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)"

Notability

Is this guy really notable? Who even cares about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.131.55 (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:GNG. Rodhullandemu 20:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? J390 (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

He's notable if you think that Wikipedia is notable (which I do, as do millions of others).

98.245.150.162 (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is so notable that his page gets vandalized every year on April Fool's Day. =D CycloneGU (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I feel he has a point. Shouldn't he be, like, included in the Wikimedia Foundation article, for example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.79.174 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If he didn't stick his face at the top of every page on this site, very few people would know about him. I think he's only notable because of his "personal appeal" and should be included in the Wikimedia Foundation article, as suggested above.108.17.72.3 (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

He created the whole project, would you be here posting on his talk page if we was not notable, no. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia is notable does not mean he is. Thomas Edison is notable; Every school kid in the USA knows his name and some of his inventions. Harold Smith helped invent the crayola crayon, but does not have his own article. Wales seems to be using Wikipedia to promote his own notability. This is just a personal appeal from someone not familiar with the bureaucracy of WP though, so I'm sure there's some policy page (like WP:SPIP) to prove my lay opinion of what "notable" is wrong.108.17.72.3 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Go familiarize yourself with WP:NOTABLE, then come back here if you want to make a real argument. NickCT (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth

Am I the only one who finds it a little ironic and strange that we can't be sure of the DOB of the founder of Wiki?

You'd think he would come here and correct it himself? 95.148.202.176 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

1) co-founder, please. 2) The issue is basically that he's claimed a date different from the birth certificate, leading to conflicts among official documents and hence sources. But I think it's essentially settled now. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How is this "essentially settled"? First the footnote says that Jimbo said that August 7 is incorrect, but according to the next sentence he says that he was born on August 7. Edge3 (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Having cast my eye over this; this source seems to make it pretty clear that Wales believes his own birth to be the 7th. I'm not sure how reliable the Oregonian source is. I think we should edit the page to have it unambiguously state that his birthday is the 7th. Anyone second this motion? NickCT (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Re this edit; @User:Cyclopia - You are WP:Wikilawyering - The fact is, Jimmy Wales is probably the best source out there in regards to what his birthday is. We have him saying his birthday is the 7th. Now I understand that there are some "source" concerns here, but I think this might be a good time to just ignore all rules and accept Jimbo at his word. NickCT (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And how about adding a FAQ to the talk page that addresses this issue? As a page lurker, I can't believe how many times this comes up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The pith is WP:BLP and his word being wholly verifiable. There can be a note, either inline or in the text, about the birth certificate and what he has to say about that. I have strong worries that the founder of this website has been nettled over this all too pointishly. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

NickCT: Playing by the rules is not wikilawyering. We are an encyclopedia, this means that we follow sources and use them. In any case I don't object to using also Jimbo declaration as a primary source; I object to the removal of the information that was previously there. I see no reason to IAR here: we don't let people write their own bios, and I don't see why this should change here. If anything, given the obvious self-referentiality of a WP article on Wales, we should even be stricter here and held us to higher NPOV standards. --Cyclopia^talk 20:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a duty of care to consider the position of living subjects of our articles and Jimmy has clearly stated and requested that he wants the valueless disputed day removed. The detail is in the support from Wales personal comment and the issue is over a single days difference, which is of no educational value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This has aught to do with WP:IAR. Claims of "playing by the rules" is what both WP:Point and WP:Wikilawyer are all about. Both birth dates can be given in the text, but if the subject of this BLP can be verifiably shown to have stated their birth date is one day sooner than that listed on a birth certificate, that easily breezes through WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So we ignore WP:AUTOBIO and we throw WP:COI out of the window? Since when we leave people modulate their own bios at will? It's not matter of a point and lawyering, it's an honest matter of a very fundamental principle. We are a neutral point of view encyclopedia aiming at objective coverage. If we begin to make people able to decide of their bios, we renounce to objectivity and neutrality: at this point, if all we care about is "consider the position of living subjects", well, why not simply substituting all BLP policy with "You're welcome to write your own biography on Wikipedia!"? Is that what we want? --Cyclopia^talk 20:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

