Talk:Jimmy Wales

This article has recently been linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic Internet site (in this article, see full list of comments). All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the page history.

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)

About this article

I have dropped my opposition to a page about me, but I think we're going to have to watch it carefully for trolling. It might even need to be generally protected, I don't know. Jimbo Wales 02:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

After a long history of reverts this article started containing only one sentence: "Jimmy Wales is a person.". This very short form of an article is called a "stub" among Wikipedians. The usefulness of such stubs is disputed within Wikipedia. In this case the article start is an allusion to the 50,000th French article, which was "La nèfle est un fruit." and whose background was described in a beautiful posting by Anthere [1].

Political Party Donations

Is it true that Jimmy Wales is a substantial party donor?

No, it is not true. I can't recall ever making any political donations. --Jimbo Wales 05:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article really walks the line between neutrality and hero-worship, that nonsense about "god king" et.c. really doesn't provide any useful information. The continuation on that theme, noting that the "god king" drives a hyundai is also completely pointless. He's a corporate officer, not a messiah.

Anyhow I don't recall anyone ever calling me the "God King" of Wikipedia, except for Raul being quoted to that effect in Wired.--Jimbo Wales 05:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Jimbos Personal Blog

In the link section of the articel, there is still Jimbos personal blog as a reference. The blog has not been updated since early April of this year. Does anyone know if it has been disbanded? In this case, I think the link could be removed. Cheers,--84.165.244.214 08:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It is still live, I'm just a terrible blogger.--Jimbo Wales 05:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Pompadour Hairstyle

What's with this pompadour high hairstyle of Jimbo Wales ?

Is he trying to look Victorian ??

Congrats to the writers

I truly am amazed that an article about our founder could possibly be NPOV, but it is! Congrats my co-editors Redwolf24 22:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Picture of Jimbo

Apologies in advance to anyone who likes that picture of Jimbo (standing), but I think it is awful (and I don't mean it fills me full of awe). Paul August ☎ 16:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

That's funny, I think the majority of people who have commented on it think it's very classic and benevolently dictatorial. — Dan | Talk 16:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, if it was meant to be humorous, then yes I can see it that way. But I'm not sure humor is appropriate here, certainly not for the lead picture. Paul August ☎ 16:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, by "funny" I meant that I thought your opinion was unusual. I don't think the picture is funny so much as it is awesome. :-) — Dan | Talk 17:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well perhaps we see the picture differently. In the picture, in my opinion, he looks like someone who has struck some kind of mock expression. (I don't know if this was intentional or not, if it was unintentional (i.e. not posed), then it is an unfortunate accident) I think such a picture makes him and us look less serious than he and we deserve. Paul August ☎ 18:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

There are tons of pictures of Jimbo lying around. commons:Jimbo Wales has some, and there are quite a few on Wikipedia:meetup (just make sure it has an acceptable license). →Raul654 02:12, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, this has always been one of my favorites. It's Jimbo holding up the Christmas present we gave him - 'Jimbo in Purgatory', but it wouldn't be good for the article. →Raul654 02:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's a very weird picture. Sort of like a cult might have on the wall, of their leader. Funny though.

A really, really stupid question

In the interests of full disclosure, might the article be tagged with a disclaimer like this?

This wouldn't apply just to Jimbo (and I don't mean to pick on him...), but to any Wikipedia editor or admin who also is the subject of a biographical article.

--EngineerScotty 22:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Solution looking for a problem, IMO. Pcb21| Pete 15:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I have added this template (w/ the Wikipedia logo). I've also added it to the top of this Talk Page. Discussion please. Nippoo 23:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems completely unnecessary when there is no question over the subject's notability. - Stoph 21:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Cite source, please

I removed the text: Jimbo is an advocate of libertarianism and is strongly opposed to taxation, which he claims is akin to fascism. In a telephone interview conducted on September 2, 2005, Jimbo stated that although he is not outraged by taxpayer money being used to aid the victims of Hurricane Katrina, he is opposed to such government action.

Please cite a reputable source for this telephone interview. See WP:NOR. FreplySpang (talk) 00:52, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Someone did in fact call me last night while I was having dinner. He did not identify himself although I asked several times. He did, in fact, ask me if I am outraged about the $10 billion Congress approved for FEMA. It is true that I said that I'm not outraged, and also that I am generally opposed to taxation. It seemed that we were about to get into a more nuanced discussion of my position, but he hung up on me.

Based on the voice and extrapolating from a prior phone call, my 'interviewer' was Lir. Probably a check of the ip numbers could confirm the location sufficient to prove this. (He is or was a student in Iowa.) Based further on the sound of the voice, he was either drunk or on drugs.

It's really a shame that he hung up on me, because I do enjoy talking to Lir.

In case anyone is wondering what I think about taxation and emergency aid: emergency aid in a time of disaster is a tricky thing -- at some point it moves beyond legitimate use of existing (military, emergency management) resources and becomes a bailout for wealthy or upper middle class (and politically influential) landowners who have chosen to locate valuable buildings in precarious places. A perfect example of this would be my own house, which is located in a neighborhood only 5 feet above sea level, and which will certainly be disastrously flooded in any direct hurricane strike. It would be extremely expensive to buy flood insurance at market rates, but no matter -- flood insurance is heavily subsidized. Thanks, tax payers! I oppose this type of government intervention into the economy, and one reason that I do is that it distorts prices in such a way which leads to disaster eventually.

I do not think my position on such matters is particularly interesting or noteworthy for the article about me. I have positions on all sorts of political topics. "Libertarian" is not accurate except in the broadest sense to describe my political views. In particular, I gladly disassociate myself from the US Libertarian party, and from the libertarian movement surrounding it. --Jimbo Wales 12:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

"Based further on the sound of the voice, he was either drunk or on drugs." He might have been, but I would (if it were me) simply say he sounded like he was under the influence:

A person's own body can produce hormones, drugs, & other chemicals as a result of stress -either extrenal or "internal" stress.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

So Lir really is male? He has always tried to pass himself off as female. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

adult content

The correct terminology is 'adult content'. If this is pornography, then so is much of mainstream culture. I do not think we should adopt the definitions of the Taliban or the Southern Baptist Convention. --Jimbo Wales 17:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This sounds rather like a lame euphemism to me. The Bomis article uses the word "pornography", anyway, and the ones for toilet paper and coffins mostly call them by those names, as opposed to "bath tissue" and "casket". As a compromise, I changed "adult-content" to "erotica". —Saric (Talk) 20:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Pornography is not actually a pejorative term, though, it has a fairly well-defined meaning which fits the purpose of that site. 'Adult content' could mean anything. Rsynnott 03:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why should the word "adult" mean explotiation and degradation. Things should be called what they are - not glossed with mealy-mouthed euphemisims.

What contribution to the Wales independent wealth has porn sales made ? (seenext section on wealth of Wales which is silent on this point)

Esp as internet porn is 8o-90 % of all webuse and the largest by far money maker of the internet.

Will Wales fess up to this point ?

“high class, no really, high class girls — we didn't have any of that — that was right out” – Luigi Vercotti, Monty Python's Fly Circus

independently wealthy?

According to the article, I am 'independently wealthy'? Can someone cite a source for that? My point is equally valid for other 'facts' in the article.--Jimbo Wales 09:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The Wired article; presumably you told them that yourself. What other facts do you think need a source? Gohn 12:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

After all the money you've poured into Wikipedia, may be it should be "independently poverty-striken" ;-). But seriously, that should be deleted and I am about to do so. Ideally we should replace it with a bit more detail on your trading career. E.g. who you worked for and what you traded... the current stocks and futures sounds a bit vague to those who know to what extend a trader specialises. Not sure if that information has been made public in the interviews you have done but worth having a quick scout around... Pcb21| Pete 12:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok Gohn has pointed to the Wired article so I have quoted that. Also that article says Wales' worked in FX and interest rate derivatives whereas we are claiming equity derivatives and the (very generic) "futures". Which is correct? Pcb21| Pete 12:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This is much better. "Independently wealthy" sounds to me like a loaded phrase, whereas the Wired quote is much milder. I'll take a look in a few days when I have time for other items that sound more like speculation or interpretation than citation. Of course the very strange thing for me is that even the citations depend on the accuracy of journalists, and I have been quite disappointed on average in those. I do recommend the Florida Trend article, it is the best one yet, because the reporter bothered to spend several days with me, and she fact checked the article herself before a fact checker from the magazine also fact checked it. Most reporters simply repeat what they are told.

I question whether it is common for anyone in the community actually wryly calls me "GodKing" -- I feel that this was a misunderstanding on the part of Dan Pink (or perhaps Raul, who I believe is quoted there) based on a lack of knowledge of the term in wiki culture. It's a bit of a shame for us to repeat something that I think is a journalistic error, but to adhere to our general rules of sourcing, I don't think you should cite what I say on this talk page.  :-) --Jimbo Wales 02:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo, you talked about a lot of these issues on your recent on-the-record C-SPAN interview... and that is something we can cite ;). Pcb21| Pete 09:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

God-king

I call Jimbo -- a label I think extends beyond the man and into the myth -- the god-king of Wikipedia; but then I'm a polytheist and I don't have an excessive regard for any gods. Before I became heavily involved in WP, I used to apply the term "local god" to the sole founder of an online community, who pretty much wields absolute power, at least in the early days.

