Jump to content

Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

lead sentence and cite "failing verification"

QuackGuru, please clarify what is challengeable about the lead sentence that is not supported by Time magazine's 2006 profile of him (as well as the rest of the cites in this article). Time's 2006 recognition of Jimmy Wales as one of the world's most influential people was based solely on his role in founding Wikipedia. What am I missing here? --Sfmammamia (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read my edit summary. What exactly does this ref verifiy? QuackGuru 17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It verifies that he is "known for his role in the creation and promotion of Wikipedia, a free open content encyclopedia, in 2001." In other words, most of the sentence. I'll ask again: what is challengeable and not verifiable in the cited sources about the lead sentence? If it's the characterization as an "Internet entrepreneur", fine, let's delete that phrase and move on. If you have other quarrels with the lead sentence, it would be most constructive to consensus if you would specify them here. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It verifies that he is "known for his role in the creation and promotion of Wikipedia? Exactly what text in the Times ref verifies this. And exactly what text does this ref verifiy? In other words, most of the sentence is not verified by using the Times ref or the recently added The Economist ref. The characterization of an "Internet entrepreneur" is verified by the new Andrew Keen source. The other parts of the lead sentence needs a rewrite to match the source. QuackGuru 18:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all, it is Time magazine, not "the Times" that we are discussing. Second, the lead sentence is a summary that should answer the questions "Who is he?" and "Why is he notable?" As far as I know, there's no obligation that the word-for-word text of a lead sentence come directly out of a source; instead it should accurately summarize the entire article that follows it as well as the sources on which the entire article is based. I submit that the lead sentence as written is accurate and completely adequate to this purpose. Third, your unwillingness or inability to answer my direct question, asked twice above, gives me the impression that perhaps achieving consensus may not be your goal with this discussion. If in fact, consensus is your goal, may I suggest that there may be more constructive ways to pursue it, namely, recommending the rewrite you consider necessary either here or in the article, thereby allowing other editors to evaluate it? --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The Time magazine ref failed verification. Exactly what text in the Time magazine ref verifies "known for his role in the creation and promotion of Wikipedia?. Please be specific. The recently added The Economist ref verifies what exactly. There is an obligation that the text should be verified from the given source. See WP:V. QuackGuru 06:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This edit also failed verification. QuackGuru 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting)QuackGuru, I'm going to leave the "failed verification" tags up this time, but I'm just going to say again that I disagree with them. It's my perception that you are wikilawyering here, rather than trying to reach consensus in a constructive fashion. I will address your questions and leave it up to other editors. You asked "Exactly what text in the Time magazine ref verifies "known for his role in the creation and promotion of Wikipedia?". It may not be obvious if you just click to the article, but the Time article is part of Time Magazine's list for 2006 of the world's 100 most influential people. I'd say that inclusion within that list alone is verification of "known". "Known for" -- the article, whose purpose is to explain to readers why Jimmy Wales is on that list, discusses only his role in starting Wikipedia. The headline in the cite, "Jimmy Wales: The (Proud) Amateur Who Created Wikipedia" is not obvious the online edition, but was a part of the original print version. That headline alone verifies "his role in the creation...of Wikipedia". The article itself also discusses only his role in starting Wikipedia. Example text: "That such a remarkably open-door policy has resulted in the biggest (and perhaps best) encyclopedia in the world is a testament to the vision of one man, Jimmy Wales." "Wales...in 1999 set out to reinvent the encyclopedia for the Internet age." "Wales created a free-form companion site..that makes it easy—with the "edit this page" button—to enter and track changes to Web pages. The effect was explosive." "Today Wales is celebrated as a champion of Internet-enabled egalitarianism." "...it has led to what may prove to be the most powerful industrial model of the 21st century: peer production. Wikipedia is proof that it works, and Jimmy Wales is its prophet." What do those excerpts say he is known for, if not the creation of Wikipedia??? The Economist article, with its bold statement at the top that says "Jimmy Wales changed the world with Wikipedia" also, I believe, verifies the entire lead sentence. But it also contains specific text that verifies "known for promotion of Wikipedia" -- here's an excerpt from the third paragraph "Mr Wales...has become the public face of Wikipedia by default. He is the closest thing it has to a spokesman, the occasional monarch who intervenes in editing disputes, and the ambassador—both inspiring and controversial—of the Wikipedian idea." At the risk of repeating myself, I think both of these cites are more than ample to verify the lead sentence as it stands. If you disagree, I would ask again that you propose a rewrite rather than belaboring this discussion. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got rid of the tags since Sfmammamia is right, the articles (especially the Time one) contain what is said. Anyway, how can it be argued that Jimmy Wales didn't invent Wikipedia???? That's blasphemy lol! Deamon138 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The Anderson ref failed verification and none of the refs mention anything about promoting Wikipedia. The next paragraph discusses promoting Wikipedia. It says "Wales took on the role of the project's spokesperson and promoter through speaking engagements and media appearances." Why should we add duplication to the lead and add unsourced information to the lead. Why should we have a stray ref that adds nothing to the lead and failed verification. QuackGuru 07:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
"Entrepreneur" is sourced in the Independent article. Both "creation" and "promotion" of Wikipedia are referenced from the Time article as Sfmammamia pointed out, as well as from the Independent and Economist. You claim that "promotion" and the sentence later saying "Wales took on the role of the project's spokesperson and promoter through speaking engagements and media appearances," are unsourced, and yet you only removed the first instance of promotion, and didn't also remove the mention of "entrepreneur" and "creation" when you said it was unsourced. This is classic cherry picking. Also, before I came along, the article had two "failed verification" templates like you wanted above, but then you came along and you reverted what I did, not by putting the templates back, but by removing the supposedly unverified statements from the article instead. That seems a little over-zealous to me. Finally, how can the link fail verification? It's from Time, one of the best internet sources we can use. And you can never have too many sources anyway. Deamon138 (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
"Entrepreneur" is sourced in the Independent article and not the Anderson ref. By the way, I added the Independent ref. Nothing in the Time ref mentioned in any way "promotion" of Wikipedia. Please provide your evidence. It is duplication to add the word promotion when it is mentioned elsewhere in the lead. Too many ref sends the reader on a wild goose chase. QuackGuru 15:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I actually said that "Entrepreneur" is sourced in the Independent article. I wasn't claiming it was mentioned in the Time article.
I agree that the exact word "promotion" isn't mentioned in any of the three sources that have been mentioned here. However, why remove one (unsourced you claim) instance of the word "promotion" but keep the other (similiarly unsourced if you are right about the first being unsourced) instance of that word later on in the introduction? It doesn't make sense, either it's unsourced or not.
However, you claim, it is "duplication to add the word promotion when it is mentioned elsewhere in the lead." Well I disagree. The first instance mentioned that he is "known for his role in the creation and promotion." I feel that an integral part of his fame is that he is not just "known" for his role in creating in Wikipedia, but also promoting it too. So we need the word promotion. ALso, the first instance of it is a general jist of what he is famous for. The second paragraph where a mention occurrs, explains HOW he has been promoting in more detail. Therefore, two mentions of "promotion" are needed.
Now, yes the exact word "promotion" isn't mentioned in the Time article, as Sfmammamia pointed out in his long paragraph above, words to the effect of "he is promoting Wikipedia" are used, and nowhere does it say we (unless it is a quotation which this isn't) have to use the EXACT phrase given in an article, we are allowed the use if a thesaurus to give the general context of what's being said, as long as we don't contradict the source while doing so which this doesn't.
However, if you'd feel happier with using a different source that does actually use the exact phrase "promoting/promotion" then fine. Here are three that I found pretty quickly on google [1], [2] and [3]. (Okay so the last is from his own mouth so that one might noit be useable?). But anyway, there are two maybe three reliable sources that we can use instead if you'd feel happier that way, but the word "promotion" definitely needs to be in that first sentence. Deamon138 (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...

