Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 14
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia.



Most wikipedia articles on people have a section called 'criticism' or 'controvesies'. Now, why is Jimmy an exception? Because he founded wikipedia? Com'oon this is a free encyclopedia. We don't have any taboos here! To give wiki users an idea on what to write in this section: please see And of course, users should include his responses to criticism too...

P.S. for Jimmy: Please do not remove this post. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that Jimmy would be the last person on earth to remove a post from a Wikipedia discussion page. I do ask you however, on behalf of all of us, to please sign you entries with four tildes ~~~~ so that we know who you are. Thanks. Rudy Breteler (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't add a criticism section just for the sake of adding a criticism section, or because it is following a sort of standard syntax. If there is a need for a criticism section, do as you would with any other article -- find sources, post them for discussion, when there is consensus, make the change. Its that simple. Ormaaj (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally I suspect this is either User:Momento or a pal of his/her. Momento is trying to draw attention to the fact that his/her Guru Prem Rawat (aka Guru Maharaji) has a criticism section which is highly objectionable to the latter and his supporters. So he has started a Criticism of Jimbo Wales Page in protest I guess. The fact is Jossi Fresco, Momento and other Rawat followers have fought to remove criticism from the Prem Rawat article for years resulting in it's eventual removal to a separate article altogether. That is in dispute now and there is an Arbcom about all this now. I don't see what all the fuss is about. I tend to agree it's best that criticism is not avoided for dodgy reasons and that it remains as a section in the subjects article.PatW (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think criticism section is necessary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The Florida public records say his birthday is August 8, 1966. Sources: and here: 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. (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.[1][2] He also made a statement in 2006 in which he wrote in part: "My date of birth is not August 8, 1966."[3] The Encyclopædia Britannica, Current Biography, and Who’s Who in America support these statements.[4][5][6] 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.[7] On July 27, 2007, when asked by Oregonian reporter Mike Rogoway when his birthday was Wales is reported to have mysteriously stated, "Nobody knows."[4] 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.[4] 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."[8] </block(the above comment appears to be unsigned)

Note also that Wikitruth says that Jimmy stated his birthday was August 7, and then subsequently used the oversight function to remove his own comment.'s_birthday

This diff pretty much substantiates Wikitruth's claims:

Here's the redacted comment:

My actual birthday is August 7th, 1966. This is unverifiable information, I'm sorry to say, since my driver's license and passport say August 8. If we must revert on that basis, then I guess we must. *g*. Maybe I'll have to upload a signed note from my mom as documentary evidence; the only proof that I have is her sayso. :-) Jimbo Wales 20:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please do not remove this comment. Wikitruth is obviously not a reliable source of information, so it took me a bit of digging to actually substantiate their claims. I don't want to make other people waste time repeating the work. -- (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

His personal blog says that his wiki bio has a bad DOB. In the same post, Jimmy Wales say "for the first time the world has a proper source" and link to this page. So please edit his Date of Birth quickly and set it at is "official" (driver licence) date : 8 Aug. --Thierryyyyyyy (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

His marriage license (for his marriage to Christine) lists his date of birth as August 7. Anthony (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How does he make money?

What exactly is his means of income? (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)
I'm curious, what would that be? StormCloud (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
His income appears to be some combination of previous nest-egg, possible salary from Wikia, and speaking fees. The exact proportion is unknown, and which is dominant in that mix may not be the same over the past few years. He has denied reports of great wealth, and some research (don't know if I can link to it, the unwritten rules are a burden) is consistent with those reports being exaggerated. The speaking fees are alleged to be quite lucractive nowadays, with credible $10,000 and $25,000 instances, and a less-credible $95,000 reported quote (note that includes agency fees, which is a significant cut). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


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 [1] 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)

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.--Docg 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: 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 (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)


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)
Technically, he is not the official spokesperson of Wikipedia. He has not claimed the title. However, if he says he is Wikipedia's spokesperson then we can change it officially. QuackGuru (talk) 05:37, 3 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)
The source might not be trivial, but the information itself is trivial. bogdan (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is the information trivial? They felt that it was important enough to devote an entire news article to. -Amarkov moo! 02:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and in case you aren't satisfied with The Canadian Press, the CBC has seen fit to reprint the story. -Amarkov moo! 02:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not a tabloid by any stretch of the imagination. Given that article it would make much more sense to mention it here since it emphasizes the Wikipedia element. I'm not convinced that it should be mentioned here or on the Marsden page, but the case for here is looking much stronger. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, The Times has a story on this. bogdan (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the fact The Times has now featured this suggests a neutrally-worded sentence or two is becoming more and more appropriate. I've added one. Neıl 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the only remotely notable aspect of this is as one instance of many, of the media leaping to conclusions about how Wikipedia works without doing full research (as in, criticizing Wales' editing of Marsden's entry, without realizing that the editing predated the personal relationship.) Beyond that, yawn. Not notable, just like any number of anecdotes about public figures, while covered in the media, do not belong in their WP article. -Pete (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to see given the Times and other coverage why we shouldn't at least mention this. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia / Jimbo Wales / Rachel Marsden controversy and sources

  1. The Canadian Press (March 2, 2008). "Canadian pundit, Wikipedia founder in messy breakup". CBC News. CBC News. Retrieved 2008-03-06.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. Goodman, Lee-Anne (March 2, 2008). "Right-wing pundit Marsden turns to eBay after breakup with Wikipedia founder". CBC News. CBC News. Retrieved 2008-03-03.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. Goodman, Lee-Anne (March 2, 2008). "Right-wing pundit Marsden turns to eBay after breakup with Wikipedia founder". The Canadian Press. Retrieved 2008-03-03.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. Staff (March 3, 2008). "Spurned Marsden selling ex-beau's stuff: But Wikipedia founder admits to only 'brief' liason". The Province. Pacific Newspaper Group Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-03.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. Staff (March 3, 2008). "Pundit peddles ex's items online". Winnipeg Sun. Canoe Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-03. 
  6. Naughton, Philippe (March 3, 2008). "Jilted lover uses eBay to hit back at Wikipedia guru". The Times. Times Newspapers Ltd. Retrieved 2008-03-03.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. O'Donoghue, JJ (March 3, 2008). "Wikipedia break-up causes web stir". Webuser. IPC Media. Retrieved 2008-03-03.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. Grabham, Dan (March 3, 2008). "Wikipedia founder embroiled in online spat with ex-lover: You really could not make this stuff up". Future Publishing Limited. p. Section: Internet. Retrieved 2008-03-03.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. Megan, McCarthy (March 3, 2008). "Wikipedia Founder Hit With Relationship Trouble, Allegations of Excessive Spending". Wired News. CondéNet, Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-03.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. Coleman, Joey (March 3, 2008). "Another chapter for one of SFU's most (in)famous alumni". Maclean's. Rogers Communications. Retrieved 2008-03-03.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. Cooper, Charles (March 3, 2008). "My e-mail breakup with Jimmy Wales and other sordid doings". CNET News. CNET Networks, Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-03.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. Moses, Asher (March 4, 2008). "Ex takes her revenge on Mr Wikipedia". Sydney Morning Herald. p. Section: Tech. Retrieved 2008-03-04.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. Leonard, Tom (March 4, 2008). "Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales in online love spat". Telegraph Media Group Limited. Retrieved 2008-03-04.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  14. Ramadge, Andrew (March 4, 2008). "Wikipedia icon's Silicon Valley sex scandal". News Limited. p. Section:Technology. Retrieved 2008-03-04.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. Gardner, David (March 4, 2008). "Dumped Dot Com: How Wikipedia founder used his website to break off relationship - and how she used eBay to get revenge". The Daily Mail. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Retrieved 2008-03-04.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  16. Naughton, Philippe (March 4, 2008). "Wikipedia Founder's Fling With Columnist Ends in Nasty Public Breakup". Fox News. Retrieved 2008-03-04.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  17. Staff (March 4, 2008). "Dumped on Wikipedia, revenge on eBay". Associated Newspapers Limited. Retrieved 2008-03-04.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  18. Nelson, Sara (March 4, 2008). "Wiki love split cyber storm". The Sun. Retrieved 2008-03-04.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  19. Pavia, Will (March 4, 2008). "Fury of a woman scorned – on Wikipedia". Times Online. Retrieved 2008-03-06.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  20. Pavia, Will (March 5, 2008). "Wikipedia founder's dirty laundry for sale on eBay: It was a boy-meets-girl story for the Web 2.0 generation. But when it turned sour, the recriminations resounded through the blogosphere while the dirty laundry was put up for sale on eBay". The Australian. News Limited. Retrieved 2008-03-04.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  21. Agrell, Siri (March 4, 2008). "Ms. Marsden's cyberspace breakup: tit-for-tat-for-T-shirt". Globe and Mail. CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-04.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  22. Staff (March 4, 2008). "Bidding war for Wikipedia T-shirts". Web User. IPC Media. Retrieved 2008-03-04.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  23. Staff (March 4, 2008). "A 'Wiki' love gone wrong ends on eBay". Canwest Interactive. Retrieved 2008-03-04.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  24. Staff (March 4, 2008). "Messy Break Up Posted on Blogs, Wikipedia and eBay: Wikipedia Founder, Internet Columnist Say Goodbye on the Web". MyFoxNational Reports. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-04.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  25. Bergstein, Brian (The Associated Press) (March 4, 2008). "Wikipedia's Wales Hit Over Expenses". The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company. Retrieved 2008-03-04.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  26. Staff (March 5, 2008). "El fundador de Wikipedia envuelto en una nueva polémica (Translation: Wikipedia's founder involved in controversy)". Clarín (Argentina). Retrieved 2008-03-06.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  27. Riveiro, Aitor (March 5, 2008). "Sexo, Wikipedia, eBay... y credibilidad (Translation: Sex, Wikipedia, eBay...and credibility)". El País (Spain). Retrieved 2008-03-06.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  28. McCarthy, Megan (March 4, 2008). "Wikipedia Founder Hit With Relationship Trouble, Allegations of Excessive Spending". ABC News. ABC. Retrieved 2008-03-04.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  29. Morasse, Marie-Eve (March 4, 2008). "Jimmy Wales laisse sa copine sur Wikipédia (Translation:Jimmy Wales dumps girlfriend on Wikipedia)". Retrieved 2008-03-04.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  30. Staff (March 5, 2008). "Wikipedia founder dumps girlfriend online". United Press International. United Press International, Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-05.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  31. Moses, Asher (March 5, 2008). "Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales accused of expenses rort". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2008-03-05.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  32. Kim, Ryan (March 4, 2008). "Allegations swirl around Wikipedia's Wales". San Francisco Chronicle. Hearst Communications, Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-05.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  33. Sheehy, Kate (March 4, 2008). "One Wild and Wiki Breakup: Web Guru's Ex In Ebay Revenge Bid". New York Post. News Corporation. Retrieved 2008-03-05.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  34. Times Staff Writer (March 5, 2008). "Wiki breakup calls for eBay revenge". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-03-05.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  35. Harris, Scott Duke (March 5, 2008). "Wikipedia founder dogged by tawdry tales online: Internet Hosts Wikipedia Creator's Messy Breakup, Allegations of Financial Wrongs". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 2008-03-05.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

Will update as more WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources become available. Cirt (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that looks like more than enough sources. Inclusion is very hard to argue against at this point. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That last link, with the talk about excessive spending, is rather disconcerting to me. --Merovingian (T, C) 20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it will be interesting to see if other financial-based secondary news sources pick up on that. Cirt (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
To get more to the point, my faith in Wikipedia's leadership may be lessening if Danny's statements turn out to be true. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, keep us posted if you come across any follow-up to that piece in other WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I will. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So why is it not already included in the article? (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question (talk · contribs), good question. Cirt (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Trash tabs

Wikipedia may not replace the Encyclopedia Britannica, but it's well on its way to challenging the National enquirer for supremacy on its own turf. Time to get lives, folks. (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I see Jimbo's stuff is up to about $700 on eBay. Anyone else see the fundraising possibilities here? (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! That was my first thought when hearing about this. "Oh, this must be Phase II of their fund raiser, great idea!" (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sources?

