Talk:Jimmy Wales

If you need to contact Jimbo about something, please do so at User talk:Jimbo Wales, 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)"

Relevance of certain topics

I'm having a hard time understanding both the meaning of the following paragraph as well as the relevance of its topic:

"Later, during a question-and-answer period, Wales was asked by a school-aged child what Wales’s favorite article was that a third grader could read. Wales (after some consideration) said that Inherently funny word would probably be the case.[30] He later cautioned that a parent may want to check on this before sending their child to the site. However, perhaps a new word will be added to this article because the questioner after a few attempts at pronunciation asked if “genie-whatever that was” was one of those words, and if it was the study of genies. Wales said that this question should be answered by his parents and continued with the forum.[30]"

This seems to be an anecdote, but nothing more. I do not feel that it should be included in the article. It is also difficult to comprehend without careful examination. What does everyone think?

Also, the "Personal Philosophy" section does not seem relevant to me. Everyone has a personal philosophy, and usually it is not notable unless this philosophy was a major cultural influence (such as in the case of Adam Smith or Ayn Rand). Furthermore, the philosophy of "freedom, liberty, basically individual rights, that idea of dealing with other people in a matter that is not initiating force against them", seems basically the same as what we in America know as "progressivism", so I would not say it is even a notable philosophy.

Feedback, anyone? BrickMcLargeHuge 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Both segements should be deleted - it would improve the article greatly if they were removed. 67.184.29.7 00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Only the first should be deleted. The personal philosophy is inherently notable for (someone claiming to be) a founder of an encyclopedia. And Objectivism is not progressivism. Bramlet Abercrombie 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would nuke them both, but thats me :) --Tom (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not progressivism; communitarianism, perhaps. (like most of Wikipedia's editors; or perhaps you'd prefer "socialism". "Eight Ways to Run the Country" is a good source.)

What a clever guy

This guy made Wikipedia. He must have 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000IQ

Hey, it's not like he didn't have help. 68.117.211.187 (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, he decided to purge that help, along with the rest of the truth on Wikipedia.

Speaking of Sanger, there's been a little edit war over the controversy section, with two editors undoing User:Jhurlburt's edit to change "Wikipedia co-founder** Larry Sanger" (where *s are citations) to just "Sanger". I'm going to repeat the same edit, but I'm going to explain my reasons here so I don't end up as a candidate for WP:LAME. The preceding sentence already mentions Sanger, and the fact that there is controversy over Jimmy editing this article to remove references to Sanger as co-founder. Thus, it is a simple matter of style to say that (1) you don't need to mention the full name, and (2) you don't have to call him a co-founder. It's not like the citations are lost, either, because they're both repeated from elsewhere. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that it would be clunky to mention Sanger as co-founder in the previous sentence. The next sentence introduces Sanger's comments so its appropriate and in context to call him co-founder there. I am not sure if as much space is given to flesh this point out is really needed. It seems like it rambles abit at the end of that section and we have multiple quotes of Wales calling it preposterous and absurd?? The whole thing could be shortened. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, I'm not sure it has to be mentioned at all. The first time Sanger's name is mentioned is in a description of his role in creating Wikipedia, so obviously calling him a co-founder there isn't really necessary. Then, in this section, the previous sentence refers to Jimmy removing references to Sanger as co-founder, thus at the very least establishing the fact that there is a claim of Sanger being a co-founder. Then, in the "Development of Wikipedia" section, we apparently have more of the "Jimmy says he isn't, but these sources say he is" (which incidentally isn't about the "Development of Wikipedia" at all anyway - may as well call it the "Co-founder controversy"), and finally, in Sanger's article, all the evidence is presented again.

I certainly don't dispute the claims that Sanger is a co-founder, but I agree with Jhurlburt's edit summary that suggests that the "Wikipedia co-founder Sanger" bit is "shoehorning" the fact in. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, I notice that was actually just split off from the "Wikipedia biography" section by User:QuackGuru. Like I just said, at the very least I'm not sure it's the right title for the section. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't like my edit. Therefore, I reverted it. Happy?  Mr.Guru  talk  05:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

redirected from fatass

just thought you should know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.225.199 (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Early roles of creators

What's the point of this section in a biography? Seems like it would be more relevant in an article about the early history of Wikipedia. It should be deleted. 68.117.211.187 (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, it contains several classic errors, such as that Sanger was responsible for the idea of applying the wiki concept to the encyclopedia project. The first person to propose it to me was a different employ, Jeremy. And even in Sanger's telling of the history, the idea was given to him by a friend of his, Ben Kovitz. I do not think Sanger has ever claimed to have had the idea.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake! I used to think you must be a really great guy, but this shabby business of you trying to take the credit away from Larry Sanger has severely lowered my opinion of you. It's not that I think that it doesn't matter who was responsible for what - I think it's very important, if only because knowing what someone has achieved in the past allows you to judge how much time to give their ideas in the present and future, which is of course important given that we only have a finite amount of time to give to other people's ideas. It's just that the evidence that Sanger presents is surely concrete. Contrary to what you write above, and as I have no doubt you are very well aware, Sanger does not claim that the idea of applying the wiki concept to an encyclopedia was Kovitz's, but merely says that Kovitz introduced him to the concept of a wiki. Sanger has claimed all along that he had the idea of Wikipedia (as well as coming-up with the name). If you know anything about history, you should know that the truth always comes-out, and becomes widely recognised, with time. All you've achieved with this childishness is to ensure that history will refer to you as the guy who co-founded Wikipedia, but who tried to make everyone believe that he was the sole founder. 89.241.173.47 (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick

Are you sure that reads better than my version? SamEV (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I preferred your edit. The concept of good grammar escapes some people. Jhurlburt (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The version they prefer is every bit of an eyesore. SamEV (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was this erased (was it good faith vandalism)

Can someone explain this edit?

According to Wales this is true.

 Mr.Guru  talk  02:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the reference you posted? The information in Wales' bio is wrong according to the reference. This is what you restored:

"In 1999 Wales had a student design software for a top-down design multilingual encyclopedia website; however, it proved to be too slow to be usable."

And this is what the reference says:

"Jimmy Wales: I had the idea for a freely licensed [online] encyclopedia written by people in various languages in 1999, and I had a philosophy student design it. The problem was that it had a top-down design and was way too slow."