Why is there not a critisicm section?? In almost 98% of articles on this thing dealing with people there is almost ALWAYS some kind of section dealing with "Controversy" or "Criticism", why not Yo-Jimbos?? I know this has been raised before but its that simple! Add a Controversy section for goodness sake, everyone knows there has been ALOT of it. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 03:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well there is some criticisms within the article, but yeah there should probably be a specific criticism section. I expect that this has caused a lot controversy among other editors in the past though. Deamon138 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Isolating criticism into its own section is generally frowned upon as poor editorial structure that tends to reduce the neutrality of an article. See Template:Criticism-section. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fair. Thanks for the link! Deamon138 (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Look, not only is there not a critisicm section but there are sections like Honours and Acheivments and personal philosophy, its totally one sided for goodness sake and like "Hey everyone! Come and get to know our glorious leader Jimmy Wales! *massive over the top smile*" you now?... ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 00:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, there's no separate section but I'd say there's plenty of criticism in the article. What specifically would you place in this section that's not already mentioned? Nazlfrag (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, in a section like "Honors, awards and positions", although right now it only contains his successes, those kind of sections are allowed to contained negative "awards" or whatever e.g. a Razzie. Sure, JW isn't a film star so it would be very surprising if he got a Razzie, but there are bound to be similar things in other careers, so an awards section doesn't necessarily have to be biased. But as Nazlfrag said, if there is some criticism missing, can you tell us what it is and find a source please? Deamon138 (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Honors, awards, and positions are exactly that. If you can find any honours that are negative, feel free to put them in (following policy of course). If you can find any awards that are negative, feel free to put them in. The fact of the matter is that while we strive for NPOV, violating BLP is more serious as it carrys possible consequences to the Wikimedia foundation, which is why libious material has more severe and immediate consequences than violating WP:NPOV. As far as i've seen, putting a critism section in an article violates WP:NPOV. It helps to keep the critism notable and manageable. Having an awards or honors section is not non NPOV as the person has earned them officially and they are notable. In summary, negative awards are fine as long as they're awards, hence the awards section title. MattWT (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I spent several hours researching useful external links and added a mixed list only to see it vandalised later. I undid the vandalism twice in a 24 hour period and then received a message from an admin threatening to ban me unless I do as he says. I think you should write a new title on the Wikipedia main page. "The encyclopedia only elitist administrators can edit." The links are not spam as was alleged by somebody who obviously knows nothing about the subject. Nor are they excessive since other celebrity pages have longer link sections. Is this page to be run in the same fashion as the Israel page then? I've watched how zionists shout down any reference to Palestinians being removed from their homes during the invasion and settlement by jews. If there is no valid reason for deleting other peoples work then it should be reverted. Failure to undo vandalism is catering to vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildwikiwookie (talk • contribs) 08:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone undoes an edit that you made, that is disagreement not vandalism. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"I spent several hours researching useful external links and added a mixed list only to see it vandalised later" I actually saw this happening on my watchlist. It was not vandalism. Another user(s) was removing the external links you provided. I'm sorry but there was far far too many.
"Nor are they excessive since other celebrity pages have longer link sections." The fact that something is done somewhere else doesn't make something acceptable. It could well be that the other examples of lots of external links were done wrongfully also. For instance, the fact that some bad people go out and murder others doesn't mean that another person can go out and murder someone else while claiming in their defence, "somebody else was doing it." Have a look at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for the lowdown on this point.
"I undid the vandalism twice in a 24 hour period and then received a message from an admin threatening to ban me unless I do as he says." This is known as the three revert rule. If you, I, any admin or whoever makes the same edit three times in 24 hours, then they are warned that the are about to violate the three revert rule. The three revert rule is to prevent edit wars, and stopping other editors becoming overwhelmed by an editor making the same edit a thousand times in one day. It is just a gentle reminder that they are about to violate this rule if they do it again. So if one of us does the same edit four times in one day, then they are usually banned for a very short period in order to calm down. See WP:3RR.
"I think you should write a new title on the Wikipedia main page. "The encyclopedia only elitist administrators can edit."" I don't. The very fact that your opinion is on a talk page proves a non-admin can edit. I can edit Wikipedia, you can, in fact thousands of non-admins and IPs can and do edit without disruption from any admin. There are far more unreverted edits by non-admins and IPs than there are edits by admins. Policies, guidelines and essays that you've probably come across or had presented to you aren't draconian or fascist or anything. All of these were determined by the consensus of the community, not a handful of admins. In fact, all of these are still open to debate, a small edit here, a proposed change there. Check out WP:Village Pump for a good place to find all these goings on.
As for your gripe against admins specifically, well admins are of course going to be the ones threatening you with blocking if you go against a rule, as they are the only ones with the ability to block. And don't say that admins therefore have preferential treatment because they have special powers, imagine if everyone had the power to block. It would be complete anarchy. It would be the same in real life if you suggested that everyone could be a judge and therefore everyone had the power to sentence people to jail. Absolute madness would ensue.
I agree with you that this article needs more external links as it doesn't have many, but not as many as you want to add. Deamon138 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is the co-founder of Wikipedia

OK, lets review.

  1. The facts must be written from a neutral point of view.
  2. Two people worked togther to establish and build Wikipedia from the beginning.
  3. When two people work together and start a project from the very beginning they will be both called co-founders.
  4. There was never a dispute when Larry Sanger was still part of this project.
  5. When Larry was guiding the project he was widely known as a co-founder.
  6. It is well documented. In the beginning (before 2004) - various articles, Wikipedia press releases, and Wikipedia articles all described Larry as co-founder.
  7. Some articles refer to Jimmy Wales as 'the' founder (starting about 2004) but do not explain the co-foundership issue at hand.
  8. The revisionist years (about 2004) is a rewrite of history. Wales never disputed the facts until after Larry left the project.
  9. Mr. Jimmy Wales has never given any documented evidence for his new version (since 2004) of reality (revisionism).
  10. At the risk of repeating myself, Wales never disputed his co-founder position before 2004.
  11. The article provides strong evidence that resolves the issue (a multitude of references).
  12. Please don't forget this. Sanger was always known as co-founder when he was running the project.
  13. After Larry left the project, thats when the alteration of reality started taking place. "Ooh."
  14. Read some of the references in the article to get to up to speed on the facts and the history of Wikipedia.
  15. By the way, the appeal for the verifiability of the facts is exactly what the Wikipedia community demands in its WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:ATT policies. It isn't my rule: it's the community's consensus.
  16. There are many sources confirming to WP:NPOV + WP:RS + WP:V & WP:ATT policies. For example, take a quick look at this website. Sanger, Larry. "My role in Wikipedia (links)". larrysanger.org. Larry Sanger. At the website, there are plenty of references clearly stating co-founder. This is easy to understand. The verifiable sources say and describe Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger as the co-founders.

"Free Encyclopedia Project, Wikipedia, Creates 20,000 Articles in a Year (Wikipedia 2002 Press release)". describing Sanger and Wales as "co-founders". Wikipedia. January 15, 2002.