I am being edit-conflicted with someone who is bent on removal of sources from this biography while I'm trying to make corrections, some of which are required to make this article comply with WP:BLP policy. Is this appropriate? I'm done editing this article for the time being, I simply don't have time for this nonsense. RFerreira (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


I'm not getting involved in the details. But we DO NOT edit war on a BLP over issues covered by the BLP policy. Please discuss here and reach consensus over what should or should not be in the article, and what is or is not complaint with WP:BLP WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. Once that is done protection can be removed.--Docg 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Affair" and "breakup"

A one-night stand does not usually equal an "affair" or "relationship," and the idea of a "breakup" after a one-night stand, however it's done, seems a bit overblown. (Note that Mardsen appears to be the only one to have referred to it as such.) Nobody will care about this in a few months. -Pete (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that Wales appears to be the only one to have referred to it as a one-night stand. We don't know when it started. The term "affair" is vague enough to cover all possibilities. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"Affair" does not have a good connotation, though. I think "relationship" is more appropriate. --Merovingian (T, C) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Uhhh, when you're not actually divorced; but merely separated from your wife, then it's an affair. (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, "affair" is not neutral. We're not here to pass judgment on Wales's personal life. --Merovingian (T, C) 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I hope so, but I don't know if that's an argument against including mention of this incident, which isn't fully over. Otherwise, I'd have to agree, Marsden is making a mountain out of a molehill here. --Merovingian (T, C) 19:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it's possible the issue could expand and become more significant. In fact, adding a bunch of coverage to this article would likely contribute to that! On the number of sources that Cirt has diligently assembled, that does prove that the incident has some notability, but doesn't say that it should be included in this article. We don't cite every article that mentions Jimbo Wales. -Pete (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
No, we don't need to reference every article, just whatever verifies the facts we state. --Merovingian (T, C) 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Pete, you say "in fact, adding a bunch of coverage to this article would likely contribute to that!" which is the best argument for not giving this subject any coverage right now that I have heard. Happy editing, SqueakBox 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
News stories generally don't grow because other groups cover them. Pete's view seems pretty paranoid to me. What would we have to fear by covering something as we always have? --Merovingian (T, C) 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Paranoid? Oh dear...I just meant it as a joke. I don't really care that much about this issue, I'm gonna leave it to you guys. -Pete (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't mean any hard feelings. --Merovingian (T, C) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


In relation to the Marsden issue, WP:UNDUE without doubt applies. If the issue is worthy of mention at all, the maximum coverage permissible without giving undue significance to this event is the following: "In 2008 he had a brief affair with Canadian journalist Rachel Marsden." Furthermore, 6 or 7 sources do not need to follow this sentence: 1 is sufficient, for instance the CBC source currently used. Any further discussion of this issue in the article violates WP:UNDUE and is simply prurience. BCST2001 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The incident is not notable because he had a brief relationship, it's because of what happened when the relationship ended. And I don't think calling it an affair is appropriate. Wales said he was already separated from his wife. --Merovingian (T, C) 19:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing notable about "what happened when the relationship ended." "Affair" does not imply cheating, but if you prefer, the sentence could be formulated, "In 2008 he was briefly involved with Canadian journalist Rachel Marsden." BCST2001 (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
That wording is okay. What I mean is that it seems the reason that this story is going anywhere is because Marsden wigged out and put a t-shirt and other stuff on eBay. --Merovingian (T, C) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, nothing notable. BCST2001 (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
If we were talking about Jane Doe, sure. --Merovingian (T, C) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy's T-shirt being sold on e-Bay by an ex-lover doesn't seem notable to me, and certainly not for our encyclopedia. Happy editing, SqueakBox 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It is notable in the context. I'm not sure we'd have all those sources if it hadn't happened. --Merovingian (T, C) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It is possible to have sources about non-notable events; this is one of them. • AndonicO Hail! 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Non-notable to you. These are pretty respectable sources, not some Internet zine. And without the second half of the story, which, if I may say so, appears to be what most of the reports are focusing on, it becomes pretty much worthless trivia. --Merovingian (T, C) 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Reminds me of the Corey Delaney incident... • AndonicO Hail! 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(un-indent) How so? --Merovingian (T, C) 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Something the media loves to publicize, and is news on most notable websites/newspapers, but inevitably dies down in a few weeks because it isn't very notable (well, the other one was BLP as well). • AndonicO Hail! 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. In any case, I don't think this has died down just yet. --Merovingian (T, C) 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
May I point out that Corey Delaney's article was deleted before the fuss had died down, because he wasn't notable? I think the same applies here: who cares with whom Wales slept with on a random night? Doesn't seem notable—or encyclopedic—to me. • AndonicO Hail! 21:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Rachel Marsden isn't notable now? Or their relationship? Seems that enough people care that there are umpteen separate stories about it. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this incident is mentioned on Wales' page, but not Marsden's. Seems to me that her notability is largely defined by this kind of occurrence, and it might therefore be better to have the information there, rather than here. And about the stories, like I said, those same people won't care about this in a few weeks... • AndonicO Hail! 21:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with mentioning it in the Marsden page. Actually, that should be done ASAP. I won't do it, though, for COI reasons. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the text over to the Marsden page, and removed it here. • AndonicO Hail! 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(copied from User talk:AndonicO) Sounds good to me. After all, it's a lot more relevant to Marsden. This way we can treat the subject with a brief mention in the Wales article and go into it in better detail on Marsden's. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we don't know if it started only in 2008, it is wrong to write "In 2008 he was..." Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The undue an argument might apply in the Marsden article but it is hard to see how it would apply here since Wales is specifically notable for his work with Wikipedia and the news reports have specifically brought up the affair in that context. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. The fact that we have some verifiable sources does not mean that we have to use these sources. We have to respect WP:NPOV, WP:BLP as well. The incident is frivolous and has no place in a biographical article besides a short mention. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. • AndonicO Hail! 21:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't be long but it still needs a mention. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried to leave this comment here before but it got deleted and I was banned. Apparently it's OK to leave it though so I'll try again. The comment was
It doesn't just need a mention, it needs to be added properly. You're in denial and trying to cover up if you think otherwise. If people read all those reports (from respectable sources) and then see this article and the cover up you're doing (WP:UNDUE. Yea right! - who do you think you're kidding?), you're just damaging your own reputation and confirming the claims of the critics. Pretend it's not Jimbo's article. Edit it like you would any article on Wikipedia. Be honest, that's all anyone can ask. Have some respect for yourselves and show Wikipedia (and all those thousands that have contributed to make it what it is) the justice it deserves.
In the half day it's taken me to get unbanned and confirmed that I'm allowed to leave a disagreeing comment I've had some more thoughts on the matter as I've had a chance to read your policies a few times while waiting. The WP UNDUE policy talks about a "view held by a small minority" and this discussion section is saying that the recent news can't be added to the article because it would be against WP UNDUE because a minority view would be exerting undue weight to the article. So if that's true then what exactly is the "minority view" that's being held and who are the "small minority" that hold it. They must exist or the argument can't be true. The minority view must be one of the views expressed in the media sources so it must be one of these; That there is an auction for Jimmy's clothes. That he had a relationship of some sort with someone and it's over. That he used his position to have an article on this person changed, That he spent some money on expenses. If WP UNDUE is a reason not to add something to the article, could someone explain which of the above are the minority views and who the minority is that's expressing them? Also, if you're going to ban me for leaving this comment, could you leave a comment or message on my page explaining what policies it's broken. Thanks AntHolnes (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Quoting from WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." In this case, the issue in question is trivial. BCST2001 (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for answering the question rather than banning me. You mention that the issue is trivial. Can you define exactly what issue or collection of issues it is that you're talking about. I noticed that the discussions on this page mention different ones at different times. To get a consensus you need to all be talking about the same ones or the same thing probably. Is it one of these issues; That he had a relationship of some sort with someone and it's over. That he used his position to have an article on this person changed, That this person is auctioning Jimmy's clothes, That someone says he spent money on expenses in some kind of inappropriate way, or another issue or a combination or them? Also, you've quoted the WP UNDUE policy to support the argument that "in this case the issue in question is trivial", but the WP UNDUE policy doesn't mention or concern triviality. Are you saying that the issue or issues are trivial, or that they're are being given undue weight, or either or depending on which keeps them out of the article? Thanks AntHolnes (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason it was mentioned here and not at Marsden's article is a result of two things: 1) where each article was in its respective edit war when it got protected and 2) the fact that the authors here started by adding one reasonable sentence and then edit warred over expansion, while over there there never was a just one reasonable sentence version. Factor 1 is pure luck, factor 2 is a result of more admins who work on this article. GRBerry 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


Jimbo fanboys are repeatedly removing the Criticism section. Please leave it in. I realize the man has accomplished many great things, but a balanced and NPOV article should also have criticism about him, of which there is quite a lot circulating.--Sonjaaa (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Fanboys? I haven't seen anybody like that around here. Happy editing, SqueakBox 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Please - from the current status of the page, you wouldn't even realize there is a flap, and a notable one at that. Wikipedia runs the risk of being percieved as covering up for its leadership... Nicolasdz (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nicolasdz. This is embarassing. Dhpe (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In the name of balance and fairness, the Jimmy Wales article should include

Snuh (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC) The controversy over the Mzoli entry:

The LA Times take:,0,344107.story

Here's the original Wikipedia article about Snuh:,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia2.htm

It wasn't considered worthy and after all references to Internet Snuh was obliterated, was merged with this:

It's too bad what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Ridiculous stubs about the founder's favorite eatery is okay, but not a referenced entry. If you not going to hold Mr. Wales to his own standards, at least be public about it.

The Mzoli's article was turned from a teeny stub into a respectable article. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Good. Then the people that worked on expanding it would have no problem working on other articles deemed for rejection. I'm sure Mr. Wales didn't experience any special treatment, Wikipedia editors always help all equally. Snuh (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think in all honesty and with some experience following Wales as subject matter at wikipedia that he is generally held to higher standards than normal. Happy editing, SqueakBox 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The subject matter was always notable. Some people seemed to object to it because Mzoli's isn't in America or Europe. Happy editing, SqueakBox 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
My god, that is extremely subjective. Snuh (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I won't go into more details but will say that some people behaved very badly. Happy editing, SqueakBox 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ending every comment here with a trite phrase such as "Happy editing" is unnecessary and should be avoided. Edison (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the term is systemic bias. --Merovingian (T, C) 23:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

jimmy separated or divorced?

citation please? -- (talk · contribs) 21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's one:
He's separated according to his own blog. -Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwtaylor (talkcontribs) 00:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Change back to the version the article was protected on, please

Seeing as the protection was due to this same thing, continuing to remove the information when the article is protected seems questionable at best. Actually, it's near-abuse of admin priveleges. -Amarkov moo! 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think only a short mention is necessary. A better treatment can go in the Marsden article. I partially reverted, it couldn't be any more neutral now. --Merovingian (T, C) 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Admins editing a protected article per their own POV or wishes is a clear abuse of admin privileges. Sethie (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree w/ Amarkov (talk · contribs) and Sethie (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(2x ec) I only reverted to the protected version, with a slight wording change. I intend on preserving the protected version until the dispute here is resolved. --Merovingian (T, C) 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it my fault. My suggestion was only discussed for a few minutes in a section I imagine not many people read, and therefore my edits were uncalled for. My apologies for not discussing further. • AndonicO Hail! 01:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Not blaming you. I was under the assumption that we'd only have that one sentence in the Wales article, and deal with it further on the Marsden article where it's more relevant. --Merovingian (T, C) 01:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That could work as well (at least until the buzz dies off). • AndonicO Hail! 01:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, AndonicO (talk · contribs), and thanks for the comment/explanation here. And I think that the edit by Merovingian (talk · contribs) is minor enough to be okay even though it was made while the article is protected. But for future edits to the article while it is protected, probably best if we discuss here first? Cirt (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. • AndonicO Hail! 02:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A question - why should a better treatment go in the Marsden article than this one? Incidentally, that article has been protected on a version that contains no mention whatsoever of the story. And this one has a single nondescript sentence. The story (incident, issue, whatever) now has fifty-eight media articles written on it ([2]). The Sydney Morning Herald, The Telegraph, The Times, the Daily Mail, Wired, The Register, CNET,, front page of Google News, The Metro, The Brisbane Times, FOX News, the Toronto Sun, the Toronto Star, and 45 other news sources ([3]) have all considered it notable but we apparently do not. I wonder why? Neıl 09:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Either we're extremely biased, or they're just publicizing this like any other "personal" scandal. • AndonicO Hail! 11:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'd like to see a decent treatment of the incident in both articles. --Merovingian (T, C) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody cares about the Marsden angle. They only care about the Jimbo angle, i.e. did he cross conflict-of-interest lines. At this point it's on the front page of, yet all we have here is a terse mention of a "relationship"? WP:ASR is one thing, but the Wikipedia connection is the ONLY reason it's news. --Dhartung | Talk 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Can we please use semi-protect 1000 times more than full protect? There's almost never any good reason for full protection.Wjhonson (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct - there are obvious reasons, but rarely good ones. Neıl 10:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Full Protect??

