Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Contents

[15][17][18][19][20][21]

Too many refs in the lead. Let's limit it to three instead of six. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

For the refs that are only used to cite this sentence, we can combine them into one ref. لennavecia 22:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I split 'em out to see which ones could be used elsewhere; feel free to merge the single use refs as Jenna proposes.  Skomorokh  14:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to merge the refs together. At least three refs should be deleted and can be move to the talk page after they are deleted from the page. I suggest the first sentence have three refs and the rest of the sentences have one ref after each sentence for the lead. We can start with removing three refs from the last sentence in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ref 48 says "In the latest twist of controversy to affect the volunteer-compiled online resource, Jimmy Wales told Times Online that he regretted repeatedly revising the encyclopaedia's entry on himself." But the other refs in the lead do not explicitedly use the word "controversy". QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed one, it wasn't even accessable, why are all these links necessary? they are only supporting one sentence, one or two is enough. To me a line of links like this always looks like pushing a position. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

[3][4][5][6]

There is too many refs in the lede. I suggest we have only three refs instead of four. QuackGuru (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Semantics of 'founder' wrt Sanger

It seems to me that an entity's founder is the owner/entrepreneur, even if the creative work is shared. Eg - transitor was coined by somebody at Bell Labs. A transistor is an invention while Bell Labs is an enterprise. Who was the founder of Bell Labs? AT&T and General Electric, in 1925. Was the first president of Bell Labs its founder? Perhaps it would be more accurate to term him its "founding president"(?)

  1. Recently the NYT has been terming Wales Wikipedia's co-founder. But not that long ago it always termed him its founder. (Eg here).
  2. Britannica says, "Sanger and Wales parted company in 2002, but they continued to dispute who first came up with the idea of using the wiki software." Did they really dispute who came up with the idea? Or did their disputation concern whether the noun founder most correctly applied to them both or not? (I don't know, I'm just curious.)
  3. Wikipedia sez, "In the autumn of 1999, Wales began thinking about an online encyclopedia built by volunteers and, in January 2000, hired Sanger to oversee its development."
  4. And the following (also from Wikipedia): "Wales claims to be the founder of Wikipedia."
  5. 29Jun2009 Christian Science Monitor calls Wales simply "founder"[1] ↜Just M E here , now 23:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Lede in The Atlantic's "Common Knowledge": "[...T]wo men named Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched a project that shook the foundations of the traditional encyclopedia. They created a Web site called Wikipedia, an online knowledge base that could be edited or expanded by anyone who came along."
  7. Same article, further down: The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, subscribes to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism."
  8. 2nd sentence of Wales's user page: "I founded Wikipedia in 2001."
  9. Forbes, 2004: "...Wales, the founder of the Wikipedia, says, "The wiki model is different because it gives you an incentive when you're writing. If you write something that annoys other people, it's just going to be deleted. [...] Wales and Larry Sanger, a professor whom Wales had hired to help organize Nupedia, came upon the idea of creating a truly collaborative Web-based encyclopedia."[2]
  10. Wikimedia Foundation: "...Wales is an Internet entrepreneur and wiki enthusiast, and founder of the Wikipedia project."[3]
  11. Larry Sanger:

    "One might also gather from some reports that the idea for Wikipedia sprang fully grown from Jimmy Wales' head. Jimmy, of course, deserves enormous credit for investing in and guiding Wikipedia. But a more refined idea of how Wikipedia originated and evolved is crucial to have, if one wants to appreciate fully why it works now, and why it has the policies that it does have.

    For example, in the Nov. 1, 2004 issue of Newsweek, in "It's Like a Blog, But It's a Wiki," reporter Brad Stone writes:

    [Jimmy] Wales first tried to rewrite the rules of the reference-book business five years ago with a free online encyclopedia called Nupedia. Anyone could submit articles, but they were vetted in a seven-step review process. After investing thousands of his own dollars and publishing only 24 articles, Wales reconsidered. He scrapped the review process and began using a popular kind of online Web site called a "wiki," which allows its readers to change the content.

    This capsule history is, of course, very brief and so should be expected not to have every relevant detail. But some of the claims made here are not just vague, they are actually misleading, and so several clarifications are in order (all of this is elaborated below):
    The article makes it sound as if Jimmy were the only person making the relevant decisions. That is incorrect; the Nupedia system (indeed, seven steps) was established via negotiation with Nupedia's volunteer Advisory Board, mostly Ph.D. volunteers, who served as editors and peer reviewers. I articulated our decisions in Nupedia's "Editorial Policy Guidelines." Jimmy started and broadly authorized it all, but as to the details, he really had little to do with them.
    [... ...]
    Moreover, Nupedia had fewer than 24 articles when Wikipedia launched, being not quite a year old at that time. The idea of adapting wiki technology to the task of building an encyclopedia was mine, and my main job in 2001 was managing and developing the community and the rules according to which Wikipedia was run. Jimmy's role, at first, was one of broad vision and oversight; this was the management style he preferred, at least as long as I was involved. But, again, credit goes to Jimmy alone for getting Bomis to invest in the project, and for providing broad oversight of the fantastic and world-changing project of an open content, collaboratively-built encyclopedia. Credit also of course goes to him for overseeing its development after I left, and guiding it to the success that it is today.
    [... ...]
    In 1999, Jimmy Wales wanted to start a free, collaborative encyclopedia. I knew him from several mailing lists back in the mid-90s, and in fact we had already met in person a couple of times. In January 2000, I e-mailed Jimmy and several other Internet acquaintances to get feedback on an idea for what was to be, essentially, a blog. (It was to be a successor to "Sanger and Shannon's Review of Y2K News Reports," a Y2K news summary that I first wrote and then edited.) To my great surprise, Jimmy replied to my e-mail describing his idea of a free encyclopedia, and asking if I might be interested in leading the project. [...] To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely JimmyÃââs, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee; I thought I was very lucky to have a job like that land in my lap. Of course, other people had had the idea; but it was Jimmy's fantastic foresight actually to invest in it. For this the world owes him a considerable debt. The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on.[4]

↜Just M E here , now 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you proposing something here or opining or asking something or what? Just asking, TIA --Tom (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Tom: Yes, asking about/gathering citations wrt (the word) founder applied to Sanger. (Applicable snippets/odds-'n'-ends I come across, I'll add above.) ↜Just M E here , now 16:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Still not sure what you are talking about. There are lots of citations for Sanger as co-founder/founder but maybe this is more appropriate for the Sanger talk page? Regardless of the nonsense below, this "issue" has been discussed ad naseum by many many editors but nothing wrong with continued discussion imho. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
He should definitely and unequivocally be called founder and not co founder, but this is opposed by a minority of editors who appear to have an agenda re Wales and use the fact that he cant fight back due to his position on wikiepdia to attack without mercy; such is human nature. The main argument is that founder can also be taken to mean co-founder whereas co-founder is very restrictive and just plain wrong given Sanger was a paid employee folowing Wales orders and using Wales cash. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. I see you are still at it. Awesome. --Tom (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • How bout we avoid the founder in the lede? I surfed to "Henry Ford": mainly verbs used, eg "credited with Fordism" &c, but not founder. (Nouns are weird: Someone authors a book. Is s/he an author in hi/r lede? writes a poem -- a poet? &c.) ↜Just M E here , now 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oops! I missed it: founder is like the 3rd word of Ford's bio. Notice that his many co-founders aren't alluded to, though, via calling Ford the co-founder. ↜Just M E here , now 17:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Who were the other founders at Ford? --Tom (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Others built cars in the Roaring 20s while Ford did so as well, with the added idea, of course, of the industrial assembly line. He didn't work alone, I'm sure (but I'd have to research who his main co-founder/s were!) ↜Just M E here , now 18:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
(According to Wikipedia): Co-credit for the developments at the Ford Motor Company (along with, of course, Ford) belongs to people such as a pricipal driving force behind Ford's moving assembly line Clarence Avery, early production executive Peter E. Martin, patternmaker/foundry engineer/mechanical engineer/industrial engineer/production manager/executive Charles E. Sorensen, and initial empolyee/co-designer of the Model-T C. Harold Wills. (Ford was encouraged in working on automobiles by Thomas Edison while Ford worded for the Edison Illuminating Company. Who founded this last-named enterprise? I'd have to check but doubt it would be inaccurate to say -- Edison.) ↜Just M E here , now 22:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)*:How about Steve Jobs? How do reliable sources refer to these men? As I said, this has been beaten to death over the years(where does the time go :)). Both men seem to be "founders" of this project per numerous citations. How the leads are crafted has been debated. I never feel any "issue" should be "over" and not open to input and new perspective. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose, per the spirits of BLP and NPOV, we respect the subject's own take and "encyclopedically" state either that (1) Wales asserts he is the founder (noun) of Wikipedia (too long/awkward) or that (2) Wales dreamed up and built Wikipedia (verb; check thesaurus for appropriately toned lexical entry. I like this one). ↜Just M E here , now 18:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Would this wording be better, as in Steve Wozniak's article lead? --Tom (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll go check it, Tom. (I have to mow my lawn.) ↜Just M E here , now
Co-founder discussion rumbles on

Wales did not dispute the fact that he is the co-founder when Sanger was part of the project. Wales would have had to seen the Wikipedia press releases, early versions of Wikipedia articles, and several media coverage articles, all describing Wales and Sanger as the co-founders. He never publicly objected to being called the co-founder until at least late 2004 or early 2005. For example, the WF page clearly states that Wales is the co-founder of Wikipedia. It was not disputed until an IP changed it in 2005 after Sanger left the project. The same IP made an edit to the Jimmy Wales page. Then a minute later Jimmy Wales edited the Jimmy Wales page but did not revert the change the IP made to his birthdate. Another editor reverted the change. But then Jimmy Wales reverted back to the edit made by the IP. Wales had previously used the IP. Sanger became critical of Wikipedia after he left the project. That's when Wales began to claim that he is the "sole founder" of Wikipedia. According to Jimmy Wales the owner/entrepreneur was the founder. That means according to Jimmy Wales he was not the founder because Wales had two partners who were owners/entrepreneurs. When Wales claims the owner/entrepreneur should be a founder then the other two partners are the co-founders of Wikipedia. Wales did not dispute the co-foundership of Wikipedia until Sanger left the project. What did Wales actually do at Wikipedia in the early years. He was busy with Bomis. He hired Sanger because he needed someone to run Nupedia. When Wikipedia got started, Wales (along with two other patners) mainly paid the bills while Sanger was doing a lot of the work building and promoting Wikipedia. Wales provided the "financial backing" while Sanger "led the project". Jimmy Wales had a minor role in the early development of Wikipedia in terms of building the project. Sanger named the project, thought of using wiki software, conceived of Wikipedia, was an early community leader, and established Wikipedia's most basic policies including Ignore all rules and NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Dueling ledes(!! at a certain online, open-source encyclopedia we know and love):
  1. In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of the differential and integral calculus.
  2. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz[...]invented infinitesimal calculus independently of Newton, and his notation is the one in general use since then. -- With this pair supplemented by a 3rd article's lede, as follows.
  3. The calculus controversy was an argument between seventeenth-century mathematicians Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz over who had first invented calculus. Newton claimed to have begun working on a form of the calculus (which he called "the method of fluxions and fluents") in 1666, but did not publish it except as a minor annotation in the back of one of his publications decades later. Gottfried Leibniz began working on his variant of the calculus in 1674, and in 1684 published his first paper employing it.
  • My proposal - in NPOV fashion, mimic the 3 ledes above, avoiding the demonstratably controversial "co-founder" term (hence the Wales-Sanger tugofwar, QuackGuru, you've refernced in your just-above graf). Viz, boil down the sentiments/oberservations of your/Tom's/&c's understanding as combined with the gist of observations of the subject/Squeakbox/and like-minded contributors. ↜Just M E here , now 20:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You were unable to provide a direct response to my comment. So that make your argument irrelevant. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
So, QG, you're giving me the go-ahead to pursue my proposal? (I didn't make any argument, as yet.) ↜Just M E here , now 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that you "didn't make any argument, as yet." So there is no point to your proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
By not making an argument, IOW, I'm saying I'm not trying to advance either a pro or anti here (by analogy, either "pro-life" or "pro-choice") but, rather, am wondering if it might be possible for us to all to arrive at some mutually agreed upon, NPOV text? ↜Just M E here , now 20:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
To reiterate, here's the lede of WP:BLP: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: - Neutral point of view (NPOV) - Verifiability - No original research."
QG, you provide the information, above, that the subject of the BLP finds something in it to be false. But, how does this info support the inclusion of the material? What it would seem to point to, instead, is for contributors to Wales's BLP to handle this issue with sensitivity, with our carefully avoiding O/R and POV, right?
(Note: I've started a parallel discussion at WP:No original research/Noticeboard#Is Sanger a co-founder of Wikipedia?...where I ask, "Is Sanger a co-founder of Wikipedia? I contend whether he is/is not, as a topic of controversy, must be explicitly quoted from published sources, which sources contradict; therefore, for WPaedians to advance either side via their own argumentation is original research.") ↜Just M E here , now 21:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Above, Tom writes, I never feel any "issue" should be "over" and not open to input and new perspective. I agree with that in principle, however in my opinion it does get a little silly if we keep reopening the same discussion so soon after it has been settled by a consensus of editors.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikilink in lede

Wikilink in lede. Is it necessary to have this link in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I believed the contribution helpful (which is why I made it). IAC, someone felt the same -- as, oops! it was already is in the lede's 2nd graf. ↜Just M E here , now 23:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that was you, just now, QG, who contributed it there. Thanks! - I take back anything I've said about you -- :^) ↜Just M E here , now 23:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Historically cited" in lede

"Wales has been historically cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, though he has disputed the "co-" designation, asserting that he was the sole founder of the encyclopedia." This makes Wikipedia proffer the opinion that Wales was a co-founder; eg it would be equally POV to say Wales has been historically cited as a founder, despite this statement's technically being true as well. Is there some way for Wikipedia to express the facts in a way that reflects disinterest in either belief/determination? ↜Just M E here , now 23:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • {crickets}
  • I know it's the freakin 4th[intheUS]o'July but the lack of immediate response to my Q makes me guess the existing "fait accompli of the majority" of ed.s hereabouts is gonna let WP's declarations of Jimbo as co-founder (despite OR/NPOV) to stand.*
    _____
    *a good bio -- just more skewed than appropriate under BLP, IMO ↜Just M E here , now 16:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

How about "Wales has been cited both as founder¹ and as co-founder² of Wikipedia, although he has disputed the latter designation, asserting that he was the sole founder³ of the encyclopedia."? With at least one citation wherever I've put a superscript, ¹ and ² from published material (from the NYTimes, say, or from Wikimedia press releases) and ³ from wherever it is that Jimmy currently maintains his claim that he was sole founder. (Sorry, I don't follow this dispute much, but I happened to come by. Also, do you know what they call the 4th o'July in England? <g>) —Toby Bartels (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

External links section

Probably been discussed before, feel free to direct me to appropriate archive, but can the internal link in the EL section be placed in a more "appropriate" section of the article? Is it repeated? Also, do we need the youtube links (they actually don't work with my browser?)? Is there some notability or reason for thier specific selection as opposed to the many (Iam guessing of course :)) other youtube links of Mr. Wales out there? Thanks, --Tom (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

read

I heard that Larry Sanger was the only founder of wikipedia and that Jimmy didn't join for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kus1234 (talkcontribs) 03:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Larry Sanger the guy who faked the moon landing? Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate sentence

An editor put a sentence in the reference section. The sentence is not a reference. It is part of the article. The edit summary claimed combining birthdate cites. The sentence was not a cited reference. QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Awkward sentence

Many of the early contributors to the site were familiar with the idea of a free culture and, like Wales, some of them sympathized with the open-source movement.[28]

This awkward sentence is still in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

?!?

Why does "Eat shit" redirect here? --116.14.26.124 (talk)

Vandalism. Thanks for the heads-up, I fixed it. :) --Ashenai (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Image of Sanger

I cant understand why the image of sanders is relevant to the bio article of Jimmy. Do we put images of Clinton on pages on Bush (bad analogy, I know). The bottom line, this article is a BLP about Wales, why Sanders, do you want to continue the controversy, does Jimmy looks better with an image of Sanders. I wish that sysosp talk instead of unding "slaves" work (damn ant colony). You know discussing doesn't kill nobody. Unless. Im mistaken and this page is about the controversy about Sanders/Wales foundership (is that a word?) and not a BLP about Jimmy. Happy editing, --J.Mundo (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The image is related to the paragraph in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You asked for a discussion to occur, as you were continuing to revert to your preferred version? Please read WP:BRD. Also, what QuackGuru said - that image, is relevant to the paragraph in question. ViridaeTalk 07:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Basically, what Quackguru said. The subject of Sanger and Wales' relationship to him is addressed in at least seven paragraphs of the main text, and the image adds information to the article that text could not convey. Alongside the five images of Wales alone, the images of Sanger and his wife Christina are included because these are people important to his life as a public figure, and depicting them adds context. This is fairly standard practice, as seen in many featured articles on biographical topics.  Skomorokh  07:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Reply to J.Mundo. There never was a Sanger/Wales foundership controversy. It was original research to claim Wales was the founder. QuackGuru (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2009
Yes, the image is related to the paragraph, sorry to say that is a very simplistic answer. Do yout think Sanders wants his image here or Jimmy want uggly Sanders on this page (no offense to Sanders). I just dont understand, why the fighting spirit of some wikipedians to let this image survive. This is not an image of Sanders and Jimmy in better times, this is just a random image of Sanders, like calling, like saying, read here, we have a controversy. BLP not matter how famous is the person should be like that. I know this is lost cause. I just dont understand, it doesnt fit the page, it break the flow of the reading, Im reading about Wales and then, I see Sanders all alone, like wanting justice or reminding of better times. Well, its too late to make sense.
But QuackGuru, you are right, what controversy? tag with me with the original research tag. --J.Mundo (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I happen to agree. Find a pic of Sanger and Wales together and then it can go in the article. A pic of Sanger alone is superfluous and a distraction. And by the way. One or two of the photos showing Wales alone also should go. Their only information value is in the captions. Instead find pics of Wales with significant people. I would especially like to see a pic of him with Eric Schmidt at Google HQ on the day they hatched their sinister plans to remake the Web in their image.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not a random image. This is an image when Sanger was younger when he was part of the project. It is not relevant whether Sanger wants his image here or Wales does like or not like it. Without Sanger there never would of been a Wikipedia. Sanger conceived of Wikipedia and led the project and transformed Wikipedia from a communinity board into a fast growing encyclopedia. Under the direction of Sanger's formal proposal, Wikipedia was initially started. I suggest if editors want a different image of Sanger first find a different image before attempting to remove this one. QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The image is free, relevant, and illustrative to the topic within the article. End of story. JBsupreme (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree, so I inserted a image of Rachel Marsden because is "is free, relevant, and illustrative to the topic within the article." --J.Mundo (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Removed as a blatant bit of Sanger promotion; this obsession is damaging the project, nobody should be promoted in this way. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanger?

Hardly anyone even remembers Sanger any more, as this article makes clear Wales is known as the founder of wikipedia, anything else is blatant self-promotion. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The co-founder issue is a done deal. Please curb your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT urges appropriately, and leave the dead horse alone. You're welcome. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you claiming to own the article now? That is not how wikipedia works. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 13:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Nor is repeatedly trying to force through your POV, as you have been doing. ViridaeTalk 13:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
NY Times article makes clear Wales is "a founder of Wikipedia" (see text and picture caption). Discuss. Or rather, please don't. RatSplat ooo 09:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Making claims we cant discuss this is not going to help your cause; and given the problems with co-founder we cannot draw a close to the discussion for a number of reasons, one of which is the continual opposition to this obvious travesty of the truth. Treating Sanger's self-promotional claim as truth is clearly extremely problematic, violates NPOV, BLP etc. Viridae, significant POVs should always be forced through, its giving undue weight to an insignificant POV, for reasons that appear to have everything to do with wikipedia politics and nothing with writing a balanced and neutral article, that creates problems. I suggets those who want to shut this down go to arbcom and say it is unacceptable for us continue to debate this and that Sanger's point of view must stand as the only significant one. Perhaps arbcom will agree with you and ban anyone from mentioning the subject again. Until then I suggest we continue discussing until this is sorted, as we would with any other article. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 13:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It has been discussed to death Squeakbox, and you know it. The reliable sources including the WMF and Jimmy himself at the tim support the co-founder issue. Why you continue to bring it up I don't know, but you have been pushing this particular POV for years. End of discussion. Go and read the past discussions and come back when you have something new to add. (poor journalism does not constitute new material) ViridaeTalk 13:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Squeakbox, there's nothing for any of us to go to arbcom for; reliable sources note that they are co-founders, the article reflects the sources, and quite a consensus of users who have discussed this over and over and over reject your claims of NPOV and BLP violations. Your opinion on the matter has been rejected, repeatedly. But if you think you have something to go to arbcom for, knock yourself out. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
What, exactly, is your point? There's very, very little control that we (as editors) have over third parties. Our articles are the only things we have influence over, and we've properly labeled Wikipedia as being founded by two people.
A similar "problem" exists with Steve Jobs and Apple. He founded it with Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne, though he's frequently just called the founder (sometimes Woz gets mentioned, but Wayne is too obscure). The entire matter has to do with who is active with the organization. Sanger isn't involved in Wikipedia (and hasn't been for a while), so he's not as closely related as Jimbo; similarly, Woz hasn't done anything with Apple for a while, so he's fallen to the wayside when it comes to reporting on Apple. EVula // talk // // 14:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
And it's an established fact now. Recent article in the Diario de Noticias newspaper which describes Wales and Sangers as the "creators" of wikipedia. Ottre 06:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, for anyone who hasn't seen it, I found Sanger's collection of evidence "My role in Wikipedia (larrysanger.org)", to be quite persuasive. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am seriously considering a significant block of SqueakBox if they continue to disrupt the editing environment with this quixotic Sanger/Wales crusade. This has been going on for years, has been discussed to death and consensus is abundantly clear.  Skomorokh  09:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sanger pic

I have removed it, it adds nothing to Wale's bio, and I notice that there is no picture of Wales on Sangers bio. You wouldn't put a picture of hilary clinton on Obama's bio would you? Yet they were so closely tied during the electioon campaign. Off2riorob (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been reverted by Skomorokh with an edit summary of...revert: this has been discussed on the talkpage. please contribute there if you want to push the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
What are you claiming to revert my edit? A previous consensus? Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Yo, check out the #Image_of_Sanger discussion a few centimeters up – I am an involved party but it seems to me that there is consensus for inclusion. Cheers,  Skomorokh  12:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have seen that, I fail to see that that discussion is a consensus at all. Also claims of a previous consensus is not a good reason to revert a good faith edit to your favoured position. Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Why would you make an edit regarding a controversial issue that you expressly believe is not supported by consensus? If you would like to pursue the issue, I suggest we invite a request for comment. What do you say?  Skomorokh  13:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Also as you are so involved in this situation, why is there no picture of Wales in the equivilent position on Sangers page? Off2riorob (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The content of the Sanger article is a matter for editors of that article. I have no objection to there being an image of Wales in that article, and if you want one in, why not raise it at the appropriate talkpage?  Skomorokh  13:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think there should be a picture of Wales there either. Also I would say it is more controversial to have sangers picture in this article that not to have it, so actually my edit was not controversial at all. it was simply against your favoured position. Off2riorob (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
A RFC, well the first stage is to talk about it, are you ever going to change or move you position regarding this picture of sanger in any way? Off2riorob (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"the first stage is to talk about it" - but we already have, above, quite recently, and I left a less-than-brief rationale I thought. If you think an RfC is premature, then let's continue the discussion of the merits of inclusion in the section above. I'm quite amenable to changing my position if a more convincing argument emerges. Regards,  Skomorokh  13:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Really? Honestly? Perhaps I am wrong but I thought you held a very strong opinion standpoint on this and that nothing would move your position. If you are open to change, then lets remove the picture and talk about it. The wheels won't drop off will they? Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We have been discussing meta issues here rather unproductively for the past hour - if you have a proposal to change the status quo regarding the image's inclusion, please join the discussion on its merits and we shall see what consensus emerges.  Skomorokh  13:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a meta issue, If you are not prepared to move your position in any way, what is the point of discussing it with you? Where is this status quo? I challenge you to revert to my good faith edit and then start honest discussion with me. Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Look, I have already, a very short time ago, declared that I am very prepared to change my position if I am convinced otherwise. "status quo" means the current state of things i.e. the most recent revision of the article at the time of writing. Thirdly, the implication that my contributions here have been lacking in honesty is very unhelpful. I re-iterate: join the existing discussion or start a new one, convince us.  Skomorokh  14:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no existing discussion, there is just me an you. Here look at this...I dislike this edit [[5]] , is is imo awful and poor and against any kind of what could be claimed to be current consensus, but I have left the edit and gone to the talk page Talk:Kenny_MacAskill#Copyedit_on_release_section and am trying to talk to him and hopefully other editors will come along and add to the discussion, I dislike the edit a lot, but I have left it, at least for some time, I suggest when someone changes an edit from what is your favoured position that talking to them first is better than reverting them to your favoured position. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion on the appropriateness of the inclusion of the image of Larry Sanger is right here. If you for whatever reason don't recognise or otherwise disapprove of that discussion about the inclusion of the image, please feel free to start another one. This, I hope, is my last comment on the matter of discussing the discussions. Let's please focus on the content.  Skomorokh  14:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
You didn't answer my challenge, I challenge you to revert to my good faith edit and then start honest discussion with me. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, looking at the previous discussion that you referred to as the consensus to revert my good faith edit was actually four editors in favour of inclusion and three against and my edit was equal to four all and you had no right to revert it like you did. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I dispute your claim that there is any consensus to keep this picture in. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to restate what I said a few inches up-screen. I would much prefer a picture of Wales and Sanger together in the same frame instead of a pic of Sanger alone. I also said that there were too many pictures of Wales, all at a similar age, with no distinguishing characteristics. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Sanger picture has been removed again, this time (by User:Steven Walling) and I support its removal. As I said here, there is no consensus to keep the picture in and it is clearly a contentious addition as it keeps getting removed. I suggest that we leave it out and have a discussion regarding it. Off2riorob (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme has put it back with an edit sum of, please use talk page. He must have missed this, so it is clearly contentious as it is in out in out, so I 've removed it and suggest a discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme has inserted the picture again without any attempt to discuss it here on the talkpage? He used the edit summary of, he can see no consensus for removal, I thought that with a contentious edit inclusion was the thing that required consensus? I also think that the picture is only being inserted by editors with such strong opinions about the original debate regarding who created wiki that they have what could be described as a conflict of interest. Off2riorob (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, images are supposed to stay in the article for the duration of the content dispute. It's not the same as with disputed text. See Talk:Mumbai for a recent example. Ottre 10:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

meanwhile....I am here talking to myself..... Off2riorob (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the image is all that relevant. Sanger doesn't have the appearance of a philosopher. Ottre 09:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, imo the picture adds little or nothing of value to Wales bio. The picture is actually a bit demeaning of Sanger, looks like a mugshot. It could be removed as a BLP protection of Sanger. Thanks for the link Ottre. Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not Sanger looks like a philosopher is irrelevant, because it is not included as a picture of a philosopher, it's included as a picture of Sanger, who happens to be one. It's already been established in the above discussion that the image adds value and why. As to the idea that the image ought to be removed for "BLP protection of Sanger", well now you're really clutching at straws.  Skomorokh  13:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem blinded by your desires, as I said there is no clear consensus to include this picture of sanger and continually referrng to the section up the page does little to support your position, the picture is contentious and is constantly being removed, I suggest an expanded debate to find what the consensus actually is. I am for its strong removal. I would ask you to put your strongly held beliefs about sanger to one side and look at the situation from a neutral point of view and consider the benefit to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

THe image of Sanger is suitable because multiple paragraphs refer to him, continually by name and he had a defining role in the founding of wikipedia, which most of the article is dedicated to. ViridaeTalk 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say you are over egging the importance of sanger in wales bio, sure he was employed for a couple of years but his involvement in Wales bio is minimal. This is not a story about the birth of the wiki, it is Wales bio, and insisting on inserting sanger's picture here is excessive weight in jimbo's life story. Perhaps on another page, but not here.Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The fact that there is no picture of them together just says it all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you know something that the rest of us don't know? Much more likely is that a picture of both in the same frame exists but it hasn't been made available yet. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yea, what it says is that you are falling back on extremely weak and absurd arguments. Seriously; "there isn't a picture of them together, therefore a picture of Sanger alone is excessive weight" ? Tarc (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I am saying, if there is no picture of him with the subject then, how important is he? Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I get that, and what I am saying is that it is an extremely ridiculous and logically fallacious point to attempt here. Tarc (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Blimey, lack of evidence =/= evidence of lack. ViridaeTalk 04:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
That is ridiculous. Ottre 12:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Alfred "Ed Moch" Cota

Panera Bread photo-op

Quoting from "There's no end to it" by Curtis Krueger [6], St. Petersburg Times, 8 November 2004, page 1E:

Do we have any good photographers nearby? Ottre 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Stalking implications aside, and not that we need any more photos, I do believe he no longer lives in Florida.  Skomorokh  13:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You don't find it interesting that he settled in so quickly? He obviously found the work enjoyable if he was taking the laptop with him to lunch in several different cafes. Ottre 14:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't know how objective this sentence is:

"Wales has said that he initially was so worried with the concept that he would wake up in the middle of the night, wanting to check the site for vandalism."

How could he be completely convinced of any new technology right after losing most of his $500,000 investment in Nupedia? Far more important in my mind to show whether he was corresponding with people in the open-source movement. I think Andrew Lih describes some of those involved with the site as "programming gurus" who by 2003 had convinced Wales that the site was working. Ottre 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A few comments

  • It is very unusual to be born "Jimmy", is it definitely not "James" or "Jim" or "Jamie"?
  • There should be an IPA as "Donal" is likely to be mispronounced by many.
  • There isn't anything about his ethnicity. His surname is of Welsh origin and his middle name is Gaelic, some sources should mention his origin.
  • The image with the caption "Wales appearing as a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on a panel at Wikimania 2007." should be moved to the right so he is facing towards the text. Spiderone 11:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
On the first point, I'm not sure we imply that Jimmy is his birthname at any point, just the most common name; Britannica does the same by leading with "Jimmy Donal Wales". The Florida Trend is the source of our "Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales".
I agree that an IPA would be an improvement.
I don't remember seeing references to his ethnicity in the sources, but I will look again.
On the last point; according to MOS:IMAGE, "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." Wales' eyes are looking to the right in the image, and so should the image not be on the left so that the text is to its right?
Thanks for the comments!  Skomorokh  13:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes you're right about the image. I just saw that his body was facing left and assumed his eyes were too. About his ancestry, surely Jimbo himself views this page. Could he not add his own ancestry? I've searched the internet by putting things like "Jimmy Wales" + "Welsh" in but nothing comes up. Spiderone 15:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
We generally discourage editors from writing about themselves per the conflict of interest guideline; in general it is difficult for editors to be impartial on the subject, and what they add from their own personal knowledge is often not independently verifiable. So we would need independent reliable sources to confirm any info about Wales' ethnicity. I haven't found anything either, unfortunately.  Skomorokh  15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

@Spiderone: As far as I am aware, the only reliable source which has ever claimed that he is Welsh is "Milk, biscuits and thinking of Sydney... What else would we expect Rob Brydon's interests to be?" by Robin Turner, The Western Mail, 5 December 2008, page 12.

Daniel Craig isn't at all Welsh. Spiderone 17:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Try searching combinations of those names. If you find two other reliable sources which mention him as being Welsh, we can include the information per WP:V. Ottre 20:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything but I've added an IPA Spiderone 07:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
How many Welsh newspapers have you searched? Also, it's condescending to tell people how to pronounce Jimmy. Ottre 09:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes but then won't non-English speakers be confused by "Jimmy Wales (pronounced Donal Wales)"? Spiderone 17:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggest adding Mr. Wales more current activities Green Wikia [7]

From Wikia Wikia Green ... Wikia Green is a wiki operated by Wikia, Inc. focusing on environmental issues.[1] Jimmy Wales started the project after a conversation with environmentalist activist and politician Al Gore, who suggested creating a green wiki.[1]. "Wikipedia Founder Goes Green" announced on 9th of September, 2008 by 350.org regarding a new wiki. [2] [3]

It never went anywhere, did it?  Skomorokh  21:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope. "788 articles since March 2008". Another wiki(a)-failure, much heralded at launch, but then quietly withering away to obscurity. The Google God has blessed only Wikipedia (so far ...) . -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


Cleanup

There's a dead link from 2008 and a needs updating tag from 2007. Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC).

"Clarification needed"

In the early development subsection of the Wikipedia section, the sentence "Wales has said that he initially was so worried with the concept that he would wake up in the middle of the night, wanting to check the site for vandalism" is tagged with {{clarification needed}}. From the source:

[Newsweek:] Weren’t you worried about what would be put up there?

[Wales:] Yes, when I first started I would actually wake up at night to go down and check what was being posted.

What clarification is required here?  Skomorokh  23:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it to "Wales has said that he was initially so worried with the concept of open editing that he would awake during the night and monitor what was being added." I hope this is sufficiently clear.  Skomorokh 
Thanks for trying, but that's not much clearer. Wales was unsure whether people would fully embrace the wiki technology if they were working for free. Your sentence makes it seem like he was worried about vandalism per se. Per WP:NPOV tutorial, views must be summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability. I'm reinstating the tag. Ottre 00:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
How do you defend your interpretation ("Wales was unsure whether people would fully embrace the wiki technology if they were working for free") based on the source? From what I can see the interview does not mention "working for free" at all; Wales does refer, however, to WP being "a Web site that anyone can edit".  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Synthesized from a number of early interviews which aren't included in the article. If you go through the Factiva database you'll see what I mean. Ottre 05:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

...How is that Newsweek interview a reliable source? It's clearly not fact-checked, and doesn't go into nearly as much detail about the production model as the Bruce Cole interview ("Building a Community of Knowledge" by Bruce Cole [8], Humanities magazine, Mar/Apr 2007, Vol. 28, Iss. 2, pp 6-14) Ottre 06:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Some omissions on article's coverage of the founder debate

I hate to open this can of worms again, but our (justly brief) paragraph on the matter at Jimmy Wales#Controversy is somewhat lacking from a reader's perspective. September 27, 2009 version, minus citations:

Wales has asserted that he is the sole founder of Wikipedia, and has publicly disputed Sanger's designation as a co-founder. Sanger and Wales were identified as co-founders at least as early as September 2001 by The New York Times and as founders in Wikipedia's first press release in January 2002. In August of that year, Wales identified himself as "co-founder" of Wikipedia. Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links with the intent of proving conclusively that he was a co-founder. Wales was quoted by The Boston Globe as calling Sanger's claim as "preposterous" in February 2006, and called "the whole debate silly" in an April 2009 interview.

  1. It does not tell us when Wales started making a fuss about being credited as the sole founder, or why. Did he feel he was being done out of his life's work? Was his position/authority in the project under internal threat? Was he trying to leverage sole founder status for some external purpose?
  2. How do authoritative impartial commentators familiar with the matter judge it?
  3. It does not tell us why the issue matters. So, imagining I am a reader somewhat familiar with Wikipedia and this Wales character, and interested in learning more about him, why should I care about this business? This section should tell the reader something illuminating about Wales, and not simply report the he said/she said. Some critical (in the evaluative rather than negative sense) perspective is needed.