"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, reaches its 100,000th article (Wikipedia 2003 Press release)". stating Sanger and Wales founded the site. Wikipedia. January 21, 2003.

"Wikipedia publishes 500,000 articles in 50 languages (Wikipedia 2004 Press release)". describes Sanger as a founder. Wikipedia. February 25, 2004.

Meyers, Peter (September 20, 2001). "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You". The New York Times."I can start an article that will consist of one paragraph, and then a real expert will come along and add three paragraphs and clean up my one paragraph," said Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales.

I don't see any problem with saying, as I wrote in the 100K article press release, that they are both founders. Why or why does 'co' have to be thrown in? --mav (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Because founder on its own implies singular. Co clearly coveys the joint nature. ViridaeTalk 01:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
How would that be if in the same sentence you say they are both founders? --mav (talk)
As an analogy, when a private company is founded, the founders receive founders shares. Co-founders is politically correct and not necessarily literally or legally correct. Might help to pick a context before picking a definition. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
What about this edit? It seems.... uh... in bad faith, to be mild. LiteralKa (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

James

I think that it is better if we put "James" instead of Jimmy. Hellboy2hell (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It would need a source. --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I seem to remember there being a hidden comment in the text to point out that (a) his name is Jimmy, not James, and (b) his middle name is Donal, not Donald. Not sure where it got to. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Both are about the same, but just keep Jimmy because that's more commonly used as his first name. --YowuzaZXWolfie (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "bookstopshere" :
    • {{cite web|url= http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki.html?topic=wiki|title=The Book Stops Here| date=[[2005-03-13]]| accessdate=2006-10-09|publisher=Wired|last=Pink|first=Daniel H.}}
    • {{cite news|url= http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki.html?pg=3 |title=The Book Stops Here|date=[[2005-03-13]]|accessdate=2006-10-09|publisher=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]| last=Pink|first=Daniel H.}}
  • "dob" :
    • {{cite web| title=Jimmy Wales |url= http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9438001/Jimmy-Wales Britannica Book of the Year, 2007|accessdate=2007-07-25}}
    • Rogoway, M. [[July 27]], [[2007]] [http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2007/07/on_wikipedia_and_its_founders.html "Wikipedia & its founder disagree on his birth date,"]. ''Silicon Forest'', ''([[The Oregonian]])'', [[2007-07-27]]. Retrieved on [[2007-08-08]]. Note: In his blog, Wales [http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2007/08/08/my-birthdate/ endorses this news article].

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

the edit did not match the edit summary or the cited references

please dont change the history Please read the references. Thanks. QuackGuru 17:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is verifiable that Jimmy Wales is the co-founder of Wikipedia. QuackGuru 17:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but it is equally verifiable that Jimbo is the sole founder of Wikipedia. Since some sources say he did it alone, and others say he did it with Sanger, then per WP:NPOV, we can't say he is the "co-founder" only that there is controversy over whether he was the sole founder or not. Remember, Wikipedia describes the controversy, and doesn't say one POV is right or not. Deamon138 (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Since some sources say he did it alone? What sources are those. I do not see any sources saying Jimmy Wales did it alone.
The controversy is revisionism and not the co-founder issue. Remember, there are historical references that say both are the co-founders. QuackGuru 21:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, Larry Sanger's personal website is not a reliable source. And I know there are sources that say both are co-founders, I am not denying this, that's why I said it is "equally verifiable that Jimbo is the sole founder of Wikipedia". Note that: equally verifiable i.e. there are sources that say that Jimbo was the founder alone. Since there are sources for both points of view, then Wikipedia should stay out of mentioning one of them as correct, and only balance it by saying that there is controversy over it. That is NPOV. As for sources, I will get back to you with some soon: this was just a quick reply. Deamon138 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I have provided many historcial refs and Larry Sanger's website links to many historical refs too.
There are sources that say that Jimbo was the founder alone? I do not see any historical refs to support this opinion. Please review refs such as The New York Times in 2001. QuackGuru 22:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I know you have provided sources, that is why I said "And I know there are sources that say both are co-founders, I am not denying this". I'm trying my best to assume good faith here, but its hard when it doesn't appear that you are actually reading my comments before you reply. And yes I have seen the NY Times article, but then have you seen a later NY times article (already cited in this article nonetheless)? I'm talking about this one, where it merely states, "the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales". Notice how it doesn't say "co-founder" like you want this article to say. It then goes on to describe this controversy between Sanger and Wales (amongst other things), but doesn't say which POV is correct. That article is a perfect example of NPOV. And there are more sources that disagree with your sources, but as I said, "I will get back to you with some soon". That was one, but I'm busy right now, and will provide more soon. Deamon138 (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The source stated: "According to Mr. Cadenhead's interpretation, Mr. Wales made the changes to play down the role of his former editor, Larry Sanger, by deleting references to him as a co-founder." The source does take a stand. According to Mr. Cadenhead's interpretation, Mr. Wales made the changes to play down the role of his former editor. QuackGuru 00:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Err no, the source does not take a stand. The source doesn't say which of Sanger or Wales is correct. It says, "According to Mr. Cadenhead's interpretation, Mr. Wales made the changes to play down the role of his former editor, Larry Sanger, by deleting references to him as a co-founder." It doesn't say whether that interpretation by Cadenhead is correct, nor does it say whether Jimbo's view is correct, merely saying that, "Mr. Wales told Wired News he wasn't trying to change history, but merely clarifying technical details regarding Mr. Sanger's role at Wikipedia." If that source can give both views without saying one or the other is right, then why can't we? We have WP:V and WP:NPOV that say we shouldn't say one of them is right. End of. Deamon138 (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
That source does not go into detail about the histocial facts. It is more about Wales editing a biography on him.
Here is another source for your review.[4] We have agreement among many histrocial references including The New York Times. There was never any disagreement in the early years of Wikipedia. Why would anyone want to rewrite history now. Changing the historical facts is revisionism. QuackGuru 16:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter WHEN the sources were written: in fact I would say more recent sources are better, as they can put things in historical perspective, rather than early sources, which can be affected by recentism. Besides, whether you think Jimbo is changing the historical facts or not is irrelevant, that is the definition of original research. Some sources say he is doing that. Some say he isn't. Ipso facto, both POVs are verifiable, therefore we give both, not just the one given in the lead of this article. As for that new source you have given, I think you'll find it is more neutral than you think. It certainly doesn't state that Jimbo's views are wrong. Either way, that source is more neutral than this article: why can't we be more neutral? Deamon138 (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
"It doesn't matter WHEN the sources were written:"? but then you went on to contradict yourself by stating "in fact I would say more recent sources are better". Wales never disputed he is the co-founder when Larry Sanger was part of the project. He started disputing it when Larry Sanger criticised Wikipedia. Wales was interviewed for The New York Times article. I wonder who told them he is the co-founder of Wikipedia. Wales never disputed the early Wikipedia press releases. Wales view is a claim and not a fact according to the historical evidence.
It does matter when the sources were written. I think editors should not try and change the historical facts. The new source I have given clearly says Larry Sanger is the co-founder of Wikipedia and explained the controversy. We should not attempt to rewrite history, after the fact, years later. QuackGuru 17:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
""It doesn't matter WHEN the sources were written:"? but then you went on to contradict yourself by stating "in fact I would say more recent sources are better"." I shall give my comment again, only this time bold the keyword since you didn't get it the first time: "It doesn't matter WHEN the sources were written: in fact I would say more recent sources are better, as they can put things in historical perspective, rather than early sources, which can be affected by recentism." I would say that, as in, if forced into making a decision about whether newer or older sources are best, I would say that, but for all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter when a source was written, so long as it's reliable. New sources are just as reliable as old ones.
"Wales never disputed the early Wikipedia press releases. Wales view is a claim and not a fact according to the historical evidence." No offense, but are you actually reading what I am saying? It doesn't matter that older sources say that he was the co-founder, when newer sources dispute that. Both points of view are verifiable. Therefore, we give both of them.
"I think editors should not try and change the historical facts." Maybe Jimbo is changing history. Maybe hes not. Whether he is or not is irrelevant to the fact that sources show both points of view. We then show both points of view, and shouldn't say whether one point of view is correct.
"It does matter when the sources were written." No it doesn't. Please show me the policy/guideline that says that.
"The new source I have given clearly says Larry Sanger is the co-founder of Wikipedia and explained the controversy." The msnbc source does not show that Sanger is the co-founder, it gives both opinions, and does show the controversy, but it does not say one of the sides is correct.
"We should not attempt to rewrite history, after the fact, years later." Again, who is attempting to rewrite history? Jimbo Wales? In your opinion, and in some sources he is. But in other sources he isn't. How do you know which sources are correct and which aren't? You can't say, because that would be original research. And what is this fact? Please read WP:V, where it says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Since both points of view are verifiable, then we include BOTH, especially since this is a BLP. Deamon138 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The newer ref covering the controversy says Larry Sanger is the co-founder of Wikipedia. This is backed up by primary sources on Wikipedia, historical references, and newer references covering the controversy. I do not see any sources saying Larry Sanger was never the co-founder of Wikipedia.
According to the newer source: Among stacks of reference books, Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia and former philosophy professor, is seen, Friday, March 9, 2007 in Columbus, Ohio. Sanger started a Wikipedia alternative, Citizendium.com, a go-to destination for general information online. QuackGuru 19:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