Why in the hell is this page currently on full protect? Wouldn't semi-protect be good enough?

(Also, just throwing it out there....Can we please, please have someone else figurehead Wikipedia? I mean, seriously, this guy is embarrassing ...) Carson (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's protected because a minority of admins believe well-sourced, neutrally worded facts that make Jimbo look bad are not allowed, and will edit war to ensure the article gets protected on their preferred version. I would like to see the article back down to semi-protection, and a neutrally worded sentence or two stating the facts (like we had before BCST2001 - a new editor - butchered it misquoting WP:UNDUE [4]). Neıl 09:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I tried to add a comment saying exactly the same thing, that WP UNDUE was being misused, but I got banned for saying it. I've been unbanned now though. Is there somewhere I can get permission to leave the comment. I tried asking the person that banned me but they banned me and I've tried asking the person that unbanned me but I guess they're busy. Where can I get permission to leave a comment on Jimbo's talk page. The comment is here if you want to see it. I'm sorry for leaving this comment on this page to ask permission to leave a comment on this page and I realise that might be against the rules. If you're going to ban me for doing that, when you're banning me can you can you leave a comment on my page letting me know where I can get permission. Thanks AntHolnes (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
BCST2001 is not a new editor - see the blanked history in their talk page. ViridaeTalk 09:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I love the fact you think you can read my mind. *I* protected this, because it's a biography and there was *unseemly edit-warring*. Once there's some sort of consensus developed as to what should go in the article, then, whatever the consensus may be, it can be unprotected. That means people talking and collaborating (like with a collaborative project). Shouting and throwing allegations will only result in the protection remaining. If I undid my protection right now, there would be an edit war, as people put in what they thought without discussion with others. So discuss it and get a consensus, if you are so desperate for a resolution.--Docg 09:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am always desperate to see disputes resolved. See below. Neıl 10:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales is someone who is always going to be in the Wikilimelight as long as Wikipedia exists, my point here being, this doesn't so much prevent an edit war but forestall it. The reality is, it's a subject that's going to be addressed, and full protecting this page was an unnecessary step. Carson (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Full protect should never be used in content issues like this. *Admins have NO priveledged editing position*. And should not imho. Semi is the preferred protection. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No, semi-protection is intended for preventing vandalism (by new or anonymous users who are too numerous to block or by one vandal using several IPs or sockpuppets). It is never appropriate to use semi-protection in a legitimate content disputes. — CharlotteWebb 19:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree it needs to be full or nothing. While I hate to see this article fully protected i can predict what would happen if it were unprotected today. Happy editing, SqueakBox 19:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The community never agreed to use full-protection to allow admins to edit what-they-will while established editors have to sit and spin. It's not a fair use of full-protection. It creates a two-tiered society of "haves" and "have-nots" in the editing camp. There is no consensus that admins should be "haves" for content-editing purposes. That was never the agreement we reached. Wjhonson (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Simple question - do we:

A) Mention the Wales/Marsden thing with one referenced sentence ("Wales had a brief relationship with Canadian journalist Rachel Marsden.") - this is what we currently have.
B) Expand that, ensuring all information is referenced (e.g. something along the lines of "Wales had brief relationship with Canadian journalist Rachel Marsden which has attracted media attention. In March 2008, she stated that he announced their breakup through Wikipedia, referring to a statement. Wales published a statement on Wikipedia in which he said he was "no longer involved with" Marsden. Marsden subsequently advertised items of clothing belonging to Wales on eBay.)
C) Remove it entirely.

It's not a simple vote, so please try and explain your view. I am for B - given the weight of recent media coverage, I think a short, neutrally worded paragraph is wholly appropriate. If we go for this, the precise wording and what we do and do not mention is an aside; once we have an agreement for a couple of sentences, then we can thrash out the wording later. Neıl 10:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hm, dunno. But not A. We don't list people people slept with. We don't list short affairs, unless they are significant. Is this significant? That's the question. I don't think we know yet.--Docg 10:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    The affair in itself I would agree is wholly insignificant, but the media furore over the aftermath warrants a mention (and then the affair has to be mentioned for context). Neıl 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • B for the same reason as Neil. ViridaeTalk 10:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think C (A would also be acceptable), but B in the Marsden article. • AndonicO Hail! 11:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    Question - why no mention here but one in the Marsden article? Neıl 12:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    Self-quoted from above: "I'm not sure why this incident is mentioned on Wales' page, but not Marsden's. Seems to me that her notability is largely defined by this kind of occurrence, and it might therefore be better to have the information there, rather than here." • AndonicO Hail! 13:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Two to tango. Surely this event should either be mentioned in both articles, or not mentioned in either article. — CharlotteWebb 15:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd say B, as the notable thing is not the affair, but the fact that she claims he actually broke up with her via Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that was founded by him. --Reinoutr (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • He denies that. So, do we generally include unsubstantiated allegations by an ex with an obvious axe to grind in a biography? I'd say not.--Docg 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Possibly, as its exclusion could be noticeable; especially if its quoted in a "reliable source". A he said/she said can be short and sweet, given the context I'd think Jim would have the last word. - RoyBoy 800 15:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The A B C is a limited list of things to get a consensus on. The best thing to do is to be honest and include all the sourced and reported possibilities so when there is a consensus there can't be any allegations that consensus was manipulated by only allowing consensus on a few options, like having a democracy where you hold free elections but you can only vote for members of the one and only party that is allowed to exist. Isn't it also about the allegation (sourced and reported) that Jimbo exerted influence to have her article changed, which is mixed in with IM conversations (alleged but reported) while he's doing it. I'm not saying it's true but it must be relevant to the page of the founder of a Wikipedia with rules that say you can't do that. You have her (reported) side. You have his side. You can be balanced and fair. There's also the mention of unrelated expenses, although I'm not sure how reliably that is being reported. To me, it would make sense to first reach consensus on what should be included, then consensus on how much they should be included and in what way AntHolnes (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The ABC options provide an outline of the direction to go. B allows for a broader story, which is what you are aiming for. However, attempting to get a "consensus on what should be included" will be a long/complicated task, and will only be possible down the road when the dust settles. We need a starting point, and that is what these options provide. - RoyBoy 800 15:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The task is the same length or complexity but just has a different starting point. Deliberately choosing a starting point that eliminates one of the major reported and relevant issues is a way of keeping it out because it's unpalatable to some. It's relevant, of significance, very widely reported and sourced and both his and her points of view have been reported so it can be added neutrally. If it was an article about anyone else it would be added AntHolnes (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It is false to argue that if the article was about someone else the material would be added. The contrary is the case. BCST2001 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And yet the material is not being offered up for consideration to be added. It's conspicuous by it's absence. A proposed discussion about what should be added doesn't include the material, when in the vast majority of sources it's intricately linked with the reporting of the material that is being considered, as well as being relevant, of significance, well and reliably reported and easily to add from a neutral point of view perspective AntHolnes (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm initially unsure if B belongs here or in Marsden article, I agree with AndonicO's point on her notability; but this break-up is mostly notable because of Jim and the involvement of Wiki. So that drags it back here to some extent. - RoyBoy 800 15:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    I think the only way to avoid claims of "one rule for Jimbo" is for the same content needs to be on both articles - I don't see why it couldn't be. Neıl 15:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with Neil that the level of detail regarding this event should be equal in both articles. I doubt it could be objectively demonstrated that one person is more "notable" than the other, and do not believe that the "relative notability" of either person would be a meaningful factor in deciding whether or not to include this information in either person's article. — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If we are going to go with B (which I favor some variant of) we should mention the claims that this resulted in a COI. I don't think personally there were any actual COI issues but reliable sources have discussed the concern. I disagree with Charlotte's claim above- this is actually much more about Jimbo than it is about Marsden. If anything there should be more content about this here than on his page. The only reason this has gotten any coverage at all is because of the COI issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    You mean because the community of Wikipedia editors expected better from Jimbo, but not from Rachel? If there are "COI issues" or "concerns about COI issues" it's still equally about both of them, as it would be his suspected conflict of interest regarding the content of Wikipedia's article about her. — CharlotteWebb 17:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
      • No, but the press coverage has focused on Wales, not Marsden. Furthermore, the responsibility is essentially his; there's no accusation that I can see that she had a COI that was at work here; the accusation is that Jim had a COI due to her relationship with her. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As indicated at Talk:Jimmy_Wales#WP:UNDUE, I believe that option A is the maximum permissible coverage of this issue within policy. The other option is C, which would not bother me at all: it is probably preferable. BCST2001 (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    Information should be given weight in proportion to available sources. It is misguided to impose artificial restrictions on the detail of one section or article based on the lack of detail in other sections or articles. Every Wikipedia article is inherently an unfinished work. Articles should ultimately reflect what our sources say, no more, no less. The order in which pieces fall into place isn't of major consequence. — CharlotteWebb 17:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, according to WP:NPOV, one of the core content policies of Wikipedia, "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The question is what is appropriate, not some formula weighing the "proportion" of sources. In this case, the material is trivial, and inclusion of detail on this matter is not appropriate. It is also invasive, and raises WP:BLP concerns. If, somewhere down the track, some weighty significance is found to attach to this material, then it can be re-weighed. As it stands, there is no such significance and, as I indicated earlier, much of the attempt to include this material amounts to prurient interest. BCST2001 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    You are wholly wrong. There are no BLP concerns. Please actually read WP:BLP. It requires information must be reliably referenced and neutrally written (all it really amounts to is a particularly emphatic rewriting of WP:V) when dealing with articles about living persons. Neıl 17:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have read WP:BLP and it says substantially more than you suggest. BCST2001 (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support B. We should include whatever can be appropriately referenced. Maybe we can put more in Marsden's article than in Wales's. --Merovingian (T, C) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been thinking that the current sentence should be altered with the clause "that attracted media attention" -- essentially the first sentence of B. I see little reason to go further than that at this moment. I think the media attention is the only reason this topic has become notable, and the only justification for mentioning it at all. I would also like to point out that arguing for a lengthier treatment in Marsden's article could also be perceived as systemic bias (based on Wales' role in Wikipedia AND his gender) and I would argue against that. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree entirely with the last sentence of your comment, but explicitly mentioning that something has "attracted media attention" and implicitly suggesting that "this is why we have published this information" seems a bit tautological as we generally don't publish information that has not attracted coverage in secondary sources, i.e. mediums independent both from the subject and from ourselves. Perhaps to use a more descriptive summary word than "attention", or better yet to actually explain the nature of the "media attention", would better serve our readers. As a rule, if Wikipedia didn't read it somewhere else, you wouldn't be reading it here. To a cynical reader, emphasizing what should already be taken for granted can actually make us sound defensive. — CharlotteWebb 19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're probably right, perhaps the "attracted media attention" part should be amplifed, so long as the summary does not wander into original research or synthesis, which is the problem I see with the approach attempted below. That said, however, I think the rest of the attempted approach in B above misses the point -- it gets into the he-said, she-said chronology, but does nothing to characterize the story's significance, which may require slightly more perspective than we have (through reliable sources) at the moment. --Sfmammamia (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"In March 2008, Jimmy Wales was claimed to have ended a relationship with Rachel Marsden, a Canadian political columnist, on Wikipedia. The original announcement was moved to his private blog, but not before a minor backlash occurred online on blogs and other websites. There is also some doubt as to the veracity of the claim that Wale's first mention of it occurred online; Marsden's romantic interests found their way to public attention on several occasions, involving both harassment of a counter-terrorism officer / boyfriend and the Simon Fraser University harassment case. Carson (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I want to remind the editors here that want to shove the bulk of the coverage into RM's article that we shouldn't use systemic bias to judge whether this is more significant to her life than Jimbo's. Every Wikipedia editor has heard of Jimbo while they may not have heard of RM before. But that is systemic bias in our editorial knowledge. I also want to remind editors here that we've already had one ArbComm case about BLP violating edits on her article, and that once this article mentions RM, it is subject to remedy #2 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden. "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit." I encourage editors here to assume that they can't rely on any coverage remaining in her article. GRBerry 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Most of these versions miss the relevant point; the accusations of COI. Any mention of this is going to have to make that clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In all honesty, I think if we were to ignore personal issues the event would probably merit a subsection with a couple paragraphs. Jimbo's been in the press plenty, but the previous upsets hardly compare. But in Jimbo's words, "Wikipedia is not here to make people sad." I think a 2-3 sentence summary (possibly longer if it's necessary) that avoids personal details would be reasonable. So something like B. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with what xDanielx has said, so option B is probably best, taking into consideration WP:UNDUE and similar relevant policies/guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Option B