Any insights supported by sources welcome, keeping WP:NOTAFORUM in mind. Cheers,  Skomorokh  01:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

1. According to Larry Sanger "It was not until 2004 that Jimmy Wales began omitting mention of my involvement at the start of Wikipedia to the press in 2004, and he didn't start denying that I am co-founder until 2005 or 2006, just when Wikipedia began to enter the public eye.". The external purpose was, well, the _Wall Street Journal_ said this, not me: "Now, Wikipedia is one of the most popular sites on the Web, and Mr. Wales is building on its success with a new venture. This time, he intends to make a buck."
2. I've already endured some extreme nastiness over concepts like "authoritative" and "impartial". But I can objectively state that I've spent an extensive amount of time reviewing the historical record, querying the parties to the dispute, and considering their positions. As a matter of morality and justice, I took it very, very, seriously. Truth is not anywhere near the middle here. I judge it 100% - 0% Sanger - Wales. Further, I've found some of Wales's argument at best extremely legalistic, and at worse, well, I don't want to violate WP:NPA.
3. There's many reasons why it matters. a) An encyclopedia should have its facts straight (and the co-founder fact has been subjected to an extensive PR campaign to deny it). b) It says something about Wales's character, significant to the public interest c) There's a broad, difficult issue having to do with the tensions between Wikipedia's roots in a combination of business (Wales) and philosophy (Sanger). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Just compare the account in The Dallas Morning News / August 18, 2004 "Wikipedia.org co-founder Jimmy Wales ... Mr. Wales and co-founder Larry Sanger built the project as a "wiki" ..." versus Forbes December 13, 2004 "Jimmy Wales, the founder of the Wikipedia, ... Ultimately, Wales and Larry Sanger, a professor whom Wales had hired ... So Wales has recently started two for-profit wiki companies." and Press Release February 4, 2005 "Wikipedia founder launches commercial enterprise ... Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and President of the Wikimedia Foundation ..." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, if people are uncomfortable citing Sanger's own website, similar material can be found the interview he did with "Hot Press" magazine, "Citizen Sanger" (paywalled), e.g. "Then in about 2005, he began actually denying that I was co-founder, which was something I found very disconcerting and incredibly brazen - what chutzpah!" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
New source - "Wikipedia Co-Founder Speaks Out Against Jimmy Wales" "In 2004, at just the time when he was leaving out any mention of me in discussing the history of Wikipedia, he was starting Wikia. That's actually when it was getting its funding," says Sanger. "That's also when the star of Wikipedia really began to rise and started to enter into public consciousness. Jimmy Wales had a real financial motive to portray himself as the brains behind Wikipedia, when I really don't think he was." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yale Daily News interview

Poor quality piece, but posting here for future reference: "Meet Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia". Although I chuckled at the subheading  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Unofficial request for comment about co-founder/sole founder dispute

pig

Jimmy please publish the history from the lords of the british visiting, Me Lisha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.207.188 (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Co-founder/sole founder dispute rumbles Wikipedia

After the content dispute was over an editor went back to several articles and rewrote history (revisionism). The editor previously acknowledged Jimmy Wales is historically cosidered the co-founder of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This user conduct dispute does not belong on this talkpage; the issue has been settled again and again and again as far as this article is concerned. Take it to WP:RFC/U, WP:AIN, anywhere but here, please.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Editors can click on show at the upper right hand corner to see the revisionism across several pages. Before an official request for comment is started I think I would like to try to resolve this matter. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose we change back founder to co-founder per NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For the nth time, this isn't WikiProject Jimmy Wales. I'll ask you again to please take matters not directly related to this article elsewhere, as posting them here is becoming disruptive.  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Just saying that he's mentioned as Founder of Wikipedia in the donation banner above as well as related letters. --Scieberking (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Obviously he claims himself to be the sole founder, but that is now how other reliable sources see the matter. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
As a general rule, anything Wales has power over, will do PR for him, i.e. call him Founder and not Co-Founder. It is shameful that includes the Wikimedia Foundation itself now, and Larry Sanger has said "... I ask the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation to reiterate the Foundation’s original position (as expressed in its first press release) that we are both, in fact, founders of Wikipedia.". The banner, etc. is not reliable evidence, it's pure politics. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazing

From the way this article is put together it's like you worship the guy... Which of course you do. Hardly any negative comments on Jimmy Wales... Probably removed and considered offensive to your god. --207.68.234.177 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. Don't we have to respect a neutral point of view?

According to the source

The article says, Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links with the intent of proving conclusively that he was a co-founder.[original research?]

Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia". MSNBC (Associated Press). Retrieved 2007-03-25. Sanger has assembled many links at his Web site that appear to put the matter to rest. Among the citations are early news stories and press releases that say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger.  The source says something different than what is in the article. The part about "intent of proving conclusively..." is WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, but with such a controversy I think it would be irresponsible to represent Bergstein's opinion as fact. What wording do you suggest?  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
When WP:NPOV says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." it immediately goes on to define "fact" to mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" and "opinion" to mean "a matter which is subject to dispute", and by "dispute" they clearly mean "serious dispute". There is no serious dispute among reliable sources about the items being being discussed in this section. (There is dispute by some Wikipedia editors, but we editors do not count as reliable sources.) Therefore, by WP:NPOV's own definition, these items are "facts" and not "opinions". Per WP:ASF, when there is no serious disagreement or dispute among reliable sources there is not a requirement to add the unnecessary attribution or to degrade the source. Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. See WP:ASF. Wikipedia has a defintion of a fact versus an opinion. When reliable sources agree we can assert it as fact. Please provide references for any serious dispute. If no disputed references are presented it can be deemed as fact. When we deem it as a fact then we can assert. Whether a particular Wikipedia editor deems it to be a fact is not that important; if that were the case, attribution would be required for "there is a planet called Earth" if just one Wikipedia editor disagreed with that fact. What matters is what reliable sources say. And there is no serious dispute among reliable sources here who have specifically discussed the co-founder/sole founder issue. Based on Wikipedia's defintion of a fact we can assert the text when no serious disagreement exist among reliable sources. Per WP:ASF, No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. According to WP:ASF, we can assert it as long as no serious disagreement exist from reliable sources. An opinion is when sources disagree with one another. Please provide evidence of a serious dispute among reliable sources or we can assert it as fact when reliable sources are in agreement. When there is no serious dispute, we can assert it. It would be NPOV to represent Bergstein's opinion as fact in accordance with WP:ASF when no serious dispute exists among reliable source that specifically discuss the co-founder/sole founder topic.
"Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links with the intent of proving conclusively that he was a co-founder."[original research?]
"Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links that appear to support both Sanger and Wales as co-founder." (proposed version)
I propose we change it to this. QuackGuru (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the proposal, it's constructive. I'm quite familiar with ASF, as it happens. The problem with the proposed version is that it in the phrase "that appears to support" uses the passive tense and is thus vague and lacking in encyclopaedic tone. Who does it appear this way to? Who is having the apparitions? Answer: Bergstein. Response:
"Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links that appear to journalist Brian Bergstein to confirm the status of Sanger and Wales as co-founders."
Rewording:
"Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links relating to the foundering dispute that journalist Brian Bergstein described as settling the dispute in favour of the position that Sanger and Wales were co-founders."
These have the disadvantage of slight awkwardness, but the advantages of being neutral and fully supported by the sources. What say you?  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Both your proposals are a violation of ASF. My proposal does not have the unnecessary attribution. You have not provided evidence according to reliable sources that there is a serious dispute. When no serious dispute exists among reliable source we assert it as fact. Adding weasel wording/attribution is a violation of NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I added the proposal without violating ASF by making this change. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
You can't put unattributed weasel phrases such as "that appear to" in a neutral encyclopaedia article and expect to be taken seriously. I've removed the text until a remotely encyclopaedic phrasing is put forth.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Adding weasel wording attribution is a violation of ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
My edit did no such thing – it removed the sentence in question so that we could work out a consensus version here.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
No reason has been given to rewrite the sentence with weasel wording attribution in a violation of ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You've just edit-warred back in the identical version that has been disputed without bothering to engage in discussion of the issues. That is extremely unhelpful and not at all congruent to collaborative editing or the development of a biography of a professionally-written standard. Please have the integrity to revert yourself and discuss the substance of the problem.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It was very helpful to restore the sentence. Please read the source again. The text is faithfully sourced without degrading the text with weasel wording. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Historically cited as the co-founder

Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia". MSNBC (Associated Press). Retrieved 2007-03-25. The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Wikipedia, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial — Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it. Sanger has assembled many links at his Web site that appear to put the matter to rest. Among the citations are early news stories and press releases that say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger.  

In the lead I added "historically" cited as the co-founder. This is closer to the source which is closer to NPOV. When early citations and press releases say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger it is more accurate to say "historically cited" than just "cited". QuackGuru (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wales' POV is never a reason to compromise the facts or change historical facts. The body of the article can and does explain Wales' point of view. QuackGuru (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

History is that which has been written down about the past – the only thing adding the adverb "historically" to the verb "cited" therefore is that the citation appeared in print. This is of no encyclopaedic value whatsoever, and has no semantic impact on the point of view of the article.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
It has been written in the past in early citations and press releases that Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and that is amply conveyed by the fragment "Wales has been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia". Has been=past tense.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
He has been is vague and could mean anything. It could also mean he no longer is cited because he has "been cited". Has been cited does not convey what is written in the source. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Adding empty words does nothing to improve that. "It could also mean he no longer is cited " – as it should do, because we must write in the past tense to avoid potentially dated statements.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
It was vague to say just cited especially when the source explain more than just cited. The source also says Larry Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Weren't all the founder/co-founder disputes solved... frequently? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
We are in the beginning stages of the content dispute with no signs of slowing down. Do you have any suggestions on how to resolve the longest content dispute on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, WP shouldn't be writing a lede in a BLP that would blow up this distinction being discussed above into some kind subtle indictment of our entrepreneurial subject's character. Thus, better than the authoritatively sounding word cited, I think it would be better were WP to more innocuously simply say that many early reports label, give, say, or whatnot, that Wales is the co-founder, touching on the dispute without really highlighting it, and leave any further fleshing out of its details down in the body of the article.
(By way of analogy, of course, Henry Ford most definatively did NOT singlehandedly invent the assemblyline, he had a lot of competent help! -- ne'ertheless, Ford is rightly famous for having "founded" his eponymous company ((um, really, that is, his having co-founded Ford Motor Company, with his principal investors' money, with techniques Ford learned while working for the Edison company, with the assistance of some principal mechanical geniuses at his side; yet, no doubt Ford and others often would say, simply, that he "founded" Ford Motor Company, despite the many citations that also likely could be found saying that the enterprise was a group undertaking)). OK, with that premise, say that there had existed jockeying for credit among Ford and one or another of Ford Motor's co-founders. Such a thing would certainly merit encyclopedic mention in a Ford bio, IMO. Still, would such semantically turned points really deserve to be touched on all-too heavy handedly in the Henry Ford bio's lede?)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 18:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sources differ about whether he was born on August 7 or 8, 1966"

Can we not just ask the big man himself his true DOB? GiantSnowman 23:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It may look ridiculous not to just ask him, but Jimmy Wales is no more a reliable source than I am, which means we would have to verify it anyway. He might know of a reliable source, though!--otherlleft 19:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually we consider a person to be an expert on themselves. -- Banjeboi 00:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you link me to the policy on that? I thought that using primary sources was the opposite of what we do here. I'd like to learn more. Thanks!--otherlleft 13:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
If the person himself is not a reliable source that could tell when he was born, then what the hell is? Should we start digging out his Birth certificate? Sometimes you have to just go along with plain old common sense instead of outdated policies. -- Powerchicken (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Well far be it for me to suggest considering outdated policies. I'm happy to follow consensus, once it's established.--otherlleft 06:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Benji is basically right as long as the information is about the subject, not unduly self-serving and there's no reason to doubt if they're telling the truth. See Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..." Sarah 10:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
If it were that easy. See Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate. Amalthea 16:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I've said this before. I think the man knows his own birthdate.Mk5384 (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
One would think so, although there could be confusion, especially if he was born near midnight between those two dates. The ones to ask, actually, would be his parents. Although this was long ago, Babe Ruth did not learn his real birthdate until after his playing days were over. The date he had "known" all along was a year off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Very possible. I enjoy the way you are able to use the game of rounders to come up with an analogy for just about anything.Mk5384 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Everything I need to know about life I learned from baseball and from Bugs Bunny. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We should ask to see his birth certificate to settle this conclusively and permanently. Power chicken, although being sarcastic, is correct.71.109.148.127 (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait..... SERIOUSLY?

Under personal, the page gives a source saying his wife claimed that Wales had said that "altruism is evil." WHAT? Is that for real? Isn't that like against wikipedia's purpose? Haha please correct me if I'm wrong. 72.220.125.86 (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats ex wife and you know how that can be, I don't think it is worthy of inclusion and as I understand it, correct me if I am wrong, it seems just to be an insult. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Are there any objections to removing it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the topic itself is worth covering, but doing it via using the quote from the ex-wife strikes me as problematic. It's basically about the difference between his public image and presentation versus the reality of his beliefs. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but the comments from an ex wife and unsupported seems a bit undue weight, I don't think we can find any public stuff about the same topic so I don't know how we could find sources to cover similar comments? Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I am not rushing at all to remove the comments, I used the edit summary to attract attention, as you do. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the above comments, and so have removed the W magazine material about Wales' first wife for now. As Seth says, it's a worthy topic, so if someone knows of coverage in a reliable source somewhere, I'd be happy to write it up.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm hesistant to point this out, since I've gotten much grief (off-wiki) for supposed COI, but I do believe I've in fact written the best treatment of the "altruism" topic extant, in my column (n.b. already mentioned in the article for other material) "Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Jimmy Wales says". For example - "Some observers see a journalistic cheap irony in Jimmy Wales being philosophically an Objectivist (the fanatically capitalist intellectualism created by Ayn Rand). Supposedly this is in contradiction with the altruism that motivates massive amounts of free labour. In fact, Wales speaks a language of corporate collectivism that would not be out of place in Rand's novels. ... Just think of a viewpoint which regards a powerless proletariat labouring to produce wealth for owners as being the highest social achievement, and the connections should be clearer." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
And extremely hesitant you should be, IMO, given that you appear to be one of Jimmy's most strident critics, for no apparent reason. As you said above, "It's basically about the difference between his public image and presentation versus the reality of his beliefs." - however, to argue that difference cogently requires a synthesis of multiple sources, excluding, of course, Jimmy himself, and yourself. As for ""Some observers", I say [who?]. My considered opinion is that this debate, if such it be, is utterly jejune, as the average reader is likely to have little or no interest in what appears to be a pointless vendetta - what difference does it make here? Zero. For myself, I have no axe to grind for or against Jimmy, except that he has done something that was worthy of doing, and I willingly give my time and effort to it; that's not necessarily Jimmy- it could have been anybody. I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself, or your blog, where those who might be interested (if any) can read them. Your contentions about altruism are unencyclopedic detail that do not belong here. If you want to write an op-ed, you have the means to do that. But not here, I think. You'll notice that I haven't called you a bearded fool. Rodhullandemu 02:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not see where my columns should be excluded from any consideration because I am often critical, even severely so (I hope you see the problem there). As you may know, UK libel standards are quite strict, so the material is stringently fact-checked. The altruism vs. Objectivism issue is a FAQ - for heaven's sake, it's what started this thread! In the above, I was writing a newspaper column, not an academic paper (i.e. are you really criticizing me for not giving something like a footnoted citation in the column? isn't such an objection over-the-top pedantry in this case? - sometimes summarizing is appropriate). Let me just note that sentiments such as "keep your opinions to yourself, or your blog," strike me as the kind of blatant POV-pushing for which a critic would be savaged, if not blocked for "incivility", if they did similarly. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I support Skomorokh's removal of the content, good edit. I don't really understand this other stuff though. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The quote is from a reliable source, so I'm confident Pam said what she said. It would be appropriate to put the quote in the controversy section, where I don't believe it would be giving it undue weight. In fact, it's the perfect context in which to present her quote.--otherlleft 17:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Mr. Finkelstein's comments here, I see no reason for him to be hesitant to use an article's talk page to discuss in the light of his stated conflict of interest - I would prefer to encourage that sort of behavior, rather than drive people into underground editing behavior. I agree with Rodhullandemu that blog posts are inappropriate, but I don't see why the fact that Mr. Finkelstein maintains a blog and has a point of view means that his material, when published in a reliable source, cannot be considered for inclusion. Per WP:NPOV, it is our task to present differing points of view in approximate proportion to their existence in reliable sources. Demonstrate to me that W magazine is not reliable, and I will cease recommending that Pam's quote be included in the article.--otherlleft 17:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
An insult from an ex wife is not a controversy, and doesn't belong in the so called controversy section. Just reading this and it reads a bit aggressive, I didn't mean it that way and it is only IMO. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Attributing the quote "altruism is evil" to Wales is not an insult, it is one of the primary beliefs of Objectivism. Ayn Rand herself said this in many interviews on YouTube.[9]76.70.115.77 (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I find his objectivist belief confusing. I thought wikipedia relies on donations to function? I thought objectivists hated donations and anything that could be called self sacrifice? I thought this site is the "collective" knowledge of people about a certain topic. Isn't collectivism also evil to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.53 (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a trouble with the Aynrandian Obectivism, not with Jimmy Wales nor with Wikipedia, nor with the article about Jimmy Wales. AFAIK people can peruse faulty theories without suffering very much, and still performing very good. It must be something with common sense... Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, "altruism" is in many senses a direct contradiction to objectivist's beliefs. But it's usually not like what people conceive at first. Basically, objectivism's all about promoting individualism and highlighting the role of the prime-movers. It's argues that a person's needs should not give him an advantage over another persons skills and hard-work(that's why against usual charity). Hence the rich aren't naturally evil and the poor aren't naturally good. It argues that selfishness is a virtue. It's a kind of play with the word's literal meaning. The personal profit could be something like "happiness" which could be achieved by making others happy. It's quite complex and strage: true. But her books ought to give a better idea.

The main point I wish to make is: I think it need not be removed since it doesn't exactly mean that Wales is evil or anything. Perhaps someone could add that the reason is due to him being an objectivist. That would clear things up. Creation of wikipedia can be argued as selfish(as absurd as it may sound, it's rational). Wales says that his life's purpose is to creat good quality free encyclopaedia or whatever. So it is selfish in that aspect too. I know, Rand uses words like "selfish", "egotist", etc in their very literal meaning. I think tht semantics would be a greater topic to discuss than philosophy when talking about objectivism! Mehfoos (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Washington Post "On Leadership" interview

Probably too softball an interview to be of use in this article, but worth noting for the record nonetheless. Interestingly, looks like Wales may have lost the "co-founder" argument in the MSM as well as here if even self-serving interviews don't defer to his version of events.  Skomorokh  01:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, he does have a account here. Ok, you all knew that.--Daisy18108 Talk to me here! Sign my Guestbook! 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

New award

According to this page Wales is now an honorary member of the University Philosophical Society. Is it worth adding to the awards section? Note it was mentioned in the article "'I wasn’t sure if anyone would use it'" by Fiona McCann,[10] The Irish Times, 27 November 2009, page 23. Ottre 13:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a college debating society; granted, one of the most prestigious in Europe, but still just a student's club. The Irish Times article only mentions it as a footnote, almost as a way of explaining the timing of the interview. According to the article, he will be made an honorary patron, and not simply a member, which would put him in illustrious company. I'm ambivalent on this one; perhaps we should wait to see if the non-Irish press pick up on it.  Skomorokh  23:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you're right about the Irish Times article, two weeks have passed and no other journalist has mentioned it. I haven't looked at any tech websites, but, yeah, prob best to leave this one out. Ottre 23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

This article is indefinitely semi-protected, but looking through the the last 100 edits to September 2009, this gets little if any vandalism. Is there really a compelling rationale to preserve the indefinite protection?  Skomorokh  05:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Over a week later, I don't see a convincing rationale for preventing unregistered contributors from expanding the article, fixing errors or reverting vandalism from autoconfirmed editors, so am unprotecting for now (this article does not deserve any special treatment). Will watch for vandalism and reprotect as necessary.  Skomorokh  01:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, talk about near instant vandalism! That was not pretty. (See history page...) --gobears87 (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, each time protection has lifted, IP vandalism picked right up; quite amazing. I'll keep an eye and escalate the protection periods if it keeps up.  Skomorokh  19:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Refs need a thorough copyedit

There was rough consensus in this discussion from seven months ago (five in favour, three opposed) to move unnecessary references out of the lead and into the body of article text. Nobody has made the changes yet. One of the most cited references is the article by Marshall Poe, which was added in this edit over two years ago, and nobody appears to have checked the print version yet (that is, no page numbers are cited). I think we need to take a more proactive approach to copyediting, and set a date on which myself, QuackGuru, Skomorokh, and everyone else involved with the article, can collaborate on getting the refs into shape. Ottre 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I recommend people read the Trader Monthly profile. It's in the June/July 2008 issue, by Scott Eden. It was also posted on the traderdaily.com website for a while, but that site appears down now. There's much historical material there which I've never seen in other profiles, as well as a different perspective. I have some excerpts on my blog. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Seth, you're a tech journalist, what do know of Asher Moses' reputation? He is cited three times in the article, yet I can't recall ever seeing him cited in academic journals that cover Web 2.0 sites like Wikipedia. Ottre 03:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know him myself. A quick search shows he's "Technology Editor, smh.com.au, [etc]". Why would you expect to recall seeing him cited in academic journals, if he's a news site writer in Australia? News articles aren't cited very often, much less news articles outside the writer's own country. The material seems correct at a glance, though I didn't fact-check every sentence. All of it can be fact-checked against the original accusations (i.e. this is just a matter of proper sourcing). I actually think the money-for-edits charge is untrue, as it isn't logical combined with the accuser provided no evidence to support it. I don't like it on the basis that it strikes me as wrong that all someone needs to do is make a sensational charge and it'll follow the accused forever. But there's no doubt the accusation was made. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I really do wish I could. Even on Wayback Machine, there are only three versions, all dating back to May-June 2008, all of which are currently slow and to view the full article require login. Although technically those of us would (or might) regard this as a reliable source, all that can be seen at present is the executive overview, which is "Embracing the financial-market leanings that led him to launch Wikipedia, former Chicago options trader Jimmy Wales tries to take an Internet phenomenon into the black." Reading between the lines (which is at least as valid as anybody else's interpretation), this could easily be read as an implication that Wales is attempting to commercialise Wikipedia. That is bollocks, because your own blog, for what it's worth, makes quite clear the difference between Wikia and Wikipedia and implies, somewhat hyperbolically, that because one venture by a person is successful, they should not make a living from the spin-offs from that. That's a twisted definition of altruism that I am not prepared to accept. Had Tim Berners-Lee chosen to exploit WWW commercially rather than give it away free, he could easily have been as rich as Richard Branson, if not Bill Gates, by now. But I don't think he is; neither do I think he cares that much, because he is not that sort of guy. Neither am I; I realise Christmas is upon us, but I will, even if I make it over the next six days, not be participating. Sure, it would be great to have some money, not be cold, tired, unemployed and hungry, but while there is breath in my body, I will continue to freely give what I can to this venture, without carping at the irrelevant detail about how it came about or where it's going; it is worthy on its own account. Meanwhile, everybody has something to bring to the debate, if there be such, but a dignified silence speaks more about a person than verbosity can ever achieve. I am known here for sniping, and telling it like it is; but then, I am from the North, and most planets have a North. If the best subtext you can manage is an ironic "[But remember folks, it's all about sharing. It's about the community.]", you show your own failure of good faith. Please go to Wikipedia Review, largely a soapbox for excluded malcontents, where you might find some acolytes; otherwise... Rodhullandemu 02:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me - if you are "cold, tired, unemployed and hungry", then I urge you most strongly to stop wasting time on Wikipedia and attend to your life! Look, I get in trouble for saying Wikipedia is a cult, but wow - do you have any idea how worrisome you sound there? I will not think "I see this person sacrificing himself, Wikipedia must be a noble cause.". Rather, I will think "I see this person sacrificing himself, Wikipedia is a mountain of misery.". Get warm, rested, employed and fed, before devoting any effort at all to ritualistic anathema (ObArticle: This shows why some of the darker aspects of the biography are important for encyclopedic coverage) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've checked the print version of the Marshal Poe article. Ottre 03:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still in favour of removing the superfluous references, and am willing to do whatever hard work is required, but I do not understand the issue cited with The Atlantic references; the source is the online version, not the dead-tree one, and I don't see either how the latter is superior or how the former might be more precisely referenced. Regards,  Skomorokh  01:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'll leave a message on your talk page when I have some spare time to collaborate. I reckon it would take a couple of hours to polish all 90 references in the article. I have to disagree with you about the formatting of The Atlantic references, I think a lot of our readers like to see that we are using dead-tree sources. Really there should be a little symbol you can place next to references which have been checked against dead-tree sources. Ottre 12:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Shift to list-defined refs

I just went to edit the lead section to get rid of some of the redundant citations, and it is an intimidating mess of code. Would anyone object to changing the referencing system to list-defined references? It moves the content of references to the References section, leaving just the tags behind. This would make it easy to compare and copyedit all the references in one place. You can see this system used in the Hawksian woman article.  Skomorokh  19:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think most experienced editors prefer this system. There shouldn't be any problems changing. Ottre 12:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've implemented it; I might very well have broken or removed content inadvertently in the process, so if anyone is inclined to check, by all means do so.  Skomorokh  20:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

First wife

Why isn't there any information about his first wife? Like a name and year of marriage and divorce. Debresser (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No ref, I'd guess.  Skomorokh  12:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't be so hard to get one. Something to do, I think. Debresser (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
"his first wife, Pam, whom he married at age 20 back in Alabama." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Seth, stuck it in.  Skomorokh  16:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Debresser (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

WMF board seat confirmed for 2010

says Michael Snow. Proper ref needed to update article.  Skomorokh  21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I think that the IPA transcription of the pronunciation should also include the pronunciation of the first name (Jimmy), which it evidently does at the moment. Could you please add it? (I cannot do it myself, as the article is "semi-protected".) Or are there any suggestions to the contrary that I may be unaware of? (I have searched the archives, but found nothing controversial.) Simply stated, I see no reason why (only) the middle name and the last name should be transcribed, but not the first name. --84.47.117.130 (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Only Founder?

on the stats page for wikipedia it list only Jimmy Wales as the founder. Special:Statistics Wasn't Larry Sanger a founder as well? --24.103.173.3 (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes he was, but that is an auto-generated page that reads from the current list of user rights, one of which is apparently a "founder" bit. As Sanger has long since left the project, his account would not have that classification. Tarc (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

External links

I removed this youtube clip. Not sure how much it adds or if it is appropriate. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The medium (i.e. YouTube) is not particularly relevant (it's of good enough reliability/technical quality for our purposes). The interview is by the head of a significant organisation (MacArthur Foundation). It gives a good intro to Wales, and investigates issues discussed in the article (open source, Hayek influences; the challenge of vandalism; Wales' vision for the project), and some other issues the article does not get into that I think readers will be interested in (Wales' response to the error-ridden nature of his project, Wales' "kid in Africa" spiel, the encyclopaedia's response to the BLP issue, Wikimania). It also has the benefit of being somewhat atemporal, whereas most of our references refer to the issues of the day. I'd like to retain it.  Skomorokh  00:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Can we get this interview directly from the MacArthur Foundation? --Tom (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by that? It's published by their account on the site...  Skomorokh  01:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Birthdate business

Would anyone object to the to-and-fro about Wales' birthdate being relegated to a footnote? It seems much ado about nothing, and not of great interest to our readership. Thoughts?  Skomorokh  23:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support that, looking at some of the previous discussion regarding the date, it isn't of much importance, a day, we can send him birthday cards on both days. Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Done.  Skomorokh  19:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
That looks good and covers all points. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If Mr. Wales himself says that his birthday is 8 August, then shouldn't that be the date given, with the footnote containing the information about other sources listing it as 7 August?Mk5384 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, considering how unusual it is for there to be any question about someone's birth date in this century, I think it's worth mentioning in the article proper. How many Americans do you know about whom there is an open birth date question like this one?--~TPW 22:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
That's just the point. I'm going to assume that the man knows his own birthday. I think that discussing it in the article proper is fine. I just think that it is a bit out of line to display as correct the date that Mr. Wales himself refutes.Mk5384 (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, unless he's magically become a reliable source about something nobody is generally able to recall about oneself, I do not think Wales' opinion is terribly useful, except to confirm the extremely unusual circumstance of a US citizen having contradictory birthdate information from more than one non-primary source. That's something I expect from the 1930s, perhaps, but it's not exactly par for the course when Wales was born. I believe it's entirely in line to discuss the matter in the text of the article, although more than a sentence or two would certainly be giving it undue weight.--~TPW 02:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The only reason I would even imagine two sentences to be necessary would be to explain where we got his license, and why it was never corrected if it's wrong. Rare discrepancies like this, left uncorrected, are even more of interest in the modern day. I don't think my view reflects current thought on the matter, but I wanted to make it clear why I felt my earlier comments diverged from Mk5384's view.--~TPW 02:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact, quite a few Americans do have an open birth date question, though it's usually about the year rather than the day. But this instance isn't so notable. He has a birth certificate, it has a date on it. He claims it's incorrect. His account is obviously second-hand, and he could be wrong. I'd say worth the footnote, but little more. The date given in the article should be that of the birth certificate, as that's the "official" date. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Given that Mr. Wales birth certificate and his marriage license (with his signature!) list his day of birth as Aug 7th can we please stop vandalizing the page? Currently sloppy edits have left the page with two birth dates listed. Kausticgirl (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
He has stated his preference which is listed in the note. Please do not change this as per the warnings and advice given to you on your talkpage. --Morenooso (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Violations of the three-edit rule are generally frown upon. Besides, Mr. Wales preferences are not applicable to this situation. For over a year the date on this page has been Aug. 7th (which is the date a majority of sources agree with). Just because it's April Fool's Day does not mean we should throw facts out the window. Jhurlburt (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
My history as a Page Patroller is clear. Just look at my Contributions. I don't edit-war. And, that was explained to you. You might want to read this section of the 3 revert rule. Actions taken to revert incorrect edits or vandalism are generally not seen as 3RR action for Page Patrollers.--Morenooso (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
And, just so you know, anybody written about in Wikipedia can use the Contact Wikipedia to submit a ticket to its Foundation about how they want something to be written about in their article. Not all requests are granted, especially if they are outlandish. But if there is a valid request, the Foundation will make a ruling that is communicated to the article and its editors. As one of the Foundation's leaders, I *think* Jimbo Wales' wishes would be accomodated. --Morenooso (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As per this diff, another admin determined that I am not edit-warring. If he had thought I had committed 3RR on reverting the birthdate, he would have reverted and blocked me for 24 hours as per this the three revert rule paragraph. Hopefully, as per the note and hidden template on this article along with the citation that has an article with Jimbo stating his birthdate, this issue should be closed and settled. --Morenooso (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of the facts is as follows: His driver's license and passport have August 8, which presumably matches his birth certificate. He claims August 7, and used that date on his marriage license, which is then different from his driver's license and passport. The article should then use August 8, sourced to the Oregonian and possibly his statements, with something like the current footnote. The footnote in the article has a misleading paraphrase "he has stated that the August 7 date is incorrect". Basically, he plays games with this, so trying to paraphrase is just going to add to the confusion. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How about simply removing the birthdate entirely? This is the sort of personal info that really adds nothing to a BLP. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Are their any public records that actually state Mr. Wales' birthday is Aug. 8th? The Oregonian blog's author claims to have performed a records check but can that be verified? In the article Mr. Wales does not give his birthdate..... when asked he is quoted as saying, "Nobody knows". However, Mr. Wales marriage certificate (which is viewable online) clearly shows Wales' DOB as Aug. 7th and includes his signature. Isn't a witnessed, signed government document proof enough? 75.5.155.110 (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
According to his own statement on Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate, the marriage certificate is solely based on his own claim of August 7, which is not the same of the driver's license and passport which derive from the birth certificate date of August 8. I presume anyone who wants to spend the money can do a records check of the driver's license from a data-broker, but I haven't done so. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
If we are to base our actions by Mr. Wales' statements in Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate then we can't accept the Aug. 8th DOB because he states "his date of birth is not August 8th". Kausticgirl (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I would say those statements are not necessarily dispositive, but are a factor which help to disentangle the various conflicting data. I believe the appropriate date to use in the article would be the date on the birth certificate, which he seems to agree is August 8, and thus would match with the Oregonian source. The August 7 date is then his family tale, which he used for the marriage certificate, and might warrant a footnote. Someone who wants to do further research could pay for a data search to verify that the Oregonian article is correct. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's try and nail this once and for all. What Jimmy says about his birthdate is hearsay and a self-published source to boot. Superficially attracted though I am to the idea of a paid data search, Wikipedia leans against such sources on the ground of general verifiability. We have much the same problem with Beethoven, where the only available documentation is of his christening and not his actual birthdate; however we seem perfectly able to deal in that case with varying sources, and I see no rational reason not to do the same here, because in the long run it would save a lot of otherwise wasted time which might be more productively directed elsewhere. An ongoing argument about one day as against the next seems to me to be the ultimate in Oliver Wendell Holmes's "foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of tiny minds". Jimmy Wales is not going to complain because he gets a birthday card either one day early, or one day late. Some perspective, purr-lease!! Rodhullandemu 23:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that what Wales says about his birthdate is hearsay, a self-published source, and that he has given contradictory statements about his DOB in the past AND that there are no easily verifiable government documents (besides the marriage certificate, which may or may not have required the presentation of a photo ID and birth certificate - mine did but who knows about Floridia) the only proper thing to do, IMHO, is not include ANY date at all. If it can't be verified it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. Jhurlburt (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Well no, not quite. Lack of exact data should not preclude us from dealing with non-specific data, and I invite you to see how this is dealt with at Beethoven. Whatever the sources, this can be pinned down to within a day or so, since the month and year are not in dispute. That's no reason to omit it entirely, since we are not talking about some biblical figure for whom records are unavailable; what we need to do is to deal with the sources we have in an encyclopedic manner, and if those sources conflict or otherwise have weaknesses, we should be able to deal with that, or we should perhaps not be her at all. I repeat; one day is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. Rodhullandemu 01:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
In order to obtain a marriage license in Monroe County, Florida applicant's "must provide a valid picture-type ID, with date of birth shown", which kind of throws into doubt the speculation that Wales' driver license list his DOB as Aug. 8th. Jhurlburt (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Linkdump

January 2010 interview. Only scanned it briefly, seems standard propaganda, nothing jumped out.  Skomorokh  19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

IP Addresses

I was reading about your information about IP addresses and I have looked elsewhere, but I can not find in your site or others why some ip addresses have different numbers. For example 192.168.1.148 is to a printer. The printer somehow stopped responding to the address. When you go to put the info backi n it won't accept it because the is not enough numbers 192.168.101.148. It is looking for the 101 (3 digits) rather than the 1.Is there a way to either trick it or use zeros that won't count? No matter what I do I can not get this printer to work as it says it is not a correct IP number. Can you or anyone help me? Jeank1 (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the talk page of the article about Jimmy Wales, and he doesn't read it. You enquiry is of a technical nature and would be better raised here. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 02:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Acrystal

Hello Jimmy,

I'm writting from France a,d english is not my mother language.

On January 27th, I tried my first article in Wikipedia : ACRYSTAL with user nam "Acrystaluk".

As you can check, my article has been rejected for 2 reasons : too commercial and user name of an organization.

The problem is that I can not get in contact wit the guy who rejected me... because he blocked me.

I'd just like to point out that I'm the managing director of Acrystal so it is normal taht I use an organisation name and second that the new product I'm talking about is totally innovative and there exist no current word to describe it, so I had to use the trade name.

Would you be so king to put me in contact with this man and ask him to contact me as I can not contact him.