I have myself been the local god of more than one online community; at present, I am more of an absentee landlord. I think a time comes in the life of every online community -- wiki or otherwise -- when the child is grown to a man and the father must step aside. (I do not think that time has come here, unfortunately -- WP is in the throes of a troubled, delinquent adolescence.)

I suggest that the term "god-king" now is extremely troubling to all; as a Community, we seek to mature; as founder, Mr. Wales would like to reduce his responsibilities. These goals are of course compatible. The difficulty is that no respected authority has grown up to take Jimbo's place. Thus, to the detriment of all, he remains the god-king. — Xiong熊talk* 05:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Long time no see Xiong; still taking things too seriously I see. Keep up the confusing work. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

"Some consider Jimbo sole founder" vs. "Jimbo considers himself"

Someone made a change to the former saying that "Jimbo is not the one that thinks this". Well of course that's true. But to say "X thinks Y" doesn't mean that noone other than X thinks Y! We are talking about Jimbo's opinions here, not the opinions of others so the "Jimbo considers himself" formulation is a lot more informative than the woolly "some consider" formulation. Pcb21| Pete 13:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"Jimbo considers himself" makes it clear that one person has this opinion. "Some consider" makes it clear that more than one person has this opinion. Since more than one person has this opinion, why not make it clear? --Rebroad 12:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Because, as I said above, we are talking about Jimbo's opinions here. Specific facts are better than vague "some people" weaselisms... who are "some people" and why do we care about them? Pcb21| Pete 13:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Why should the opinions be limited to those of Jimbo? This is an article about Jimmy Wales, not "Jimmy Wales' opinions". It should remain acturately factual within the subject of Jimmy Wales, and that includes other's opinions of him. --Rebroad 13:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be limited to Jimbo. Name some important peoples' opinions and maybe we should include them. Replacing a specific opinion with a "some people" weaselism is a retrograde step in terms of article quality. Pcb21| Pete 13:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Pete; the "some" needs to be more concrete. — Dan | Talk 17:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Image deletion

user:Zscout370 claims that he is deletely all non-tagged images (without informing uploaders) on your direct instructions. As a consequence, images I uploaded some time ago, before the present tagging system, marked as my personal photographs, have been deleted without any opportunity for me to add a PD or GFDL tag (I've never watchlisted images because I didn't anticipate this).

Whilst I understand that copyright can be an issue, it seems crazy to give this schoolkid and others the authority to delete other's photographs, clearly marked as such, without checking that they are active contibutors (nearly 20,000 edits in my case) or asking the uploaders to add a formal tag as well as a "my image" or similar. If you look at Zscout's talk page, you will see the resentment that the high-handed implementation of your dictat is causing.

Surely it is not asking too much to require your underlings to follow these steps if an image is marked as my photo or similar (or are clearly likely to be):

1. check that the contributor is active
2. if so warn the contributor that the image needs tagging
3. only after a decent period of time to delete personal images.

I should add that there are admins who have behave much more flexibly than just following your orders. Some have tagged images for me, and others have put a message on my talk page to warn of problems - and I've never uploaded an image that I didn't believe to fit the Wikipedia requirements. jimfbleak 12:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Jim, I sympathise. Please copy this to User_talk:Jimbo Wales to make sure he sees your complaint (you are not the only long-standing contributor to complain there but every little helps). Pcb21| Pete 12:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

"James"?

Isn't Jimbo Wales's real name actually "James", or certainly "Jim"? AFAIK, the names "Jim" and "Jimmy" are nicknames. --Matjlav^(talk) 00:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

As I'm sure the archives of this page will reveal, his real name is in fact Jimmy. — Dan | Talk 00:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Like, his birth certificate says that? -- user:zanimum

zanimum, yes. I'm from Alabama. My real name is Jimmy. Strange, perhaps, but true.--Jimbo Wales 09:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Question about past websites

Wasn't Wales once a pornograper himself? Wikipedia seems fairly free of erotic content which is commendable, though it is not too accurate when it comes to content. Some of the articles need to be researched and cleaned up. Some of them are also quite useless such as who might be principle of some high school somewhere such as the one I found last night. When it comes to factual information one might be best to pick up a book or check out their local library.-61.24.85.136 14:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

As noted further up in the Talk page, pornography itself has numerous definitions. In the C-Span interview, he noted that the Bomis content would be considered "pornographic" along the same lines that magazines such a Maxim or Details are considered pornographic. As far as the principles of a given high school, they seem to be there mostly to educate, and I'm not sure what kind of high schools have a single person that embodies their principles... I suppose your point in gathering factual information from a collection of sources is true, as most libraries and reference books have errors in them. Some might even confuse a title for a person of authority over an educational establishment with a statement of meaning and/or purpose. :O) Ronabop 08:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

A few notes

1. The Bomis Babe Report was a blog, and was based on slashcode.

2. I do reject the terms 'benevolent dictator' and 'GodKing' and so does the community. The only place these ever come up are outside the community, in the press, and often because our article has been so wrong on this point at times.

3. The bit about me retaining "effective control" is ludicrous. I have no control whatsoever over the other board members, including Michael and Tim. As best, this is POV speculation. --Jimbo Wales 09:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm surprised you edited here. I thought you didn't want to do this, as in general it tends to be frowned upon when an article subject edits his own article. You are certainly free to ignore this based on your position, but that would rather confirm what you seem to deny above, i.e. that you are the one who's "more equal than others", wouldn't it? Anyway, to respond to your points:

1. It may have been a blog based on Slashcode, but that makes it sound like some pure technological thing and seems to obfuscate what it was actually about. Surely people did not go there for the text or for some geek stuff which the Slashcode reference may suggest, but for the pictures. Which blog technology it used seems to be the least relevant thing, actually. Why did you remove the word "erotica"? This can not be concluded with certainty from the title "Bomis Babes", which could just as well be a humorous title for anything else.

The blog was not about pornography. It was not about erotica. It covered all manner of topics under the general topic of 'babes', including mainstream actresses, etc.

2. The term "benevolent dictator" may not be often used by Wikipedians in practice, but it is an existing term (we have an article about it) which seems to fit. You may reject the term as such, but how is it wrong in substance? Note that it said you are considered the benevolent dictator, not that you're called that. The point here being that you do have the final say on things.

It is not fitting at all. I am not "considered" the benevolent dictator nor "called" it. The entire community rejects the term. I do not have the final say on things, the board of directors of the Wikimedia Foundation does. Being the president of a nonprofit organization is nothing remotely like being a dictator. If you disagree, fine, but Wikipedia is not the place for your original research. --Jimbo Wales 12:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

3. It is not far-fetched speculation that Michael and Tim are just proxies for you. What else are they doing on the board? They are not active editors, nor is there any other evidence that they're interested in matters of Wikipedia policy. However, they happen to be in some business relationship with you. They can be expected to vote your way. If you want to dispell this appearance, can you explain why they had to be on the board, and why they and you together need to have a majority over the actual community representatives? Gohn 18:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Both Michael and Tim are active in the business matters of the foundation.--Jimbo Wales 12:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Gohn, not that it means very much, but the only article you edit is this one and yet when things change on it, you are quickly around to make a comment. Call it errant paranoia if you want, but do you have another account on Wikipedia? Pcb21| Pete 20:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I want to keep this separate. Some people are overdefensive against any criticism of Wikipedia policies or of Jimbo, and you're quickly labelled a troll etc. Gohn 20:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought it wasn't kosher to have more than one account. --Mr. Billion 07:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Larry Sanger and the creation of Wikipedia

I must say, it doesn't look good when Jimbo edits the article about himself, taking full credit for Wikipedia's founding. In my opinion, it is NPOV to say that Larry Sanger was involved in "setting up" Wikipedia. In my mind, "setting up" very much involves the technical as well as the business work. Jimmy, would you please motivate why you don't think it belongs there? We wouldn't want Wikipedia's article on (one of?) its founders to be perceived as vanity, now would we? — David Remahl 01:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I was there, and I know the history. I set up Wikipedia. I fixed the broad outlines of early policy, and Larry worked under my direct supervision at every stage of the process. The current article, even with my edits, contains considerable incorrect editorialization, it's just that I don't even know where to begin in correcting it.--Jimbo Wales 07:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You know your image of the history. Please allow me to direct you to the WP:NOR policy ;-). Does anyone else have input on this matter? Did you protest Wired's characterization of Larry Sanger as a "co-founder" of Wikipedia at the time of this article? I see tendencies towards revisionist history writing here. Since the the time you and Larry Sanger started diverging on a number of crucial points, it appears that you are trying to belittle his initial contributions. Before that point, I doubt you'd correct someone that said that he was involved in setting up Wikipedia. — David Remahl 00:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I am in no way trying to belittle his contributions. If anything I think it is a belittlement of him to be casual about what he did -- and did not -- do.--Jimbo Wales 05:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I took a swing through, here are some points: Foundations are "founded", collaborative software projects are not. I switched "founded" with "started", as it makes sense to differentiate between the start of wikipedia, and the start of the wikipedia foundation. "Wales and several others set up" is replacing "Wales set up", as from the reading of the linked history article, it wasn't just Jimmy sitting there, all by himself, doing it all on the command line (a leader does not an army make). I changed the language from "sole founder" to "primary parent" in relation to WP's origins in an NPOV effort, and qualified the statement (Wales is thought by some to consider himself...). As far as the above Talk statement made by Jimmy that "I set up wikipedia", it's a bit problematic, for the same reason that it is problematic to state that Al Gore invented the internet, or even the actual Gore quote, "took the initiative in creating the Internet". While I don't know Jimmy, I somehow doubt that Jimmy hand-entered all the commands in the first servers, rewrote and debugged all the software involved, or (for an expanded view of "set up") seeded all the articles with their basic information. Ronabop 07:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Good points. I concur with the changes except for the slight "weasel" qualification ("thought by some"). It would be better to quote a newspaper article, mail message or edit by Wales (or, for that matter, some people that say that they believe that Wales ..., but that seems a round-about way of doing stuff).