He didn't make the edit, so WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI have no sway at all. As for objectivity and neutrality, that's spot on why what he verifiably says about his birth date (and his mum as a source) should be carried in the article. If this BLP was about any topic other than Wales, I think it highly unlikely you'd be going on about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We have no intention of allowing subjects to write their own BLP articles all this is is allowing a identified trusted contributor to explain and be cited as the explanation of his own birth details, in a pointless issue about a single days registration detail, in which we can happily take his detail about his life as reliable. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether or not he's a trusted contributer to the project. His bio is a notable topic and his latest verifiable statements as to his DoB can be cited. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Cyclopia - I might agree with your points, if the edit in question was something of consequence. A dispute over whether one's birthday is the 7th or 8th just seems WP:LAME. Frankly, I am ready to ignore all rules and let Jimbo WP:AUTOBIO here. NickCT (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen: If this BLP was about any topic other than Wales, I think it highly unlikely you'd be going on about this. - You are utterly wrong and I ask you to retract such a WP:AGF-violating statement. I read about this on Jimbo's talk page and when I've seen Off2riorob writing "done", I said "wait, done what?" and came. You can read on the current threads of WT:BLP that my point of view is general. There, you'll see there is a current tendency of editors that want to throw WP:NPOV out of the window with things like requiring article subjects to self-identify before categorizing their articles. People who know my take in these discussions may disagree harshly with me but will confirm you that I am in good faith.

I didn't say you were editing in bad faith. I'm saying you're not being neutral as to this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is even more ridicolous: why shouldn't I be neutral about Jimbo's birth date? Is it the crux of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and nobody told me? Ahrrrr, evil 7th-ers! I'll get to them! No, wait, it was the 8th-ers... Facepalm --Cyclopia^talk 22:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

NickCT: I agree that it's a bit lame, and in fact you can see that I didn't enter into an edit war for that. But I am frankly appalled to see that people forgets all our efforts to put in place regulations to keep NPOV, reliability, objectivity etc. -and tiny matters like this are the gauge of this dangerous mentality. The problem is not the birthdate: it's the principle. The principle that we ought have a neutral point of view, that we should stick to reliable sources etc.etc. --Cyclopia^talk 21:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(rebooting) Why is this contentious? There's no dispute that his birth certificate says August 8. Even the words of Himself grant "My legal paperwork all says 8th of August, due to an error on my birth certificate.". The only evidence otherwise is sourced "according to my mother". The legal paperwork is the date of record. A statement of "according to my mother" is perhaps a worthwhile footnote (one could reasonably go either way on that, but I'd say it's a useful valid footnote, given the confusion). I'm at a loss to understand his reasoning behind completely ignoring the official document ("I am of the firm opinion that the discussion in the Wikipedia entry on me should all be removed in favor of simply saying that my date of birth is the 7th"), but that's really another topic. This item really needs a subpage FAQ. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Seth Finkelstein - Your birthday is the date on which you were born. Not what your birth certificate says.

@[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia] - Re it's the principle - You know Cyclopia, I'm v. sympathetic towards your opinion, and actually, I'm glad to have you here playing "devil's advocate". The rules do matter, and I do think there are technical WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIO concerns here and it's good that you're pointing that out. Ultimately though, I'm going to stick with my position because; the harm of potential inaccuracy (or lack of appropriate ambiguity) behind listing Wales' birthday as the 7th is overridden by the harm done to Wikipedia's concision and general sense of order when we have founder/co-founder of WP's birthday listed as (7th or 8th).

On another note - Perhaps if you want to pursue this Cyclopia we should consider an RfC? If you think this is appropriate, let me know. I'd be happy to do it as a I think an RfC might serve to put this question to rest for once and for all. NickCT (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nick: Your answer to Seth Finkelstein is wrong, for WP purposes. WP is not about the truth: verifiability, not truth is one of our standards. We have no way to know the truth; we can only report what sources say. I may know the Truth on something and sources may be all completely wrong, but my truth is unverifiable WP:OR. --Cyclopia^talk 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia - Again, point appreciated. I guess the question here is whether a person can be a reliable source as to there own birthday. Frankly, I'd suggest that if anyone who has a BLP on WP was quoted by an RS as saying, "The birth date listed on my birth certificate is wrong b/c x,y & z", we should probably take that at face value unless we have reason to believe otherwise. I know this is against the spirit of WP:AUTOBIO, but I think major goal of WP:AUTOBIO is to guard WP:NPOV. I just can't see any potential WP:NPOV issues with taking someone at their word when they say they were born on a Friday instead of a Saturday.

