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)"

Birthdate discussions can be found Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate

First sentence

The first sentence ends with promoter of Wikipedia. But he may be more notable for creating the WMF. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you source that? Can you source he is notableas as a co-founder? If so please make the relevant changes. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say most readers will never have heard of the Wikimedia Foundation before reading this article, let alone primarily associate Wales with it; they will all have heard of – and associate Wales with Wikipedia – however. Skomorokh 18:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the lead sentence should be what he is most notable for, not personal preference. We have an entire section about the Wikimedia Foundation in this article but finding references that specifically state Wales is a promoter of Wikipedia is hard to find. See Wikipedia:Lead section#First sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales (born August 7, 1966[2]) is an American Internet entrepreneur, co-founder of Wikipedia, and creator of the Wikimedia Foundation.[3][4][5][6]

If editors prefer we could go with this text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Co-founder discussion rumbles on

SqueakBox, if you have any concerns about the co-founder of Wikipedia text then please be specific and provide your reasoning. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we should mention co-founder in the opening, we should use the more generic founder thus giving equal non-weight to Sanger's co- claim and Wales's sole claim, both of which are slanted to a POV. We discuss the issue in the article already but we don't need this injection in the opening of a POV when the term founder which neither implies he founded it alone or with others is so much more NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not given any good reason for not including co-founder in the lead. According to a number of sources, co-founder is correct. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The only possible compromise was like this, (co-)founder. But it seemed editors preferred "co-founder" spelled out in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Except Sanger's claim is supported by a raft of evidence, meaning its not POV, its fact and therefore should stay where it is. Viridae^Talk 21:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There is not and has never been any evidence that what Sanger alleges is other than a claim, and to promote it as fact is intellectually dishonest and exactly what POV is. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? Official WMF documents[1][2] and press releases written and signed off on AFTER Larry left Wikipedia, with Jimmy listed as a contact, aren't enough for you? rootology (C)(T) 05:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Very strong evidence has been provided (From the WMF, from Jimmy himself, from Sanger - multiple sources), as you well know. Just because you don;t like it doesn't make it incorrect. You and Wales are the only ones who still believe that fanciful story. Viridae^Talk 05:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Squeakbox, your logic for continuing this debate is very unclear. As far as i can tell your only argument is "if jimmy says he is sole founder then it must be true". This flies in the face of all the relevant sources. David D. (Talk) 03:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Squeakbox, why do you keep rehashing this every few months? We have more sources now than we did the last time this came up. Co-founder is an accurate and verifiable fact. لennavecia 05:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wales did not dispute the fact that he is the co-founder when Sanger was part of the project. Wales would have had to seen the Wikipedia press releases, early versions of Wikipedia articles, and several media coverage articles, all describinbg Wales and Sanger as the co-founders. He never publicly objected to being called the co-founder until at least late 2004 or early 2005. Sanger became critical of Wikipedia after he left the project. That's when Wales began to claim that he is the "sole founder" of Wikipedia. Wales did not dispute the co-foundership of Wikipedia until Sanger left the project. What did Wales actually do at Wikipedia in the early years. He was busy with Bomis. He hired Sanger because he needed someone to run Nupedia. When Wikipedia got started, Wales mainly paid the bills while Sanger was doing a lot of the work building and promoting Wikipedia. Wales provided the "financial backing" while Sanger "led the project". Jimmy Wales had a minor role in the early development of Wikipedia in terms of building the project. Sanger named the project, thought of using wiki software, conceived of Wikipedia, was an early community leader, and established Wikipedia's most basic policies including Ignore all rules and NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wales would have had to seen the Wikipedia press releases," - there's even a message from him for that, from January 2002 - "But yes, since I'm paying for it to be sent out, I'll have to approve the final version.  :-)" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Clarification: Wales, Co-Founder; Wikipedia Formally Launched In 2001". Online Media Daily, April 23, 2009.

