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)

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

I've said this before. I think the man knows his own birthdate.Mk5384 (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

One would think so, although there could be confusion, especially if he was born near midnight between those two dates. The ones to ask, actually, would be his parents. Although this was long ago, Babe Ruth did not learn his real birthdate until after his playing days were over. The date he had "known" all along was a year off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Very possible. I enjoy the way you are able to use the game of rounders to come up with an analogy for just about anything.Mk5384 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything I need to know about life I learned from baseball and from Bugs Bunny. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We should ask to see his birth certificate to settle this conclusively and permanently. Power chicken, although being sarcastic, is correct.71.109.148.127 (talk) 21:07, 3 July 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)

Yes, "altruism" is in many senses a direct contradiction to objectivist's beliefs. But it's usually not like what people conceive at first. Basically, objectivism's all about promoting individualism and highlighting the role of the prime-movers. It's argues that a person's needs should not give him an advantage over another persons skills and hard-work(that's why against usual charity). Hence the rich aren't naturally evil and the poor aren't naturally good. It argues that selfishness is a virtue. It's a kind of play with the word's literal meaning. The personal profit could be something like "happiness" which could be achieved by making others happy. It's quite complex and strage: true. But her books ought to give a better idea.

The main point I wish to make is: I think it need not be removed since it doesn't exactly mean that Wales is evil or anything. Perhaps someone could add that the reason is due to him being an objectivist. That would clear things up. Creation of wikipedia can be argued as selfish(as absurd as it may sound, it's rational). Wales says that his life's purpose is to creat good quality free encyclopaedia or whatever. So it is selfish in that aspect too. I know, Rand uses words like "selfish", "egotist", etc in their very literal meaning. I think tht semantics would be a greater topic to discuss than philosophy when talking about objectivism! Mehfoos (talk) 01:03, 12 May 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)

There's been plenty of cases where such matters (i.e. factual rather than controversial) have come through OTRS from or about individuals who have nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation, and we've generally honoured their preferences on such things. Orderinchaos 07:18, 18 May 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)

{{Editsemiprotected}}

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. IMO considering the unclear date, just remove both and forget about it, the month and year is fine.Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources say 7. But there is only one source that says 8 and it is unreliable especially for a BLP. The unreliable source is a blog. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)

{{Editsemiprotected}} cancelled out for now; obviously (per above) this matter needs ongoing discussion to achieve consensus (as noted previously); it is a content debate issue. The editors processing the edit requests can only act when a consensus is established, besides which there appear to be plenty of auto-confirmed editors watching this debate who can make the edit if we reach agreement. My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that there is nothing wrong in stating the two dates - per WP:TIGER.  Chzz  ►  18:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone could ask him on his talk page. I don't know if we'd be able to cite his response as a source, though. ALI ^{nom nom} 17:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Does everybody forget Wikipedia:Verifiability which states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So, include BOTH dates and explain. Because if we make a decision either way, it is partially wrong regardless... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, I found this in his talk page's archive. He says there that it's August 8th. ALI ^{nom nom} 17:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And I'd agree with Kim's response above- there's no reason we can't say "Brittanica said X, Jimbo said Y about Brittanica's X." ALI ^{nom nom} 17:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly valid. Chief Bender has several different possible birthdates given because no one is certain. Regarding Mr. Wales, here's a radical idea: Find the Hunstville newspaper(s) for early August 1966 and check out the birth announcements. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it just is the same thing, just one more source conflicting with others. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If it appeared in the newspaper with a date, it could provide a clue as to where the EB got its info from. It's not "just one more source", it's a source with no editorial opinion on the matter, since in August 1966 it was not known that Jimbo was going to be the founder of wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In the end, you end up with two stacks of references for either date. And considering that Jimbo himself is not even firm on it, do you expect that someone else can find the perfect source to determine for either date? This 'debate' (better call it a turf war) is going on for a LONG LONG time, and it is still unresolved. So, lets acknowledge that and report that schisms in the sources. And lets stop trying to find the ultimate source that trumps all..... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, both dates should be referenced, and in fact the exact date doesn't really matter. The question is, though, is anyone who thinks it does matter, going to try to figure out the exact date, or would they rather just continue the "turf war"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Found a Huntsville Times online archive, but it only includes articles published after 1991. A local source would be great. ALI ^{nom nom} 21:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

