Talk:Jimmy Wales

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

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

pig

Jimmy please publish the history from the lords of the british visiting, Me Lisha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.207.188 (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Co-founder/sole founder dispute rumbles Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a general rule, anything Wales has power over, will do PR for him, i.e. call him Founder and not Co-Founder. It is shameful that includes the Wikimedia Foundation itself now, and Larry Sanger has said "... I ask the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation to reiterate the Foundation’s original position (as expressed in its first press release) that we are both, in fact, founders of Wikipedia.". The banner, etc. is not reliable evidence, it's pure politics. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazing

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

I'm not sure about that. Don't we have to respect a neutral point of view?

According to the source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rewording:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historically cited as the co-founder

Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia". MSNBC. Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-25. The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Wikipedia, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial — Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it. Sanger has assembled many links at his Web site that appear to put the matter to rest. Among the citations are early news stories and press releases that say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger. {{cite news}}: External link in |quote= (help)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benji is basically right as long as the information is about the subject, not unduly self-serving and there's no reason to doubt if they're telling the truth. See Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..." Sarah 10:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

lol you got served —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.199.204 (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If it were that easy. See Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate. Amalthea 16:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait..... SERIOUSLY?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find his objectivist belief confusing. I thought wikipedia relies on donations to function? I thought objectivists hated donations and anything that could be called self sacrifice? I thought this site is the "collective" knowledge of people about a certain topic. Isn't collectivism also evil to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.53 (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a trouble with the Aynrandian Obectivism, not with Jimmy Wales nor with Wikipedia, nor with the article about Jimmy Wales. AFAIK people can peruse faulty theories without suffering very much, and still performing very good. It must be something with common sense... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Washington Post "On Leadership" interview

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

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

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

New award

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

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

I think you're right about the Irish Times article, two weeks have passed and no other journalist has mentioned it. I haven't looked at any tech websites, but, yeah, prob best to leave this one out. Ottre 23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

This article is indefinitely semi-protected, but looking through the the last 100 edits to September 2009, this gets little if any vandalism. Is there really a compelling rationale to preserve the indefinite protection?  Skomorokh  05:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Over a week later, I don't see a convincing rationale for preventing unregistered contributors from expanding the article, fixing errors or reverting vandalism from autoconfirmed editors, so am unprotecting for now (this article does not deserve any special treatment). Will watch for vandalism and reprotect as necessary.  Skomorokh  01:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talk about near instant vandalism! That was not pretty. (See history page...) --gobears87 (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, each time protection has lifted, IP vandalism picked right up; quite amazing. I'll keep an eye and escalate the protection periods if it keeps up.  Skomorokh  19:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Refs need a thorough copyedit

