself Emeritus but that implies an honorary title after retirement (and that is true with respect to the board). But if he is in control, and he behaves as if he is, he cannot be emeritus with repsect to the foundation; apparently he does not define his role in the foundation with a title. David D. (Talk) 17:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• He is a member of the Board of Trustees and a director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Those are official positions. "Chairman Emeritus" is an honorary title. [5]. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I was hoping that we could avoid discussing the whole Wikipedia "command structure" in the article. A Chairman Emeritus of an overseeing board, directing day-to-day operations to the point of asking for the resignation of individual volunteers, is somewhat outside of the usual scope of that role. An option might be to call him the Chairman Emeritus of the Foundation and de-facto leader of the English Wikipedia project, but I haven't found any WP:RS that call him anything other than founder or chair so far. Given the contentiousness of this specific point, I am hesitant to change it without a solid reference. --Risker 17:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• The recent (March 25) AP article by Brian Bergstein refers to Wales as "de-facto leader" while playing up the division with Sanger--"(in fact, call him [Larry Sanger] a co-founder, although that, like many things within Wikipedia, is disputed)", as a promo piece for Citizendium -- it makes for good copy. The article has been run under numerous headlines: "Duelling Wikipedians" in the Globe and Mail; Citizendium's Solution for Wikipedia's Woes at TechNewsWorld. A follow-up AP article recounts the controversy of the founding, as headlined, for example "Citizendium Head's Role in Founding Wikipedia Unclear" (at FoxNews).--Leflyman^Talk 17:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia". Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-04-01. The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Wikipedia, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial - Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it. — Brian Bergstein.

Here is another recent source to overview. Respectively, :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 17:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Stick to the question, Quack. This thread is about what to call Jimbo if we are not referring to him as founder. Do you have any additional reliable sources that discus Jimmy Wales's current role in Wikipedia? Risker 18:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Whales "the de facto head of Wikipedia". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C.m.jones (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

• The concern is that while "de facto head" (Latin: "in fact") is technically correct in describing the nebulous authority that Wales wields, the use of "de facto" in leadership roles has a somewhat illegitimate connotation. See: De_facto#Politics. --Leflyman^Talk 19:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I like nebulous, can we use that? :) David D. (Talk) 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

De facto is probably the right word; that is an article requiring cleaning up and is full of POV. Certainly the phrase is used much more benignly than is suggested in the politics section of that article, even in politics. Risker 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

I know that King Jimbo has a little notability as co-founder of wikipedia, but why is his article as long as it is? He is not that notable, and wikipedia is not supposed to have any bias, even for their own commander-and-chief. I mean, his article is longer that William Hung and hung is BY FAR more notable.

76.22.115.136 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You have GOT to be kidding. Nobody whatsoever has even heard of William Hung where I live. Nukleoptra 14:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're telling me that more people have heard of Jimmy Wales where you live than William Hung? Where do you live? Nerdtown? Cavesville? 76.22.115.136 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally. William Hung is bottom of notability. And I don't live in Nerdtown. But probably in America he's more popular than in the UK, I don't know.Nukleoptra 12:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hearing of someone is not a measure of notability. I'm sure there are hundreds thousands of notable people I've never heard of. If there are multiple published sources where the subject, whether Jimbo Wales or William Hung, is the focus of the article then they are notable (by Wikipedia's standards). Wikipedia grows based on interest. If nobody is interested in a topic, even if it is extremely notable, then it won't be developed. In this case people are more interested in expanding the Jimbo Wales article than William Hung. Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view, which doesn't mean there is equal development of unrelated articles. There is a WikiProject; Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias to try and avoid this but it works on more obscure articles. If you think the William Hung article is lacking then please improve it. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability only concerns whether an article should exist, it doesnt concern the length. Anyone notable to be here has the right to a long (if well sourced) article, SqueakBox 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The truth

I like how the page includes the bad stuff about Jimbo Wales. It's good that the truth isn't completely suppressed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeb edee (talk • contribs) 09:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Possessive nouns

The phrase "Wales's father" refers to the father of Jimmy Wales. In this case, the "Wales" refers to Jimmy Wales himself. Since it is only referring to a single person, this "Wales" is singular...to form the possessive, you add an apostrophe and then an 's'. You only add a single apostrophe to form a possessive if the noun ends in an 's' and is also a plural noun. This is not the case here. Your Beloved Uncle Jimbob 16:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The "s" is also dropped for singular proper nouns ending in "s", such as the name "Wales". See http://grammar.uoregon.edu/case/possnouns.html #3 Dragons flight 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was always taught otherwise, and every language manual I've ever seen has it the way I have been doing it, but I guess it's one of those ambiguities of the language. It's not worth fighting over if that's the case. Your Beloved Uncle Jimbob 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