Seems the obvious choice is B, I assume this goes under Personal; and Wool's allegations go under a new section such as "Controversy"? Where does that leave the COI issue, in controversy or mentioned with Marsden in Personal? - RoyBoy 800 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Under "Wikimedia Foundation" seems most appropriate for intuition and flow. Creating a "Controversy" section just for this would probably draw more complaints. –Pomte 10:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
A and C are so poor that clearly it should be B with a see also to Wikimedia Foundation. The section there should cover off both COI and the financial matterCanuckle (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so are we going to add in a note about the COI accusations already? The current wording simply mentions a relationship with no context at all to why this was at all noted by the media. I strongly recommend simply using the wording currently on the Marsden page with a single phrase added noting that Jimbo made his statement in response to COI allegations. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


If his t-shirt actually sells for $15,000 or more, I think that should be mentioned. No doubt it will appear in reliable sources. SBPrakash (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Merovingian (T, C) 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That's gotta be some soft cotton, for sure. Carson (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well the price has fallen from $15,000 last night to only $2,000 today. Perhaps some insane people have withdrawn their bids. I am not sure I could agree that a merely two thousand dollar t-shirt is actually notable. SBPrakash (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Publicized auctions tend to attract hoax bids, which eBay removes when information can't be verified. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

democracy the wiki way

I used to love wikipedia. Is there ANY REASON why there are 60 TOPICS here on a closed page that won't allow alterations, all of them negative, when the profile is so glowing and complimentary? There is a balanced view on many subjects on WIKI, that's the point. Be it in relevant historical articles, or irrelevant ones on Tom Cruise etc. Yet Jimmy Wales' is solely complimentary. Any balanced journalist would notice that there's 60 topics here needing addressing, yet it is vert clear to the Wiki community that none of these will ever be allowed through , blocked by legions of admins. So I merely am asking a simple mundane question in this post - Should the community be able to voice their (60+) opinions or should they be ignored ? hope to hear a nice diplomatic answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

They don't require the ability to edit the article if the talk page is meant for discussion. If the article were unprotected, everyone with the 60+ opinions would try to edit at once, and would undo the edits of people that disagree with them. It is better to discuss rather than have edit wars. I hope that answers your question. (Oh, and wikipedia is not a democracy.) • AndonicO Hail! 11:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
They should be able to voice their opinion, because the idea of a full protect on an wiki was absurd to begin with. Ban users, ban IPs, don't prevent who actually do this wiki thing as a long-term hobby from being able to edit it just because a lot of people might go after it at once -- so what? If it turns into a morass, just revert. I thought we have reliable servers, so I know it can't be that. Is there a fear of having his page be in a state of construction for more than a day at a time? It's not like schoolchildren are busy doing research papers on this man, and college students have more interesting people to write about. This is solely my opinion, but I think this full protect is unfounded and represents a sick bit of censorship being claimed to be in the best interests of the community and encyclopedia. Carson (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

here is a link to a recent well established article. I presume this wont be banned as its a reputable online magazine.. Wikipedia Founder Hit With Relationship Trouble, Allegations of Excessive Spending —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi 68.122 - it's not banned, but it's a copyright thing (we can't copy entire articles, even to talk pages), so I've replaced it with a link. No judgement on whether this should be in the article. Neıl 10:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's also a blog on, not the magazine itself, so therefore of dubious reliability. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This is true. If I were referencing the statements, I'd probably go with another source. --Merovingian (T, C) 17:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Er, we've discussed this before at RS and elsewhere. Just because a reliable source labels some of their coverage a blog doesn't make it a blog for our purposes. What matter is that it has editorial oversight and such (which they do). This is why for example the New York Times "blogs" are citable. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, I understand, but except in the case of obscure events, there are other more traditional stories about something. We're at the point in this incident that blogs are good sources, but not the best. And I think we should also probably point out in the text when something comes from a blog. --Merovingian (T, C) 17:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The Danny/spending issue from the Wired article, at the very least, can be cited to this MSNBC article. One imagines, notwithstanding the A/B/C !vote supra, that whatever we write about the Marsden issue will ultimately focus on untoward conduct, either vis-à-vis the Foundation's finances or in the context of any editorial involvement with the Rachel Marsden, that is alleged—the associated controversies, after all, appear on their way to becoming rather notable—and the MSNBC article is perhaps as good a source as any we have at present. Joe 22:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wales statement re Marsden

We don't need to self reference now - if we do choose to mention it - as Jimbo has moved it to his blog ([5]), which I believe we can link as a primary source. Neıl 10:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

can this be included on jimmys page or does it have to stay here? its true so why cant it be posted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered particularly reliable sources for something like this, where they are being used as a "secondary source". They're only really okay when used as a "primary source" (e.g. a statement from and about the blog owner, for an article on them). Neıl 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest this as a source: Fury of a woman scorned – on Wikipedia. The Times (London). 4 March 2008.

There was some uncertainty as to whether Mr Wales could write about his past romance from a “neutral point of view”; equally, it was unclear whether his statement that the affair was ended constituted a “novel narrative or historical interpretation”.

What Mr Wales acknowledged was a “far more important” issue was the allegation that, as he became involved with Ms Marsden, he intervened to redraft her Wikipedia biography.


History will decide whether Mr Wales broke his own principles, although before that happens there may well be a Wikipedia page devoted to the controversy.

I would suggest that failure to include anything on this makes wikipedia look poor.T L Miles (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear Neıl 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's the same Brian Bergstein Associated Press article already listed as #24 in the ref list higher on this page. Certainly we don't need to note every appearance of the same article. Please take the time to compare before adding. --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of his alleged expense "rort" (see for example ) -- (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically because at this point it is only accusations. When the media (or Danny for that matter) comes up with something more concrete there will be something added I am sure. ViridaeTalk 10:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Allegations themselves can, of course, in certain situations, become sufficiently notable (whether by virtue of their being leveled by someone relevantly notable or of their being widely covered/reported on, even if only as allegations) as to merit mention (for various reasons, I think it to be quite clear that a treatment of the issue is appropriate here, but my comment means only to address the broader issue). Joe 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Allegations were always welcomed on the Rachel Marsden page. Kurt Turkulney (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I am baffled that you would require 'concrete' evidence from the media. WP:BLP: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." –Pomte 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfounded accusations sail pretty close to the wind with BLP, especially those which are not being made by the newspaper, but are being repeated from a blog. ViridaeTalk 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes blogs make unfounded accusations, sometimes they turn out right. I'm not in a position to judge. If reliable sources find certain blogs noteworthy in specific instances, then we report it with V and NPOV. The facts here are not contentious at all. The claim of frugality being made in the article right now, backed by one source only, is more contentious and quite possibly as misrepresentative of his character. –Pomte 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
After I wrote my reply, I rethought that answer. I now tend to agree, that a well sourced sentence that indicates that claims of impropriety have been made but not confirmed should probobly be included. ViridaeTalk 02:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This Article Is Biased

To Whom It May Concern,

I used to edit Wikipedia frequently, but unfortunately I can not the find the time to do so any more, thus so, I went into retirement. Yet, I still use Wikipedia often, because, for the most part, it is a great source of information.

But, when I read this article, it got me so angry that inspired me to come out of retirement just to say this:

This article is the most biased article on Wikipedia!

Wales and his minions are removing anything the least bit negative at all about him from this article. I looked at the history of this article and the criticism section has been removed by Wales fanclub! Now all of Wales' admin buddies made it so only they can edit the page.

Basically, this article is just propaganda about promoting Wales and saying how "great and smart" he is.

There is not one word in here about Wales' recent private troubles and his other controversies. All this article says regarding Wales controversial relationship with his former lover, Rachel Marsden, is that he had "a brief relationship" with her. If that's not biased, I don't know what is.

According to MSNBC what really happened is that "Marsden published steamy and embarrassing online chats with Wales, and dumped his clothes on eBay. Wales, 41, also became the subject of an eyebrow-raising blog entry by Danny Wool, who until last year worked for the nonprofit, donor-supported Wikimedia Foundation that runs the encyclopedia. Wool wrote that Wales had asked the foundation to reimburse him for costly items like a $1,300 dinner for four at a Florida steakhouse. Wool alleged that at one point Wales was short on receipts for $30,000 in expenses before settling the matter with the foundation's lawyer and paying the organization $7,000. Wool added that Wales' foundation credit card was taken away in 2006. Wales denied that, saying in an interview over instant message that it was his own decision to stop seeking reimbursements even for business travel for the foundation, where he is "chairman emeritus" and one of seven board members." (You can see more here:

Well, There you have it...

For all you admins, who are coveringv for Wales, you should be ashamed of yourselves.


Psdubow (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. for Mr. Wales: Please do not remove this post. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psdubow (talkcontribs) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. For further reference, please see pretty much every other section on this page, plus presumably the Rachel Marsden article, where people are trying to deal with this while the article is protected to stop edit warring over the whole issue. Thanks, Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Article source regarding current controversialities (financial and moral)

It has been accused of Administrator Mr Wales improper usages of fund from Wikimedia Foundation. I believe it appropriate to be include in Mr Wales Wiki, please provide towards it your skilled attention.Wen Hsing (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't mean to be rude, but this isn't unique. User:Cirt posted the same link a while ago, along with links to a dozen similar articles. — xDanielx T/C\R 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


After a third request on WP:RFPP I have reduced the protection level to semi-protection. I (and no doubt other administrators) will be keeping a close eye on the article and any poor behaviour will result in quick re-application of protection. Play nice. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I protected the page due to edit warring, so that consensus might be arrived at on the talk page. Since I see no evidence that a consensus has been reached, I'm a little confused by this unprotection. Is this a case of cross our fingers and hope for the best? Because I don't think that will work. We protect "UNTIL disputes are settled on the talk page" - that hasn't happened.--Docg 10:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be close to resolution above (in the Consensus section). But you (or any other admin) can and should reinstate protection in the case of edit warring and BLP violations, and I waive any and all wheel war protections and any other policies that would stop you or anyone else from doing so. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Silly article - a new article about what happened is needed

Interesting that there is nothing in the article about the Wikimedia Foundation controversy, where funds have allegedly been used for Wales and his personal expenses. But if this particular article should not reflect the truth: How about a new article named 2008 Wikimedia controversy? --Camptown (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a link to wikinews. It will probably be deleted in a flash... --Camptown (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This really is absurd. I work for a fortune 500 company, we've had many cases where expenses have been mishandled far worse than this, in the end Brad Patrick states that Jimbo provided receipts and paid the balance out of his own pocket (SOP in such cases) and that really is an end to it. It's a storm in a teacup. On the scale of financial scandals this barely reaches the level of trivial. WMF is a very small business anyway. Basically it's a case of ZOMG! JIMBO WAS A BIT SLACK WITH HIS EXPENSES! but he squared it all and the Foundation lawyer signed it off. Talk about WP:UNDUE... Guy (Help!) 12:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure, this might be a storm in a teacup, but why are all notions about this controversy deleted from the article? --Camptown (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • At a guess, I'd say it's because there is no properly objective analysis of its significance. The expenses thing is stale and was dealt with to the satisfaction of Brad Patrick (whose integrity is not, I think, in question), and the Marsden bit is salacious gossip, as indeed is just about everything related to Rachel Marsden. Guy (Help!)
  • However, it's literally all over the news media. I see no reason why it lacks even a single one line mention. Lawrence § t/e 14:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See below. Feel free to suggest a properly neutral, proportionate and verifiable sentence. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See below. I already put it in. If the controversy grows, this will grow. We worship neutrality here above all. Lawrence § t/e 14:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And as I noted, your version was factually inaccurate and biased (due to omissions in your source). Please take more care, especially when reverting long-standing users, who might, just occasionally, know what they are doing. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Time to apply WP:IAR?

Isn't it time to apply WP:IAR? The situation is getting riduculous. There have been stories all over the mainstream news media in the last week about allegations of improper use of funds and of COI regarding the founder and the public face of Wikipedia. Yes, the allegations themselves may be overblown, but since they received so much mainstream media coverage, they are clearly notable and should at least be briefly mentioned in the main article. The fact that there is still no mention of this story in the article damages the credibility of Wikipedia as a project, and the longer this absence continues the worse the damage will get.