The philosophy student Wales refers to was Sanger and the encyclopedia was Nupedia. Sanger didn't design the software for the Nupedia, he just setup the framework for the encyclopedia. The sentence you keep on reinserting makes it sound like he hired some student to build a program to run an online encyclopedia but it was too slow and buggy to work. This is not the case.

Your addition to the section "Early life" is also quite poor:

"...Doris, and his grandmother, Erma, ran a small private school, in the tradition of the one-room schoolhouse, where Wales received his education. Wales' early education took place in a one-room schoolhouse.".

Sounds a bit redundant to my ears. Almost as redundant as the line you keep adding to the section "Wikipedia biography":

"...Wales had removed references to Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.[32][33] Wikipedia co-founder[7][34] Sanger commented that..."

Literally three words separate the two co-founder statements. Jhurlburt (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this guy even of note?

Why is there an artical on this guy, I thought it was against the wikipedia rules to make personal articles about non-public figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.141.203 (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was also under the impression vanity pages were against the rules Schnauzerhead (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This should be at the bottom of the page, but anyway ... First, it's not a vanity page - that assumes it's written by the person who it's about, or someone closely related to them, and while Jimbo has edited the article at times, most of the text is definitely not his. Second, the threshold for deletion is WP:BIO, which requires multiple non-trivial references to the article's subject in reliable secondary sources to determine notability, and if you take a look at the number of references in the article you will see that there is no problem with that. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV problems, as usual

"During this time one of the projects Wales undertook was the creation of a dot-com erotic soft-core pornography search engine, Bomis, that later helped in the initial funding for Wikipedia.[11]"

Bomis was not an "erotic soft-core pornography serach engine". It was a general interest search engine, which covered the whole of the Internet. It is absurd to repeat this lie yet again, even when later in the article there is the very clear section about me disputing this nonsense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the interesting part of that sentence, which Jossi had altered. The reference given plainly doesn't support any characterization of Bomis, except as a search engine. It further doesn't purport the characterization of the site to be at all significant to jimbo, except insofar as he opposed calling it porn. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Bomis

Could somebody please tell me what is supposed to be controversial about Bomis? Guy (Help!) 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Its very nature. Wales describes it as a search engine, whereas others seem to remember it essentially as a porn portal. The matter wouldn't be controversial, of course, if Wales hadn't removed it from the Internet Archive, in which case anyone could see what it was... Bramlet Abercrombie 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So that gets discussed on Bomis. Oh, hey, look, it is discussed on Bomis! There is nothing especially controversial about that, though, is there? I mean, it's not like he's Larry Flynt or anything. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you might as well remove the Wikipedia-related information, because it's discussed on Wikipedia, and cut the article down to a stub. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Also it would be good to have some indication that "Wales edits own biography shock" has made the front page of Time or something; I feel it's distinctly self-referential and not actually of that much interest to anyone else. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Things don't have to make the front page of Time to be notable. This was widely reported. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It was dfiscussed a bit, a while back. are we sure it's one of the most notable events in Wales' life? That's what we're saying here. Looks like WP:UNDUE to me. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his obsession with his own image and his attempt to write Sanger out of history is very telling about his character. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey.... keep your personal opinions about people treated in Wikipedia articles, out of talk pages. Discuss the article, not the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's good that he's up front in this way. Having openly admitted that he has an agenda against the subject of this article, it is plain that Bramlet Abercrombie has no business editing the article directly; it's always good to know when people have these strong biases against the subjects of biographies so we can watch and restrict them from damaging the articles. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guy and Jimbo on this one, and re our living people's bio policy we need to respect the subject of this article and his observations about the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DOB controversy

Keep - The DOB controversy is notable for several reasons.... various reliable sources disagree about the date, it plays to the debate about the accuracy of Wikipedia (i.e. if we can't even provide the correct DOB for Wikipedia's founder how can any of the info be trusted) and it ties in with the greater controversy about Wales' editing of his own bio. Plus, from a pragmatic standpoint, it provides an easy reference point for Wikipedia editors for when someone decides to change Wales' birthday, which happens every few months. Jhurlburt 18:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We need refs about the dob controversy, refs indicating different dobs will not do. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

They are there.... I see Wales' blog (normally blogs don't count but if they are maintained by the subject of the bio Wikipedia allows it), the article where Wales says nobody knows when his birthdate is and the EB researcher's footnote. 67.91.170.251 20:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please can you give me some refs here on this page to have a look at. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain why that is a "controversy" and why it is notable for inclusion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jhurlburt: the vast majority of your last 500 edits are exclusively to this article, most of which could be considered tendentious. May you consider stopping this for a while? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of my edits are listed to whatever IP I'm assigned when logging on. I only log in when I feel the desire to edit a protected entry. I'll probably stop paying attention to Wales' bio once editors start respecting the concept of NPOV (e.g. stop referring to Wales as the sole founder or shoehorning Sanger in as co-founder every chance they get). Jhurlburt 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've already stated that. But do you have anything to say about the article or any particular edits? Personally, I think that the mention in EB and the article by Rogoway provide enough of a bases that a controversy exists. Plus, primary sources can be used in a BLP if the primary source is the person themselves (e.g. Wales' blog and his statements in his Wikipedia Talk page). Since some jokers keep on inserting Aug 8th as Wales' birthday every few months having a section that addresses the birthday issue along with all relevant sources seems pretty useful to me. Jhurlburt 00:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

== Re: Rfc: Can statements challanged for a long time and not cited be removed on a biography? ==

You might want to take a look at D. James Kennedy regarding a group of editors who are insisting on keeping unverified (and challanged for a few months via the {{fact}} tag) in the article in contradiction to WP:Verifiability. Thanks for your time and interest. Swarm Internationale (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing WikiPedia

I added the BBC News which I read here in our Philippine Daily Inquirer which stressed the importance of WikiPedia for students:

On December 6, 2007, Wales stated at the Online Information conference in London's Olympia that teachers who prohibit students from citing Wikipedia are "bad educators". Wales reasoned that new editing and checking procedures make Wikipedia more reliable. Florentino floro (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think we should be including every news article that turns up the pike about Wales. We recently deleted a whole section that was nothing but a huge list of such articles and I think the bio is he better for it. I really don't see how this statement by Wales adds to his bio..... it would be a good addition to an article about Wikipedia, which this is not. 68.117.211.187 (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeated text in the article:

During this time one of the projects Wales undertook was the creation of the web portal Bomis, a website featuring user generated content that linked to adult content on the Internet and which The Atlantic Monthly called the "Playboy of the Internet." Bomis also provided the initial funding for the Nupedia project.[11][12] During this time one of the projects Wales undertook was the creation of the web portal Bomis, a website featuring user generated content that linked to adult content on the Internet and which The Atlantic Monthly called the "Playboy of the Internet." Bomis also provided the initial funding for the Nupedia project.[13][14][15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.116.31.46 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Nufy8 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bomis paragraph in Career subsection

What's the point in having this paragraph in the Career subsection?

