Talk:Jimmy Wales
If you need to contact Jimbo about something, please do so at User_talk:Jimbo Wales, not here. As Jimbo himself 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)
Biography GA‑class | |||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Spoken Wikipedia | ||||
|
Jimmy Wales received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Template:Bounty notice Template:Bounty notice
Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jimmy Wales article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
Archives |
---|
Infobox
The infobox for me lists information that is not typically listed for other people's biographies. Generally, when we do not have information, we do not put it in the infobox. I think it looks very strange to have my salary net worth listed as "unknown". In a random sample of pages I looked at which also have this infobox, it is normally blank (so it does not show at all) unless we have an actual figure.
Additionally, a quick search on the net on the name "Christine A. Wales" reveals that the Wikipedia article itself is essentially the only place on the web where this name appears. There is no source given.
In my opinion, the entire discussion of Larry's spurious claim to be cofounder of Wikiepdia is about as horrible and biased as it has ever been, but years of complaining about this have done me very little good. Still if there could be some appreciation of the fact that Larry's claiming something loudly and for a long time does not change the facts, that would be a very good thing. --Jimbo Wales 20:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
He was on Wait Wait... Don't tell me.
Jimmy Wales was just on Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!. It should be added.
Moreover, he got his three questions, which were about information found on Wikipedia, wrong.
- The statement that is in the article is unsourced. I'm removing it. It can go back in (hopefully a little better written) when it cites a source. A link to the archived audio of the show would be a primary source, a link to the NPR website page that lists him as a guest would probably be considered a secondary source. The part about the number of questions he got right or wrong would probably be considered original research, since it would be a synthesis of fact (conclusionary) of the primary source. Unless a reliable secondary source can be cited stating how many questions he got wrong, that part should stay out. - Crockspot 16:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Actually, the information was in two different places in the article, both unsourced. Removed both. - Crockspot 17:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is pretty trivial to verify that he did appear on the show. http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=35 As for the answers -- the number of questions right/wrong can also be easily verified by listening to the audio feed -- hardly OR. Although, how the significance of that fact gets characterized is a matter that could easily be distorted. older ≠ wiser 17:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to verify the appearance. I will disagree about the OR nature of reporting the number of questions that were missed. Reporting this would require that the contributor listened to a primary source, and characerized the content of what he heard. Is not the act of listening, and then reporting on what was listened to original research? Producing a direct transcript of the audio would be probably the only way this would not be OR. (Listening and writing down accurately exactly what was said. Could even be Wikisource material.) Summarizing and characterizing the content would be synthesis, and WOULD be OR. The audio of the show is a primary source, and should only be used to further verify a secondary source, such as a newspaper article, or possibly a comment about it on NPR's website. Otherwise, it should be left to the reader to listen and draw their own conclusion. - Crockspot 17:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Reading the transcript to determine the number of correct/incorrect answers entails precisely the same sort of determination as listening to a recording of the show. If you consider one to be OR, the other is as well. I don't agree that reporting such uncontroversial and easily verified factual determinations as the number of right/wrong answers to be OR. Anyone who listens or reads the transcript will come to precisely the same determination--there is no ambiguity as to the number of questions answered right or wrong. Even a simple summary of the questions asked and the answers given would not be OR, IMO (if that is OR, then half of Wikipedia goes away instantly). Of course, whether it is necessary to include that level of detail is debatable though. But I agree that attaching some significance or characterization to the answers beyond their factual existence is another matter. Any sort of evaluative judgment would need to be sourced. older ≠ wiser 18:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- "then half of Wikipedia goes away instantly" - Hopefully, at least half. I wish I had a magic wand. OR is a cancer that is eating up WP. You make a decent argument though. I am basing my opinion on the Wikisource standards, where, copyright issues notwithstanding, direct transcripts of audio and language translations of other primary sources is allowed. (The simple act of accurately converting one format to another.) If it is significant, notable, or ironic enough of an incident that it deserves inclusion in the article, one would think that a reliable secondary source would make note of it over the next few days. If Wired News doesn't even make a peep about it, then the notability of the questions missed would be limited to a crufty audience, ie., Wikipedia editors who like to take shots at Mr. Wales. - Crockspot 19:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- further comment - As someone who has not heard the broadcast, I found the statements to be somewhat stick-jabbing. If I am going to read that he missed the questions, I would also like to know what those questions were, and what he answered. Were they "trick questions"?. Were they questions about minute trivia facts about the Great Prince Edward Island Potato Revolt of 1916? (I just made that up, btw.) - Crockspot 19:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't recall the details, but the questions were about pretty obscure trivia, supposedly found using the Random article function. older ≠ wiser 19:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- That right there tells me that it is not noteworthy that he missed three questions. I