Talk:Jimmy Wales

If you need to contact Jimbo about something, please do so at his talk page, not here. As Jimbo explains... "People who are trying to leave messages for me will likely be more satisfied if they leave messages on my user talk page than if they leave them here. This is the talk page for the article about me, not a place to talk to me. I rarely read this. --Jimbo Wales 06:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)"

7 or 8

This article's lead appears to contradict itself. The info box says his dob is on August 8 but the lead says August 7. Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

He's publicly denied both at different times, so either his DOB is something else entirely or (more likely) he's spread misinformation as a sort of joke and we'll probably never get a real answer. I'd suggest going with August 8 per the driver's license record. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The driver's licence record information is from a blog website. We have more reliable references stating 7 currently in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of this edit. I never heard of anyone being born on two different dates. QuackGuru (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Gah! Couldn't we just let him tell us? No, wait, that would be original research Dang it! --Drahcir ^{my talk} 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Decided to edit it back to just August, left the references, as it's pretty damn ridiculous having the article give two dates of birth, as well as rendering it completely useless. Lukeitfc (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It could not determine the correct DOB. We have conflicting sources on this. A blog which is less reliable says 8 but more reliable sources say 7. It may be best if we let the reader decide and not put 7 or 8. QuackGuru 04:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We should as an encyclopaedia give both dates. The two dates are consecutive so should not cause anyone a problem. DOB is usually taken from official registration records but that is simply what was recorded at the time; the actual DOB may be a day before or after as birth is not an instantaneous event. We should use the official date from sources and also acknowledge the uncertainty prominently in the article with cross references wherever the DOB appears. Not using either date is implying that it is unknown, whereas we know the date within a day. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no offical date. Early August is problably the best. Using two dates is confusing. QuackGuru 15:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If neither date is deemed sufficiently official we should point that out. I fail to see what is so confusing. It is common for people born around midnight to have two dates. One recorded by the nurse or doctor and used for the birth certificate and another used by the family. Omitting both dates is clearly unhelpful. It invites readers to ask why it is unknown when various sources quote one or other of the dates. We should explain and reference both dates. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence he was born around midnight. That would be original research. Both dates are included in the article and it is clearly helpful to the reader. We have already explained the DOB issue in the body of the article. See Jimmy_Wales#Editing of own Wikipedia biography. QuackGuru 21:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As I posted above in the other thread (which should be merged, I guess), his marriage license, issued in 1997, lists his date of birth as August 7. My guess is that his birth certificate was wrong, at least according to his mother, so therefore his passport and drivers license are also wrong. Anthony (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We should not make a guess. We don't know if it is on the 7th or the 8th. It should be changed back to early August and not give a specific date. We have references that contradict each other. QuackGuru 18:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is the co-founder of Wikipedia

OK, lets review.

1. The facts must be written from a neutral point of view.
2. Two people worked togther to establish and build Wikipedia from the beginning.
3. When two people work together and start a project from the very beginning they will be both called co-founders.
4. There was never a dispute when Larry Sanger was still part of this project.
5. When Larry was guiding the project he was widely known as a co-founder.
6. It is well documented. In the beginning (before 2004) - various articles, Wikipedia press releases, and Wikipedia articles all described Larry as co-founder.
7. Some articles refer to Jimmy Wales as 'the' founder (starting about 2004) but do not explain the co-foundership issue at hand.
8. The revisionist years (about 2004) is a rewrite of history. Wales never disputed the facts until after Larry left the project.
9. Mr. Jimmy Wales has never given any documented evidence for his new version (since 2004) of reality (revisionism).
10. At the risk of repeating myself, Wales never disputed his co-founder position before 2004.
11. The article provides strong evidence that resolves the issue (a multitude of references).
12. Please don't forget this. Sanger was always known as co-founder when he was running the project.
13. After Larry left the project, thats when the alteration of reality started taking place. "Ooh."
14. Read some of the references in the article to get to up to speed on the facts and the history of Wikipedia.
15. By the way, the appeal for the verifiability of the facts is exactly what the Wikipedia community demands in its WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:ATT policies. It isn't my rule: it's the community's consensus.
16. There are many sources confirming to WP:NPOV + WP:RS + WP:V & WP:ATT policies. For example, take a quick look at this website. Sanger, Larry. "My role in Wikipedia (links)". larrysanger.org. Larry Sanger. At the website, there are plenty of references clearly stating co-founder. This is easy to understand. The verifiable sources say and describe Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger as the co-founders.