Many tahnks

Serge ZEDER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.215.252 (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The block notice on your talk page contains information about how to request unblocking, and those are the instructions you should be following. If you do decide to change your username to comply with the English Wikipedia's username policy, you must then be careful to avoid conflict of interest problems. You may find Editors who may have a conflict of interest useful. Reach Out to the Truth 00:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent Times article

Could be worth integrating into the article - A Life in the day: Happiness is my computer Laurent (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

awards

http://www.google.com/search?q=honoris+causa+jimmy+wales This honorary doctorate should be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloom54 (talkcontribs) 13:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ED SULLIVAN---SUPER--STAR

I DID NOT SEE ANY REFERENCE OR INFORMATION ABOUT ED SULLIVAN LIFE DURING W.W.I I. I WAS TOLD HE HAD A STEEL PLATE ON ONE SIDE OF HIS JAW. THIS CAUSED HIM TO SPEAK WITH SOME DIFFICULTY. HE WAS MUCH CRITICIZED ABOUT HIS MANNER IN SPEECH BUT APPARENTLY NEVER ADVERTIZED HIS DISSABILITY. IN FACT HE EVEN ENCOURAGED COMMEDIANS TO MIMIC HIS INTRODUCTIONS AND MANNER OF SPEECH.I ALWAYS WONDERED IF THIS WAS A WAR RELATED INJURY.I DO NOT KNOW.I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF ANYONE HAS ANY INFORMATION ON THIS INTERESTING LITTLE KNOWN FACT.I THINK IT WAS TRUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.3.15 (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Try Ed Sullivan or WP:Helpdesk, because this page is for discussing the article about Jimmy Wales, and he doesn't read it. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Unlock please

Please unlock this article so that I can add his illustrious title of "KING FANBOY" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.182.141 (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Alleged financial abuse of Wikimedia Foundation

So, there was an article on the SF Gate a while back... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/05/BUVFVDM3H.DTL

Was it ever addressed? I figured Wikipedia would at least make mention, but I can't find anything. Has it been debunked or has it been judged as not noteworthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.26.101 (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Protect please

Can we fully protect this article until April Fool's day is over with? Jhurlburt (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Typically most articles get reverted the next day. It's called reverting to the last good edit. My [[WP:MADEUP]] can be that reset point. Jimbo's greatest thought is this is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. --Morenooso (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Last edit reversed by an admin

Probably was not the best idea but it was part of a series of April Fools jokes discussed here. I apologize as this edit may have been misconstrued. --Morenooso (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What the crap?

I'm pretty sure the infobox picture isn't Jimmy. Jordan Payne T /C 17:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a vandal. It's been reverted now. Soap 17:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, still hilarious though. Jordan Payne T /C 17:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent DOB

{{editsemiprotected}} http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=358764887

Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales (pronounced /ˈdoʊnəl weɪlz/; born August 8, 1966[note])

Born Jimmy Donal Wales August 8, 1966 (1966-08-08) (age 43)[note]

Wales was born in Huntsville, Alabama in the United States on August 7, 1966.[8][note]

We should follow Britannica as the best secondary source: August 7. 86.41.92.143 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on the talkpage. CF:
If you accept this section on Birthdate business, it was even "edit warred" (I wonder by whom?). The note used to exist and had a hidden template that referenced an interview Jimbo gave on his preference. Because he is on the Foundation and when a request like that is made, it is usually honored. However new editors to the article have changed the dates to match. I think the admins and page patrollers on the article have decided to let it stand.
My personal prefence coincides with Jimbo (not that I'm trying to score points). He has indicated his wish and we should accomodate the Foundation's founder. --Morenooso (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You think an educational resource should give in to the whims of one of its subjects because he happens to be on the board? That's pretty sleazy, bro. The longstanding consensus is to follow the most reliable sources with Aug 7, and the inconsistency seems only have been introduced with minimal prior discussion. It seriously undermines the credibility of the article to give two different dates. 86.41.92.143 (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
There's been plenty of cases where such matters (i.e. factual rather than controversial) have come through OTRS from or about individuals who have nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation, and we've generally honoured their preferences on such things. Orderinchaos 07:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • BTW, 86.41.92.143, you might be unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates especially as it relates to biographies. Wikipedia is sensitive to how bio articles are editted. If the subject has a valid request about how its article should be editted, the subject can go on the article talkpage to avoid a conflict of interest post/edit. There is another method that is far better. Under the Wikipedia globe picture to the left is a Contact Wikipedia link. If the subject makes a valid request, the Wikipedia Foundation will have a clerk issue a ticket that documents what is to be done with the article. I have seen this five times with articles I have on Watch. Ergo, nothing sleazy and you don't have refer to him in a very colloquial way. --Morenooso (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The reliable sources say 7. The blog says 8. We should try to edit according to WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The blog in question is this referenced citation: Wikipedia & its founder disagree on his birth date]. [[WP:ELNO|Links normally to be avoided] lists blogs except for as to establish notability in an autobiography and is wikilinked to self-published sources. Since this was an interview given by Wales to a reporter and published in the reporter's newspaper, the blog is not self-published. Furthermore, the reporter during the course of the interview got Wales to say "They got it from (Encyclopedia) Britannica," Wales told me, "and Britannica got it wrong."' Encyclopedia Britannica is hardly self-published and also commented on by other sources. The reporter also noted that as per the Note on this article, Wikipedia references Encyclopedia Britannica. In a nutshell, to list both dates or just Wales preference is the key. We should go with the Foundation's founder.--Morenooso (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You acknowledged it was from a blog. We must stick to the reliable soures which say 7. Wikipedia's preference is the key. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
How about a preference for "who gives fuck?", just list it at August 1966 and be done with this lame dispute. IMO outside of historical figures, exact dates of birth are hardly necessary for BLPs, and probably do more invasion-of-privacy-style harm than good. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Obviously editors care because it is being brought up again. QuackGuru and other editors are missing the point as do most people in general. Please see FoundationTicketDIFF to see how the Foundation responds to legitimate preferences by article's subject. Who do you think the Foundation's founder is? --Morenooso (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You did not have a valid response to going against V policy which is the preference on Wikipedia. We should treat this article the same as other articles. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(note, I've cancelled out the 'editsemiprotected' for now; obviously, this would need discussion and clear consensus, etc  Chzz  ►  17:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

Note, there is clear consensus for 7 and editing according to V. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I support Tarc's position. The weakly cited disputed exact date of a living subject is valueless to the reader and has privacy issue. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It is not disputed according to V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Really, it seems there are two dates at least and it clearly is disputed. What does the living subject say about it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
What does V say about blogs. If the blog were to be challenged it could be removed from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

{{Editsemiprotected}}

The article contains two different dates and is internally contradictory. Please just pick one for the time being and let's not have ourselves look like complete idiots. 86.45.174.207 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The only idiot is the person picking one, the idea that it matters at all is the foolish one. IMO considering the unclear date, just remove both and forget about it, the month and year is fine.Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The reliable sources say 7. But there is only one source that says 8 and it is unreliable especially for a BLP. The unreliable source is a blog. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)

{{Editsemiprotected}} cancelled out for now; obviously (per above) this matter needs ongoing discussion to achieve consensus (as noted previously); it is a content debate issue. The editors processing the edit requests can only act when a consensus is established, besides which there appear to be plenty of auto-confirmed editors watching this debate who can make the edit if we reach agreement. My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that there is nothing wrong in stating the two dates - per WP:TIGER.  Chzz  ►  18:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone could ask him on his talk page. I don't know if we'd be able to cite his response as a source, though. ALI nom nom 17:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Does everybody forget Wikipedia:Verifiability which states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So, include BOTH dates and explain. Because if we make a decision either way, it is partially wrong regardless... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, I found this in his talk page's archive. He says there that it's August 8th. ALI nom nom 17:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
And I'd agree with Kim's response above- there's no reason we can't say "Brittanica said X, Jimbo said Y about Brittanica's X." ALI nom nom 17:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
That's certainly valid. Chief Bender has several different possible birthdates given because no one is certain. Regarding Mr. Wales, here's a radical idea: Find the Hunstville newspaper(s) for early August 1966 and check out the birth announcements. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it just is the same thing, just one more source conflicting with others. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
If it appeared in the newspaper with a date, it could provide a clue as to where the EB got its info from. It's not "just one more source", it's a source with no editorial opinion on the matter, since in August 1966 it was not known that Jimbo was going to be the founder of wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
In the end, you end up with two stacks of references for either date. And considering that Jimbo himself is not even firm on it, do you expect that someone else can find the perfect source to determine for either date? This 'debate' (better call it a turf war) is going on for a LONG LONG time, and it is still unresolved. So, lets acknowledge that and report that schisms in the sources. And lets stop trying to find the ultimate source that trumps all..... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, both dates should be referenced, and in fact the exact date doesn't really matter. The question is, though, is anyone who thinks it does matter, going to try to figure out the exact date, or would they rather just continue the "turf war"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Found a Huntsville Times online archive, but it only includes articles published after 1991. A local source would be great. ALI nom nom 21:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
His mother says 7th, doctor made a typo, so the birth certificate states 8th: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Your date of birth --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
In order to obtain a marriage license in Monroe County, Florida an applicant "must provide a valid picture-type ID, with date of birth shown", which kind of throws into doubt the speculation that Wales' driver license list his DOB as Aug. 8th. I also feel that using the blog as definite info of Wales' birthdate is ill-advised since Wales is also quoted as saying "Nobody knows" when asked what day he was born on that same blog. Jhurlburt (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Note we don't know if that rule was in effect when he got his marriage license - many governmental picture-ID rules are relatively recent. If anyone really cares, pay for a data-broker search. Isn't there some place where requests can be posted for fee-database searches for Wikipedia references? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Appearance on America: The Story of Us

I'm not sure how relevant we would consider his appearances on America: The Story of Us on the History Channel. I figure that once the series is over, we can consider if it is worth mentioning in the article or now; but there's no reason we can't start discussion now. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

He does seem to be getting positive press coverage. I don't know how influential this magazine is, but last week the Advertising Age described him as a "global media legend".[11] Ottre 15:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Lookalike

Jimmy Wales' Mexican lookalike: a Harvard professor -- http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=ovr&facId=296063 .--达伟 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from StevensonU, 25 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under Jimmy Wales "Honors, awards and positions"

should be added the following fact:

May 21, 2010 - Wales receives an honorary degree of doctor of laws from Stevenson University, Stevenson, Maryland. Wales said that this was the very first college commencement speech that he had delivered.

Reference: Stevenson University Newsroom

http://newsroom.stevensonuniversity.org/2010/05/10/wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales-to-address-stevenson-graduates-may-21/

StevensonU (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The reference says nothing about what you are requesting be added, only that he addressed the University. SpigotMap 13:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This may be useful in the meantime. Also this one see also this reference. Perhaps Stevenson needs to update their press release with more details.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks Jimbo. SpigotMap 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, don't thank me, the thanks are for you. Found the link for Stevenson, too :-).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"stated that" versus "joked that"

In a 2007 interview, Wales stated that he thought that "donating" Wikipedia to the foundation was both the "dumbest and the smartest" thing he'd done.

I think that it would be more accurate to say that I joked that I thought that - I have made this joke many times, and I always say it in a joking manner and nearly always explain that it is a joke - primarily because some people seem to think I mean it seriously. I think donating Wikipedia to the Foundation was arguably the smartest and greatest thing that I've ever done, full stop. What I don't want to see happen next, though, is people editing this to say that "Later, in 2010, he claimed this was just a joke" making it sound like it was bad when I said it, and then I backpedalled, etc. It was always a joke. It might not even be a notable enough thing to include in the article at all, but I have said it lots of times, so I suppose it might be.

I am also not sure why there are scare quotes around "donating".

What I recommend is this wording: "Wales has often joked that donating Wikipedia to the Foundation was both the "dumbest and the smartest" thing he'd done." And then a bunch of links to examples.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it's not just a joke. Perhaps "jokingly stated"? There is a serious point being expressed. One of the biggest "what-if" questions of Wikipedia history is if it would have been so successful had it been a for-profit, ad-supported site, like ventures Bomis before it and Wikia after it. If yes, then "dumbest", if no, then "smartest". Nobody can know for certain, and I've seen reasonable arguments on both sides. I think the article is properly engaging that grand question, and I would be wary of it winding up slanted to the benevolent-millionaire PR narrative. It's very clear from the historical record ("With the resignation of Larry, there is a much less pressing need for funds. Therefore, all plans to put advertising of any kind on the wikipedia is called off for now.") that Wikipedia was made a non-profit because at the time, it was thought to have little potential to support itself via advertising. To be fair, who could have predicted back then, what would happen? As the Trader Monthly interview (not me!) has it "Despite all this, Wikipedia, set up as a nonprofit, has not made Wales much direct income. Not yet, anyway. Wikipedia -- and how to profit from it -- is a kind of puzzle for Wales, one he feels he's finally on the verge of solving. ... \[Wikia\], Wales readily admits, is his effort to take the success -- and, indeed, the underlying philosophy -- of Wikipedia, and commercialize the hell out of it. "Look, I'm not against making money," he says." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Seth that it is not adequate to use words that might suggest the remark was just a joke, and I inserted his "jokingly stated" text, although of course someone might misinterpret that as well. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
It was always just a joke. Full stop. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to editoralize on behalf of Seth or anyone else and portray me as holding opinions which I do not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Ahem. I do not begrudge you the rueful reflection on what-might-have-been, a humorous defusing of an obvious issue. But it is also not appropriate for Wikipedia to be your press agent, to portray you in a flattering light contrary to the evidence. I did not write the following (also from the Trader Monthly interview), emphasis added: "Wales, meanwhile, has gone on to fame, if not exactly the enormous fortune one typically associates with Internet moguls. But it's not as if he's opposed to rectifying that situation. Early in Wikipedia's life, Wales and his partners considered selling ads on the encyclopedia's pages. The site was showing signs of explosive growth, and they certainly could have used the extra money. Though ultimately they nixed the proposal (Internet ad rates had fallen off anyway, of course), they didn't exactly do so for idealistic reasons. "We've never said, 'Absolutely not, we don't want to sell ads,'" Wales says, explaining that the decision had more to do with preserving the Wikipedia brand." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
None of that has any relevance to the question at hand.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Let me make clear again, in my view there is no fault in pondering the road not taken. Virtually anyone in such a situation would have some sort of reaction. However, the matter at hand is not just a joke. It is your standard answer to an obvious historical question concerned with if a for-profit Wikipedia (as was the original plan!) would have been a huge money-maker for you. It is not wrong, but also, it does have a serious aspect to it which connects to the issue. I do not think you are being treated unkindly on this point in the article. But it is not reasonable to expect a complete airbrushing of such an extensively written about "what-if" quandary. And please don't try to put this on me. The more serious business-oriented sources examine this, sometimes quite harshly - e.g. The Economist: "All this has gone to his head, say former friends. Mr Wales "has created something of a mythology about himself," says one. "The image he created is that he is this benevolent millionaire who donates his time for this charitable project; that is not true." Instead, this acquaintance argues, Mr Wales is merely basking in the glow of Wikipedia's success." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, absolutely and utterly irrelevant to the question at hand. Seth, your bias here is well known, and thank you for again demonstrating it. You want to make sure that I'm sharply criticized. Great. Super. Whatever. However, none of that has any relevance at all to the question at hand. The joke has always been stated as a joke, and failing to note that would mislead the reader into thinking something that is absolutely not true. That the error is one that you want readers to make, based on your hostile reading of my life story, is not relevant one bit.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I want to make sure that the article does not turn into a press release puff piece for you - one need only look at the result of the PR which you do control to see that fate (e.g. removing Larry Sanger's status as Wikipedia co-founder, whitewashing Bomis, the benevolent-millionaire image, etc). In fact, in terms of my interest in Wikipedia's sociology, I truly find it fascinating that the article about you is not a fawning hagiography, and that adds nuance to my thinking. I try to be tough but fair to you (note, "try" - I won't claim perfection), not supporting unsubstantiated and salacious tales, but not taking things you say at face value either. I hope you can see the encyclopedic problem of discounting those who takes a less rosy view of your actions and statements than you do. In the issue at hand, it's clear the point is not just a joke, like "I once shot an elephant in my pajamas - how he got in my pajamas, I'll never know". Rather, it has a serious side to it, which brings up decidedly non-altruistic aspects. Once more, this is common discussion, take CNN Money: "The irony of Wikipedia is that, although it was founded by a former securities trader and experienced entrepreneur, it has yet to make anyone rich. ... Had it not been set up as a nonprofit - free of advertisements and promotions -Wikipedia could easily have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in ad revenue. Wales, an Ayn Rand small-l libertarian, figured that user devotion could be harnessed to make Wikipedia-like products that bring in a buck or two." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest this thread should be closed because to continue would conflict with WP:NOT#FORUM. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As always, the thing to do in situations like this is let the reader decide. I had a look at the sources first, and I agree with Jimbo that this was always a joke, but would note that the joke seems to be the contrast between "smartest" and "dumbest", while the explanations in each case are quite rational. The current text ("Wales has often jokingly stated that donating Wikipedia to the foundation was both the "dumbest and the smartest" thing he had done. On the one hand, he estimated that Wikipedia was worth US$3 billion; on the other, he weighed his belief that the donation made possible its success.") captures that quite well and lets the reader decide whether it was "just" a joke or not.

Indeed the main weakness, in my view, is the final clause, which rather underplays why it was smart (I'm thinking e.g. of the quote "The smartest, though, because I don‘t think it could have been nearly as successful as it is and also because I think it will be remembered in the future. 100 or 200 years from now people will point to Wikipedia and say: That was a really good thing that did something beneficial for the world. So that is something I am very proud of.") Geometry guy 20:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Despite his non-intensive involvement in the day-to-day operation of the encyclopedia"

I note that the source linked doesn't make that claim, and in any event, it's false. I've always been intensively involved in the day-to-day operation of the encyclopedia. This is the origin of the word in the article, a change from "decreasing", which is of course also false.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Darrin McGillis

Mr. wales could you please assist in protecting the page Darrin McGillis from a politica witch hunt by two users of wikipedia including using the AFD page as a place to Libel Mr. McGillis a living person.--98.242.241.252 (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this (per notice above), but I'll take a look at it. Rodhullandemu 01:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I have been following this and I have to say I am stunned by comments left in the Afd: I especially leaving a comment even with the quote "... but later retracted the claim." is a shame on the users part. I have asked for assistance with the dispute as going after someone you do not know with such malice is truly wrong. I hope you can help.--Dymo400 (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Whatever, this is the wrong forum to appeal to Jimmy, and it is unlikely that he would intervene. To be honest, the Afd became a mess, and I have already had to block one IP editor for disruptive editing, and it is better that the discussion proceed without rancour and misusing WP policies to sustain a point of view. A dispassionate analysis of the article, and its sources, must be better than two sides taking up arms against each other. Rodhullandemu 03:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Misuse of Wikipedia Funds

I think it would be appropriate to document the allegations made against Mr. Wales regarding excessive/inappropriate spending by former Wikimedia executive Danny Wool that are detailed on his blog [12] that were reported in Wired Magazine [13]. I can't seem to find where on Wikipedia these allegation are addressed (and hopefully, responded to/put to rest). Wikipedia would only benefit from more information/context on this criticism. Mr. Wales responded to the more sensational allegations about Ms. Marsden, but I can't seem to find any response to the allegations about misuse of funds.--DerekDeVries (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The charge and response are here: Jimmy_Wales#Wikimedia_Foundation. I'm not sure a lengthier treatment of this topic is justified, as that would risk undue weight considering the many, many other aspects of Wales' life that have received comparable media coverage. Regards, Skomorokh 21:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Note the sourcing is selectively quoted, to whitewash one of the most damning aspects there. Article - "Then-chairperson of the foundation Florence Devouard and former foundation interim Executive Director Brad Patrick denied any wrongdoing by Wales or the foundation, saying that Wales accounted for every expense and that, for items for which he lacked receipts, he paid out of his own pocket." _Chronicle, omitted - "A short time later, in an e-mail exchange with her fellow board members, Devouard reported that she had convinced the Associated Press that "the money story was a no story." Yet she proceeded to indicate the opposite, upbraiding Wales for having asked the foundation to pay the steakhouse tab. "I find (it) tiring to see how you are constantly trying to rewrite the past," she wrote to Wales in the message, which was obtained by the AP. "Get a grip!"" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree that if we're going to quote Devuoard's exoneration, the "rewrite the past" line merits equal time. Skomorokh 21:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Update Honors/Awards

Jimmy Wales was elected to the Ashoka fellowship in the 2008.

[1]

Wales wades into porn debate

Wikipedia's Parent Company Starts Purging Porn From Its Websites

Dispute brews over pornographic images on Wikimedia

Jimmy Wales wades into Wikipedia porn debate

Here are three articles open to discussion for inclusion. I think it is best to talk it over before adding any of these to this or other articles. QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Commons:News regarding the sexual content purge, which is the only list I've seen so far that's at all useful or comprehensive (though it doesn't claim to be such). --Simon Speed (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

None of these should be added here, as the topic is not really relevant to a personal biography. Criticism of Wikipedia is a better venue. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

These seem relevent to this page and other pages too. For example, Co-founder Jimmy Wales has given up some of his site privileges following protests by contributors angered that he deleted images without consultation. On Sunday, in response, Jimmy Wales voluntarily revoked many of the "permissions" given to him as Wikipedia's founder, to delete and edit "protected" content on Wikimedia Commons. Wales's status has changed is relevant to this page and the History of Wikipedia page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what Tarc is getting at is that the article is not a suitable place to criticize its subject. Editors should take their time, remember BLP rules and if they're feeling angry, just back off and leave it. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales status has been changed. So if editors feel like ignoring my comments, just back away and leave it. QuackGuru (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We report facts from reliable sources. Those media stories are only just out and are either sensational tripe or just report that there's been a row. It is not at all clear what's actually happened to Jimbo's status, he's agreed to give up some stuff but could take it back any time he wants: everything is very fluid. If you are concerned about the issue then please get involved in the debates and consensus building at the Commons. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We agree to report the facts from reliable sources. All the sources meet V. Your personal opinion of the reliable sources is irrelevant. If you are concerned the sources don't meet RS there is a RS noticeboard. QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If newspapers are fully reliable when they're sensationalizing breaking news, how come what they report later is often so different? I'm just urging caution on a BLP and keeping feelings out of editing. I'm also urging everybody to get involved on the Commons: the issue has not gone away. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC News is a reliable source. I am urging a little cooperation. Please say what BLP concerns you have about using any of the sources if you have any concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm concerned about reflecting either the moral panic or the Wiki-anger. I think that if you say no more than is accepted by the range of sources and use the least emotionally charged language available, you should be OK. --Simon Speed (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Co-founder Jimmy Wales has given up some of his site privileges following protests by contributors angered that he deleted images without consultation.
It is not clear whether Mr Wales's support for the removal of explicit content was in response to Mr Sanger's concerns, pressure from Fox News, or something else.
On Sunday, in response, Jimmy Wales voluntarily revoked many of the "permissions" given to him as Wikipedia's founder, to delete and edit "protected" content on Wikimedia Commons.
Here are the main points from BBC article. This can be summarised but it must be from a neutral point of view and meet BLP concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How about Following controversy over the deletion of sexual images, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his founder status. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy is vague and founder status is not accurate. Proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: "Following the deletion of sexual images without consensus, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status.[14]" QuackGuru (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that, but I still think "controversial" is better: nobody outside Wikiland will understand the significance of "consensus". --Simon Speed (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: "Following a complaint about obscene visual representations of children on Wikimedia Commons reported to the FBI by Larry Sanger, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete was done hastily, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status.[15]" QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
That is a terribly inaccurate summary. Sanger's report to the FBI was in regards to blatant child pornography (his words) being hosted on Commons; Wales began deleting pornographic images on Friday, fully aware (or so I believe) that it would take him days to delete them all, while opposition was building to speedy deletion (see my timeline of events here); and Wales gave up his founder privileges when it became clear the media was not going to cover the issue fairly. The main point is that BBC News made a conscious decision not to do their own investigation. Ottre 22:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The proposal is a very accurate summary of the BBC article. It is verified according to V, not your personal interpertation or original research. A Signpost is a primary source. The main point is that the BBC article meets V. We explain what the source determined why Wales gave up his privileges.
"He later clarified that his concern was not about photographs of children, but "obscene visual representations of the abuse of children", which can include drawings and sculpture."[16] QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Small legal point - I'd say "illegal drawings of children in sexual situations", instead of "obscene visual representations of children", that better captures the key law in English description. And Sanger's overall objections (not FBI report) encompassed both allegations of illegal material, and complaints about non-educational sexual material in general. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
In a message to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing list he said this was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted". Here is more information from the BBC article that verified the proposal below.
Slightly changed proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: "Following a complaint by Larry Sanger to the FBI later clarified as illegal drawings of children in sexual situations being hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete was done hastily, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status because he explained that he'd rather focus on the real content issues, rather than about him and how quickly he acted.[17]" QuackGuru (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Allow me draw your attention to the part of the article where it states "It asked whether the donors were aware of "the extent of sexually explicit content" on Wikimedia Commons." ("It" being Fox News) - this is a different subject than the alleged illegal material (no offense meant in tone, just trying to fit what we know to be true now, into the V of the BBC article) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think we can merge it with perfect V, as "Following a complaint by Larry Sanger to the FBI later clarified as illegal drawings of children in sexual situations being hosted on Wikimedia Commons, and a news report of "the extent of sexually explicit content", Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already set out my stall on this, and Jimbo is already aware of it. In my opinion he acted in one sense quite properly to reduce the potential legal liability of the Wikimedia Foundation, by removing those images he considered to be illegal, with the proviso that they could later be restored after due consideration. Unfortunately, images, once deleted, are unavailable for rational comment, and that is perhaps, putting the cart before the horse. That leaves the question whether nominating the images for deletion, and opening up the debate, would have produced a different result. I'm not convinced it would have done so. Methodology aside, I dispute "later clarified as illegal drawings of children in sexual situations". Who has prescribed this? It's an unsourced opinion. The FBI has conspicuously failed to take any action.
A different point is that Commons has been used to host multiple pornographic images with no obvious encyclopedic value, and most of those images are not used in any encyclopedic articles. In one sense, Commons is a repository of free-content images, yet it falls within the WMF free-content purpose, which overall seems to be educational rather than tittilational. Accordingly, there seems to be no reason why images not used in encyclopedic articles should not be deleted as redundant, and Jimmy was quite correct on that dimension; we are not Flickr. Rodhullandemu 00:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, triple negative alert. "there seems to be no reason why images not used in encyclopedic articles should not be deleted as redundant". I am assuming he is arguing for deletion. I don't think I could construct a more convoluted way to say "delete the images". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The more that is said, the worse this proposed edit gets. The kiddiporn allegations are allegations or maybe less than that innuendo: nobody has confirmed any such thing, though it's all free for the authorities to view. The press reports this fact but puts as salacious a gloss on it as they can and you have to read the articles carefully to realize there was no kiddiporn. Also the theorizing about underlying motives varies with the Guardian blaming Apple! The more that gets added to this the greater the danger of slurring both Wales and the Wikipedia. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this proposed edit does seem to be getting worse as more people chime in. It is not worth including anything if you don't explain that Wales gave up his privileges in the face of hostile media coverage. The fact that the BBC of all media outlets chose to parrot the Fox News allegations is remarkable. Ottre 02:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Where does it say in the BBC about Wales gave up his privileges in the face of hostile media coverage? We can't add your interpertation to the article. OR can't trump V. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is a primary source to verify what is in BBC about a message to the Wikimedia Foundation mailing list. This did not mention anything about hostile media. QuackGuru (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: Following a complaint by Larry Sanger to the FBI that he later clarified as obscene visual representations of children in sexual situations being hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete was done hastily, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status. He wrote in a message to Wikimedia Foundation mailing list this was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted."[18] QuackGuru (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Now turning into a novel and it's not getting better as it gets longer. Even mentioning the prefix "pedo" can switch off all reason (hence the pediatrician who had her house burned down), this is what Fox has been trying with the kiddiporn "allegations" and I suspect it was why Wales panicked. A cursory reading of the new proposal would give There was kiddiporn. Wales tried to delete it, but the nerds objected and he backed off. This is libel!!! It's what Fox will try to insinuate without actually saying: we should not do the same. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Please excuse my interjection, but why do you repeatedly use the non-word "kiddiporn?" It strikes me as a diminuitive euphemism, almost a "pet name," for child pornography. I'd be more inclined to accept you as a neutral voice if you were not trying to relabel child pornography. Bustter (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not using the Fox News source but editors are adding misleading text, one unreliable source, and the Fox Fews source without the clarification Sanger made to the Larry Sanger page. Two editors think it is notable at least for the Larry Sanger page. What is unsourced with this proposal or not NPOV according to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I think recent press coverage should be used as source. The name of Fox is finding its way into the headlines, because they had a large hand in creating this story. I do not see, in the circumstances how anything from Fox or repeated uncritically like the early BBC report did can be considered properly sourced. Even with the latest stuff, the speculation should be ignored. Press engaged in moral panic creation are not a reliable source. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to libel the subject of the article of anyone else. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
For now I added your proposal with the clarification about co-founder status. Your proposal is a good start but it is vague. It needs context on how the sexual image debate began. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the subject has been covered. The only facts that haven't been covered concern allegations: some of the later press reports do at least include denials of these. I think if you want to include an allegation you should include the denial. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yea, its not worth including at all, it is in the critism article, its nothing notable about wales, he had nothing to do with the addition of porn he simply deleted some sexy p[pictures, its all about sangers issues. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Wales' role is notable. Simon Speed, the reference does not have a specific denial by Wales but it does have this: He wrote in a message to Wikimedia Foundation mailing list this was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted." This is about Wales' role. QuackGuru (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Wale's role in this is not a notable issue at all, Sanger is the person you want to add this, Wales deletes some porno, so ? It is a storm in a tea cup and is only important regarding Sanger reporting the pictures to the FBI there has been no investigation no action nothing, Wales has not released any of his main role at all, and in fact Wales has and is in the process of moving away from any of his so called powers . Stop stuffing it in, see if you have consensus. I think it is little to do with wales and given undue weight to a minor issue in his life by adding it to his BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
We report what the source says. Your opinion is original research in evaluating the source. The source thought it was notable to cover. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
No it does not, just having a citation doesnt mean it is notable to include here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
There has been many press coverage surrounding this incident. There is consensus to include. I added it as compromise instead of the detailed version. It was a proposal by Simon speed. This is very short and does not violate WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you claiming as a Consensus, you and editor Simon Speed? Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
There was a discussion and Simon speed did not want the detailed version so I compromised with the very short proposal. Suggestion: Please start a RFC for this specific sentence if you want to delete the compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus at all just you wants to add something about it. The compromise as you call it and have repeatedly reverted to include has also BLP issues, it is unexplained, what powers has wales given up? Who uploaded the dirty pictures, wales? Has wales had to give up power because he uploaded porno? that is the problem and then the explained version is undue weight. It does not belong here, and there is no consensus to include anything about it as you claim either. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The text is well sourced and meets V. If you start a RFC maybe editors can expand it and include more details form the source and other sources. I hope you start a RFC soon and seek consensus to delete or new editors may want to expand it. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The entire event is of such small importance, it is not sensible to include it at all. It's just recentism to include a new paragraph everytime the media gets incorrectly excited about something. Quackguru, as is well known, camps out here only to disparage me, and seeks to use every media event of every kind to write something negative about me here. Frankly, he should be banned from editing this page as a clear POV-pusher, but that's another story for another day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, isn't it, how Jimbo can just step in and end any debate unilaterally. I don't mean this personally, you understand. I just find it to be an interesting reflection of the system that whatever Jimbo has to say on the issue is automatically considered WP:The Last Word, even if that wasn't his intention. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 15:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

History Channel

Jimmy was on the shows America: The Story of Us but it isnt mentioned in his article. Why? Spongie555 (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Because you didn't add it? 99.24.202.140 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing coordination for political ends

Dear Mr Wales, I noticed this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups . Does Wiki have a policy for resisting group attempts to skew its pages? If it does would you provide a link please. Thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You should try User talk:Jimbo Wales. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For addition

Lifestyle-oriented interview. Skomorokh 13:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Two notes

1. This article is one of the few on wikipedia that is describing itself (there's AFAIK no policy against this):

In late 2005, Wales edited his own biographical entry on the English Wikipedia.

Funny!

2. I wish better sources for Wales'es objectivism (Rand) and libertarianism. They're kind of fundamental. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Darn! My requests are unheplfully reverted, and I cannot get access to the subscription site that "best describes" his objectivism. When people are unhelpful, one have to do it by oneself. Here a blog link. I challenge to a competition in altruism! (If that isn't wasted here). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Again! Thank you for nothing, everybody! I'm adding it on another encyclopedia then. Is this topic really sensitive? He's combining Objectivism with OpenSource, and I'm wishing to know how it works. (Like f.ex. Eric Raymond). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Adding disruptive content to the article is not the best way to find out information; you may be looking for the reference desk. Skomorokh 10:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
You're misinterpreting my intent. There's nothing disruptive about my additions. And I disagree with your personal interpretation of WP:LEADCITE. About the ref that you claim is sufficient: I cannot access it. The ref I provided I can access. It can be objected that its quality is inferior, but WP:LEADCITE is not the hit-head policy of choice here. Also take a look of WP:OWN. The case here is not of me being a POV-pusher (except for finding "objective" sources): Wales is (IMHO) a good man, the philosophy he uses has (IMHO) flaws, but he does (IMHO) something right to make it work anyways, and I want links that provide me with the relevant links that explains how exactly he combines it with OpenSource. The topic is important, but not the sensitive/political matters that outsiders make it per Ludwig Wittgensteins acceptance of erroneous philosophies, as long as it doesn't generate errors in practical acs. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
For the record (and due to the inappropriate reference to WP:OWN above), I endorse Skomorokh's edits. Further, this article is heavily watched, so the current version can be assumed to have significant support. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think adding a reference citation to the lead is appropriate. There was past consensus to include citations in the lead. The references should come from the body. A new reference is not part of summarising the article if it is not already in the body. A possible compromise is adding the citation from the body but commenting it out. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Report for the User User:Giftiger_wunsch User:Terrillja

Dear Jimmy Wales, Iam the wikipedia contributor with the name of Case_edu (talk). my previous uder id was blocked due to the above users. They logged my complaint that i involve with some other users due to some AFD articles. they put charge on me of some jihad to protect things. i put my efforts for the positivity of wikipedia and they start investigation of fake things here. i leave wikipedia under protest permanently. this is last time to use my time for nothing. i forget that some wiki users have abuse you and involve you in religion issues. this is very negative thing. take it seriously other wise people avoid wikipedia from muslim countries. Slaughter00 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

If this belongs anywhere, it belongs here. Rodhullandemu 17:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Setting up the Wikimedia Foundation

Skomorokh, regarding your question as to "an account of why (Wales) set up the Wikimedia Foundation and stepped aside as its chairman", this is covered to some extent in the profile done by Trader Monthly, which has

Wales, meanwhile, has gone on to fame, if not exactly the enormous fortune one typically associates with Internet moguls. But it's not as if he's opposed to rectifying that situation. Early in Wikipedia's life, Wales and his partners considered selling ads on the encyclopedia's pages. The site was showing signs of explosive growth, and they certainly could have used the extra money. Though ultimately they nixed the proposal (Internet ad rates had fallen off anyway, of course), they didn't exactly do so for idealistic reasons. "We've never said, 'Absolutely not, we don't want to sell ads,'" Wales says, explaining that the decision had more to do with preserving the Wikipedia brand.

And with the advent of his for-profit venture, Wikia Inc., it appears Wales is finally ready to monetize.

Also, though original research, you may find interesting this part of the historical record

With the resignation of Larry, there is a much less pressing need for funds. Therefore, all plans to put advertising of any kind on the wikipedia is called off for now.

We will move forward with plans for a nonprofit foundation to own wikipedia, and possibly to solicit donations and grants to help us carry out our mission. (Ironically, I think that grant money would come with many annoying strings attached, which we could not accept, comparted to advertising money, which is virtually 100% string-free.)

-- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


Ludwig von Mises Institute

  • He received his bachelor's degree in finance from [[Auburn University]] (notable for its [[Ludwig von Mises Institute|free-market economists]]).