use the random article link all the time to find uncategorized BLP articles. About three fourths of the hits are things or people I have never heard of, nor would ever hear of, except that someone somewhere on Earth found it necessary to creat an article about it. Crockspot 20:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't recall the details, but the questions were about pretty obscure trivia, supposedly found using the Random article function. older ≠ wiser 19:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Reading the transcript to determine the number of correct/incorrect answers entails precisely the same sort of determination as listening to a recording of the show. If you consider one to be OR, the other is as well. I don't agree that reporting such uncontroversial and easily verified factual determinations as the number of right/wrong answers to be OR. Anyone who listens or reads the transcript will come to precisely the same determination--there is no ambiguity as to the number of questions answered right or wrong. Even a simple summary of the questions asked and the answers given would not be OR, IMO (if that is OR, then half of Wikipedia goes away instantly). Of course, whether it is necessary to include that level of detail is debatable though. But I agree that attaching some significance or characterization to the answers beyond their factual existence is another matter. Any sort of evaluative judgment would need to be sourced. older ≠ wiser 18:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to verify the appearance. I will disagree about the OR nature of reporting the number of questions that were missed. Reporting this would require that the contributor listened to a primary source, and characerized the content of what he heard. Is not the act of listening, and then reporting on what was listened to original research? Producing a direct transcript of the audio would be probably the only way this would not be OR. (Listening and writing down accurately exactly what was said. Could even be Wikisource material.) Summarizing and characterizing the content would be synthesis, and WOULD be OR. The audio of the show is a primary source, and should only be used to further verify a secondary source, such as a newspaper article, or possibly a comment about it on NPR's website. Otherwise, it should be left to the reader to listen and draw their own conclusion. - Crockspot 17:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not that I can include this in the article, of course, but I just finished listening to the podcast edition of "Wait Wait" a minute ago that featured Jim Wales. For the curious, he did indeed miss all three questions, which the host claimed ((possibly in jest) involved trivia culled using the Random Article button on Wikipedia. The actual questions of the segment called "It must be true, I read it on Wikipedia" were -
- 1) "The early 1970's TV kids show The Banana Splits was a cult hit that inspired many artists over the years. It inspired which of these artists? A) George Lucas, who says that the aliens in his famous Star Wars cantina scene were based on the lovable characters Fleegle, Bingo, Drooper, and Snorky?; or B) Reggae legend Bob Marley who used a version of the theme song in one of his most famous reggae ballads; or C) Avant garde film maker Matthew Barney who says his obsession with modifying the human body began when he used to daydream about ripping off Fleegle's costume"
- 2) "Constance of Sicily, wife of the Holy Roman Emporer Henry IV, had a problem. She was 40 years old when she finally became pregnant and she knew that people wouldn't believe that the child, the heir to the throne, was actually hers. So what did she do? A) Arrange for her dress to "accidentally" fall off in the middle of a procession so everybody could see just how pregnant she was; B) Have a spot tattooed on birth her back and the baby's back and then claim it was a shared birthmark; or C) Give birth to her child in the middle of the town square?"
- 3) "Who, or what, or where is a "ah-sarah-too-wallow" (ed: pronunciation spelled out here)? A) a tiny island near Samoa which was once in the 1880's history's smallest independent nation; B) the third NFL player to openly declare himself to be gay; C)an assistant demon in the Japanese video game Tales of Symphonia?"
- (Answers: 1-B (in the song Buffalo Soldier); 2-C; 3-B (Esera Tuaolo) )
- Very funny segment. Kudos to Jim for giving it his best. Dugwiki 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Guardian article
[1] Worth listing in further reading? Hammer Raccoon 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
YouTube
There's this interview with Jimbo on YouTube. "Jimmy Wales from Wikipedia". --71.224.24.99 00:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Is that the chick from Real World Seattle interviewing him? The sound isn't so hot (I could barely understand what Jimbo was saying, Irene comes through VERY CLEAR), and it looks like the cameraman passed out for about ten seconds, but it actually looks like it might be one of the few You Tube links that is acceptable, since it was posted by the producers. No apparent copyvio. In the interview, Jimbo says that one of the most important rules of WP is don't be a dick. :) - Crockspot 01:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi again
Have a question. Jimbo's talk page is protected, why is that? -71.224.24.99 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- This would be a topic more appropriately taken up on.. um.. Jimbo's talk page. :) It's semi-protected from unregistered and brand-new users. Not uncommon for pages that get a lot of vandalism. If you register a username and use it for a day or two, you can probably edit that page. Crockspot 01:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hackers
i fear that someone is trying to hack onto my wikipedia accound since he knows my password. But when i created my account i opted for no email adress so i cant get a password is there another way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stone not Wood house (talk • contribs) 12:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
- This is not the place to ask. Try the Pump. oTHErONE (Contribs) 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Pashto language Wikitionary
Hallo Sir!
I want to change the interface of Pashto Wikitionary. i can not do that unless i am not the admin of Pashto wikitionary. I am responsible for the translation of Pashto Wikipedia, now i want to change the interface of the other Pashto wikisister projects. So if you could grant me with adminship permit on that wiki i would be thankful to u for that.
kind regards