His mother says 7th, doctor made a typo, so the birth certificate states 8th: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Your date of birth --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In order to obtain a marriage license in Monroe County, Florida an applicant "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. I also feel that using the blog as definite info of Wales' birthdate is ill-advised since Wales is also quoted as saying "Nobody knows" when asked what day he was born on that same blog. Jhurlburt (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Note we don't know if that rule was in effect when he got his marriage license - many governmental picture-ID rules are relatively recent. If anyone really cares, pay for a data-broker search. Isn't there some place where requests can be posted for fee-database searches for Wikipedia references? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Appearance on America: The Story of Us

I'm not sure how relevant we would consider his appearances on America: The Story of Us on the History Channel. I figure that once the series is over, we can consider if it is worth mentioning in the article or now; but there's no reason we can't start discussion now. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

He does seem to be getting positive press coverage. I don't know how influential this magazine is, but last week the Advertising Age described him as a "global media legend".[3] Ottre 15:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Lookalike

Jimmy Wales' Mexican lookalike: a Harvard professor -- http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=ovr&facId=296063 .--达伟 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wales wades into porn debate

Wikipedia's Parent Company Starts Purging Porn From Its Websites

Dispute brews over pornographic images on Wikimedia

Jimmy Wales wades into Wikipedia porn debate

Here are three articles open to discussion for inclusion. I think it is best to talk it over before adding any of these to this or other articles. QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Commons:News regarding the sexual content purge, which is the only list I've seen so far that's at all useful or comprehensive (though it doesn't claim to be such). --Simon Speed (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

None of these should be added here, as the topic is not really relevant to a personal biography. Criticism of Wikipedia is a better venue. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

These seem relevent to this page and other pages too. For example, Co-founder Jimmy Wales has given up some of his site privileges following protests by contributors angered that he deleted images without consultation. On Sunday, in response, Jimmy Wales voluntarily revoked many of the "permissions" given to him as Wikipedia's founder, to delete and edit "protected" content on Wikimedia Commons. Wales's status has changed is relevant to this page and the History of Wikipedia page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what Tarc is getting at is that the article is not a suitable place to criticize its subject. Editors should take their time, remember BLP rules and if they're feeling angry, just back off and leave it. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales status has been changed. So if editors feel like ignoring my comments, just back away and leave it. QuackGuru (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We report facts from reliable sources. Those media stories are only just out and are either sensational tripe or just report that there's been a row. It is not at all clear what's actually happened to Jimbo's status, he's agreed to give up some stuff but could take it back any time he wants: everything is very fluid. If you are concerned about the issue then please get involved in the debates and consensus building at the Commons. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We agree to report the facts from reliable sources. All the sources meet V. Your personal opinion of the reliable sources is irrelevant. If you are concerned the sources don't meet RS there is a RS noticeboard. QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If newspapers are fully reliable when they're sensationalizing breaking news, how come what they report later is often so different? I'm just urging caution on a BLP and keeping feelings out of editing. I'm also urging everybody to get involved on the Commons: the issue has not gone away. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC News is a reliable source. I am urging a little cooperation. Please say what BLP concerns you have about using any of the sources if you have any concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm concerned about reflecting either the moral panic or the Wiki-anger. I think that if you say no more than is accepted by the range of sources and use the least emotionally charged language available, you should be OK. --Simon Speed (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Co-founder Jimmy Wales has given up some of his site privileges following protests by contributors angered that he deleted images without consultation.

It is not clear whether Mr Wales's support for the removal of explicit content was in response to Mr Sanger's concerns, pressure from Fox News, or something else.

On Sunday, in response, Jimmy Wales voluntarily revoked many of the "permissions" given to him as Wikipedia's founder, to delete and edit "protected" content on Wikimedia Commons.

Here are the main points from BBC article. This can be summarised but it must be from a neutral point of view and meet BLP concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How about Following controversy over the deletion of sexual images, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his founder status. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy is vague and founder status is not accurate. Proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: "Following the deletion of sexual images without consensus, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status.[4]" QuackGuru (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that, but I still think "controversial" is better: nobody outside Wikiland will understand the significance of "consensus". --Simon Speed (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: "Following a complaint about obscene visual representations of children on Wikimedia Commons reported to the FBI by Larry Sanger, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete was done hastily, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status.[5]" QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a terribly inaccurate summary. Sanger's report to the FBI was in regards to blatant child pornography (his words) being hosted on Commons; Wales began deleting pornographic images on Friday, fully aware (or so I believe) that it would take him days to delete them all, while opposition was building to speedy deletion (see my timeline of events here); and Wales gave up his founder privileges when it became clear the media was not going to cover the issue fairly. The main point is that BBC News made a conscious decision not to do their own investigation. Ottre 22:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is a very accurate summary of the BBC article. It is verified according to V, not your personal interpertation or original research. A Signpost is a primary source. The main point is that the BBC article meets V. We explain what the source determined why Wales gave up his privileges.