If I'm allowed to continue my rambling for another paragraph, I think it is inevitable that Wikipedia will be scrutinized for self-interest sooner or later. It is especially important that the NPOV policy's light shines through especially bright in articles such as Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales and others that hit close to home. — David Remahl 07:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What's this about setting up software? Really he just took some Bomis funds and downloaded some wiki software, the kind you see at places like the usemod wiki. This software we use now wasn't around in 01, it was written in 02 by one of our devs, but Jimmy didn't have an army working on the original stuff. He didn't even need a large server, it was nothing in the beginning and it started like any other wiki. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 08:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Automatic logouts

There has been a problem with Wikipedia lately: it's been automatically logging me out of Wikipedia once every few user pages or so. What gives? User:Rickyrab — Rickyrab | Talk 20:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hardly a question for the encyclopedic article about Jimmy Wales. Try the Village Pump. — David Remahl 20:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

NOR policy update needed

I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party.

Flickr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity out there to stage photos, for example:

Supporters of Candidate A take Candidate B's signs and make a big mess in a parking lot with them and leave also a lot of trash like water bottles and sandwich wrappers.... the Wiki caption for this reads, "trash left behind after local rally for B".

Clearly it's a staged photo intended to make a point. If the control parameter of "intended to make a point" is not enforced, the excuse regarding the above scenario would be "I found the trash & signs in the parking lot and merely snapped the photo". Such assertions could not be disproved, opening a pandora's box of scheming opporunities.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales and the Fall of Atlantis

Wales' increasingly authoritarian dictates, contrary to the freewheeling nature of the original incarnation, ironically led to the crashing downfall of the most popular Objectivist mailing-list/listserv, "Atlantis", which now persists in part as "Atlantis II" on a separate server with no input or control from Jimbo. This event caused quite a stir in the Objectivist online community. Perhaps it deserves a mention?

(It's also noteworthy that similar criticism has been drawn for recent encroachment against Wikipedia's original purpose in the form of authoritarian-seeming dictates relying on collectivism as their basis, such as the No Original Research policy.)

I don't think it caused a stir in the Objectivist community, but only in that list. Later Jimbo gained a lot of sympathy from the same listmembers who were upset about his policies, precisely because of Wikipedia, and most recently even more so because of the Seigenthaler episode. Michael Hardy 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cousin Wales

Repeatedly, Jimbo Wales removes links to his ancestor memorilalized in the movie The Outlaw Josey Wales.

Please Please Jimbo Wales

All Bureaucrats and administrators in Japanese Wikipedia should be eliminated because they are not considered suitable for their official power and duty of Wikipedia. They are not only Wikipedians, but also so much insane(anti-social personality disorder)NEET that they don't tried to talk with Wikipedians about the problem that is made by themselves. They don't only achieve accountability but also eliminate Wikipedians who think "admin here is cruel or stupid". They are only mad fascists. Of course they don't try to hold election.

They are all mad fascists and continue to abuse their authority that was given only by Steward, not by japanese Wikipedian's community. Japanese community in 2 channel (that treats the problem of insane administrators of Japanese Wikipedia)have solid consensus that all bureaucrats and administrators in Japanese Wikipedia should go to psychiarists(mental hospital) before they carry out terrorist attacks in the real world, because they are all haunted by delusions that others are always abusing themseves unjustly and delusions of grandeur that they are perfect noble and , what is worse, they bear abnormal malice to society.

Yesterday(November 12, 2005) one of them stupidly confessed that there are only one or two person using innumerable sockpuppets(multiaccounts) for illicit purposes. This one or two person (Suisui,KMT) have 31 sockpuppets for administrators and thousands of ones for general wikipedians, so that he or they have continued to fabricate the general consensus among all Wikipedians.

Apparently they are in the identical evil delusions, all of Wikipedians in Japan ignore them or sometimes protest against their cruel way and immediately get unreasonable block for a long long time. It's so absurd. Administrators in Japanese Wikipedia are not Wikipedians at all. It was a serious mistake to trust them as human beings in the first place.

Anyone have not wanted to run for administrator of Japanese Wikipedia, because Japanese Wikipedians use the word "administrator" as a synonym for cruel person ,e.g."mousou-afo-kanrisha(「妄想アフォ管理者」in Japanese)". Do you understand the state of Japanese Wikipedia?

You or the substitute who you appoint should overrule the decision of Steward and remove all bureaucrats and all administrators of Japanese Wikipedia permanently and manage fairly democratic election. Thank you. --LoveandPeace 08:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

In addition, i have to say the very important thing. Japanese Wikipedians' community in 2 channel(which has the most powerful influence to Japanese internet users) suggest bureaucrats and administrators of Japanese Wikipedia are obtaining contribution money fraudulently. In fact, the page that requires visiters to contribute to Japanese Wikipedia is very often unnaturally displayed after editting or a click. I think that the doubt as to whether they are the group of swindlers is very very natural. In any case they are too suspicious. Thank you again. --LoveandPeace 09:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a problem of Japan, not Wikipedia. I don't wait better thing from the japanese internet guys (seriously, don't take this as a offence). You should try resolve this or simply abandon japanese wikipedia and leave the bugs eats.

$100 computer

I suspect you're already aware of this project. I wasn't, until reading they'd rejected Steve Jobs' offer of free OS X in favor of open source software. I imagine it would be good for Wikipedia to see whether there is a role for us in this initiative. - Nunh-huh 03:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Joke?

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Is this a joke?

Nyikita 21:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely hope so, it almost looks like Jimmy's trying to sell-out or something

Excuse me, but the simple English Wikipedia is a very important work. Not everyone has as clear a grasp of the English language as you both, clearly, do. I fully support the project, and wish to encourage all those who contribute to it: you are doing a great job! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No it is far from a joke. I go there, and I work hard there, don't call it a joke. It's very helpful to people. I showed it to some of the people here in rehab and they use simple english wikipedia. You people are mean, its just for help with young children, and people like those that take part in ESOL. Quentin Pierce 22:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sell out? Why would you say that? The simple English Wikipedia has great potential for people that have English as their second or third language. — David Remahl 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Learning English should be a challenge and it is much better to learn with proper articles because then you are forced to look up words that you do not know. To cater for people in this way only limits their potential. English is English and Simple English isn't. BlueKangaroo 13:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I work as a legal advocate (in the UK) and Simple English is becoming much used for helping people with learning disabilities and learning difficulties understand their rights and responsibilities. So why deny people the joys of Wikipedia? But this is hardly the page for this discussion Manmonkey 00:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Noo, You are misunderstanding me! This is the bad joke: [2]. I'm sorry my inaccuracy. The simple English Wikipedia is a very important, of course.

Nyikita 23:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• SCOWLS* That's not work-safe Chris Martin 10:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sole founder

If we're going to present Jimmy Wales as the sole founder, or even that he considers himself a "sole founder", we should probably have links to media which state the same. Preferrably links that dictate that there are no other founders, parents, contributors, etc. Ronabop 08:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Media sources interview the first sources, i.e. Jimbo himself. So this gets us nowhere. Quoting NOR here is going against NOR's purpose - we're underqualified to insert our own opinions or experiments into articles. Jimbo's the first source, so NOR isn't going against him, and any media would just interview him... Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 08:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

self reference

Remind me again how a Wikipedia user page is an external link? And how is linking to another page a self-reference? I was going to change it until I saw the note requesting that we consider what's said here first. I don't see anything about it. Could someone clarify this for me? User:ACupOfCoffee/sig 01:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Links from articles to other namespaces on Wikipedia should be handled just like links to other web sites, i.e. as external links. — David Remahl 17:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Please support this claim

"However, in fact, Seigenthaler related that it took five months to get a response from Wales, and that his reputation was damaged in the interim and continued through the availability of history files." --JWSchmidt 01:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see the transcript as provided in the article. --AustinKnight 16:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Aslo this one:

• Wikipedia concerning admittedly libelous content regarding author John Seigenthaler Sr. that stated