External link craziness

Check out Jimmy Wales#External links. Why are most of those links there? It almost looks like a listing of every page on the web where Jimbo has said something, which isn't quite in line with WP:EL. I'm sure some of that stuff could be used for citations, and if it can't, why keep it? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article

Per WP:BLP, I've removed this contentious section, which should not be included until/if it can be cleaned up to NPOV standards. It overweighs a biographic article with non-neutral "criticism" that we wouldn't allow in any other bio article, if it weren't about Jimmy Wales; further it introduces a particular dispute which has led to ongoing edit-warring:

Wikipedia revisionism

In late 2005, Wales was criticized for editing his own biography page on Wikipedia. Larry Sanger commented that "it seemed Wales was trying to rewrite history". In particular, Rogers Cadenhead drew attention to logs showing that Wales had removed references to Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia. He was also observed to have modified references to Bomis in a way that was characterized as downplaying the sexual nature of some of his former company's products. An article in the July 31 2006 issue of the New Yorker magazine expanded on this topic:

“ Even Wales has been caught airbrushing his Wikipedia entry—eighteen times in the past year. He is particularly sensitive about references to the porn traffic on his Web portal. "Adult content" or "glamour photography" are the terms that he prefers, though, as one user pointed out on the site, they are perhaps not the most precise way to describe lesbian strip-poker threesomes. (In January, Wales agreed to a compromise: "erotic photography.") ”

In both cases, Wales argued that his modifications were solely intended to improve the accuracy of the content. Wales explained that Sanger had been his employee, and that he considered himself to be the sole founder of Wikipedia. In 2006, Wales told the Boston Globe that "it's preposterous" to call Sanger the co-founder; however, Sanger strongly contests that description. He was identified as a co-founder of Wikipedia at least as early as September 2001 and referred to himself that way as early as January 2002. In addition to developing Wikipedia in its early phase, Sanger claims he is also responsible for the idea of applying the wiki concept to the building of a free encyclopedia. It is undisputed that he also coined the name of the project. He nevertheless ascribed the broader idea to Wales: "To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. (…) The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on." In response to Wales revisionism, Sanger posted on his personal webpage a collection of evidence about his role in founding Wikipedia by referencing earlier versions of Wikipedia pages, citing press releases from Wikipedia in the years of 2002-2004, and early media coverage, all of which described Wales and Sanger as the co-founders.

Following this incident, Wales apologized for editing his own biography, which is a practice generally frowned upon at Wikipedia. Wales said in the Wired interview, "People shouldn't do it, including me. I wish I hadn't done it." He continues to assert that he is the sole founder of Wikipedia. However, it has been reported that Wales is the co-founder.

-Leflyman^Talk 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, as noted at WP:BLP:

"Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

and,

"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked." (emphasis mine)

Until/if the claims made in this section can be cleaned up to neutral, non-biased language, citing specific published sources, and the relevance to the biography of Jimmy Wales can be established-- not merely to excessively criticise him over a minor incident that only matters to certain individuals-- it should not be re-included. --Leflyman^Talk 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• First, who an incident matters to shouldn't even play a part in deciding if it should be included in an article — if it's sourced and one person decides to include it. Second, of course this section is going to paint Jimmy Wales in a negative light. He says himself "People shouldn't do it, including me. I wish I hadn't done it." You really can't get much clearer than that -- even the man himself knows he did something wrong.

• And just for my own reference, I'm going to list the sources here:

• The Times
• Cadenhead's Blog
• A diff
• The New Yorker
• The San Diego Union Tribune
• The Boston Globe
• The New York Time
• And internally hosted transcript of a speech given by Larry Sanger
• Slashdot
• A statement by Larry Sanger from his personal web page
• ZDNet

• The only iffy source is the Cadenhead's blog — and maybe Slashdot. I see no problems with the application of the sources, but I might just be missing something. Could you point out what you specifically think is wrong?
• As for whether or not this is relevant here, think of it like this: If Jimmy Wales' memoirs had been released today, would there be mention of this incident somewhere? I think the obvious answer is yes — it was well-publicised event and anyone who would read Jimmy Wales' memoirs would note its absence and wonder. If it would be included there, it should be included here. --Dookama 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Here are the general problems with the section, which in my view make it fail BLP:

1. Use of non-neutral heading "revisionism" -- asserting a particular POV
2. Passive voiced weasel wording: "was criticized"; "was observed"
3. Original research through synthesis of blogs, Slashdot and WP itself; taking a biased position as to the claims' accuracy-- particularly in, "He continues to assert that he is the sole founder of Wikipedia.[7] However, it has been reported that Wales is the co-founder."
4. Finally, the undue weight of the entire section is problematic, as its length exceeds nearly any other content in the biography-- which should be about the important biographical information about an individual, not a minor occurrence whose inclusion is only to colour the subject negatively.