"He later clarified that his concern was not about photographs of children, but "obscene visual representations of the abuse of children", which can include drawings and sculpture."[6] QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Small legal point - I'd say "illegal drawings of children in sexual situations", instead of "obscene visual representations of children", that better captures the key law in English description. And Sanger's overall objections (not FBI report) encompassed both allegations of illegal material, and complaints about non-educational sexual material in general. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In a message to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing list he said this was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted". Here is more information from the BBC article that verified the proposal below.

Slightly changed proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: "Following a complaint by Larry Sanger to the FBI later clarified as illegal drawings of children in sexual situations being hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete was done hastily, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status because he explained that he'd rather focus on the real content issues, rather than about him and how quickly he acted.[7]" QuackGuru (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Allow me draw your attention to the part of the article where it states "It asked whether the donors were aware of "the extent of sexually explicit content" on Wikimedia Commons." ("It" being Fox News) - this is a different subject than the alleged illegal material (no offense meant in tone, just trying to fit what we know to be true now, into the V of the BBC article) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think we can merge it with perfect V, as "Following a complaint by Larry Sanger to the FBI later clarified as illegal drawings of children in sexual situations being hosted on Wikimedia Commons, and a news report of "the extent of sexually explicit content", Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already set out my stall on this, and Jimbo is already aware of it. In my opinion he acted in one sense quite properly to reduce the potential legal liability of the Wikimedia Foundation, by removing those images he considered to be illegal, with the proviso that they could later be restored after due consideration. Unfortunately, images, once deleted, are unavailable for rational comment, and that is perhaps, putting the cart before the horse. That leaves the question whether nominating the images for deletion, and opening up the debate, would have produced a different result. I'm not convinced it would have done so. Methodology aside, I dispute "later clarified as illegal drawings of children in sexual situations". Who has prescribed this? It's an unsourced opinion. The FBI has conspicuously failed to take any action.
A different point is that Commons has been used to host multiple pornographic images with no obvious encyclopedic value, and most of those images are not used in any encyclopedic articles. In one sense, Commons is a repository of free-content images, yet it falls within the WMF free-content purpose, which overall seems to be educational rather than tittilational. Accordingly, there seems to be no reason why images not used in encyclopedic articles should not be deleted as redundant, and Jimmy was quite correct on that dimension; we are not Flickr. Rodhullandemu 00:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, triple negative alert. "there seems to be no reason why images not used in encyclopedic articles should not be deleted as redundant". I am assuming he is arguing for deletion. I don't think I could construct a more convoluted way to say "delete the images". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The more that is said, the worse this proposed edit gets. The kiddiporn allegations are allegations or maybe less than that innuendo: nobody has confirmed any such thing, though it's all free for the authorities to view. The press reports this fact but puts as salacious a gloss on it as they can and you have to read the articles carefully to realize there was no kiddiporn. Also the theorizing about underlying motives varies with the Guardian blaming Apple! The more that gets added to this the greater the danger of slurring both Wales and the Wikipedia. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this proposed edit does seem to be getting worse as more people chime in. It is not worth including anything if you don't explain that Wales gave up his privileges in the face of hostile media coverage. The fact that the BBC of all media outlets chose to parrot the Fox News allegations is remarkable. Ottre 02:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say in the BBC about Wales gave up his privileges in the face of hostile media coverage? We can't add your interpertation to the article. OR can't trump V. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a primary source to verify what is in BBC about a message to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing list. This did not mention anything about hostile media. QuackGuru (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: Following a complaint by Larry Sanger to the FBI that he later clarified as obscene visual representations of children in sexual situations being hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete was done hastily, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status. He wrote in a message to Wikimedia Foundation mailing list this was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted."[8] QuackGuru (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Now turning into a novel and it's not getting better as it gets longer. Even mentioning the prefix "pedo" can switch off all reason (hence the pediatrician who had her house burned down), this is what Fox has been trying with the kiddiporn "allegations" and I suspect it was why Wales panicked. A cursory reading of the new proposal would give There was kiddiporn. Wales tried to delete it, but the nerds objected and he backed off. This is libel!!! It's what Fox will try to insinuate without actually saying: we should not do the same. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse my interjection, but why do you repeatedly use the non-word "kiddiporn?" It strikes me as a diminuitive euphemism, almost a "pet name," for child pornography. I'd be more inclined to accept you as a neutral voice if you were not trying to relabel child pornography. Bustter (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not using the Fox News source but editors are adding misleading text, one unreliable source, and the Fox Fews source without the clarification Sanger made to the Larry Sanger page. Two editors think it is notable at least for the Larry Sanger page. What is unsourced with this proposal or not NPOV according to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think recent press coverage should be used as source. The name of Fox is finding its way into the headlines, because they had a large hand in creating this story. I do not see, in the circumstances how anything from Fox or repeated uncritically like the early BBC report did can be considered properly sourced. Even with the latest stuff, the speculation should be ignored. Press engaged in moral panic creation are not a reliable source. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to libel the subject of the article of anyone else. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