I haven't seen where Wales directly admitted that the material was libellous. -Willmcw 16:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Simply review Wales' personal talk page (this is not it), using your browser's "Edit" "Find" feature to locate the word "libel." There are 2 examples where he uses it to refer to the recent Seigenthaler matter.--AustinKnight 16:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

another useful resource: User:WikiFanatic/Wales interview transcript --JWSchmidt 16:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the source that I checked. Only the interviewer mentions libel. As for the talk page, A) that isn't a good source, B) I don't see where he says that the material on Seigenthaler was libellous. -Willmcw 17:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, get real. The remarks on Seigenthaler's page were clearly libelous, and Wales was correct (and intellectually honest) in describing them as such on his personal talk page...twice. --AustinKnight 17:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. You may be honestly confused by the fact that this page is about Jimmy Wales, but is not his personal talk page. See: User_talk:Jimbo Wales for Wales' 2 references to libel. --AustinKnight 17:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you please give us a citation for Wales admitting that the material was libellous? Thanks, -Willmcw 17:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider it an "admission". Whether or not it was or was not an act of libel by this ip number would be for a court to determine. In my opinion, this matters little. It should have been caught before it was anyway, and of course we should consider this a major mistake. I don't know what Austin Knight's deal is, he seems primarily interested in yelling at me. But I think, honestly, that's because he thought I was blowing him off or ignoring him. Presumably he doesn't know how busy I am such that I can't get around to every email promptly.--Jimbo Wales 00:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversy/Criticisms

This article seriously needs a heading or a section with the title Controversy and/or Criticisms. As it is, there are already criticisms and controversial content on the page, but they are misallocated under the heading "Development of Wikipedia." I tried to make this change myself, but it was undone minutes later. Without that heading, the page appears too sanitized and biased by not calling attention to both sides of view, instead highlighting only the positive in the subheadings.

Maybe you could create a subsection within the existing section rather than change the name of the existing section. (and please sign your entries on talk pages with ~~~~) --JWSchmidt 15:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Register shot at home comments

The diff is here. Read all about it on The Register. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This only makes The Register look bad. It's a pity because they do have insightful contributions and the wonderful BOFH. Mark Hurd 05:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And in what way does it make The Register look bad? The whole article is in jest. Coolsi 10:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that article was fairly clearly in jest, but what about this one? I think they're trying to make a point, but like I said above, for me it only reflects badly on The Reader. Mark Hurd 18:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Has the content actually been submitted yet - as Mr. Stern said he'd do? If not, my two cents is that we keep an eye out for it and when he does, give him a polite warning and a reminder of the policy that Wikipedia shouldn't be disrupted to illustrate a point. Remember, anything we do can be used against us. --Kizor 23:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Good Lord. Google News needs to try to not scare me like that. That Register article was on the front page. 69.156.206.82 17:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha. Likewise. --Kizor 18:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

How nice. One of my actions was on the news. I think I blocked that vandal. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 00:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Esquire Wikipedia test?

http://www.smartmoney.com/esquire/index.cfm?Story=20051215wikipedia - supposedly, they posted some sort of article, but I can't find it anywhere. --AySz88^-^ 06:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This was answered thusly on AySz88's talk page: - Mark Hurd 05:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The esquire article you inquired about on Talk:Jimmy Wales (not a good place to post such questions) was Wikipedia:Improve this article about Wikipedia Raul654 06:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The founder of Wikipedia?

I just saw this blog post which brought me to this page. I must say I am amused. Having seen edits like this, it does seem that Jimmy is attempting to rewrite history. But this is a futile process because in our brave new world of transparent activity and maximum communication, the truth will out.

Anyway, here are several points I wish people would bear in mind when they write about who got Wikipedia started:

• I was there (which thankfully no one is denying yet), and I've written a long memoir, which I put a great deal of work into, called "The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia." This has been published in O'Reilly's Open Sources 2.0. I wrote it honestly and attempted to give Jimmy credit for what he is responsible for. I wish he would do the same for me.

• I have already taken Jimmy to task for his claim that a Jeremy Rosenfeld first had the idea for, or proposed, making a wiki encyclopedia (see the whole thread and especially this post). In fact, it does not matter the slightest bit when Jimmy first heard of wikis, or from whom, because it was when I heard of wikis, and when I was thinking about how to solve Nupedia's problems, that I proposed to Jimmy the idea of a wiki encyclopedia. The next day a new wiki was created for me to work on. I proceeded to create the first pages of what became Wikipedia. Jimmy, in claiming that he "set up" the wiki, or that he got the idea from Jeremy Rosenfeld (who I believe was a link weeder for the celebrity rings on Bomis.com), is, I regret to say, perpetrating a self-serving myth. I had thought he would have stopped doing so after being called on it in public (on Wikipedia-l); it is amazing that he continues.

• The notion, as Jimmy suggests above, that "Larry worked under my direct supervision at every stage of the process" is highly misleading. I was answerable to Jimmy, but that hardly means that he was giving me orders and I was carrying them out. That is not at all the case. In terms of the design of Wikipedia's policy and recruitment and so forth, I was given very free rein. Again, see my memoir: he said from the first few days that I started working on Nupedia that I had free rein to design the encyclopedia projects as I wished. I did not talk to Jimmy very much about what I was doing on Wikipedia (although we did discuss things), and in the first year, Jimmy was actually relatively in the background.

• From 2001 until mid-2004, press reports of Wikipedia had, following our mutual practice, identified Jimmy and I as co-founders. Since mid-2004, Jimmy started calling himself "the founder." Since earlier this year he has actually gone farther, to rewrite this article about himself, and to give interviews with the press, to make it look as if I had very little to do with Wikipedia. The fact--which Jimmy does not (yet) deny--is that my proposal of a wiki-based encyclopedia led to the creation of Wikipedia, and very many of the basic practices and policies that Wikipedia still follows were started by me.

• Also, from 2001 until 2004, the various articles mentioning the origin of Wikipedia, including history of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, and Larry Sanger, all reflected actual historical fact, as explained here. It was only when Wikipedia emerged into the broader public eye, and Jimmy started jetting around the world, that he found it convenient to encourage the rewriting of these articles, or to rewrite them himself (!), and to give interviews to the press that ignored my role and emphasized his own. I'm frankly not at all upset, however, because I am thinking long-term, and I know that the truth will out.

--Larry Sanger

This was posted by User:69.107.17.118. Mr. Sanger, could you sign in so we know for sure this is by you? --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales now includes mention of Jimbo's past connection with a company which (among other things) sold some photographs of unclothed women. It also does not explicitly label him as the "founder" of Wikipedia. I'm not sure what else can be made NPOV, the article looks pretty good to me. -- Pakaran 23:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The point is that it's inappropriate for Wales (given his formal, informal and perceived power over the project) to edit his own biography. Doing so is damaging to the project's credibility. Wales has stated that the biography contains serious errors and misunderstandings that he doesn't even know where to begin to correct. If the community can't even sort out the article about its "sole founder" without the subject's involvement, what does that say about its ability to write biographies on anyone else? Or, it might be that Wales' self-image is in conflict with NPOV (it would be strange if it wasn't). — David Remahl 23:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody give this man a cigar. That's the situation in a nutshell. Matt Gies 03:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Er...signing in wouldn't prove that it's me, would it? You mean it's no longer the case that just anyone can sign up as anyone else? That used to be the case.  :-)

--Larry Sanger

Did "you" leave before password-protected user accounts were created or has it been removed? — David Remahl 23:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy has said before that he thinks it is inappropriate for people to edit their own articles. [3] He has also now acknowledged that editing this page was a mistake. [4] I'm sure it was just a temporary lapse in his usually good judgment. Jimmy, I hope you don't mind suggesting future changes on the discussion page, and let us work out the whole "founder" issue. Larry, thanks for joining us. I recently rediscovered your original "Let's make a wiki" post. It's quoted in the "History" section of the Wikipedia article. Perhaps it should be quoted here as well?-Eloquence* 10:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,69880,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
• http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/2828

Indeed Jimmy has on several occasions in the past refrained from making even simple changes to the page, preferring instead to raise issues on this talk page. He didn't actually get much of a response, so it was in the spirit of the wiki to make the changes himself. Now more people have come to the party, and the article will be more complete and accurate for it. Pcb21 Pete 13:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It remains true that Larry Sanger was Jimbo's employee. Does that deny him the ability to be considered a "founder"? I would say that it does. Members of a company are generally labeled founders/co-founders from the start of the company, not by retrospecting. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-20 13:21

Well, let's just add the position of both individuals: Jimbo says he founded it, and Larry said he helped, though they disagree over this point. I know it's not what Jimbo would want, at least we should mention the difference of opinion. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree - we should succinctly describe the dispute. I don't understand why Jimbo made changes himself. Trödel•talk 14:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, that does not really describe the "dispute." In fact, I really don't know what Jimmy disagrees with, other than the name "founder," and who cares about that? If one actually describes the actual things I did, one sees immediately that I was more responsible than any single person, Jimmy included, for getting Wikipedia started. Jimmy has the honor of having paid my salary, ;-). To say I "helped" does me a disservice, frankly.

Not sure what you are disagreeing with - seems like Ta bu shi da yu, you and me are all asking for the same thing - a report of the facts, and describing the differing viewpoints for disputed facts. I don't think Ta is done yet; I'm not either, just haven't figured out the best words. Trödel•talk 18:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

By insisting that I was not a founder and merely an employee under his direct supervision, Jimmy makes it appear as if the big decisions and major work were all done by him. They were, in fact, at best participated in by him, but done by me.