Is there any source that connects Wales to the LVMI? Auburn is notable for many things, so unless there is an actual connection I don't think it's necessary or even appropriate to mention an institute that occupied office space at the university.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed this before seeing your note here. As far as I can see, mentioning LvMI is name dropping. However, the Reason article[19] says "B.A. in finance from Auburn University, a hotbed of free market economists", so they thought it relevant to mention the free-market economist bent. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
So maybe it should be something like "known for a free-market economist emphasis", cited to Reason as a source. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

House of Learning

We describe it as "a small private school"; Wired describes it as "a tiny private school"[20]; SMH describes it as "the school was run by his mother and grandmother"[21]. The majority of this section of the article is dependent on Wales' Q&A[22], which is not independent. In Q&A, Wales says it wasn't homeschooling, but it sounds like it had around 10 students in total, four of which were the Wales children. Was this a registered school? I can't find any records online about it, but that isnt surprising. What offline resources would be helpful to consult in order to confirm it's status and/or find more information ? John Vandenberg (chat) 23:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to dig deep into Alabama state education licensing and business records, if they even still exist. Not worth it at all, IMHO. There's plenty of better stuff that could be researched if you want to volunteer the time. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

teaching position at two universities

Our article says he taught at University of Alabama and Indiana University without giving a clear timeline, which may give readers the wrong impression. The Reason article[23] says "He did coursework and taught at Indiana University". The other source attached to this fact is the Q&A piece, but I can't see where it says he taught at University of Alabama. Is this covered in any other sources? What subjects did he teach? How long did he teach these subjects? John Vandenberg (chat) 23:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As a grad student, he'd likely have been a teaching assistant for some classes. That's probably what's meant by "taught" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Swiss award

Press Association reports that Wales has been granted an award by a Swiss organization called Im Grueene Foundation for "democratising the access to knowledge".

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gL1vjVz34Ub9v2upKCb4582PEUiQ?docId=N0174211286566478187A

--TS 20:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That was inserted into the article (the last award in the list) with a different reference.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


Ancestry and Religion

Whats Jimmys ancestry, first wales that came to the United States from which country??...im guessing its not the country wales.. and whats his religious beleifs?.Armenia81 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

After somebody's borrowing Wale's hankerchief, CSI-style, I'd PayPal a portion of cost to send it over to Sarasota to find out his tribal markers. As for religion, being from the South, well, Florida, he may have some history of Protestant affiliation or attendance, but that is just guess work on my part. (And: not to attract the attention of Jack Conway, but I do remember reading somewhere however that he's had a history of an interest in Ayn Randian objectivism, along with its agnostism or else perhaps vice versa.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Family legend has it that on my mother's side of the family (my grandfather was John Dudley) we are descended from John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland but there is no actual evidence or confirmation of that of any kind, and the story was passed to me with some skepticism as to whether it was true. I recently saw an episode of the UK version of Who Do You Think You Are? and fantasized about going on the show to learn for sure!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well your paternal surname is of English origin see here: www.surnamedb.com, or www.houseofnames.com, not sure about your mother's surname, yes its interesting to research your family tree, especially if you really dont know much about it. It is also the 6295th most common surname in the US and 1774th most common in the U, so its not common at all.Armenia81 (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that there is a remarkable likeness between you and the pic at the top of Dudley's page Jimbo ! Chaosdruid (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Ellis Island search [24] gives a limited amount post 1892 but if they were immigrants before then may be more difficult. If you click on the links you can see who came with them and maybe tie it down to known relatives/mothers aunts and uncles etc. that maybe came over with them Chaosdruid (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If it pleaseth the discussion, please keep your comments to reliable sources which discuss Mr. Wales' ancestry specifically. Speculative chitchat would not be unwelcome at User talk:Jimbo Wales, I suspect. Thanks, Skomorokh 17:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Speculative chitchat is very welcome at User talk:Jimbo Wales, my personal talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Editorial power has changed

Wales says Wikipedia role unchanged, but editorial power has been curbed. This reference and matierial about role and power can be added to Jimmy Wales#Role. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Slightly on the same subject, I don't much like the sentence "Wales is the de facto leader of Wikipedia." in the intro. a) It seems taken out of context and b) I really don't believe it to be true, especially given that Wikipedia is a community project, not an enterprise. I vote for removing it, but won't touch it myself. --Metalindustrien (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Paragraph Update

At the end of the Controversy section there are two sentences reading:


"The January/February 2006 issue of Maximum PC reported that Wales refused to abide by a request of the People's Republic of China to censor "politically sensitive" articles in Wikipedia. Other big business Internet companies such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft have already yielded to Chinese government pressure. Mr. Wales would rather see companies such as Google follow suit on Wikipedia's policy of freedom of information.[43]"

I thought Google had stopped censoring information in china... or maybe thats just Hong Cong... If anyone knows more about the Google/China issue this would be a good place to make an update.

Especially considering Jimbo started this all, and this section is already two years out of date and it is a fairly current issue.


Andrewxy (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

who cares about the controversy of Jimmy Wales. I thought it was a waste of time of my eyes reading this idiotic controversy over who founded Wikipedia. Actually, why does anyone care? Not like it's a big money maker.


Actually it's a big deal. He runs wikipedia and his character and principles has a lot to do with that. People need to know, especially if their donating what kind of man runs this operation. Who is at the wheel. To that end the controversy around Rachel Masden needs to be greatly expanded. She did release chat logs which would imply he messed with her page while seeing her. A conflict of interest from the highest level of wikipedia is damning and important information relevant to wikipedia and jimbo wales. -A non-moose

Jimmy Wales' personal income / wealth network

Hey there!

I was just wondering while there is no mention to what Jimmy earns in the article. Being Wikipedia an institution founded by donations, shouldn't all its "numbers" be public? I don't know much about it, I suppose they already are, so I wonder why not mention it in the article?

Some personalities like Mark Zuckerberg or any other of these magnates have got their net worth or they income in the personal box, at least.

Why is this information nonexistent in Jimmy's case?

Cheers from Pakistan!!

Ahmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.157.111.182 (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer is that if you can find a reliable source that reports on Wales's personal net worth or on his salary (from what?), and you think it's notable, then you can suggest adding it to the article. The reason sources report on Zuckerberg's net worth is because, well, he's worth quite a lot and it's worth the time of a magazine like Forbes to figure it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
If this dude be worth so much scratch, why do he be keep on axin fo money on EVERY DAMN ENTRY? I be trying to look at articles and dis dude be axin for money. He be poor! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Jimmy doesn't get paid by Wikimedia. You can see financial reports for the organization on the Foundation site. In medias res (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What daughter?

Apparently where it says "and had a daughter before separating.[57]" under the section Personal Life, the source provided at [57] says nothing of any daughter. It mentions that Wales and his wife were separated and were planning a divorce, but no mention of the daughter was made, and the sentence is even broken up by citations as follows "The couple were married in Monroe County, Florida in March 1997,[68] and had a daughter before separating.[57]", indicating the "daughter" portion had its own separate citation, though again I read the article 3 times and used several keywords in the find tool and found zero reference to the daughter. This is obviously not to say said daughter didn't exist, as I'm sure Jimbo could verify the existence of his own daughter, but the source should not be cited for that section and if possible a different citation added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.6.245 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur - [25] tells of no daughter. --George2001hi 20:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe the citation is establishing the word "separating", not "daughter". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the citations to cover separation and daughter.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Righty oh, I thought the citations were a bit mixed-up. Face-smile.svg --George2001hi 20:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the bit about "Monroe County" is original research. I doubt if it appears anywhere other than in the original research, and in any event is pointless trivia which would only serve to confuse the reader. The existence of my daughter should be verifiable in any number of reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

ancestry.com drives me bananas. Monroe County may be trivial, but something has to support the marriage to Rohan and the date of the marriage. There's a note in the article about a marriage certificate, but it appears to be sourced to non-online sources, which I can't see. The daughter is already sourced now.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct and Protect search snip-it vandalism

The current google blurb/snipo for this article shows a vandalized name


Born, Jimmy F***n***** Donal Wales


I'm a novice wiki user so I'm not sure if this is a google crawiling or wikipedia issue, or how to correct it so I'll ask for help on this one.

Thanks Smile4Chomsky (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just vandalism and has been reverted. →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 02:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that the Google page has not refreshed. →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 03:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty the newest is extremely creepy and the ones of him staring honestly really bug me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.72.169 (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Vote to improve description of JimmyWalesJI5.jpg

totally gives off a Hank Scorpio vibe....c'moooon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turingmachina (talkcontribs) 01:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol declined.svg Declined as irrelevant, and as regards a Turing Machine, your proposition is formally undecideable; however, as regards the halting problem, I've halted it. Rodhullandemu 01:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this spam? People keep trying to sell these damn Turing Machines. I see you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.56.24 (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Eid al- Ghadeer

Dear Jimmy Wales.

I appreciate your work as this is really helpfull in our daily life.I can not imajine what the world would be without Wikipedia.You have done an great job and still doing it while the whole world is getting benifit out of this site. I have a request that while searching to for EID-e GHADEER, I found it on Wikipedia as Eid al-Ghadeer. The page is very informative but there is one thing which is not acceptable and that is a Potrait or some kind of Picture attached at the left corner of the page written below to it is "The inventure of Ali(A.S) at Ghadir Khum".It is forbidden in Islam to draw Pictures of Hazrat Muhammad(S.A.W) or Mola Ali (A.S).I am from a Shia sect and if you want Shia's to visit this page I would request you to Please, remove this picture immediately.I know its just a picture for you but it is not acceptable for us.I would be very obliged if you can do this favour and remove this picture.

With Regards. ALI RIZVI. ali_ned@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.64.103 (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I doubt that Jimmy Wales will personally read this. However I have copied your request to the "Talk:Eid al-Ghadeer" page (see that page, and click on "Discussion"), so somebody can take appropriate action. 156.62.3.26 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

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

Wikia

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

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

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

appeal to donate

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

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

take action

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

Please read: A personal appeal...

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

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

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

Is a section on this noteworthy?

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

It might be. Apparently its kind of a big deal. I came to this section for the same reason. But it seems like OR. Then again it IS there and people do have opinions about it. Cathys Son (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, can you clarify the biographical relevance? At the moment, I don't see it myself. But perhaps someone can articulate it (personally, I'm surprised there haven't been more parodies - I can think of a few myself ...). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
It's neither here nor there. People who do not use the Internet have probably never even heard of Jimmy Wales, so that's at least 40% of the world's population discounted. Those that do use the Internet are probably not interested in information for its own sake, so that's possibly another 40%. As for the rest, those that actually use Wikipedia only ever see Jimmy in the November/December fundraising drives. So all in all, I have yet to see parodies of Jimmy per se that would be accessible to a wide audience. That's why there aren't any, as far as I can see. A target is only worth aiming at if doing so is likely to achieve a result. That's all. Rodhullandemu 00:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that chain follows. To give a mild example, imagine a Lolcat with a cat eating a mouse, and captioned "I can haz donation?" (up to you where you place the Jimmy Wales image there ...). That's the sort of thing I'd expect someone to come up with in terms of mashup. It's not a matter of worldwide recognition, but rather, within a particular subculture. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I take your point, but Internet subcultures such as lolcats are as a foreign language to so-called "silver surfers" such as myself, although I am perhaps rare in that I was using Internet in the mid to late 1970s, whereas those mostly of my age have only come to it recently, and it is no surprise that those newcomers are bemused by "newspeak". In my experience, most of them want to access content of interest to them and aren't impressed by bandwidth-consuming trivia, as they see it. No ads, no popups, no shite, no trivia. Is it really that difficult to filter out unwanted content? Yes it is, for these users. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Leader of Wikipedia

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

Editorial power curbed

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

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

Very aggressive donation requests

This is certainly not the correct place to place this question, but since (a) Wales' face is on every donation request and (b) I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia hierarchy, I'm asking it here anyway:

The donation requests include an "X" to close it for those who are not interested (in donating or staring deeply into Wales' expertly photographed face), however: it simply pops up again the next time you visit Wikipedia even if you're on the same computer as before.

That's very aggressive marketing right there. Can anything be done about this?--Larssl (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't work that way. For me, clicking the x sets a cookie that lasts for... well I'm not sure really... but several days at least.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification, and apologies for the unintentional rudeness (I meant to say "Mr. Wales"). I'm using Google Chrome, and looking at other comments below this may be a common problem with that particular browser (or WP's cookie solution?). I just got exposed to the banner _again_ after navigating to a different WP article. --Larssl (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
At least for me, there is a setting in My preferences/Gadgets/Browsing gadgets/Suppress display of the fundraiser banner. I checked that box, and I don't see the banner anymore.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Subsectioning of poll section

Rob added a subsection at the top of the poll section putting in Wales's personal statement as its own subsection. He then put the poll itself as the next subsection. I think it's wrong. If Rob believes that Wales's statement is important, he is free to cite to it in his vote or in a comment or anywhere else, but to put it so prominently at the top of the section preloads the argument, which I tried to avoid when creating the poll by not putting in any arguments, just choices. I asked Rob, whom I like and respect, to remove it, but he refused. So, because I feel uncomfortable removing his changes (theoretically, you're not supposed to remove other people's comments, although this is an unusual twist on the guidelines), I'm posting my displeasure here. If I'm the only one who's bothered, I'll let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if it bothers you, I have moved it to the bottom, but Jimmy's personal statement and request from a living subject is what this is all about. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
In your move, you made it its own section. That's great as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not sure if it's what you intended. If it is, I can remove the "poll" subsection header, and we're fine. If, however, you intended to keep it a subsection but at the bottom, that would be an improvement, but I still think it shouldn't be there. Otherwise, anyone wanting to highlight his/her argument could add a subsection to the poll section.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Its the reason this whole discussion is taking place, it should have been added at the top, but at least its there for users to see, what this is all about. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Your subsequent edit made it clear that your section is to stand alone, which means I no longer have any objections. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth

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

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

1) co-founder, please. 2) The issue is basically that he's claimed a date different from the birth certificate, leading to conflicts among official documents and hence sources. But I think it's essentially settled now. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
How is this "essentially settled"? First the footnote says that Jimbo said that August 7 is incorrect, but according to the next sentence he says that he was born on August 7. Edge3 (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Having cast my eye over this; this source seems to make it pretty clear that Wales believes his own birth to be the 7th. I'm not sure how reliable the Oregonian source is. I think we should edit the page to have it unambiguously state that his birthday is the 7th. Anyone second this motion? NickCT (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Re this edit; @User:Cyclopia - You are WP:Wikilawyering - The fact is, Jimmy Wales is probably the best source out there in regards to what his birthday is. We have him saying his birthday is the 7th. Now I understand that there are some "source" concerns here, but I think this might be a good time to just ignore all rules and accept Jimbo at his word. NickCT (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
And how about adding a FAQ to the talk page that addresses this issue? As a page lurker, I can't believe how many times this comes up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The pith is WP:BLP and his word being wholly verifiable. There can be a note, either inline or in the text, about the birth certificate and what he has to say about that. I have strong worries that the founder of this website has been nettled over this all too pointishly. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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

We have a duty of care to consider the position of living subjects of our articles and Jimmy has clearly stated and requested that he wants the valueless disputed day removed. The detail is in the support from Wales personal comment and the issue is over a single days difference, which is of no educational value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This has aught to do with WP:IAR. Claims of "playing by the rules" is what both WP:Point and WP:Wikilawyer are all about. Both birth dates can be given in the text, but if the subject of this BLP can be verifiably shown to have stated their birth date is one day sooner than that listed on a birth certificate, that easily breezes through WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
So we ignore WP:AUTOBIO and we throw WP:COI out of the window? Since when we leave people modulate their own bios at will? It's not matter of a point and lawyering, it's an honest matter of a very fundamental principle. We are a neutral point of view encyclopedia aiming at objective coverage. If we begin to make people able to decide of their bios, we renounce to objectivity and neutrality: at this point, if all we care about is "consider the position of living subjects", well, why not simply substituting all BLP policy with "You're welcome to write your own biography on Wikipedia!"? Is that what we want? --Cyclopiatalk 20:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
He didn't make the edit, so WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI have no sway at all. As for objectivity and neutrality, that's spot on why what he verifiably says about his birth date (and his mum as a source) should be carried in the article. If this BLP was about any topic other than Wales, I think it highly unlikely you'd be going on about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
We have no intention of allowing subjects to write their own BLP articles all this is is allowing a identified trusted contributor to explain and be cited as the explanation of his own birth details, in a pointless issue about a single days registration detail, in which we can happily take his detail about his life as reliable. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with whether or not he's a trusted contributer to the project. His bio is a notable topic and his latest verifiable statements as to his DoB can be cited. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
@Cyclopia - I might agree with your points, if the edit in question was something of consequence. A dispute over whether one's birthday is the 7th or 8th just seems WP:LAME. Frankly, I am ready to ignore all rules and let Jimbo WP:AUTOBIO here. NickCT (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Gwen: If this BLP was about any topic other than Wales, I think it highly unlikely you'd be going on about this. - You are utterly wrong and I ask you to retract such a WP:AGF-violating statement. I read about this on Jimbo's talk page and when I've seen Off2riorob writing "done", I said "wait, done what?" and came. You can read on the current threads of WT:BLP that my point of view is general. There, you'll see there is a current tendency of editors that want to throw WP:NPOV out of the window with things like requiring article subjects to self-identify before categorizing their articles. People who know my take in these discussions may disagree harshly with me but will confirm you that I am in good faith.
I didn't say you were editing in bad faith. I'm saying you're not being neutral as to this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This is even more ridicolous: why shouldn't I be neutral about Jimbo's birth date? Is it the crux of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and nobody told me? Ahrrrr, evil 7th-ers! I'll get to them! No, wait, it was the 8th-ers... Facepalm3.svg Facepalm --Cyclopiatalk 22:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
NickCT: I agree that it's a bit lame, and in fact you can see that I didn't enter into an edit war for that. But I am frankly appalled to see that people forgets all our efforts to put in place regulations to keep NPOV, reliability, objectivity etc. -and tiny matters like this are the gauge of this dangerous mentality. The problem is not the birthdate: it's the principle. The principle that we ought have a neutral point of view, that we should stick to reliable sources etc.etc. --Cyclopiatalk 21:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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

@Seth Finkelstein - Your birthday is the date on which you were born. Not what your birth certificate says.
@[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia] - Re it's the principle - You know Cyclopia, I'm v. sympathetic towards your opinion, and actually, I'm glad to have you here playing "devil's advocate". The rules do matter, and I do think there are technical WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIO concerns here and it's good that you're pointing that out. Ultimately though, I'm going to stick with my position because; the harm of potential inaccuracy (or lack of appropriate ambiguity) behind listing Wales' birthday as the 7th is overridden by the harm done to Wikipedia's concision and general sense of order when we have founder/co-founder of WP's birthday listed as (7th or 8th).
On another note - Perhaps if you want to pursue this Cyclopia we should consider an RfC? If you think this is appropriate, let me know. I'd be happy to do it as a I think an RfC might serve to put this question to rest for once and for all. NickCT (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Nick: Your answer to Seth Finkelstein is wrong, for WP purposes. WP is not about the truth: verifiability, not truth is one of our standards. We have no way to know the truth; we can only report what sources say. I may know the Truth on something and sources may be all completely wrong, but my truth is unverifiable WP:OR. --Cyclopiatalk 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Cyclopia - Again, point appreciated. I guess the question here is whether a person can be a reliable source as to there own birthday. Frankly, I'd suggest that if anyone who has a BLP on WP was quoted by an RS as saying, "The birth date listed on my birth certificate is wrong b/c x,y & z", we should probably take that at face value unless we have reason to believe otherwise. I know this is against the spirit of WP:AUTOBIO, but I think major goal of WP:AUTOBIO is to guard WP:NPOV. I just can't see any potential WP:NPOV issues with taking someone at their word when they say they were born on a Friday instead of a Saturday.
Anyway, I'm not sure we're going to come to agreement on this issue. Let me offer you a friendly ultimatum - 1) Grudgingly accept listing it as the 7th w/ your objections noted, or 2) Let me RfC the issue to bring closure. NickCT (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
NickCT, for official records purposes - e.g. when you can vote, when you can legally consume alcohol, when you're eligible for various senior-citizen benefits - your birthday is the date on your birth certificate. Indeed, that date may not match the one which is objectively correct. However, it is the "date of record". I don't understand any argument for completely ignoring it, especially in comparison to a second-hand story (he says his mother says ...). Reasonableness would indicate noting that the subject says the official date is incorrect. So contention on how to treat this is unclear to me. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree that for the purposes you noted, your birthday is the date on your birth certificate. I'm guessing though that when the average WP reader sees a birth date, they assume it means "the day on which a subject was born", and NOT "the day used to determine when someone can consume alcohol, get senior citizen benefits, etc etc".
The argument for completely ignoring it is that, Jimbo is probably a reliable source for his own birthday, and that the confusion over his birthday is likely not WP:NOTABLE in the greater context of Jimbo. Furthermore, wikipedia is not an endless collection of trivia, and lame debates over Jimbo's birth date seem to be exactly that. NickCT (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Why wouldn't an average reader assume the day is the "date of record", if there is a conflict between that and other claims? In fact, I would say taking a person's word about their birthday is quite problematic. They can't have a reliable memory of the event, and they could have motives to dissemble (I'm not saying that's the case here, but there's many instances where people have been wrong or have had a reason to change the date). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Re (Why wouldn't an average reader assume the day is the "date of record") - I was born July 29th, 1980. If there was some error on my birth certificate/licence etc saying I was born 1880, would you suggest that I tell people my birthday was a hundred years ago? No! Of course not. Your birthday is day on which you are born. I think you'll find reliable sources back me in this assertion.
Re (memory of the event, and they could have motives to dissemble) - Give me any reason to believe either of these are true in this case and I will change my mind. NickCT (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Well come on Seth, this is just disingenous on your part. When it comes to sources, well you pays your money and you takes your choice. Personally, I find it hard to split Jimbo's own statement and the documented evidence- you seem to think that a day is relevant within the scheme of things. It isn't, since almost no source can be authoritative in this respect. Both Jimbo's assertion and his birth certificate are open to criticism as non-primary sources, but they're the best we have in the absence of an affidavit from the relevant midwife or other witness present at the time. I think this should move on, because there is plenty of other stuff to be done here, and to you, Seth, I would ask whether you are committed to the other stuff, or otherwise. Wasps are to be expected at picnics, but they should expect to be swatted. If you find that hard to understand, I'll put it more boldly: "is you is or is you ain't" interested in improving this encyclopedia? If so, let's see it. If not, you know what to expect. Good evening. Rodhullandemu 01:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I lost you somewhere. My overall interest in Wikipedia is in studying its dynamics, via the methodology of participant observation. I've said that many times. It truly does fascinate me. When a participant, I endeavor to adhere to its rules when editing (n.b. not saying I'm perfect at that, but I think I make a reasonable effort). Sometimes, I think I have information or insight that is useful to an article or discussion. Because of my interests, this is often on topics embarrassing or uncomfortable to those who are heavy supporters of Wikipedia as a quasi-religious movement. That's simply a result of my particulars areas of expertise. I'm not sure what more I can tell you. Please note, I'm not going to jump hard on this, but "expect to be swatted" and "you know what to expect" could be read as a threat. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
You lost me, and my respect, when you started criticising from within, without committing to the complex process that is editing content here. Of course it's largely voluntary, but I do not see the commitment and involvement on your part that inures editors to becoming experienced here. You mention "participant observation", but I doubt your credentials for claiming to be a participant here other than in the most minimal and tendentious terms. In short, while "pissing from within the tent" may be seen to be better than "pissing on the tent from outside", in my view, your actual position is moot in that regard. You already have a platform for criticisms of Wikipedia, i.e. youer blog in The Guardian, assuming it's still extant, and of course the option of Wikipedia Review, a well-known repository for malcontents banned from here. I have yet to see you commit to this project without making waves, and if there is evidence of this, please refer me to some evidence. But (as Jimmy points out elsewhere), your edits here appear to be somewhat single-minded, and I eagerly await confirmation to the contrary. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I've given you a polite and reasonable reply. If you are unsatisfied with it, I don't think this is place for you to complain further. WP:NOTAFORUM applies also to your personal criticisms of me. Please note between my being threatened by you, and flamed by Jimbo, "the complex process that is editing content here" does not come off well. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Now, now, Jimmy, assume good faith. I'm sincerely interested here in people's reasons why, once it's undisputed what your birth certificate states, there's any further contention. The answer according to sourcing rules seems clear to me - the birth certificate is the most reliable source, and reasonableness would indicate footnoting a personal claim it is inaccurate. I truly don't understand your reasoning as to minimizing the "legal paperwork". Perhaps, as befits Wikipedia's "public face" (literally, per banner!), you could demonstrate the qualities that are alleged to embody its ethos, by civilly and without personal attacks engaging in discussion about the matter. After all, that's what anyone else would be told to do - as well as being cautioned not to lash out against others, plus threatened with a block and ban if such behavior persisted.
Note, I vigorously deny your accusation about "multiple BLP violations", and would defend Quackguru too. I assume that's code-words for opposing you in your campaign of declaring yourself "the sole founder of Wikipedia". That is utterly contradicted by Larry Sanger's Wikipedia co-founder historical references.
By the way, hypothetically, were I to write your biography page entirely myself, I think you'd end up overall with a better deal than the current version. I would be much tougher on what I view as aspects of sensationalism and groundless charges. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
In my view, the more appropriate course is to say August 8 (citing the certificate) and footnote the report(s) of what Wales said his mother said. I understand the certificate may be wrong, but, by Wikipedia standards, it's more reliable/citable than Wales's say-so. I continue to maintain, though, that this is much ado about very little. There are times when a day matters (e.g., court deadlines), but not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with you completely. --Cyclopiatalk 00:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
{ec}}, ffs. I couldn't agree more. When sources are at odds, we cite one (probably a perceived "reliable source") in the text of the article, and add a footnote, and, to be honest, the discrepancy is usually so trivial as to be not worth arguing over. We've done this successfully with George Harrison and Bea Arthur, and I see no reason why we cannot do the same here, move on, and write some articles rather than argue as two bald men over usage of a comb. The theories of policy may be all fine and dandy, but the bottom line is that some pragmatism has to apply sooner or later. I vote for "sooner". Rodhullandemu 00:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo, you just managed to break WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:COI, while threatening people who simply want to use WP:RS to source content -all in one single comment. I hope you can elaborate and perhaps retract. I understand you may be emotionally involved with the issue, but saying that inserting reliably sourced information is akin to vandalism to substitute it with "I say so" it's a total no-no. And no, we don't need IAR here. --Cyclopiatalk 00:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Good question. I assumed, apparently incorrectly, there was a cite to his birth certificate that said August 8 - don't we have that cite? If not, we have far more reliable sources that say August 7, regardless of what Wales himself says now, said before, or may say in the future. If we can't find a reliable source that says August 8 (e.g., the marriage license that says August 7), we should go with August 7. Otherwise, we just have Wales's word that his birth certificate and driver's license say August 8, which is just as impermissible to cite to as anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok... this debate seems to be getting lamer and lamer. I'm working on an RfC to try and bring closure to this subject. I'll probably set this up in 24 hrs or so. See the rough draft here. I'd appreciate questions/comments/concerns/suggestions for improvement on my talk page. Thanks all. NickCT (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
One secondary source about this is from The Oregonian - "a public records search shows that his Florida driver's license lists his birthday as Aug. 8, 1966." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware of the Oregonian source - it's cited in the article now - but, as you acknowledge, it's at best a secondary source, and it's not particularly convincing without a copy of the driver license. Doing a little research, one Florida county says that to obtain a Florida marriage license, you must present "a driver's license, state ID, military ID or passport." See here and here. I haven't verified that that's a correct statement of Florida law, or that it was a correct statement as of the time of Wales's marriage, but assuming it's accurate, the marriage license birth date (August 7) is derivative of another ID that would have had to say August 7.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Assuming good faith is where we start. After years of harassment by Seth, I no longer have to assume anything - I know full well that he's trolling and trying to harass us further. Perhaps Seth won't mention when he vandalized Wikia so he could write about it. Perhaps Seth won't mention his history of bad behavior, but after years of this nonsense, I will.
My birthday is August 7th, 1966. My mother is visiting me this weekend, maybe I'll have her sign a note to that effect and upload it to commons. But this entire debate is idiotic. My birth certificate is wrong. It is not a reliable source.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, I completely deny your accusations, and if it were anyone else, I would request you be blocked for libelous personal attacks. As you know, you threatened to complain to the Guardian about my alleged "vandalism", and were told in no uncertain terms that your charge was nonsense. Further, I gave you a break as a gesture of good faith by not making an issue of it. Yet you take advantage here of your personal position to defame and viciously attack me. Rhetorical question - Who do I complain to at Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation about you? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
And for heaven's sake, don't you think that if I did have ill-will, I could find better material than a repeatedly characterized as WP:LAME argument over your date of birth and citing it? Your charge is literally paranoid, where I use the word not in the common sense of merely suspicious, but meaning utterly beyond reasonableness. Again, it just shows how there is no check on you for abusiveness. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that Jimbo's suggestion of using Aug 7 as the birthday and a footnote to explain the discrepancy sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Quest: I disagree. I think we should put down the 7th, cite to the marriage certificate, the Brittanica, etc. and that's it. The rest is smoke and mirrors.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo: Your birth certificate has become irrelevant because no one has a copy of it to cite to. Your previous statements are contradictory - perhaps intentionally for fun, I have no idea. The best evidence I see now is your marriage certificate, which says what you say at the moment is the right date, the 7th. Why you keep injecting your birth certificate into this when no one has any evidence of it is beyond me. To the extent it matters, your birth certificate would be a reliable source if we had it. You know, your mother can "correct" the certificate. Florida has forms for doing that. See here and here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't born in Florida, and in any event I hardly think we should ask people to undertake a legal process to have their wikipedia entry fixed. I am generally ok with the citation to my marriage certificate for the date of the 7th. There could be a footnote, if necessary, explaining that my other legal paperwork says the 8th. Anything beyond that is silly. In fact, I'm pretty sure I have never made any contradictory statements about this - I've been careful about that, but I do confess to intentionally having fun with it.  :-) As a separate matter, we should remove the *county* of my marriage from the article - it is of no relevance to anything, and it is important to understand how it got there... as I recall a stalker put it there after digging up my marriage certificate and finding that he had gotten married in the same county. It has no relevance to anything.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought you told the Brittanica you were born in Florida? Just kidding, my momentary lapse, but Alabama probably has a similar procedure. Fixing your birth certificate wouldn't be for Wikipedia, but for you, and it was just a suggestion. As for the footnote, I've already made my position clear: I don't see why it's needed. Finally, as to the place of your marriage, it's on the marriage certificate, which will be cited to, and many articles include the place of marriage, not because it's terribly important, but it's just a small piece of background information. How it got into the article in the first place is irrelevant if it's sourceable and warrants inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wales is notable for founding wikipedia, not for being born on some particular day. Hence, the 7th is as good as the 8th. There is no BLP issue here, unless Wales plans on suing himself, which I would consider unlikely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a pity this has gone on for so many years. In the article, we can source both the 7th as a date of birth, and the 8th as the date on official paperwork, and leave it at that. On the talk page we can have an FAQ, so that this is the end of the matter. For a starting point for such an FAQ, see Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate and Jimbo's comments in this thread. Geometry guy 22:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
As has been pointed out, there is no citable official paperwork that says the 8th, only an indirect reference in a newspaper article, and, of course, Wales's say-so. Wales is not a third-party published source, and the article is too oblique to warrant inclusion as a contradiction to the marriage license. I agree with your first sentence, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Why does it matter? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Not sure I understand your question. Do you mean why does it matter if we cite to the Oregon article, or do you mean why does it matter which day he was born on? And realize there at least three options (someone may come up with others): (1) we say the 7th and cite to marrriage certificate and encyclopedia; (2) we say the 7th but cite also to the 8th article in the footnote; (3) we say the 7th and 8th and cite to everything, including why cows give milk. My preference is in the order I presented the three options.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Why does it matter which specific day in August he was born? But I would go with the 7th. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying and stating your preference. As I said earlier in this interminable thread, I don't think it matters whether he was born on the 7th or 8th, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Another word for "indirect reference" is "secondary source" and reporting what secondary sources say is what we do here. Geometry guy 22:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
But not always. We may cite to secondary sources, but we don't have to. And in this case the source becomes almost tertiary because it refers to something else in support of what it says. I'm not convinced that's good enough, especially for this assertion. Moreover, the Oregon article doesn't say it checked his birth certificate, just his Florida driver license. Wales was born in Alabama, and we don't know what he had to present to Florida to obtain a license or what he had to show for the birth date. Too much speculation and not worth sourcing to.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
That's what secondary sources do: refer to primary sources, in this case the drivers license, which is an official document. This does not support his birthdate being 8th (reliable sources concur it was the 7th), but it does support an official document giving his birthdate as the 8th. What Wales had to do to get his driver license is unsourced speculation. Geometry guy 01:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
We should go with whatever Wales says it is. That's the path of least BLP trouble. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the result of your statement (the 7th), but I must disagree with the rationale. Wales should be treated no differently from anyone else, and a BLP's say-so, in and of itself, is not citable and does not follow policy. Here, Wales's current say-so (it seems to be a moving target) and the citable source (the marriage certificate) happen to coincide.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Then I have to ask again, Why does it matter? What difference does it make whether the 7th or the 8th is posted in the article? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, you don't have to have such strict sourcing for non-controversial information. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You keep saying why does it matter, but regardless of how trivial this entire debate is, we have to make a choice. And frankly I've seen other discussions on Wikipedia about subjects that just as trivial as this one, not that's a good justification for perpetuating such discussions. Anyway, what do you propose? (As an aside, another editor, not involved in this discussion, changed the lead to say the 7th. For whatever reasons, she left the first section still saying the 7th and the 8th. She didn't include an edit summary. I reverted, even though I'm in favor of the 7th, because it's not right to change the birth date in the article until this discussion has been resolved, if that actually occurs in my lifetime.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Lets have a straw poll or move this to the BLPN the living subject has expressed a position and unless you don't want to listen to them for some reason, BLP supports his statement as a reliable self published source. There really is nothing to discuss, of course it is just silly, makes the subject of the article look silly that he doesn't know his own birth date, but we should allow him the decency to accept his statement and add it, as I did, all the rest is POV. What is there now is laughable, rude really, no one can be born on two days, and we have a clear statement from the living person, just accept it why don't you? Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's so clear that Wales's statements qualify as a reliable self-published source. The policy permitting this kind of self-publlished source has quite a few requirements (see [[Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. However, putting that aside, which could generate yet another debate, I agree with starting a straw poll and putting closure to the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this whole discussion is excessive pointiness having to do with its specific subject. The rule in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is that items that are likely to be challenged need accurate sourcing. Who, besides a few non-notable editors, are challenging the facts regarding Wales' birthdate? If there's uncertainty, state its the 7th and have a footnote indicating that some sources have it as the 8th. There is nothing notable about the specific date, and no one who matters is likely to challenge the 7th. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
He is the most reliable source for this detail, as it is now it is missleading. Yes, start a straw poll to see if there is support to allow the subject to clear this up and have his comment accepted as a reliable source for this simple statement about himself. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Your comments in this discussion are straight on the mark. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Bugs, good to agree sometimes, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Rob, I started the straw poll. No doubt, I'll be criticized for how I laid it out (you remember, don't you Rob when you were in the hot seat on a much more important poll?), but at least I started it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, indeed I do, that was a hot place I was in then....phew. I think there is a lot of support for this, User SlimVirgin has also just added it back to the seventh again. Well done for starting the poll. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The issue is easily resolved in one of two ways. Per BLP, we give subjects the benefit of the doubt when nothing hangs on the issue, and nothing hangs on whether he was born on the 7th or 8th. Or we remove the day entirely, also per BLP: "Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth ... err on the side of caution and simply list the year." So we could say 1966 or August 1966. What we must not do is include two dates in a way that implies there is something untoward. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead has been changed and the citation restored thanks to me. You deleted a reference and sourced text without consensus. Please try to explain your revert. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, what was the reason for deleting the sourced text in the body of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
In June 2007 Mr. Wales notified Britannica that the date August 7 was incorrect. SlimVirgin, there are other reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow, is it still 2007? Or has he commented on the question more recently? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any other reliable sources where Wales commented on the question more recently. QuackGuru (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
His current comment on the subject (noted at bottom of this page) is the best evidence we have. And since he now agrees with the date Britannica uses, where's the issue? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Please provide RS that supports that view. Did Wales recently notify Britannica about this. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
RS is a red herring. There's no issue here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The lead and infobox are 7. The body is 7 with one sentence about 8. What is your proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Putting aside the edit battle, my proposal is people vote in the straw poll section.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Which I've done, and in reference to Quack's question, the best answer is indeed 7, with maybe a footnote explaining about the 8. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I changed it to only 7. I don't currently have a specific proposal for a footnote. QuackGuru (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This user Quackguru has three reverts today prior to this single talkpage comment, I have accordingly left him a Revert warning template on his talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Congratulations everyone - Oh hell, I was about to gleefully add this masse of navel-gazing irrelevance to our WP:LAME, only to find that it's already been there for several years. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:LAME navel-gazing is an accurate description. This non-controversy arose from 1) Jimbo apparently trying to play what appears to be some kind of prank on Encyclopedia Britannica & 2) A group of editors who seem determined to pester Jimbo with WP:Wikilawyering and general nonsense. NickCT (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll on day of birth

Please vote on one of the items below. You can, of course, explain the rationale for your vote, but try to keep it brief.