"An article in the April 23, 2009 Online Media Daily "Wikipedia Founder: How To Save The Newspaper Industry" should have stated that Jimmy Wales was the co-founder of Wikipedia with Larry Sanger." لennavecia 12:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sanger built Wikipedia, not Wales

Singer, Michael (January 16, 2002). "Free Encyclopedia Project Celebrates Year One". Jupitermedia. Retrieved 2009-04-21. Wales has supplied the financial backing and other support for the project, and Sanger, who earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Ohio State in 2000, has led the project. {{cite news}}: |archive-url= is malformed: timestamp (help)

Poe, Marshall (2006). "The Hive". The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved April 21, 2009. Sanger made two great contributions to Wikipedia: he built it, and he left it. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Sanger built Wikipedia. Wales paid the bills via Bomis (along with two partners). I made this change because the text failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Together with Larry Sanger and others, Wales helped lay the foundation for Wikipedia, This text failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No it didn't. Financial backing is required to build a project. You participated in the discussion that resulted in the consensus to use this wording. If you want to change it, bring it up on the talk page first. لennavecia 20:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Built" and "led" are quite vague. I'd prefer if we could stick to the facts, where they can be verified. Who had the idea to use a wiki format? (Kovitz, Sanger) Who installed the wiki software? (Wales?) Who came up with the idea of open editing? (Wales?) Who came up with the underlying open-source-influenced philosophy? (Wales, via Raymond) Who came up with the basic policies/guidelines such as NPOV, no personal attacks or original research? (Wales?) And so on. Skomorokh 20:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the edit summary Financial backing and initial building of content, among other things, are all part of the initial laying of the foundation. The sources being used does not back up the claim made in the edit summary. Wales provided financial backing but the sources do not claim Wales initially built Wikipedia's content. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the offending sections pending verifiable information one way or the other. Skomorokh 22:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia: 50 languages, 1/2 million articles". Wikimedia Foundation Press Release. Wikimedia Foundation. 2004-04-25. Retrieved 2009-04-21. The Wikipedia project was founded in January 2001 by Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger. Bomis (bomis.com), an Internet web portal owned by Wales, supplied the financial backing and other support, while Sanger led the Wikipedia project during its first year, as a full-time paid editor. {{cite web}}: External link in |quote= (help)

Here is a primary source that states Sanger led the project while Wales provided financial backing. The text in the lead fails verification. The sources do not claim Wales laid the foundation for Wikipedia. However, there is a source stating Sanger set up guidelines for Wikipedia.

Schiff, Stacy (July 31, 2006). "Know It All". Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?. The New Yorker. Retrieved 2009-04-21. At the beginning, there were no formal rules, though Sanger eventually posted a set of guidelines on the site. The first was "Ignore all the rules." Two of the others have become central tenets: articles must reflect a neutral point of view (N.P.O.V., in Wikipedia lingo), and their content must be both verifiable and previously published.

According to the sources presented, Sanger led the project and laid down the foundation for Wikipedia. But Wales is receiving credit for what Sanger did. QuackGuru (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

More accurately, according to your interpretation of the sources. They don't appear to say Wales "laid the foundation" or "helped to lay the foundation", I will grant you that. I think we should try to get the body of the text in order first, as writing a summary for the lede will be much easier then. Skomorokh 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The text in the lead fails verification. Now that the body has been expanded the lead should be fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a line we could use: "Wales’s benign rule has allowed Wikipedia to do what it does best: grow. " Marshall Poe, The Atlantic. Skomorokh 00:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty straightforward summation of at least some of their respective roles: "Although it was Sanger who brought the wiki concept to the online encyclopedia, it was Wales who had the original vision of a free, online dictionary and the money to back it up." The San Diego Tribune, December 6, 2004. Any reason not to run with it? Skomorokh 15:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This could work. The word dictionary is a typo. While Sanger conceived of the wiki concept to the online encyclopedia, Wales had the idea of a free online encyclopedia with the funds to support the project. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "vision" is probably not the best description - that makes it sound like Wales was the first person to come up with the idea, whereas there were plenty of earlier efforts (I happen to think the true founder of Wikipedia's success was Google). Maybe something like "championed" or "desire to fund" would be better (if a good source can be found for it). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to summarize the body of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a distraction

This Wales-Sanger crap is a complete distraction.

I just read The Hive article, just one source, and it is full of interesting things we could add to this biography. Wales' experience of MUDs for example: very interesting background. Then there is

• Neither Sanger nor Wales looked on Wikipedia as anything more than a lark. This is evident in Sanger’s flip announcement of Wikipedia to the Nupedia discussion list. “Humor me,” he wrote. “Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes.”

which makes something of a mockery of the "who had the grand idea" founding dispute. Then there's the Cunc story and:

• [JW] weighed in with an unusually forceful posting that warned against a “culture of conflict.” Wikipedia, he implied, was about building an encyclopedia, not about debating how to build or govern an encyclopedia.

followed by

• Wales saw that Sanger was having trouble managing the project. Indeed, he seems to have sensed that Wikipedia really needed no manager. In mid-December 2001, citing financial shortfalls, he told Sanger that Bomis would be cutting its staff and that he should look for a new job.