There was rough consensus in this discussion from seven months ago (five in favour, three opposed) to move unnecessary references out of the lead and into the body of article text. Nobody has made the changes yet. One of the most cited references is the article by Marshall Poe, which was added in this edit over two years ago, and nobody appears to have checked the print version yet (that is, no page numbers are cited). I think we need to take a more proactive approach to copyediting, and set a date on which myself, QuackGuru, Skomorokh, and everyone else involved with the article, can collaborate on getting the refs into shape. Ottre 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I recommend people read the Trader Monthly profile. It's in the June/July 2008 issue, by Scott Eden. It was also posted on the traderdaily.com website for a while, but that site appears down now. There's much historical material there which I've never seen in other profiles, as well as a different perspective. I have some excerpts on my blog. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Seth, you're a tech journalist, what do know of Asher Moses' reputation? He is cited three times in the article, yet I can't recall ever seeing him cited in academic journals that cover Web 2.0 sites like Wikipedia. Ottre 03:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know him myself. A quick search shows he's "Technology Editor, smh.com.au, [etc]". Why would you expect to recall seeing him cited in academic journals, if he's a news site writer in Australia? News articles aren't cited very often, much less news articles outside the writer's own country. The material seems correct at a glance, though I didn't fact-check every sentence. All of it can be fact-checked against the original accusations (i.e. this is just a matter of proper sourcing). I actually think the money-for-edits charge is untrue, as it isn't logical combined with the accuser provided no evidence to support it. I don't like it on the basis that it strikes me as wrong that all someone needs to do is make a sensational charge and it'll follow the accused forever. But there's no doubt the accusation was made. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I really do wish I could. Even on Wayback Machine, there are only three versions, all dating back to May-June 2008, all of which are currently slow and to view the full article require login. Although technically those of us would (or might) regard this as a reliable source, all that can be seen at present is the executive overview, which is "Embracing the financial-market leanings that led him to launch Wikipedia, former Chicago options trader Jimmy Wales tries to take an Internet phenomenon into the black." Reading between the lines (which is at least as valid as anybody else's interpretation), this could easily be read as an implication that Wales is attempting to commercialise Wikipedia. That is bollocks, because your own blog, for what it's worth, makes quite clear the difference between Wikia and Wikipedia and implies, somewhat hyperbolically, that because one venture by a person is successful, they should not make a living from the spin-offs from that. That's a twisted definition of altruism that I am not prepared to accept. Had Tim Berners-Lee chosen to exploit WWW commercially rather than give it away free, he could easily have been as rich as Richard Branson, if not Bill Gates, by now. But I don't think he is; neither do I think he cares that much, because he is not that sort of guy. Neither am I; I realise Christmas is upon us, but I will, even if I make it over the next six days, not be participating. Sure, it would be great to have some money, not be cold, tired, unemployed and hungry, but while there is breath in my body, I will continue to freely give what I can to this venture, without carping at the irrelevant detail about how it came about or where it's going; it is worthy on its own account. Meanwhile, everybody has something to bring to the debate, if there be such, but a dignified silence speaks more about a person than verbosity can ever achieve. I am known here for sniping, and telling it like it is; but then, I am from the North, and most planets have a North. If the best subtext you can manage is an ironic "[But remember folks, it's all about sharing. It's about the community.]", you show your own failure of good faith. Please go to Wikipedia Review, largely a soapbox for excluded malcontents, where you might find some acolytes; otherwise... Rodhullandemu 02:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me - if you are "cold, tired, unemployed and hungry", then I urge you most strongly to stop wasting time on Wikipedia and attend to your life! Look, I get in trouble for saying Wikipedia is a cult, but wow - do you have any idea how worrisome you sound there? I will not think "I see this person sacrificing himself, Wikipedia must be a noble cause.". Rather, I will think "I see this person sacrificing himself, Wikipedia is a mountain of misery.". Get warm, rested, employed and fed, before devoting any effort at all to ritualistic anathema (ObArticle: This shows why some of the darker aspects of the biography are important for encyclopedic coverage) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've checked the print version of the Marshal Poe article. Ottre 03:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still in favour of removing the superfluous references, and am willing to do whatever hard work is required, but I do not understand the issue cited with The Atlantic references; the source is the online version, not the dead-tree one, and I don't see either how the latter is superior or how the former might be more precisely referenced. Regards,  Skomorokh  01:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave a message on your talk page when I have some spare time to collaborate. I reckon it would take a couple of hours to polish all 90 references in the article. I have to disagree with you about the formatting of The Atlantic references, I think a lot of our readers like to see that we are using dead-tree sources. Really there should be a little symbol you can place next to references which have been checked against dead-tree sources. Ottre 12:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Shift to list-defined refs

I just went to edit the lead section to get rid of some of the redundant citations, and it is an intimidating mess of code. Would anyone object to changing the referencing system to list-defined references? It moves the content of references to the References section, leaving just the tags behind. This would make it easy to compare and copyedit all the references in one place. You can see this system used in the Hawksian woman article.  Skomorokh  19:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think most experienced editors prefer this system. There shouldn't be any problems changing. Ottre 12:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've implemented it; I might very well have broken or removed content inadvertently in the process, so if anyone is inclined to check, by all means do so.  Skomorokh  20:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

First wife

Why isn't there any information about his first wife? Like a name and year of marriage and divorce. Debresser (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No ref, I'd guess.  Skomorokh  12:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be so hard to get one. Something to do, I think. Debresser (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"his first wife, Pam, whom he married at age 20 back in Alabama." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Seth, stuck it in.  Skomorokh  16:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