A short, neutral statement of the criticism would be passable; the current version is not. --Leflyman^Talk 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

1. What's not neutral about the heading? Which particular POV is asserted? It is a demonstrable fact that he engaged in revisionism of the widely published fact that Sanger was a co-founder. Besides, even if there were anything wrong with the heading, that would be no reason to remove the entire section.
2. Trivial to put this into active voice, if you see a problem in that. Again, can't be a reason to remove the section.
3. See Dookama's sources above. It does not rely on blogs etc. What exactly is a biased position? It is a fact that he asserts that, and it is a fact that the opposite of his assertion has been widely reported (while not a single authority has confirmed his assertion). His claims are counterfactual; it is not "taking a biased position" to report that someone says 2+2=5 and to note that everyone else says 2+2=4.
4. Hardly; it's about as long as the section about media appearances. Nor is his revisionism a "minor occurrence". His "sole founder" claim is ongoing, and it has been widely reported in the media. I don't know where you get the idea that the inclusion of this "is only to colour the subject negatively". It is to describe the subject factually. If well-sourced facts reflect negatively on a subject, it's the subject's fault. You're majorly misunderstanding BLP if you think no living person can be described in any way that may reflect negatively on him. Otherwise you'd have to describe Bin Laden without mentioning 9/11, or George W. Bush without mentioning the Iraq war, etc.

In short, I don't agree there's a BLP issue here, and since others don't agree either, you should refrain from removing the section under this pretense. You will not be immune from 3RR. Bramlet Abercrombie 19:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• As we have a disagreement on the understanding of WP:BLP, and the applicability to this article, I propose this issue be opened to comments via WP:RFC to get additional input from other editors. --Leflyman^Talk 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• You've had problems with weasel wording in the past — why not try changing the wording instead of removing the sections? I think consensus is that the section belongs there, so unilaterally deciding it doesn't belong and removing it is just going to breed animosity. The same thing with the title. I noticed that someone changed it to biography at one point. Would that work for you? Maybe something like "Autobiographical Policy and Wales"? I don't know, I'm not very good with titles, but those are my suggestions.
• Maybe you could find another article that talks about the incident and just put a {main} template in with a little 3-4 sentence summary of the event? If you agree that the section can or should stay in the article, I'm willing to work with it to make it more neutral. Just know that in a compromise, you won't come out with everything you want — neither will the people on the other side.
• (edit conflict) If you want to open a RfC go ahead, but I think that this can be solved without it. --Dookama 19:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: BLP

This Request for Comment asks whether a section describing "Wikipedia revisionism" by Jimmy Wales is neutral, appropriate to the article and meets requirements of WP:BLP. Please see comments above. Disputants may offer additional statements below, but this is principally for other, non-involved editors to comment, in order to provide a broader outside perspective on the disputed issue. The intended outcome is to help find a solution which meets consensus. --Leflyman^Talk 05:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The title seems a little biased but the section itself seems well balanced and well cited although I did not check each citation individually. I say put it back in. --Gbleem 13:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur with gbleem. It is clearly sourced, so it does not fail OR, which is what i was expecting. If it is not neutral then fix it. Removing the section is certainly not neutral. David D. (Talk) 17:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please see my comments above per neutrality of the section; sourcing is not the sole issue-- although quoting and emphasis from some sourcing is clearly intended to be sensationalistic -- it is Undue weight, using biased language, and incorporating Original research by synthesis. As pointed out at WP:BLP#STYLE, "The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view." And, "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source". (emphasis mine) The use of Wikipedia "diffs", Sanger's blog/Slashdot post falls into Original Research and poor sourcing -- Sanger is not the subject of this bio. Again, at BLP: "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject." (emphasis original).