"Free Encyclopedia Project, Wikipedia, Creates 20,000 Articles in a Year (Wikipedia 2002 Press release)". describing Sanger and Wales as "co-founders". Wikipedia. January 15, 2002.

"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, reaches its 100,000th article (Wikipedia 2003 Press release)". stating Sanger and Wales founded the site. Wikipedia. January 21, 2003.

"Wikipedia publishes 500,000 articles in 50 languages (Wikipedia 2004 Press release)". describes Sanger as a founder. Wikipedia. February 25, 2004.

Meyers, Peter (September 20, 2001). "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You". The New York Times."I can start an article that will consist of one paragraph, and then a real expert will come along and add three paragraphs and clean up my one paragraph," said Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales.

• I propose we include "known for the co-founding of Wikipedia" in the lead. Cordially, QuackGuru 09:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

lead sentence and cite "failing verification"

QuackGuru, please clarify what is challengeable about the lead sentence that is not supported by Time magazine's 2006 profile of him (as well as the rest of the cites in this article). Time's 2006 recognition of Jimmy Wales as one of the world's most influential people was based solely on his role in founding Wikipedia. What am I missing here? --Sfmammamia (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read my edit summary. What exactly does this ref verifiy? QuackGuru 17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It verifies that he is "known for his role in the creation and promotion of Wikipedia, a free open content encyclopedia, in 2001." In other words, most of the sentence. I'll ask again: what is challengeable and not verifiable in the cited sources about the lead sentence? If it's the characterization as an "Internet entrepreneur", fine, let's delete that phrase and move on. If you have other quarrels with the lead sentence, it would be most constructive to consensus if you would specify them here. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It verifies that he is "known for his role in the creation and promotion of Wikipedia? Exactly what text in the Times ref verifies this. And exactly what text does this ref verifiy? In other words, most of the sentence is not verified by using the Times ref or the recently added The Economist ref. The characterization of an "Internet entrepreneur" is verified by the new Andrew Keen source. The other parts of the lead sentence needs a rewrite to match the source. QuackGuru 18:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it is Time magazine, not "the Times" that we are discussing. Second, the lead sentence is a summary that should answer the questions "Who is he?" and "Why is he notable?" As far as I know, there's no obligation that the word-for-word text of a lead sentence come directly out of a source; instead it should accurately summarize the entire article that follows it as well as the sources on which the entire article is based. I submit that the lead sentence as written is accurate and completely adequate to this purpose. Third, your unwillingness or inability to answer my direct question, asked twice above, gives me the impression that perhaps achieving consensus may not be your goal with this discussion. If in fact, consensus is your goal, may I suggest that there may be more constructive ways to pursue it, namely, recommending the rewrite you consider necessary either here or in the article, thereby allowing other editors to evaluate it? --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Time magazine ref failed verification. Exactly what text in the Time magazine ref verifies "known for his role in the creation and promotion of Wikipedia?. Please be specific. The recently added The Economist ref verifies what exactly. There is an obligation that the text should be verified from the given source. See WP:V. QuackGuru 06:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit also failed verification. QuackGuru 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting)QuackGuru, I'm going to leave the "failed verification" tags up this time, but I'm just going to say again that I disagree with them. It's my perception that you are wikilawyering here, rather than trying to reach consensus in a constructive fashion. I will address your questions and leave it up to other editors. You asked "Exactly what text in the Time magazine ref verifies "known for his role in the creation and promotion of Wikipedia?". It may not be obvious if you just click to the article, but