WMF board seat confirmed for 2010

says Michael Snow. Proper ref needed to update article.  Skomorokh  21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I think that the IPA transcription of the pronunciation should also include the pronunciation of the first name (Jimmy), which it evidently does at the moment. Could you please add it? (I cannot do it myself, as the article is "semi-protected".) Or are there any suggestions to the contrary that I may be unaware of? (I have searched the archives, but found nothing controversial.) Simply stated, I see no reason why (only) the middle name and the last name should be transcribed, but not the first name. --84.47.117.130 (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Only Founder?

on the stats page for wikipedia it list only Jimmy Wales as the founder. Special:Statistics Wasn't Larry Sanger a founder as well? --24.103.173.3 (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes he was, but that is an auto-generated page that reads from the current list of user rights, one of which is apparently a "founder" bit. As Sanger has long since left the project, his account would not have that classification. Tarc (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

External links

I removed this youtube clip. Not sure how much it adds or if it is appropriate. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The medium (i.e. YouTube) is not particularly relevant (it's of good enough reliability/technical quality for our purposes). The interview is by the head of a significant organisation (MacArthur Foundation). It gives a good intro to Wales, and investigates issues discussed in the article (open source, Hayek influences; the challenge of vandalism; Wales' vision for the project), and some other issues the article does not get into that I think readers will be interested in (Wales' response to the error-ridden nature of his project, Wales' "kid in Africa" spiel, the encyclopaedia's response to the BLP issue, Wikimania). It also has the benefit of being somewhat atemporal, whereas most of our references refer to the issues of the day. I'd like to retain it.  Skomorokh  00:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we get this interview directly from the MacArthur Foundation? --Tom (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? It's published by their account on the site...  Skomorokh  01:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Birthdate business

Would anyone object to the to-and-fro about Wales' birthdate being relegated to a footnote? It seems much ado about nothing, and not of great interest to our readership. Thoughts?  Skomorokh  23:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support that, looking at some of the previous discussion regarding the date, it isn't of much importance, a day, we can send him birthday cards on both days. Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done.  Skomorokh  19:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks good and covers all points. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If Mr. Wales himself says that his birthday is 8 August, then shouldn't that be the date given, with the footnote containing the information about other sources listing it as 7 August?Mk5384 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, considering how unusual it is for there to be any question about someone's birth date in this century, I think it's worth mentioning in the article proper. How many Americans do you know about whom there is an open birth date question like this one?--~TPW 22:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That's just the point. I'm going to assume that the man knows his own birthday. I think that discussing it in the article proper is fine. I just think that it is a bit out of line to display as correct the date that Mr. Wales himself refutes.Mk5384 (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, unless he's magically become a reliable source about something nobody is generally able to recall about oneself, I do not think Wales' opinion is terribly useful, except to confirm the extremely unusual circumstance of a US citizen having contradictory birthdate information from more than one non-primary source. That's something I expect from the 1930s, perhaps, but it's not exactly par for the course when Wales was born. I believe it's entirely in line to discuss the matter in the text of the article, although more than a sentence or two would certainly be giving it undue weight.--~TPW 02:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I would even imagine two sentences to be necessary would be to explain where we got his license, and why it was never corrected if it's wrong. Rare discrepancies like this, left uncorrected, are even more of interest in the modern day. I don't think my view reflects current thought on the matter, but I wanted to make it clear why I felt my earlier comments diverged from Mk5384's view.--~TPW 02:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, quite a few Americans do have an open birth date question, though it's usually about the year rather than the day. But this instance isn't so notable. He has a birth certificate, it has a date on it. He claims it's incorrect. His account is obviously second-hand, and he could be wrong. I'd say worth the footnote, but little more. The date given in the article should be that of the birth certificate, as that's the "official" date. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that Mr. Wales birth certificate and his marriage license (with his signature!) list his day of birth as Aug 7th can we please stop vandalizing the page? Currently sloppy edits have left the page with two birth dates listed. Kausticgirl (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