Clearly, this is an exceptional situation for Wikipedia. Ordinarily, yeah, we could wait for the normal dispute resolution process to play itself out, but in this case it could take weeks and, given the heated feelings of the community on the issue and the chaos that reigned in this talk page in the last few days, may not ultimately be successful. Since the credibility of the entire Wikipedia project is being damaged in the meantime, I think it is time to invoke WP:IAR and add some info regarding the controvercy to the article without waiting for concensus. Better if this is done by an experienced WP editor, probably an admin. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • As the Scottish play has it, "It is a tale … full of sound and fury; signifying nothing." But hey, let's see a proposed wording that meets WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Added reference to financial allegation in body

NPOV is non-negotiable, and a one-sentence entry at the MINIMUM is required to ensure neutrality. This is clearly a major news event in Wales' life, as media-covered allegations of impropriety are significant. Yes, it hurts WP to have this in the article. Yes, it may hurt donations. Yes, we still have to suck at the tit of NPOV no matter how much we appreciate what Jimmy did to start to the site--NPOV is above all else. No one can claim BLP. This is what I added:

"In 2008, Wales was accused by an ex-Wikipedia employee of mishandling his expenses, which both he and other Wikipedia employees denied.<ref>[ Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales accused of expenses rort], ''Asher Moses'', March 5, 2008, Sydney Morning Herald.</ref>"

It's just absurd to not put it in--do we worship neutrality, or the man that handed down the concept for WP? Lawrence § t/e 14:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I RV'd your OR/unsourced info here. That needs sourcing. Lawrence § t/e 14:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Lawrence, that is how it was reported in the original story - and your version was factually incorrect since Wikipedia has no employees, Danny was employed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Do me the credit of assuming I know what I'm doing, eh? Guy (Help!) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment about IAR in edit summary just now

Guys, IAR does *NOT* apply to article integrity or neutrality, ever. We don't play favorites with articles. This one gets the same treatment as any other BLP, no more, no less. Lawrence § t/e 16:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I used IAR as a reason to add my sentence. Please look at my diff so that you can tell what I added. I made a simple change that I was worried would be quickly reverted; it had nothing to do with sources. I don't know why so many other edits were quickly made after me, they were unsourced, but never included IAR in the edit summary. Please check my diff so that you are up to speed on the situation and can reply to this statement. - ђαίгснгм таιќ 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My statement here was just a general one, so that everyone understands that Jimmy gets no favors here, from us--before anyone does start sneaking in unsourced statements, or trying to downplay factual news source reporting by saying "But this is common knowledge on Wikipedia, so the source is wrong," as appears to have happened on other recent controversies with media attention, like the cyberstalking list brouhaha. Many critical eyes will be on these edits, so everything will be by the book. Jimmy's BLP gets no special treatment that any other John Smith BLP wouldn't get. I just felt it needed saying and emphasizing. Lawrence § t/e 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, I thought it was a personal attack on my edit. I agree with you, and I definately think that this should be by the book. - ђαίгснгм таιќ 17:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing Squeakbox + Bramlet Founder duel

See here. The source linked clearly says, from 2002: "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." We've been over this. All the news media say Wales and Sanger TOGETHER founded it. Wales is oft quoted as saying that's not true. Unless media and RS decide to go with Wales' take, we go with what has been historically reported, full stop, the end. Please stop edit warring on this or leave the article. Lawrence § t/e 17:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe we need to include Sanger in the opening, this can be included lower down, this is not the article on wikipedia or on Sanger but that on Walles and I am clear that Sanmger has not been such an important influnce to in any way justify his inclusion in the opening of the article, and I am sure that people will be unable tom find similar examples in opther biographies. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine, but then you have to remove the entire sentence. You can't just say "Wales created Wikipedia" because he didn't create it on his own. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep it civil you guys. No need to edit war over this. I think that this week is not the time to debate over this, with all of this other news going on. Everyone on WP knows about these current events happening right now, as it came out in the Signpost, so I think you guys should just drop it for a few days and we can come back to this. - ђαίгснгм таιќ 17:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This has been running since forever. Jimmy denies that Sanger is co-founder, and clearly finds the suggestion offensive, so the solution is to find another form of words. News media are not the be-all and end-all, their use of terminology can be sloppy and we're talking here about people assuming that what they say is literally and immutably true, despite the repeated assertions of one party that it is not, and that seems to me very unwise. It's perfectly possible that the news media have got their take from Sanger going to them with a gripe, for example. So: find a neutral form of words. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? We must avoid things that Jimmy finds offensive? Man, this cult has really gone far. This has been discussed forever, but to repeat: this is not a he-said-she-said situation. The press releases alone are definitive, combined with all the pre-2004 media coverage like the 2001 NYT article which clearly rules out that Jimmy was at that time considering himself sole founder. Any "alternate history" he later made up is irrelevant. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My own feeling is that regardless of how we treat this issue that Sanger has no place in the opening, he simply has not been notable enough in Wales' life to warrant such a placing, in other article I would assume somebody was trying to spam the non-subject by mentioning him or her in the opening. I agree now is not the time to deal with the co-founder issue (the minimal progress I have made on that issue does, though, show that we do not give Wales special treatment re his bio or how we treat him on the project) but it is a good time to make sure that we do not link to other people in the opening to this article when their notability as an influence over Wales life, or as a huge figure within Wales' life is, to say the least of it, unproven19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox
Please read the references. There are plenty of historical and new references to support the text. For example, 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. End of story. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
That is fine for the opening of wikipedia, perhaps for the opening of Sanger, and certainly lower down in the bulk of this article but nothing you say impresses me that Sanger deserves to be in the opening of the Wales biography. Maybe we need a better way to describe Wales relationship with wikipedia (I would argue we should focus on his current role in wikipedia) and even to call him a founder and say current leader of wikipedia would be far preferable to mentioning Sanger in the opening, where he simply does not belong. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Perhaps a compromise can be reached. Simply, move the text to the body of the article. There is a section covering Nupedia and Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Squeakbox, move the text to the appropriate section and add something about Wales' current role in Wikipedia to the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that it is okay to add to the Wales article. Why? Let us see some examples:
  • Bill Gates article: first paragraph: "...chairman of Microsoft, the software company he founded with Paul Allen."
  • Steve Jobs article: first paragraph: "...Together with Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak..."
These are all listed in the first paragraph. I think that this would yield enough evidence to suggest that his cofounder should be listed in his article, and I don't see why not in the first paragraph. It doesn't matter that he doesn't like it. If he doesn't like it, he can ask through normal channels to have it taken down, and we can politely have a discussion on that, and politely choose to refuse. I see no problem with this as an addition, in fact I see that it should be a requirement. - ђαίгснгм таιќ 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. QuackGuru (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Per suggestion by Squeakbox, I added the current leader of Wikipedia tidbit to the lead. Please review.[6] QuackGuru (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Current events tag

Am I totally off my rocker--do we or do not routinely apply to this to subjects (BLP or otherwise) currently heavily featured in the news media? If the answer is yes, we do, why wouldn't we here? This is just another BLP--no more or less important than any other. Lawrence § t/e 17:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this does classify as a current event, please keep the template at the top, not remove it. - ђαίгснгм таιќ 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The preceeding comment was accidentally added when an edit conflict occured, the editor had originally planned to add a comment to vandals to please cease removing the tag on the page, but accidentally added it as a response to a related, but different question by user:Lawrence Cohen. As a result, the following comment is void unless someone else offers a comment in the affirmative. - ђαίгснгм таιќ 17:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. We have to completely treat Jimmy's absolutely as if he had no idea who he was in regards to Wikipedia. Not one shred of anything extra that a run of the mill BLP would not get. Or the media and trolls will have a field day. Lawrence § t/e 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I hardly see events being about to change or so many editors here that there are endless edit conflicts. This tag is merely trying to embarrass Jimmy, IMO, and its use may have been appropriate the day the story broke but not today. Slahdot and The Register don't make for a major news story and at the least I would be expecting mainstream coverage (CNN etc) if the current tag were warranted. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Look at how many edits have been done today on this issue over this edit conflict. Also, it was carried by many major sources, not just Slashdot and The Register. I believe that it is important that this tag stays, at least for today. - ђαίгснгм таιќ 17:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't amount to substantial media coverage? At a glance I see historic and notable news sources such as the Washington Post, SF Chronicle, the Globe & Mail of Canada, and international coverage from Scotland to India to New Zealand. This is all over the global news media, and syndication services such as the AP and UPI also now have it. Lawrence § t/e 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Jossi removed the tag again. I'm not sure why. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of Marsden info

Cary says: Ignore All Dramas.

There was consensus above on this page to expand it, and material already present on Rachel Marsden was added by JoshuaZ here, and then removed. Why is this material acceptable on Rachel Marsden but not on Jimmy Wales, the exact other half of that piece of history? Again, this article MUST be enforced by the book on BLP--no different than any other. Lawrence § t/e 17:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I didn't realize that it was in that context. Sorry for the revert, I just thought that we should discuss it first. If it is approved, I will self-rv. - ђαίгснгм таιќ 17:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(combining with Lawrence's above section) Ok, so my recent addition was removed with a note to discuss it further on talk. This addition is functionally identical to the material on the Rachel Marsden page so I'm at a loss to understand why we can have it there but not here. There also given the intense media coverage this has now received seems to be no UNDUE issue. And frankly if anything is a serious UNDUE issue it is having a one sentence mention of the relationship with Marsden with no context given for what that was notable at all. There's no BLP issue at this point since everything is well sourced and there's no UNDUE issue. Meanwhile, the media focus on this is growing. Are there any objections to the material as phrased? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I didn't realize that it was in that context. Sorry for the revert, I just thought that we should discuss it first. If it is approved, I will self-rv. - ђαίгснгм таιќ 17:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Has this been resolved yet? RFerreira (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, aside from a few minor issues the text seems to be staying. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is good that there is an explicit mention now of the conflict of interest allegation. However, I think that the sentence regarding the EBay auction should be removed or perhaps replaced by a less tabloidish sentence. The current version reads: In return, Marsden, who claimed to have learned about the breakup by reading about it on Wikipedia, turned to eBay and listed a T-shirt and sweater which she claimed Wales left behind at her apartment.[9][10][11][12] There is no question that the info in this sentence is verifiable and is supported by references to reliable sources. It is also true that the EBay episode is important to the dynamics of the breakup controversy. However, I still do not think that the EBay auction mention belongs in Wales' biographical entry. The "Basic Human Dignity" section ofWP:BLP says: "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid." This statement seems to be exactly on point here. The EBay auction is a lurid tabloidy detail of the controversy, a detail that does not involve any wrongdoing or alledged wrongdoing or a contested statement or position by any party, and certainly not by Wales. As such, I don't think this detail belongs in Wales' biographical entry.

I am not sure if it needs to be mentioned in Rachel Marsden's article. Although the same considerations as above apply to her, perhaps the EBay episode is a much greater factor in her notability than in his, in which case an asymmetric approach may be appropriate. There is a precedent for this. The blue dress episode is mentioned in the bio entry for Monica Lewinsky but not for Bill Clinton.