For now I added your proposal with the clarification about co-founder status. Your proposal is a good start but it is vague. It needs context on how the sexual image debate began. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the subject has been covered. The only facts that haven't been covered concern allegations: some of the later press reports do at least include denials of these. I think if you want to include an allegation you should include the denial. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, its not worth including at all, it is in the critism article, its nothing notable about wales, he had nothing to do with the addition of porn he simply deleted some sexy p[pictures, its all about sangers issues. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wales' role is notable. Simon Speed, the reference does not have a specific denial by Wales but it does have this: He wrote in a message to Wikimedia Foundation mailing list this was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted." This is about Wales' role. QuackGuru (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wale's role in this is not a notable issue at all, Sanger is the person you want to add this, Wales deletes some porno, so ? It is a storm in a tea cup and is only important regarding Sanger reporting the pictures to the FBI there has been no investigation no action nothing, Wales has not released any of his main role at all, and in fact Wales has and is in the process of moving away from any of his so called powers . Stop stuffing it in, see if you have consensus. I think it is little to do with wales and given undue weight to a minor issue in his life by adding it to his BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We report what the source says. Your opinion is original research in evaluating the source. The source thought it was notable to cover. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No it does not, just having a citation doesnt mean it is notable to include here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There has been many press coverage surrounding this incident. There is consensus to include. I added it as compromise instead of the detailed version. It was a proposal by Simon speed. This is very short and does not violate WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming as a Consensus, you and editor Simon Speed? Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion and Simon speed did not want the detailed version so I compromised with the very short proposal. Suggestion: Please start a RFC for this specific sentence if you want to delete the compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus at all just you wants to add something about it. The compromise as you call it and have repeatedly reverted to include has also BLP issues, it is unexplained, what powers has wales given up? Who uploaded the dirty pictures, wales? Has wales had to give up power because he uploaded porno? that is the problem and then the explained version is undue weight. It does not belong here, and there is no consensus to include anything about it as you claim either. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The text is well sourced and meets V. If you start a RFC maybe editors can expand it and include more details form the source and other sources. I hope you start a RFC soon and seek consensus to delete or new editors may want to expand it. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The entire event is of such small importance, it is not sensible to include it at all. It's just recentism to include a new paragraph everytime the media gets incorrectly excited about something. Quackguru, as is well known, camps out here only to disparage me, and seeks to use every media event of every kind to write something negative about me here. Frankly, he should be banned from editing this page as a clear POV-pusher, but that's another story for another day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from StevensonU, 25 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under Jimmy Wales "Honors, awards and positions"

should be added the following fact:

May 21, 2010 - Wales receives an honorary degree of doctor of laws from Stevenson University, Stevenson, Maryland. Wales said that this was the very first college commencement speech that he had delivered.

Reference: Stevenson University Newsroom

http://newsroom.stevensonuniversity.org/2010/05/10/wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales-to-address-stevenson-graduates-may-21/

StevensonU (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: The reference says nothing about what you are requesting be added, only that he addressed the University. SpigotMap 13:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This may be useful in the meantime. Also this one see also this reference. Perhaps Stevenson needs to update their press release with more details.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Jimbo. SpigotMap 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, don't thank me, the thanks are for you. Found the link for Stevenson, too :-).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"stated that" versus "joked that"

In a 2007 interview, Wales stated that he thought that "donating" Wikipedia to the foundation was both the "dumbest and the smartest" thing he'd done.