These provide fascinating context, and insight into the topic of this article (Jimmy Wales, in case that isn't clear).

There's great material in even one of the sources we cite. Why not use it to write a fascinating biography, instead of concentrating and prolonging a pointless and ultimately sterile argument? Geometry guy 20:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As a third-party to this article and having read much of the distracting POV pushing arguments on this page (and on Talk:Larry Sanger and User:Jimbo Wales), I am inclined to agree completely with Geometry Guy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Levine2112 Wales is the founder of Wikipedia and Sanger is alleged to be the co-founder? QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Discuss the subject, not the editor. Geometry guy 21:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific on what is "crap", G-guy? Your interesting tidbits (which I agree would make a great part of a comprehensive biography) all seem to relate to Wales-Sanger. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes: concentrating efforts on who was a "(co-)founder", who had "the idea", who "built" Wikipedia etc. is a distraction. JW's experience with MUDs has nothing to do with Sanger, and I raised the other "tidbits" partly to demonstrate how much of a distraction the distraction is. The second quote, however, has a purely Wales context, which you picked up above in the quote "Wales’s benign rule has allowed Wikipedia to do what it does best: grow". In this article we need to use the source material to write a biography. Geometry guy 21:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

– many of whom shared Wales' admiration for the open-source movement –

This text is unduly selfserving and is taken out of context. The tone is not NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Serving who? I think it adds important context to the type of people who were attracted to contributing to Wikipedia in the early days. The surrounding text from the source is:

[Sanger] and Wales decided to separate the wiki project from Nupedia. Sanger named the new project Wikipedia.

Wikipedia quickly took off as netizens embraced the encyclopedia, researching and writing about thousands of topics. Like Wales, many of the Wikipedians sympathized with the open-source software movement, best known for the free operating system Linux.

Two years after its launch, the English version of Wikipedia contained 100,000 articles. The pace accelerated from there. In February, Wikipedians surpassed the 200,000-article mark. In July, the project reached 300,000 published topics.

Its use in our article is as follows:

Neither Sanger nor Wales expected very much from the initiative.[23][9] Wales, anticipating "complete rubbish", hoped that if they were lucky, Wikipedia might yield a couple of rough draft entries for Nupedia.[23] To the surprise of Sanger and Wales, within a few days of launching the number of articles on Wikipedia had outgrown that of Nupedia, and a small community of editors – many of whom shared Wales' admiration for the open-source movement – had gathered.[9][29][14] Sanger developed Wikipedia in its early phase and guided the project.

The term "sympathized" is changed to "admiration" to avoid plagiarism. Otherwise it's lifted straight from the source, no alteration in tone. How is it out of context? Skomorokh 02:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

At the beginning of Wikipedia, editors did not sympathize with Wales' movement. At that time, there was not any specific movement. You added text that is out of context. Within a few days of the launching of Wikipedia, editors did not admire Wales' open-source movement. QuackGuru (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You are misreading the text, I think. It's not Wales' movement, it's the pre-existing open source software movement that began in the 1980s. Both the ref and our article are claiming that Wales and many early Wikipedians thought favourably of that movement, not that the early Wikipedians were flocking to some sort of Wales fan club. Skomorokh 02:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To the surprise of Sanger and Wales, within a few days of launching the number of articles on Wikipedia had outgrown that of Nupedia, and a small community of editors – many of whom shared Wales' admiration for the open-source movement – had gathered.[9][29][14]