I would suggest to replace the Ebay auction sentence by something like:

"A contentious and highly publicized breakup followed. [13][14][15][12]"

Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the reverse. Ebay on Wales and not Marsden. A web 2.0 proponent damaging wikipedia 's reputation, and his own, by an Ebay auction. More relevant to him than to her. Canuckle (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but what do you mean "A web 2.0 proponent damaging wikipedia 's reputation, and his own, by an Ebay auction"? He did not put anything on EBay, did he? Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thing is, there was no conflict of interest. Jimmy recused himself form editing the Marsden article, and the problems with it, and attempts by OTRS volunteers (including me) to fix it, date back well before Jimmy ever met the woman. As is evident from her article, she is opinionated, attracts enemies, and makes a habit of giving her enemies plenty of mud to throw at her, and if you look at the article history you'll see that the problems go back a very long way. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What you say may very well be true and in fact I personally believe that it is true. But I think that it is beside the point. There was an allegation of a conflict of interest that was widely reported in the mainstream media and the fact that such an allegation was made needs to be included. As the first sentence in WP:V reads, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It's important to consider the source as well as the content. A lot of people feel that Danny has rather let the side down here, and has not stated the situation in anything like a fair or complete way. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


Is his formal name Jimmy or James? --Camptown (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo has said Jimmy, apparently it is an Alabama thing. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


I note the inclusion and expansion of the section on the Wales/Marsden connection. I continue to believe this is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. I do not believe this information is encyclopedic, nor do I believe that including this material amounts to editing in a conservative, neutral, and responsible manner that respects the privacy of living people. The material is trivial, negative, tabloidish and sensationalistic. I also believe there are grounds for removing the material deriving from this and other ArbCom rulings: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden/Proposed_decision#Articles_which_relate_to_Rachel_Marsden. BCST2001 (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no UNDUE issue at this point even if there was at one point; the matter has been covered in literally 10s of sources at this point, some of them major newspapers and that coverage is unfortunately growing (the fact that I think this coverage is idiotic and over a non-issue is irrelevant). The current version gives a quick, reasonably short summary of the matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
10s? I am seing more than 265 Google News hits on [Wales Marsden]. CKCortez (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm being slightly conservative since google news often includes multiple copies of the same material. For example it will frequently list an AP story multipe times. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors argue there is no WP:UNDUE issue because there are numerous newspaper stories. But the newspaper stories see the newsworthiness of the event as (in part, at least, aside from the general prurient tabloid interest, tabloidism being an infectious phenomenon not confined solely to so-called "tabloids") deriving from their perception that the story has caused Wikipedia to be up-in-arms. This circularity results in a kind of runaway inflation of the apparent significance of the material, out of all proportion to its actual significance, which is close to zero. BCST2001 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Weight is determined by the presence and number of reliable sources. By this logic no matter related to Wikipedia could ever become notable because it would always be the media reacting to Wikipedia events. Furthermore, the media isn't reacting to us having a mention of this on this page, it is reacting to the junk on WT:JIMBO and elsewhere. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the decision made by the arbitration, but note that the proposal that they agreed on said only if it violated WP:BLP. This article does not violate the principals listed within BLP, hence I see no reason to remove this information from the article. Also, it definately does not violate WP:WEIGHT, we've already discussed this. - ђαίгснгм таιќ 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Weight is determined by the presence and number of reliable sources. Really? Are you sure about this? A media frenzy does not equate with "weight". If at all, a short mention of the frivolous incident is all what is needed. Otherwise it is indeed WP:NPOV#Undue≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Media frenzies do come and go and we need to be careful to avoid recentism but ultimately weight is based on the number of reliable sources and related issues. We can't write articles with different levels of weight simply because we don't think they matter that much. To do so would be to inject our own POVs. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This has been covered by international mainstream press, and the brief and neutral mention of it as of now is appropriate. .. dave souza, talk 21:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, not at all. Events of actual significance will always be notable. Were Jimmy Wales murdered, there would not be this discussion. In general, of course, Wikipedia editors do tend to inflate the importance of Wikipedia-related events. But in general this is not a problem. When it is combined with tabloid sensationalism, invasions of privacy, and the perpetuation of beliefs in imaginary conflicts of interest, however, then there is a definite policy problem. BCST2001 (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we have this discussion on one page instead of two pages please? In any event, as has been pointed out this has been covered in international sources. Your response above also doesn't actually respond to any of the points I brought up above. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) In addition, I have seen this covered in several print newspapers by now, in some cases with the comment that they considered it remarkable that (at that time) the page about Wales on Wikipedia hardly mentioned this (in their view significant) incident. We are making a fool of ourselves if we exclude it, rather than the other way round. --Reinoutr (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to stop going around and around in circles on this issue. File a requests for comment, please. It is impossible to obtain consensus when the thread keeps being opened, reopened, in multiple locations on different talk pages. RFerreira (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
We do seem to have a consensus at this point; the page on this issue is fairly stable. Right now we're just fighting about the founder/cofounder thing so it is a normal day on this page. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with JoshuaZ here. Ultimately our purpose is to spread information, and readers are going to want information on events like these. We may consider the events trivial an unimportant, but it's not really our role to filter information based on what we see as important (imagine if we did that with politics or religion). At times we have to exercise some discretion because it's not clear what (or how much) information readers will seek, but when we have a media explosion like this one it's a strong indication that some mention is appropriate. I think we should err on the side of brevity so as to minimize possible negative repercussions for Jimbo and the WMF, but that's a separate concern. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Our role is not to spread information, don't even think of it. Our role is to create an encyclopedia. This reinterpreting the goal to fit people's personal agendas is hugely problematic and needs nipping in the bud. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what Daniel means by spreading information but this strikes me as encyclopedic information. The exact details (such as the Ebay thing) aren't necessary and should probably be removed; but this is an issue that has achieved international attention; the fact that we understand that the accusations don't have much merit isn't that relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think building an encyclopedia is inconsistent with the goal of spreading information. My point is just that it generally makes sense to provide readers with the information they seek. Otherwise, we might decide that physiology is more important than Britney Spears and redirect the latter to the former. — xDanielx T/C\R 01:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with BCST2001, the information is indeed "trivial, negative, tabloidish and sensationalistic" and though I don't believe we should cover up negative information, the fact that this info is really quite tabloidish and sensationalistic and full of innuendos, is worrisome. Once the potential negative info is placed in article space, no matter how many refutations we present, the innuendo remains. Care must be exercised when adding negative info to bios, period, full stop.--MONGO 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A mirror of my comment at Talk:Rachel Marsden#UNDUE/BLP: This is not a trivial event in Jimbo's life, as evidenced by the sources. Many of them are not tabloids. We report sensationalistic stories if they are clearly notable. There is no sensational element to our report. We relay the content of the sensation, not the sensation itself. Your argument is from a purely subjective non-neutral standpoint. Our job is not to solve the problem of innuendos. If what we write happens to give off an impression of innuendo to some readers, that's entirely those reader's perception. If a source says "this is an innuendo", then we can label it an innuendo. If you are really worried, what's worse: refuting the innuendo, or not refuting it all by not mention it? Much care has obviously been excised here to draft what's in the article. –Pomte 20:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I am, for the most part, with MONGO and BCST2001. See my comment and suggestion for replacing the Ebay action sentence in Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Expansion_of_Marsden_info above. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

current news stories on corruption scandles?

I heard the a story that peaked my interested, being a wikipedian, on the news: it was about our Jimbo, and Wikipedia. Specifically I recall it being about corruption money issued with him using foundation money for personal use, etc. and that his foundation credit card was taken away some time ago? Anyway, this was all news to me, but it was on CBS and ABC radio the other day, so I was curious to see what his wikipedia article said about these controversies, being a current event. To my surprise nothing is mentioned. I'm wondering why is that? I did a quick search and there are lots of news reports on this story: Don't get me wrong, I like Jimbo, and love wikipedia, but I feel wikipedia should be courageous to report on all notable events about a person provided it has good sources and is notable, even if it is about itself or its founder. Wikipedia is bigger and transcends itself. Also, there is a question of integrity of the encylopedia that does not comprise its standards, no?Giovanni33 (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • For "corruption scandal" read "minor administrative cock-up that was sorted a long time ago and blown out of proportion by a disgruntled former employee". I suspect this will resolve the confusion in your mind. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • While I agree that there's no real evidence of any wrongdoing we have to include a mention of this in the article; indeed, I would be inclined to argue that Jimbo will actually look better if we include it along with the statements by other foundation members and by Brad saying that the accusations are groundless. The current brief discussion seems ok to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • No matter how much the allegation is refuted and even once it is possibly found to be completely inaccurate, the allusion of impropriety remains and it is these problems (wanting to be all inclusive, even if the allegation is completely false), that is so problematic in our articles, especially bios.--MONGO 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, I have to agree with the comment that dealing with such often unfounded allegations is something we have to deal with a lot, because of our "all the info that's fit to put on the web" policies. And we do have to be seen to deal with all such notable events, particularly when dealing with "one of our own". However, having not actually said anything earlier, I get the impression that our first real "sex scandal" seems to be dying away fairly quickly and seems to have been handled fairly well, and I would like to thank everyone who has helped to keep this situation from becoming a real problem, including Jimbo himself. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • There's no inherent allusion of anything. Saying Jimbo was accused means Jimbo was accused. Readers may their own interpretations about both positive and negative facts, and this fact has both positive and negative components. –Pomte 20:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I have no idea what the truth is, but wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth, per se. Even if the accusation is that Jimbo is from Mars, if its a notable allegation, i.e. all the mainstream press is picking up on the story and running with it, we have to report it in porportion. By all means, it must not be an attack on Jimbo, and certainly refuting information must be added. But it is a notable issue pertaining to this article, and so it should be reported. If it were just sensationalistic tabloid stuff, indicative by where its published, I'd say it does not belong here. But, its a story all over the mainstream press. If anything, it looks bad and suspicious of this article does not give it full breath and scope, reflecting what is out there in the news media. Personally, I think Jimbo comes off looking much better if we include all the relevant statements. Lets throw some good o'fashion wiki-sunshine on this matter as the best disinfectant.:) This is big enough to have its own little section/title, on "controversies" or "allegations of impropriety."Giovanni33 (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:ATT is your friend. Danny Wool says X, Florence, Jimbo and Brad say Y, and we leave the reader to draw their own conclusions. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yea, that's right. Just like Sherron Watkins said X; Skilling, Lay, and Fastow said Y, and the reader (eventually) drew their own conclusions. - Living in Envy (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's more like Florence says Y in public and X in private... Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
{{fact}}. Not that I'm on the foundation mailing list, but I've not seen anything from Florence to contradict what she's quoted as saying in the sources. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The sources directly document her contradiction.[7] Furthermore, she hasn't denied the "gold-plated washing machine" quote either. Pretty clearly she has had issues with Wales and is simply still doing what Danny also initially did (and which is reasonable for a time): she tries to solve the problems internally to avoid harm to Wikipedia. She just overdid it; Wales clearly hasn't gotten a grip and now the matter exploded, not least into her face. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The source you cite is wrong, in part. Even respected newspapers are not always entirely accurate. Get used to it. . . dave souza, talk 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And it is wrong because ... you want to believe so? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It's wrong because I checked out one of the statements made in the newspaper article, and found it to be incorrect. Other statements it makes may or may not be correct. .. dave souza, talk 08:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Because you checked it out? That sounds like OR, to me. If you have a reliable source that says its wrong, then the solution is to present and quote both sources. We don't determine truth.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well gee, by that standard there's no such thing as a reliable source. How convenient, you don't have to accept any unpalatable facts because anything written anywhere "may or may not be correct". Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a definite allusion of impropriety about the exclusion of information about the scandal; whether or not the allegations are groundless or not is irrelevant. The fact the allegations have been made, and have been reported upon by reliable sources, is not irrelevant! Debunked conspiracy theories like "the government committed 9/11" and "the moon landing was faked" are obviously not true; but they're worthy of being included in Wikipedia. So is this. Sailoralea (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

the cabal

Is there a relaible reference about the cabal or it really does not exist. QuackGuru (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I only see him making the proposal. But does it exist, i.e. was the proposal put into effect? If so, I should be in it, as I've been here more than two weeks, specifically more than two years.:) I suspect admins take over this role in practice.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Apparently, the cabal does exist. QuackGuru (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No it doesn't, that piece is largely claptrap as was made perfectly clear on the unsecret wikien-l at the time. The Cabal of which Jimbo speaks in 2001 is what we now call admins. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we can write something neutrality written. Something like: Wales started an online mailing list for administrators. QuackGuru (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
He didn't. I can't even remember who set up the mailing list, but I don't think it was Jimbo, he certainly didn't start the email trail that led to it, and it wasn't only for admins. This has been done to death. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Which cabal specifically are you talking about? There are a bunch of them, you know. I am definitely not a cabalist, contrary to what my userpage might suggest. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-7 23:56
The administrative cabal. However, it may not be a true cabal. It probably is a regular online mailing list. QuackGuru (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, please this is ridiculous. The claims about that mailing list didn't get any major play in the press so we don't cover that. The Register is not in general a reliable source as should be apparent. The 2001 email is specifically just about making admins as anyone can tell by just reading it. Can we move on please? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this belongs on the wikipedia discussion page... that is where this information, if it is used we would be written in. Sethie (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Actuallt the article you are looking for is criticism of Wikipedia, and in my experience it is dominated by people who have absolutely no sense of proportion so you'll be fine taking this material to its talk page :o) Guy (Help!) 00:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

TINC--Trulexicon (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

$30,000 (oh my)

The current version in the article leaves the reader asking more questions. I read it and I am wondering about the details about the money issues. For example, is it true that Wales owed the Wikimedia Foundation $30,000 and how much was the true cost of the dinner. Any suggestions. QuackGuru (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Cade Metz has decided, for whatever reason, to embark on some kind of crusade against Wikipedia. What he writes is unreliable. His source here is a disgruntled former employee (his sources are always disgruntled something). Some people would complain about paradise, so it's easy to find disgruntled somethings. Sure, you can believe every word Metz says if you want. And while you're about it I have a bridge for sale. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What Guy said. I only had to see the phrase "theregister" to know it's unreliable. Will (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Gruntled current employees aren't likely to be sources. And you can go direct to the source here, no need to rely on reporters or news organizations. Florence Devouard has also confirmed elements of the accusations. Now, you can debate the significance and interpretations of these facts - but they seem reasonably well established overall, and an Ad hominem fallacy won't undo them. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this [[8]] is a little more reliable then the register. Sethie (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Potential Source to Add

I'm not half of stupid enough to go tromping around in the page to try and integrate this stuff anywhere, but on the latest This Week in Technology ([| TWiT 135]) there's a fair amount of stuff covering controversy on Jimbo. The commentators are notable of their own right, so if this can be of any use, I figured I'd offer it up.Cool moe dee 345 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Page not found :/ -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite right. Buggardly white space. Link tells me it's fixed now. Even if it doesn't work, you just want TWiT 135. The podcast is too long for them to transcribe the whole thing, so you might have to give it a listen. Sorry about that.Cool moe dee 345 (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection Racket?