the Time article is part of Time Magazine's list for 2006 of the world's 100 most influential people. I'd say that inclusion within that list alone is verification of "known". "Known for" -- the article, whose purpose is to explain to readers why Jimmy Wales is on that list, discusses only his role in starting Wikipedia. The headline in the cite, "Jimmy Wales: The (Proud) Amateur Who Created Wikipedia" is not obvious the online edition, but was a part of the original print version. That headline alone verifies "his role in the creation...of Wikipedia". The article itself also discusses only his role in starting Wikipedia. Example text: "That such a remarkably open-door policy has resulted in the biggest (and perhaps best) encyclopedia in the world is a testament to the vision of one man, Jimmy Wales." "Wales...in 1999 set out to reinvent the encyclopedia for the Internet age." "Wales created a free-form companion site..that makes it easy—with the "edit this page" button—to enter and track changes to Web pages. The effect was explosive." "Today Wales is celebrated as a champion of Internet-enabled egalitarianism." "...it has led to what may prove to be the most powerful industrial model of the 21st century: peer production. Wikipedia is proof that it works, and Jimmy Wales is its prophet." What do those excerpts say he is known for, if not the creation of Wikipedia??? The Economist article, with its bold statement at the top that says "Jimmy Wales changed the world with Wikipedia" also, I believe, verifies the entire lead sentence. But it also contains specific text that verifies "known for promotion of Wikipedia" -- here's an excerpt from the third paragraph "Mr Wales...has become the public face of Wikipedia by default. He is the closest thing it has to a spokesman, the occasional monarch who intervenes in editing disputes, and the ambassador—both inspiring and controversial—of the Wikipedian idea." At the risk of repeating myself, I think both of these cites are more than ample to verify the lead sentence as it stands. If you disagree, I would ask again that you propose a rewrite rather than belaboring this discussion. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got rid of the tags since Sfmammamia is right, the articles (especially the Time one) contain what is said. Anyway, how can it be argued that Jimmy Wales didn't invent Wikipedia???? That's blasphemy lol! Deamon138 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Anderson ref failed verification and none of the refs mention anything about promoting Wikipedia. The next paragraph discusses promoting Wikipedia. It says "Wales took on the role of the project's spokesperson and promoter through speaking engagements and media appearances." Why should we add duplication to the lead and add unsourced information to the lead. Why should we have a stray ref that adds nothing to the lead and failed verification. QuackGuru 07:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Entrepreneur" is sourced in the Independent article. Both "creation" and "promotion" of Wikipedia are referenced from the Time article as Sfmammamia pointed out, as well as from the Independent and Economist. You claim that "promotion" and the sentence later saying "Wales took on the role of the project's spokesperson and promoter through speaking engagements and media appearances," are unsourced, and yet you only removed the first instance of promotion, and didn't also remove the mention of "entrepreneur" and "creation" when you said it was unsourced. This is classic cherry picking. Also, before I came along, the article had two "failed verification" templates like you wanted above, but then you came along and you reverted what I did, not by putting the templates back, but by removing the supposedly unverified statements from the article instead. That seems a little over-zealous to me. Finally, how can the link fail verification? It's from Time, one of the best internet sources we can use. And you can never have too many sources anyway. Deamon138 (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Entrepreneur" is sourced in the Independent article and not the Anderson ref. By the way, I added the Independent ref. Nothing in the Time ref mentioned in any way "promotion" of Wikipedia. Please provide your evidence. It is duplication to add the word promotion when it is mentioned elsewhere in the lead. Too many ref sends the reader on a wild goose chase. QuackGuru 15:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I actually said that "Entrepreneur" is sourced in the Independent article. I wasn't claiming it was mentioned in the Time article.

