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)"

Unofficial request for comment about co-founder/sole founder dispute

Co-founder/sole founder dispute rumbles Wikipedia

• 04:51, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) List of Auburn University people ‎ (→Alumni: nothing to do with co founder dispute which it was removed last year)
• 04:50, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Huntsville, Alabama ‎ (→Notable residents and famous natives: nothing to do with the dispute)
• 04:48, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) 1966 ‎ (Undid revision 292265427 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:48, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Dopplr ‎ (Undid revision 292265970 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:48, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Birla Institute of Technology and Science ‎ (Undid revision 292266526 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:48, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Kelley School of Business ‎ (Undid revision 292272282 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:48, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! episodes (2006) ‎ (Undid revision 292320956 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:47, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) American School in Japan ‎ (→Misc. Info: article has no relation to co-founder dispute)
• 04:46, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Society for Technical Communication ‎ (Undid revision 292369674 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:46, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Criticism of Microsoft ‎ (Undid revision 292369754 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:46, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) PR-e-Sense ‎ (Undid revision 292369952 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:46, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Diplopedia ‎ (Undid revision 292370091 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:45, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) June 1, 2005 ‎ (Undid revision 292370239 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:45, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Poduniversal ‎ (Undid revision 292370021 by QuackGuru (talk))
• 04:44, 26 May 2009 (hist | diff) Hot Press ‎ (nothing to do with the co-founder dispute come on QG you know better Undid revision 292369868 by QuackGuru (talk))

• 05:13, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Hot Press ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:13, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Poduniversal ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:13, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) June 1, 2005 ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful) (top)
• 05:12, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Society for Technical Communication ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:12, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Criticism of Microsoft ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:09, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) American School in Japan ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:08, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) List of Auburn University people ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:08, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Dopplr ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:08, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) 1966 ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:07, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! episodes (2006) ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:07, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Birla Institute of Technology and Science ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)
• 05:06, 4 June 2009 (hist | diff) Kelley School of Business ‎ (making false statements isnt helpful)

After the content dispute was over an editor went back to several articles and rewrote history (revisionism). The editor previously acknowledged Jimmy Wales is historically cosidered the co-founder of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This user conduct dispute does not belong on this talkpage; the issue has been settled again and again and again as far as this article is concerned. Take it to WP:RFC/U, WP:AIN, anywhere but here, please.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors can click on show at the upper right hand corner to see the revisionism across several pages. Before an official request for comment is started I think I would like to try to resolve this matter. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose we change back founder to co-founder per NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For the nth time, this isn't WikiProject Jimmy Wales. I'll ask you again to please take matters not directly related to this article elsewhere, as posting them here is becoming disruptive.  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just saying that he's mentioned as Founder of Wikipedia in the donation banner above as well as related letters. --Scieberking (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously he claims himself to be the sole founder, but that is now how other reliable sources see the matter. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazing

From the way this article is put together it's like you worship the guy... Which of course you do. Hardly any negative comments on Jimmy Wales... Probably removed and considered offensive to your god. --207.68.234.177 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the source

The article says, Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links with the intent of proving conclusively that he was a co-founder.[original research?]

Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia". MSNBC. Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-25. Sanger has assembled many links at his Web site that appear to put the matter to rest. Among the citations are early news stories and press releases that say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger. {{cite news}}: External link in |quote= (help) The source says something different than what is in the article. The part about "intent of proving conclusively..." is WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, but with such a controversy I think it would be irresponsible to represent Bergstein's opinion as fact. What wording do you suggest?  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