requesting references

The success of the project has helped popularize a trend in web development (called Web 2.0) that aims to facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing among users. As Wikipedia expanded and its public profile grew, Wales took on the role of the project's spokesperson and promoter through speaking engagements and media appearances.

The above sentence is in the lead but is not referenced. We need to reference this stuff before it gets deleted.

Please read WP:V, where it says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". QuackGuru 20:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jimmy Wales/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article presents an unusual opportunity due to the person who it is on. According to criterion 1, a Good Article is well written. Writing quality falls into two categories. I feel that the quality of writing is sufficent for this article to be considered to pass 1(a). The Manual of Style has been adhered to and the reasons for delisting have been dealt with. Therefore 1 has been passed.

Now to criteria 2, factually accurate and verifiable. It appears that all major areas of contention are properly sourced and there are no apparent inaccuracies. 2 is also therefore Pass. Criteria 3 is broadness of coverage. This article both (a) addresses the main aspects of the topic and (b) stays focused on the subject. Neutrality is also apparent (4) Stability (5) is another area that led to delisting. At this point in time, this article is stable. Almost every article will go through conflict at some point in time, especially something as controversial as this. Under IAR, I do not think that minor edit conflicts should delist this article, provided that it meets all other criteria. Images (6) are available in an abundant amount and are properly tagged

The combination of the above lead me to pass this article as GA.

Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian: Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says

Has some interesting info about a new association for Jimmy Wales with a speaker's agency which includes other notable individuals. Cirt (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

nationality

"The American People" article is not about nationhood in the US. There is a concept of nation and there certainly is nationalism, although actual scholars as well as Americans debate whether there is an American "nationality" - most Americans have hyphenated nationalities. In any case, when they say "America" they are referring to the United States. People living outside of the United States, from the Hudson Bay to Tierra del Fuego, are all Americans too. So we have to specify the United States. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

All I see is Quote and News; where is the link to Commons? Surely there was one before - why would you take it out? Or has there actually never been one (that is the case sometimes). Richard001 (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Online Scientific Publications

Dear Jim,

You might be interested to read info below (from Doctor Stodolsky who is considered to be an expert in that area) .

What is your opinion on that with regards to articles published in Wikipedia ?

Best Regards, Alexander R. Povolotsky

Forwarded message ----------

From: David Stodolsky Date: Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:06 AM Subject: Re: Online Scientific Publications To: apovolot@gmail.com

The criteria for any document to be considered a scientific publication is peer review. This criterion is met by the OEIS, however, without publication also in an archivable format, it might not be regarded as such by many and there is the risk that the database would go off-line making it impossible to verify a contribution. Those contributions appearing in the books, however, would escape these considerations.

dss

================================

On 19 Oct 2008, at 05:03, Alexander R. Povolotsky wrote:

> Dear Doctor Stodolsky, > What is the criteria for the Information posted online be considered as official > scientific publication ? > For example please consider > OEIS (The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences) posted at > www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences ...

David Stodolsky, PhD Institute for Social Informatics Tornskadestien 2, st. th., DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark Apovolot (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Transnational Qualification Framework

Dear Jimmy Wales,

This is just to share a thought that I think essential.

While going through different Transnational Qualification Framework movements to write an article in Wikipedia, I thought it would be ideal if such efforts could be coordinated to a global level to achieve real Transnational Qualifications Framework. Then the educational institutions and educators all over the world will be able to collaborate effectively in the process of providing quality education to all.

I have added the article with mimimum details, I will be strengthening the article with more information shortly. Please make TQF issue live in discussions, if you think it appropriate.

Warm regards Anil (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Flashlight

Is a flashlight notable? QuackGuru 18:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus about a year ago says not. Can't put my finger on it right now. --Rodhullandemu 19:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Mine or yours probably wouldn't be, but we (myself, at least) aren't notable, and we consider our flashlights to be our dearest possessions. If I recall correctly, the time it was last added was during a heated debate about the flashlight's own article which IMO skewed the opinions of many people. I'd like to hear what others think, of course, as I'm not completely convinced of its notability myself. Discombobulator (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought the Favorite place to visit or Place he spends most time was more notable for inclusion. I recommend we keep the reference but replace it with something else. QuackGuru 19:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not either-or, feel free to add it to the article. I was trying to add links to the SureFire M6 Guardian article which seems lonely at the moment. Discombobulator (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking out loud with my suggestions. I don't feel strongly either way. Let's see what others think. QuackGuru 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Birthday controversy

One source says August 7 and another source says the August 8. QuackGuru 18:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales#Editing of own Wikipedia biography. لennavecia 21:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
That about covers it. QuackGuru 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Here was a compromise. QuackGuru 22:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the links to Jimbos user pages in the article are inappropriate. They serve little purpose and I think linking to anything outside main article space is very bad form. At the very least that infobox link should at least be changed to be in the form of an external link per WP:SELF. I am tempted to remove both links to his user page, but I figure some will disagree so I am opening it for discussion first. Russeasby (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support not having these links. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit-conflicted] In article space, we should treat Wikipedia links just like any other external links. If a notable individual has an insitutional userpage which essentially functions as their homepage, we link; take academics for example. The userpage in question offers a unique and useful resource to the reader without being a reliable source, and so belongs in ex links. I think focusing on utility for the reader rather than navel-gazing ought to be our primary concern. the skomorokh 16:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to his user page as an EL, what is unacceptable is contrib pages as refs, that clealry faisl WP:RS and is appallingly bad practice. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. When we're discussing his edits to the project, it is appropriate to link to those diffs. And they are reliable, as they specifically support the claim being made and they cannot be changed. لennavecia 18:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jennavecia. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 19:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Laughable