Option One: List birth day as August 7. Cite to only third-party sources.

Option Two: List birth day as August 7. Cite to third-party sources and to Wales.

Option Three: List birth day as August 7 or 8. Cite only to third-party sources.

Option Four: List birth day as August 7 or 8. Cite to third-party sources and to Wales.

I didn't include an option for August 8 only because I didn't think anyone would vote for it (I could, of course, be wrong).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Option Five: List birth date as August 7th, with a footnote indicating that some sources have it as the 8th. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Option Six: Something other than Options 1-5, with explanation.

An admin, SlimVirgin, has revised the article, essentially choosing Option One. I reverted another editor who partly "resolved" the birth day issue, but I'm not reverting SlimVirgin. Whether SlimVirgin should or shouldn't have done this on his/her own I'll leave to others. (Baseball, thanks for adding Option Five.)--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't have straw polls when BLP is clear, Bbb. As I wrote above, we give subjects the benefit of the doubt when nothing hangs on the issue, and he says he was born on the 7th. Or we remove the day, also per BLP: "Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth ... err on the side of caution and simply list the year." So we could say 1966 or August 1966. But BLP is the policy that we have to comply with. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that the BLP section is precisely on point. Wales has not complained about the inclusion of his DOB because of any privacy issues. He's complained about the accuracy of it, which is a different beast. I might add that there's very little on Wikipedia that is "clear" - hence, the interminable debate. Regardless, I would vote for Option One, so I'm personally happy with your changes. I'll let others do what they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Good enough. We have his word and several other sources stating the 7th. If someone comes up with incontrovertable proof that it was the 8th (like for example a sworn statement from his mother), then further info would be needed in the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Option 1 - After digging this one a little, I think the 7th is the most likely DOB for Jimmy Wales. Additionally, I don't think the "8th debate" is notable or particularly helpful to WP readers. @SlimVirgin re"he says he was born on the 7th" - The problem is he's said different things to different people on this issue. Re "We don't have straw polls when BLP is clear" - To which "We" do you refer? NickCT (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I think she means we as a community. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I just heard a rumor that Wales is an active editor on wikipedia. Has anyone asked him what is his current opinion on what his birthdate was? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
@QFK - Well in that case, perhaps she could explain why "we" think this BLP is "clear". I thought I was "we". I don't think it's clear.
@Bugs - see [26]NickCT (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Bingo. Go for the 7th. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Well I agree with the 7th, so I won't debate. But let me say in slightly ambiguous language, that I think Wales might be partially responsible for confusion about his birth date. Regardless though, this is a lame non-issue. Birth date should be given as the 7th. NickCT (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Option One - I do think it worthy to cite Jimmy's statement. The seventh as per Jimmy's statement and request, cite it to Jimmy's self declared statement from last week or anywhere else. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment.You want to delete reliable sources and use a primary source from a talk page? Your change was rejected a while ago. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • reply - I don't care where its cited to, I support Jimmy's statement and request as a living person, Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • - He was born on the 7th, what is wrong with that? As per the subjects request I support the seventh as his dob. I am also happy to just cite to his primary statement as I did last week when he made the personal request.Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Option Five: List birth date as August 7th, with a footnote indicating that some sources have it as the 8th. QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Option One: Even though Wales wants it to be August 7, he should not be cited (I don't agree with SlimVirgin on her interpretation of the policy in this context). I have no confidence in the reliability of the Oregon source that says they looked at Wales's driver license after a public records search; therefore, it should not be cited. It is the ONLY source that says August 8. Thus, although I get there a different way, I agree with the version SlimVirgin put in. I also liked her putting the birth date in the lead but not in the first section.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Response. I agree that Britannica is reliable, but it should be cited for August 7 (which is what Britannica is using as the date), not for Wales's odd comment that August 7 is incorrect.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Option One. Lots of people have incorrect birth dates on their birth certificates. This is a very common issue, and in cases where the mistake is known there is no reason to slavishly follow what is written on the certificate. Kaldari (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support option one. I don't think this poll is a good idea, because we should be following BLP and common sense instead, but given that it's here I support the first option (7th August, citing a secondary source), and citing Jimbo would be fine too. But no mention of the 8th, no footnotes, no attempt to turn this into an issue in the article, because it's not important. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Everyone loves a poll. We don't need a poll on this. Options 1 and 5 are fine. I favor something inbetween: option 1 with something to indicate why anyone might think Jimbo was born on 8th (his drivers license says so!) But voting on such nuances is futile. Geometry guy 01:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I think like SlimVirgin says, we should close this poll as lack of interest and there seems little objection to what is in the article now, the 7th supported by secondary reports - option one. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I tentatively second Off2riorob's motion. I repeat the call for an FAQ. NickCT (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
An FAQ? where abouts placed, on a page of its own ? to say his mum told him it was Friday not Saturday. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The problem with the article as it stands is the citation to OregonLive.com. The article says Wales is born on the 7th. It cites many sources in support of that but also cites the Oregon source that contradicts it, including Wales's alleged statement to the Oregon source that the 7th is wrong. Without getting into another discussion about the reliability of the Oregon source, doesn't that strike people as a wee bit confusing in light of what the body of the article says? The intent of Option One was to cite only to third-party sources that support the 7th as the date, and the Oregon source does not. Also, the way I read SlimVirgin's comments, she would not include the citation to OregonLive. She can correct me if my interpretation of what she said is wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Personally I don't give a darn about what is cited. I'm only concerned that the article doesn't mention the "8th debate". I've mocked up an FAQ here. Unless someone objects I'm going to be bold and put it in. NickCT (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I object and SlimVirgin seems to object and the living subject seems to also object. Sorry but looking at it, its a bit silly. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you point to where SV or Jimbo objects to a FAQ? I can't see it. Plus, note that A Quest For Knowledge, Seth Finklestein, and Geometry have all explicitly asked for an FAQ. NickCT (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
EC - As there is clearly opposition to such a FAQ, I wouldn't boldly add it, create it and ask for opinions and assess the support for its inclusion. - add - Well, Jimmy clearly says he just doesn't want it bigging up and expanding into a big issue and SlimV says the same and you know my position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Well I don't think Jimmy or SV explicitly opposed an FAQ. You clearly have though so I won't add it unless I get support from others. NickCT (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, Jimmy said ..."I am of the firm opinion that the discussion in the Wikipedia entry on me should all be removed in favor of simply saying that my date of birth is the 7th." and SlimV says - "no mention of the 8th, no footnotes, no attempt to turn this into an issue in the article, because it's not important." - although there is no specific mention of FAQs they both seem to feel it was a minor issue being given undue weigh by inclusion in the article. I support adding Jimmy's personal statement as a self published source to the date of birth, the statement explains the whole issue and removes the need for any notes, FAQs and subpage issue escalation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob - Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. I am talking about an FAQ on the talk page for this article. Similar to those seen on Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy. I'm not talking about including it in the article. That clearly would be against what Jimmy and SV said. NickCT (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I was a bit confused but I got there in the end. I think sometimes we are up our own *****, this discussion appears to be about that you want to add a FAQ template to the talkpage templates that no one will ever read about the naval gazing issue that Jimmy Wales mother told him he was born on the seventh but he didn't get registered at the birth center until the next day. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ugh.... right I guess. FAQs aren't typically read, but are commonly referred to when a question that has previously been debated is reposted by an editor that is new to the article. In my mind they help to prevent the same debate from being continually rehashed, adding stability to an article. Do you still oppose, or are you on board now? NickCT (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am on-board and willing to support your position. However - I don't support bloating and exaggeration of trivial issues. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Re I don't support bloating and exaggeration of trivial issues. - Agreed. Frankly, I see FAQs as a method of preventing trivial issues from causing more bloated and exaggerated debate..... NickCT (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, great. I may take a little time to write WP:BLOAT. Lets see, the FAQ, what is in it? I don't really support one but if it is minimal and unobtrusive then I won't object. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I'd prefer to have no FAQ. This is a non-issue. We have a date (7th), we have a reliable source (the EB), and we have the BLP subject saying the same thing. We have no reason to believe anything hangs on it, and we wouldn't be fussing about it were it not Jimbo (or the president of the United States, maybe). But if people do decide to add an FAQ, it should be collapsed as they usually are. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Re SV - You don't think an FAQ might serve to prevent future protracted debate? Have you seen Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate? This subject will undoubtedly come up again. Often times I find an FAQ serves to stymie debate before it starts. Take a look at User:NickCT/FAQ and tell me what you think. I agree with you re "it should be collapsed as they usually are." NickCT (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

FAQ for Aug 8th Debate

Hey all, I have made an FAQ in response to the straw poll.

I did so b/c several editors including myself, seem to think it's a good idea.

See comments above from;

"And how about adding a FAQ to the talk page" - A Quest For Knowledge
"This item really needs a subpage FAQ" - Seth Finkelstein
" On the talk page we can have an FAQ, so that this is the end of the matter" - Geometry guy

Off2rob objected above, so I am asking for comments from other editors before I put it in.

Anyone got any opinions? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I fixed your links above. I think a talk page FAQ is a good idea, but it should contain more information: we need such an FAQ to prevent this silly debate happening over and over. See Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate for older info. Geometry guy 23:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
@Geometry guy - Could I suggest that you be bold and edit the FAQ I setup? If I dislike the changes I will revert per WP:BRD. The same goes for any other editor that wants to contribute. NickCT (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok... This debate seems to have trailed off. I was bold and added the FAQ. I'm not going to be offended if someone removes/edits it. NickCT (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Noted, and I support the addition. We could probably move the "this is not Jimbo's talk page" banner into the FAQ as well. Geometry guy 21:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I would point out there is already a note at the top of the page talking about this issue. It may be redundant to include it in the FAQ. Again, I don't mind if anyone edits/deletes. NickCT (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I was actually proposing removing the note as redundant to a comment in the FAQ. Geometry guy 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Then I suggest you be bold and delete it. I'm a little concerned about SV's addition of the Wales' quote to the FAQ. I fear people are going to see that and whine about WP:AUTOBIO. I wanted to make the statement about the birth certificate without citation, to force interested editors to read the discussion.
But whatever... it seems that both SV and Geo are good with it, so I will leave it be. NickCT (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Done. I have also removed the last sentence of the quote, to avoid AUTOBIO concerns. Geometry guy 22:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page

Hello Jimmy,

can you please help me to creat my Pag? Wikipedia germany did it too and now i have to put all my staff in it'll be great if you help me

Thanks Dinzey Dinzey (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dinzey,
Please read the FAQ at the top of this page about contacting Jimmy. NickCT (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Jimmy, I know this isn't supposed to be a soapbox, but maybe you should consider changing some of the rules of the discussion page a little bit, because if someone has something urgent to say perhaps its best to break free from barriers which inhibit people. What I'm wanting to say to you, Mr. Wales, is I'm concerned about your health. Perhaps its just a trick of the camera or an optical illusion, but the picture from your urgent appeal looks a bit odd (not that I'm trying to insult you) But I think you should go get screened for jaundice because it looks as if your skin is yellowing, and that isn't a good sign. Get it checked out NOW so it doesn't turn out to be something BAD. I'm SERIOUS JIMMY WALES. Time is of the essence with that kind of thing. Again, I mean what I say with all the respect I have in my heart. I just don't want it to be anything bad. Again, maybe it was a trick of the camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.176.93 (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia wouldn't need to raise so much this year if they hadn't blown so much money on professional photo shoots to make Jimmy's beard look good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.171.206 (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

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

See WP:GNG. Rodhullandemu 20:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you serious? J390 (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

He created the whole project, would you be here posting on his talk page if we was not notable, no. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Just because Wikipedia is notable does not mean he is. Thomas Edison is notable; Every school kid in the USA knows his name and some of his inventions. Harold Smith helped invent the crayola crayon, but does not have his own article. Wales seems to be using Wikipedia to promote his own notability. This is just a personal appeal from someone not familiar with the bureaucracy of WP though, so I'm sure there's some policy page (like WP:SPIP) to prove my lay opinion of what "notable" is wrong.108.17.72.3 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Go familiarize yourself with WP:NOTABLE, then come back here if you want to make a real argument. NickCT (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTABLE reads like a tax manual to me. I do not have the intelligence to become versed in Wales Rules of Order well enough to contribute to Wikipedia in any meaningful way. However, as a normal person, as most of the visitors to this site are, he's just the guy at the top of the page begging for money. (btw, telling anyone to "go ____ yourself" is kind of rude)24.2.117.244 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if I did accept the fact that he deserves his own article, I still do not understand how an article like this could be rated B class. Continuing with my suggestion that this be merged with an article related to the Wikimedia Foundation, I don't really think that an article like this deserves a B class label. Especially when there are people who doubt whether this article should exist. Agreed, fame and popularity do not mean that a person deserves an article of his own, but it definitely influences it. Apart from moving for the setting up of Wikipedia and its sister projects (which I admit are no small feat), what has this man done? The Wikimedia Foundation is notable, not him. He should be a subsection of that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.125.43 (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, Bill Gates is not notable either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
No. Just because something made someone famous doesn't mean they're excluded from being notable; it just means they shouldn't automatically become notable because they created it. Everybody and their mother knows who Bill Gates is; even if they don't know what he did (which is rare), they know he's filthy rich. I only know who Jimmy Wales is because I hail from the former GameWikis, where Gravewit and Jimmy Wales are regarded as two aspects of the Devil. I'm pretty sure if I asked the average person (not a frequent contributor on any wiki and not a business school student - not to say these are not average, but because they would be more likely than usual to know) who Jimmy Wales was, they'd say "Is that that guy with that 'urgent appeal' thing?" or have no clue. 128.252.255.142 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article proves his notability more than anything. − Jhenderson 777 20:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What or who made Jimmy Wales notable. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
A whole bunch of independent sources made him notable. WP:CREATIVE for a quick answer. This is a silly discussion. --OnoremDil 06:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Independent sources discuss Wales but what led sources to mention Wales in the first place. Is he really notable? QuackGuru (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
what led sources to mention Wales in the first place - That isn't our concern. That you even think this is a topic worth discussing is interesting. I guess I have a couple of issues to look into in the morning. --OnoremDil 06:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This might help improve the article if we understand the notability and events that led to the notability. QuackGuru (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
(My last comment of the evening.) What exactly do you think is lacking in the explanation of events leading to his being notable? Please be specific. Start a new section if needed. Arguing whether he's notable is silly. Discussing what commentary is needed about why he's notable is a different issue. --OnoremDil 06:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
"Sanger was excited about the idea, and after he proposed it to Wales, they created the first Nupedia wiki on January 10, 2001.[24]"
The part "they created" seems vague. I think it could be improved. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it not obvious that OP is trolling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.154.157 (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors seem to be confused what 'trolling' refers to. Nobody knows who Jimbo Wales is, and people who know about Wikipedia know that it cannot be relied on for facts. Editors are now in control of all articles, normal folks don't waste time adding citations, etc, etc. Wikipedia is just another Content Management System of loosely checked facts that cite fake news organizations over eyewitness accounts. Example: The Black Bloc article. The drama that comes out of Wikipedia over edits and admin privileges shows how immature the Wikipedia Foundation can be. Wikipedia is a joke to most of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.51.186 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy's personal statement on the dob issue from last week

  • - I was born on the 7th of August, according to my mother. My legal paperwork all says 8th of August, due to an error on my birth certificate. I am of the firm opinion that the discussion in the Wikipedia entry on me should all be removed in favor of simply saying that my date of birth is the 7th. (The year: 1966)--Jimbo Wales 6:12 pm, 1 December 2010, last Wednesday (6 days ago) (UTC+0)

Better picture needed

The one you guys are using now looks kind of creepy. For the owner of the site, that seems like a mean treatment. How about one of the ones from the fundraiser banner? Most of those are a lot better.--74.193.55.195 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That is the same picture Jimbo uses on his user page. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Just because he uses it on his user page doesn't mean it isn't creepy. The personal appeal for money is creepy, too. 99.194.134.191 (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, "creepy" is a subjective term, and I'm sure many people react differently to the same picture, but, for what it's worth, I personally don't see even a hint of creepiness in the current picture.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Re Clearly, "creepy" is a subjective term - Agreed. Personally I maybe can see a faint hint of what 74.193.55.195 is talking about, but I don't really think it's dramatic enough to worry about. NickCT (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


Re 'I'm with OP, I find it creepy, it's due to looking directly at you I think,, and having a very plain background etc. I don't think it'd harm to include another photo anyway though. But yeh i find both that and the appeal rather discomforting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.10 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, well look. If you have a problem with it, propose an alternative. NickCT (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Whats he looking at in the current banner ad, its as if someone really tall is doing something mildly amusing to his left. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.206.129.61 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

...Jimmy's eyes. It's as though he gazes into your soul, reading your every sin. Yet, he isn't judging you. These eyes of demise do not judge, for you feel no shame or regret. His stare still scares you, as if it is there to tell you something. A commodity you may already know of. Yes, something you may be obligated to do. This cannibalistic gaze is corrupting your sanity, desecrating it with incongruous thoughts, repeating the same word you've known for as long you were alive - Donate. That's the only way to absolve yourself from that vicious scowl. That is the only way to eradicate those revolting chains that have locked your own mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.217.206 (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Uggghhhhhhhh..... Ummmmmm...... Ugghhh....... Ok? NickCT (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Notice the IP keeps changing....Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but you gotta admit s/he's getting more dramatic.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Three quick points

1. The bit about the House of Lords is silly and should be removed. 2. The bit about Wikileaks, drawn from a highly inflammatory AFP article designed, as far as I can tell, to fuel controversy, misrepresents my position significantly. The quote from the recent article in The Independent (where the House of Lords nonsense comes from) is accurate and states my position so that the reader can understand. 3. There is much else wrong with this article, as usual. "Neither Wales nor Sanger expected very much from the Nupedia wiki initiative" is false and directly contradicts literally hundreds of statements from me over the years.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

1. I agree with the House of Lords thing and said so in my edit summary when I pared down the addition. If other editors agree, it can be removed. In my view, it's trivial. 2. I'd like to understand more about what you're complaining about with AFP. I can certainly see that the Independent's quotations of you are more measured, but are you saying that the AFP quotations are wrong or just out of context or what? 3. Perhaps you can give us some reliable sources that contradict the assertion (I assume you're not saying that the sources after the sentence don't support the assertion? I haven't read them).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the AFP, the quotations (in our article, and theirs) are highly selective and give a misleading picture of my position. The more measured version from the Independent is more accurate. Regarding the last, I doubt very much if the sources support our precise wording, but if they do, they are still wrong. You will not find those words coming out of my mouth, I'll wager, but rather out of the mouth of the writer. Here's an easy alternative, although here I am badly misquoted on the details. (I happen to know, because I have been saying exactly the same thing for a long time. :-) )--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
That allbusiness.com played havoc with my browsers (FF and IE). I think we should wait until we hear from other editors on the three points.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

1. I agree that "the bit about the House of Lords is silly", though I find it amusing too. But, formally, it's not really encyclopedic, so I'd vote to have it removed too. 2. Pass for the moment, I'd have to check further. 3. The phrasing "Neither Wales nor Sanger expected very much from the Nupedia wiki initiative" seems reasonable to me. There is much myth-making about the origins and founding of Wikipedia, that is, err, let us say at variance with the historical record. Checking the founding message from Larry Sanger, "Let's make a wiki", we find "Jimmy Wales thinks that many people might find the idea objectionable, but I think not.". Certainly that's less than a resounding vote of confidence. Skimming archives, I find Sanger saying "I have to say I'm quite pleased with our progress, and the dream of actually being complementary to Nupedia seems not entirely far-fetched. Quality of articles on Wikipedia so far, in general, isn't actually that bad. There are a few original articles that are already nearly at a level where they could be Nupedia rough drafts.". Again, this seems consistent with the article's phrasing. In fact, in those very early days, ironically Sanger seemed to have been much more evangelistic about Wikipedia (versus NuPedia) than Wales! -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what is known as synthesis (inferring what Wales expected from what other people wrote, and where the other people were not even attempting to describe a considered opinion offered by Wales). Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Poe, Marshall (September 2006). "The Hive". The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved 2010-12-24. Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki on January 10, 2001. The initial purpose was to get the public to add entries that would then be "fed into the Nupedia process" of authorization. Most of Nupedia's expert volunteers, however, wanted nothing to do with this, so Sanger decided to launch a separate site called "Wikipedia." Neither Sanger nor Wales looked on Wikipedia as anything more than a lark. This is evident in Sanger's flip announcement of Wikipedia to the Nupedia discussion list. "Humor me," he wrote. "Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes." And, to Sanger's surprise, go they did. Within a few days, Wikipedia outstripped Nupedia in terms of quantity, if not quality, and a small community developed. In late January, Sanger created a Wikipedia discussion list (Wikipedia-L) to facilitate discussion of the project. 
Sanger, Larry (April 18, 2005). "The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir". SourceForge (Slashdot). Retrieved 2010-12-24. The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on. So I arrived in San Diego in early February, 2000, to get to work. One of the first things I asked Jimmy is how free a rein I had in designing the project. What were my constraints, and in what areas was I free to exercise my own creativity? He replied, as I clearly recall, that most of the decisions should be mine; and in most respects, as a manager, Jimmy was indeed very hands-off. Nevertheless, I always did consult with him about important decisions, and moreover, I wanted his advice. Now, Jimmy was quite clear that he wanted the project to be in principle open to everyone to develop, just as open source software is (to an extent). Beyond this, however, I believe I was given a pretty free rein. So I spent the first month or so thinking very broadly about different possibilities. —Larry Sanger.
According to WP:RS, Wales was a minor editor in Wikipedia's early years and was extremely hands-off. The current text in the article is sourced in accordance with WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, sometimes there's a fine line between synthesis and paraphrase. Note there's often a divergence between a) What is true b) What sources say c) What Wikipedia's rules dictate. My personal allegiance is to a) What is true - and hence, philosophically I'm on the other side of the shibboleth "Verifiability, not truth". Now, in this case, it's undisputed that the source states "Neither Sanger nor Wales looked on Wikipedia as anything more than a lark." This seems to me very close to the sentence in the article "Neither Wales nor Sanger expected very much from the Nupedia wiki initiative". If you were to advocate that the source's sentence must be copied exactly, as anything else would be synthesis or original research, I wouldn't consider that particular item worth any argument. My understanding is Jimmy Wales is claiming that though reliable sources say that, it is not true. And my reply here is - using original research only for the sake of this discussion, and not claiming the postings should be cited in the article, but solely for informational purposes in evaluation, that the statement is indeed true. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

EL

the current list is a little to exhanustive, can be cut down. we dont need links for the sake of it.

more importantly, should we include a link to his wikipedia page? ordinaril y not relevant, but here i think ti is.(Lihaas (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).

classification

how can this be a B? if any article should be a FA it should be this. I think with Jimbo here we can pretty much exhaust the details.(Lihaas (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).

Edit request from 67.188.210.193, 6 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The reference to the Jon Stewart interview is misdated - the interview was January 5, 2011 not January 5, 2010.

67.188.210.193 (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Done   — Jeff G.  ツ 06:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Stewart Interview

He self-identifies as a volunteer, not a founder on a major TV show. He should be "Known As: Wikipedia Volunteer"69.146.92.44 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.14.59.189 (talkcontribs)

I agree as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddynyc (talkcontribs)

I think it is important to note that he is a volunteer because it it shows how humble he is as a person. Would you prefer we place a personal judgement in there? Of course not. This allows the reader to appreciate the facts, levity and humanity all at once. I think it is a bit unfair to disallow "self-proclaimed" since, um, that is what he did, but who am I to point out the obvious. If you are uncomfortable with the first draft, how about we get concensus on this:

'Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales is an American Internet entrepreneur and a co-founder and promoter of Wikipedia. In addition to his formal roles, he prefers to considers himself one of a body volunteers that maintain Wikipedia.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by mbcopeland (talkcontribs)

But it is clear that he is NOT humble since it is clear from the questioning on Jon Stewart's show that he continues to "say I am the founder". That is not humble. When pressed regarding his downplaying of Larry Sanger's role he then claims he would prefer volunteer over co-founder. And yet if he prefers "volunteer" why does he continue to "say I am the founder"?
The concern is that there is a misconception that Wales' is the primary decision maker and authority over Wikipedia as a top down organization. For example, he was asked questions about how he personally resisted censorship and this is risky because it misplaces authority and responsibility in one person. This is inappropriate for Wikipedia because decisions are made by consensus. It would be better if more than one Wikipedian represented it to the press. Investing all public focus on one individual can result in confusion about how decisions are made in Wikipedia and can result in a misconception that Wikipedia is a top down organization —an organizational form and decision making process that is anathema to the mission, process and goals of Wikipedia.Peace01234 (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Its completely normal that the press would prefer to interview Jimmy than some random editor. Even the communists had leaders. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, Wales is much more photogenic than the average editor... See pix ->
Average editor
Then why do so many complain about his picture? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I dunno, the press contacted me before contacting Wales, but I was too busy volunteering on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

volunteer

In the lede, this is completely unclear, jimmy is not notable for being a wikipedia volunteer, and he stills edit wikipedia - well if he is, please present the claims here, reverted back to the decent version , please look for support for such changes here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo has unintentionally unleashed upon us, last night when asked (Magic moment around 15:30) "Are you co-found or founder" on the Daily show he evaded and said "sources may vary" and when pushed and asked "what do you say" Jimbo responded "Well I say I am the founder... but i think its a silly debate... I dont think its all that interesting or important... For me I am a volunteer." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice, I heard him say that as well, and that his business and Wikia and this was his..something like 'contribution or something along the vein of he was saying he doesn't get paid from this , but that is still not notable as a volunteer in the lede like that. Off2riorob (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Add it somewhere in the body of the article if you really think it has value. Jimmy said he wasn't getting paid for any contributions on the en wikipedia Off2riorob (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jberge06, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Jimmy Wales' role at Wikipedia is "volunteer"

Jberge06 (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

thats, old news, we are all volunteers here. Off2riorob (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales promotes himself on the main page? I was under the impression that no ads are allowed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.41.210 (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You are not serious are you. A photo of Jimbo does not constitute advertising. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

surname

Giving Jimmy's first wife Pam a surname in the article might be more respectful. Any views ?--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 02:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That would seem appropriate. NickCT (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
under what conditions would it seem appropriate :)? Anybody have a reliable verifiable source for Pam's surname -should it be her then or now or both surnames ?--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 08:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't have any sources and don't care enough about it to go hunting for any (no offense meant). However, if reliable sources can be found, you should probably put the name she took when she got married (if she took his, for example) and what her maiden name was. If she had changed her name before she married him, I suppose that would be relevant too. In any event, all of it should be as of the time they married.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

10 years

Congratulations to you, Jimmy Wales, (and to Larry Sanger) for those 10 years of wonderful Wikipedia and wishing you another 10 great ones. Nice showing at John Stewart's. --AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 08:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

CORUM award

2008 — CORUM awarded him The Global Brand Icon of the Year Award for 2008.[90]

What is CORUM or Corum? I would like to put a [who?] on it. If it is an acronym, it should be spelled out. Also, the source should be changed to [citation needed] -- the source given is a watch dealer's blog, and searching for Wales in the blog yields no hits. (I would have made these edits, but the article is protected.) — Solo Owl (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this seems to have some detail. http://designtaxi.com/news/19784/Jimmy-Wales-Recognized-as-Global-Brand-Icon-2008/ - Off2riorob - Corum are - http://www.corum.ch/site/ - (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-crime

"Contact Jimmy Wales here" it says, so I am. So: Some friends would like to start a wiki-style site dedicated to thriller/crime fiction. Articles about books, authors, characters, maybe publishers, agents, anything relevant. The big problem is we don't know anything about anything (except maybe crime fiction). So if Jimmy Wales, or anyone else, can help, I'd be most grateful (replies either here or to the email through my personal page). Thanks in advance. PiCo (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the best place to contact Jimmy, since he doesn't read it often. To start a new wiki-style project, the best place to start is here; it isn't part of the Wikimedia family, but was started by Jimmy and others, so you should be familiar with many of the concepts. You might also want to check whether a similar project already exists there, so as to avoid duplicating effort. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the lead :) PiCo (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

County of Marriage

It was brought to my attention that in the archives of this page, Jimmy refers to how the county where he married his second wife, got into his biography. Here is the link to what he says linky link. Just to correct the record, it was I who added the county of marriage with a citation to where it lives in the public record. However I was never married in Monroe County. Rather that was another person who later commented on the coincidence of Jimmy and *him* having been married in the same county. I find it pretty humorous that either myself or that person is called a "stalker".

However the second point Jimmy brought up, was his belief that it shouldn't be there at all. I can't agree. In a biography, you present whatever details you can find, at least all those that aren't prurient or scandalous, and sometimes even those... I hardly think the place of marriage qualifies for any biographer's bar of exclusion. It's just one of those prices you pay for being famous. People peek into your life, even what you consider private, which it turns out isn't. Public documents are public.Wjhonson (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Prurient details should NEVER be included here or on any article, especially those articles about the living, for clearly stated and justified policy reasons AND out of respect for the private life of another human being. J Wales does not,should not, now cannot, and to be fair to the bloke, mostly has not, sought special status in his description on his article page.--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
My apologies to Wjhonson. This is still inappropriate for my biography because it is not notable, and original research. Unless you can find a reliable third party source making substantive commentary about it, it is not valid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
If you believe that each fact in a biography must be notable, then you are not understanding our policies on notability. Notability applies to the article, not each sentence within it. Secondly you fail to understand the distinction between original research and source-based research. Original research is new facts that are presented, not previously published. Source-based research comes from published sources like this one. Third point, you fail to understand how we've defined the use of substantive commentary. We do not need this level of commentary to report each fact discovered, only that it's cited. Substantive commentary applies to the article in general, not each fact within it.Wjhonson (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
People are problem going to accuse me of Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem but I have to say, as a regular at WP:BLP I have a hard time believing we would mention what county someone is married in unless there's some established relevance or perhaps if it's widely quoted in most biographies concerning the person. Even more so if the subject objects and the only source appears to be WP:PRIMARY. However you're welcome to ask at WP:BLP. If you want you can even exclude the name initially in the hope people won't look themselves so they won't be influenced by their feelings for the subject. Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Correct. The notion that Wikipedia should amplify and permanently record every factoid that might be reliably sourced is misguided. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought place of birth was always included in a bio if known, as well as parentage. The field of history, after all, derives from genealogy, which was originally used to establish inheritance rights and land titles. And where is this policy against including prurient details in a bio? (And just for the record, I heard JW was born in Kenya, and until he can produce a birth certificate to the contrary, he's not eligible to run for president.) Tom Reedy (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The relevance is to establish residence in a particular place at a particular time. The article on Jimmy is after all a biography. Biographies do not focus on the period of time in which a person was already famous, but rather record their entire life, from birth to death, or to present if living. There are large periods of time in Jimmy's biography which are skipped with a gloss or a single sentence. By establishing the marriage location, we then establish that other mentions of "Jimmy Wales" or even "Christine Wales" in the newspaper of that place, also refer to him (them), and so on. This is how biographies are developed. Not by ignoring details, but by including details.Wjhonson (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As I see it the wikipedia doesn't work like that, ... the desperate discovery about minor personal details that lay undiscovered, we cover the notable widely reported details regarding their notability, we are not investigative reporters., seeking out and searching in local papers obscure mentions of their ex wife or suchlike. Off2riorob (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
That would be an inappropriate use of primary sources. This article's job is to collate the narratives about Wales in the reputable press, not to concoct its own. Mr. Wales' comment above is apposite. Skomorokh 02:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me add to that. Wjhonson has accidentally here given us a perfect illustration of what is wrong with this kind of primary research, and what is wrong with including this particular tidbit in the article. "The relevance is to establish residence at a particular place at a particular time," he writes. Except that this little tidbit does not establish residence at all.
Monroe County, Florida is essentially the Florida Keys. I have never lived there. I did not even live in Florida at the time in question.
The reader who finds that tidbit will likely be misled, as indeed, apparently an experienced Wikipedian has here been misled.
He is right, of course, that for some kinds of original historical research, this is how it is done, bit by bit, piece by piece, reconstructing the story from old records. And it is hard to do well. And it is very very very far beyond the scope of Wikipedia, which is not a place for original research.
And this is why.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Lacroix endorsements

Is it just me, or is naming the watchmaker and including an image of a newspaper ad sailing a little close to the wind of free advertising here? I'm not sure they are of sufficient encyclopaedic value for such prominence. Thoughts? Skomorokh 14:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Image removed so moot for now. Skomorokh 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Gottlieb Duttweiler price in Switzerland

We just witnessed here in Switzerland how Jimmy Wales gracefully accepted the Gottlieb Duttweiler price. It should me remarked, that wikipedia is not only beneficial for the readers and those who use this wealth of knowledge, it also has a positive impact on the authors. It liberated my way of thinking, and I learned how to discuss fairly, how to separate truth from fiction, opinion from fact and not least how to cite information correctly. Particularly in the sciences, wikipedia is excellent, since the text can be constantly adapted depending on how much more is discovered in a certain field or topic. But there are limits too; wikipedia cannot replace a medical doctor or a professor, and I am often more interested in the sources or references within a certain topic than the text itself. Readers and authors alike learn how to correctly cite sources which is central to all sciences and good journalism. I stated this earlier. Wikipedia is like an organism, or organisms, some survive as they adapt to their surroundings others die out because they cannot find a niche. It is evolutionary knowledge. One of the best aspects of the Internet. Questioned by a science journalist here on Swiss TV on the correctness of wikipedia entries, Jimmy Wales replied that "all information on the Internet or elsewhere can be wrong and needs to be verified" or something in that regard. And he is so right about that. We can even find mistakes in college textbooks not to mention in newspapers and bad dictionaries. We loved having Jimmy Wales here in Switzerland. Please come back! ML

If you intended this message for Jimbo, you may wish to consider posting at User_Talk:Jimbo_Wales NickCT (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

recent addition

This desired addition - looks just like a few small words but I thought the edit changed the WP:WEIGHT of a couple of important points so, here is the discussion, so please join in. Off2riorob (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? "He describes himself as" suggests that this act of public description is an ongoing event, which from the sources is just not true. "He identifies as" or perhaps "He has identified as" would seem to me to be both incontrovertibly true and more concise. Small fry, either way. Skomorokh 01:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to go off line now, tomorrow I will add more detail, please excuse me - yes that is imo a difference worthy of discussion and if as you say, they are both and another on was the addition of free wiki - . Off2riorob (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
That's cool, no rush, I've left your preferred wording of "describes himself as" in for the time being. As for "free wiki" I think this is an important point in clarifying for the reader the similarities and distinctions between Nupedia and Wikipedia – both were explicitly free to access and released under a free licence, that is both free as in "free beer" and "free speech". Regards, Skomorokh 01:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
note - as my main objection remains unchanged then I am happy to accept this . Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Items to cover

  • Intervention in Kidnapping of David Rohde episode and what it says about Wales' role [27] nyt
  • Controversy over sexual content on Commons in 2010 and the subsequent diminishing of Wales' de jure powers [28]
  • Central role in fundraising, and the pop cultural impact.[29]