Compare, for example, how the same issue is treated at Adam_Curry#Wikipedia. Ironically, the main instigator of this particular "controversy", Rogers Cadenhead (rcade (talk · contribs)) admits to originating/editing his own biography on Wikipedia (yet one hears no public hemming-and-hawing). --Leflyman^Talk 18:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: the content has now not only been re-inserted, but edited to be even more biased. Impressive. --Leflyman^Talk 21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Edit it to be less biased, then. You are the only person unwilling to compromise here. --Dookama 02:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey everyone! I am considering a report on wikinews relating to Jummy Wales - long story. Just one fact I need to confirm - has this page been valdalized recently with someone adding to the article that Jimmy was a "teenage drug lord from Malaysia"? If you want to contact me, visit my userpage on wikinews or wikipedia thanks --talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 16:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a joke on the Chaser's War on Everything. It probably isn't true but would be great if it was! 203.87.8.127 12:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

sailing and left-handedness

Jimbo mentioned at the education.au conference in Melbourne (April 2007) that he has a genuine interest in sailing, but this has yet to appear on his wikipedia page (even though he's suggested this to many different people). The left-handedness was just an observation made by me. Isn't the sum of all tidbits what makes up a page in wikipedia?
--ric_man 01:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Of course it contributes to a Wikipedia article. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

This content is extremely trivial and parochial:

A humorous event occurred when an introductory speaker (Dr. Mark Monson) misspoke while presenting an award and said “gynecological” rather than “genealogical”. Later, during a question and answer period Wales was asked by a school aged child what Wales’s favorite article was that a third grader could read. Wales (after some consideration) said that Inherently funny word would probably be the case.[26] He later cautioned that a parent may want to check on this before sending their child to the site. However, perhaps a new word will be added to this article because the questioner after a few attempts at pronunciation asked if “genie-whatever that was” was one of those words, and if it was the study of genies. Wales advised that this question be answered by his parents and continued with the forum

I would have just removed it, but I thought considering the page is protected I'd discuss it here first. Tompagenet 10:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No - I'm being bold, it's a better strategy, as this clearly is a piece of trivial text (essentially "Mr Wales went to a speech and someone pronounced a word wrong". Tompagenet 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear - I've just read the lamentable bit about how many books he owns about sailing. This is utterly un-notable, so I'm going to be bold and remove it.Tompagenet 10:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lemme quote WP:N:

Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles.

Putting it back in since, well... come up with a valid reason to remove it first. --Dookama 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it's utterly unimportant. I at no point said that the notability guidelines applied here - the idea of something being notable did exist before Wikipedia - my original sentence makes perfect sense. Dookama - your reasoning is flawed: we don't keep things in articles because no-one has adequately proved that they are totally mundane. I could add that Mr Wales has a face, or has been on a train, or likes red cars or any other such inconsequential nonsense. Danski14 has, independently of me, come to the same conclusion - the fact that Mr Wales owns 25 books about one thing and 2 about another does not warrant a place in an encyclopaedia article, and as an additional point that he's noticed, it's self-referential. Tompagenet 17:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't put much stock in the self-reference guidelines. That's my choice–I just don't think that Wikipedia should ignore itself in some ways (mentioning something Wales said about his Wikipedia article) and then have entire articles about the Wikipedia community or Criticism of Wikipedia. The information you're removing may have been deemed unencyclopedic (and please, if you're going to use the archaic dipthong in that word, at least use the correct ligatured form) by yourself and one other person (possibly several other people), but Wikipedia is not your standard encyclopedia. –Dookama 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dookama, you are extremely tiring. Firstly, simply reverting edits because you don't like them is a tad questionable - you've provided no rationale whatsoever for the extremely weak anecdote that you've put back in. Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "Wikipedia is not your standard encyclopedia" - if you mean Wikipedia is not constrained in the same ways a regular, paper-based encyclopaedia would be then you are correct, but this is no reason to allow articles to fill up with trivia. If you mean that it isn't my standard encyclopaedia (i.e. that it doesn't work on my, Tom Page's, standard), then of course that's very much true, but it's equally true for you Dookama. Finally, your comment about the ligature just shows unnecessary levels of obnoxious behaviour - we may disagree on how to edit this article, but I've made no irrelevant attacks at you - the way I spell encyclopaedia is not only correct (check out the first note on Encyclopaedia), but also has no bearing whatsoever on the substantive of our discussion. Tompagenet 12:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Biographic articles should give someone a feel for a person. Including a bit of information about someone -- even (if not especially) through an anecdote -- helps people to better grasp who they are. While you can say, "But this is an encyclopedia, not a biography!" it's my belief that by surpassing the paper boundaries, Wikipedia has surpassed the content limitations thereof. One can still sound authoritative when outlining who a person is beyond what they have done. --Dookama 21:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