After three days, editors did not shared Wales' admiration for the open-source movement. Anyhow, the tone is not NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with the tone? Do you take issue with the Tribune's journalistic objectivity or with the substitution of "admiration" for "sympathized"? The line is put where it is because that is where the early contributors are discussed; if the conflation of "early contributors" and "the editors who showed up after a few days" is uncomfortable for you we can put them in separate sentences. Skomorokh 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is puffery and the source does not claim within a few days, many of whom shared Wales' admiration for the open-source movement gathered. This was added out of context. That is why it is WP:SYN. This was adding different sources to come to a new conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already suggested we could separate the "few days" and "early contributors" claims. You're just asserting a lack of neutrality and context, not making any argument. Skomorokh 03:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have provided evidence that the text was taken out of context. The text fails NPOV. I think it should be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see any evidence in this thread to support the claims you're making. The only specific problem you seem to identified is the application of the timeframe "few days" to the category of individuals who sympathise with the open-source movement. Skomorokh 03:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any point to including text on how Wikipedians shared Wales' admiration for the open-source movement. This is weird. QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It tells us what type of people the early adopters were, which is part of the explanation of why it took off, contrary to expectations. But if consensus is that it's not relevant, it's not essential. Skomorokh 03:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that weird, it's a form of adulation. David D. (Talk) 03:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would include text about Wales' role in the community, not Wikipedians view. It looks silly to include it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is strange to write but given that Wales' fans are probably most active on the page it is to be expected. David D. (Talk) 03:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In my time watchlisting this page, I've seen approximately zero evidence that Wales fans have been active here. If you have seen otherwise, please enlighten me. Geometry guy 22:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My first look at this whole aspect of Wikipedia history -- and, yeah, it is going offtopic regardless of how much coverage the website's philosophy received in the business world -- suggests that QuackGuru may be right about the wording. It is a bit of a stretch to say that "many" slashdot users shared Wales' "admiration" for the open source movement. They were formally associated with Linux prior to Wikipedia coming on the scene, but obviously still had some reservations about the movement as a whole back in 2001/2002. Ottre 16:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the disputed text. QuackGuru (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

– many of whom shared Wales' admiration for the open-source movement[original research?] – The synthesis/adulation bit remains in the article. I think it should be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

References needed in lead

Wales took a job in finance, and worked as the research director of a Chicago futures and options firm before retiring from the industry in 2000.[citation needed] In 1996, along with two partners, he founded Bomis, a web portal targeted at males, which hosted and provided the initial funding for the Nupedia peer-reviewed encyclopedia (2000 – 2003), and for its successor, Wikipedia.[citation needed]

Me thinks it is appropriate to add references to the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wales as ad:tech keynote speaker

I'm not very familiar with the San Francisco tech scene. Is this worth mentioning? Skomorokh 05:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So Jimbo, did you get the full $75,000 or did hard times force you to take a cut in pay?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Problematic issue

In the External links section we have a link to the Jimbo Wales' page. The problem is when Wales is using his user page to promote Wikia for profit. It may be best to remove the link to the user page as long as the user page is being used for business. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We would link to an official website promoting a business, so why would we not link to his userpage? لennavecia 19:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Promotion wouldn't be the only issue here. The most significant one would be to set a precendent for something we don't currently allow -- connecting articlespace and userspace. That separation should be maintained. Userspace is not a RS, and we allow nothing but RS in articlespace. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Promotion (a for profit user page) is the main issue. Using Wikipedia for promotion is not part of the Wikipedia process.

We would not link to an official user page promoting a business, so why would we link to his user page? QuackGuru (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Promotion is definitely one issue, but even in the absence of promotion, we wouldn't link to anything in userspace from articlespace. That's a big no no, and is thus the most basic issue here. "Promotion or no, it won't go." -- Brangifer (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Is an editor allowed to use their user page for profit and business. The bigger issue here is that we have a link to a user page being used for business. QuackGuru (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the page is a reliable source is irrelevant, because it's not being cited as one. We ought to treat Wikipedia no differently than any other website of its class. The question – narrowly – is whether it contains "further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy". More broadly the question is if it were some website other than Wikipedia that Wales had been involved with, would we link his userpage there? I think we would. The way the Wales' page is presented in the external links makes it clear that our article is not endorsing it in any way; it is merely saying "this is one of the important public presentations of the topic, Jimmy Wales". I thoroughly agree that internal links ought to be dealt with very carefully within the body of articles, but in the external links there is little cause for concern. Skomorokh 02:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a concern when the external link is to a user page that is being used for profit. I thought a user page on Wikipedia is not to be used for business or profit. QuackGuru (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should link to his article as it sets a bad precedent. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It sets a potentially deadly precedent, as links to user pages could then be used for outing Wikipedia editors. Their activities as editors here should not be connected to their real life activities outside of Wikipedia. It shouldn't be dangerous to edit here. They should be allowed to edit here without fearing it will have real life consequences for them. Trolls and psychos frequent this place and will use such information to connect the dots in a manner they might not have done on their own. We shouldn't be doing it for them. (The issue of using a user page for profit is another matter entirely, and I'm not commenting on that. I see this as a matter of principle regarding RS.) -- Brangifer (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Problematic issue unresolved (a for profit user page)

• The big issue here is that we have a link to a user page being used for business.
• We would not link to an official user page promoting a business, so why would we link to his user page?
• Wikia and Wikipedia should remain separate. Wikia is for profit and Wikipedia is not for profit.

QuackGuru (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)