What else is conspicuously missing, dare I ask? Skomorokh 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for additional material relevant to Rhode incident - Guardian (:-))
And, at the risk of having Jimbo flame me yet again, I sincerely think the recent Spanish Fork and advertising material deserves consideration. It's additional insight into the crucial early thinking around Wikipedia. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that article is very interesting material for consideration for the entry Spanish Wikipedia, but doesn't seem particularly relevant to my biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Pre-emptive disclaimer - I've long been interested in the historical origin of Wikipedia, especially in regards to what I call the Dark Side of Open Source (a topic for another day). Anyway, I think it's relevant to the "Wikipedia" section, in the area of the sentence "In the early years, Wales had supplied the financial backing for the project,[clarification needed][27][32] and entertained the notion of placing advertisements on Wikipedia before costs were reduced with Sanger's departure and plans for a nonprofit foundation were advanced instead.[33]". The source supplies additional context and reasoning for the nonprofit, in particular with the sentence in the source "Wales was worried that other foreign communities would follow our fork". Now, I know well one shouldn't believe everything one reads on the Internet. Fact-checking it - using original research only for the sake of discussion, and not claiming the following mailing list posting should be cited in the article, but solely for informational purposes in evaluation - the statement appears supported by the historical record. In a July 2002 message thread, "possible explanation for Spanish 'pedia fork; plus some thoughts..." it's stated "A sponsor gets something in return -- advertising space. Based on the reactions against such ideas when floated in the past, and based on the overall low cost of keeping wikipedia going, I don't need that. I'm happy to be a small-time benefactor.". There's also (again, my emphasis) "It will cost some money to set up the nonprofit, and I chose recently to buy wikipedia a new $3000 server rather than set up some useless legal rigamarole. But I know that this can not continue indefinitely, particularly if the current situation leads to mistrust.". So the issues of "reactions" and "mistrust" are also part of the motivation for the already-mentioned decision to form a nonprofit foundation. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
We can see that you have a long term interest, but it is absurd for editors to attempt a reconstruction of history by stumbling through mailing lists and other junk heaps. All the pertinent facts are known, and are in this article or Wikipedia or somewhere else. Attempting to dig deeper and find out what was really on the minds of the participants is both futile and irrelevant. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, philosophically, this again comes back to the problems of divergences between a) What is true b) What sources say c) What Wikipedia's rules dictate. Formally, I'm only making a small suggestion that the article about the Spanish Fork sheds some new light on motivation already deemed significant. Even if the suggestion is accepted, I wouldn't expect the end result to be more than a sentence, or maybe a clause. However, let's put it this way - such matters are often tied to very complex considerations. I must strongly disagree with you that "All the pertinent facts are known" - or, if they are known, are often obscured by much chaff. I've certainly found it extremely difficult to piece together my understanding of the history. To give a small example, the article currently states "By "speculating on interest-rate and foreign-currency fluctuations," he had soon earned enough to "support himself and his wife for the rest of their lives," according to Daniel Pink of Wired magazine.". While it is true that Wired magazine states that, it is the truth? Completely unknown. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and some details of his sex techniques would enliven the article also. Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

Jimbo quotes his personal Religious beliefs. I am not gonna add it quite yet beucase I want to gauge consensus on how to phrase it and WP:BLP is snippy with religious self identification. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wales was asked if he believed in god, and he said: "No. That was easy. It's just not part of my life. I'm not a religious person." If you're going to mention in the article that he is an atheist, I think the key problem will be how does that relate to his notability? Wikipedia goes crazy over these things ("snippy" is an understatement). Good luck on consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
We pretend it isnt relevant but its something I would be curious about and seems as relavant as his "Objectivist Philosophy." The omission is rather unusual compared with some bios. I am leaning towards stating it as he stated it. As saying some thing like:
When ask in 2011 interview about his belief in god Stated he is "not a religious person." Seems reasonable to me. It implies atheist but some people dislike (some of my friends fro example) being described as Atheist due to the Angry Atheist Stereotype. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it can be included as it's relevant to his life and perhaps to what he achieved. It's unlikely a devout religious would have a created Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
A very interesting rationale for inclusion WikiLarent, not one I could ever agree with though. Off2riorob (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I recommend against relying upon a heavily edited transcript.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm still very new here, and cannot justify my gut feelings with WP rationale, but you're stirring a hornet's nest with a cattle prod. I suggest you leave it out: for the little it would contribute in the way of human interest, I believe it could invite some seriously disruptive input.
Ragityman (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Board

Added a board membership to the infobox. CiviliNation may in the long run be the most notable thing Wales does with the influence he now has. Mentioned in a footnote in the WP policy "CIVIL", WSJ article, 29Dec2009. Ragityman (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That sort of speculation seems undue, especially when we presently don't seem to even have a wiki article about the organization, CiviliNation perhaps its a case of from small acorns.Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Because we don't have an article on the organization, I thought it necessary to add a cite, which I did. I don't see why it doesn't belong in the infobox. If Wales wants to be on the Board of an organization that is actually related to his notability, then his membership probably automatically makes it worth including in the box. As to whether someone should start an aticle on the organization, I dunno. It's pretty new (started in January 2010 - see here). Has gotten hardly any third-party press that I can find, perhaps in part because they haven't been around long, just some commentary on events, but I'm not sure what they've accomplished.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Yea, no problem. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Irony to point out

This is the article about the founder of Wikipedia, yet it is not a featured article, or even a good article? I find that humorous and at the same time peculiar. jsyk --The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not even considered a "good article". Take a look at the top of this Talk page, and you'll see that it was once a good article but then it was "delisted" (sounds awful, doesn't it?) with all sorts of reasons why. Of couse, you're welcome to try to improve the article, assuming you're either very brave or masochistic. :-) After all, you'll have only 976 other editors watching you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
1) CO-founder of Wikipedia, please (accuracy is important). 2) I agree it's peculiar - one of the minor puzzles of Wikipedia, why isn't it one of the site's best articles? There's definitely something to be learned from that. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Eglinton2, 24 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Where it shows the age of Jimbo Wakes, can somebody please change the age from 44 to 55 because it is now 2011. Eglinton2 (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


Eglinton2 (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done. People don't magically age at the turn of the year, nor would they age 11 years overnight (I'm sure you meant 45, but it was still amusing). The infobox where his age is listed uses a script that will automatically update his age on his birthday. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 00:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy or James?

Is Jimbo's name Jimmy or James? Jimmy is a nickname for James, so I would assume that his name is James - but what do you think (Maybe Jimbo himself would like to comment) PaoloNapolitano (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you ever check his article? That answers your question immediately. CycloneGU (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
PaoloNapolitano, Jimmy. In the American south, diminutive names such as Billy, Jimmy, Bobby and so on are frequently used as birth names. In spite of a quick search, I couldn't find an article here that explains this, but it is generally true and could be added if sources are available—maybe a passage could be added at Southern English (American). Jimmy was born in the Heart of Dixie, and would have corrected the misspelling if there were one; he is certainly aware of how his own infobox in the encyclopedia site he leads spells his own name. In the case of the people from his region of the country, it is safe to "assume that his name is Jimmy". Sswonk (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
My birth certificate, which is erroneous in multiple aspects, says "Jimmie" - this was not my parent's intention. My actual name is "Jimmy".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Items to cover

  • Intervention in Kidnapping of David Rohde episode and what it says about Wales' role [30] nyt
  • Controversy over sexual content on Commons in 2010 and the subsequent diminishing of Wales' de jure powers [31]
  • Central role in fundraising, and the pop cultural impact.[32]

What else is conspicuously missing, dare I ask? Skomorokh 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for additional material relevant to Rhode incident - Guardian (:-))
And, at the risk of having Jimbo flame me yet again, I sincerely think the recent Spanish Fork and advertising material deserves consideration. It's additional insight into the crucial early thinking around Wikipedia. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that article is very interesting material for consideration for the entry Spanish Wikipedia, but doesn't seem particularly relevant to my biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Pre-emptive disclaimer - I've long been interested in the historical origin of Wikipedia, especially in regards to what I call the Dark Side of Open Source (a topic for another day). Anyway, I think it's relevant to the "Wikipedia" section, in the area of the sentence "In the early years, Wales had supplied the financial backing for the project,[clarification needed][27][32] and entertained the notion of placing advertisements on Wikipedia before costs were reduced with Sanger's departure and plans for a nonprofit foundation were advanced instead.[33]". The source supplies additional context and reasoning for the nonprofit, in particular with the sentence in the source "Wales was worried that other foreign communities would follow our fork". Now, I know well one shouldn't believe everything one reads on the Internet. Fact-checking it - using original research only for the sake of discussion, and not claiming the following mailing list posting should be cited in the article, but solely for informational purposes in evaluation - the statement appears supported by the historical record. In a July 2002 message thread, "possible explanation for Spanish 'pedia fork; plus some thoughts..." it's stated "A sponsor gets something in return -- advertising space. Based on the reactions against such ideas when floated in the past, and based on the overall low cost of keeping wikipedia going, I don't need that. I'm happy to be a small-time benefactor.". There's also (again, my emphasis) "It will cost some money to set up the nonprofit, and I chose recently to buy wikipedia a new $3000 server rather than set up some useless legal rigamarole. But I know that this can not continue indefinitely, particularly if the current situation leads to mistrust.". So the issues of "reactions" and "mistrust" are also part of the motivation for the already-mentioned decision to form a nonprofit foundation. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
We can see that you have a long term interest, but it is absurd for editors to attempt a reconstruction of history by stumbling through mailing lists and other junk heaps. All the pertinent facts are known, and are in this article or Wikipedia or somewhere else. Attempting to dig deeper and find out what was really on the minds of the participants is both futile and irrelevant. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, philosophically, this again comes back to the problems of divergences between a) What is true b) What sources say c) What Wikipedia's rules dictate. Formally, I'm only making a small suggestion that the article about the Spanish Fork sheds some new light on motivation already deemed significant. Even if the suggestion is accepted, I wouldn't expect the end result to be more than a sentence, or maybe a clause. However, let's put it this way - such matters are often tied to very complex considerations. I must strongly disagree with you that "All the pertinent facts are known" - or, if they are known, are often obscured by much chaff. I've certainly found it extremely difficult to piece together my understanding of the history. To give a small example, the article currently states "By "speculating on interest-rate and foreign-currency fluctuations," he had soon earned enough to "support himself and his wife for the rest of their lives," according to Daniel Pink of Wired magazine.". While it is true that Wired magazine states that, it is the truth? Completely unknown. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and some details of his sex techniques would enliven the article also. Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I hope to go about incorporating some of the above mentioned material in the coming weeks – co-operation/further suggestions etc. appreciated. Skomorokh 14:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Medical pedia

How about a medical pedia, that is interactive? the person puts in information and gets out information? Heidi D Fain Lunabats (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP article of a WP:NOTABLE person and not the correct place to discuss such issues. There is no one here giving medical advice, doctors do that not wikipedias. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Lunabats, I believe you are looking for User talk:Jimbo Wales. That's the personal talk page of Jimmy Wales. As Off2riorob said, this is the page to discuss the actual article about him.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Editnotice for this talkpage

Given the comparatively high number of posts to this page attempting to contact Wales, I'm inclined to suggest a custom editnotice directing them to User talk:Jimbo Wales, as the understated FAQ at the top of the page does not seem to be doing the trick. Thoughts? Skomorokh 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Conceptually, it sounds like a good idea. However, I'd like to see the notice first. I have a couple of concerns. First, I'm not sure that the people who don't read the current notice would read the custom notice. And, second, I'm slightly uncomfortable treating Wales's page differently from others, although I suppose the problem justifies the difference. My suggestion would be that the notice is displayed when someone adds a new section to the page. Makes it more likely that people will read it, although it would not help for those who edit the page in other ways. Others more knowledgeable technically about how such notices can be implemented may have better ideas.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Username

What's his username?--Tepigisthe498th (talk to me!) 18:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's at the top of this page: User:Jimbo Wales.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Senate draft section?

Shouldn't there perhaps be something on the effort to draft Wales for U.S. Senate in Florida for 2012? Particularly since Mr. Wales has publicly indicated he's entertaining the idea?

http://draftjimmywales.wordpress.com/

http://race42012.com/2011/03/20/you-heard-it-here-first-jimmy-wales-considering-senate-run/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.10.150 (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's noteworthy unless he enters the race. At this point, the non-wordpress source says only that he's "seriously considering" entering the race.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
That seems an odd standard. Should the pages about Mitt Romney and Ron Paul not mention the 2012 race since neither has actually entered it? A draft effort combined with his own public statements of interest seems enough to make it noteworthy, even if he decides not to run. I agree it's borderline at this point but it's inclusion would not be unjustified. There are sufficient sources commenting on the possibility, and Jimbo himself has tweeted "Should I run for the Senate to sort these idiots out?" Here's another source- http://www.redracinghorses.com/diary/224/jimmy-wales-undecided-on-run-for-us-senate CraigAR90 (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Romney and Paul are politicians; Wales is not - apples and oranges. I don't think we need to report on someone saying they are considering running for office just because the person is notable for other reasons. Wikipedia then becomes a news source rather than an encyclopedia. Is Wales notable because he thinks about running for office?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindrape

"In late 2005, Wales edited his own biographical entry on the English Wikipedia."

I'm reading about the article that I'm reading within the article I'm reading about someone who edited the article I'm reading and created the very site that contains the article I'm reading while the article I'm reading is about the very person that edited the article which event is being described in the passage of the article that I'm reading. Nex Carnifex (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Other than self-indulgence, this section is helpful how?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

Jimbo quotes his personal Religious beliefs. I am not gonna add it quite yet beucase I want to gauge consensus on how to phrase it and WP:BLP is snippy with religious self identification. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wales was asked if he believed in god, and he said: "No. That was easy. It's just not part of my life. I'm not a religious person." If you're going to mention in the article that he is an atheist, I think the key problem will be how does that relate to his notability? Wikipedia goes crazy over these things ("snippy" is an understatement). Good luck on consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
We pretend it isnt relevant but its something I would be curious about and seems as relavant as his "Objectivist Philosophy." The omission is rather unusual compared with some bios. I am leaning towards stating it as he stated it. As saying some thing like:
When ask in 2011 interview about his belief in god Stated he is "not a religious person." Seems reasonable to me. It implies atheist but some people dislike (some of my friends fro example) being described as Atheist due to the Angry Atheist Stereotype. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it can be included as it's relevant to his life and perhaps to what he achieved. It's unlikely a devout religious would have a created Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
A very interesting rationale for inclusion WikiLarent, not one I could ever agree with though. Off2riorob (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Can some one please explain why, as Laurent claimed, it is unlikely that a devout religious person would have created Wikipedia? Couldn't analogies be made between the Christian virtue of sharing and sharing knowledge on Wikipedia? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
That's Laurent's opinion. If you want to discuss it with him, a better place would be on his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I recommend against relying upon a heavily edited transcript.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm still very new here, and cannot justify my gut feelings with WP rationale, but you're stirring a hornet's nest with a cattle prod. I suggest you leave it out: for the little it would contribute in the way of human interest, I believe it could invite some seriously disruptive input.
Ragityman (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I would point out that the article already implies Wales is an atheist (or at the very least firmly non-religious) in characterising him as an Objectivist, as disbelief in the supernatural is an essential component of that philosophy. I agree with the OP that the subject's religious beliefs are generally considered quite relevant to a biographical portrait. In this light, does the "Objectivism implies atheism" link need to be spelled out in the article or is it something most readers will deduce themselves? Skomorokh 14:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd guess the majority of readers will not deduce it by themselves (many people can't even seem to keep Democrats and Republicans straight, much less people following a silly philosophy based on selfishness). I don't care, either way, but I do think it would be a part of most entries. Sloopydrew (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the description of Objectivism to read "the philosophy developed by writer Ayn Rand in the mid-20th century emphasizing individualism, atheism, capitalism and the primacy of rationality". Hopefully this will be clearer to the general reader. Skomorokh 11:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Appearance on PM

This article could be updated by mentioning Wales' appearance on the Radio Four programme PM on May 11 2011. I think he was talking about privacy of celebrities, and the presenter mentioned that he was quite a well-known figure. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey ACEOREVIVED,
I haven't listened to the piece yet, but is there some specific material from it you'd like to propose adding? NickCT (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I added the main points made, referencing the BBC story on this. He talked about super injunctions, and had some interesting stuff to say on the matter! Story is here if you're interested [33]. Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 14:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Super injunction section

Hey all,

I'm changing this passage

to the following

for the following reasons 1) More context 2) The BBC article is a little unclear on the whole "reported facts could be published on Wikipedia" thing. The article says - "But if they appeared in say the New York Times or a French newspaper he would run them, "without question"." I'm pretty sure they're inaccurately paraphrasing him here, b/c I doubt he actually said that he personally would "run" or "allow" the material. That's not how WP works. I think "support" is probably better language. Of course, this rationale could be WP:OR.

As always, don't mind if anyone feels the need to mercilessly edit my revision..... NickCT (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your wording flows much better and makes much more sense by itself, but I'm concerned with how well it conforms to the cited source. For example, you refer to a "controversy in May 2011", whereas the article vaguely refers to "recent weeks". Is there a source for the earlier "controversy"? Also, the phrase "in favor of freedom of speech" is an editorial comment and doesn't stick to the facts reported in the article. Although the "human rights violationis" phrase is supposedly a direct quote, it begs the question whose rights are being violated? I'm not as troubled by your use of the word "support" - it's true, it doesn't conform to the source, but without a direct quote, it seems unlikely (hopefully) that he would have said what the article says.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
As the controversy relates to super injunctions being used to suppress the freedom of the British press, and JW's opinion is clearly against this, I don't feel that the "Free Speech" part is OR, more logical use of the facts contained therein. Just my opinion though. I've been wrong before, and no doubt will again! Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 14:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
re "you refer to a "controversy in May 2011", whereas the article vaguely refers to "recent weeks"" - Agree. There is some history here that I'm not 100% on. Further research needed.
re "phrase "in favor of freedom of speech" is an editorial comment" - Partially agree. Certainly an editorial comment, but surely it's a safe one? I mean, Wales is obviously speaking from a pro-freedom of speech position here. If it bothers you though, I wouldn't oppose its removal.
re "begs the question whose rights are being violated" - Yeah. You know, I'm beginning to think this particular scandal needs to have a page on WP to explain who exactly is being silenced here. This is potentially a large task. I wish I had time...... NickCT (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
For anyone not at work and skiving, some background on the scandal...[34], [35], [36], [37],[38], [39], [40], [41]. However, I fear that I also do not have the time to cover this. See also Carter Ruck. Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 15:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the links Benny. When I have a few seconds I'll read into it. NickCT (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The free speech phrase is not far-fetched, but it's unnecessary. We can just report the facts without adding our gloss to it. With respect to the whole "controversy", this ties in to the link in the article to the super injunction subsection in the Injunction article. That subsection has been bothering me for some time now because people keep adding material to it about the controversy. In my view, the injunction article is just supposed to be a dry piece about legal terms and shouldn't delve into these kinds of issues, which then get mired with the people affected and the controversies themselves. If this is all such a big deal, perhaps we need a separate article on super injunctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"We can just report the facts without adding our gloss to it" - Probably right. But isn't it fun to add gloss?
My understanding is that Mr. Wales' comments were spurred by a particular super-injunction controversy about which some WP editor chose to write. I think that particular controversy ought to have a subsection/article to link to.
As I said I'm going to try to take some time to read up about this. Perhaps I'll give it a try afterwards. NickCT (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
(smiling about gloss). I'm glad you're going to take the time to research this because I don't have the time or energy right this moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the excitement in wanting to add new coverage on topical issues to the article, but is any of this really relevant to the life story of Jimmy Wales? He is a frequent interviewee, and is consulted on a vast range of issues from Chinese censorship to Wikileaks to Google's search engine dominance. Why do superinjunctions merit mention when the others do not? Skomorokh 12:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree this material is for the Wikipedia article ; not Jimmy Wales' biography material. His postition on a Current event affecting Wikipedia is not relevant when looked through the scope of his whole life. Even when looking through the lens of him as Defacto-leader/spokesman its not really too relevant The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 12:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Partially agree. This could be considered WP:RECENTISM.
The counter point though is that I doubt any of items covered in the "Thought and influences" are "relevant when looked through the scope of his whole life" (excepting perhaps the political philosophy stuff). NickCT (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thoughts on chinese censorship, political thinking, Philosophical ties seem much more relevant to a biography than the latest Wikipedia drama to come off the press wires. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
What's the difference between thoughts on Chinese censorship and thoughts on British censorship. (note - I partially agree with you, I'm just playing the devil's advocate). NickCT (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────FYI - I've concluded a cursory examination of "super injunction scandal". This talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss, so I've posted User:NickCT/sandbox. NickCT (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph for now; we can add it back in later if it becomes more relevant to the biography. Skomorokh 18:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Would this Talk page qualify as a legitimate location for soliticing additional opinions on a content discussion?

Similar to the approved locations inviting more discussion at AfD's, would this Talk page be an acceptable place for such requests, because of its high visibility and large crossover of Wiki users, or would that really just detract from its usefulness as your personal page? My regards to you. -- Avanu (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As with many people, you may be looking for User_talk:Jimbo Wales which is a perfectly fine place to chat with me, about additional opinions on content discussions, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Honorary Degree

This link doesn't appear to have a permalink. Mirea gave me an honorary doctorate. The Russian Wikipedia has a much better article on the school than we do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Couple notes - 1) I chose to say "Russia's MIREA University" rather than "the Moscow State Institute of Radio-engineering Electronics and Automation", which seems long winded. 2) As with the Argentinian degree I was unable to locate 2ndry sources, which raises some WP:V/WP:N concerns in my mind. I think there is some saying out there that goes something like "if an honorary degree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to report on it, did it ever really fall at all?".
I look forward to seeing where Mr. Wales will pick up his next degree.... NickCT (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that at some point, it will make sense for me to have a page listing these on my personal website, and then the most prominent ones could be listed here. "Wales has received X honorary doctorates[1], including from A University[2], B College[3], and C State University[4]." The first link to the number could link to a count and list on my site (as well-referenced as I can make it, of course), and the subsequent ones could link to either news reports or press releases. It might be good to look at similar articles.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


Did Wikipedia live up to the expectation of Wales?

I remember - I think it was as long ago as 2006 - that my brother once told me that on the programme "Imagine" - the arts programme presnted by Alan Yentob - Jimmy Wales said that Wikipedia turned out to be something quite different to his expectations. Does any one know anything about this? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Something I did hear myself in 2006 was a programme on Radio Four, presented by Clive Anderson, called "The Wikipedia Story". Jimmy Wales was on that and said that most Wikipedia articles are not actually edited by a community, but just by one of two (and quite often only one) editors. Did any one else hear Wales on this programme? It might be worth a mention here, as it would show how Wales has been on the British media. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

@ACEOREVIVED - It might help if you could find a transcript, then be specific about exactly what material you want to put in. I'm not sure you're going to find many editors here who regularly listen to Radio Four. NickCT (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, it's quite unlikely to be valid. I've stated the opposite many many times.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Investment banker category

Added here - but I have never been an investment banker.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. They would need to supply a citation to support re-adding.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How about a hedge fund manager? (As in paying the local landscape service to clip the garden hedge.) Something at least technically true. btw - you should ask the BBC if they could possibly slip in a mention of The Doctor and/or his companions editing Wikipedia. Perhaps even imply he invented it, which would in turn imply that you're an incarnation and perhaps inspire some new contributors. Remember the popular David Tennant/Catherine Tate Red Nose Day video? Wikipedia could contribute something funny to the next Comic Relief telethon, about you wanting to update a new record-breaking contribution total in their Wikipedia article as soon as it's announced. As you do. iow, do funny product placements about editing Wikipedia, as opposed to reading it. 99.50.189.108 (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry

Dear Mr Wales,

I do undersatnd that tis forum is just for improving your Wiki page, but I have found no other way to contact you on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you would be interested adding one more sub-branch to your company. What I am trying to say is, you know how you have Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Wikiqoutes... Well I have a new Wiki idea and I was wondering if you would be interested discovering what it is.

Yours Truly, MYGAMEUPLAY (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You can contact Jimmy on his own user page User talk:Jimbo Wales Kind regards Theroadislong (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This might be helpful

Two things that might be helpful:

  1. Jimmy Wales UES21
  2. "Neither Sanger nor Wales expected very much from the Nupedia wiki initiative." This is false.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
With respect to point #2, two sources are cited. I can't see the Atlantic Monthly cite because it doesn't have an online link - the quote in the reference is unhelpful to this point. The New Yorker cite says the following after wiki was added to Nupedia: "Wales braced himself for “complete rubbish.” He figured that if he and Sanger were lucky the wiki would generate a few rough drafts for Nupedia." (The article states all this right after the opening sentence.) We could replace the opening sentence to say "Wales did not expect very much from the Nupedia wiki initiative" - mainly because the New Yorker quote doesn't say anything about Sanger's expectations. Or we could eliminate the topical sentence completely, but it does flow a bit better with an intro sentence.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The claims in the New Yorker article are false. I have said in many interviews over the years that I was always very optimistic about Wikipedia. Larry was, too. It's just false to say that we didn't expect much from it. That's just not true. What has happened here is a cherry-picking of sources. Of course it is true, as it is true of anything, that we were unsure what would come of it in the early days. It isn't at all correct - and a total synthesis on the part of Wikipedia - to claim that we never expected much of it. Of course we braced ourselves for the possibility of complete rubbish - any sane person would. That didn't mean that we didn't expect much of it - expectations of the future are more complex than that.
This entire section of the article is wrong and should be replaced.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
1 is done. Two quick points - 1. Couldn't find a secondary source. 2. Not 100% on the translation of "21st Century Enterprise University". NickCT (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure a translation is necessary, since it is a proper name.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Reverted to Spanish. I was trying to follow suit with the only other mention of this place on en.wikipedia that I could find. NickCT (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, like the last two times the second issue has been raised, no-one, Mr. Wales included, has been able to come up with a reliable source which contradicts Marshall Poe's The Atlantic article. I for one am all ears. Skomorokh 12:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

@Skomor - see BB's comment re "I can't see the Atlantic Monthly cite because it doesn't have an online link - the quote in the reference is unhelpful to this point." - Can you give us the passage from Alantic that is relevant? NickCT (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The link is in the references section: this is direct link to the relevant page, start of last paragraph quoted below:

Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki on January 10, 2001. The initial purpose was to get the public to add entries that would then be “fed into the Nupedia process” of authorization. Most of Nupedia’s expert volunteers, however, wanted nothing to do with this, so Sanger decided to launch a separate site called “Wikipedia.” Neither Sanger nor Wales looked on Wikipedia as anything more than a lark. This is evident in Sanger’s flip announcement of Wikipedia to the Nupedia discussion list. “Humor me,” he wrote. “Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes.” And, to Sanger’s surprise, go they did. Within a few days, Wikipedia outstripped Nupedia in terms of quantity, if not quality, and a small community developed.

The New Yorker:

After a year, Nupedia had only twenty-one articles, on such topics as atonality and Herodotus. In January, 2001, Sanger had dinner with a friend, who told him about the wiki, a simple software tool that allows for collaborative writing and editing. Sanger thought that a wiki might attract new contributors to Nupedia. (Wales says that using a wiki was his idea.) Wales agreed to try it, more or less as a lark. Under the wiki model that Sanger and Wales adopted, each entry included a history page, which preserves a record of all editing changes. They added a talk page, to allow for discussion of the editorial process—an idea Bayle would have appreciated. Sanger coined the term Wikipedia, and the site went live on January 15, 2001. Two days later, he sent an e-mail to the Nupedia mailing list—about two thousand people. “Wikipedia is up!” he wrote. “Humor me. Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes.”

Wales braced himself for “complete rubbish.” He figured that if he and Sanger were lucky the wiki would generate a few rough drafts for Nupedia. Within a month, Wikipedia had six hundred articles. After a year, there were twenty thousand.

We have yet to see a credible refutation of these accounts. Skomorokh 13:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I have explained this, up above. In any event, it is not appropriate to place your interpretation - which I have declared to be flatly wrong - on these articles - particularly not when I am telling you that it is flatly wrong.
You are cherry picking sources, I'm afraid. There are hundreds of interviews in which I have described my optimism at the start of the project.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I can scarcely believe this. An editor who champions a strict application of the biographiy of living persons policy, who has a deep and manifested conflict of interest with this article, is sincerely urging that his – entirely unsupported – personal sentiments should be deferred to over the flat contradiction of two of the most respected journalistic publications in the English-speaking world, and furthermore has the temerity to lay bad faith accusations at those who merely ask him to substantiate his claims. The editors of this article have been patient in indulging your wish to express your feelings on our biography, but this really is ludicrous. Skomorokh 18:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh come on. That's a lot of dancing to avoid saying that I am the subject of this BLP and therefore hardly likely to be about to victimize myself with some violation of WP:BLP. We are talking about a portion of the article that claims to describe my own state of mind, and you are defending your interpretation of two cherry-picked sources that I am telling you are wrong. There are hundreds of interviews in which I have described my optimism at the start of the project. Ludicrous is right, my friend.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
@Skomorokh - The issue I take with those two articles is that both of them suggest Sanger and Wales didn't expect v. much in a "commentative/narrative" fashion. Neither really explains how the author arrived at the conclusion that Wales/Sanger had low expections outside pointing to Sanger's "Humor me" e-mail. But thier interpretation of Sanger's e-mail seems to be just that. An interpretation. After reading what they offer of the e-mail I don't think it is 100% certain that Sanger was inferring he didn't expect much from WP.
The only objective evidence for Sanger/Wales having low expectations would be if they were quoted as saying, "We have low expectations". Any other evidence pointed to would be subjective interpretation, and as such might fall foul of WP:NOTOPINION.
The one thing I do find a little disconcerting though is the "complete rubbish" bit. It sounds like they are actually directly quoting Wales as saying "I expected complete rubbish". I wonder if the quote is taken out of context. I'd be curious to know if Mr. Wales could even recollect saying it after all these years..... NickCT (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, the quote is taken out of context and the use in this article is itself complete rubbish. I did not expect complete rubbish. What we were, was sane people testing a new concept. I can't speak directly for Larry, of course. But I was excited and optimistic and we didn't know for sure how it would work, and we weren't ideologically committed to any particular view on how we might have to adapt the software to adjust for problems that might arise. That's just sensible. To say that neither of us expected much from it is just - flatly - false.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been searching for some details about this as Jimmy seems to be contenting the present content and has been rejecting the newyorker interview as incorrect. Here is some results that I feel clear up this issue. I will post them here for interested users to peruse and I would be grateful for any ideas for content additions to include something from them. The Sanger quote (number3) I am intending to add as is presented..as a quote, Sanger said.."..." Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Charles Leadbeater is a respected author/writer..

1. "Sanger wanted to revitalise Nupedia, but Wales saw a more radical possibility: to create an entirely open, highly collaborative approach to knowledge.*"

URL: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ipHhSn00OeQC&pg=PA14&dq=sanger+wanted+to+revitalise+nupedia,+but+Wales+saw%22&hl=en&ei=eo7pTcGHBs-j-gaTmtDFDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sanger%20wanted%20to%20revitalise%20nupedia%2C%20but%20Wales%20saw%22&f=false > <http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ipHhSn00OeQC&pg=PA14&dq=sanger+wanted+to+revitalise+nupedia,+but+Wales+saw%22&hl=en&ei=eo7pTcGHBs-j-gaTmtDFDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sanger%20wanted%20to%20revitalise%20nupedia%2C%20but%20Wales%20saw%22&f=false

Ref template: <ref name="Leadbeater2009">{{cite book|author=Charles Leadbeater|title=We-Think: Mass Innovation, Not Mass Production|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ipHhSn00OeQC&pg=PA14|accessdate=4 June 2011|date=1 July 2009|publisher=Profile Books|isbn=9781861978370|page=14}}</ref>


2. "Wikis would speed up Nupedia's development /whilst transforming it into the true collaborative effort Wales dreamed of/. As a result of this new technology, Wikipedia was born in earnest on 15 January 2001."

URL: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lOr8ic7WVMEC&pg=PA84&dq=%22whilst+transforming+it+into+the+true+collaborative+effort+Wales+dreamed+of%22&hl=en&ei=PpbpTdKvC87OsgbopsDnCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22whilst%20transforming%20it%20into%20the%20true%20collaborative%20effort%20Wales%20dreamed%20of%22&f=false > <http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lOr8ic7WVMEC&pg=PA84&dq=%22whilst+transforming+it+into+the+true+collaborative+effort+Wales+dreamed+of%22&hl=en&ei=PpbpTdKvC87OsgbopsDnCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22whilst%20transforming%20it%20into%20the%20true%20collaborative%20effort%20Wales%20dreamed%20of%22&f=false>

Ref template: <ref name="Gobillot2011">{{cite book|author=Emmanuel Gobillot|title=Leadershift: Reinventing Leadership for the Age of Mass Collaboration|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lOr8ic7WVMEC&pg=PA84|accessdate=4 June 2011|date=28 June 2011|publisher=Kogan Page Publishers|isbn=9780749463038|pages=84–}}</ref>


3.(This is by Sanger himself.) To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative/encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee ..

