Jump to content

Talk:Jimmy Wales: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted 1 edit by 206.82.167.147 (talk) to last revision by 永続繁栄. (TW)
Line 162: Line 162:
== Hello ==
== Hello ==
Hello! You're a founder of Wikipedia, right? Thank you.--[[User:永続繁栄|永続繁栄]] ([[User talk:永続繁栄|talk]]) 03:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! You're a founder of Wikipedia, right? Thank you.--[[User:永続繁栄|永続繁栄]] ([[User talk:永続繁栄|talk]]) 03:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

ROFL [[Special:Contributions/97.91.30.86|97.91.30.86]] ([[User talk:97.91.30.86|talk]]) 15:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:19, 6 September 2015

Former good article nomineeJimmy Wales was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 14, 2005Articles for deletionKept
August 14, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
August 31, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
March 25, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Who launched Wikipedia?

"When I first launched Wikipedia on 15 January 2001".[1] So who launched Wikipedia? Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! I could have sworn I just read the same thread on Nupedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC) p.s. if anyone does find out, could they please tell the Radio Times. Thanks. [reply]
Wales stated in October 2001 that it was "Larry (who) had the idea to use Wiki software for a separate project."[2] Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eight years of editing here has entirely robbed me, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
I have noticed a lot of people on Wikipedia say Wales is the founder. QuackGuru (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can't believe anything you read here. Try the PR Dept. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In response to an appeal to Wikipedia on Change.org to request Wikipedia to "create and enforce new policies that allow for true scientific discourse about holistic approaches to healing," Wales said alternative medicine practitioners are "lunatic charlatans".[1]
  1. ^ Megan Geuss (March 25, 2014). "Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners "lunatic charlatans"". Ars Technica. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
See WP:QUACKS, but when has Wales ever did anything about the issues on Wikipedia. This is confusing. Wales talks about the issues but I never seen Wales do anything. Is there any more sources? QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is he's a lunatic charlatan. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Martinevans123, did you see this? See Jimmy_Wales#Honors.2C_awards_and_positions. Wales is receiving awards, yet according to the history of Wikipedia he had a minor role in creating Wikipedia. Sanger is obviously the leading founder. According to RS I have read Wales was in the background and focused on Bomis.com. WP:WTF is going on here? QuackGuru (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disgusting. He should send them all to Larry. Are they tax deductable? I think we should be told. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, Larry Sanger is not the "leading founder"> There has always been a small cadre of Sangerites but the judgment of independent sources is pretty clear and anyone who has actually met Jimbo knows that the ethos behind Wikipedia is his. Sanger may well have been the technical brains, but you need only look at Citizendium to understand that Jimmy had the better idea. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

== Desert Island Discs ==

.Is it worth mentioning Jimbo's turn to be castaway on Desert Island Discs, or is that too much like trivia? For those interested his Favourite was, Bach, Violin Concerto in A Minor, first movement; his book choice was Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead; his luxury item was, A cellar full of Cabernet wine and a glass, (he did want a mobile phone with internet access, but naturally he wasn't getting it ). [3] --wintonian talk 20:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

(edit conflict):Ignore me I didn't see the discussion above. --wintonian talk 21:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked just after it was broadcast, if you'd care to check the thread before last? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did just before you pushed "save page" --wintonian talk 21:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By all means add a comment to the above discussion. I thought it was more than "trivia" and would be a worthy addition. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox references contested

Hi! Just a heads up that while the infobox source for Wales' net worth is reliable (New York Times), the article itself is apparently pulling numbers from nowhere. Says Wales of the article: "Notice that the reporter cites no actual sources, and indeed, since I'm in a position to know, she did not do any actual journalism to come up with the number. I don't know where she saw it in particular, but I know that it's a number made up out of thin air." While he's not explicitly denying the amount on Quora, the number was arbitrarily established. -- Zanimum (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.quora.com/If-no-one-knows-Jimmy-Wales-net-worth-why-does-Wikipedias-article-on-him-show-his-net-worth-as-1-million-estimate-as-of-2014/answer/Jimmy-Wales

