User talk:Jimbo Wales/Unprotected
 | Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He rarely replies to posts on this page. A co-founder of Wikipedia, he holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is probably Jan Eissfeldt. Usually, you may comment at User talk:Jimbo Wales, but sometimes that page is semi-protected and only registered users may then edit it. This page may be edited by unregistered users (aka IPs or anons) if that page is semi-protected |
| This is a subpage of Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
Supporting Wikipedia
[edit]I am interested in supporting Wikipedia. I created the first online encyclopedia and we should have crossed paths in the past. I hope you or your gatekeepers will contact me. Ejppedia (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ejppedia: "first online encyclopedia"?? ltbdl (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- What "first online encyclopedia" was that? Waylon (was) (here) 20:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- OK so I looked into it and so apparently Eric J. Park created Pedia and the PediaNetwork (a group of encyclopedias ending in -pedia) of which the first encyclopedia, Autopedia.com, was created in November 1995 (confirmed by the Wayback Machine). The Pedia concept is best explained in the patent application on December 18 2000 (which failed for being "too wide"). Park is trying to claim that Wikipedia and Investopedia etc. are the "Pedias" as he invented them (but just the non-profit version) and the success of these two online encyclopedias give credibility to his idea so he can entice businesses to license the formula from him as a genius at marketing – Mullafacation『talk』 14:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- Which? Because I'm very sure you did not create Nupedia. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
How could Jimbo Wales respond to me as a IP.
[edit]The talk page is still protected though. How is he still going to be active, if he made few edits once a year? I need some assistance, and does he host at the Wikipedia Teahouse? 205.155.225.249 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- No response? 205.155.225.249 (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- If you would like to ask him a question, you could ask it here and add
@[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]], which will produce @Jimbo Wales and probably send him a notification. Although there is a possibility that he won't receive the notification, if he has disabled them in his preferences. No, I don't think Jimbo Wales is a host at the Teahouse, but you could ask someone there to help you contact him. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 08:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you would like to ask him a question, you could ask it here and add
Hi
[edit]Hello! Starlet147 (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, It's me when I just joined ENWIKI!
- You can tell by the default sig! Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 22:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA pages - August, Smith, John
[edit]Wale! @Jimbo Wales good site, nice arcitles ~2025-42219-46 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
"It's not good enough"
[edit]@Jimbo Wales I know I'm commenting very late, but I'd like to reply to the last comment that you posted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#From_Open_Encyclopedia_To_Ideological_Weapon:_Wikipedia%E2%80%99s_Hidden_War_On_Truth
If you feel that "it's not good enough", are you sure you can't improve it? Of all the people who complain about similar issues, I think you are the ONE person who has the power to actually do something about them.
The problem, as I see it, is that you regard yourself as more of a figurehead than someone with real power, so you're reluctant to make changes that would ruffle lots of feathers. But if you think public trust in Wikipedia's neutrality has declined (and I think it clearly has declined), some type of shakeup along the lines of the recent one at BBC might be preferable over letting things continue in their current direction. ~2025-38715-26 (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Regarding LLM/AI
[edit]Regarding AI, here's an analogy. Imagine a world without electronic calculators. Every computation has to be done by hand, or by using abacuses or slide rules or tables of logarithms or some such. Very laborious and time-consuming! Now suppose someone gives you a new-fangled invention of their own, which they call a "calculator". It can perform mathematical operations in a fraction of a second... however there is a catch: the "calculator's" results are guaranteed to be correct 85% of the time, the rest of the time the result can be wildly inaccurate. Would you buy this device, would you use it in professional capacity?
Imagine you are a structural engineer, designing a bridge. You need to do complicated computations involving forces and stresses and strains and tensile strengths and so on (I wouldn't know the details, I'm not an engineer). Would you trust that new device? It can speed your work considerably! But what is the point if there is a chance, however small, that what it gives you is completely wrong? Do you think everyone will trust a bridge that has been designed in this fashion? In fact, would you even trust this new device to do your tax returns? What would you think if your bank starts to use this device for all its internal calculations? -- ~2026-19284-65 (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Calculators typically do not hallucinate the numbers you are working on based on theft of other people's data, and they normally don't consume the power and water of a small town either. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)