Ask him if he disagrees with this. --Larry Sanger 17:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Larry, the way I read it, is that you were employed by Jim's company called B... something. Then you resigned for not having been paid. That sounds to me that you were an employee, not a co-founder. If you indeed were a co-founder, do you have papers on this? As an employee, or as in your case, an editor-in-chief, you could have done many things and come up with many original ideas. That still wouldn't change the fact that you were an employee, and officially, Jim would be the founder of Wiki. You could be given the credit for creating Wiki, but not for founding it. Anyway, this reminds me of Remus and Romulus. --Anittas 18:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, how are you defining "founder" here? If I read your statement correctly, you are claiming that Larry Sanger otherwise would qualify if he weren't an employee. Glancing through the wiktionary entry, founder, I don't see anything that obviously supports your interpretation. From some exposure in the dotcom era, I don't recall any particular meaning attached to being a "founder" of a business or project (aside from the assumption that you helped create the thing in some way). Employees who had been there since the begining could be founders though they need not be recognized as such.

Having said that, what authority determined that Jimmy Wales is a founder and Larry Sanger is not? Apparently, the argument is that Mr. Wales's company determined this. If so, that fact (and the fact that Mr. Wales controls the company) should be reported to supply NPOV. -- KarlHallowell 23:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's squash this stupidity before it gets worse

I have updated the article about Bomis, stating who accuses Jimbo of being a pornographer, and also that Jimbo disputes this. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"As of 2005, Wales was conspicuously trying to obscure his past links to the world of female glamour photography due to criticism from the religious Right. [1]" -- This is absolutely absurd. --Jimbo Wales 15:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I would agree. I didn't include this. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As an accused (but not convicted) member of the religious right - I tried to make this section more NPOV. Trödel•talk 15:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, criticism from Caesar himself. Well, Jimbo, I still don't think you have any business commenting on the accuracy of this article. I mean, didn't you have some ethical principles in mind when you started this thing? Matt Gies 20:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo, I see you're having a few disputes with Larry Sanger. I think you should give the man whatever credit he deserves; and when it comes to you having been involved in female photography: you should be damn proud of it, dude. Not all of us have that sort of a privilage. If I had that privilage, do you think I would spend this many hours on Wiki, flaming weirdos? Be a good Santa and send me some of those photos, at: wizzard_bane @ yahoo.com. Thanks! --Anittas 18:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this really undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. I left Wikipedia when I started my website but If I still edited here I would seriously consider not continuing to do so. Perl 20:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please. If he had changed it to an encomium, perhaps it would undermine his own credibility, but nothing he could do to his own article could possibly undermine the credibility of the encyclopedia as a whole. As it stands, he merely made several minor corrections, one of which is now disputed. Kindly refrain from making alarmist comments and save the panic for when it is truly warranted. — Dan | talk 20:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If the community can't even get the article on Jimbo right, what does that say about other biographies? This is damaging to the credibility as a whole. — David Remahl 00:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that admins such as brian are violating 3RR in the process of reverting changes. Just because you disagree with an edit, doesn't make it vandalism. These reversions also don't bode well for Wikipedia's crebility, especially considering that cases like this demonstrate selecive immunity of admins who are supported by Jimbo himself.

I should also note something interesting: there is a bit of deliberate revisionist history here. babes.bomis.com has essentially been taken down and as per (what I'm guessing is a recent modification) to robots.txt, it is excluded from archive.org as well, so we don't have records of it. Fortunately, I have a memory of visiting babes.bomis.com before Wikipedia was even created, and I do remember them having soft pornography on it. Or are topless women not "soft pornography" anymore? "Glamour photography" is clearly being used as an inaccurate euphimism here.

Regardless of whether or not you consider it pornography, that is clearly something that is a widely contested point and is clearly not vandalism. NPOV requires that you represent all views in proportion to their popularity, PERIOD. This is a popular view, so it must be repreented, not whitewashed. The same goes for his status as co-founder. That view MUST be represented, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, since it is also widely contested. Even Jimbo himself would acknowledge that this is widely contested, so as per NPOV policy, he shouldn't have created that edit.

It's inappropriate no matter how you look at it, because this is something which clearly requires presentation of the relevent different POVs (both of which are popular). Nathan J. Yoder 05:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon Comment

This article is a joke. There are a swarm of enforcers editing any discussion of Jimmy Wales and his involvement with a cheap and nasty porno site. Any changes to ridiculous terms like "glamour photography" are met with warning against vandalism. A different point of view to your own is not vandalism, and it's a very dangerous thing to act as if it is. This is more doublethink that truth my friends. - Sean White — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.64.6 (talk • contribs)

There's still several hundred thumbnail images and cached pages from Bomis Babes in Google, so people can judge the site's content for themselves. I talk about this more on my weblog. My wrist hurts. Rcade 00:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that cache. Someone should capture those thumbnails before they get deleted from the next round of google's bots on that site (since they're now forbidden by robots.txt). I clearly see women on there who are topless. I'm going to see if I can mirror the google thumbnails because those would be bad to lose permanently. Nathan J. Yoder 05:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I saved the first 30 pages in google's image cache. Some of them were completely buck naked too, in provacative poses. Others had women sucking eachothers teets. Nathan J. Yoder 05:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's several thousand thumbnail images from premium.bomis.com, the pay service, a What's New page, and a Models Wanted page. Rcade 06:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

From the what's new site, I agree, as per the definition of softcore. "Glamour photography" may be nude (like the Pirelli Calendar) but anything with the word "lesbian" includes some form of a sex act and as such crosses the line into the world of softcore. A set of pictures of a single woman in the process of stripping (as opposed to her doing a tease) is not glamour photography (as per the wikipedia definition). Therefore, I agree with Rcade. Calwatch 07:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Banned for an "inappropriate username"

"(I am ♀) Nude females ARE NOT PORN, it's art."

- How is this "inappropriate"? How does it warrant banning for a whole day just for choosing a username saying something I believe in (THAT IS TRUE, really..)? This was by User:HappyCamper. I'm new here, but surely this is admin abuse? --69.49.99.19 00:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Using slogans as names is generally frowned upon, and is inadvisable anyway - for anyone and any slogan. See Wikipedia:Username for some details - it notes that "The user name is not a forum to be offensive or make a statement.". There was quite a bit of controversy about User:Jesus is Lord! which you can see at User:Jesus is Lord!/namechange. Morwen - Talk 00:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the nickname, but these housewives will do anything to get a kick - including banning innocent people. --Anittas 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that sentence is offensive on so many levels. I salute you! Morwen - Talk 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

From now on, the famous phrase should be changed to "Wikipedia: Unemployed PhD housewife deathmatch". Pcb21 Pete 10:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

vandal edit summaries

I've restored the recent vandal edits to make it easier for non-admins to keep track of them. With these vandals, any information about them can be used as evidence, if we want to take further action against them (as opposed to merely blocking them). However, regarding the offensive edit summaries, I have made a request for a developer to remove them. --Ixfd64 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Apostrophes

Why are people changing apostrophes? There is no rule in the English language that dictates that only historically significant people have "s'" instead of "s's." Quite the contrary, it's standard practice in any formal writing to use "s'" regardless of who it is. I don't even think I've seen a single newspaper or book print the other form. Nathan J. Yoder 05:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's Rule #1 in The Elements of Style. — Dan | talk 05:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a single book should dictate "proper usage," especially when it's based on what a single guy said nearly 100 years ago (language changes). I've always been taught that it's a mistake to use "s's" in formal writing, regardless of context. As an example, Nature prefers to use "Wales'" instead of "Wales's." I don't really think there is a right or wrong here, but I think we should go with whatever is most common in formal writing. Nathan J. Yoder 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No, we should go with whichever is recommended in Wikipedia's style guide. Until there's a recommendation there, people shouldn't be changing them to suit their personal preferences. Strunk & White's rule #1 is "Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's." The Chicago Manual of Style concurs, and notes the traditional exceptions. "Wales's" isn't one that would be an exception except under Chicago's alternative simplified procedure for those "uncomfortable" with the usual rules. Nunh-huh

The Economist and the Chicago Manual of Style (second question from the bottom; unfortunately the full manual is not available online) both prefer "Wales's". — Dan | talk 06:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style says: Possessives of singular nouns ending in s may be formed with or without an additional s. Either form is generally acceptable within Wikipedia. However, if either form is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with Achilles' heel. So you go which ever form is more common, which is what I already said (although I restricted it to formal writing). There's nothing in there that says you must obey any particular style guide (other than itself). I'm not sure how you'd easily determine this though, since Google doesn't let you search like that, it disregards the apostrophe for the "s'" form. Nathan J. Yoder 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Commonwealth of Australia's Style Manual also supports "...s's" in all but the "historically significant" (Jesus, Moses, Achilles...) cases. As of five minutes ago, all but one of the occurrences in the article were of the form "Wales's", so I changed the single "Wales'" to be at least consistent. PaulHoadley 00:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that the spelling of "...s's " or "...s' " should be consistent irrespective of the spoken form. That is, even if it is pronounced like "...ses " it still should be spelt "...s' " if that is grammatically correct, and vice versa. Mark Hurd 05:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Resolving the Bomis Babes Dispute

I don't think we're going to reach a happy medium on whether the nude pictures on Bomis Babes are pornography. There's a What's New page and several thousand thumbnail images from premium.bomis.com, the site's pay service, that you can use to judge the content. I'd call pictorials titled "Vanity and Evita wet lesbians" and "lesbian strip poker threesome" porn, but I'm easily excitable. Regular customers of online porn would probably be disappointed in a site like that, because there appears to be no sex.