I think we have a consensus that the article won't contain the word "laughable" (or "laughably" or "laughingly"). QuackGuru, please don't add this word again unless consensus on this talk page supports it. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The quotation is "I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable". It's only usable as a source for what Jimbo SAID he KNEW, and even then, it's his opinion and he may well have been incorrect. It's unsafe, if not ludicrous, to extrapolate from that to apply the word "laughable" to his disagreement with the "co-". --Rodhullandemu 01:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
While I'd say it's pretty funny to use that statement as a WP:RS for "he laughable disputes", it should be pointed out for the purposes of discussion that, factually, the statement is a blatant falsehood. I don't recall offhand if he ever confirmed the quote, though of course he's no stranger to the sentiment -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention, grammatically, that sentence is laughable. لennavecia 03:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Article sysop protected to encourage discussion of proposed changes. Tan | 39 15:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tan. لennavecia 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Children

{{editprotected}} Per {{Infobox person}}, children of the subject should only be named in the infobox if they are themselves notable. As Wales' daughter is not, her name ought to be removed from this field. WP:BLP and all that, the skomorokh 19:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Rodhullandemu 20:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, the skomorokh 20:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Founder versus co-founder

There seems to be controversy over whether Jimmy Wales is the "founder" or "co-founder" of Wikipedia. For example, here's an article that names him as the "founder": [5]. I don't know whether one view or another predominates in the reliable sources, but NPOV suggests not stating one or the other as fact. Please don't have the article assert that he's the "co-founder", because it contradicts the source I just gave, for example. In discussion "NPOV", linked above, it is stated (eponymously, so to speak) that there was a longstanding version with the words "best known for his role in founding Wikipedia". I support this version, because it is NPOV: it doesn't take a stand as to whether he was "the" founder or "a" co-founder. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, being described as "founder" does not rule out "co-". We might be wrong, however, to describe as "sole founder", because that would be against the reliable sources. It's a jejune argument anyhow. --Rodhullandemu 16:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The reference provided by Coppertwig says "Jimmy Wales, founder (co-founder) of Wikipedia." in the image to the left of the article. The reference provided by Coppertwig is further evidence co-founder is correct. Primary and historical references say co-founder. The Larry Sanger article says co-founder. We should not rewrite history anyhow. QuackGuru 18:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, but paradoxically, Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable source. I don't understand why people make such a big thing of this anyway; we should have better things to do. --Rodhullandemu 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The ref provided by Coppertwig says co-founder. Here are more refs from the same website that say co-founder.[6][7]
There are many refs stating Larry Sanger is co-founder. When one person is a co-founder that means there is another co-founder. QuackGuru 18:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, here's another source that says "the founder", and this time, under his picture it just says "Jimmy Wales": [8]. For 'founder "Jimmy Wales"' I get 187,000 Google hits; for 'co-founder "Jimmy Wales"' I get 97,900 Google hits. There is disagreement about whether he is a "co-founder". It seems possible to me that by putting "co-founder" inside parentheses, the first source may have been indicating that there is a dispute with two sides. QuackGuru, you need to understand that finding a source that states something does not, in general, give you the right to insert that statement into a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not always parrot whatever its sources say. Wikipedia writes from NPOV; sources write from various points of view. The existence of a source or many sources that say something is not, in general, sufficient to establish that the statement is a "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" (WP:NPOV). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
You added a claim that Jimmy Wales founded Wikipedia in 2001. That is false information. Rewriting history is not NPOV. QuackGuru 19:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
From what I can tell, everyone's original idea was that Jimbo was a co-founder. Even before Jimbo decided to call himself the sole founder, many sources and many places referred to him as a founder as the terms, without an existing controversy, are interchangeable. Most sources aren't aware of the situation even today, so they see the difference between founder and co-founder to be irrelevant. For that reason, we can't judge on the issue based on the numbers on Google. The NPOV way appears to be either "co-founder", or very quick explanation of the dispute, so as not to give it undue weight. In that case, I could support a neutral wording in the lead, "...was founded..." or "...had a role in founding...", but with explicit clarification in the appropriate section. Discombobulator (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
And to clarify, my first choice would be with "co-founder" in the lead. Discombobulator (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
QuackGuru, I understand that you interpret the sentence as being a statement that Wales founded Wikipedia. The sentence is "Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales (born August 7, 1966)[1][2][3][4] is an American Internet entrepreneur known for his role in developing Wikipedia, a free open content encyclopedia which was founded in 2001." I don't interpret it as a statement that Wales founded Wikipedia. I interpret it as a sentence which does not state that Wales was the founder and does not state that Wales was the co-founder. I invite you to suggest on this talk page one or more alternate versions of this sentence which don't seem to you to mean that he was the founder, and which don't seem to you to mean that he was a co-founder. How about "is an American Internet entrepreneur known for his role in developing and running Wikipedia, a free open content encyclopedia with which he has been involved since its beginning in 2001."
In this reliable published source, [9] (Boston Globe; Bias, sabotage haunt Wikipedia's free world; By David Mehegan, Globe Staff, February 12, 2006), it says there is a "dispute" and quotes Wales as saying that it's "preposterous" to call Sanger a "cofounder". This establishes clearly that there is a controversy. I think it would be fine to briefly describe the controversy in an appropriate section of the article; whether this is done or not, I think there probably isn't room in the first sentence for this, and as Discombobulator says, to do so might give undue weight to the dispute. The first sentence must be NPOV; anything which contradicts the statement that he is the founder, or which contradicts the statement that he is the co-founder, is not NPOV. So what we need is a first sentence which makes neither claim. We could even go with something very simple such as "is an American Internet innovator associated with Wikipedia", though that doesn't seem ideal to me: doesn't provide as much information to the reader. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is quite an unusual debate. It's no secret to anyone who's spent a decent amount of time on Wikipeida that Jimmy is the co-founder that attempted to write Larry out of Wikipedia's history. Early sources indicate the partnership that built Wikipedia. Newer sources are confused. When addressed as the co-founder in an interview, he made no attempts to "correct". (See "How to piss off Jimmy Wales" (Video). Valleywag using clip from CNBC's Squawk Box. 10 July 2008.) Unless you can find a source to dispute everything that discusses Larry Sangers' involvement and someone erases all the early sources, there's no reason to change to "founder" or "sole founder". And it's not an NPOV issue by any means. Reverting the article without or against consensus will result in blocks instead of protection. Right now, consensus clearly is on the side of "co-founder". As one who is officially weighing in, I won't be carrying out any blocks, as I consider this involving me in the discussion. لennavecia 20:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not advocating changing the article to assert that he is "the founder", and I don't understand why you say this is not an NPOV issue; in my opinion it is. It's not up to Wikipedia to weigh the evidence and decide that one version is fact. "Founder" or "co-founder" isn't a true or undisputed fact; rather, it's a description, label or interpretation. Just because one of those was being asserted during one time period doesn't necessarily mean it's correct in some absolute sense. The point of view of Wales himself, quoted and published in reliable sources, can't reasonably (in my opinion) be dismissed as a "tiny-minority" or "fringe" POV. In my opinion, his own POV is a significant POV in this dispute. Later in the article, where there's more room, if there's a lot of support in reliable sources for the "co-founder" POV, perhaps it could say something like "widely considered the co-founder, though he disputes that" or "was described in early press releases as the co-founder, though he now disputes that" etc. Just stating baldly that he's the co-founder contradicts NPOV by contradicting a significant POV, his own as stated in published sources. What is your reason for opposing a neutral first sentence that doesn't assert that he is or is not "the" founder? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I support Coppertwig's suggestion here with a slight modification. I think a neutral first sentence could be worded "...known for his role in developing Wikipedia, a free open content encyclopedia founded in 2001." Hard to dispute that this is, in fact, what he is known for, and it does not take sides either way. However since the lead section is supposed to highlight any major controversies discussed in the article, a brief introduction to the controversy, worded in some way similar to Coppertwig's suggestion, seems to me an appropriate compromise. How about this: before the sentence that starts the second paragraph of the lead, add a sentence that states "Wales is widely considered the co-founder of Wikipedia, although he now disputes that. Together with others..." I know this editing dispute is long-standing, but I see nothing wrong with continuing to tweak the article, and consensus on the best way to do this seems far from fixed. --Sfmammamia (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Although I don't think there's room in the first sentence to describe the controversy, briefly describing it in the lead seems fine to me. I wrote those words quickly and now see a couple of problems with them. "disputes that" could be taken to mean he claims he isn't a founder at all. And we may not have sources to support the word "now" (which seems to imply he had a different opinion previously). How about "Wales is widely described as co-founder of Wikipedia, although he disputes the "co-" part." Although I don't strongly oppose the version you just agreed with. Note that QuackGuru may consider the version of the lead you suggest to be a statement that Wales founded Wikipedia, though I don't see it as meaning that. If QuackGuru (QG) opposes it, then I think QG should explain why QG interprets it that way, and suggest alternative text that gets the desired meaning across. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
In Wiki-jargon, Jimmy Wales's view that he is the "sole founder" of Wikipedia should properly be regarded as a WP:FRINGE theory "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior ...". If he did not have such prominence within Wikipedia, these arguments would not be an issue. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Even if one considers it so, the views of proponents of fringe theories are typically described in articles about themselves. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Under the section Roles of Wikipedia creators it is described and explained. QuackGuru 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and as noted at WP:FRINGE, there are circumstances in which inclusion of so-called fringe theories is justified. See the second box on that page. I would argue that the wide notability of the dispute and multiple reliable sources that discuss it justify its inclusion here as well. --Sfmammamia (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, QuackGuru. I hadn't noticed that section of the article. So, all we need to do is to very briefly summarize that in the lead; I think the suggestions we were just discussing do that. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any suggestions that would work for me. Here is a little bit of history on this subject. QuackGuru 03:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This is probably going to sound terribly rude, but I honestly don't mean for it to. I do, however, feel it important, so I must state: those who feel the need to make improvements to this article would do a great service to themselves and everyone else involved if they first read the article. There are at least two recent threads on this talk page that may not exist if the poster had taken 15 minutes to read the article.