Bomis sold erotic materials until mid-2005. Wales was asked in a September 2005 C-SPAN interview about his previous involvement with what the interviewer, Brian Lamb, called "dirty pictures." In response, Wales described Bomis as a "guy-oriented search engine," with a market similar to that of "Maxim" magazine's scantily clad women.[9] In a phone interview with Wired News, he also explained that he disputed the categorization of Bomis content as "soft-core pornography" saying, "If R-rated movies are soft porn, it was porn. In other words, no, it was not. That description is inaccurate."[13]

Wouldn't this be better utilized under the Wikipedia biography subsection or in the article for Bomis itself? 68.117.211.187 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is okay where it is as Bomis was clearly a part of his career. I have, though, removed "Bomis sold erotic materials until mid-2005." as unreferenced, please do not return without a Reliable Source. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the paragraph above is in the right section as it seems to be connected to a contraversy later in his carreer about the nature of Bomis.com. If you don't know anything about later events it is unclear why the site's nature is such a big deal. If this is connected to the edits to his Wikipedia biography in 2005 then I think this information should be in that section. If this information is notable for other reasons the information needs moving to the relevant section and its importance needs to be explained in the article. --Kaly99 (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

The lead is too short. It should be 2-3 paragraphs long.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Ruslik (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This article also has stability problems. It changes significantly, sometimes week by week and is a constant source of edit warring. It's verifiability and neutrality are also in question.... at least in regards to the sections Roles of creators and Wikipedia biography. Does it really meet the criteria of a good article? 68.117.211.187 (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Added cleanup notice on main page in order to promote edits that will preserve Good Article status. Jhurlburt (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the cleanup notice, because the reason it was put in the article ("to promote edits that will preserve Good Article status") is taken away by delisting the article. And otherwise the notice could be added to all articles that are not of GA status. – Ilse@ 01:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As I can observe the lead has not been expanded. In addition a clean-up tag was inserted into the article. I feel that I have no other option except delisting this article. Ruslik (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please help me - I just want to clear my name now

This section moved to User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Please_help_me_-_I_just_want_to_clear_my_name_now

Wow! You'd have thought the guy suggested that "Jimbo" Wales didn't create the idea for Wikipedia! Sorry, not currently logged in... 222.8.158.107 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

V8 juice

Do you like spicy V8 Juice? Some magazine said you always had it in the refrigerator, according to 67.81.42.30 76.109.59.213 (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is actually Nupedia!

I didn't know that Wales "co-founded the free online encyclopedia Nupedia (2000), that was later renamed to Wikipedia (2001)". Wow, the more you know! 67.184.29.7 (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is a lie put here by people who want to adversely affect Wales' reputation. Unfortunately wikipedia is not always reliable, as in this case as he was the founder of wiokipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I guess someone should correct the article's lead. I would but the article is protected.67.184.29.7 (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Media and honors" section

I've made a list form of that section in my sandbox. Strangely, I've noticed that the way the current section is arranged seems to resemble a list that was changed to be more "encyclopedic". I wasn't sure if that really was the case, even after looking in the history tab and the this talk page's many archives. As a result, I could be just be suggesting an old suggestion...

For now, though, would my draft be suitable as a replacement for the current section? CptCutLess (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it. However, I think we should limit the list only to the many awards and honors that Mr. Wales has received and not include every single media appearance the man has made. I see no reason why Wales' Nov. 4th 2006 appearance on Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! is so notable as to warrant listing. In another vein Wales' Dec. 6th, 2007 quote about teachers who refuse to let their students use Wikipedia should be worked into the article instead of being thrown haphazardly into a list. Jhurlburt (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I can definitely agree with those two appearances. I copied this article's "Personal Philosophy" section to my sandbox, too, and just added the Dec. 6, 2007 quote to that section. I really don't think the Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! appearance is all that important, either (at least not for an encyclopedia). Well, I'm going to replace the article's certain sections with my section and see how things work out. CptCutLess 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

This is proberbly the wrong palce, although as a relatively new editor I dont feel confident putting this on the guys uuserpage. I followed some links from another userpage, and something came up about a mailing list scandal, and stuff like that, is this all a load of BS? Or is it untrue that WP: THERE IS NO CABAL? Cos certain behaviour shown in the article of users and admins here are in common with behaviour Ive seen before, but Im reluctant to just believe anything I read especially as this is quite a big issue from waht I gathered. So was there really a mailing list scandal? Do users really get blocked for questioning authroity? Also, were several (namely four) articles policed by editors intent on what I can only assume was shilling? I dont mean to accuse anyone, I just wnna see if there is an y truth in this based on the facts, or whether its just stupid. Dont just delte my comment if you feel its in the wrong place or somethign without awnsering, cos that would just confirm for me that THERE IS A CABAL.86.138.116.141 (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick summary: An administrator blocked a user, and when questioned about it said that the evidence was confidential, but had been emailed to other administrators and aribtration committee members. It turned out that the block was apparently invalid. As a result of this (and I believe other cases), there was a whole bunch of discussion about whether such confidential evidence was really the right way to go, including an arbitration case and a proposed policy in the works. Then certain media outlets and organisations, including several that are known to be highly critical of Wikipedia, picked up on it and magnified the drama past even the level it reached on-wiki, turning it into cries of "OMG SEKRIT ADMIN MAILING LISTS". As for the rest of your questions, I'll just point out that there are many policies and guidelines explaining how to treat articles, and editors, and 99% of the time they work. And next time, you certainly can post on User talk:Jimmy Wales, where you're just as likely to get an answer like this from a person like me as from Jimbo himself, anyway. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 16:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

GENIUS!!!