Anyway, I'm not sure we're going to come to agreement on this issue. Let me offer you a friendly ultimatum - 1) Grudgingly accept listing it as the 7th w/ your objections noted, or 2) Let me RfC the issue to bring closure. NickCT (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

NickCT, for official records purposes - e.g. when you can vote, when you can legally consume alcohol, when you're eligible for various senior-citizen benefits - your birthday is the date on your birth certificate. Indeed, that date may not match the one which is objectively correct. However, it is the "date of record". I don't understand any argument for completely ignoring it, especially in comparison to a second-hand story (he says his mother says ...). Reasonableness would indicate noting that the subject says the official date is incorrect. So contention on how to treat this is unclear to me. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that for the purposes you noted, your birthday is the date on your birth certificate. I'm guessing though that when the average WP reader sees a birth date, they assume it means "the day on which a subject was born", and NOT "the day used to determine when someone can consume alcohol, get senior citizen benefits, etc etc".

The argument for completely ignoring it is that, Jimbo is probably a reliable source for his own birthday, and that the confusion over his birthday is likely not WP:NOTABLE in the greater context of Jimbo. Furthermore, wikipedia is not an endless collection of trivia, and lame debates over Jimbo's birth date seem to be exactly that. NickCT (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't an average reader assume the day is the "date of record", if there is a conflict between that and other claims? In fact, I would say taking a person's word about their birthday is quite problematic. They can't have a reliable memory of the event, and they could have motives to dissemble (I'm not saying that's the case here, but there's many instances where people have been wrong or have had a reason to change the date). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Re (Why wouldn't an average reader assume the day is the "date of record") - I was born July 29th, 1980. If there was some error on my birth certificate/licence etc saying I was born 1880, would you suggest that I tell people my birthday was a hundred years ago? No! Of course not. Your birthday is day on which you are born. I think you'll find reliable sources back me in this assertion.

