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)"

Re: Online Scientific Publications

Dear Jim,

You might be interested to read info below (from Doctor Stodolsky who is considered to be an expert in that area) .

What is your opinion on that with regards to articles published in Wikipedia ?

Best Regards, Alexander R. Povolotsky

---

Forwarded message ----------

From: David Stodolsky Date: Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:06 AM Subject: Re: Online Scientific Publications To: apovolot@gmail.com

The criteria for any document to be considered a scientific publication is peer review. This criterion is met by the OEIS, however, without publication also in an archivable format, it might not be regarded as such by many and there is the risk that the database would go off-line making it impossible to verify a contribution. Those contributions appearing in the books, however, would escape these considerations.

dss

================================

On 19 Oct 2008, at 05:03, Alexander R. Povolotsky wrote:

> Dear Doctor Stodolsky, > What is the criteria for the Information posted online be considered as official > scientific publication ? > For example please consider > OEIS (The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences) posted at > www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences ...

David Stodolsky, PhD Institute for Social Informatics Tornskadestien 2, st. th., DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark Apovolot (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Transnational Qualification Framework

Dear Jimmy Wales,

This is just to share a thought that I think essential.

While going through different Transnational Qualification Framework movements to write an article in Wikipedia, I thought it would be ideal if such efforts could be coordinated to a global level to achieve real Transnational Qualifications Framework. Then the educational institutions and educators all over the world will be able to collaborate effectively in the process of providing quality education to all.

I have added the article with mimimum details, I will be strengthening the article with more information shortly. Please make TQF issue live in discussions, if you think it appropriate.

Warm regards Anil (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Founder versus co-founder

There seems to be controversy over whether Jimmy Wales is the "founder" or "co-founder" of Wikipedia. For example, here's an article that names him as the "founder": [1]. I don't know whether one view or another predominates in the reliable sources, but NPOV suggests not stating one or the other as fact. Please don't have the article assert that he's the "co-founder", because it contradicts the source I just gave, for example. In discussion "NPOV", linked above, it is stated (eponymously, so to speak) that there was a longstanding version with the words "best known for his role in founding Wikipedia". I support this version, because it is NPOV: it doesn't take a stand as to whether he was "the" founder or "a" co-founder. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, being described as "founder" does not rule out "co-". We might be wrong, however, to describe as "sole founder", because that would be against the reliable sources. It's a jejune argument anyhow. --Rodhullandemu 16:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference provided by Coppertwig says "Jimmy Wales, founder (co-founder) of Wikipedia." in the image to the left of the article. The reference provided by Coppertwig is further evidence co-founder is correct. Primary and historical references say co-founder. The Larry Sanger article says co-founder. We should not rewrite history anyhow. QuackGuru 18:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but paradoxically, Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable source. I don't understand why people make such a big thing of this anyway; we should have better things to do. --Rodhullandemu 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The ref provided by Coppertwig says co-founder. Here are more refs from the same website that say co-founder.[2][3]

There are many refs stating Larry Sanger is co-founder. When one person is a co-founder that means there is another co-founder. QuackGuru 18:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's another source that says "the founder", and this time, under his picture it just says "Jimmy Wales": [4]. For 'founder "Jimmy Wales"' I get 187,000 Google hits; for 'co-founder "Jimmy Wales"' I get 97,900 Google hits. There is disagreement about whether he is a "co-founder". It seems possible to me that by putting "co-founder" inside parentheses, the first source may have been indicating that there is a dispute with two sides. QuackGuru, you need to understand that finding a source that states something does not, in general, give you the right to insert that statement into a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not always parrot whatever its sources say. Wikipedia writes from NPOV; sources write from various points of view. The existence of a source or many sources that say something is not, in general, sufficient to establish that the statement is a "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" (WP:NPOV). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You added a claim that Jimmy Wales founded Wikipedia in 2001. That is false information. Rewriting history is not NPOV. QuackGuru 19:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, everyone's original idea was that Jimbo was a co-founder. Even before Jimbo decided to call himself the sole founder, many sources and many places referred to him as a founder as the terms, without an existing controversy, are interchangeable. Most sources aren't aware of the situation even today, so they see the difference between founder and co-founder to be irrelevant. For that reason, we can't judge on the issue based on the numbers on Google. The NPOV way appears to be either "co-founder", or very quick explanation of the dispute, so as not to give it undue weight. In that case, I could support a neutral wording in the lead, "...was founded..." or "...had a role in founding...", but with explicit clarification in the appropriate section. Discombobulator (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify, my first choice would be with "co-founder" in the lead. Discombobulator (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I understand that you interpret the sentence as being a statement that Wales founded Wikipedia. The sentence is "Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales (born August 7, 1966)[1][2][3][4] is an American Internet entrepreneur known for his role in developing Wikipedia, a free open content encyclopedia which was founded in 2001." I don't interpret it as a statement that Wales founded Wikipedia. I interpret it as a sentence which does not state that Wales was the founder and does not state that Wales was the co-founder. I invite you to suggest on this talk page one or more alternate versions of this sentence which don't seem to you to mean that he was the founder, and which don't seem to you to mean that he was a co-founder. How about "is an American Internet entrepreneur known for his role in developing and running Wikipedia, a free open content encyclopedia with which he has been involved since its beginning in 2001."