This guy must be a genius if he made this entire site!!!!!! Of course, he had some help, but making all these templates... It's a popularly used resource for research in this generation!!!!! WOW!!!!!! Just goes to show when you have a genius and lots of people around the world to help, you can really make something big!!!! Hananoshi 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Hananoshi

Have a son with him if you really like him ¬_¬. This is a talk page, not a forum. --Twicemost (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he didn't create everything, but he did found it. If you'd like to compliment him directly, he's got an account; User:Jimbo Wales. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As bad as I have ever seen it

1. Bomis was not an "adult webportal". This is trolling, plain and simple. 2. WP:UNDUE is the only response I have to the nonsense of having my disagreements with Larry Sanger in the lead paragraph. I have done many interesting things in my career, and had many newsworthy things to say about many different things, but this is chosen as somehow being important enough to include in the lead... This, too, is trolling, plain and simple.

Notice, by the way, that Bomis was a fairly unimportant project from the beginning of my career, and not what most readers will be interested in. It is, of course, what most trolls are interested in, due to the ongoing smears about it. This article is a complete disgrace.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Sanger business from the lead. --Tom 15:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad educators?

"On December 6, 2007, Wales, while at the Online Information conference in London's Olympia, stated that teachers who prohibit students from citing Wikipedia are "bad educators". Wales reasoned that new editing and checking procedures make Wikipedia more reliable." This is complete rubbish. Did no one bother to ever read the actual text of that article? My position, as I state repeatedly in the media and elsewhere, is that teachers should generally prohibit students from citing Wikipedia: same as ever. I certainly do not call teachers who make such prohibitions "bad educators". This article is an embarassment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How would you rewrite that section? Does it even belong in the article? TIA --Tom 15:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it. I suggest if anyone wishes its inclusion they should discuss here first. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Restored. "Citing" had already been changed to "accessing," resolving the concern of inaccuracy. Mike R (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the sentence to reflect what Jimbo is reported as actually saying in the article. The blurb at the start of the BBC article doesn't accurately reflect the content of the article for example as the world teacher is not used in the body of the article. --Kaly99 (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. You have to be a real asshole to talk to us that way. I have contributed over 8,000 edits to wikipedia. My time was donated, for free. I never made money off of Wikipedia, nor was I ever flown around the world to promote it. I didn't make a name for myself off of it. If someone made a mistake with that quote (and it wasn't me, as I have never edited this page), the least you could do for the contributors who have gotten you where you are is politely point out that a mistake has been made and request someone to fix it. No one likes having their work called "rubbish" and "an embarassment [sic]." As for me, you've convinced me to stop working on this project. --Descendall (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

While I don't believe that it was your intention, Jimbo, and the comments about doing it all for free and not flying around the world promoting a subject are neither here nor there, I generally agree with Descendalls sentiments that you are being rather harsh on the editors here. If the text wasn't checked, then that's a mistake. Which can be corrected. This is afterall a wiki. I understand that it is hard to remain civil if you are being misquoted, and words are put in your mouth that you didn't say, and put you in a bad light. This is in essence a BLP issue, which should be taken seriously, and that other options that are available for other subjects of articles like OTRS are not available to you in a normal way, but that tone is really uncalled for. You know it's a wiki. Civilty on the web was practicly unheard of before you introduced it. You have done a lot for civilty on the web. Let's adhere to it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Civilty on the web was practicly unheard of before you introduced it." Give me a break! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whentittie (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Refactored comment. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Text of Jehovah's Witnesses

This introduction smear Jehovah's Witnesses and I write over NPOV text, but Japanese Wikipedian adoministrators block my contribution because of my faith, then I will decide to bring this case. Please comment. 125.193.23.145 (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Quit edit warring

Can we please quit this slow motion edit war about whether Wales was the founder/co-founder/sole-founder/whatever else I'm missing? In particular, I see that Bramlet Abercrombie and SqueakBox have been going at it, the past few days. I have no opinion on the outcome of the argument, other than that the edit war needs to stop before blocking and protection become tempting options. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the consensus above is not to mention this in the opening; its only Bramlet who wants it in the opening, there are clearly BLP concerns here as well. Bramlet might care to discuss his behaviour here. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the consensus was precisely the version I reverted to, namely to mention his "role in founding" or that he was "involved in founding" rather than either calling him founder or co-founder. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image size

Does anyone know how to reduce the image size in the infobox template? It's too large and it's making him look slightly maniacal. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added image size to the info box template on the page and set it to 200px for now, if the ratio needs changing use 200x300px (max width & max height). If the problem is the image itself there's a nice picture on the top of Jimbo's userpage that could be used instead. --Kaly99 (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks much better, Kaly, thank you. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism

To claim Wales engaged in revisionism is blatant POV pushing and makes him sound like a Stalionist. please do not re-add. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Squeak, re: your edit summary, I didn't undo all your edits, just the name thing. :-) [1] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If it makes him sound like a Stalinist, it is perhaps because he acts like one in so blatantly trying to change history. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bramlet, your POV is showing. But facts remain facts. NPOV remains NPOV. You should stop editing this article entirely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Facts remain facts, and co-founders remain co-founders. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This article could actually use a complete rewrite. Regardless of POV or anything else, the writing is just not good, and we highlight things that are not what he's known for, while being a little mealy-mouthed about the stuff that made him famous. I may try to work on something on a subpage, so as not to cause chaos. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Too short intro

Restored "Too short" tag to encourage the expansion of the intro so it meets Wikipedia guidelines. The lack of a proper intro was the main reason this article lost it's "Good Article" status. Jhurlburt (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

DOB

There are conflicting sources as to what his birthday really is.

The Florida public records say his birthday is August 8, 1966. Sources: http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2007/07/on_wikipedia_and_its_founders.html and here: http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2007/08/08/my-birthdate/ he insinuates that his birthday is August 8, 1966 by saying Britannica is wrong (which lists his birthday as August 7).