That said, try, for a moment, to ignore the fact that this topic is about Jimbo and Wikipedia. Pretend, if you will, that it is about someone from some other website completely unrelated to WP, and we had no idea about the person other than what we have in sources. It seems clear from the current section in the article and all early sources that Jimbo and Larry founded the project together. The co-founder issue did not come up until after Jimbo and Larry could no longer play nice. Early sources indicate co-foundership. This is what Larry's article reads, it's what Jimbo's should read. Now, Jimbo tried to write Larry out of WP history. Rather than help him by white-washing the lead sentence to conform to his fringe belief, we should keep it to the verifiable facts. It is verifiable that he is the co-founder. For that reason, it should read as such in the lead sentence, later noting that he disputes it. For the matter of NPOV, I'll concede we shouldn't refer to it as "laughably disputes it". لennavecia 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Jennavicia, why do you characterize a lead sentence made indisputable precisely because it does not specify either founder or co-founder as "whitewashing"? It seems you assume that readers will not even read the rest of the lead section, let alone the article. And QuackGuru, in the interests of consensus-building, perhaps you could elaborate on why the previous good-faith suggestions don't "work for you"? --Sfmammamia (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
He's the co-founder. Period. It's what Larry's article reads, why would we take it out of the lead sentence here? To whitewash the article. لennavecia 04:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Because the subject of the article himself has disputed that characterization, and the dispute has received coverage in reliable sources? --Sfmammamia (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
It's discussed in the article, but it's still fringe, and we don't whitewash the lead sentence because of it. If he wasn't the co-founder of this site, going by the sources, we would surely come to the conclusion (the accurate one) that he tried to write out his partner after their relationship went sour. We wouldn't give undue weight to it as is being attempted here. It's discussed in the article, his dispute of the title is completely appropriate for later in the lead, but the lead sentence should be clear, and it is a verifiable fact that he is the co-founder of Wikipedia. It's really that simple. لennavecia 15:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Coppertwig's request, I've added a source to my "deer-in-the-headlights" comment. In searching for it, I found another source that may or may not be used in the article, so I'll just drop it here.[10] لennavecia 22:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO we should not call Wales co-founder let alone mention Sanger in the opening of this article. But I think we can mention Wales in the opening of the Sanger article (Wales is more notable) and if there Wales is mentioned in the opening as co-founder this does not mean he should be mentioned as co-founder here. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
[11][12] Recently on my watchlist I saw the rewriting of history but we know that he is known historically as co-founder. Do facts change over time? Hmm. QuackGuru 22:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the rationale for considering the sole founder theory to be "fringe"? Why couldn't the co-founder theory similarly be considered "fringe" as apparently originating from one person, who is alleged to have written the early Wikimedia press releases?
Rewriting of history happens, and sometimes the rewritten version is closer to the truth. New evidence can be unearthed. Sometimes the original is written by a victorious army, and the later version by more dispassionate scholars. It's not Wikipedia's job to decide which version of history is the truth, but to report what the sources say.
If sufficiently reliable sources are found stating that there exists a (relevant) certificate, contract or election result etc. establishing Wales as "founder" or as "co-founder", then I suppose I'll concede that one can reasonably consider that designation to be fact and plainly assert it in the article. As it is, we can verify that he has been described in important sources as "co-founder"; we can't verify that it's actually true that he's the co-founder. I don't think the term "founder" or "co-founder" is well-defined. At the moment at least I'm not opposing giving a lot more weight to the "co-founder" version than to the "sole founder" version, but it seems clear to me that plainly stating that he's the "co-founder" contradicts at least one significant POV and is therefore not NPOV.
Jennavecia, I apologize for not having read the article previously, and have now read it. Thank you for your suggestion; it didn't seem rude to me.
Jennavecia, as I understand it, your position seems to be that if there is no dispute about a statement, then the statement can be removed from the first sentence of an article and other information substituted for one reason or another; but that if the statement is disputed, then it must remain in the first sentence in order to avoid whitewashing. That seems topsy-turvy to me. The relevant policy is not WP:No whitewashing allowed, but WP:Neutral point of view. See comments by one Wikipedian about whitewashing here.
Jennavecia, re application of BLP to talk pages, I don't think a video is a sufficient source for an interpretive-style description of what is allegedly happening in the video. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not my position. My position is that Jimbo is the co-founder. It's a verifiable fact. And, while disputed by him, to refer to him as "founder" or "sole founder" is whitewashing. It's not a matter of "he says he's founder and Larry disputes it". It's a matter of "sources from the early years of Wikipedia (and for anyone who was here then or has seen who did what between the two) state that they co-founded this project, and Jimbo disputes it". It's not until their falling out that this fact was disputed. The section of the article is really clear on this. Squeakbox is doing his best to whitewash, as shown in links above and his edits here. After some thought, I think the suggestion in the section below is a good way to go. As far as the video, it backs up what I said. And it's a reliable source. If you feel it's a BLP vio, then remove it and strike my sentence, but I stand by it. لennavecia 03:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Quack, historically we need to be very careful to distinguish between interpretation and so called facts. NPOV means we have to be very careful not to label interpretations as facts, they need to be treated as points of view, so far from rewriting history in your examples all I am doing is adhering to our NPOV policy. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure if this was mentioned; although I did read this thread because I was curious... I realize that WP is not a reliable source in itself, but by issuing a Press release that states The founders of Wikipedia are Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger it would be, IMHO, and end-all to such a debate. You do not get a 'take-back' on such a press release. Anything else would be revisionism. Unless the press release can be debunked, it should be held as an irrefutable endorsement that Sanger was indeed a co-founder, thus negating any claim that there exists a 'sole founder.' Law shoot! 06:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
SqueakBox, I'd say NPOV does not require giving equal weight between Jimmy Wales's declarations, and the amassed historical evidence. It can certainly be said in the article somewhere that he regards himself as "sole founder". But all the historical facts weigh on the side of "co-founder", so that should be nigh-dispositive for the lead. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not keeping in line with our NPOV policy. It's whitewashing. No matter how many times Jimbo says Larry isn't a co-founder, it's not going to make it true. And we shouldn't be giving undue weight to his claim by changing the article to be "neutral" between the facts and his attempts to write out Larry. لennavecia 16:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Seth, you said "all the historical facts". Could you please tell me which of the talk archives those are summarized in? All I saw was that there were press releases, allegedly written by Larry Sanger, calling them co-founders. (Plus facts about what they actually did, which doesn't determine in itself what the labels are.) What other historical facts are there? An argument was made somewhere in the talk archives that the Wikipedia page about Wales called him founder for a long time, and that that was evidence that the Wikipedia community considered him founder (otherwise that would have been reverted). I disagree about whether things in press releases can be retracted. Not everything in press releases is true, nor even necessarily officially approved. Thanks for your comments.
Jennavecia, in reply to your comment of 16:12, 1 November 2008: please see my comment above of 23:21, 31 October 2008. See also User:Coppertwig/NPOV#Respecting others' opinions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
See Larry Sanger's page My role in Wikipedia. In fact, everyone who doubts "co-founder" should read it over. It's quite convincing in my view. Yes, it's by one party to the dispute. But critically, Jimmy Wales has absolutely no evidence on his side except for his declarations and a PR campaign (which has at times been quite nasty). That is, between "rewriting history" and "correcting history", it looks overwhelmingly that he's rewriting history. I took this very seriously and investigated it quite extensively for my own writings. I came to the conclusion that Sanger had the right of it. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link; that's very convincing. Nevertheless, there is a dispute, evident in the published sources, and it's our job under NPOV to describe the dispute. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 18:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate to assert a dispute in references. Confusion, perhaps. When an article states both "founder" and "co-founder" at different points, I don't think that's indicative of a dispute so much as Jimbo successfully confusing the media. What it comes down to is 1/ We have sources that pretty much irrefutably show co-foundership, 2/ A falling out between Jimmy and Larry followed by 3/ Jimbo attempted to write Larry out of the history (for which we have sources as evidence). Jimmy refers to himself as sole-founder, which surely has an affect on how the media reports it, but that doesn't come down to a dispute in references. It is a result from Jimmy's campaign, and nothing more. As I said before, supporting his view any more than in explaining it is giving undue weight to his fringe belief. لennavecia 06:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, regarding the Wikipedia page about Wales called him founder for a long time, I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia as a reliable source. My teacher said it's a bad idea. >_> But seriously. A diff supporting a claim is appropriate. Something going unchanged, not so much. لennavecia 07:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit history