He also contests the Guardian calculation. -- Zanimum (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Telegraph source says; Wales’s total net worth, by most estimates, is just above $1 million and the Gruniad; Wales's 2011 divorce settlement with his second wife put his assets at $943,000. So I think that last one should go at least, as in my mind $943,000 in 2011 dosn't really equate to $1M in 2014. As for the Telegraph it doesn't state where these allaged estimates are from, perhaps they have just plucked them out of thin air? how are we to know?
Personally I reckon we need better sources, though going by the Telegraph article Jimbo is rather coy about the subject making this somewhat of a challenge I shouldn't wonder. --wintonian talk 20:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do ofcouse mean the New York Times and The Observer respectfully and not the Telegraph or the Gruniad --wintonian talk 20:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added "better source" tag, on principle

This edit may get reverted, but on principle I have to add it. DOB data need to come from reliable sources. A person reporting their DOB in an interview is not an authoritative source. Hence, the 2011 Jerusalem Post interview stating that their interviewee "will turn 45 on the seventh of August" is reasonably presumed to be self-disclosed information, and therefore is not an authoritative statement of DOB (especially since, in this situation, there is documentary evidence to the contrary).

Moreover, there are better, more authoritative sources in the main body of the text.

No source actually need appear in the lede, since the body is thoroughly sourced. To omit this lede citation would perhaps be best; otherwise, move up the Britannica or similar inline citations appearing later, copying one or more to the lede. Either way, the Post citation should go. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed going to revert your tag, because by your own admission, it is not true that a "better source" is needed for the DOB. You are right that we don't actually need a source in the lead (I suspect it is there because of the inane debates over the correct birth date that we've had in the past). If you'd prefer to add or substitute another of the sources already provided, I suppose you could do so, although the whole exercise strikes me as a poor use of time.
As a general statement, tags on articles, and especially mid-sentence tags, are distracting to readers. The tags were created for a reason and when they are necessary or helpful we should certainly use them, but they should not be inserted for the mere sake of inserting them, and certainly not when they are counterfactual. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, exactly as I expected (though the justification was as feckless as it was unnecessary). If any inline citation appears in the lede, a better source is needed, at that position; no admission otherwise was made. (And your "counterfactual" is so much dissembling—even if elsewhere in the article the facts are properly supported, the Jerusalem Post article is a bad source for the statement to which it attached, période.). L'avis du professeur, pardonnez-moi. Readers get what they deserve when they tolerate articles where appearance and status quo are the highest good, and so we apparently deserve no better than this, here. Your modifier volant (fly-by edit) remains in place, over my tentative volant at improvement. Cheers. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really isn't. The fact is uncontroversial other than to a handful of people who want to cause trouble. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Jimmy Wales which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ukhomeoffice-stop-the-extradition-of-richard-o-dwyer-to-the-usa-saverichard
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows what is going on any more? Do you? Does any one?

A funny thing happened while I was on vacation. I ran into someone I knew long ago and talked of old times. I looked up the Wikipedia page of someone he mentioned, Ed Esber. It is amazing how inaccurate it is, and he was editing it himself. I do not know Esber, never worked at his company but knew a few people who did. There is no relationship between reality and his description of himself in Wikipedia. It seems that there are just not enough people to look over the very, very large Empire you built. So everywhere one looks, there is (I am sorry to say) junk.

Now about the vacation, the page about the town says Diano Marina has a notable person Alessandro Valente who is an expert in theoretical chemistry. I was impressed, so looked him up and it seems to be a joke. He was a student in 2007 it seems and may have graduated now, but Google scholar shows very very little about him. He probably added himself as a joke.

So can any one do any thing to stop jokes and errors coming in, now that the Empire is so large? Can one still believe what Wikipedia says? Can you do anything about it? I am all out of idea. Are you? Sky is big, Emperor far away (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's also added himself at it:Diano Marina, but without any supporting source at all? He's now gone from Diano Marina. But you could have removed him yourself, you know. Did he spoil your entire vacation? What do you propose to do with Mr Esber? What other (I am sorry to say) "junk" have you found, when not on vacation? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I touched up Esber's page, as on his talk. But it is 1am here and I can not spend my vacation on jokes people add about themselves. And Volante can go back and add himself to that page, or elsewhere again in a month. Right? This is a generic problem of the sky/empire being too big now. Sky is big, Emperor far away (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello! You're a founder of Wikipedia, right? Thank you.--永続繁栄 (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL 97.91.30.86 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Wales&oldid=679749939"