In this reliable published source, [5] (Boston Globe; Bias, sabotage haunt Wikipedia's free world; By David Mehegan, Globe Staff, February 12, 2006), it says there is a "dispute" and quotes Wales as saying that it's "preposterous" to call Sanger a "cofounder". This establishes clearly that there is a controversy. I think it would be fine to briefly describe the controversy in an appropriate section of the article; whether this is done or not, I think there probably isn't room in the first sentence for this, and as Discombobulator says, to do so might give undue weight to the dispute. The first sentence must be NPOV; anything which contradicts the statement that he is the founder, or which contradicts the statement that he is the co-founder, is not NPOV. So what we need is a first sentence which makes neither claim. We could even go with something very simple such as "is an American Internet innovator associated with Wikipedia", though that doesn't seem ideal to me: doesn't provide as much information to the reader. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is quite an unusual debate. It's no secret to anyone who's spent a decent amount of time on Wikipeida that Jimmy is the co-founder that attempted to write Larry out of Wikipedia's history. Early sources indicate the partnership that built Wikipedia. Newer sources are confused. When addressed as the co-founder in an interview, he turned red, got deer-in-the-headlight-eyes, but made no attempts to "correct". (See "How to piss off Jimmy Wales" (Video). Valleywag using clip from CNBC's Squawk Box. 10 July 2008.) Unless you can find a source to dispute everything that discusses Larry Sangers' involvement and someone erases all the early sources, there's no reason to change to "founder" or "sole founder". And it's not an NPOV issue by any means. Reverting the article without or against consensus will result in blocks instead of protection. Right now, consensus clearly is on the side of "co-founder". As one who is officially weighing in, I won't be carrying out any blocks, as I consider this involving me in the discussion. لennavecia 20:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not advocating changing the article to assert that he is "the founder", and I don't understand why you say this is not an NPOV issue; in my opinion it is. It's not up to Wikipedia to weigh the evidence and decide that one version is fact. "Founder" or "co-founder" isn't a true or undisputed fact; rather, it's a description, label or interpretation. Just because one of those was being asserted during one time period doesn't necessarily mean it's correct in some absolute sense. The point of view of Wales himself, quoted and published in reliable sources, can't reasonably (in my opinion) be dismissed as a "tiny-minority" or "fringe" POV. In my opinion, his own POV is a significant POV in this dispute. Later in the article, where there's more room, if there's a lot of support in reliable sources for the "co-founder" POV, perhaps it could say something like "widely considered the co-founder, though he disputes that" or "was described in early press releases as the co-founder, though he now disputes that" etc. Just stating baldly that he's the co-founder contradicts NPOV by contradicting a significant POV, his own as stated in published sources. What is your reason for opposing a neutral first sentence that doesn't assert that he is or is not "the" founder? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I support Coppertwig's suggestion here with a slight modification. I think a neutral first sentence could be worded "...known for his role in developing Wikipedia, a free open content encyclopedia founded in 2001." Hard to dispute that this is, in fact, what he is known for, and it does not take sides either way. However since the lead section is supposed to highlight any major controversies discussed in the article, a brief introduction to the controversy, worded in some way similar to Coppertwig's suggestion, seems to me an appropriate compromise. How about this: before the sentence that starts the second paragraph of the lead, add a sentence that states "Wales is widely considered the co-founder of Wikipedia, although he now disputes that. Together with others..." I know this editing dispute is long-standing, but I see nothing wrong with continuing to tweak the article, and consensus on the best way to do this seems far from fixed. --Sfmammamia (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I don't think there's room in the first sentence to describe the controversy, briefly describing it in the lead seems fine to me. I wrote those words quickly and now see a couple of problems with them. "disputes that" could be taken to mean he claims he isn't a founder at all. And we may not have sources to support the word "now" (which seems to imply he had a different opinion previously). How about "Wales is widely described as co-founder of Wikipedia, although he disputes the "co-" part." Although I don't strongly oppose the version you just agreed with. Note that QuackGuru may consider the version of the lead you suggest to be a statement that Wales founded Wikipedia, though I don't see it as meaning that. If QuackGuru (QG) opposes it, then I think QG should explain why QG interprets it that way, and suggest alternative text that gets the desired meaning across. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In Wiki-jargon, Jimmy Wales's view that he is the "sole founder" of Wikipedia should properly be regarded as a WP:FRINGE theory "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior ...". If he did not have such prominence within Wikipedia, these arguments would not be an issue. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if one considers it so, the views of proponents of fringe theories are typically described in articles about themselves. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Under the section Roles of Wikipedia creators it is described and explained. QuackGuru 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and as noted at WP:FRINGE, there are circumstances in which inclusion of so-called fringe theories is justified. See the second box on that page. I would argue that the wide notability of the dispute and multiple reliable sources that discuss it justify its inclusion here as well. --Sfmammamia (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, QuackGuru. I hadn't noticed that section of the article. So, all we need to do is to very briefly summarize that in the lead; I think the suggestions we were just discussing do that. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any suggestions that would work for me. Here is a little bit of history on this subject. QuackGuru 03:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This is probably going to sound terribly rude, but I honestly don't mean for it to. I do, however, feel it important, so I must state: those who feel the need to make improvements to this article would do a great service to themselves and everyone else involved if they first read the article. There are at least two recent threads on this talk page that may not exist if the poster had taken 15 minutes to read the article.