I think we should change this article to list his birthday as August 8 instead of August 7 because according to his blog, August 7 is wrong, or at least give note saying that his DOB is debated. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 09:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is already covered in his biography. More reliable, verifiable sources list his birthday as Aug. 7th. I've copied the relevant information below. 68.117.211.187 (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wales had previously edited his entries on Wikipedia and on the Wikimedia Foundation's website in 2004 to indicate his date of birth is August 7, 1966. He also made a statement in 2006 in which he wrote in part: "My date of birth is not August 8, 1966." The Encyclopædia Britannica, Current Biography, and Who’s Who in America support these statements. According to a researcher’s note on the Britannica’s website in June 2007, Wales contacted Britannica claiming that the date of August 7, 1966 was incorrect but was unwilling to provide them with a documented alternative. On July 27, 2007, when asked by Oregonian reporter Mike Rogoway when his birthday was Wales is reported to have mysteriously stated, "Nobody knows." Moreover, on his blog Rogoway claims that a Florida public records search shows that Wales’ drivers license lists his date of birth as August 8, 1966. In August 2007, Wales expanded on this in his Wikipedia talk page by stating, in part: "In any event, the quotes in the Oregonian are correct."

Wife

Why does the article name his daughter, but does not name his wife? Wjhonson (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The marriage index states the previous or maiden name of his wife. Can we state it? Wjhonson (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Co-founder dispute and BLP

The following articles mention Wales as co-founder, including with refs, and yet none of the articles have anything whatsoever to do with the dispute. Thus for biography policy reasons the co bit must be removed. Its okay in articles with relevance to the dispute but articles such as August 7 and Eric Hellweg clearly have nothing to do with the dispute, I am concerned people have been spamming this information into the articles in order to promote POV in this real life dispute. I bring it here because I based my research on the what links here page of the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Asia Commons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• August 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (birth section)
• Blogdex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ref x 2 (indeed the only refs in the article relate to dispute)
• Computer Security Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ref x 2
• Criticism of Microsoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Eric Hellweg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ref x 2
• Imagine (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ref x 2
• James Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) dab page
• Jimbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) dab page
• Librarians in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of University of Alabama people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Louise Blouin MacBain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mark Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2 refs
• Mark Taylor (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2 refs
• Net@nite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Notable Auburnites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Open source political campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Owning the Future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Peer-to-peer (meme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Randolph School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sollog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• St. Petersburg, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TED (conference) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You're making no sense at all. At August 7, for example, every listed person has a similar description, and co-founder is a factual description for Wales. I agree the refs should not be necessary, but they were added precisely to deter people like you from removing the "co-". As to "the dispute": again, there is no such thing. Wales alone disputing a well-sourced fact doesn't create "a dispute". Come back when you have a single relevant source clearly taking Wales' position. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should any of the articles have to be about "the dispute" to confirm he was known as co-founder? David D. (Talk) 18:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the question is why we should include the information. Remember our policies make it very clear that it is the person who adds info not he who removes it who has to jsutify themselves. Thjis is aminor point in Jimmy's life so why do you claim it is notable enough to go inot articles that have no relevance tot he dispute. To claim IO am making no sense at all strikes me as you need to re-read what I have written as your failure to comprehend is not my responsibility. Wales has countless times on wikipedia made it clear that he objects to this and therefore we have serious WP:BLP policy concerns here too. I dont to need to source Wales position to remove the info from articles that have no relevance to the dispute but you have certainly to prove notability and have so failed dismally. I await something better. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We should include the information because we include similar information for any other person in those articles. It's not a minor point in Jimmy's life that he co-founded Wikipedia, it is the thing that makes him most notable. What facts people object to is irrelevant. We aren't talking about some matter of privacy so that has nothing whatsoever to do with BLP. It has to do with NPOV. Yes you need to source Wales' position if you want to put it in the article, but there is no source other than Wales himself, thus it's meaningless. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what Wikipedia's first press release has to say about who founded Wikipedia, released one year after the founding (Jan. 15th, 2002):

"The founders of Wikipedia are Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger. Wales has supplied the financial backing and other support for the project, and Sanger, who earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Ohio State in 2000, has led the project."

I think that should settle the matter. 68.117.211.187 (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The matter is not at all settled, we haven't even begun from the look of it. You have still failed to show the notability of adding the co-founder bit of founder to any off topic articles, and without some very strong arguments it will need to be removed from all 23. I suggest we do this one article at a time. As I say I ma okay to keep the mention in relevant articles like Larry Sanger, Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia. Other users have pointed out that even adding to these articles in inappropriate ways is nothing other than trolling and I think this would be particularly apt were unjustified re-additions of co into non-relevant articles without a very strong justification first. I haven't even seen a weak justification yet for any of the 23 articles, and it is important that you are willing to compromise on this one. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What could be of more notability to Wales than the fact that he is co-founder of Wikipedia? And calling him just "founder" is needlessly imprecise. Encyclopedias are supposed to be precise. "Founder" on its own tends to make people assume "sole founder" which would be incorrect here. For an equivalent example, Wikipedia also describes Steve Wozniak invariably as "Apple co-founder", never just as "Apple founder" because that would be misleading. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As Wikipedia's earliest press release shows there was more than one founder of Wikipedia. In such a case when you need to refer to one of the founders and not all of them you must either say "a founder of..." or "co-founder of...". To simply say "founder of..." implies a singular number of founders, which in this case would be inaccurate. 68.117.211.187 (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, are you saying that Wales' role in starting wikipedia is unnotable and should not be in this article at all? David D. (Talk) 18:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys are splitting hairs where there are none... Fact is that Wales is an historical founder and current lead of the project. No one refers to Steve Jobs as "co-founder" of Apple. In the same manner, we do not need to prefix his name with "founder" or "co-founder" ... just wikilink his name, and that is enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware he is always referred to as the CEO of Apple. As far as him never being referred to as co-founder of apple, that seems not to be the case. David D. (Talk) 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL indeed. 800 hits on google for "co-founder" and 12,400,000 hits for his name, which is the point I am making. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Patronising me for looking at the quotes in context will not really make your point any stronger. Google should never be used as competition for quantity, look at the quality and context. The fact is he is referred to as co-founder by very relevent sources. Not "never" as you suggested. David D. (Talk) 16:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, Job's bio on Apple's site identifies his as co-founder. That's what he is. 68.117.211.187 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What is that point exactly? As David said, he's most commonly called CEO, which is a title of more current relevance. It's still also a fact that he is co-founder. And with Wales, you have no alternative, since he refused to adopt any "leader" title. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi. You have made a good point. I have no interest in seeing him recognised as any type of founder on these pages, what i object to is people insisting on bringing the conflict into aarticles that have nothing oto do with it. There are no refs that link Heggwell, Augyust 7 or Asia Commons to this di[pute or to Sanger and unless said refs are produced the co bit needs removing and I think removing the whole founder bit is a great solution. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The opening says internet entrepreneur, we could use that and remove any reference to wikiepdia in the 23 articles that actually have nothing to do with wikipedia. When you say "refused" you seem very hostile to Wales which I am not sure is appropriate given our BLP policies. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to go around and change all the references to Wales on Wikipedia to read, "Jimmy Wales, internet entrepreneur" go ahead and be my guest. That is an accurate description of who Wales is and does not misrepresent his history or that of Wikipedia. I think he is better known as Wikipedia's co-founder but I can endorse the use of the description "internet entrepreneur" as a suitable, if vague, compromise. 68.117.211.187 (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Controversy (co-foundership is referenced)