I think that it would be more accurate to say that I joked that I thought that - I have made this joke many times, and I always say it in a joking manner and nearly always explain that it is a joke - primarily because some people seem to think I mean it seriously. I think donating Wikipedia to the Foundation was arguably the smartest and greatest thing that I've ever done, full stop. What I don't want to see happen next, though, is people editing this to say that "Later, in 2010, he claimed this was just a joke" making it sound like it was bad when I said it, and then I backpedalled, etc. It was always a joke. It might not even be a notable enough thing to include in the article at all, but I have said it lots of times, so I suppose it might be.

• 2007 reference stating that it is a joke
• 2008 example
• 2007 example
• 2007 example

I am also not sure why there are scare quotes around "donating".

What I recommend is this wording: "Wales has often joked that donating Wikipedia to the Foundation was both the "dumbest and the smartest" thing he'd done." And then a bunch of links to examples.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it's not just a joke. Perhaps "jokingly stated"? There is a serious point being expressed. One of the biggest "what-if" questions of Wikipedia history is if it would have been so successful had it been a for-profit, ad-supported site, like ventures Bomis before it and Wikia after it. If yes, then "dumbest", if no, then "smartest". Nobody can know for certain, and I've seen reasonable arguments on both sides. I think the article is properly engaging that grand question, and I would be wary of it winding up slanted to the benevolent-millionaire PR narrative. It's very clear from the historical record ("With the resignation of Larry, there is a much less pressing need for funds. Therefore, all plans to put advertising of any kind on the wikipedia is called off for now.") that Wikipedia was made a non-profit because at the time, it was thought to have little potential to support itself via advertising. To be fair, who could have predicted back then, what would happen? As the Trader Monthly interview (not me!) has it "Despite all this, Wikipedia, set up as a nonprofit, has not made Wales much direct income. Not yet, anyway. Wikipedia -- and how to profit from it -- is a kind of puzzle for Wales, one he feels he's finally on the verge of solving. ... \[Wikia\], Wales readily admits, is his effort to take the success -- and, indeed, the underlying philosophy -- of Wikipedia, and commercialize the hell out of it. "Look, I'm not against making money," he says." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Seth that it is not adequate to use words that might suggest the remark was just a joke, and I inserted his "jokingly stated" text, although of course someone might misinterpret that as well. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It was always just a joke. Full stop. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to editoralize on behalf of Seth or anyone else and portray me as holding opinions which I do not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. I do not begrudge you the rueful reflection on what-might-have-been, a humorous defusing of an obvious issue. But it is also not appropriate for Wikipedia to be your press agent, to portray you in a flattering light contrary to the evidence. I did not write the following (also from the Trader Monthly interview), emphasis added: "Wales, meanwhile, has gone on to fame, if not exactly the enormous fortune one typically associates with Internet moguls. But it's not as if he's opposed to rectifying that situation. Early in Wikipedia's life, Wales and his partners considered selling ads on the encyclopedia's pages. The site was showing signs of explosive growth, and they certainly could have used the extra money. Though ultimately they nixed the proposal (Internet ad rates had fallen off anyway, of course), they didn't exactly do so for idealistic reasons. "We've never said, 'Absolutely not, we don't want to sell ads,'" Wales says, explaining that the decision had more to do with preserving the Wikipedia brand." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