Re (memory of the event, and they could have motives to dissemble) - Give me any reason to believe either of these are true in this case and I will change my mind. NickCT (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Of course reasonable judgment must be applied - born 1880 would be an obvious misprint, or a different person. However, if you were an actor or actress, and said the error was that it really should be 1990 - i.e. were ten years younger than the birth certificate would seem to indicate - and the official date should not be mentioned, then perhaps that account should not be taken as gospel. Now, regarding "Give me any reason to believe either of these are true in this case and I will change my mind." - do you really mean that? Or is it tautological challenge? Meaning, if I give you "any reason", will you change your mind, or will you proclaim you mind is unchanged hence I have not given you sufficient reason? Just as a comment on this thread, I sadly suspect, given our evident different perspectives, we are in a situation I call no-evidence-accepted. That is, whatever I say, since it will not be within your personal experience, you will deem it insufficient. But, WP:AGF, let's try.
Now, disclaimer, I'm not saying I think any of the following are true, but they're conceivable: 1) Wales's mother might have made up the story as a way trying to inculcate skepticism against official accounts (i.e. "That's what the guvmint says, but I was there, and it's wrong"). 2) Wales doesn't talk about his politics in specific, but he has self-described "curious political views". For example, refering to UN grants as "being corrupted with money taken by force". He might think spreading confusion about his date of birth as somehow a way to hinder government database tracking. 3) He might have made a mistake himself one day in giving his date of birth, come up with the story as a better alternative to saying "I goofed", and decided to stick with it.
Over the years, I have become extremely jaded and cynical, especially in writing about prominent people. They lie. They have agendas. There's a journalism sourcing credo, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out.". Again, I am not asserting anyone is lying here. But I can certainly see reasons it could be possible. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well come on Seth, this is just disingenous on your part. When it comes to sources, well you pays your money and you takes your choice. Personally, I find it hard to split Jimbo's own statement and the documented evidence- you seem to think that a day is relevant within the scheme of things. It isn't, since almost no source can be authoritative in this respect. Both Jimbo's assertion and his birth certificate are open to criticism as non-primary sources, but they're the best we have in the absence of an affidavit from the relevant midwife or other witness present at the time. I think this should move on, because there is plenty of other stuff to be done here, and to you, Seth, I would ask whether you are committed to the other stuff, or otherwise. Wasps are to be expected at picnics, but they should expect to be swatted. If you find that hard to understand, I'll put it more boldly: "is you is or is you ain't" interested in improving this encyclopedia? If so, let's see it. If not, you know what to expect. Good evening. Rodhullandemu 01:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I lost you somewhere. My overall interest in Wikipedia is in studying its dynamics, via the methodology of participant observation. I've said that many times. It truly does fascinate me. When a participant, I endeavor to adhere to its rules when editing (n.b. not saying I'm perfect at that, but I think I make a reasonable effort). Sometimes, I think I have information or insight that is useful to an article or discussion. Because of my interests, this is often on topics embarrassing or uncomfortable to those who are heavy supporters of Wikipedia as a quasi-religious movement. That's simply a result of my particulars areas of expertise. I'm not sure what more I can tell you. Please note, I'm not going to jump hard on this, but "expect to be swatted" and "you know what to expect" could be read as a threat. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You lost me, and my respect, when you started criticising from within, without committing to the complex process that is editing content here. Of course it's largely voluntary, but I do not see the commitment and involvement on your part that inures editors to becoming experienced here. You mention "participant observation", but I doubt your credentials for claiming to be a participant here other than in the most minimal and tendentious terms. In short, while "pissing from within the tent" may be seen to be better than "pissing on the tent from outside", in my view, your actual position is moot in that regard. You already have a platform for criticisms of Wikipedia, i.e. youer blog in The Guardian, assuming it's still extant, and of course the option of Wikipedia Review, a well-known repository for malcontents banned from here. I have yet to see you commit to this project without making waves, and if there is evidence of this, please refer me to some evidence. But (as Jimmy points out elsewhere), your edits here appear to be somewhat single-minded, and I eagerly await confirmation to the contrary. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Poorly sourced text is a BLP violation. Please don't delete reliable sources. A talk page comment is not reliable. Wales says My legal paperwork all says 8th of August, due to an error on my birth certificate. According to Wales his legal date of birth is on the 8th. Wales was born on the 7th of August, according to his mother. This is an unreliable reference we can't use for this article. This edit from poorly sourced text claims the date of birth is 7 when the legal date of birth is 8 according to the unreliable reference. QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding to your point, but doesn't it strike anyone as amazing that we are spending this much time on (1) whether he was born on the 7th or the 8th and (2) how to source the conflict? Only at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The simple obvious answer is the one that should be followed here. All this nonsense about my birthdate should absolutely and finally removed from this article and people should be blocked as vandals if they try to re-insert it. I was born on August 7th. My legal paperwork says the 8th. I have joked around about this in the past, not realizing how humorless some people can be. The only thing this entry should say is that I was born on the 7th, with a footnote if absolutely necessary to explain that my legal paperwork says the 8th due to an error in my birth certificate. Any other solution is POV pushing, WP:UNDUE, etc. Take note of the edit history of those who are POV pushing to have this complex mess included here: Quackguru and Seth are clearly POV pushers who ought to be banned from editing my entry altogether as clearly having committed multiple BLP violations over a long period of time. Quackguru in particular is essentially a single-issue editor: the main topic he has ever edited at Wikipedia is: me. And the tone of his edits are uniformly attacking and negative. He's singlehandedly responsible for the ludicrous presentation of various issues in this entry, and he thereby lessens the accuracy of the encyclopedia to push his vicious agenda.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, Jimmy, assume good faith. I'm sincerely interested here in people's reasons why, once it's undisputed what your birth certificate states, there's any further contention. The answer according to sourcing rules seems clear to me - the birth certificate is the most reliable source, and reasonableness would indicate footnoting a personal claim it is inaccurate. I truly don't understand your reasoning as to minimizing the "legal paperwork". Perhaps, as befits Wikipedia's "public face" (literally, per banner!), you could demonstrate the qualities that are alleged to embody its ethos, by civilly and without personal attacks engaging in discussion about the matter. After all, that's what anyone else would be told to do - as well as being cautioned not to lash out against others, plus threatened with a block and ban if such behavior persisted.