I was doing research to expand the Larry Sanger biography. Then I noticed something interesting. Someone may be deleting all references to co-founder wherever it is mentioned. What are the motivations for this edit or this edit? Saying his claim to fame is as "alleged" co-founder is a blockworthy BLP violation. Co-founder is referenced per Wikipeda policy. Please review the reference section. Both Sanger and Wales were identified as co-founders as early as September 2001[2] and Wikipedia's own press release in January 2002 described both as co-founders[3]. Quack Guru 19:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just silly. Squeakbox, would you honestly pursue such a case for any other bio on this website given the available documentation? David D. (Talk) 19:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up on the Jimmy Wales' discussion page? Either talk to the user directly, mention it in the Discussion page for Sanger or file a report. It has no business here. 68.117.211.187 (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just take it to the Spanish wikipedia, it has no business here, indeed I would propose deleting the thread as this clearly has no bearing on the English wikipedia. I would also point out that nobody on the Spanish wikiepdia has revrted me or made any comment about my edits there. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow.... that's the pot calling the kettle black. Your recent thread, Co-founder dispute and BLP, also had no reason to be posted on the Jimmy Wales' discussion page. This page is only for discussing the Jimmy Wales article and nothing else. 68.117.211.187 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true as all those articles relate to the en wikipedia, they area part of it, and in the spirit of fairness I felt it best to bring the issue here. The what links here page is always useful in rooting out BLP violations. There may be BLP vios in es too but one has to go there to fix that. Remember most people here do not speak Spanish but we can all read the articles I link above and judge for ourselves their relevance to Larry Sanger. The issues are not comparable but really if people care about what happens in es wikipedia thta is great and I am happy to discuss these issues over there. Also do remember that by discussing es wikipedia issues here we would be excluding the Spanish wikipedia community from making choices re the articles they have in Spanish. So no kettles or pots involved. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is the co-founder of Wikipedia (read the available documentation)

Hi there,

(This is a response to SqueakBox's last e-mail. It's time to go public with our private e-mail exchanges.)

I have an idea what happened. Wales never disputed the fact that he is the co-founder when Sanger was part of the project. Wales would have had to seen the Wikipedia press releases, early versions of Wikipedia articles, and several media articles, all describinbg Wales and Sanger as the co-founders. He never objected to being called the co-founder until at least 2004. Isn't that "revisionism." Sanger started being critical of Wikipedia after he left the project. That's when Wales began to claim he is the so-called sole founder. Wales feels strongly about it. Yep. He is problably not at the best of terms with him because Sanger criticizing Wikipedia. There is more evidience of revisionism. For example, he wrote in November 2007: "I do not think Sanger has ever claimed to have had the idea." However, Jimbo originally stated in October 2001: "Larry had the idea to use Wiki software." Why? I think we know why. And I think we know Wales is the co-founder. There are plenty of historical references. Wales did not dispute anything until Sanger left the project. What did Wales do at Wikipedia in the early years. Not much. He was busy with Bomis. He hired Sanger because he needed someone to manage Nupeda. When Wikipedia got started, he mainly paid the bills while Sanger was doing a lot of the work building and promoting Wikipedia. Historical references verify the facts and is NPOV. Wales' claims is mentioned in his own biography which is more than enough. It is only a claim from a man who seems not so happy with Sanger. Please review the references again. The key is the references from the early years of Wikipedia confirm both are the co-founders. I suggest we add co-founder to the lead of the Jimmy Wales biography after reviewing the facts. There is a pile of available documentation for verification of the co-founder title. The evidence (reading the references) meets WP:NPOV.

Regards, Quack Guru 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not at all true to say that "mainly paid the bills while Sanger was doing a lot of the work". I was leading the project, and Sanger, who was not the co-founder but an employee of mine, was working under my direct supervision.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sure Quack and I have been communicating on this issue, and indeed since way back. And its true that Wales only disputed after Sanger left the project, based on the available evidence, but I don't believe that this justifies this issue being brought to the opening of this article, but I am open to negotiation and compromise. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not true that I only disputed this "after Sanger left the project". I never accepted it, ever, and have disputed it from the moment anyone said it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly people "said it" since 2001. So where did you dispute it before 2004? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

SB, take a look at the early history of this article. Say, back in 2004. It was NPOV then and it is NPOV now. Quack Guru 06:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with QuackGuru that the prefix belongs in those entries. Calling him the "founder" would be incorrect. As for POV, it's hard to inject bias into facts. The statements don't strike me as biased. On the other hand, the word founder does do that.--Th45623j (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Then omit the term entirely. Introducing a factual falsehood which is also known to be disputed into the introduction of the article is a blatant failure of NPOV.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger helped found Wikipedia. Wales has supplied the financial backing and other support for the project, and Sanger, who earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Ohio State in 2000, has led the project.Click on reference numnber 33 The reference states Wales provided the "financial backing" while Sanger "led the project." Thoughts. QuackGuru (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FA

Oh, come on! Jimbo isn't Featured? What? Basketballone10 03:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Only Good Articles can be featured. 68.117.211.187 (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

that's not actually true if you mean that an article has to hold GA status before it can hold FA, an article can go from stub to FA if it has been expanded enough, however if you just mean to say that the article has to be of good quality, then yes. SGGH ^speak! 10:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me, I don't think anyone calls him Jimbo. Someone should put a big fat Citation Needed next to it. File:Emot-colbert.gif Linknumbers (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia logo

hi zimbo, I am one of the Administrator in Hindi wikipedia. I don’t know that you are really aware about one issue related with wiki logo. In that one of the block indicated wrong words of Hindi text. We are still not able to convince the local people in this regards. Therefore you are requested to rectify the error in Hindi words and make a corrected logo for the wikipedia accordingly. regards--Rajeevmass (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Responding on user's talk page. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How does he make money?