The vultures keep circling. Anyone make head nor tales out of this: links to

Spoonkymonkey (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I already added the info from the first source to the article a few hours ago. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 20:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm extremely skeptical, for cynical reasons. But the guy said he was going to release evidence, so given the number of things that have come to light recently, I've been willing to listen to him and read what he says if he really does produce his evidence. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well he did donate to the WMF, and Jimbo did delete his article and start it from scratch back in May. Brandt has an e-mail supporting it too, insofar as I'd trust anything from Brandt. I don't know. It's not about whether we believe it anyway - it's about whether the sources believe it. (Well, whether we believe it might be an issue for the community to address, but elsewhere). -- Naerii · plz create stuff 21:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, rough justice and karmic return :-). I have to step lightly in my views here, not the least because Jimbo has gotten mad at me for statements I've thought were overall favorable to him though in a less than adulatory way. But I have a hard time seeing him doing any explicit quid-pro-quo as has been alleged, especially for such small-time stuff. I mean, it's not even a charge of "consulting fee" or a talk honoria to him, which would at least make sense. The source may have offered and given the money, but that's not what's being charged. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As I've commented elsewhere this is a bit ridiculous; Merkey earlier had a (now deleted) essay where he tried to claim that donors had special rights to determine content based on some inane legal theory. Given that we're talking about the same guy who claimed that he was being persecuted for being heterosexual and that ArbCom members who are gay should recuse themselves, claimed that Wikipedia taking an NPOV stance on describing groups who self-identified as native american would lead to legal liability ([9] [10] [11] ) and tried to buy the Linux kernel to make an alternate version that was owned by the Cherokee nation, I don't think he's exactly a reliable source. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he gave a $5000 donation and somehow thought that that was buying himself a better article. But frankly, I doubt a donation of that size would influence either Jimbo or the Foundation much. Given how much money Jimbo has personally, the notion that he'd compromise himself for that little is laughable. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I was going to make a similar comment, but wasn't sure if this was the right forum. The fact is that Merkey seems to have some notion that donors to Wikimedia get some kind of preferential treatment, whereas it's much more likely that Jimbo deleted the article out of BLP concerns that someone (perhaps Merkey himself) raised, which is quite possible given that Merkey has had his share of trolls who have made negative edits to his article. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Heads-up: major news organisations have taken up the story: Tomgreeny (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ha! Merkey. He's way off base here. No such undertaking was ever given, he misinterpreted things (and I did discuss this with him at some length on the phone). I remember it well. Remember, Merkey spent a very long time talking to Danny Wool at the office during his travails over blocking and banning. The interview with Merkey is a reliable source for what Merkey thinks, but not objective with respect to anything else. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but as it stands - we have to go by the sources. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 12:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. At least the BBC article did a good job reporting the response from Wales and the WMF. Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The reported information, whether it's disputed internally here, is irrelevant. But since more than one independent source is covering it, it's fine to include in the bio; it's relevant to Wales's role on WP and notable in that regard, and the wording in the article currently is well handled and neutral. Lawrence § t/e 15:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe what I've seen of your response, Jimbo. But if he did make a donation, editing his page might still be inappropriate. Gifts influence behavior, period. The size of the gift seems irrelevant. Everyone thinks this doesn't apply to them, just like everyone thinks they can win a shell game -- that's why the scam works. Dan (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempted Compromise

I have seen evidence to show Sanger did have an important role in Wikipedia's "founding (although I still won't call him the Founder of Wikipedia Jimbo); however I still think you has a good point about Sanger being merely your employee; so as a compromise between the two sides of the debate why don't we use the term "Assistant Founder," it sounds like a good NPOV term right? I hope you like it :)--Trulexicon (talk) 05:48, 12 March 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."

Additionally, all Wikipedia press releases up to Feb. 2004 acknowledge Sanger's role in founding Wikipedia. Kinda strange that one year after leaving the project Sanger was credited as being a founder in Wikipedia's own press release if he wasn't actually a founder. Jhurlburt (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy subheading

There sure seems to be a lot of disputable information in the discussion page yet Jimmy Wales page does seem crystal clean. Neither Ghandi or Mother Teresa were free from sin in their existence yet this man has almost sainthood be that possibly due to the bias nature of wikipedia admins. The point I'm trying to get to is; shouldn't there at least be a Controversy sub heading on his page where even allegations have been made, whether or not they are true and let the readers make up their own minds? Or perhaps wikipedia reserves the right to enforce authoritarianism in a few exclusive articles particularly those close to home? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Typera (talkcontribs) 07:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo's been controversial for a variety of different things, so the controversy is dealt with internal to various sections. The organization is an editorial detail for how to best organize things more than anything else. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
See Template:Criticism-section. Also, Jimbo's article is covered under BLP. Gandhi's and Mother Teresa's are not. Not that a controversy section is necessarily a good idea in their articles either. Finally, they hardly compare to JW with due respect to him. They are primarily as good people who did good things. JW is primarily know as the person who (co-)founded wikipedia, often considered a good thing but hardly in the same league as Gandhi or Mother Teresa Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I detect sarcasm and double sarcasm by someone who obviously didnt get it and I agree with the Typera. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 03:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Birth name

Was this guy born "Jimmy "Jimbo" Donal Wales", not "Jeremy "Jeremy" Donal Wales"? I mean I know it says right there at the start that either Jimmy, or Jimbo, or possibly both was his "born as" name, but I am wondering if this is an error? JayKeaton (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

According to our article, he was born Jimmy Donal Wales. Jimbo is a common nickname, presemuably derived from Jimmy but obviously not in any way part of his birth name any more then Dubya is part of George Walker Bush's birth name or Bill is part of William Henry Gates III's birth name. I don't know where you got Jeremy from, our article doesn't mention that name Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops, James is actually the nickname Jimmy comes from. I was just wondering if his parents actually did name him Jimmy. My own birth name is a shorter "nickname" from a longer standard name, however I have found that to be somewhat unusual (or at least confusing, people continually asking if my name is my full name or not when I fill out applications and forms). Do we know for sure if his name is "Jimmy" or "James"? "James Donal" sounds more likely than "Jimmy Donal", especially for someone born over 40 years ago, and I'd like (for qualities sake) to think the question of whether or not "Jimmy" is his full name or not has been asked before, but you never know. I would sleep better at night knowing that this biography was not missing something as important as the persons correct birth name. JayKeaton (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding, based on Jimbo's commmets on site, is that Jimbo is a wikipedia user name and that he was named Jimmy. Barring any evidence that he was named James that is a non-sequitur, and we should assume this is so. He is know more Jimbo than I am SqueakBox. Again Jimbo has said on site that is is a typical Alabama thing to call someone Jimmy not James. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"Jimbo" is a nickname for James / Jimmy. I don't know whether he was born James or Jimmy, but in all likelihood the "Jimbo" predates Wikipedia. SqueakBox, no one would call you "SqueakBox [Your Last Name]", but Jimbo is, in some cases, "Jimbo Wales". - Revolving Bugbear 20:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should get user James Donal Wales to chime in here. JayKeaton (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Madness!!!!!

Dabbdydabby archived the page... by blanking it.

I reverted this, then Naerii archived by "selectively removing conversations that are not ongoing that have been archived)"

All of the portions archived by Naerii were less then 2 weeks old, which I have undone. Hohohahaha (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, you spelled my name wrong... Dabbydabby (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

None of them had been edited for well over a week and the discussions had come to an end. Most of the discussions were from the beginning of the Marsden controversy when sources were just beginning to come out. They're pretty much old news now and everyone involved has moved onto discussions of the more recent allegations. This page is huge, there's no reason not to archive discussions that have come to a conclusion. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 16:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I was not so much taking a stand for or against archiving as I was HOW it was done. All I ask is that this page be treated the same as most other pages.
Per WP:ARCHIVE the decision to do so is based on page concensus.Hohohahaha (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I archived this page the same as I archive any other page. When it gets too long, I move older conversations to the archives. It's common sense. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Which reads better

Rather than start an edit war with JzG over a paragraph style I have posted here to check for consensus. I have re-applied my change while this (almost) trivial change is discussed. I made a small improvement (as I saw it) to the section Jimmy_Wales#Roles of Wikipedia creators changing the sentence

Wales has publicly disagreed with Sanger's role in the founding of Wikipedia.


Wales has publicly disagreed with Larry Sanger's role in the founding of Wikipedia.

This was reverted with the justification Redundant linking, it's not ambiguous in context. Although if the full article is read it is clear who Sanger's is; the section in isolation assumes the reader has prior knowledge. The link to the associated page seems more useful than redundant.

--Brian R Hunter (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There's only one Sanger discussed in the article, and he's already linked. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. No need to say Larry Sanger when Sanger is enough. Redundant linking is unnecessary. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well I expected JzG aka Guy (not sure why his sig and user don't match) to think that it was a redundant link as he was the one who reverted my addition of the link. As QuackGuru agrees then I will leave it; but I still think there is a general point here. The link does not make reading the section problematic and by not having the link I have to search the rest of the article for a mention of Sanger to discover his name and find a link to who he is. In a long article I see no problem in additional internal wikipedia links such as this being used to make life easier, maybe limited to one per section rather than one per article.
Are all links which appear more than once in an article wrong in wikipedia?
Is there a wikipedia style guide where this has been debated and agreed?
--Brian R Hunter (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes there is: Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Interestingly enough, the guide on links, while discouraging overlinking, does not think that you only have to link things once per article - definitely not more than once per paragraph, and in general at most once per section. I would say, however, that in this case it should be unambiguous enough to leave unlinked. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link User:ConMan I found a very good explanation of when to use extra links and when not, all very sensible.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio? says

...duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate...
Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection.
Thus, if an important technical term appears many times in a long article,
but is only linked once at the very beginning of the article, 
it may actually be underlinked.
I will go with that advice and restore the link but leave the surname rather than expand it.
--Brian R Hunter (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not a long article. It is a middle sized article. The wikilink is redundant. It is overlinking. QuackGuru (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed it is not a long article and could be usefully expanded but I fail to see what you have against using links in a wiki. The wikipedia page I referred to offers the advice
Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection.
Are you arguing that the linked to subject is in some way not likely to be of interest to readers? If not then can you explain what problem you are trying to resolve by removing the links. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This is excessive wikilinking. QuackGuru (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Not according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?. Please provide some evidence to support your POV or an argument as to why you think these links cause a problem for the reader, or let it go. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the policy for either including engineering credits and mastering credits for records in wiki or not. In other words why have wiki editors edited out my entire career.Regards.•:*¨¨*:•. ¸¸.•´¯`•.Mark Fairfax-Harwood, Engineer Springvale Studios 14:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

excessive wikilinking (WP:POINT)