He has stated his preference which is listed in the note. Please do not change this as per the warnings and advice given to you on your talkpage. --Morenooso (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Violations of the three-edit rule are generally frown upon. Besides, Mr. Wales preferences are not applicable to this situation. For over a year the date on this page has been Aug. 7th (which is the date a majority of sources agree with). Just because it's April Fool's Day does not mean we should throw facts out the window. Jhurlburt (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My history as a Page Patroller is clear. Just look at my Contributions. I don't edit-war. And, that was explained to you. You might want to read this section of the 3 revert rule. Actions taken to revert incorrect edits or vandalism are generally not seen as 3RR action for Page Patrollers.--Morenooso (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And, just so you know, anybody written about in Wikipedia can use the Contact Wikipedia to submit a ticket to its Foundation about how they want something to be written about in their article. Not all requests are granted, especially if they are outlandish. But if there is a valid request, the Foundation will make a ruling that is communicated to the article and its editors. As one of the Foundation's leaders, I *think* Jimbo Wales' wishes would be accomodated. --Morenooso (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As per this diff, another admin determined that I am not edit-warring. If he had thought I had committed 3RR on reverting the birthdate, he would have reverted and blocked me for 24 hours as per this the three revert rule paragraph. Hopefully, as per the note and hidden template on this article along with the citation that has an article with Jimbo stating his birthdate, this issue should be closed and settled. --Morenooso (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of the facts is as follows: His driver's license and passport have August 8, which presumably matches his birth certificate. He claims August 7, and used that date on his marriage license, which is then different from his driver's license and passport. The article should then use August 8, sourced to the Oregonian and possibly his statements, with something like the current footnote. The footnote in the article has a misleading paraphrase "he has stated that the August 7 date is incorrect". Basically, he plays games with this, so trying to paraphrase is just going to add to the confusion. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How about simply removing the birthdate entirely? This is the sort of personal info that really adds nothing to a BLP. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Are their any public records that actually state Mr. Wales' birthday is Aug. 8th? The Oregonian blog's author claims to have performed a records check but can that be verified? In the article Mr. Wales does not give his birthdate..... when asked he is quoted as saying, "Nobody knows". However, Mr. Wales marriage certificate (which is viewable online) clearly shows Wales' DOB as Aug. 7th and includes his signature. Isn't a witnessed, signed government document proof enough? 75.5.155.110 (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

According to his own statement on Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate, the marriage certificate is solely based on his own claim of August 7, which is not the same of the driver's license and passport which derive from the birth certificate date of August 8. I presume anyone who wants to spend the money can do a records check of the driver's license from a data-broker, but I haven't done so. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If we are to base our actions by Mr. Wales' statements in Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate then we can't accept the Aug. 8th DOB because he states "his date of birth is not August 8th". Kausticgirl (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say those statements are not necessarily dispositive, but are a factor which help to disentangle the various conflicting data. I believe the appropriate date to use in the article would be the date on the birth certificate, which he seems to agree is August 8, and thus would match with the Oregonian source. The August 7 date is then his family tale, which he used for the marriage certificate, and might warrant a footnote. Someone who wants to do further research could pay for a data search to verify that the Oregonian article is correct. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's try and nail this once and for all. What Jimmy says about his birthdate is hearsay and a self-published source to boot. Superficially attracted though I am to the idea of a paid data search, Wikipedia leans against such sources on the ground of general verifiability. We have much the same problem with Beethoven, where the only available documentation is of his christening and not his actual birthdate; however we seem perfectly able to deal in that case with varying sources, and I see no rational reason not to do the same here, because in the long run it would save a lot of otherwise wasted time which might be more productively directed elsewhere. An ongoing argument about one day as against the next seems to me to be the ultimate in Oliver Wendell Holmes's "foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of tiny minds". Jimmy Wales is not going to complain because he gets a birthday card either one day early, or one day late. Some perspective, purr-lease!! Rodhullandemu 23:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that what Wales says about his birthdate is hearsay, a self-published source, and that he has given contradictory statements about his DOB in the past AND that there are no easily verifiable government documents (besides the marriage certificate, which may or may not have required the presentation of a photo ID and birth certificate - mine did but who knows about Floridia) the only proper thing to do, IMHO, is not include ANY date at all. If it can't be verified it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. Jhurlburt (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well no, not quite. Lack of exact data should not preclude us from dealing with non-specific data, and I invite you to see how this is dealt with at Beethoven. Whatever the sources, this can be pinned down to within a day or so, since the month and year are not in dispute. That's no reason to omit it entirely, since we are not talking about some biblical figure for whom records are unavailable; what we need to do is to deal with the sources we have in an encyclopedic manner, and if those sources conflict or otherwise have weaknesses, we should be able to deal with that, or we should perhaps not be her at all. I repeat; one day is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. Rodhullandemu 01:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In order to obtain a marriage license in Monroe County, Florida applicant's "must provide a valid picture-type ID, with date of birth shown", which kind of throws into doubt the speculation that Wales' driver license list his DOB as Aug. 8th. Jhurlburt (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Linkdump