What exactly is his means of income? 63.227.6.134 (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikia. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so, he apparently lives off money he made in the past, this is highly feasible so we have no reason to doubt it. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic Monthly is wrong

"During this time one of the projects Wales undertook was the creation of the web portal Bomis, a website featuring user generated webrings that, according to The Atlantic Monthly, meant the site "found itself positioned as the Playboy of the Internet"."

I am surprised to hear that Atlantic Monthly said that, but in any event, Atlantic Monthly is wrong. I defy anyone to find any contemporary press reports which described Bomis in that fashion. Presumably the Atlantic Monthly was misled, ironically, by Wikipedia, which has been consistently wrong about this point... and many others... for years, despite my complaints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 12:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Playboy and Maxim have virtually the same market and sell almost the exact same product - the only difference is that one features totally nude models and the other features models that are only semi-nude. Wales has gone on record as stating that Bomis had a market similar to that of Maxim. However, Bomis, unlike Maxim, contained links to nude models (via user generated webrings). Therefore the Atlantic Monthly isn't really that far off in saying the Bomis "found itself positioned as the Playboy of the Internet". Of course, I never visited Bomis during it's heyday, what does the Internet Archive have to say on the matter? Jhurlburt (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether its acurate or not I think it needs reworking as its not very encyclopedic, for the phrase to work it needs the reader to have a knowledge of what playboy is and the type of content it contains and the cultural connotation this had at the time the article was written. This may not be a problem in some parts of the world but in others it could make the meaning of this overly inaccessible. The end of the paragraph gives information about the controversy about content so, unless anyone objects, I'm going to remove the quote and add some more informaitn about what Bomis did. --Kaly99 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I object, the quote provides a valuable point of view. If a reader is confused about what Playboy magazine is, which I find a ludicrous suggestion, all they need to do is click on the hyperlink for more information about this multinational corporation. Jhurlburt (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The information about the content on Bomis and the controversy that surrounds it is repeated in the next sentence so I don't think any information or points of view would be lost. Which point of view needs reflecting? If there is one that is only shown by the quote I think it would be clearer to present it as outside a direct quote.

Looking at the playboy magazine article it's banned in a significant number of countries and has international additions with different levels of nudity, the company is a multinational corporation but the magazine itself isn't world wide. The article on playboy magazine also doesn't give any information about the magazines position within the marketplace and so doesn't help to clarify the quote. --Kaly99 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

We all know that "Jimbo" Wales is married to his wife Christine with whom he has a daughter named Kira. Does'nt anyone else think that this should be included somewhere in this article regarding his personal life? Spokenwordsegment (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add it. Jhurlburt (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Born James?

I know for a fact that Jimmy is used as a nickname for James. Out of curiosity, was "James" Jimmy's original name? Spokenwordsegment (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that his given name is actually "Jimmy" and he was never "James". Dragons flight (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Could some please explain to me how this phrase violates NPOV:

Wales is one of the best-known entrepreneurs of the Web 2.0 revolution. Together with Larry Sanger, Wales has helped popularize a trend in web development that aims to facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing between users.

Wales and Sanger worked together and both helped popularize the Web 2.0 revolution. This statement completely avoids mentioning anything about the founding of Wikipedia, which would be sponsoring a POV. Jhurlburt (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Together with Larry Sanger, Wales founded Wikipedia, which has helped popularize a trend in web development (sometimes called Web 2.0) that aims to facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing between users.

I think this would be NPOV and the previous consensus before the edit war started. Quack Guru 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I found the first edit to the current software system [[4]] from Jan 2002 and it describes them both as co-founders. Granted its original research on my part, so content couldn't be based on it, but I figured it would add to the discussion. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to put the second paragraph of the lead together somewhat differently. I realize the controversy over Sanger's role (and its presence or absence in the lead) is the subject of ongoing dispute. However, I'm proposing we separate the statement of the project's founding with a characterization of Wales' role in shaping the project long-term and his broader influence as its most visible spokesperson. This characterization may not be 100% accurate yet, but may I suggest that it wasn't just the founding that helped popularize the project, but an awful lot of work between then and now? The term Web 2.0 didn't even come along until 2004. --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

An awful lot of work, certainly, but not by Wales but by the thousands of people who built it up. The content alone made it popular; Wales' travels and media appearances are quite superfluous and serve mainly his self-aggrandizement. I fail to see anything important he has done since the WMF was founded. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your assessment of Wales' role is original research that does not square with the picture created by reliable sources. --Sfmammamia (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources created a picture and not fact. Agreed. QuackGuru (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and according to WP:V the standard is verifiability, not truth. I can match Bramlet's personal perspective with the polar opposite personal perspective, because a radio interview Jimmy Wales did last spring was highly influential in my own personal involvement in the project. I'm guessing there are other wikipedians who would say the same thing. But that's also original research, no more valid than Bramlet's view. Instead of this debate, how about we discuss alternative wording approaches here in an attempt to reach consensus? Here's another try:

Together with Larry Sanger, Wales created Wikipedia,[2] laying the foundation for its rapid growth and popularity. The success of the project popularized a trend in web development (called Web 2.0) that aims to facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing between users. As a result of his work with Wikipedia, which has become the world's largest encyclopedia, Wales appeared in Time magazine's 2006 list of the world's most influential people.[3] Wales continues to influence the public's perceptions of Wikipedia's value and reputation by serving as the project's most visible spokesperson.