When WP:NPOV says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." it immediately goes on to define "fact" to mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" and "opinion" to mean "a matter which is subject to dispute", and by "dispute" they clearly mean "serious dispute". There is no serious dispute among reliable sources about the items being being discussed in this section. (There is dispute by some Wikipedia editors, but we editors do not count as reliable sources.) Therefore, by WP:NPOV's own definition, these items are "facts" and not "opinions". Per WP:ASF, when there is no serious disagreement or dispute among reliable sources there is not a requirement to add the unnecessary attribution or to degrade the source. Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. See WP:ASF. Wikipedia has a defintion of a fact versus an opinion. When reliable sources agree we can assert it as fact. Please provide references for any serious dispute. If no disputed references are presented it can be deemed as fact. When we deem it as a fact then we can assert. Whether a particular Wikipedia editor deems it to be a fact is not that important; if that were the case, attribution would be required for "there is a planet called Earth" if just one Wikipedia editor disagreed with that fact. What matters is what reliable sources say. And there is no serious dispute among reliable sources here who have specifically discussed the co-founder/sole founder issue. Based on Wikipedia's defintion of a fact we can assert the text when no serious disagreement exist among reliable sources. Per WP:ASF, No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. According to WP:ASF, we can assert it as long as no serious disagreement exist from reliable sources. An opinion is when sources disagree with one another. Please provide evidence of a serious dispute among reliable sources or we can assert it as fact when reliable sources are in agreement. When there is no serious dispute, we can assert it. It would be NPOV to represent Bergstein's opinion as fact in accordance with WP:ASF when no serious dispute exists among reliable source that specifically discuss the co-founder/sole founder topic.

"Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links with the intent of proving conclusively that he was a co-founder."[original research?]

"Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links that appear to support both Sanger and Wales as co-founder." (proposed version)

I propose we change it to this. QuackGuru (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal, it's constructive. I'm quite familiar with ASF, as it happens. The problem with the proposed version is that it in the phrase "that appears to support" uses the passive tense and is thus vague and lacking in encyclopaedic tone. Who does it appear this way to? Who is having the apparitions? Answer: Bergstein. Response:

"Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links that appear to journalist Brian Bergstein to confirm the status of Sanger and Wales as co-founders."

Rewording:

"Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links relating to the foundering dispute that journalist Brian Bergstein described as settling the dispute in favour of the position that Sanger and Wales were co-founders."

These have the disadvantage of slight awkwardness, but the advantages of being neutral and fully supported by the sources. What say you?  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Both your proposals are a violation of ASF. My proposal does not have the unnecessary attribution. You have not provided evidence according to reliable sources that there is a serious dispute. When no serious dispute exists among reliable source we assert it as fact. Adding weasel wording/attribution is a violation of NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the proposal without violating ASF by making this change. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't put unattributed weasel phrases such as "that appear to" in a neutral encyclopaedia article and expect to be taken seriously. I've removed the text until a remotely encyclopaedic phrasing is put forth.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding weasel wording attribution is a violation of ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit did no such thing – it removed the sentence in question so that we could work out a consensus version here.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No reason has been given to rewrite the sentence with weasel wording attribution in a violation of ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You've just edit-warred back in the identical version that has been disputed without bothering to engage in discussion of the issues. That is extremely unhelpful and not at all congruent to collaborative editing or the development of a biography of a professionally-written standard. Please have the integrity to revert yourself and discuss the substance of the problem.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It was very helpful to restore the sentence. Please read the source again. The text is faithfully sourced without degrading the text with weasel wording. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Historically cited as the co-founder

Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia". MSNBC. Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-25. 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. Sanger has assembled many links at his Web site that appear to put the matter to rest. Among the citations are early news stories and press releases that say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger. {{cite news}}: External link in |quote= (help)

In the lead I added "historically" cited as the co-founder. This is closer to the source which is closer to NPOV. When early citations and press releases say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger it is more accurate to say "historically cited" than just "cited". QuackGuru (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wales' POV is never a reason to compromise the facts or change historical facts. The body of the article can and does explain Wales' point of view. QuackGuru (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

History is that which has been written down about the past – the only thing adding the adverb "historically" to the verb "cited" therefore is that the citation appeared in print. This is of no encyclopaedic value whatsoever, and has no semantic impact on the point of view of the article.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been written in the past in early citations and press releases that Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that is amply conveyed by the fragment "Wales has been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia". Has been=past tense.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