None of that has any relevance to the question at hand.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me make clear again, in my view there is no fault in pondering the road not taken. Virtually anyone in such a situation would have some sort of reaction. However, the matter at hand is not just a joke. It is your standard answer to an obvious historical question concerned with if a for-profit Wikipedia (as was the original plan!) would have been a huge money-maker for you. It is not wrong, but also, it does have a serious aspect to it which connects to the issue. I do not think you are being treated unkindly on this point in the article. But it is not reasonable to expect a complete airbrushing of such an extensively written about "what-if" quandary. And please don't try to put this on me. The more serious business-oriented sources examine this, sometimes quite harshly - e.g. The Economist: "All this has gone to his head, say former friends. Mr Wales "has created something of a mythology about himself," says one. "The image he created is that he is this benevolent millionaire who donates his time for this charitable project; that is not true." Instead, this acquaintance argues, Mr Wales is merely basking in the glow of Wikipedia's success." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, absolutely and utterly irrelevant to the question at hand. Seth, your bias here is well known, and thank you for again demonstrating it. You want to make sure that I'm sharply criticized. Great. Super. Whatever. However, none of that has any relevance at all to the question at hand. The joke has always been stated as a joke, and failing to note that would mislead the reader into thinking something that is absolutely not true. That the error is one that you want readers to make, based on your hostile reading of my life story, is not relevant one bit.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to make sure that the article does not turn into a press release puff piece for you - one need only look at the result of the PR which you do control to see that fate (e.g. removing Larry Sanger's status as Wikipedia co-founder, whitewashing Bomis, the benevolent-millionaire image, etc). In fact, in terms of my interest in Wikipedia's sociology, I truly find it fascinating that the article about you is not a fawning hagiography, and that adds nuance to my thinking. I try to be tough but fair to you (note, "try" - I won't claim perfection), not supporting unsubstantiated and salacious tales, but not taking things you say at face value either. I hope you can see the encyclopedic problem of discounting those who takes a less rosy view of your actions and statements than you do. In the issue at hand, it's clear the point is not just a joke, like "I once shot an elephant in my pajamas - how he got in my pajamas, I'll never know". Rather, it has a serious side to it, which brings up decidedly non-altruistic aspects. Once more, this is common discussion, take CNN Money: "The irony of Wikipedia is that, although it was founded by a former securities trader and experienced entrepreneur, it has yet to make anyone rich. ... Had it not been set up as a nonprofit - free of advertisements and promotions -Wikipedia could easily have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in ad revenue. Wales, an Ayn Rand small-l libertarian, figured that user devotion could be harnessed to make Wikipedia-like products that bring in a buck or two." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest this thread should be closed because to continue would conflict with WP:NOT#FORUM. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As always, the thing to do in situations like this is let the reader decide. I had a look at the sources first, and I agree with Jimbo that this was always a joke, but would note that the joke seems to be the contrast between "smartest" and "dumbest", while the explanations in each case are quite rational. The current text ("Wales has often jokingly stated that donating Wikipedia to the foundation was both the "dumbest and the smartest" thing he had done. On the one hand, he estimated that Wikipedia was worth US$3 billion; on the other, he weighed his belief that the donation made possible its success.") captures that quite well and lets the reader decide whether it was "just" a joke or not.

Indeed the main weakness, in my view, is the final clause, which rather underplays why it was smart (I'm thinking e.g. of the quote "The smartest, though, because I don‘t think it could have been nearly as successful as it is and also because I think it will be remembered in the future. 100 or 200 years from now people will point to Wikipedia and say: That was a really good thing that did something beneficial for the world. So that is something I am very proud of.") Geometry guy 20:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Despite his non-intensive involvement in the day-to-day operation of the encyclopedia"

I note that the source linked doesn't make that claim, and in any event, it's false. I've always been intensively involved in the day-to-day operation of the encyclopedia. This is the origin of the word in the article, a change from "decreasing", which is of course also false.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Darrin McGillis

Mr. wales could you please assist in protecting the page Darrin McGillis from a politica witch hunt by two users of wikipedia including using the AFD page as a place to Libel Mr. McGillis a living person.--98.242.241.252 (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this (per notice above), but I'll take a look at it. Rodhullandemu 01:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been following this and I have to say I am stunned by comments left in the Afd: I especially leaving a comment even with the quote "... but later retracted the claim." is a shame on the users part. I have asked for assistance with the dispute as going after someone you do not know with such malice is truly wrong. I hope you can help.--Dymo400 (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, this is the wrong forum to appeal to Jimmy, and it is unlikely that he would intervene. To be honest, the Afd became a mess, and I have already had to block one IP editor for disruptive editing, and it is better that the discussion proceed without rancour and misusing WP policies to sustain a point of view. A dispassionate analysis of the article, and its sources, must be better than two sides taking up arms against each other. Rodhullandemu 03:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Could he have been born twice?

I have read about a rare medical procedure in which a fetus is temporarily removed from the womb for surgery, but the umbical cord is not cut, and it is returned to the womb after the surgery. Could this explain why he has two different dates of birth?71.109.148.127 (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)