That said, try, for a moment, to ignore the fact that this topic is about Jimbo and Wikipedia. Pretend, if you will, that it is about someone from some other website completely unrelated to WP, and we had no idea about the person other than what we have in sources. It seems clear from the current section in the article and all early sources that Jimbo and Larry founded the project together. The co-founder issue did not come up until after Jimbo and Larry could no longer play nice. Early sources indicate co-foundership. This is what Larry's article reads, it's what Jimbo's should read. Now, Jimbo tried to write Larry out of WP history. Rather than help him by white-washing the lead sentence to conform to his fringe belief, we should keep it to the verifiable facts. It is verifiable that he is the co-founder. For that reason, it should read as such in the lead sentence, later noting that he disputes it. For the matter of NPOV, I'll concede we shouldn't refer to it as "laughably disputes it". لennavecia 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Jennavicia, why do you characterize a lead sentence made indisputable precisely because it does not specify either founder or co-founder as "whitewashing"? It seems you assume that readers will not even read the rest of the lead section, let alone the article. And QuackGuru, in the interests of consensus-building, perhaps you could elaborate on why the previous good-faith suggestions don't "work for you"? --Sfmammamia (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

He's the co-founder. Period. It's what Larry's article reads, why would we take it out of the lead sentence here? To whitewash the article. لennavecia 04:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the subject of the article himself has disputed that characterization, and the dispute has received coverage in reliable sources? --Sfmammamia (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's discussed in the article, but it's still fringe, and we don't whitewash the lead sentence because of it. If he wasn't the co-founder of this site, going by the sources, we would surely come to the conclusion (the accurate one) that he tried to write out his partner after their relationship went sour. We wouldn't give undue weight to it as is being attempted here. It's discussed in the article, his dispute of the title is completely appropriate for later in the lead, but the lead sentence should be clear, and it is a verifiable fact that he is the co-founder of Wikipedia. It's really that simple. لennavecia 15:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Coppertwig's request, I've added a source to my "deer-in-the-headlights" comment. In searching for it, I found another source that may or may not be used in the article, so I'll just drop it here.[6] لennavecia 22:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Flashlight

Is a flashlight notable? QuackGuru 18:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus about a year ago says not. Can't put my finger on it right now. --Rodhullandemu 19:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mine or yours probably wouldn't be, but we (myself, at least) aren't notable, and we consider our flashlights to be our dearest possessions. If I recall correctly, the time it was last added was during a heated debate about the flashlight's own article which IMO skewed the opinions of many people. I'd like to hear what others think, of course, as I'm not completely convinced of its notability myself. Discombobulator (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the Favorite place to visit or Place he spends most time was more notable for inclusion. I recommend we keep the reference but replace it with something else. QuackGuru 19:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not either-or, feel free to add it to the article. I was trying to add links to the SureFire M6 Guardian article which seems lonely at the moment. Discombobulator (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking out loud with my suggestions. I don't feel strongly either way. Let's see what others think. QuackGuru 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Birthday controversy

One source says August 7 and another source says the August 8. QuackGuru 18:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales#Editing of own Wikipedia biography. لennavecia 21:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That about covers it. QuackGuru 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)