Here's my recommendation: "In 1996, Wales founded the search portal Bomis, which he described as a "guy-oriented search engine" in a September 2005 interview on C-Span. The Bomis Babes Report published sexually oriented pictures of models and coverage of the entertainment and porn industries, and a premium section offered nude pictorials commissioned by Bomis."

The C-Span interview is online, if someone wanted to footnote it. Rcade 14:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I revised my recommended text based on some feedback I received. Rcade 15:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I recommend the term 'erotic photography' as a neutral description.--Jimbo Wales 12:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Who's idea was the wiki-encyclopedia?

Jeremy Rosenfeld initially came up with the idea to make the encylopedia wiki-based and Sanger coined the name Wikipedia.

from Jimmy Wales

In January 2001 Sanger proposed the creation of a wiki to spur the development of articles, and the result of this proposal was Wikipedia

from Larry Sanger

So, whodunit? :-) bogdan 15:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Jimmy

He had some problems with the user User:Node ue. On the page Moldovan language he was always a trolling character. He was always alone in his positions and he was always against any consensus. Now the page is blocked because of him. Now, he transfered his hatred also on some pages that I created where he comes everyday to revert my work. What can be done? I think more than 100 people told him to stop but he continues his trolling again. Bonaparte talk 15:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

True?

Jimmy Wales himself would have changed this page several times. Changing one's own biography however is a violation of Wikipedia's rules about biographies. Among these changes he would also have minimalised the role of Larry Sanger. [5] Though my source is the Belgian quality newspaper, De Standaard, I wonder if there are other news articles that back this claim up. Mjolnir1984 16:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh. It's a guide, for goodness sake, not a hard and fast rule!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed material

"Additionally, Wales has been accused of trying to obscure his relationship to Bomis."

Let's find out exactly who says this, hmmm? I'd like to see a source. I've taken it out till someone finds me one. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well there's Rogers Cadenhead quoted at BetaNews. Times Online also alludes to that.--T. Anthony 13:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with that article is that the source of the news report is wikipedia itself - so the original research information on wikipedia was used a source for a news report which is now being used to justify restoring OR material. It would be helpful if there was a verifiable accusation that predates the controversy ;) Trödel•talk 20:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote above is a direct quote of me, and was my own interpretation of Cadenhead's article as I had edited the Jimmy page. Anyway, I don't see what's the problem: Because Rogers has his own wiki user name, do you consider it "original research"? While I agree with that policy WRT people with no credentials other than being on Wikipedia acting as original researchers, I don't think it makes sense to apply it to everybody who happens to edit on here too. In as many words: I think that the mention of Jimmy's revisionism needs to be more explicit in the article proper. Matt Gies 09:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

slashdot tag

I have removed the "watch out for vandals" tag on the article page, which I do not believe is appropriate for wikipedia article pages (having it on a talk page is fine.) Sdedeo (tips) 18:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dsiputed

This article is extremely biased--Jimbo's prowess on wikipedia should not accord him a more favorable article. This article makes no mention of his history in the pornography industry, his public statements after the hurricanes of 2005, etc. Users who make unfavorable edits to this article are banned. Having a biased article on the founder of wikipedia reflects badly on the encyclopedia. This needs to be fixed. 69.22.42.35 02:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a no more favourable article than any other one.

It says about his history and position with Bomis already already - This suggests you haven't actually read the article that you're complaing about. Also, Bomis did NOT produce pornography, there was some nude modelling but never sex acts or "porn".

How do you know? While there are no insertion of objects in any orifice, suggestive touching between two photographed people is definitely softcore, though on the low end, unlike insertions. I do like the "nude and partially nude" description and I hope we can agree on that, instead of trying to split hairs between "glamour photography" and "softcore". Calwatch 07:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I've seen, people who make nonsense unfavorable edits to the encylopedia are NOT banned any more than people who make nonsense favourable ones (there have been some of both).. What are you referring to? I bet you're one of those people who posted some unsourced POV crap... --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fundraising

Okay, so i'm a fairly large contributor to this site, i love it, i put huge amounts of time into it, and it has served me well. Anyway, I want to contribute some funds, but my worry, as always, is how does wikipedia plan to maintain its ideology? I heard that a paper edition of the encyclopedia is possibly coming out. So my question is, is somebody going to get rich off of this project (wikipedia), and if so, then why should i put money into it (i already put enough in)? I mean, is there somewhere i can go to see what the funds are, what is needed, how much is paying someone's salary, etc.? Sorry to be the realist; and sure, the early bird gets the worm, but i'm here to serve a different purpose, and unfortunately, in my world, the dishonest are reigning unchecked and i'm poor as hell - so could we address this? Anonymously yours, 67.166.51.134 06:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hello Unknown, I surely doubt that anyone from this community will ever make big money with it, as it is managed by the non-profit organization Wikimedia and its local chapters (Wikimedia Deutschland, France etc.). There is much money involved in this project, as a site this big has to have many servers and people who manage them full-time. All finances and budgets is documented and you can read them at wikimedia.org (sorry too tired to put link up). However, since all this stuff is licensed under an open license, you *could* make some money as people already do by presenting the stuff together with ads or selling it on paper for the distribution costs. This is the only (minor) downside to the idea of really free information, and as such unavoidable. Be assured that nobody here except the full time staff will ever make money from Wikipedia, and those are paid industry standard wages as you can read for yourself. I sure do trust this community, and couldn't find a better investment in the future of mankind.

Greetz from Berlin, Endymi0n 07:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't think there will be a paper version. There will be CD/DVD versions, which are mainly to allow people in developing countries to have access to information where they may not have internet access (and probably in ratios of hundreds of users to one computer). -- Natalinasmpf 19:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

rm of disputed tag

I have removed the disputed tag after looking over the talk page. As far as I can tell, there are no facts at dispute here. Actually, as far as I can tell, the whole thing is whether or not to describe Boomis babes as "pornography". Nobody disagrees that there were some hot women and cameras involved. In any case, the disputed tag is not the correct one, unless there are other facts at dispute, in which case, please let us know (this stupid Sanger-Wales-who-founded-wp stuff has been settled as far as I can tell) by posting here. Sdedeo (tips) 07:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Look there is no debate really... Bomis supported porn... period... Proof: Image:Sylvia Saint 001.jpg Silvia Saint is flat out no denying a PORN STAR. from her article here on wiki:

She was Penthouse Pet of the Year in 1996 (Czech edition) and after her introduction to the United States porn industry in 1997 and again in 1998 (U.S. edition). Her first movie was shot in Prague for Private Media, and was a great success. From there, she moved across the Atlantic where she has spent over three years on U.S. soil. Much of her work includes anal sex and she is noted for her performance of oral sex.

Jimbo himself even concedes this point: "Bomis owns the copyright to that photo, and while we don't release all of our promotional photos under the GNU FDL, that one is fine. I always wonder what happened to the photo of Aria Giovanni on my Ferrari. Hmm... the mysteries of Wikipedia.  :-) Jimbo Wales 20:57 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)" old edit.

This is UNDENYABLE proof in JIMBOS OWN WORDS that Bomis worked with Porn Stars... end of discussion.  ALKIVAR™ 11:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Shall I post links to images of Adolf Hitler on wikipedia to prove that wikipedia supports Nazis? Same argument, really. Ronabop 14:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

But did Hitler wear a Bomis shirt? No. Calwatch 20:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Godwin's Law perchance? Matt Gies 10:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that Ronabop's point is quite a good one. "There exists a photo of a porn star wearing a Bomis t-shirt" somehow translates to "Bomis is porn"? Not in any rational universe, it doesn't. --Jimbo Wales 13:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

December 2005 Controversy

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,69880,00.html

"In an interview with Wired News, Wales acknowledged he's made changes to his bio, but said the edits were made to correct factual errors and provide a more rounded version of events.

While he said that Wikipedia generally frowns on people editing entries about themselves, there is no hard and fast rule against it.

"People shouldn't do it, including me," he said. "I wish I hadn't done it. It's in poor taste.... People have a lot of information about themselves but staying objective is difficult. That's the trade-off in editing entries about yourself.... If you see a blatant error or misconception about yourself, you really want to set it straight."

• Although this is a minor controversy, I think the sensitive and evidently volatile nature of this article warrants a "Cleaning Up" warning. There's obviously a lot of bullshit in the article, and the Talk page is no help sorting it out. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poopdeville (talk • contribs)

The cleanup tag is not for content disputes. It applies to bad grammar, lack of wikification, non-conformity to style guide (standard sections, standard boldfacing, etc), non-encyclopedic writing style, and so forth. "Obviously a lot of bullshit" is not nearly good enough an explanation; it's not obvious and arguably untrue. -- Curps 06:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Who cares what you think?