Two sections in a row link to Larry Sanger. This is excessive wikilinking. This article has way too many wikilinks to Larry Sanger. For example, the reference section also links to Lary Sanger. The lead and the template is enough wikilinking. The rest should be unwikified right away. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. (as above) I have provided evidence that one link per section is a good standard. Excessive linking is a problem when it interrupts the flow of a reader; that is not the case here. The Wikipedia page I referred to offers the advice
Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection.
Please provide some evidence to support your POV or an argument as to why you think these links cause a problem for the reader, or let it go. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Two short sections in a row link to Larry Sanger. This smacks point. QuackGuru (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if you think so. The point is that readers often jump straight to a section, so having to trawl back to find a link can be annoying. A wiki link does not carry any implication of importance, it is there to allow the reader to easily find further information of interest to them. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I do think so. Please delete at one of the excessive links. Your choice. Linking two short sections in a row is a point violation. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not think so. I cannot see any reference to linking in that policy excessive or otherwise and I do not believe either of us is being disruptive as you imply I am. We seem to be at an impasse and neither of us has received backing for our respective positions. If you feel this strongly then we need to get a second opinion. I would appreciate an admin or other experienced editor with an article style interest having a look. I have tried to explain why I think it is not excessive, I would like to understand why you think it is. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Two short sections in a row link to Larry Sanger. The policy you cite does not cover this specific situation. It is excessive and unnecessary. QuackGuru (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Your first statement is correct. Let me try again to explain why I consider it is not excessive. Readers may link directly to the second section, should they wish to locate the Sanger article they would then have to page up to scan for a link that, until found, they would not be aware was there. I fail to see the harm in the extra link in separate sections. Is your point that there are two links or that Sanger is not the main subject of the article and it appears to give him undue weight? --Brian R Hunter (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This is easy to understand. This is overlinking. When a reader goes directly to the second section that same person can easily see the previous section. You can't miss it. Both links are too close together. Please delete one of the excessive wikilinks. The lead as well as the template has a link to Larry Sanger. Those two links is enough. The rest is excessive wikilinking. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I cannot agree, sorry. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to your request for a third opinion, can I suggest a slight compromise? I do agree there is nothing wrong with linking something more than once in an article, particularly a long or complicated one, but that repeated links in every paragraph would be too much. As far as I can see neither viewpoint particularly violates the MOS, which in any case is only a guideline not a policy, and is therefore open to flexibility and common sense. In this case, the first of the two controversial links at the top of the Roles of Wikipedia creators section comes after a relatively unrelated section and a reader must scroll up quite a way to find out who Sanger is and some context about how he is involved. However the Editing of own Wikipedia biography section follows straight after and is something of a follow-on, and I agree the link is a little unnecessary. So I suggest the first link is expanded to include 'Larry' and linked, and the second is unlinked. Eve Hall (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Eve, I agree that links in every paragraph would be excessive but thought that because readers may link direct to a section that an extra link would be justified. However, as the preceding section is short then I think your compromise is a good one. I have removed the 'Larry' from the unlinked second section as I think this encourages the reader to assume he is referenced earlier in the article. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This has been resolved. The excessive wikilink has been unwikilinked. QuackGuru (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal Philosophy Section

I know he is who is he is for wikipedia. But is the personal philosophy section really necessary? It isnt something you would see in an encyclopedia unless the person's philosophy was actively important, for instance with Ghandi or a political leader. Most of what is there adds nothing to the article - his political position is not important. And it doesnt really reveal anything whatsoever, apart from why he named his daughter the way he named her. Which is not a personal philosophy. I think we should remove it, it seems a bit fanboish. Crampy20 (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... I am not sure that it is a good idea to remove that material. It is informative as it provide some context for Wales world-view. I will restore it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It is overly-informative about someone whose personal philosophy is not interesting and not valid. Plus it provides little to no extra information. Crampy20 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
His personal philosophy is the very reason why Wikipedia exists in the state that it does today. The Reason article in that section informed me of that much. --SharkfaceT/C 02:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that someone thinks that Wales personal philosophy is not interesting and not valid are no grounds for removal of material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... Soon this entire article could be deleted. Per WP:OPTOUT. QuackGuru (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If someone can explain why Jimmy Wales' "worldview" and the reason he named his daughter the way he did is relevant to an article about him, then I can agree with you. But the entire point of an encyclopedia is to condense information done into that which is most relevant. This article should be about his notable activities, maybe background to his past, awards, businesses, any controversy. His political position is not relevant, neither is his position on metaphysics. Keeping a section because its "nice" is a bad reason to keep it. Oh and BTW, his personal philosophy has nothing to do with the way wikipedia was brought up, if you read that section you will realise that it holds no connection to wikipedia. Crampy20 (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to History of Wikipedia

Jimbo has expressed his concerns about this biography. We can redirect this article to History of Wikipedia per WP:OPTOUT. QuackGuru (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good joke. I'd !vote for it, just for the humor value. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The growing consensus is for a redirect. QuackGuru (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree to a redirect, he hasn't done notable with his life apart from wikipedia/wikimedia at present. Maybe when he actually does something beyond the spectrum of this website will he deserve his own page, but I dont think he does at present. Crampy20 (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Before anyone slyly invokes "silence implies consent" to actually move forward with this redirect suggestion, I'll just say that I, for one, think it's totally off the wall and unjustified, and that I totally disagree with Crampy20's assessment of Jimmy Wales' notability (as would, I'm guessing, practically any editor in the world of mainstream and Internet media). --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Elevated language to illustrate a point. Of course to wikipedians he will seem notable. But I really think that if you were honest, you would realise that most people really have no idea who he is, same for editors of the mainstream - His name might be dropped in an article on wikipedia in a newspaper, but he is not an important businessman or an interesting personality so I strongly doubt that his name holds much sway amongst real world editors (internet editors are a different ballpark completely of course, in this case I am sure a substantial amount of them will know who he is) . And because of that, it makes sense to directly tie his bio into the history of wikipedia, because that is all there really is to him (apart from wikia, whop di do). Though I dont think the question of this article should be about his notability but about the breathtakingly obvious tie-in he has with wikipedia. It makes sense to tie the two together for the sake of easiness (from reader and editor POV's) and clarity. Crampy20 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The way to tie-in related articles is to use a wiki link supported, as required, by words to explain why they are linked as you have so eloquently done above. If we were trying to reduce the number of wikipedia articles then removing the less notable articles may make some sense; in which case we could then have a debate on what level of notable was required. The fact is that he is noted in many references both on the internet and in the traditional media. Yes he is most notable for Wikipedia; I think it is mentioned somewhere in the article. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Intersection of Jimmy Wales, Wikimedia Foundation and Commercialization: Keep or Delete?


This text was deleted by User:Sfmammamia from Jimmy Wales#Wikimedia Foundation:

The Register reported on 18 March 2008, that Wikimedia Foundation has received $356,000 in donations from the boss of a venture capital fund whose partners include Bono and a further $1m in donations facilitated by him. It reports that "the pop icon suggested that Wales dump Wikipedia's volunteer editors and hire professionals".[16]

The edit comment was:

Register speculation on WMF donations, relevance here?

One might say that Wikimedia Foundation is non-profit and how could you commercialize that? However the article gives examples:

Precedents include the Mozilla Foundation, which spun off a for-profit company around the Firefox browser. And Rieman points to the example of Minnesota Public Radio (MPR), which built a for-profit for Garrison Kellor's Prairie Home Companion, passing hefty salaries and compensation plans to MPR executives.

I think this is a perfectly legitimate issue to present in the intersection of Jimmy Wales and Wikimedia Foundation.

Please respond below with keep or delete, I'll wait a few days and put the text back in if there is a positive consensus.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

neutral. I was the person who updated this entry after reading the source. I was unsure whether it should be kept as the article reads a little like a gossip column. It has innuendo about Bono which is definitely irrelevant. I think the only reason to include it is to show that Mr Wales is subject to pressure from commercial interests, possibly to commercially exploit Wikipedia. If it is put back in, I suggest it should be reworded. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I prefer a more reliable source than The Register. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As the editor who made the delete, I'll expand on my edit summary here. The speculative article cited may be relevant to the articles on the Wikimedia Foundation, Elevation Partners, or Roger McNamee, but Jimmy Wales is not the actor in the story referenced, so I fail to see how it's relevant here. The Register article's headline was inaccurate (their later-issued correction runs at the end of the article, but the headline was not corrected) and the content speculative. Jimmy Wales does not run the Wikimedia Foundation. Including it here strikes me as giving this speculative subject matter undue weight in his biography. Notice that the argument cited by Brian R Hunter above: "Showing that Mr. Wales is subject to pressure from commercial interests" is in the passive voice. That's because Wales himself hasn't done anything notable here, hence it doesn't belong in his biography. --Sfmammamia (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete if it's Mr Metz, Neutral if not. Sceptre (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

System Developer/steward

Mr Wales,

I have recently passed my A Level Computer programming course with a distingtion which was the best in the college. I was wondering if you could make me a system developer or a steward as I feel that I could programme the wiki servers without any help. I have written a programme to do the job of 10 stewards but I need the access of either a steward or of a system developer in order to access it. Would really appreciate a message or an email back.

Many Thanks Mr Wales

Yours Sincerly

Chris19910 (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. This page is for discussing the article.
  2. User talk:Jimbo Wales is a place here for you to talk to the person Jimmy Wales.
  3. is a better place for your question.
  4. But the person you need to talk to is Brion Vibber who is the Chief Technical Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation, who can be contacted at User talk:Brion VIBBER and at the places he mentions at User talk:Brion VIBBER#How to get in touch with me.
  5. Also see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).

WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference issues

There's some problems with refs in this article. There is a link 1 next to Kira, under the pic, which links to an article nothing to do with Kira. Fixing it will possibly affect other links, and I don't have time to go through it all properly now, hence I'm flagging it up here. --  Chzz  ►  08:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Why isn't his Colbert Report appearance in this section? --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dates in "Other notable media appearances" section

Is there a reason why the dates in this section are different? Seems to me they should be standardized with the dates above it. ABlake (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, whatever we do consistency in an article is the most important thing, and I would think US standards throughout are right for this article. The thing is, we aren't all American and people just do what they were brought up to do, and when that happens it is good for another editor to come in and fix. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

re. a free open content encyclopedia

I deleted the phrase "a free open content encyclopedia" from the head 03:28, 31 May 2008 ; it was reverted by User:Junglecat at 03:30, 31 May 2008.

I removed it because, although factually correct, I don;t think it's not NPOV; it's not a fact that adds to the message of the article, and is opinionated.

I would welcome opinions

--  Chzz  ►  09:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In what way is it opinionated? How does it bias this article, in your view? I'm having trouble seeing any basis to your argument. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

7 or 8

This article's lead appears to contradict itself. The info box says his dob is on August 8 but the lead says August 7. Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

He's publicly denied both at different times, so either his DOB is something else entirely or (more likely) he's spread misinformation as a sort of joke and we'll probably never get a real answer. I'd suggest going with August 8 per the driver's license record. — xDanielx T/C\R 03:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The driver's licence record information is from a blog website. We have more reliable references stating 7 currently in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what to make of this edit. I never heard of anyone being born on two different dates. QuackGuru (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Gah! Couldn't we just let him tell us? No, wait, that would be original research Dang it! --Drahcir my talk 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Decided to edit it back to just August, left the references, as it's pretty damn ridiculous having the article give two dates of birth, as well as rendering it completely useless. Lukeitfc (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It could not determine the correct DOB. We have conflicting sources on this. A blog which is less reliable says 8 but more reliable sources say 7. It may be best if we let the reader decide and not put 7 or 8. QuackGuru 04:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
We should as an encyclopaedia give both dates. The two dates are consecutive so should not cause anyone a problem. DOB is usually taken from official registration records but that is simply what was recorded at the time; the actual DOB may be a day before or after as birth is not an instantaneous event. We should use the official date from sources and also acknowledge the uncertainty prominently in the article with cross references wherever the DOB appears. Not using either date is implying that it is unknown, whereas we know the date within a day. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no offical date. Early August is problably the best. Using two dates is confusing. QuackGuru 15:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If neither date is deemed sufficiently official we should point that out. I fail to see what is so confusing. It is common for people born around midnight to have two dates. One recorded by the nurse or doctor and used for the birth certificate and another used by the family. Omitting both dates is clearly unhelpful. It invites readers to ask why it is unknown when various sources quote one or other of the dates. We should explain and reference both dates. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence he was born around midnight. That would be original research. Both dates are included in the article and it is clearly helpful to the reader. We have already explained the DOB issue in the body of the article. See Jimmy_Wales#Editing of own Wikipedia biography. QuackGuru 21:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As I posted above in the other thread (which should be merged, I guess), his marriage license, issued in 1997, lists his date of birth as August 7. My guess is that his birth certificate was wrong, at least according to his mother, so therefore his passport and drivers license are also wrong. Anthony (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We should not make a guess. We don't know if it is on the 7th or the 8th. It should be changed back to early August and not give a specific date. We have references that contradict each other. QuackGuru 18:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)