URL: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q9GnNrq3e5EC&pg=PA312&dq=%22to+be+clear,+the+idea+of+an+open+source,+collaborative%22&hl=en&ei=OpfpTdv2DcPLsgaC1uHnCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22to%20be%20clear%2C%20the%20idea%20of%20an%20open%20source%2C%20collaborative%22&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q9GnNrq3e5EC&pg=PA312&dq=%22to+be+clear,+the+idea+of+an+open+source,+collaborative%22&hl=en&ei=OpfpTdv2DcPLsgaC1uHnCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22to%20be%20clear%2C%20the%20idea%20of%20an%20open%20source%2C%20collaborative%22&f=false>

Ref template:<ref name="DiBonaCooper2005">{{cite book|author1=Chris DiBona|author2=Danese Cooper|author3=Mark Stone|title=Open sources 2.0: the continuing evolution|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=q9GnNrq3e5EC&pg=PA312|accessdate=4 June 2011|date=1 November 2005|publisher=O'Reilly Media, Inc.|isbn=9780596008024|pages=312–}}</ref>


I can't help being pointing out how amused I am by this discussion. I already anticipated where this would end up, I already saw it coming, quite at the beginning of the section (well, it has happened before) ... Jimbo as primary source for his own thoughts vs. reliable (well, "reliable") secondary (journalistic) sources on what he said. This may seem silly, but to be fair, all kinds of sources are fallible, and while journalists are known to frequently misquote people (or quote them in misleading ways; not necessarily always intentionally, or with malicious intent; also, misunderstandings may arise), even Jimbo himself is in principle not immune to misremembering things, painting the past overly rosy and other such human, all too human fallacies, even when it comes to his own past, and in principle – i. e., if we could take the accuracy of journalistic sources, such as transcripts and interviews, for granted –, funny enough, these journalistic sources could even be more reliable than Jimbo's own memories, as we know how memories are reconstructed rather than simply recalled perfectly. So it turns out that the seemingly silly obsession with reliable sources on Wikipedia is an actually quite sensible principle, even if it leads to Jimbo having to dispute sources, and thus, struggle with the principle he has established himself: Citations from secondary sources reign supreme and trump (almost?) everything else. (I've seen E-mail from scholars on a relevant point rejected as not really useable sources to justify modifications in articles or clarify points, which I do understand, but on the face of it it sounds truly bizarre.)
That said, even in scientific works you can occasionally see attributions such as "pers. comm.", or in German "mündlich" or "Unterricht", which isn't exactly up to the best standards of scientific practice, but as long as personal communication isn't used to support any major points or only to indicate where an idea comes from, I suppose there's nothing wrong with it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that there are a couple of articles in the Wikipedia that make sense to overview / manage separately. One of them is the Silicon Valley. If you will have a chance to take a look to the current discussion you will definitely have fun and perhaps some insight as well. --PrqStar (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal life update

If that Guardian article is true, Mr. Wales might have a second child by this point in time, and be married to Kate Garvey. I tried Googling on this topic and found nothing. Does anyone know of any reliable sources which might help us keep Wikipedia current? Followship (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Early career in finance

There is a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Your early career in finance. (permalink) where Jimbo responded to some questions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course the weakness in having the discussion there is that 1) it's clearly the wrong place for a content discussion, 2) Jimbo's page gets archived so frequently the discussion will simply vanish into his talk archives without meaningful clash (and as a content discussion, many editors will choose not to get involved there, IMHO), and 3) the questions raised are reasonable and important ones not answered by sources or content on Jimbo's subject page. If the living subject were, say, a politician or an economist, a large omission like the one raised would cry out for filling in and citation. So if that discussion goes stale, expect me to start a fresh discussion here to find answers to the questions raised. BusterD (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks more like trolling than discussion for article improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Please AGF. It may be the IP is trolling, but the questions raised are pointed and not currently covered on the article page. I did not raise these issues myself, but as a long established editor in good standing, I'd like to see the questions answered myself. I'm clearly NOT trolling, but interested in page improvement. Has anyone written a book length treatment of the subject? Why the heck not? BusterD (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Those who have watched Jimbo's talk for a considerable period know that trolls frequently pop in to ask pointed questions. Clearly Jimbo would have mentioned if he knew of a book or other reliable source. As no one has found such a source, it is evident that it does not exist, so speculating about issues is not productive (and certainly lies outside the talk page guidelines). Johnuniq (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Ahem I certainly am not trolling, please assume good faith. I am concerned that claims in supposedly reliable sources conflict. This article says that Jimmy was a 'research director' at Chicago Options Associates. Where did that come from? All claims should be linked to reliable sources, and this one is not, moreover it conflicts with the claim that he was 'Research Director' (a research director would not be allowed to trade because of conflict of interest, although I am sure it happens). Also COA was deregistered in 1991, so that claim conflicts as well. Either delete these claims from the article or find the most reliable one and substantiate it. 86.184.49.56 (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
arh, hg,,, cough. Good faith is not a blind man in the dark we are able to assess your contributions. - I'm off - bye, you realize you can be bold and improve the article yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The ip is trolling, plain and simple. His questions are incoherent and his insinuations are transparent. BusterD, I'd be happy to hear what you think is missing from the article right now, and what clarifications you think I might provide.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place for original research by Wikipedia editors drawing primary source material from talk page interviews with Jimmy. However, he may be able to give some helpful tips on how to find reliable sources on this topic. That said, secondary sources often do get things wrong and this is someone's BLP, after all, so don't be startled if, when asking about something in a source, the answer's along the lines of, "that's flat wrong." Gwen Gale (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, Jimbo, but I was asking about reliable sources, not opinions (even informed opinions). After looking in from a wikibreak, I was quite surprised at the above response from the "father" of this project. Jimmy should know the policies and guidelines better than anyone. And I think Gwen makes the essential point. Subjects of BLPs who suddenly pop up on article talk to discuss issues are clearly in COI. Communication via OTRS is a slightly different matter. The primary value of such COI contribution would be in the discovery of RS, not self-assessment. The issues the ip "troller" raises deserve answers documented by RS citation (or IMHO they'll never go away). The confusion of the Chicago trading days isn't imagined, it's authentic. Another example: since Nupedia and WP were originally launched on Bomis servers, it's not to the pedia's credit the Bomis page has many of its sourcing legs kicked out from under it by dead internet links (and Archive.org isn't as helpful as I would normally expect it to be). It's fine with me that Bomis had sections related to pretty girls. I like pretty girls myself; I don't think that detail undercuts the project. As Wikipedians, we owe readers good sourcing on all pages, but especially on certain key pages, particularly those related to the history and credibility of the project. It might serve the Foundation well to commission an authorized biography of Jimbo to dissipate some of this confusion.
On Wikipedia I consider myself primarily a compiler of minor biographies (mostly people long deceased). If one of those figures suddenly popped up on article talkspace to discuss content issues, I'd first be surprised and somewhat pleased (even flattered), then I'd be suspicious (see page histories of Peter Tomsen and Talk:Peter Tomsen). Maybe that's just me. Per Seigenthaler, we need to pay attention to the "that's flat wrong" statements, but I'm not over-interested in what subjects of BLP have to say about the way they are portrayed on the pedia. It's a potential pitfall, and not one I'd expect a Foundation official to perpetuate. BusterD (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a tremendous amount of confusion in the above comment (Jimbo did not say anything like what is suggested by BusterD, either here or at his user talk page). Future comments should focus on improvements to the article, per WP:TPG. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to reiterate though that I don't think there is any actual confusion here. If BusterD has a question, I can try to answer it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
As an update - ,BusterD added the retired templates to his userpage the day after posting here and has not yet returned to editing. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 October 2011

i want to write about Jimmy wales in Punjabi Language. because there is nothing about jimmy wales in Punjabi.

Tinkuxlnc (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you would like to translate text from here to Wikipedia in another language. Editors are welcome to do that, however it would be a matter for another site and is outside the control of en.wikipedia.org. Please ask at WP:HELPDESK if any assistance is wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

External link

The "External links" section doesn't seem the right place for a wikipedia article - Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales - what do others think? Totorotroll (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is, as far as this article is concerned, an external link. It would go against a neutral point of view to put it anywhere else, in my opinion. Remember, Wikipedia articles are commonly hosted elsewhere. Wikipedia is merely the framework that supports the development of these articles. Jujutacular talk 02:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Also note, it (Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales) is not a "Wikipedia article", (i.e. it is not in the article namespace) it is in the project namespace. Jujutacular talk 02:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It's a confusing split of hairs to say these are external links - they are visually identical to internal links, and to a passing reader that is what they are. I propose they be moved to the "see also" section.
On a related note, I think the external link section is much too large for an article of this importance. I think we could remove half of them without losing any value.--~TPW 15:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Information on his talk on Radio Three (November 4 2011)

Earlier today, i.e. 8 November 2011, I put in a reference to his talk on Radio Three on Wikipedia on November 4 2011. There were a lot of things I could put in this section - such as how he found that Wikipedia to him suggests that people are good, or how he likes the way in which Wikipedia sometimes says "The neutrality of this article is questioned" but I shall leave others to decide whether we need to include these details. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, my addition to his appearance on QT on 24 Nov. All of his contributions, such that they were, appeared measured and sensible, in my opinion. It was just difficult, as it usally is, for a non-politician panelist to get a word in edgeways. It seemed a little unfair to me that, along with the questions about salaries and strikes, we didn't get a more grown up question such as "Will there be any need for politcians when voters can get all the information they need from the internet?" Alas, no. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Bomis

  • 'Pornography' vs 'adult content'

I'm referring to the sentence: "In 1996, he and two partners founded Bomis, a male-oriented web portal featuring entertainment and adult content," in which my edit to change the word "adult" to "pornographic" was reverted.

In the above sentence, "adult" is being used as a euphemism for pornography. This isn't a matter of opinion, this is an established, referenced fact (See Bomis). Using the word "adult" is ambiguous, and makes an implicit value judgement of the content. This is why it is preferred to simply use a more precise term and allow readers to make their own opinions. For further information: WP:EUPHEMISM. Dr. WTF (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem is, the word "pornography" is not at all precise, and it has a meaning now (when extreme porn is one click away from everyone) that is rather different from Bomis. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Adult content is far less precise and is a loaded term. Who decides what is and isn't "adult"? Discussion of gambling, alcohol, tobacco, or recreational drugs could constitute adult content, but Bomis did not have any of that. Retirement could even be considered "adult" content. Dr. WTF (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I would say pornography was more loaded - there are legal statutes relating to age that assert who can look at what legally and when - whereas, one mans pornography is another mans naked humanoid. What do the reliable citations say and are there any links in the wayback to borris? all I get is redlink - http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bomis.com/ - Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The content was decidedly erotic. That is not disputed [42]. See the Bomis Wikipedia page for more. Dr. WTF (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks - imo - erotic is closer defined in adult content than pornography ,"Bomis found its niche in erotica and adult content", I had a look a the wiki boris article, thanks for the detail. Its hair splitting imo and this is a WP:BLP so I prefer as policy suggests to err on the side of caution. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
So we are in agreement to go with "erotic" in place of "adult"? Dr. WTF (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
No, please don't put words into my mouth - I support adult as being a neutral reflective expression, in this BLP. I will remove this from my watchlist for a bit now - one of the worst aspects of this project is endless worthless discussions over hair splitting trivia. - imo, from my investigations the NPOV position is adult content, bye. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, you argued the point for me. Erotica is more closely defined in adult content. It is a more specific, less loaded, and less ambiguous term than "adult content", which you even indicate that it is a subset of. If you do not want to discuss this further, and if no one else has any further comments, I'll go ahead and change the term "adult content" in a few days time. Dr. WTF (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello| Your not listening at all .... I do not support your desired change - I support as the article currently is, adult content - Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
You cannot simply say you don't agree, abandon the discussion, and then expect whatever your opinion is to be fulfilled. Wikipedia works by building a consensus. If you want to discuss this further, then let's talk. Otherwise, step aside and let the rest of us form a consensus. Dr. WTF (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Again you misrepresent me - I have stated my position - I have nothing else to say about it - its so trivial I have already wasted more time on it than it is worth. Simply count my vote for the consensus in support of the position I have stated. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I have not misrepresented your position. I cannot be faulted for misinterpreting what you've said when your unstated final conclusion went against your stated argument. I wasn't able to make that leap of logic and I doubt anyone else but you could have. But, please, if you have nothing else to say in regards to the original discussion do not feel obliged to continue. Unlike what you've said, this isn't a vote. Dr. WTF (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, "adult content" is not precise—no single term can precisely identify anything let alone a web site where a range of material is available. The main problem with "pornography" is what I said above: it has a meaning now that is totally different from 1996 and it misrepresents what Bomis says. From the latter: "categorized broadly as "Babe", "Entertainment", "Sports", "Adult", "Science fiction", and "Other"" (and later in the article, we see that Bomis Premium offered pornography). The proposed edit describes that simply as "a male-oriented web portal featuring entertainment and pornographic content". That misrepresents what was apparently quite different to what is known as porn today (where one click takes you to anal sex and more), and is not suitable, particularly in the lead of a BLP. Is there a reliable source describing Bomis as a porn site? Johnuniq (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
See above for a reference. And what are your thoughts on the term "erotic" instead? Dr. WTF (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
If by "above" you mean this, that article says "Bomis found its niche in erotica and adult content, making enough revenue from ads and paid subscriptions for premium X-rated content" which is pretty much what Bomis says. What is the actual problem that needs to be solved here? Who says that "adult content" is such a heinous euphemism that it must not be used? Describing YouPorn as "adult content" would be an absurd euphemism, but the term seems precisely appropriate (and sourced) for Bomis. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Other websites are not bound to neutrality (cultural and otherwise). Adult content adds nothing but vagary. Who decides what is and isn't "adult"? Discussion of gambling, alcohol, tobacco, or recreational drugs could constitute adult content, but Bomis did not have any of that. Retirement could even be considered "adult" content. Also see [43]. Dr. WTF (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Bomis did, in fact, have information about gambling, alcohol, tobacco, and recreational drugs. Dr. WTF is pushing an agenda here that is not in line with the sources or the facts. Bomis was a platform for people to come and build "web rings" - links to content of all kinds and guess what, some people liked to collect links to adult content (of all kinds).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Dr WTF, it should be referred to as pornography. I think we have consensus here, seeing as isn't there a rule about people trying to edit or influence their own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.86.115 (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Bomis - RFC

  • - Is Bomis best labeled as "adult", "pornographic", or "erotic"?
  • What do the sources say? Also, if the founder of Bomis denies the alleged status, that at least should be quoted. This article section is more controversial. It is a BLP and thus should be courteous to its subject. Conservative is better thaN liberal. Documented truth is important with disclaimers by Jimmy Wales as BLP. Jimmy has made it clear that he wants to be treated the same as any other person, editor or subject. Without having Bomis to guide our thinking, we are bound to secondary sources about it. What do those sources allege? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There is some disagreement regarding the appropriate labeling of Bomis in the (lead "adult", "pornographic", or "erotic"?) and whether or not a more descriptive term than "adult" should be used. Prior consensus settled on "erotic" [44] (also see footnote in main article). Dr. WTF (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The source says "erotica and adult" - why not just go with that? I think "erotica" is better than "erotic", because the latter may be a matter of opinion. If Jimmy's willing to email me some archived content then I'll make a judgement and get back to you. --FormerIP (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
None of those labels is actually accurate. Bomis was a web directory built by end users and contained all kinds of content. The idea that it should be primarily referred to as "adult" even is just wrong. It was about as adult as Yahoo. (Indeed, I used to send reporters links to Yahoo when they would ask me about what this adult content at Bomis stuff meant.)
FormerIP, I don't have any archived content to email you. But here is a link to yahoo that Dr. WTF might find interesting. Perhaps it is time to go over to the article on one of the Yahoo founders to make wild claims about pornography?
There are some serious errors in some of the sources, which I'll just mention now. One source - a very high quality source - claims that Bomis came to be known as the "Playboy of the Internet" - that is completely false, and I dare anyone to find anyone even saying such a thing prior to the source claiming it. It was a turn of phrase by a reporter which is now sometimes in my article. (I haven't looked just now.) It's editorially misleading to the public to use that phrase since it is a factual claim which is provably false--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC).
OK, so there's an issue which the RfC seems to elide, in that characterising Bomis may not (or may) be straightforward. I get the impression that "about as adult as Yahoo" might be minimising, though. Wouldn't it be fair to say, at least, that Bomis was more specialised and did operate an adult/porn/erotica/whatever spinoff? I'm wearing my non-judgemental face and if that is inaccurate you can just say so.
I was really responding to the more specific question: if we are unsure what precise words to use, duplicating what is in the sources might be the best option. --FormerIP (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not add such to the AOL, Netscape, Open Directory Project and Rich Skrenta articles, based on the Adult section of the Dmoz directory, part of their comprehensive coverage of the web? Or Yahoo Directory and Jerry Yang, based on an Adult section of that directory? It would be good if the Wayback Machine had an old copy of at least the front page of Bomis, which would make everything clear. Unfortunately, that's been blocked. "We were unable to get the robots.txt document to display this page. Our request Timed Out." 99.50.189.108 (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Just from my personal experience, I only ever read anything about Bomis while first starting on WP and looking into what this Jimmy Wales guy was all about. From that brief encounter with Jimy's bio and the Bomis WP page (keeping in mind that this was a while back) I got the distinct impression back then that the site was largely depended on "adult content." I never really questioned that until encountering this discussion, so maybe, if false, that is a problem. Quinn BEAUTIFUL DAY 20:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that "Playboy of the Internet" is not necessarily the damning phrase it is construed to be. Playboy historically prided itself in coverage of material other than "babes" - serialising Fahrenheit 451 and numerous other works by notable authors, and interviewing Martin Luther King, among many other. For anyone interested in the real "Playboy of the Internet" in the late 90s or early 2000s some UK Playboy servers were located in Telehouse, a few racks away from certain mailservers, firewalls, domain name servers, routers, switches and other infrastructure I was responsible for back in those days. Rich Farmbrough, 14:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC).
Comment. Responding thanks to RfC bot. I think "adult entertainment" is the most neutral term to utilize. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Maintain current wording - I read up on this topic a while ago, and my impression was that this analysis from Susan Kuchinskas was largely accurate -
In other words, my impression was that Bomis was largely akin to Playboy, in that it offered a variety of adult orientated material. I don't think it would be right to call something like Playboy strictly "pornographic", though it's certainly partly pornographic. Similarly, I don't think it would be right to call it strictly erotic. The word "adult" seems to nicely encapsulate the idea of part pornography, part erotic, part adult-orientated content.
The word "pornographic" alone also strikes me as a little loaded. Sites like youporn.com, or tubekitty.com are "pornographic" in that pretty much 100% of the content is straight forward pornography. Bomis was clearly significantly different from those sites.
My impression here might be inaccurate, and if anyone wants to convince me of such, please send references......
On another note; I'm a little curious about Mr. Wales' assertion that "I don't have any archived content to email you.". I have a feeling that if Mr. Wales wanted to make content from his old website available for review, he could probably do so. Being able to see the old site would probably settle the question in many peoples' minds quickly. To paraphrase Potter Stewart, it's hard to define pornography, but I'll know it when I see it. NickCT (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Assuming NickCT is right that the Kuchinskas quote is an accurate description, it seems like FormerIP's suggestion would be most appropriate: just writing "erotica and adult" exactly as the source does. Replacing "featuring entertainment and adult content" in the article with "featuring erotica and adult content" would be the most direct incorporation of the Kuchinskas quote, but the discussion above implies that a more amenable solution might be to replace it with "featuring entertainment, erotica, and adult content". --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Prefer 'adult content' - Firstly, I don't see what this fuss is all about, but if I was writing the article I would use the wording "adult content" regardless of what the reliable sources say. There is no rule that says we have to copy & paste wording from reliable sources. Everyone understands what "adult content" is. I had a look at WP:EUPHEMISM and I don't think it is applicable here. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Its audience was mostly men; pornography—videos and blogs—accounted for about a tenth of its revenues. [45]. If only ten % of its revenue was coming from "pornography—videos and blogs", where was the remaining 90% of its revenue coming from? It must have been doing things besides "pornography—videos and blogs"?-MW 14:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Prefer 'adult' I don't think any of these terms being considered is more descriptive/accurate than any other, and so for me it's just a question of which is less loaded. "Erotica" is a bit of a (positive) affectation, and "pornography" is pejorative. Came here from RfC bot, LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Pornographic, if not erotica I think we all know what Jimmy was dabbling in so let's cut to the chase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.86.115 (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Change of birthday

Per reading the guardian article [46] and it's subsequent clarification by [47] Ian Grant, Managing director, Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) per 25 February 2011, I visited the Britannica site only to found that they had change the birthday to 8 August 1966. The note reads: "There is some confusion over the date of Jimmy Wales’s birth. A number of sources—including Current Biography and Who’s Who in America as well as a marriage license filed in Monroe county, Florida—give his birth date as Aug. 7, 1966. In June 2007 Wales notified Britannica that this date was incorrect. However, Wales would provide Britannica with the correct date and appropriate documentation only if it was agreed that his date of birth would not be published, which runs contrary to Britannica’s policies. Given that the majority of sources reported Aug. 7, 1966, and without documentation that disproved this date, Britannica decided to give August 7. In 2011, however, Wales provided a scanned image of his passport showing his birth date to be Aug. 8, 1966. As this is the most authoritative source available to Britannica, his birth date has been changed to August 8." (emphasis mine). Therefore I decided to update Jimmy's bio accordingly. Bennylin (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In other projects such as Wikiquote, his birthday has been corrected as far as 3 years ago [48]. Bennylin (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Sigh... not this again.
Wikiquote is not a reliable source, nor is the IP who made that edit. Numerous sources, now including Britannica, attest to August 8 as the date of birth on Jimmy's birth certificate, and documents derived from it such as his passport and driving license. However, numerous other sources state that he was born on August 7. A recent example is here.
Jimmy continues to play games with this, particularly with Britannica - there's an inner child in everyone, I suppose - but he has generally been careful to distinguish between the date of birth according to his family, and the date of birth according to his birth certificate. When he had to sign a legal document (his marriage certificate) stating his date of birth, he gave it as August 7. See the FAQ and also Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate. Geometry guy 20:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Residence

A source says Florida and another source says the United Kingdom. Will add an [unreliable source?] tag to the source that appears that it may be outdated. Folgertat (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I took it down. My edit summary got cut off, but what's your source? Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
In the personal life section, it says he moved to the UK. In the infobox, it says he lives in the U.S. One of these sources is unreliable Folgertat (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The one you pointed mentioned that he commutes back and forth, so we could say he lives in both places. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the Florida trips are just to visit his family. If I am understanding correctly, it sounds like he is living in the United Kingdom now.

00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folgertat (talkcontribs)

Ok.... Little research -
18 Feb 2011 Gaurdian article - "and now he's moving to Britain" (note, it doesn't say he's actually taken up residence in the UK).
03 Nov 2011 Telgraph Article - "Nowadays he makes technological discoveries with his 10-year-old daughter. She lives in Florida with Wales’s second wife while he is moving to London with Kate Garvey, Tony Blair’s former diary secretary, and their new baby."
01 July 2011 JP Article - "Four months ago, a Guardian interviewer reported on the imminent birth of another child, with his then-fiancée Kate Garvey, a former diary secretary to British prime minister Tony Blair"
4 Mar 2011 Examiner.com Article - "According to his e-mail auto-reply, Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales is on a “semi-holiday”, most likely to play the supporting role for Kate Garvey, the new mother of his second child. Garvey is British and is the former diary secretary of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. Garvey and Wales are not married, as Wales is not yet legally divorced from his second wife, Christine, in Florida. That particularly drawn-out divorce case has been lagging in the Pinellas County court system since October 2009."
Conclusion - It's hard to initially verify with secondary sources Mr. Wales' place of residence. Sources from both February and November of this year say that he "is moving" to England. Sounds to me like he is basically living in between the UK and Florida. I'd be for either 1) deleting "Residence" from the infobox or 2) putting both Florida and England in.
Comment - Can't find sources for the location of Mr. Wales' residence in England, or info on exactly when he got married/had his second child. Mr. Wales appears to have a degree of anonymity in this regard. I wonder if he likes it that way........ I would have thought that Jimbo, who is my own personal rock star, would have some kind of People magazine style expose, covering the details of his marriage and personal life. I guess not. Perhaps Wikipedia isn't as sexy and tantalizing as Hollywood is. (sigh) NickCT (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
So it seems that the only reliable information is that, on 3 November 2011, it was reported that "he is moving to London", i.e. either "is in the process of moving" or "intends to move in the near future", and without any particular location in London being given. Since moving home can be a rather fluid process, and since "residence" implies some kind of permanence, there is simply not enough reliable evidence to support any change to the info box. I guess if he chose to tell us himself on this very page, that still wouldn't count as a reliable secondary source. Perhaps just WP:OR? Having not yet divorced may also be relevant, since joint ownership of a Florida property seems to also confer some rights to residence, until a court of law decides otherwise. So we will simply all just have to wait for the next media interview or official press release? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
re - "I guess if he chose to tell us himself on this very page, that still wouldn't count as a reliable secondary source" - Alas you guess right.
re - "So we will simply all just have to wait for the next media interview or official press release" - Do nothing, is perhaps the right solution here. NickCT (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Ph.D" you either have one....or you don't

It seems rather strange to me that Mr Wales has on his page something he doesn't have. And that is a Ph.D. If he doesn't have a Ph.D, why mention it? I'm sure there are plenty of people that don't have degrees, or don't have a Masters or don't have any qualifications altogether....so are wikipedia editors going to mention all of them as well? .....very strange..I am so tempted to remove it, but I don't want to cause an edit-war. ...and by-the-way I don't have a Ph.D either....but I do have common sense.... Veryscarymary (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess the only reason to mention he doesn't have a Ph.D would be if it was notable, like for example the first person to walk on the moon who doesn't have a Ph.D and so on. If anyone without a Ph.D can create a site of such magnitude than there is no reason to say he doesn't have one. 206.172.0.204 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
No more opinions without an actionable proposal please. There have been a lot of offtopic rants here, and any discussion must be restricted to serious consideration of improvements to the article. The second paragraph of the introduction mentions the Ph.D. because the lead of an article is a summary of the main points, and the Ph.D. program/teaching was a significant step in his early life, as explained at Jimmy Wales#Early life and education. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

File:L Sanger.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:L Sanger.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding style of quotes

I recently took the trouble to convert all the straight quotation marks to curly ones. I expected to be reverted, and indeed it was, but now the article has a combination of curly and straight quotes (inconsistent).

I just want to remember that MoS is just a guideline and not policy. This encyclopedia is not just online, its articles also end up printed in books.

I know that " is easier for type, but you are not encouraged to use and . If someone took the time to change those little signs, do not undo that just for following the manual of style. In that case, don’t you think that this article also should follow strictly MoS? Fitoschido [shout] \\ 19 July, 2011 [02:10]

In my humble opinion curly quotes are best in this very important WP page .!. . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

User account

Hi all,

I think there should be a link to User:Jimbo Wales in the See also section of this article.

Thanks,

The Doctahedron, 16:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: "The Doctahedron" is not my user name. It is simply an alias by which I conceal my IP address.

Respect

Apologies for the un proffesional headline, and for the possibility that this is in the wrong thread. However I spent half an hour trying to figure out where to post this. I would like to commend Mr. Wales and the entire Wikipedia team for their action on the SOPA bill currently happening. It is a true stand for democracy and I only wish I had something to offer this cause. It will be inconvient to lose Wikipedia, but the greater cause is worth the inconvience. Whenever I actually have available funds to donate, Wikipedia is the first on my list. Again, respect for this stand against the censorship and eventual goverment take over on the worlds last chance for a transperant democracy. Cheers, Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.90.251.108 (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the appropriate page for these comments. This talk page is specifically for the purpose of discussing improvements to the Jimmy Wales article. Not a big deal, though.--Rollins83 (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia protest blackout, Wednesday, Jan.18.2012

This is big!! .!. It is important to this article about the Founder and leader of WP. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/wikipedia-blackout-coming-jan-18-says-co-founder-jimmy-wales/2012/01/16/gIQAh2Ke3P_blog.html Headline: “Wikipedia blackout coming Wednesday, says co-founder Jimmy Wales . . . If Wikipedia blacks out as promised, Wales expects an estimated 25 million daily visitors to be affected. [English-speaking]. His advice for students who might rely on the site: “Do your homework early.”

And Wikipedia editors and contributors can do their work ‘offline’ for a day.
Another ref.:[49] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Divorce and second child

Would it be possible to update Wales' biography with confirmation of his divorce from Christine (http://pubtitlet.co.pinellas.fl.us/servlet/pcg.wsclient.servlet.CivilDocketServlet?CS__CASE=09011014FD&CS__RESULTS__KNT=10) and birth of his second child (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24028957-mr-wikipedia-on-todays-blackout-moving-to-london-and-marrying-a-blair-babe.do)? - Pinellas FL records (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done NickCT (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Note - I didn't add a reference for the second divorce. I think the primary source offered above is sufficient evidence that it is actually complete. NickCT (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

== Once and for all, founder or co-founder? ==

Either the WMF was "economical with the actualité" in its press release here or the stated co-founder's (revisionist?) claim here, restored by a recent edit, is ditto. Which is it? Writegeist (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Before this is allowed to become a GA, the "Controversy" section needs expanding

Not mentioned at all is Jimbo's well publicized role in the Commons child pornography debacle, which ended with Jimbo shamed into giving up many of the powers that were built into the Founder flag. He's been involved in other screw ups too, but at the very least the child porn unilateral deletion thing needs to be covered. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this article at all, only here because it is nominated at GAN, but the above comment falls well and truly onto the wrong side of helpful to any potential reviewer. If it is well publicised then some links to the publicity is needed and the vitriol needs to be toned down a notch or three. AIRcorn (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
What's a 'GA' and what is 'GAN' ? . . . Do I have to search WP or do a Google-search to find out? Is it important? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! (Def. of Good Article abbr.) It looks like a Good Article to me and 'controversy' doesn't appeal to some of us. Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jimmy Wales/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 15:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Since I often take on reviews to learn about a subject, this is a good one because it is a subject I should know more about. I'll start this review in the next few days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you kindly help me in the issue? It's too much for me to do alone. Dipankan Meet me here! 09:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:LEAD
Yes, Jimbo goes by Jimmy in real life, stated in his user page. Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Is Jimmy the name on his birth certificate, passport, etc. Is his real name James or another variant?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I think so, he must not be telling lies about his real name! Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 04:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Let me be more clear. This article will not pass WP:WIAGA until we verify his birth name.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Ask Jimbo himself, probably that will help. Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
We need an WP:RS. Also, do you think that is the role of the reviewer?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I did not see any one sentence paragraphs, what are you trying to tell? Dipankan Meet me here! 09:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
1st and 4th paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 04:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the infobox is a bit sloppy and confusing. I would prefer that each title have its own officeholder type section. It is not clear what title the successor is relevant for. I am not sure how much would be lost converting the infobox to that format. If there is significant content loss, we should discuss another way to clarify the currently confusion content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • On second look, the infobox is not so confusing as to require an overhaul. I have just never had to work so hard to determine what the successor is relevant to in a WP infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I would link futures and options here rather than later.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Early life and education
  • I am disappointed at the tone of this section and hope it does not continue throughout. It is as if the editors are hesitant to synthesize the RS and convert them into an encyclopedic entry. The article seems to attempt to retain a folksy tone, which is unencyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I would have included the sourced content that Wales disputes his claimed birthdate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think I would link "Britannicas and World Book Encyclopedias".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "a small private school in the tradition of the one-room schoolhouse" does not sound encyclopedic.
  • "As an adult, Wales was sharply critical of the government’s treatment of the school, citing the “constant interference and bureaucracy and very sort of snobby inspectors from the state” as a formative influence on his political philosophy." comes from nowhere almost assuming the reader is acquainted with examples of interference and bureaucracy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "school was expensive" should be preceded by a clear statement that he went to a private high school that charged a tuition.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "something he ascribed to boredom" is an unencyclopedic choice of words. I would say "He ascribed his failure to complete his dissertation to boredom"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Chicago Options Associates and Bomis
  • "and used to write computer code as a pastime" does not properly match the tense of the prior verb and causes the dependent clause to be ungrammatical.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, solved. Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
In my mind the ways to make this parallel are to change to either "and having written computer codes during his leisure time" or "and having been a computer code writer during his leisure time" or "and has written computer codes during his leisure time"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Nupedia and the origins of Wikipedia
  • "had struggled" had not necessary. It is generally more encyclopedic to write all past events in the simple past tense. Past perfect sort of has a grammatical purpose here to show that his struggles came before another past event, but since this is a chronological biographical article all past events come before other past events except the last one. Just use past tense throughout.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Similarly had encountered -> encountered and had engaged -> engaged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "In an October 2009 speech, Wales recollects attempting to write a Nupedia article on Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert C. Merton, but being too intimidated to submit his first draft to the prestigious finance professors who were to peer review it, even though he had published a paper on Option Pricing Theory and was comfortable with the subject matter." is grammatically awkward. Break it down.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia
Controversy
  • Please state the earliest date of the Wales claim of sole founder. I.E., something like "Since MM-YYYY, Wales has consistently claimed to be the sole founder"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Role
  • "his participation in the Wikipedia project saw him flying internationally on a near-constant basis as its public face" I think saw should be has seen. There should be some sort of date attached to this. Was he flying non-stop in 2003?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • I am not sure I agree with the sectioning. The section titled controversy is about his role in the founding and the section role is about his role in the ongoing entity. Reconsider the sectioning here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I find the role section to be incomplete. The reader might want to know if Wales continues to edit, if he serves on any committees.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation
Yes check.svg Done, Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I once saw Wales state on Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert (probably Stewart) that Wikipedia operates under the laws of the state of Florida because it is incorporated there. Is that relevant to the first sentence of this section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I see no editorial response in your edits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikia and later pursuits
  • "he recommended custodial sentences for members of the press who engaged in phone hacking and harassment." needs a citation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I have removed the entire sentence, it is unsourced. Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Political and economic views
  • What is an objectivist? With the link piped the way it is on the second use, I am confused on where to find it. Lind the first use of the term.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd try to help the reader understand center-right. Maybe link to Left–right politics.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Why is the term trader only used here and in the infobox. If he was one, that section of his career should use the term and the LEAD might also include it and link it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Personal life
Comment It is because that he had married two women, the first one having 2 and second one having one. Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I see no change in your edits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment I don't know, I can't find it now. Probably you may search through the archives in Google? Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Honors, awards and positions
I did not understand what you're trying to tell. Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Image review
Comment I have been solving this, few images have already been tagged with the template. Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Other
Yes check.svg Done, Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Tone is an issue early in the article as noted above.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Sources are not a large issue here.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I am not sure his current role is fully explained.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Although the tone is off, I don't think it relates to neutrality
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Tags and captions need work.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I will put this on hold for 7 days and then review. The changes that are necessary are substantial, but reasonable. I hope the nominator is responsive.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
This nomination needs some more attention. Please resume before the weekend ends or I will fail this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • To say, this is just too much for me to do alone. I have made many changes to the article, put personality rights on images, etc. Please, help me to fix the article.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipankan001 (talkcontribs) 05:11, 25 March 2012‎

Where's his ethnicity?

On Mark Zuckerburg's page, we have his ethnicity there, but how come we don't have one for Jimmy Wales? We shouldn't leave him out, why is this only on certain people's discription page and not for everyone?140.198.45.62 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved from TOP of page

The following was moved from the TOP of this page to be in the correct date-sequence with other discussions. – PIE ( CLIMAX! )  08:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy,

I am a student at the University of Hull and we are doing a project to create a page in a group and track engagement on the internet. We have just been introduced to the sandbox feature of wikipedia and come across a small problem. If i am logged in on my account and i click to look at someone else's Sandbox, it takes me back to my sandbox, its only a small problem but wondering if im doing anything wrong, sorry if you dont handle these problems but i thought who better to go to? Thanks for your time. -- JackMayhew (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jimmy Wales. You have new messages at JackMayhew's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I found this happened to me earlier. I would visit a user profile, and click on 'My Sandbox' on their page. But it would direct me to my own Sandbox instead of the users Sandbox. An annoying issue that wikipedia could fix. Jack Greenaway (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Protected redirects need edits

The following two related and protected redirects need edits:

#REDIRECT [[Jimmy Wales]]
[[Category:Protected redirects]]
[[Category:Redirects with old history]]

to this...

#REDIRECT [[Jimmy Wales]] {{R with old history|printworthy}}
(PLEASE LEAVE THIS SECOND LINE BLANK)
{{This is a redirect|move|protected}}

In addition to keeping this redirect in its present Protected redirects and Redirects with old history categories, that edit will also add this redirect to Category:Redirects from moves and to Category:Printworthy redirects.

  • Secondly, this redirect needs to be added to appropriate categories as follows:
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Jimmy Wales]]
(PLEASE LEAVE THIS SECOND LINE BLANK)
{{This is a redirect|move|protected|to talk}}

Thank you in advance for your help with these edits! – PIE ( CLIMAX! )  07:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Tra (Talk) 08:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Tra! – PIE ( CLIMAX! )  11:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

all of this information is verified and factual?

we are quite certain that all this information about jimmy "jimbo" wales is accurate and factual? Rasko99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

FFD nomination on File:Jimbo wales sig.gif

File:Jimbo wales sig.gif has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_March_24#File:Jimbo_wales_sig.gif

70.24.244.198 (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Axolotl

¿Why an image of two axolotls appears in the box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.119.163 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It was an April Fool's joke. Soap 03:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

How tall is Jimmy Wales?

If not asking him ;-), http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_tall_is_Jimmy_Wales by this he is 1.78 m. Please change the infobox, using tall parameter.

I don't consider Wiki.answers a Reliable source, please provide another. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 10:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Pam the first wife

Everyone else in this article gets a first name and a last name except for poor Pam the first wife . Is this disrespectful to her or to women in general or to first wives or am i being a bit precious ? Does anyone know her last name ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Pam is generally referred to by her first name for reasons unknown, see: this W article for an example. EeBee (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 July 2012

Two edits about related links at the bottom: One, could User:Jimbo Wales be un-italicised un the "See also" section, since it is not a work title or similar, and two, could this line under "External links" be removed as it is a duplicate and not external:

I'm not sure if it's okay to have one request for two things, but they're small enough making two requests seemed pointless. Thank-you to whoever does it. 87.113.35.48 (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the duplicated internal from the external link section and after looking at the Jimbo in the intro - decided to remove it altogether from there - it is in the Infobox and is only a nickname - so it seemed wrong there altogether .. regards - Youreallycan 10:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No ethnic categories

This article does not have any ethnic categories. Every Wikipedia biography must have ethnic categories, e.g. "American people of Welsh descent", etc. Please put them in. 24.146.209.180 (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you need to find reliable information as to what descent he might be of. "Wales" is actually not a common surname in Wales. Formerip (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Need help deleting an article

Jimbo,

If you could please help me delete an original article I authored (intelligent vehicle technologies)it would support wp policy and keep editors from irrevocably restoring the page.