January 2010 interview. Only scanned it briefly, seems standard propaganda, nothing jumped out.  Skomorokh  19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

IP Addresses

I was reading about your information about IP addresses and I have looked elsewhere, but I can not find in your site or others why some ip addresses have different numbers. For example 192.168.1.148 is to a printer. The printer somehow stopped responding to the address. When you go to put the info backi n it won't accept it because the is not enough numbers 192.168.101.148. It is looking for the 101 (3 digits) rather than the 1.Is there a way to either trick it or use zeros that won't count? No matter what I do I can not get this printer to work as it says it is not a correct IP number. Can you or anyone help me? Jeank1 (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the talk page of the article about Jimmy Wales, and he doesn't read it. You enquiry is of a technical nature and would be better raised here. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 02:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Acrystal

Hello Jimmy,

I'm writting from France a,d english is not my mother language.

On January 27th, I tried my first article in Wikipedia : ACRYSTAL with user nam "Acrystaluk".

As you can check, my article has been rejected for 2 reasons : too commercial and user name of an organization.

The problem is that I can not get in contact wit the guy who rejected me... because he blocked me.

I'd just like to point out that I'm the managing director of Acrystal so it is normal taht I use an organisation name and second that the new product I'm talking about is totally innovative and there exist no current word to describe it, so I had to use the trade name.

Would you be so king to put me in contact with this man and ask him to contact me as I can not contact him.

Many tahnks

Serge ZEDER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.215.252 (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The block notice on your talk page contains information about how to request unblocking, and those are the instructions you should be following. If you do decide to change your username to comply with the English Wikipedia's username policy, you must then be careful to avoid conflict of interest problems. You may find Editors who may have a conflict of interest useful. Reach Out to the Truth 00:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent Times article

Could be worth integrating into the article - A Life in the day: Happiness is my computer Laurent (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

awards

http://www.google.com/search?q=honoris+causa+jimmy+wales This honorary doctorate should be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloom54 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ED SULLIVAN---SUPER--STAR

I DID NOT SEE ANY REFERENCE OR INFORMATION ABOUT ED SULLIVAN LIFE DURING W.W.I I. I WAS TOLD HE HAD A STEEL PLATE ON ONE SIDE OF HIS JAW. THIS CAUSED HIM TO SPEAK WITH SOME DIFFICULTY. HE WAS MUCH CRITICIZED ABOUT HIS MANNER IN SPEECH BUT APPARENTLY NEVER ADVERTIZED HIS DISSABILITY. IN FACT HE EVEN ENCOURAGED COMMEDIANS TO MIMIC HIS INTRODUCTIONS AND MANNER OF SPEECH.I ALWAYS WONDERED IF THIS WAS A WAR RELATED INJURY.I DO NOT KNOW.I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF ANYONE HAS ANY INFORMATION ON THIS INTERESTING LITTLE KNOWN FACT.I THINK IT WAS TRUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.3.15 (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Try Ed Sullivan or WP:Helpdesk, because this page is for discussing the article about Jimmy Wales, and he doesn't read it. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Unlock please

Please unlock this article so that I can add his illustrious title of "KING FANBOY" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.182.141 (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Alleged financial abuse of Wikimedia Foundation

So, there was an article on the SF Gate a while back... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/05/BUVFVDM3H.DTL

Was it ever addressed? I figured Wikipedia would at least make mention, but I can't find anything. Has it been debunked or has it been judged as not noteworthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.26.101 (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Protect please

Can we fully protect this article until April Fool's day is over with? Jhurlburt (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Typically most articles get reverted the next day. It's called reverting to the last good edit. My [[WP:MADEUP]] can be that reset point. Jimbo's greatest thought is this is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. --Morenooso (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Last edit reversed by an admin

Probably was not the best idea but it was part of a series of April Fools jokes discussed here. I apologize as this edit may have been misconstrued. --Morenooso (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Update Honors/Awards

Jimmy Wales was elected to the Ashoka fellowship in the 2008.

What the crap?