He has been is vague and could mean anything. It could also mean he no longer is cited because he has "been cited". Has been cited does not convey what is written in the source. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding empty words does nothing to improve that. "It could also mean he no longer is cited " – as it should do, because we must write in the past tense to avoid potentially dated statements.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It was vague to say just cited especially when the source explain more than just cited. The source also says Larry Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Weren't all the founder/co-founder disputes solved... frequently? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We are in the beginning stages of the content dispute with no signs of slowing down. Do you have any suggestions on how to resolve the longest content dispute on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, WP shouldn't be writing a lede in a BLP that would blow up this distinction being discussed above into some kind subtle indictment of our entrepreneurial subject's character. Thus, better than the authoritatively sounding word cited, I think it would be better were WP to more innocuously simply say that many early reports label, give, say, or whatnot, that Wales is the co-founder, touching on the dispute without really highlighting it, and leave any further fleshing out of its details down in the body of the article.
(By way of analogy, of course, Henry Ford most definatively did NOT singlehandedly invent the assemblyline, he had a lot of competent help! -- ne'ertheless, Ford is rightly famous for having "founded" his eponymous company ((um, really, that is, his having co-founded Ford Motor Company, with his principal investors' money, with techniques Ford learned while working for the Edison company, with the assistance of some principal mechanical geniuses at his side; yet, no doubt Ford and others often would say, simply, that he "founded" Ford Motor Company, despite the many citations that also likely could be found saying that the enterprise was a group undertaking)). OK, with that premise, say that there had existed jockeying for credit among Ford and one or another of Ford Motor's co-founders. Such a thing would certainly merit encyclopedic mention in a Ford bio, IMO. Still, would such semantically turned points really deserve to be touched on all-too heavy handedly in the Henry Ford bio's lede?)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sources differ about whether he was born on August 7 or 8, 1966"

Can we not just ask the big man himself his true DOB? GiantSnowman 23:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It may look ridiculous not to just ask him, but Jimmy Wales is no more a reliable source than I am, which means we would have to verify it anyway. He might know of a reliable source, though!--otherlleft 19:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually we consider a person to be an expert on themselves. -- Banjeboi 00:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you link me to the policy on that? I thought that using primary sources was the opposite of what we do here. I'd like to learn more. Thanks!--otherlleft 13:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If the person himself is not a reliable source that could tell when he was born, then what the hell is? Should we start digging out his Birth certificate? Sometimes you have to just go along with plain old common sense instead of outdated policies. -- Powerchicken (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well far be it for me to suggest considering outdated policies. I'm happy to follow consensus, once it's established.--otherlleft 06:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait..... SERIOUSLY?