Note, I vigorously deny your accusation about "multiple BLP violations", and would defend Quackguru too. I assume that's code-words for opposing you in your campaign of declaring yourself "the sole founder of Wikipedia". That is utterly contradicted by Larry Sanger's Wikipedia co-founder historical references.

By the way, hypothetically, were I to write your biography page entirely myself, I think you'd end up overall with a better deal than the current version. I would be much tougher on what I view as aspects of sensationalism and groundless charges. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the more appropriate course is to say August 8 (citing the certificate) and footnote the report(s) of what Wales said his mother said. I understand the certificate may be wrong, but, by Wikipedia standards, it's more reliable/citable than Wales's say-so. I continue to maintain, though, that this is much ado about very little. There are times when a day matters (e.g., court deadlines), but not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you completely. --Cyclopia^talk 00:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

{ec}}, ffs. I couldn't agree more. When sources are at odds, we cite one (probably a perceived "reliable source") in the text of the article, and add a footnote, and, to be honest, the discrepancy is usually so trivial as to be not worth arguing over. We've done this successfully with George Harrison and Bea Arthur, and I see no reason why we cannot do the same here, move on, and write some articles rather than argue as two bald men over usage of a comb. The theories of policy may be all fine and dandy, but the bottom line is that some pragmatism has to apply sooner or later. I vote for "sooner". Rodhullandemu 00:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, you just managed to break WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:COI, while threatening people who simply want to use WP:RS to source content -all in one single comment. I hope you can elaborate and perhaps retract. I understand you may be emotionally involved with the issue, but saying that inserting reliably sourced information is akin to vandalism to substitute it with "I say so" it's a total no-no. And no, we don't need IAR here. --Cyclopia^talk 00:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

An IP made this change to the DOB on this article. Wales also made the same change to 7. The same IP changed co-founder to founder at the Wikimedia Foundation page. An edit by the IP was signed by Wales. Now in 2010 Wales says 7 (legal DOB is 8) is correct. Back in 2004 Wales wrote 7. However, for the BLP article we use reliable references. In June 2007 Mr. Wales notified Britannica that the date August 7 was incorrect. Where is the reference that said August 8 with citing the certificate correct? QuackGuru (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I assumed, apparently incorrectly, there was a cite to his birth certificate that said August 8 - don't we have that cite? If not, we have far more reliable sources that say August 7, regardless of what Wales himself says now, said before, or may say in the future. If we can't find a reliable source that says August 8 (e.g., the marriage license that says August 7), we should go with August 7. Otherwise, we just have Wales's word that his birth certificate and driver's license say August 8, which is just as impermissible to cite to as anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read: A personal appeal...

There's a lot of discussion about Jimmy's head staring at you on every wikipedia page (LMGTFY), with a chrome extention. It's pretty lulzy.

Jimmy Wales needs to sod off. The header is distracting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.155.7 (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone care about his apppeal anyway? NO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.43 (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Is a section on this noteworthy?