I decided to look, just because I was curious. Here's what I found. I'm tired, someone else can pick up where I left off.

Following this edit by Jimmy, "Jimmy Wales is a person.":

Jimmy Wales is an Internet entrepreneur, probably most famous for his founding of Wikipedia, a popular encyclopedia that draws its inspiration from the open source model and uses wiki software. He also founded Bomis.
Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales (8 August 1966–) is an Internet entrepreneur, probably most famous for his founding, with Larry Sanger, of Wikipedia, a popular open content encyclopedia that draws its inspiration from the open source model and uses wiki software. He and Larry previously worked on the failed Nupedia encyclopedia project. He also founded the Internet portal website Bomis.
Wales became famous after he co-founded Wikipedia in January 15 2001.
Complete whitewashing.
Rewrite: James Donal Wales (born August 8, 1966), commonly known as Jimmy Wales or Jimbo Wales, is an Internet entrepreneur. With Larry Sanger, Wales founded Wikipedia, a wiki-based online encyclopedia derived from the open source model.
Copyedits (and adds a trivia section), but does not change co-founder.

There are, by the way, many intermediate edits. لennavecia 08:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing the dispute section in the lead

Please comment on the suggestion by Sfmammamia above, (modified slightly by me to remove "now"), to add the following as the first sentence of the second paragraph, just before "Together with others", in order to summarize in the lead the "Roles of Wikipedia creators" section of the article: "Wales is widely considered the co-founder of Wikipedia, although he disputes that." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This addition, which I suggested, makes the most sense only if there's agreement to change the lead sentence as I previously suggested also: "Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales (born August 7, 1966) is an American Internet entrepreneur known for his role in developing Wikipedia, a free open content encyclopedia founded in 2001." I don't see this as rewriting history, a whitewash, or in any way disputable. That's why I think it's a superior lead sentence. --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I think "known for his role in developing Wikipedia" is appropriate. لennavecia 03:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The proposal by Sfmammamia is removing the co-founded part from the lead. What is the purpose for this? Why rewrite history?
Correction: the proposal is to move the co-founder part from the lead sentence further down into the lead section. The purpose of this is to more accurately present the word "co-founder" as something he disputes, which is in keeping with what the article says. This is not rewriting history. In my view, it's making the lead more accurate and neutral. --Sfmammamia (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The proposal by Coppertwig would be adding unreferenced material to the lead. Which reference citation would be used for the new proposal? QuackGuru 05:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Cmon, QuackGuru, the references are already in the article. The Boston Globe piece [13], the Associated Press piece [14], and the New Yorker article [15] (in which Wales as referenced both ways, first as founder, later as co-founder) portray the dispute pretty comprehensively. --Sfmammamia (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Margana said, "widely considered"? who considers otherwise other than Wales himself?)". Please read the talk page discussion before editing. Above, it says "OK, here's another source that says "the founder"...". Also, I didn't realize anyone would interpret "widely considered" as implying anything about anyone considering otherwise. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
"Widely considered" is clearly distinct from "universally considered" and implies that there are some (and not just one person) who consider otherwise. Sources saying "the founder" don't imply "sole founder" - there is not a single reliable source explicitly describing Wales as sole founder or denying that Sanger was co-founder. Margana (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
This edit removed co-founded from the lead and added text without consensus. QuackGuru 17:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The vague and unclear sentence added without consensus has been removed. QuackGuru 17:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the alternative proposed here is a good one because while not specific, it is still accurate. It doesn't imply sole foundership, rather the opposite, which is accurate, and it allows for the co-foundership to be mentioned later in the lead, where the details can be expanded upon. It seems a bit redundant to state "co-founder" twice in the lead. لennavecia 06:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