NY Times 12.24.05

"THE debate over Wikipedia has hit a fever pitch in recent weeks. Supporters of Wikipedia, the user-edited online encyclopedia, are pitted against traditionalists who call the site inaccurate and irresponsible" [6]

Insider Editing at Wikipedia, NY Times December 24, 2005 -- Merecat 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please address the following Wiki-issues:

Wikipedia's concept seems flawed. This issue has been addressed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia regarding:

' the lack of information on most people. Everyone on this planet is notable, yet the censors seem to think you have to be in the news to be included. The idea that most people are not notable is highly offensive to people who value every life and want to hear about them.

' the censorship that is labeled vandalism. Everyone can edit a page, but opposing viewpoints are not tolerated, even if they are very important to some people.

' the lack of detailed information on most topics. The Internet can be readily searched to find detailed information on everything. Wikipedia lacks a lot of detail, because frankly there is too much information out there to filter out.

If the content of wikipedia were left alone, and yearly moved into 'static approved content' pages, the quantity of work required would illustrate how preposterous the whole concept is.

Hello Unknown, let me add my two cents to your arguments:

' the lack of information on most people. Everyone on this planet is notable, yet the censors seem to think you have to be in the news to be included. The idea that most people are not notable is highly offensive to people who value every life and want to hear about them.

• This site isn't called "Wiki" but "Wikipedia", simply because it strives to be an "Encyclopedia" which limits itself to list "important" people only. If in your average printed encyclopedia there was an article about every human being on earth (living and deceased, to be really "fair"), it would weigh more than the Empire State Building and would be completely unreadable. If you value people so much, be free to host a page where everyone can make an article about anyone - the Wikimedia software is open source. Beware of the server costs though... =)

' the censorship that is labeled vandalism. Everyone can edit a page, but opposing viewpoints are not tolerated, even if they are very important to some people.

• Here you seem to confuse vandalism and differing points of view. Blanking pages and adding bullshit is in no ones interest and could hardly be interpreted as censorship. If you have a differing viewpoint, you can add it as long as you do not censor the viewpoint of others, which is often the case. Often there is a minority which does not want to be one, so they label good NPOV-sentences like "The general consensus is that this is A, but several people believe it is B" as censorship, which it is not. There is no absolute truth in most cases and you can surely add your own point of view, as long as it makes sense and respects the values of this community. It doesn't matter to me if you believe in Voodoo, Intelligent Design or the nonexistence of Nazi concentration camps, but if you state it as the truth (accepted by the majority of people), it is correctly labeled vandalism.

' the lack of detailed information on most topics. The Internet can be readily searched to find detailed information on everything. Wikipedia lacks a lot of detail, because frankly there is too much information out there to filter out.

• I cannot follow you here... 1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If encyclopadiae had the ambition of being the most detailed source of information in every case, you wouldn't need the rest of the library/internet, right? So they don't. An encyclopedia provides a general overview about a topic. If you want to know everything about it go read every book about it. 2. Most other internet sites are on the average authored by one person. Chances are that not all of these are professionals, so when I search on the net on the average I see a *lot* of bullshit with often widely differing points of view. So wikipedia provides a revisioned extract which is not a bug but the feature.

Just my humble opinion, Endymi0n 16:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why is the discussion in this section on this page? --JWSchmidt 16:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone mentioned Wikipedia = Web 2.0, but "Beware of the server costs" was never an excuse for the Internet.

Moved talk page

Why has this talk page been moved to Talk:Jimmy Wales/delete? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect Impression is Provided by this Paragraph

"More recently, perhaps inspired by the success of Wikipedia, Wales has founded the for-profit company Wikia (unrelated to Wikimedia) which hosts various wikis, and manages the Wikicities project."

Wikia is not "unrelated" to Wikimedia. When Jimbo established Wikimedia unilaterally he announced on the mailing list that he intended to stack the Board. He proceeded to do so. In the first election he announced that he intended to defer to the two of five elected Board members regarding issues of interest to the community. This obviously begs the question of why then he needed to stack the Board. Perhaps now we know. Recently a vote of 200/268 screened voters voted to initiate the long deferred Wikiversity project under the auspices of the Wikimedia Foundation. The Board has issued terse confusing feedback and requested a complete rewrite of the entire proposal regarding how the learning communities (Wikiversity) would operate in detail. Difficult to accomplish with an experimental leading edge prototype. Something that still has not been accomplished with other Wikimedia projects including Wikipedia. Is it merely coincidental that various participants impatient with their treatment on wikibooks have begun proceeding with content development at wikicities, which will incidentally line Jimbo the internet entrepreneur and philanthropist's pockets (or at least pay some of his operation's overhead) with advertising revenue? How many years should Wikiversity wait in the wings to spring into action in case Jimbo and Angela et. al. cannot get rich of the many eyeballs, free labor, advertising model of the traditional dot.com internet fraud fiascos? (diff^tm) Interlocking chains of executives, Board Members, owners, and God Kings should in no honest publication ever be called "unrelated". Perhaps we should say "unrelated for tax accounting purposes" or perhaps we should say "allegedly unrelated and unaccountable to regulators and stakeholders". Actually I like the former better as I think it is more correct. The latter often crops up in discussions of "apparent conflicts of interest" which occasionally are determined by investigators and public opinion to have been in no way "unrelated". Of course, if investigations show that Wikia business has been conducted on travel or Wikimanias expensed to the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation for the benefit of Wikia stockholders, managers, founders, owners, and/or executives then the former may be incorrect as well. What is a good term implying unrelated for two activities substantially controlled by the same person/people? Left brain, right brain. Public/private. Above board/stealthy. Known/unknown. Acknowledged/denied.

http://academia.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page approved for fun and profit

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity/test deferred until you make us happy, possibly to infinity

http://wikicities.com/wiki/About_Wikicities

http://wikicities.com/wiki/Wikicity_creation_policy

"Check that your idea is not already covered by an existing Wikicity. Check that your idea could not become part of an existing Wikimedia project (http://www.wikimedia.org). Check which other proposals were rejected for an idea of what not to request.

You must agree:

   * to the terms of use.
   * that the the content of the wiki will be licensed under the GFDL, a free content licence. This means the information can be reused, not only in other Wikicities, but by anyone.
   * that the wiki will be open to the public to edit (see protection).
   * that the wiki will be run as a community project. Wikicities are not owned by their founders. Users should strive towards consensus as the primary means for organizing their wikis."

Interesting that the above shows clearly a relationship between wikicities projects and wikimedia projects as potential competitors. Further, it is clearly part of the terms and conditions that the "founder" is not an "owner" of the community founded. Of course it does not say anything about "stacked boards" because that has already been provided. Wikia owns the servers and collects the revenue from the advertising delivered to local users of the material created by the volunteer communities. 70.110.60.140 03:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversy Over Security Risks On Wikipedia

Mr. Wales,

Let me bring the following information to your immediate attention:

Is it fair to say that the recent deletion and editing of this discussion page - specifically related to bringing to your attention certain security risks here on Wikipedia; and the ongoing controversy related to the deletion and vandalism of materials related to law enforcement and international security (Including Valérie Gignac, Mark Bourque, Template:Infobox Police Officer and Template:Security Risk) is an indication that this project may be spinning out of control? Having recently edited several articles (including (Animal Liberation Front - a known terrorist group) to bring necessary security-related information to your administrators attention, I found myself blocked temporarily from this site. What gives?
PeterZed 04:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition , repeated deletions of the nefarious connections of the Wales family (see The Outlaw Josie Wales) raise the same subject of huge manipulations of the wiki articles , esp by a coterie / troop of apparent sadistic persons of the ancient persuasion.

And, we recently see that NSA (National Security Agency) scans all internet writings/ typings including those of wikipedia for key words - those key words chosen by rantings of the dazed NSA analysists in their own "raves" room high on who knows what. And proving the ongoing national security manipulations of a WMD as wiki by the sycophant pawns.

Hello Boss

Are you OK ? I've seen a really sick rumor concerning you. You all right ? I've seen the rumor while I was on my way here. I was told it was satire. If that is satire, then what is comedy ? I call it sick. The rumor is found here:[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/17/jimmy_wales_shot_dead_says_wikipedia Jimbo Wales Shot Dead] I really hope you are doing well boss. Martial Law 02:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you were to read further down: "For the record, The Register must note that the ubermeister of Wikipedia appears to be alive and well. ... The "news" of his death consisted of a random edit to his own, particularly fulsome entry on the encyclopedia he helped create." Obviously this is a work of satire from someone who has a bone to pick with Wikipedia for some unknown reason.

Agreed, boss. Hope you're doing well boss. Martial Law 02:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Crazy

I want to comment on this, "Wales confirmed that he had edited his own biography on Wikipedia, a practice generally frowned upon within the Wikipedia community. Wales's edits were in line with his view that former editor Larry Sanger should not be considered a co-founder of Wikipedia. " I remember when I saw him do this and I commented, joking, "I saw that!" As what it seems, I am the first person to see his Larry Sanger edit [7], and I want to say that I support Jimbo on this one. He offers a personal view of what happened in the foundation of Wikipedia. He already has enough stress with Daniel Brandt and the Seigenthaler controversy on his shoulders. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to respond to this?