Ogreenworld (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Ogreenworld

It might be. Apparently its kind of a big deal. I came to this section for the same reason. But it seems like OR. Then again it IS there and people do have opinions about it. Cathys Son (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, can you clarify the biographical relevance? At the moment, I don't see it myself. But perhaps someone can articulate it (personally, I'm surprised there haven't been more parodies - I can think of a few myself ...). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's neither here nor there. People who do not use the Internet have probably never even heard of Jimmy Wales, so that's at least 40% of the world's population discounted. Those that do use the Internet are probably not interested in information for its own sake, so that's possibly another 40%. As for the rest, those that actually use Wikipedia only ever see Jimmy in the November/December fundraising drives. So all in all, I have yet to see parodies of Jimmy per se that would be accessible to a wide audience. That's why there aren't any, as far as I can see. A target is only worth aiming at if doing so is likely to achieve a result. That's all. Rodhullandemu 00:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that chain follows. To give a mild example, imagine a Lolcat with a cat eating a mouse, and captioned "I can haz donation?" (up to you where you place the Jimmy Wales image there ...). That's the sort of thing I'd expect someone to come up with in terms of mashup. It's not a matter of worldwide recognition, but rather, within a particular subculture. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, but Internet subcultures such as lolcats are as a foreign language to so-called "silver surfers" such as myself, although I am perhaps rare in that I was using Internet in the mid to late 1970s, whereas those mostly of my age have only come to it recently, and it is no surprise that those newcomers are bemused by "newspeak". In my experience, most of them want to access content of interest to them and aren't impressed by bandwidth-consuming trivia, as they see it. No ads, no popups, no shite, no trivia. Is it really that difficult to filter out unwanted content? Yes it is, for these users. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not used to discussing on Wikipedia, but there's this: http://blogs.westword.com/showandtell/2010/11/4chan_founder_moot_trolls_jimmy_wales.php and ED parodied it too. There are plenty of parodies out there, but only with original research, unfortunately. Also plenty of articles on the chrome extension: http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2010/11/23/jimmy-wales-chrome-extension-wikipedia/ http://erictric.com/2010/11/24/google-chrome-extension-adds-wikipedias-jimmy-wales-mug-to-every-page/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/just-add-wales/ http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=jimmy+wales+chrome#q=jimmy+wales+chrome&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn&fp=f8d2d022449987d8 etc. Ogreenworld (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Ogreenworld

I most certainly won't be making a contribution - except information, and even then reluctantly. Wikipedia is the most corrupt society on the web. Admin is stuffed with the dishonest. This lack of honesty in discussions I assume comes from the top. I therefore wouldn't trust Jimbo as far as I could throw him. No offence. But if there is nothing in policy about frowning (at least) on dishonesty, and an inability by anyone to call a liar a liar, then this lack at the root is Jimbo's inadequacy. Why can you call a vandal a vandal, a spammer a spammer, but you can't call a liar a liar? Especially if it's a group of Admin liars? Like User:Jehochman in the 2009 ArbCom elections? User:Ruslik0 in the same elections? User:YellowMonkey, User:Ckatz? 87.113.113.0 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

I have removed the last comment (diff) because it is offtopic. However, it may be worth noting here that Wikipedia is not associated with WikiLeaks. See WP:Wikileaks is not part of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikia

It is my understanding that he co-founded wikia. However there is no external link to his Wikia account. Shouldn't that be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.162.8 (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. I, like many other editors, often remove an excess number of external links from articles. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY it is not Wikipedia's role to provide all possible links, and WP:EL shows no reason to add a link to a user page at Wikia. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh well they have the other co-founder's account liked here so I assumed that his should too. Just trying to help. 69.206.162.8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

appeal to donate

With all due respect it is annyoing to permanently see Jimbo Bimbo Wales popping up with his fake appeal to "donate" . --Nostradamustk (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. ~ Concerned Wikipedia user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.5.78 (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

take action

Hello mistor Vales, I want to say that the Russian version of Wikipedia, one participant(Bff) did not want to gash full information about the famous Russian man who became famous thanks to a voluntary movement prank Valery Volnov.take action —Preceding unsigned comment added by Википедатор (talk • contribs) 10:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Leader of Wikipedia

Is this true or taken out of context. See Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 13#Editorial power has changed. QuackGuru (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Editorial power curbed

Wales says Wikipedia role unchanged, but editorial power has been curbed. This reference and matierial about role and power can be added to Jimmy Wales#Role. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's wrong and can't be added.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is left wing politically and a bastion of Jewish Supremacism

The best thing you could possibly ever do is liberate the Jewish Controlled areas of wikipedia and break the left wing cabel that controls wikipedia. That's worth a million dollar donation. If you can't do that, you might be surprised in the future when you are no longer #5. Build a NEUTRAL ENCYCLOPEDIA WITHOUT JEWISH SUPREMACISM. 195.91.56.231 (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)