I'm pretty sure the infobox picture isn't Jimmy. Jordan Payne ^T /_C 17:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a vandal. It's been reverted now. —Soap— 17:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, still hilarious though. Jordan Payne ^T /_C 17:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent DOB

{{editsemiprotected}} http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=358764887

Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales (pronounced /ˈdoʊnəl weɪlz/; born August 8, 1966[note])

Born Jimmy Donal Wales August 8, 1966 (1966-08-08) (age 43)[note]

Wales was born in Huntsville, Alabama in the United States on August 7, 1966.[8][note]

We should follow Britannica as the best secondary source: August 7. 86.41.92.143 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on the talkpage. CF:

• Sources differ about whether he was born on August 7 or 8, 1966
• Birthdate business

If you accept this section on Birthdate business, it was even "edit warred" (I wonder by whom?). The note used to exist and had a hidden template that referenced an interview Jimbo gave on his preference. Because he is on the Foundation and when a request like that is made, it is usually honored. However new editors to the article have changed the dates to match. I think the admins and page patrollers on the article have decided to let it stand.

My personal prefence coincides with Jimbo (not that I'm trying to score points). He has indicated his wish and we should accomodate the Foundation's founder. --Morenooso (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You think an educational resource should give in to the whims of one of its subjects because he happens to be on the board? That's pretty sleazy, bro. The longstanding consensus is to follow the most reliable sources with Aug 7, and the inconsistency seems only have been introduced with minimal prior discussion. It seriously undermines the credibility of the article to give two different dates. 86.41.92.143 (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, 86.41.92.143, you might be unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates especially as it relates to biographies. Wikipedia is sensitive to how bio articles are editted. If the subject has a valid request about how its article should be editted, the subject can go on the article talkpage to avoid a conflict of interest post/edit. There is another method that is far better. Under the Wikipedia globe picture to the left is a Contact Wikipedia link. If the subject makes a valid request, the Wikipedia Foundation will have a clerk issue a ticket that documents what is to be done with the article. I have seen this five times with articles I have on Watch. Ergo, nothing sleazy and you don't have refer to him in a very colloquial way. --Morenooso (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources say 7. The blog says 8. We should try to edit according to WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The blog in question is this referenced citation: Wikipedia & its founder disagree on his birth date]. [[WP:ELNO|Links normally to be avoided] lists blogs except for as to establish notability in an autobiography and is wikilinked to self-published sources. Since this was an interview given by Wales to a reporter and published in the reporter's newspaper, the blog is not self-published. Furthermore, the reporter during the course of the interview got Wales to say "They got it from (Encyclopedia) Britannica," Wales told me, "and Britannica got it wrong."' Encyclopedia Britannica is hardly self-published and also commented on by other sources. The reporter also noted that as per the Note on this article, Wikipedia references Encyclopedia Britannica. In a nutshell, to list both dates or just Wales preference is the key. We should go with the Foundation's founder.--Morenooso (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You acknowledged it was from a blog. We must stick to the reliable soures which say 7. Wikipedia's preference is the key. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

How about a preference for "who gives fuck?", just list it at August 1966 and be done with this lame dispute. IMO outside of historical figures, exact dates of birth are hardly necessary for BLPs, and probably do more invasion-of-privacy-style harm than good. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously editors care because it is being brought up again. QuackGuru and other editors are missing the point as do most people in general. Please see FoundationTicketDIFF to see how the Foundation responds to legitimate preferences by article's subject. Who do you think the Foundation's founder is? --Morenooso (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You did not have a valid response to going against V policy which is the preference on Wikipedia. We should treat this article the same as other articles. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(note, I've cancelled out the 'editsemiprotected' for now; obviously, this would need discussion and clear consensus, etc  Chzz  ►  17:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

Note, there is clear consensus for 7 and editing according to V. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I support Tarc's position. The weakly cited disputed exact date of a living subject is valueless to the reader and has privacy issue. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not disputed according to V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, it seems there are two dates at least and it clearly is disputed. What does the living subject say about it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What does V say about blogs. If the blog were to be challenged it could be removed from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The article contains two different dates and is internally contradictory. Please just pick one for the time being and let's not have ourselves look like complete idiots. 86.45.174.207 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The only idiot is the person picking one, the idea that it matters at all is the foolish one. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)