Jump to content

Talk:Jimmy Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 119.67.113.78 (talk) at 06:00, 8 April 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeJimmy Wales was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 14, 2005Articles for deletionKept
August 14, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
August 31, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
March 25, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Quora

I find it bizarre that the founder of WIKI is missing information. Can anyone add information about his involvement in Quora project? I am willing to help but I don't have that many secondary sources so I don't want to mess up the article with primaries.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FreeatlastChitchat, if secondary sources aren't available that is perhaps an indication his involvement is not that notable. --NeilN talk to me 01:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN I meant that I personally do not have access to many sources because I don't have accounts on JSTOR etc. I can search google to find books and journals but when I follow the links I am not able to view the text. When you have some free time please be kind enough to put a message on my talk page. I will just link everything I have to you so you can create the content. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeatlastChitchat: If you want the text of sources you can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. --NeilN talk to me 17:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Jimbo Wales proposed to be deleted

Not going to lead to anything. --NeilN talk to me 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jimbo Wales proposed to be deleted on Russian Wikipedia[1]77.234.42.180 (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that didn't last very long. Does the IP plan to try to delete every notable person's article they don't like? or is it just the one on Jimbo. Looks like the IP is guilty as heck of exactly what he thinks Jimbo has done. What a hoot! Oh! and a Joyous, Prosperous and Happy New Year to Jimbo and to all who read this! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... and thanks for using that nice plain English edit summary over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Jimbo is not notable at all! If he was not owner of Wiki, he wouldn't be worth 1 minute if discussion. He should delete his article himself. If he had minimum moral integrity! Wikipedia is just the instrument for interference to other states internal affairs! But again very insignificant one! 212.83.144.167 (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Russian wiki think he's notable? And they have a lovely red-nosed snowman wiki globe over there! Bless. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WOW. That's the silliest thing I ever heard. Hafspajen (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Jimbo travel to Balkans at least in one country he would be arrested. You know in which one. As for Russians, they simply respect fact that he is owner, nothing more. So Jimbo, don't you ever travel to Balkans. I wish you long and prosperous life. 77.234.42.180 (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the hoots just keep on comin'! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Net Worth

The Irish Independent says that Wales is worth "by some estimates, about $1m..." [2] and the New York Times Magazine says his net worth is, "by most estimates", "just above $1 million". [3] I think this should be included in the infobox rather than the "unknown" value currently in place. Everymorning talk 14:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in any case, the NYT estimate by nature will remain dated, due swings in stock valuations (and Wales, as of today, presumably has $½ million in Knwldge Prize money which currently is in the process of donation to his human rights foundation). To acct for these two issues I suggest use in the blp of a template:As of?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should the $1 million prize he's to be awarded be included in his networth? Banak (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see how he plans to spend it? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 03:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate redux

Britannica now gives August 8th as Jimmy Wale's birthdate, with this researcher's note: http://www.britannica.com/topic/1192821/supplemental-information I think we can conclusively resolve this issue and make the correction. Brianbleakley (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I updated his birthdate. I understand some think it has value as an ironic symbol of Wikipedia's fallibility, but that's no excuse to leave bad information on the encyclopedia.Brianbleakley (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except, by doing this silly thing, you've introduced bad information into Wikipedia. Change it back, it was correct before, as has been discussed endlessly in the past.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimbo Wales: I have changed it back--5 albert square (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't understand the issue, and I don't see any discussion of this that references the 2011 Britannica change. I thought the reason that the 7th was given as Mr. Wales' birthday was because there were no reputable sources that gave his correct birthday; there were only sources that got his birthdate from the original incorrect wikipedia article. That is the way the media portrays this story.
What was the reason for Mr. Wales to give his updated birthdate information to Britannica if not to correct this inaccuracy? The explanation given here http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2007/07/on_wikipedia_and_its_founders.html (this the JW article's reference before I changed it) uses Britannica as its reference (which now gives the 8th as the date). Regardless, if you are reverting the birthdate you will also have to change the reference, because the reference is currently Britannica (which again gives the 8th). And even if the 7th was his actual birthday, shouldn't we use the 8th until someone can point to a more recent (post-2011) reputable source that gives a different date? Brianbleakley (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see now from reading a post on JW's talk page that he intentionally sent Britannica a photo of his incorrect passport to make them update their article with false information. So now WP is more accurate than EB? Is that the joke? Unfortunately I don't think there is a more recent source than Britannica that states its actual means of discerning JW's birthdate, so unless we can reference a posting on a WP talk page I think the best course of action is to leave the incorrect date on WP. I will email EB and let them know that JW is making a joke at their expense, just in case they are unaware.Brianbleakley (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how any Wikipedian could possibly come to the conclusion that the best course of action is to leave incorrect information in a Wikipedia article. That is just so contradictory to the whole purpose of an encyclopedia. Deli nk (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how any Wikipedian could intentionally submit incorrect information to a rival encyclopedia, but seeing as I am outnumbered I won't make any further changes to this article. If you are going to leave the birthdate as the 7th please try to find an appropriate reference. As far I as I can tell the only source on this subject (that actually has a reference of its own) gives the date as the 8th. Brianbleakley (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianbleakley:, I am sorry that you feel that way especially as your edit was done with good intentions. However, before I changed it again, I did check Wikipedia and various other sources and @Jimbo Wales: is correct, there have been endless discussions about this, here and here were two that particularly stuck out to me. I also searched Google and other sources and found this reliable source stating the same as Jimbo regarding his date of birth and this one supporting that he was born on 7 August.
I also happen to agree very much with Jimbo that his mum is unlikely to forget when her first born was born. It's one of the most important moments of your life - you're not likely to forget or confuse it very easily.--5 albert square (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, can't we just ask him himself? He does have a userpage on Wikipedia after all. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph, it has already been done to death on Jimbo's talk page. He has said that the correct date is the 7th.--5 albert square (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do people feel the need to argue it still? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Internet. --Onorem (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure no one cares but Britannica's researcher's note is now updated. You're welcome. Brianbleakley (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to seem like I care, but thank you, Brianbleakley! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 08:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was interesting when it was mentioned in the 60 Minutes story last night. But its positive proof that print sources can be wrong and should be challenged and/or confirmed like any other source. Were it not for Jimbo challenging a Primary (and presumably definitive, his birth certificate) source, we would default to the print source and be done with it. Blocks and bans might even be handed out as a result of blind and uncompromising adherence to Policy. But the Editor corps has done the right thing, dug deeper, and incorporated accurate information. I'm heading back to the Special:PendingChanges list... Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just say "August 7 or 8". Admit doubt. --64.228.88.197 (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

60 Minutes effect

Just for some readers' interests: http://stats.grok.se/en/201504/Jimmy_Wales The page view skyrocketed from 928 on Apr 5 to 4564 on Apr 6 thanks to the 60 Minutes segment. 119.67.113.78 (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Wales&oldid=655461955"