Thanks,

Lperez2029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.5.245 (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you meant to post at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Formerip (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"See also" section

I removed the "see also" section since the current contents are a link to the Wikipedia page on "The Wikipedia Revolution", a book on the project and Jimmy Wales's user page. Both are not directly relevant for the biography article and should be removed. Jimmy Wales's user page on Wikipedia is self-referential, we do not link our users' biography pages to their own userpages on the project. Furthermore, there are numerous books written about Wikipedia and we cannot link to all of them here or any random topic which relates to Wikipedia. User:Acoma Magic does not seem to agree and they have reverted my changes, so I have initiated this thread here. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff, but commonsense reveals that while we are all equal, some articles should be treated differently than may be appropriate for others: it is a disservice to readers to not let them easily find the user page. Further, Jimmy is known for his role in Wikipedia, so removing a link to his user page is unhelpful. I don't feel strongly about The Wikipedia Revolution, but also cannot see a reason to remove it. When others try to add links to the many other books referred to above, the matter can be revisited. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I only reverted the removal of the link to his user page that's at the top of the article. Regarding the book, if readers are interested in Jimmy Wales, they may want to see what that book is about. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the book probably shouldn't be there. A link to his user page is required though. Preferably at the top. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted your recent edit to the page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we avoid keeping non-mainspace links on our articles. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and hence a lot of "useful" material does not qualify for inclusion if it does not meet encyclopedic standards. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
A non-Wikipedian user may wish to get in contact with Jimmy Wales and a link to his user profile is helpful to those people. I've seen that happen several times and I don't even go there much. I don't know if they used the link here, but they may have done. Regarding "useful" material, if it improves Wikipedia, it should be here. Non-Wikipedians bringing problems or whatever to Jimmy Wales/other Wikipedians is useful. Acoma Magic (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, Jimmy is known for his role in Wikipedia, so readers with a tiny bit of Wikipedia knowledge will want to know how to find his user page. There are literally millions of people aware that Wikipedia is a place where various people contribute, and that Jimmy is the most visible person associated with the project—a reasonable proportion of those people will want to click the link to see what happens at his user page. WP:BURO is part of policy in order to encourage sensible outcomes, rather than a blind following of rules such as "we avoid keeping non-mainspace links on our articles". Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

How much does Jimmy make from all Wiki pursuits?

Given the current and frequent pleas for money, I'm interested in knowing how much Wales personally takes from the revenue generated by donations. Why is this information hidden? It's a fair question, no? The answer should be published within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.56.184 (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In what way are you entitled to know? Why don't you feel that this is a personal question?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Because the foundation is asking for donations again, and as a donor, do I not have the right to ask where the money goes? I'm not interested in Wales' income or net worth outside of Wiki. I just want to know where the revenue from donations goes, and I think it should be included in the article how much Wales personally takes from donations. That's all. As a donor, I'm absolutely entitled to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.56.184 (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
This may not count as a reliable source for the article but I think it lays out the gist of what you are looking for.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo has said on many occasions that he earns no salary from the Wikimedia Foundation and none of the donations go to him (see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_68, for example). Since the WikiMedia Foundation is a non-profit organization, financial records are public. You can find some information here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en (specifically the section titled "If I donate to Wikimedia, where does my money go? " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.210 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Does anyone know how much of the donation revenue (indirectly, I guess) goes to Wales as head of Wikia? Presumably Wikipedia pays some kind of royalty for the use of the technology developed by Wales? Who decides how much this is? No ill-intent meant, I'm just after some info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.56.184 (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
To answer the question, although I suspect that since someone is sincerely asking, we might regard it as an editorial failure of the article that we don't explain it there as well. There's good information up above. I take neither salary nor expenses from the Wikimedia Foundation, and that includes my travel to and from board meetings, accommodation for board meetings, travel to and from Wikimania, accommodation there, etc. No donation revenue goes directly or indirectly to Wikia. Wikipedia pays no royalties for technology developed by me (and there's none of that anyway, to be sure!) "Who decides how much this is?" Well, referring to royalties, the question doesn't make sense, since there's no such thing. In terms of my expenses, it is my choice to forego the standard expenses given to board members.
Trying to be sure to cover all the bases here. I sometimes accept meals during board meetings, including board dinners. I will often get a free softdrink and snacks during board meetings. I have sometimes accepted a flight from the UK to Germany, paid for by the German chapter, in order to let them film me for a fundraising/prmotional video - but I have also come to Germany to give a speech in exchange for a donation of tens of thousands of dollars to them, so they've made good money on me.  :-)
I am a board member at Wikia, but there too I do not take a salary nor expenses.
I make my living on a day-to-day basis by giving inspirational speeches to big companies and tech conferences. I charge a lot of money for this, and my customers are very happy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Related Q: Does Wales have a WP:COI charging a lot of money from big companies which also have articles with their name /products all over the Wikimedia Project?
A: Not unless he edits his corporate benefactors' articles. Writegeist (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Wedding

Any news on the wedding? Summer's over. Sole Flounder (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed it from the lede, but it is still under personal section.--Mollskman (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
You may be right, but how often do we see Mr Wales (or even a wedding) on the front page of The Times? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I did my part, against no policy, guideline, or MOS. Too bad for readers visiting the article, seeing a bloated, fatuous lead paragraph with no mention of the wedding. --Lexein (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

New York Post

This is a good example of why we should not use tabloids as sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And The New York Times has become even worse. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
News is often better from England. Congratulations! — An awesome picture [50]Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Please tell me they got the bit about Alistair Campbell right, though. Formerip (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 November 2012

CURRENT TEXT: In a 2010 interview with The Independent, he expressed sympathy with the Occupy Wall Street and Occupy London protesters, saying, "You don't have to be a socialist to say it's not right to take money from everybody and give it to a few rich people. That's not free enterprise."[79]

EDIT: In a 2011 interview

99.71.133.35 (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Query

In the birth date at the top should the citation not be outside the parenthesis? It is currently inside. --86.40.198.87 (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says that "where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis". Assuming the ref is supporting only the birthdate and not the full name as well, the current order falls within the guideline. Rivertorch (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Colbert

I wish there was some way to get this into the article, but I don't see how. From the Colbert Report last week: "My guest tonight, Jimmy Wales. He is the driving force behind Wikipedia. Big deal! So is everybody else!" --MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A snippet for The Signpost? Rivertorch (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Views on bias of Wikipedia?

One of the things that most interests me is whether this self-avowed objectivist thinks about creating what some have called a liberal propaganda machine. Has he ever read any of the stunningly biased articles about human biology or sexuality, where the National Review is considered an unreliable source? A sentence or two on this would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMBTC (talkcontribs) 01:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Wha? – PAINE ELLSWORTH C L I M A X ! 22:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The unsigned reader has a point [({?})] but a more appropriate WP article exists on bias. Just saying, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2013

The current text includes: " pouring [sic] over " when quoting a transcript of an oral interview. It is usual in such cases to simply correct the typo to " poring over " without highlighting the transcriber's error with "[sic]". The reason being that the current text gives the impression that the *subject* of the quote is illiterate, and the [sic] adds no useful information. 121.45.220.96 (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Seemed like a reasonable request to me. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Kde crystalsvg eraser.png Undone. There is no reason to think the subject "illiterate" just because a transcriber makes a typo. And while the request might seem "reasonable", we must remember that it is just wrong to change things that lie between quotation marks. – PAINE ELLSWORTH C L I M A X ! 21:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
MOS:QUOTE seems to disagree with it being just wrong to change things that lie between quotation marks.
"trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct supercede to supersede and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important." - This isn't textually important. It seems like a pretty trivial spelling error. Add that it also makes it look like the error was on the part of the subject instead of the transcriber, and I see no reason not to just simply correct a spelling error.
I've reset the template to not answered. --OnoremDil 22:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Seems like a controversial change. Vacation9 01:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Controversial? Seriously? How so?
OK. Consensus. How about we reword it to paraphrase instead of using a direct quote that we know has been transcribed incorrectly? --OnoremDil 01:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's terriby important, but another option would be using the direct quote but placing "poring" in brackets. Rivertorch (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The brackets option is used to make the quotation meaningful when it's taken out of context, as in replacing "her" with [his matronly grandmother]. The "textually important" point is a good one. So what we have to ask ourselves is, "What was the editor of this article section thinking when they decided it was textually important enough to use the "[sic]" instead of just correcting the typo?" – PAINE ELLSWORTH C L I M A X ! 12:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I went back and read the MOS, as well, and I saw that "textually important" limiter. Putting that aside for the moment, what I wonder is how the original requester could possibly glean from the typo made by an oral-interview transciber that the subject (in this case Jimmy Wales) is "illiterate"? Also, how is it that you glean that the "error was on the part of the subject instead of the transcriber"? I honestly don't know how you two got from point A to point B on this. Please explain. – PAINE ELLSWORTH C L I M A X ! 15:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The statement in the article doesn't make it clear that it's a typo made by a transcriber. The text simply presents itself as a quote from Jimmy. --OnoremDil 04:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I get it now. It does not make it clear whether Jimbo said it or wrote it. The quote has been there since April 2009, and we are just now getting around to thinking that it makes Jimbo look like an ass? All one has to do is check out the inline citation to figure out that Jimbo was not the error maker. Everyone seems to think it's not a big deal. If that is so, then the quote should remain as it has been for nearly four years. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
So it took a while for people to notice. Who cares? What good does it do to leave it here. What possible argument do you have against correcting a simple spelling error. We shouldn't expect our readers to see it, go look at the source, find the spot in the source that says it's uncorrected...blah, blah, blah. What reason do you have for leaving it? Your change helps, but I don't understand why you are against just fixing the damn word. --OnoremDil 19:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Resolved – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 19:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. --OnoremDil 19:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The source describes the situation accurately: "Uncorrected transcript provided by Morningside Partners." It is grossly misleading to put a quote attributed to Wales from an uncorrected audio statement as "pouring [sic]". Wales did not say "pouring"—he said "poring". The issue of a typo is of no consequence (is someone claiming that "pouring" has been the subject of significant comment, and so needs to remain?). Whatever MOS says about the matter, it is unacceptable to provide a quote as if it were written by the subject, and it is doubly unacceptable to draw attention to it with "sic" (as if Wales made the typo—why else include it? Who cares if a website which announces the transcript as uncorrected made a typo?). Moreover, MOS (at WP:MOSQUOTE) actually says that an inconsequential typo should be corrected without comment, as explained above. Is there any reason, based on common sense or guideline, to maintain "pouring"? Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagreed, as explained above. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree, as explained above; but thanks for attention to details. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Pam- first wife -has she no surname ?

I raised this once before- every other person in this and most articles is afforded the respect of a surname. Why has this woman been denied this basic respect ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 21:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Another question could be asked: why should the privacy of an individual who (presumably) has had no contact with the subject for twenty years be invaded with a gratuitous mention? Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

why no 'see also'

I noticed that the links to Jimbo's user page and to WP:JIMBO are both listed in external links, rather than a 'see also' section. why? Aunva6 (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am too gutless to change it but you are welcome to. If it gets reverted then discuss the reasoning?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the reason is, cross-namespace links are normally frowned upon in body text. So the uneasy exception-to-the-rule is, you put them in the external links section, like is done here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Pricasso image

There's this fine image of a painting of subject Wales by renowned Australian painter Pricasso. Where would be the appropriate section to list this well-licensed Commons image? Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, I reverted the inclusion of that painting because your edit summary, "More recent photo; identifies subject well; done by a notable figure," is misleading. In your reply, you stated that it is indeed a photograph of a painting, which simply confirms the deceptive intent of the edit summary. I don't care one whit about whether the painting belongs here, but it is not superior to a photograph of the subject, and your stated reasons for including it are transparently false.--~TPW 13:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know that photographs outranked paintings; I thought that they were of the same superiority. I'm not so mean as to be all out to fool you. Shall not commit this mistake a second time. :) Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it belongs in the article at all. --Onorem (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There is reason to believe that the creation of this image was instigated and publicized for the express purpose of harassing the subject of this BLP. As such, the image should not be included. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional sources

I am not sure if these will be useful, but I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Rcat inappropriate

This redirect was incorrectly tagged with the {{R to talk}} Rcat, which is used to categorize redirects from outside the talk namespace to a page in talk namespace. Please correct this error and, additionally, tag it with the {{R from alternative name}} template in the following manner:

modify this...
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Jimmy Wales]]

{{This is a redirect|move|protected|to talk}}
to this...
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Jimmy Wales]]

{{This is a redirect|move|from alternative name|protected}}

Also, please add the {{R from alternative name}} template to the article redirect in the following manner:

modify this...
#REDIRECT [[Jimmy Wales]] {{R with old history|printworthy}}

{{This is a redirect|move|protected}}
to this...
#REDIRECT [[Jimmy Wales]] {{R with old history|printworthy}}

{{This is a redirect|move|from alternative name|protected}}

Thank you in advance for your consideration! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Going by the link immediately after the {{edit protected}} - the one that's been artificially coloured red for some reason - the page to be edited is Talk:Jimbo Wales, which is fully protected. Paine Ellsworth didn't use the first positional parameter of {{edit protected}} to specify that page, which is why all the links in that box were to Jimmy Wales, and also why it showed up under the wrong name at User:AnomieBOT/PERTable. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so it is mybad! I've never used that first parameter, and I should have many times in the past. I shall use it from now on when appropriate. Also, please remember the change I suggested to this redirect, as well. Forgive me for any confusion I caused. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, so if there's two pages to be edited, we need two {{edit protected}}, which will provide a second set of links, and should also give two rows in User:AnomieBOT/PERTable. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Redrose64 – Mr. Stradivarius has helped me and performed the edits I requested. Thank you very much, Mr. Stradivarius, for your help with these edits. Again, very sorry for the confusion I caused. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 11:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Table of contents

Why is there no visible table of contents on this Talk page? - 2001:558:1400:10:E1C7:8438:5E48:3232 (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why one wasn't generated automatically but I added the markup tag to force one to appear. --NeilN talk to me 20:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales denies being on board of Socialtext

Somebody should fix the biography to reflect Mr. Wales' statement here. - 2001:558:1400:10:DD57:6356:A8FF:8049 (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg nope Jimbo's talk page is a primary source, if it can even be considered a Reliable Source. WP:BLP requires that controversial information be supported by secondary/tertiary sources. see WP:NOTSOURCE, WP:SELF, WP:SPS and WP:OR. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed Socialtext from the infobox on the basis that he isn't listed as a boardmember on the Socialtext website – I didn't realise it was mentioned in the article as well. I think Jimmy's statement, combined with his absence from the Socialtext site, is good enough reason to change the description to "former boardmember". DoctorKubla (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I've boldly made this change, since there's been no response here. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I was reverted with an edit summary of "WP:NOTSOURCE", which is a completely irrelevant essay. I have to say, I don't entirely understand Aunva6's objection to this change. If you doubt the credibility of Jimmy's statement, fair enough (although I don't know why he'd be lying), but it's clear that the claim currently made in the article, that Jimmy sits on the Socialtext Board of Directors, is directly contradicted by the company's own list of boardmembers. This has to be fixed somehow, so we can either change it to read "former boardmember", or simply remove all mention of Socialtext from the article. Which would you rather do? DoctorKubla (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
former sounds acceptable. the only problem is that wikipedia, especially talk pages are not allowable sources, albeit with a few exceptions. to be honest, I completely forgot about undoing this earlier (it's been an eventful august for me)... unless that was what I reverted, in which case, let me know, and I will check myself into a sanatorium... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 07:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't go unsourced, so I've restored the reference. Happy ending, I guess, but for the record I'd like to say that I think we should probably take any Wikipedian in good standing who edits under their real name at their word on basic stuff like what boards they do and don't currently sit on. Suppose Jimmy had still been listed as a board member on the Socialtext web site . . . what would he have to do, jump through OTRS hoops to get the article fixed? Complain to a fellow staff member and have it changed as an office action? It boggles the mind. Rivertorch (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's talkpage can probably be considered a primary sources for what Jimbo says, sort of like a personal blog. The problem with self sourced information about the subject himself is that it is highly partisan and haven't been verified by a third party. Problems arise if someone assert they are something they are actually not or vice versa. Not saying there is a problem here but in general it is a bad idea. Space simian (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I take your point, but context has to be considered and each instance judged separately. The information on many websites has gone stale and is no longer correct, while it may be presumed that a statement made in the present by a living person is up to date. If the claim isn't extraordinary or isn't refuted by compelling, verifiably current information elsewhere, I'd be inclined to take the person at his or her word. I also think the threshold for accepting someone's word about not having a particular professional affiliation should usually be lower than claims that they do, since the former is often more difficult to verify using secondary sources. Rivertorch (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Let me see if I can sum this up. Why don't we approach this like a pop quiz?
1. When an unnamed government official says famous person $foo is a card-carrying member of the communist party, and the year is 1952, and a newspaper reports it, what is the correct action?
2. When historical documents show that rocket scientist $baz was a card-carrying member of the nazi party, and the year is 1952, and no newspapers report it, what is the correct action?
3. When prominent hollywood celebrity $qux is claimed to be a follower of the church of scientology by a supermarket tabloid, and the celebrity denies it on their blog, what is the correct action?
4. When a not-very-well-known dotcom puts out a press release claiming that founder X of top-ten internet site Y has agreed to be on their board, and X denies this is true, what is the correct action?
For extra credit, does your answer to #4 change if the alleged press release is now a dead link?[51][52] For double bonus points, if you are a volunteer on project Y, does your answer to #4 remain the same?
Hint: [53] The correct sentence structure for this is: "Several years prior to 2013, Wales was on the board of SocialText, a wiki-technology startup founded in 2005; since then Wales has left the board, and the brand (and the startup) were acquired." Full disclosure, I have never met Jimbo, anybody who has ever even mentioned the *name* of SocialText to me, let alone anybody involved with the former or current corporations. And yes, I always edit as an anon. HTH. Oh... the answers: Joe McCarthy bad, Werner von Braun mixed, Scientology bad, Jimmy Wales good. In borderline cases, it pays to carefully assess the ethics and motivations of *all* parties involved, not just the ones that give you some editorial outcome you may prefer. Here, the situation seems glaringly obvious: Wales said he used to be on the board, and SocialText put out an old press-release to that effect. Wales says he has not been on the board for many years, and SocialText no longer lists him. tl;dr? suffice it to say that Rivertorch is correct. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please change this:

He is a former co-chair of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East 2008,[2] and a former board member of Socialtext.[3]

Into this:

He is a former co-chair of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East 2008.[2] Several years prior to 2013, Wales was on the board of SocialText[3][dead link], a wiki-technology startup founded in 2005; since then Wales has left the board, and the brand (plus the startup[54][55]) were acquired in 2012.[4]

Thanks. Or, if somebody disagrees, build a consensus-edited-version (I hereby pre-emptively agree to it), and use that. p.s. Semi-protected since January 2007? Don't we have enough regular wikipedians now, not to mention watchlists and bots and such, to make this somewhat-canonical page typical, rather than a special exception to the philosophy of the site? Just on first principles, this page of all pages ought to be something anybody can edit. If nobody else wants to propose de-protection, please ping me on my talkpage, and I will submit the proposal myself. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No comment on the proposed changes, except to say that the sourcing doesn't look reliable. I did want to say that I don't think this is a "canonical page" at all; it's an article about a notable person who happens to be a co-founder of Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree about the sources... but if the sources are the trouble, then the best result is to remove any mention of SocialText. The current article's sentence-fragment is 'sourced' from a self-published press release; I cite the same. That self-published source is backed by another self-published source, Jimbo's comment. WP:SPS says that such things *are* allowed, if the source is self-referentially discussing itself (press release is about the company's own board, check, Jimbo's statement is about his membership thereof, check). Jimbo's claim the SocialText was acquired is *not* about himself, so I did a bit of googling to find out if that was true, and it was -- they got acquired in 2012, per ventaraResearch and AlanLepofsky. I'm assuming you are not complaining about those being reliable? Anyways, maybe I missed something, and better sources can be found, but in this particular case the sources used that are self-published ones are valid exceptions to the usual rule, methinks. If you disagree, then please re-examine the self-published source *currently* used in the article concerning SocialText, and take out the whole shebang. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
No comment on the proposed changes either but I would like to make a short comment on the "pop quiz". The problem with the quiz questions is that they assume we somehow know the Truth and that media is not reporting the Truth, you then ask whether we should print the Truth or what the tabloids (also known as reliable sources) report, despite the fact that that is not the Truth. Obviously, in that case, we should always print the Truth. The problem is that we have no way of knowing what the truth really is, which is why we defer to reliable sources and let them do the fact checking and difficult decisions for us. That way Wikipedia remains somewhat neutral and the readers can rely on the information to the same extent as they can rely on big media (in theory, in practice no-one should rely on anything written here of course, as anyone who's seen the insides of this sausage factory can attest to, but we can try to keep things as honest as possible).

With regard to #4: a press release is also self-sourced information, ideally we would have some third party journalist assert the status of membership in print, then we could rely on that journalist and news outlet for fact checking. If no reliable sources mention the fact we normally do not bother mentioning it either since it is probably not notable enough. That said, I do recognize that in completely uncontroversial cases we sometimes can accept less ideal sources, but I think we should show extra care with Jibos bio... --Space simian (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You are selling wikipedia short -- it is *way* more reliable than the Big Media, especially in terms of politically sensitive issues. I'm talking about the USA, btw, not just places like China where the big media is actively the enemy of truth. Furthermore, you are selling humanity short. Where did you get the idea that we have no way of knowing what the truth really is? (That's not a rhetorical question... maybe, if you think back to where you got that idea, you'll realize it was not from a Reliable Source.) The truth is, we know Newton was correct, except in scenarios approaching the speed of light... and we *know* he was wrong in some of those cases, as Einstein proved. Does that mean we know The Truth about gravity, and that there will never be a correction to Einstein's theories? Of course not; that's why we still call them theories. Does that mean we know the truth about SocialText? No... it is possible that we are all just simulated beings used for battery-power by sentient AIs. But failing that, and failing any motivation for *both* Jimbo Wales and *also* the founders of SocialText and *also* the current owners of SocialText to form a conspiracy to deceive the general public, we can pretty firmly say we know the truth there. Ditto for McCarthy -- now dead btw and thus not able to edit wikipedia. Ditto for Scientology -- now banned from wikipedia btw. As for von Braun, arguably there *was* a conspiracy to deceive the general public. The truth is, so far as I can grok, he joined the Nazi Party, because he wanted to build real rockets, and only military funding would let him achieve his dream; he and several hundred of his fellow rocket scientists engineered their capture by the Allies. He did not care who paid, as long as he got to space. However, that is one case where The Truth is probably unknowable; was Von Braun, or was he not, a Nazi in the usual horrible sense of that term? He is a mixed bag, and barring time travel, will so remain. But that type of difficulty is going to be rarer and rarer, if wikipedia has anything to say about it.  :-) p.s. I believe I addressed your self-sourcing comments in my reply to Rivertorch above. p.p.s. Not all the questions assume the media is misreporting things... Jimbo's question is a case where all sources back up all the self-citing, and furthermore, I believe the Big Media when they tell me Tom Cruise is a Scientologist... then again, he does not deny it, and if he did, I'd consider him a more reliable source about his religious beliefs than a tabloid journalist. My friend, the truth is pretty easy. What's hard is getting somebody to step up to the plate and make an edit on a semi-protected page, even when the edit is prima facie the truth. Hint hint, nudge nudge. Figure out what is closest to The Truth, and then put in into the article, please. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Not done: The {{edit semi-protected}} template is intended to allow someone who is not auto-confirmed to edit an article which had to be semi-protected for some unrelated reason. That is why it requires a "please change X to Y" degree of detail; the editors who process these requests are just acting as a typing proxy after verifying that there is no obvious reason not to do so. In this case, there seems to be a lack of consensus for this change which you acknowledge in your request. You need to build that consensus yourself before using the template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. Wales says he's not on the Socialtext board. Socialtext's website indicates that he is not on their board. Why does his article, months later, still say he is on the board? I think the search for the perfect source obscures the fact that there is an untrue statement in this biography. Let me put it this way...is there a reliable sources that says he is on the board right now? Because if there isn't a recent reliable source that claims he is on the board (as of 2013), then this statement is no longer supported and can be removed. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Liz: I'm not seeing that text. All I see is "former board member". --NeilN talk to me 21:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, NeilN...you are oh-so right and I am so, so wrong. What is strange is that this conversation was still going on last month, but the article text was changed on August 31, 2013‎! Such a minor detail and Editors continued to argue two months after the change was made...and because it looked like the issue had never been resolved, I dove into it without double-checking (I remember seeing "board member of Social Text" but didn't think it said "former"). Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Consider this topic...RESOLVED. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


Opinions on Edward Snowden

Not sure where this fits, but...

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Donation

Make a page with advertisements near the donation link to everyone can come to and be there one minute. It will make money for you and make our life easier. Because not all people can donate. Just put a link "Help us" to ads page. Yegor S. 76.89.230.75 (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article about Jimmy Wales. Perhaps you meant to post your suggestion at User talk:Jimbo Wales? Rivertorch (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggested external link

For the External links section, I am tempted to add:

@Jimbo Wales: perhaps you'd like to add the link. – S. Rich (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hold your horses there, @Srich32977:. April Fool's Day is only a few weeks away, it can wait until then. Jinkinson talk to me 22:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin stuff not notable?

− − NeilN (talk · contribs) reverted my addition of stuff about Wales posting his Bitcoin account and subsequently receiving tons of donations, and his consideration of allowing Wikimedia to accept Bitcoin donations. NeilN did so because Wikipedia is "not news". (Special:Diff/599074437) So does this seem like it is significant enough that it should be added (under a "pursuit" section or otherwise)? Jinkinson talk to me 16:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be filed under "ephemeral nonsense". Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Date of birth

Hoi, Could someone please update the person template with Jimmy's date of birth at the very end of the article ? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sir48 has updated Persondata to show August 7, 1966—now the article consistently uses that date at the four places where the DoB appears in the wikitext. I guess you are correcting the report that lists discrepancies between dates of birth shown at enwiki and at Wikidata which currently lists the age-old "controversy" of Jimmy's DoB: Wikidata (d:Q181) has 8 August 1966. Searching the talk page archives shows far too many pages of debate over the issue—apparently August 7 is correct but August 8 was recorded on some official sources (see Jimmy's explanation). I mention those details in view of the "Jimmy's Birthdate" post just above. Johnuniq (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2014

Just at the end of the "Honors, awards and positions" section there currently appears the sentence: "On May 17, 2014 has become Doctor Honoris Causa of the Faculty of Communication Sciences of the Università della Svizzera italiana (USI Lugano, Switzerland). [137]" It seems a subject (such as "he" or "Wales") is missing (and should be placed between the date and "has become"). 2A02:8109:9340:136C:8CB1:CFCD:8297:438A (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Sam Sailor Sing 06:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014

I want insert new photos and informations about Wales. Ma2xlon (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to make a specific request. What photos and information do you want to insert? You have to share that here, and then someone will decide if they think it's a good edit to make on your behalf. --Onorem (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Political and economic views section

I was initially intending to only update the article in relation to Wales's comments on the ECJ ruling and, as I have not edited this page before, I realized that the "Views" section that is most suitable was in a substandard state. The order was not chronological, an unnecessary one-sentence paragraph had been inserted (the paragraph needed elaboration and the content to do so is available), and the grammar, syntax and diction needed improvement. When I opened the edit window, I realized that hidden content was guiding editors in regard to the placement of content and I initially adhered to these "headings". However, after a while, it occurred to me that these hidden guides would work better as visible subheadings and would not only create greater clarity, but would also improve the quality of the article. So, I have used the original wording of the hidden content to create subheadings and also created a separate subsection for the ECJ topic, as Wales is very vocal and passionate about the matter, and it seems highly likely that he will be commenting further on the topic in the future. I am not trying to sabotage the Jimmy Wales Wikipedia page in any way, so please engage with my Talk comment for the purpose of further refining this article.--Soulparadox (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That looks pretty good, thanks for doing it. Jinkinson talk to me 11:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy's Birthdate

Several sources (Including Jimmy himself recently on Radio 4) cite the currently shown birth date (August 7) as incorrect. A link on his own blog (specifically on this page: (http://jimmywales.com/2007/08/08/my-birthdate/)) (http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2007/07/on_wikipedia_and_its_founders.html) says that his birth date is, in fact, August 8.

My edit adding that Wales' birthday may have been the seventh was recently reverted, so as per WP:BRD I am coming here, and in support of my view that Wales' birthday may be either the 7th or 8th I am citing this article in the Guardian, which says, "The man even has two birthdays – his mother maintained he was born on 7 August 1966, but his passport states 8 August." Conversely, Encyclopedia Britannica listed August 7 as his birth date a few years ago, [56] but has since changed it to the 8th. [57] Also, the Encyclopedia of Alabama says he was born on the 8th. [58] So I think the best compromise is to list "August 7 or 8" as his birth date. Jinkinson talk to me 11:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Jimmy has had some fun with the ambiguity in the past, but there's no reason to indulge it now: he was born on 7 August, and we have reliable sources which say so, Geometry guy 00:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"wikipedia isn't perfect, but its model is sound" FOR JIMMY WALES, CO-FOUNDER

Can I suggest that you two guys read Professor John Naughton's excellent article in "THE OBSERVER" of 10.08.14? If it helps you understand it, I can get it translated into Belgian (French or Walloon?) and into Dutch? I use both Wikipedia and ODNB and both are equally 'intransigent': "unwilling or refusing to change one's views or to agree about something. synonyms: uncompromising, inflexible, unbending, unyielding, diehard, unshakable, unwavering, resolute, rigid, unaccommodating, uncooperative, stubborn, obstinate, obdurate, pigheaded, single-minded, iron-willed, stiff-necked"; intransigeant; onverzettelijk: in french/dutch?

I CAN DEBATE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF WIKIPEDIA UNTIL (AS WE SAY IN COLLOQUIAL ENGLISH) "THE COWS COME HOME", BUT THERE IS NO COMPLETE AGREEMENT ANYWHERE IN THE ACADEMIC WORLD AS TO WHO EXACTLY CONSTITUTED THE BLOOMSBURY GROUP, SO ALL THE MEMBERS ARE A MATTER OF OPINION AND NOT FACT GUYS.

WHAT IS CERTAIN IS THAT A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF MALE MEMBERS WERE CAMBRIDGE APOSTLES.

Understand the above points and we may have the basis for further discussion? Otherwise....2.27.131.74 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Why can't "consensus can change" be used for for undeletion?

Undeletion requires a "procedural error" or "significant new evidence" to open a case to a !vote at wikipedia:deletion review similar to a criminal court. Why can't "consensus can change" be a reason for undeletion. I have seen some articles nominated over 10 times until they were finally, and permanently deleted because "consensus can change". In the criminal court analogy, we do not have the equivalent of double jeopardy, we can keep prosecuting until we get a conviction. Why do we demand a higher threshold for undeletion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with Wikipedia's article on Jimmy Wales, or was it meant for his personal talk page? Jinkinson talk to me 02:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

=

Adding to Category:American pornographers

This page should be added to "Category:American pornographers" because this person was the founder of the online pornography distributor Bomis and was the co-owner of the company at the time that it distributed pornography.

From this article (which glosses over Bomis):

In 1996, he and two partners founded Bomis, a male-oriented web portal featuring entertainment and adult content.

...

Wales decided to leave the realm of financial trading and became an Internet entrepreneur.[17] In 1996, he and two partners founded Bomis,[11][22] a web portal featuring user-generated webrings and, for a time, erotic photographs.[23]

From the Bomis article:

Bomis became successful after focusing on X-rated media.[26] "Bomis Babes" was devoted to erotic images;[5] the "Bomis Babe Report" featured adult pictures.[7][12] Bomis Premium, available for an additional fee, provided explicit material.[4][27][26] "The Babe Engine" helped users find erotic content through a web search engine.[3][8][28] The advertising director for Bomis noted that 99 percent of queries on the site were for nude women.[29]

...

Bomis became successful after it focused on X-rated media.[26] Advertising generated revenue which enabled the company to fund other websites,[21][4][73] and the site published suggestive pictures of professional models.[74] In addition to Bomis the company maintained nekkid.com[42] and nekkid.info,[3] which featured pictures of nude women.[3] About ten percent of Bomis' revenue was derived from pornographic films and blogs.[58][3]

The website included a segment devoted to erotic images, "Bomis Babes",[5][6] and a feature enabled users to submit recommended links to other sites appealing to a male audience.[48] Peer-to-peer services provided by the site helped users find other websites about female celebrities, including Anna Kournikova and Pamela Anderson.[46] In the Bomis Babes section was the Bomis Babe Report, begun in 2000, with pictures of porn stars[7][12][61][15] in a blog format.[15][49][50] The Bomis Babe Report also produced original erotic material,[1][15] including reports on pornographic film actors and celebrities who had posed nude.[15] It was referred to as The Babe Report for short.[42]

Wales referred to the site's softcore pornography as "glamour photography",[75][76][47][45][38] and Bomis became familiar to Internet users for its erotic images.[77][78][79] During this period Wales was photographed steering a yacht with a peaked cap, posing as a sea captain with a female professional model on either side of him.[80][15][81] In the photograph, the women were wearing panties and T-shirts advertising Bomis.[80][15][81]

A subscription section, Bomis Premium,[3] provided access to adult content and erotic material;[26][27][4] A three-day trial was US$2.95.[81] While Bomis Babes provided nude images of females to subscribers,[27] Bomis Premium featured lesbian sexual practices and female anatomy.[15] Bomis created the Babe Engine,[3] which helped users find erotic material online through a web search engine.[8][28] According to Bomis advertising director Terry Foote, 99 percent of searches on the site related to nude women.[29]

The common definition of "pornographer" is "One who writes or sells pornography" ([59]) or "One who is involved in the creation or dissemination of pornography" ([60]) or "someone who presents shows or sells writing or pictures that are sexually explicit in violation of the community mores" ([61]).

If you would like to not add this category please discuss your reasoning here. Hebrew Warrior (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

By that definition we will have to add Sergey Brin and Larry Page and Bill Gates (Bing has the most amazingly detailed porn search categories to choose from), Jimbo will be in good company with his other Internet peers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
They were the CEOs of pornography websites, too? Really? Hebrew Warrior (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Hebrew Warrior (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Article on Jimbo Wales proposed to be deleted

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

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

Jimbo Wales proposed to be deleted on Russian Wikipedia[62]77.234.42.180 (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last very long. Does the IP plan to try to delete every notable person's article they don't like? or is it just the one on Jimbo. Looks like the IP is guilty as heck of exactly what he thinks Jimbo has done. What a hoot! Oh! and a Joyous, Prosperous and Happy New Year to Jimbo and to all who read this! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
... and thanks for using that nice plain English edit summary over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo is not notable at all! If he was not owner of Wiki, he wouldn't be worth 1 minute if discussion. He should delete his article himself. If he had minimum moral integrity! Wikipedia is just the instrument for interference to other states internal affairs! But again very insignificant one! 212.83.144.167 (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Why does Russian wiki think he's notable? And they have a lovely red-nosed snowman wiki globe over there! Bless. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
WOW. That's the silliest thing I ever heard. Hafspajen (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
If Jimbo travel to Balkans at least in one country he would be arrested. You know in which one. As for Russians, they simply respect fact that he is owner, nothing more. So Jimbo, don't you ever travel to Balkans. I wish you long and prosperous life. 77.234.42.180 (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
And the hoots just keep on comin'! Misc-tpvgames.gif – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Net Worth

The Irish Independent says that Wales is worth "by some estimates, about $1m..." [63] and the New York Times Magazine says his net worth is, "by most estimates", "just above $1 million". [64] I think this should be included in the infobox rather than the "unknown" value currently in place. Everymorning talk 14:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Quora

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

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

Birthdate redux

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

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

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

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

60 Minutes effect

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

  1. ^ http://usa.ashoka.org/jwales
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference webforum was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b "Jimmy Wales Joins Socialtext Board of Directors; Wikipedia Founder to Advise Leader in Enterprise Wiki Solutions" (Press release). SocialText. October 3, 2005. Retrieved October 31, 2008. 
  4. ^ [65]