Moved other users' comment to User talk:Jimbo Wales by Mistress Selina Kyle, this is not Jimbo's user page he rarely reads it as per the header at the top

Hidden text

As regards this - I hid the text as a result of an IRC conversation with Jimbo, in which he pointed out that no serious critics have called him a pornographer, or made a serious issue of it. If the people who express these concerns are just a bunch of Internet trolls looking for an excuse to criticize Wikipedia, which is my perception, their claims and a huge defense against said claims don't need to be in the article. Again, Jimbo didn't ask me to edit it, but I decided to after he brought up the issue. -- Pakaran 20:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I, personally, consider the mere fact that you conduct casual conversations with Jimbo to be prima facie evidence that you're not qualified as a neutral arbiter in this debate. As a matter of fact I consider myself a serious critic of Jimbo, and I call much of the Bomis material softcore pornography. So I can't abide the blanking of all that text on such a flimsy basis. Matt Gies 02:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems like every two-bit troll "Wikipedia critic" likes to harp on the "Jimbo is a pornographer!" line as an ad-hominem attempt to attribute guilt by association to Wikipedia. Maybe no serious critics do, but some of the silly critics make a lot of noise, and are perhaps "notable" on this account. *Dan T.* 03:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you're barking up the wrong tree here. I love the porno. What I hate is deception, obfuscation, blind faith, hero-worship, and hypocrisy. I don't think having made soft porn is bad; I think denying and trying to hide it is bad and highly unethical. Matt Gies 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course if anyone actually did make soft porn, and then tried to hide it, they would of course be in the wrong. But notice that there are two separate threads of this critique which have to be thoughtfully sorted out. The first question is the question of what Bomis was, and what to call it. I think "softcore pornography" is ludicriously POV. Indeed I am of the opinion that given the fact that since the glamour photography on the site was never more than a very tiny part of the entire business, it is as silly to even mention it in this article as it would be to mention it in the Marriott International article. I won't win that battle, though, and so what I strongly recommend is that we go back to what was a generally accepted compromise of 'erotic photography'. I will still find this article absurd to mention that, but whatever. I can live with that.

The other question is whether this article should treat this as some kind of controversy. To my knowledge it absolutely is not a controversy. Other than, as Dan T. puts it, "two-bit trolls", I am not aware of this being controversial. Matt Gies seems to agree on that point, am I right? So what I recommend is that we should entirely eliminate the suggestion that it's controversial and simply state it as a plain fact.

There is a horrible problem in this article of violation of WP:CITE. Statements are changed back and forth over and over with absolutely no external references.--Jimbo Wales 12:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that "softcore pornography" is "ludicruously POV", but erotic photography is a reasonable, inclusive term that everyone so far seems to have been able to agree to, so I've used it here as well.--Eloquence* 15:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

correcting bad facts?

In this edit [8] is the comment "correcting bad facts" but you changed it from one wrong version to an even worse vesion.

The actual historical fact, to my knowledge not contested by anyone, is that I registered the domain name, I tested several different wiki packages, installing several to test, and then I installed the Wikipedia software. I made the first edits. This was absolutely not over any objections of mine but as the culmination of many many months of me complaining to Larry that the problem with Nupedia could be solved with a more open editing model. --Jimbo Wales 12:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait My mistake, I linked to the wrong edit. This edit is perfectly fine. I'll have to find the one I was complaining about. :-) Apologies.--Jimbo Wales 13:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the questionable edit. Notice how it is made by an anonymous redshirt and flagged as a minor edit. Notice how it takes credit away from Larry Sanger while mangling the historical facts. I know that people love to view this dispute as me thinking Larry gets too much credit, but in fact I think that in general Larry does not get enough credit. All I care about here is simple historical accuracy.--Jimbo Wales 13:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Link to class action lawsuit

No lawsuit has been filed, and there is very good reason to think that the website linked to in this article is not credibly about to file any such suit. I know of absolutely no reason to think that they are, but in any event, there is not a suit now. Therefore, linking to it as we do:

• Class Action Lawsuit against Wales and Wikipedia

is totally silly. This method of linking implies that there _is_ a lawsuit.

The article doesn't even mention it, and so I question whether the link even belongs here. I suppose if in fact it ever does amount to anything, it should be linked, but at the present time I don't think so.--Jimbo Wales 12:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct, it's one of the QuakeAID sites. I'm not sure this belongs here at all since it focuses explicitly on Wikipedia rather than on you personally, and so far it is only "gathering complaints".--Eloquence* 15:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing my own entry

"In late 2005, a controversy arose regarding Wales and the related Wikipedia entry on himself. After Wired Magazine picked up on work from Rogers Cadenhead, Wales confirmed that he had edited his own biography on Wikipedia,"

I have no real suggestions about how this alleged controversy (was there a controversy?) should be presented it, except to say that we should absolutely not follow the lead of uninformed media. This wording suggests that Rogers Cadenhead sleuthed out some secret and then upon questeioning by Wired, I confirmed it. The actual facts of the matter is that all edits to this article by me have been done openly, under my publicly known username, and so there was no need for me to "confirm" it. This sentence contains an implication which I think will mislead readers of this article.

Perhaps something like this: "Wales has from time to time edited the article about himself in Wikipedia, in an open and public fashion, interacting with other editors on the talk page in the normal fashion."

The context of the alleged "controversy" is this: Adam Curry was caught (secretly) editing the entry about himself, and someone traced the ip number to him, he was confronted about it and admitted it. Then, a couple of weeks later, the media picked up on a bloggers report about me editing about myself, and they seemed to assume that it was the same sort of thing.

Now whether or not me editing about myself is actually controversial, I leave to others to decide. But what I do think makes sense is that we accurately report the story, and not suggest that I did this secretly and only confirmed it after being confronted by a magazine.

--Jimbo Wales 12:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a note that the edits were visible and open. I've also linked your older mailing list post [9] where you stated that "it is a social faux pas to write about yourself", a quote by you which has been at the top of Wikipedia:Autobiography for quite some time.--Eloquence* 15:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of this talk page?

There are several items on this talk page which do not appear to about this article, but are rather inquiries for me which should have been left on my user talk page, or simply rants against me. I don't want to be accused of in any way stifling open discussion about this article, so I'm reluctant to remove or archive any of it myself. Could someone do that?

What I would recommend is that we archive all the points that are more than a week or two old, so that we can have a cleaner workspace to work on the errors in the article. --Jimbo Wales 13:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph about advertising

This edit inaccurately portrays even what the absurd Times Online story said. "Despite resistance to the idea" by me is relevant, as the current paragraph gives the impression that over community objections, I'm considering advertising in Wikipedia. The bit about "been known to assure people in the past" adds to the misimpression, in addition to being plainly false.

I have been saying exactly the same thing about advertising for many many years. After the Times Online story appeared, I was interviewed by other outlets, who then more accurately reported on this.--Jimbo Wales 13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs here at all, this is a biography of yourself and not a history of Wikipedia, and as you point out, it is unambiguously true that your personal position on advertising has been consistent (in fact, it has been consistently your position that the decision should not be made by you alone). Your statements at Wikimania, for example, are on the record. If anywhere, the issue of advertising belongs in the Wikipedia article.--Eloquence* 15:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"a founder of"

If we simply count the news sites, I think it is quite clear that I am best known as "the" founder of Wikipedia. Given that there is (apparently) some controversy over that, I think the article should start off with something like an earlier revision: best known as "the head of Wikipedia" or similar, and then the controversy, if there is a controversy, should be discussed later on in the article.--Jimbo Wales 13:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You are also the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. Do you prefer the term "President" or "Chair"?

If this is to become a good article, we do need to write something about what your exact role and authority in Wikipedia is, which will be difficult, since it does not seem to be defined and you have rejected some of the possible labels like benevolent dictator -- so we'll simply have to describe some of the decisions you've made or refused to make in the past.--Eloquence* 15:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I normally use 'President'. I frequently in talks describe my role in Wikipedia as being analagous to 'constitutional monarch' but even that is a bit of a stretched analogy. I think it's pretty hard to find an exact term for it, especially using political analogies, since this is not a government but an encyclopedia project. --Jimbo Wales 16:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

On Larry Sanger's article, it says: "...and the co-founder of Wikipedia"...I know you are known as "the founder", but that's just a suggestion of how it could be reworded? --Gary Kirk (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)]

I would describe Larry as the "editor in chief", a position that was eliminated after it became clear that a wiki doesn't need such a thing. However, I don't think it is up to me to decide. --66.55.0.146 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably relevant to the controversy: "To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's".--Jimbo Wales 13:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That can be phrased more neutrally, but yes, something to that effect should be in the article.--Eloquence* 15:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a quote by Larry. (His history, posted on Slashdot.) I don't know if the quote should be included but it should certainly inform the debate.--Jimbo Wales 15:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was a direct quote, in that case, it could certainly be inserted.--Eloquence* 16:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any early statement by you where you describe your vision of Nupedia? That would be useful and interesting, I think.--Eloquence* 15:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It certainly would be. :-) I've been hunting around for this sort of thing but unfortunately my very oldest email archives are missing, as are the very early email archives of Nupedia itself.  :-( The email archives I have do include some very interesting tidbits that haven't been made public, but I really have to think about whether and when I'd like to do that.--Jimbo Wales 15:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I say go for it. We all have to pump our resumes wherever we can, Jimbo. --Jscott 19:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)