4/10

He got four out of ten questions in The Chaser's War on Everything, today, now. Fluck 11:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was awesome. Although, none of his answers really made sense, like "a lot of coffee" and "17." Still awesome to see he has a sense of humour, though. Here's the video. Could anyone find the edit that Andrew Hansen supposedly made? --CrookedAsterisk (contribs • talk) 12:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that footage was a hack job, which accounts for the nonsensical answers; maybe not. Although I must say Mr.Wales cuts a better figure on TV than the picture in this article.... --Jquarry 01:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am very sure it was very planned out in advance. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=126094459 This could be the edit. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the last question ha haCool guy45 23:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Cool Guy45

It was rather fun. Of course my answers made little sense, it's a humor bit you know. I wish very much I had been able to REMEMBER all ten questions, but they came at me out of the blue very quickly, see. So I did my best to just pretend to answer them. If I had been a little quicker on my feet, I would have said 10 weird things in quick succession. But I was sort of cracking up too much. In all, I enjoyed the surprise. :)--Jimbo Wales 22:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the edit to Jimbo's article was made not by Hansen, but by someone who had read about the incident in the newspaper (I make the assumption based mainly on the fact that the timestamp seemed to be some time after the article appeared in the paper, although I may have gotten my UTC and AEST mixed up). Incidentally, I think 4/10 is either the 2nd or 3rd best score achieved by anyone faced with "Mr Ten Questions", and I'm pretty sure Anthony LaPaglia had help (the segment showing him answering the questions was heavily edited). It could have been worse - politicians are often subjected to "Pursuit Trivia". Incidentally, Jimmy, why couldn't you have visited Sydney about six months ago when I was still living there? :P Confusing Manifestation 06:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wales on cover of Reason

Wales is on the cover of the new issue of Reason magazine. [6] Is it ok to put that picture on this article? I thought it would be good in the section discussing his libertarianism. Acirema 05:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any reason you wouldn't be allowed to include it—assuming it's in the public domain. Upload it, put it in, and wait to see if it gets removed, I guess. --Dookama 05:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's highly unlikely that the image is in the public domain, Dookama. So no, the image can't be used in this article. The only place where the cover of reason would be fair use, is in the article about that magazine, but even then it could be argued (from a content point of view, not copyright) that it would be too self-referential to replace the current cover in that article by the one with this cover. --JoanneB 05:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah well. I know nothing about the logistics of public domain/fair use. --Dookama 07:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No Editing?

Brusquely here, just listening to Radio National, and thought I'd revise Jimmy Wales's entry to include recent revelations that he is a teenage druglord from Malaysia. Why has the edit function been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.107.139 (talk)

First of all, sign your comments with ~~~~. Secondly, I seriously doubt that the information you have heard from Radio National is accurate, and will more than likely cause your edit to be reverted. Finally, the page is semi-protected, meaning that it cannot be edited by anonymous users or registered users that have been around for less than four days. --Ryan Schmidt (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you have just answered your own question. But hey, if you can find a decent reliable source(!) for that (and no, the Chaser's War on Everything or a reference to that, does NOT count), feel free to let us know. --JoanneB 16:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate

So, someone found a source. Interesting. Still doesn't match my birth certificate, though. :) I am writing Britannica to see what I can do about it.--Jimbo Wales 22:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is rather funny when you have to find a source for an article about a Wikipedian. :P —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

birthdate controversy

Should we include the information mentioned at http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=The_Case_of_the_Disappearing_Diff in a birthdate controversy subsection? --MarSch 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration case likely to suppress information on the Falun Gong

If you have a moment, please check out a current arbitration case here:[7] I'm one of two critics of the Falun Gong who have just been banned from editing the ariticle based on on Fred Bauder's belief that I'm a "determined activist" seeking to push my POV, rather than an analysis of my edits. Falun Gong practitioners have agressively deleted well-sourced and notable information from Wikipedia which they consider reflects badly on their group, yet none of these editors were singled out for a ban at the start of the Arbitration case. If this doesn't amount to unequal applicaton of Wikipedia policies, I don't know what does.

I'm not asking you to intervene on my behalf, since I've already decided to leave Wikipedia for good. But there will surely be other editors who in good faith seek to introduce edits about the Falun Gong which Falun Gong practitioners object to and work to suppress. This particular arbitraton action was flawed from the beginning. Thought you should know. --Tomananda 07:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)