Under personal, the page gives a source saying his wife claimed that Wales had said that "altruism is evil." WHAT? Is that for real? Isn't that like against wikipedia's purpose? Haha please correct me if I'm wrong. 72.220.125.86 (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats ex wife and you know how that can be, I don't think it is worthy of inclusion and as I understand it, correct me if I am wrong, it seems just to be an insult. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there any objections to removing it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the topic itself is worth covering, but doing it via using the quote from the ex-wife strikes me as problematic. It's basically about the difference between his public image and presentation versus the reality of his beliefs. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but the comments from an ex wife and unsupported seems a bit undue weight, I don't think we can find any public stuff about the same topic so I don't know how we could find sources to cover similar comments? Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am not rushing at all to remove the comments, I used the edit summary to attract attention, as you do. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the above comments, and so have removed the W magazine material about Wales' first wife for now. As Seth says, it's a worthy topic, so if someone knows of coverage in a reliable source somewhere, I'd be happy to write it up.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm hesistant to point this out, since I've gotten much grief (off-wiki) for supposed COI, but I do believe I've in fact written the best treatment of the "altruism" topic extant, in my column (n.b. already mentioned in the article for other material) "Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Jimmy Wales says". For example - "Some observers see a journalistic cheap irony in Jimmy Wales being philosophically an Objectivist (the fanatically capitalist intellectualism created by Ayn Rand). Supposedly this is in contradiction with the altruism that motivates massive amounts of free labour. In fact, Wales speaks a language of corporate collectivism that would not be out of place in Rand's novels. ... Just think of a viewpoint which regards a powerless proletariat labouring to produce wealth for owners as being the highest social achievement, and the connections should be clearer." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And extremely hesitant you should be, IMO, given that you appear to be one of Jimmy's most strident critics, for no apparent reason. As you said above, "It's basically about the difference between his public image and presentation versus the reality of his beliefs." - however, to argue that difference cogently requires a synthesis of multiple sources, excluding, of course, Jimmy himself, and yourself. As for ""Some observers", I say . My considered opinion is that this debate, if such it be, is utterly jejune, as the average reader is likely to have little or no interest in what appears to be a pointless vendetta - what difference does it make here? Zero. For myself, I have no axe to grind for or against Jimmy, except that he has done something that was worthy of doing, and I willingly give my time and effort to it; that's not necessarily Jimmy- it could have been anybody. I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself, or your blog, where those who might be interested (if any) can read them. Your contentions about altruism are unencyclopedic detail that do not belong here. If you want to write an op-ed, you have the means to do that. But not here, I think. You'll notice that I haven't called you a bearded fool. Rodhullandemu 02:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see where my columns should be excluded from any consideration because I am often critical, even severely so (I hope you see the problem there). As you may know, UK libel standards are quite strict, so the material is stringently fact-checked. The altruism vs. Objectivism issue is a FAQ - for heaven's sake, it's what started this thread! In the above, I was writing a newspaper column, not an academic paper (i.e. are you really criticizing me for not giving something like a footnoted citation in the column? isn't such an objection over-the-top pedantry in this case? - sometimes summarizing is appropriate). Let me just note that sentiments such as "keep your opinions to yourself, or your blog," strike me as the kind of blatant POV-pushing for which a critic would be savaged, if not blocked for "incivility", if they did similarly. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I support Skomorokh's removal of the content, good edit. I don't really understand this other stuff though. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The quote is from a reliable source, so I'm confident Pam said what she said. It would be appropriate to put the quote in the controversy section, where I don't believe it would be giving it undue weight. In fact, it's the perfect context in which to present her quote.--otherlleft 17:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Mr. Finkelstein's comments here, I see no reason for him to be hesitant to use an article's talk page to discuss in the light of his stated conflict of interest - I would prefer to encourage that sort of behavior, rather than drive people into underground editing behavior. I agree with Rodhullandemu that blog posts are inappropriate, but I don't see why the fact that Mr. Finkelstein maintains a blog and has a point of view means that his material, when published in a reliable source, cannot be considered for inclusion. Per WP:NPOV, it is our task to present differing points of view in approximate proportion to their existence in reliable sources. Demonstrate to me that W magazine is not reliable, and I will cease recommending that Pam's quote be included in the article.--otherlleft 17:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

An insult from an ex wife is not a controversy, and doesn't belong in the so called controversy section. Just reading this and it reads a bit aggressive, I didn't mean it that way and it is only IMO. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Attributing the quote "altruism is evil" to Wales is not an insult, it is one of the primary beliefs of Objectivism. Ayn Rand herself said this in many interviews on YouTube.[1]76.70.115.77 (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Washington Post "On Leadership" interview

• On Leadership: Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia

Probably too softball an interview to be of use in this article, but worth noting for the record nonetheless. Interestingly, looks like Wales may have lost the "co-founder" argument in the MSM as well as here if even self-serving interviews don't defer to his version of events.  Skomorokh  01:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, he does have a account here. Ok, you all knew that.--Daisy18108 ^{Talk to me here! Sign my Guestbook!} 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

New award

According to this page Wales is now an honorary member of the University Philosophical Society. Is it worth adding to the awards section? Note it was mentioned in the article "'I wasn’t sure if anyone would use it'" by Fiona McCann,[2] The Irish Times, 27 November 2009, page 23. Ottre 13:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a college debating society; granted, one of the most prestigious in Europe, but still just a student's club. The Irish Times article only mentions it as a footnote, almost as a way of explaining the timing of the interview. According to the article, he will be made an honorary patron, and not simply a member, which would put him in illustrious company. I'm ambivalent on this one; perhaps we should wait to see if the non-Irish press pick up on it.  Skomorokh  23:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)