I agree that the exact word "promotion" isn't mentioned in any of the three sources that have been mentioned here. However, why remove one (unsourced you claim) instance of the word "promotion" but keep the other (similiarly unsourced if you are right about the first being unsourced) instance of that word later on in the introduction? It doesn't make sense, either it's unsourced or not.

However, you claim, it is "duplication to add the word promotion when it is mentioned elsewhere in the lead." Well I disagree. The first instance mentioned that he is "known for his role in the creation and promotion." I feel that an integral part of his fame is that he is not just "known" for his role in creating in Wikipedia, but also promoting it too. So we need the word promotion. ALso, the first instance of it is a general jist of what he is famous for. The second paragraph where a mention occurrs, explains HOW he has been promoting in more detail. Therefore, two mentions of "promotion" are needed.

Now, yes the exact word "promotion" isn't mentioned in the Time article, as Sfmammamia pointed out in his long paragraph above, words to the effect of "he is promoting Wikipedia" are used, and nowhere does it say we (unless it is a quotation which this isn't) have to use the EXACT phrase given in an article, we are allowed the use if a thesaurus to give the general context of what's being said, as long as we don't contradict the source while doing so which this doesn't.

However, if you'd feel happier with using a different source that does actually use the exact phrase "promoting/promotion" then fine. Here are three that I found pretty quickly on google [1], [2] and [3]. (Okay so the last is from his own mouth so that one might noit be useable?). But anyway, there are two maybe three reliable sources that we can use instead if you'd feel happier that way, but the word "promotion" definitely needs to be in that first sentence. Deamon138 (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

James

I think that it is better if we put "James" instead of Jimmy. Hellboy2hell (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It would need a source. --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember there being a hidden comment in the text to point out that (a) his name is Jimmy, not James, and (b) his middle name is Donal, not Donald. Not sure where it got to. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...

Why is there not a critisicm section?? In almost 98% of articles on this thing dealing with people there is almost ALWAYS some kind of section dealing with "Controversy" or "Criticism", why not Yo-Jimbos?? I know this has been raised before but its that simple! Add a Controversy section for goodness sake, everyone knows there has been ALOT of it. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 03:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well there is some criticisms within the article, but yeah there should probably be a specific criticism section. I expect that this has caused a lot controversy among other editors in the past though. Deamon138 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Isolating criticism into its own section is generally frowned upon as poor editorial structure that tends to reduce the neutrality of an article. See Template:Criticism-section. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Thanks for the link! Deamon138 (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, not only is there not a critisicm section but there are sections like Honours and Acheivments and personal philosophy, its totally one sided for goodness sake and like "Hey everyone! Come and get to know our glorious leader Jimmy Wales! *massive over the top smile*" you now?... ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 00:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there's no separate section but I'd say there's plenty of criticism in the article. What specifically would you place in this section that's not already mentioned? Nazlfrag (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, in a section like "Honors, awards and positions", although right now it only contains his successes, those kind of sections are allowed to contained negative "awards" or whatever e.g. a Razzie. Sure, JW isn't a film star so it would be very surprising if he got a Razzie, but there are bound to be similar things in other careers, so an awards section doesn't necessarily have to be biased. But as Nazlfrag said, if there is some criticism missing, can you tell us what it is and find a source please? Deamon138 (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I spent several hours researching useful external links and added a mixed list only to see it vandalised later. I undid the vandalism twice in a 24 hour period and then received a message from an admin threatening to ban me unless I do as he says. I think you should write a new title on the Wikipedia main page. "The encyclopedia only elitist administrators can edit." The links are not spam as was alleged by somebody who obviously knows nothing about the subject. Nor are they excessive since other celebrity pages have longer link sections. Is this page to be run in the same fashion as the Israel page then? I've watched how zionists shout down any reference to Palestinians being removed from their homes during the invasion and settlement by jews. If there is no valid reason for deleting other peoples work then it should be reverted. Failure to undo vandalism is catering to vandals.