--Sfmammamia (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the differences. Edit the article and then self-revert and then I can clearly see the differences. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I've made the edits I suggested a couple days ago; don't quite understand the need to self-revert -- you can see changes in my last diff. --Sfmammamia (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide references. References are need for this edit. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the text. References are needed for that edit. QuackGuru (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(undenting) I restored the first part of my suggested change, quoting from the Marshall Poe Atlantic Monthly history. With regard to the second suggested change -- "Wales continues to influence the public's perceptions of Wikipedia's value and reputation by serving as the project's most visible spokesperson." -- what of that is challengeable and needs to be sourced? Is there another more visible spokesperson that I'm not aware of? Cites throughout the article support the fact that Wales plays this role, and the sentence itself does not state whether that influence is always positive or otherwise, so by itself, I don't see how the sentence violates NPOV. --Sfmammamia (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wales is Wikipedia's unofficial spokesperson. I gave it a try. QuackGuru (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring solution - completely unprotect the page

Does anyone else think that the main cause for edit warring on the Jimmy Wales page is the result of the protracted, semi-protected nature of the article? By allowing only individuals with accounts to edit the page edits become much more personal and some individuals find it harder to "let go" and let changes happen. Anonymous editing might also go a long way to improving the overall quality of the article, which appears to have declined since the page became permanently semi-protected (i.e. as seen by its losing of Good Article status).

How about an experiment? Completely unprotect the page for a week and see what happens. 68.117.211.187 (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Jimbo Wales an active user on Wikipedia?

1. Does he have a user page?
2. Did he just leave Wikipedia?
3. I think I found his Userpage but think it may be a fake or may be real (?)
4. Can you help me find him?

LOTRrules (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Like it says at least twice up the top of the page, his userpage is at User:Jimmy Wales. It's unlikely you found a fake because most of the obvious "imposter" accounts are doppelgangers which have their userpages redirected to the real one (e.g. User:jwales, User:Jimbo, etc). Once you're there, you can look at his contributions to see whether he's left Wikipedia (hint: he's posted on this page in the last couple of months), and if you really want to find him, just look for the guy in the red-and-white striped outfit with glasses, cane and optional beard. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Honors and awards

I think the "Honors and awards" section should be renamed or some of those items need to be moved to a different section. It seems rather bizarre that the Chaser incident, for example, is being called an honor or an award. I'm sure Jimmy was personally very honored by their attention but still...;) Thoughts? Sarah 00:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempt made: I started new section (section head may need further improvement) for "Other notable media appearances", since media mentions are interspersed throughout the article and every media appearance does not need to be added. Other editors may question whether the existing list of media appearances seems notable enough to mention, I for one don't think it adds much to the overall article but hesitate to delete it. --Sfmammamia (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life

Anyone wanting to change this article to include new information on the subject's personal life, must provide really really really reliable sources. Please don't even add information to this talk page without sources. WP:BLP applies here as much as anywhere, whether we like the subject or not.--Doc^g 00:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, poorly sourced smut has no place in Wikipedia. Quatloo (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. Reliable sources must be used. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we are watching. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement from Jimbo admitting relationship with Marsden

He admits being separated from his wife, and the relationship with Marsden in this statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Statement%2C_March_1st%2C_2008 This should be added to his page, as it is definitive, first-hand proof, straight from the horse's mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.91.6 (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but who really cares? I mean my gosh. Suppose you had a biography here. Should we list every date you ever had on it? Give me a break. This is an encyclopedia for gosh sakes. Who cares about that nonsense?--Filll (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless a reasonably reliable source discusses this (not a self-described silicon valley gossip magazine) we have no good reason to include this. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, the information stays out unless it's covered by a reliable source. And even then, we might want multiple reliable sources, since we've got three living people whose privacy we need to be aware of: Wales, Marsden, and Wales' wife. Though it might be reasonable to change the "Wales is married" line to "Wales is separated", since that seems a reasonable update of "marital status," which we can take someone's word on, per WP:AUTO. --Elonka 17:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The separation is acceptable, to add the Marsden allegations right now is not, IMHO. Happy editing, SqueakBox 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not an "allegation"; Jimbo has admitted it. I agree that it shouldn't be added, but only because it isn't significant yet. Not because it'd somehow be a BLP violation to do so. -Amarkov moo! 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The way Amarkov worded it is fine but I would like to see a better source in the future. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, Wales' statement cannot be used as a source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." This certainly includes statements in user space. Quatloo (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We can adhere to the letter of the policy and pretend that they aren't seperated, even though there is clear evidence that they are. Or, we can recognize that sentence as being a measure to prevent people from posting OR and then sourcing it elsewhere, and accept the man's statements about his life as definitive. I prefer the latter. -Amarkov moo! 00:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to pretend anything. We can adhere to the policy by not addressing the matter, since it is not important and doesn't need to be in the encyclopedia. If it were important, there'd be a WP:RS. There is not. Quatloo (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, your argument seems to be "I want this poorly sourced statement, which violates both WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP, to remain in Wikipedia to prevent someone from possibly adding original research to the encyclopedia." I suggest that this is not a very good argument to justify a violation of policy. Quatloo (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation

can anybody cite that jimbo is the unofficial spokesperson for wikipedia as it says at the end of the intro?...thanks--UhOhFeeling (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This was an attempt at characterizing Wales' continuing role with the media in a neutral way; see NPOV discussion further up the page. What of the statement is challengeable and needs citing? His media appearances related to Wikipedia have continued, and these, I believe, are adequately cited within the article. --Sfmammamia (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, isn't he the official spokesperson though?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Early life" section

As this section contains information as recent as "as of March 2008", shouldn't this section be renamed "Personal life", "Background" or something similar? Neıl ☎ 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

I removed that. Even if it is sourced, it has no relevance to the article, especially, like Jimbo says, it was a short-term relationship.

If we would keep that, what would be the next step? List of girlfriends, hookups and dates of Jimmy Wales? We should keep only the personal details that are important. If this affair would have lead to a controversy which would be published by The New York Times, then yes, it should have been in the article, but otherwise, it's just a piece of trivia. bogdan (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it has to be in the New York Times. The Canadian Press isn't trivial... -Amarkov moo! 01:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)