New sentence added to lead

Is it necessary to have this sentence in the lead: Although Wales has long been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, he laughable disputes it.[8] QuackGuru 18:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No: the word "laughable" shouldn't be there, per NPOV and per English grammar. However, a similar sentence is needed, per WP:LEAD, to summarize a section of the article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
But thanks, QuackGuru, for rewording the first part of the sentence: "Although Wales has long been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, ..." I think that's a definite improvement over the earlier version of the sentence. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
That has to be the most ridiculous edit to this article that is apparently intended to be legit. I'm saving that one for the inevitable future RFC/U. لennavecia 06:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Although I said "has long been cited as" was an improvement, I don't feel strongly about it and it's OK with me if someone wants to change it back to "is widely considered" or suggest some other way to word it. If you're saving comments for an RFC/U, please save them for the RFC/U. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to "laughable". But I'll continue to note which diffs I'm pulling if I feel it appropriate. لennavecia 16:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Laughable is correct and it matches the source better. QuackGuru 20:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
According to the source: "I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. QuackGuru 01:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, first thing is that even if it were appropriate to write it that way, which I don't believe it the slightest that it is, it would be "laughably". Regardless, this has been expanded on in the (currently) last section of this talk page. لennavecia 05:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I think QuackGuru was aiming for phrasing like: "Although Wales has long been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, in a dispute he himself characterizes as "laughable", (ref) he objects to the "co-" designation." That has the irony of the sentence being true in a narrow, technical sense, while misleading in terms of ordinary usage. And hence would be a sort of geek-humor poetic-justice parallel to the "sole founder" justification. So it would never stick. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Vagueness in the lead

Together with others, Wales laid the foundation for Wikipedia's rapid growth and popularity.[9][10]

The above sentence is a bit vague. The Together with others part is actually Larry Sanger. QuackGuru 18:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, saying that the "others" is only Larry Sanger is an assumption on your part. According to the chronologies I have read, there were other people involved, even in the early days. The first cited reference mentions that 200 people were working on it its first year. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Surely the first wiki-volunteers played some kind of role. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 18:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
According to the reference it is Larry Sanger and not together with others. QuackGuru 18:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the first footnote to that sentence is to this article, which does not say that Wales and Sanger founded Wikipedia; rather, it states that they "helped found Wikipedia." That seems to me to suggest that people other than them were involved. Later in the same article, it says, "The two attribute Wikipedia's success so far to the presence of a strong core group of contributors who together maintain community standards of quality and neutrality." I thought so! Contributors had something to do with it! ☺Coppertwig(talk) 18:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
According to this reference [16]:"The two attribute Wikipedia's success so far to the presence of a strong core group of contributors who together maintain community standards of quality and neutrality." --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with others that it seems to apply to the earliest editors as well. لennavecia 06:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

First sentence of lead

Now that a new sentence with "co-founder" has been added to the second paragraph, there is no longer the same need for "which he co-founded in 2001" in the first sentence. Would those who support continuing to include this please state the reasons for including it given the presence of the new sentence? Here's another suggested version for the first sentence of the article, which I think is better at avoiding contradicting what is now said just one paragraph later: "which he is cited as having co-founded in 2001". ☺Coppertwig(talk) 21:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary attribution is a violation of WP:ASF. (Violations of ASF exist in the chiropractic article and now you want to do the same thing here.) The facts did not change over time in this particular case. QuackGuru 00:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see my comment above of 19:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC); and this comment from me to you, especially the last paragraph, about another article but with comments relevant here, in my opinion; and User:Coppertwig/NPOV#Respecting others' opinions. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The historically facts have not changed and we can use a little common sense in this case. QuackGuru 01:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's unnecessary to bring up the issues of unrelated articles when talking about this one. That said, "is cited as" is not, in my opinion, a good alternative. We state what the references state and we add the cites. لennavecia 06:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate to assert a dispute in references. Confusion, perhaps. When an article states both "founder" and "co-founder" at different points, I don't think that's indicative of a dispute so much as Jimbo successfully confusing the media. What it comes down to is 1/ We have sources that pretty much irrefutably show co-foundership, 2/ A falling out between Jimmy and Larry followed by 3/ Jimbo attempted to write Larry out of the history (for which we have sources as evidence). Jimmy refers to himself as sole-founder, which surely has an affect on how the media reports it, but that doesn't come down to a dispute in references. It is a result from Jimmy's campaign, and nothing more. As I said before, supporting his view any more than in explaining it is giving undue weight to his fringe belief. لennavecia 06:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the word "although" to the second half of the sentence in an attempt to reduce the weight given to the "sole founder" POV.
One could take any dispute in reliable sources and assert on the article talk page that one side of the dispute is merely "confusion". I recognize that it's your position, Jennavecia and QuackGuru, that it's a "fact" that Wales is a "co-founder". Do you consider it a "fact about which there is no serious dispute"? I would appreciate it if you would show that you realize that my position is that it's a matter of interpretation rather than fact. QuackGuru, I don't consider the prose attribution ("citations") to be "unnecessary", but even if they are, I don't see how that violates WP:ASF. The whole practicality of NPOV as a basis for resolving disputes among Wikipedians with different POVs is that ASF does not say, "Do not assert facts about facts". ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
IU am certain you cannot source your original research claims that it is a "fact" (whatever that may mean) that he co-founded wikipedia. This claim strikes me as pure sophistry. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Coppertwig, I realize your position is that the co-/foundership is a matter of interpretation. However, considering only one can be true (he either founded it or he co-founded it), I don't agree that it's a matter of interpretation. And SqueakBox, nevermind. I don't even have a response for that. لennavecia 16:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Disagree that "only one can be true" as "founding" is not a well-defined or unambiguous concept in terms of online projects. I support the "known for his role in founding Wikipedia wording" in the lede, with elaboration and dispute in the article body. the skomorokh 16:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
So now we've got to determine what is meant by "founder"? لennavecia 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
No, that would be OR. It is verifiable, neutral and uncontroversial that Wales is best known/notable for his "role in founding Wikipedia". The same cannot be said for the claims that he is the co-founder or sole founder. The only compelling reasons for using "co-" or "sole" in the lede are ideological. We should include the uncontroversial line in the lede, and elaborate in he said/she said form if necessary in the article body. 16:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
That's not the purpose of the lead section. It's also verifiable that he's the co-founder, thus it is not ideological to include "co-" in the lead. لennavecia 03:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Your inability to respond to my comment makes it clear you support it. Thanks for that support, Lara. I fully agree that founder and co-founder are not mutually exclusive, co-founder and sole founder are what are mutually exclusive, founder is the compromise solution. Thanks, SqueakBox
At the risk of repeating myself ad naudseam, removing any of these terms from the lead sentence, which is what I have been suggesting for several days, seems a clearer compromise. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
What you consider a compromise I consider rewriting history and against consensus. QuackGuru 18:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
What consensus is that QuackGuru? Given the number of edits and editors who have participated in this discussion, I'm amazed that you can define a consensus. Based on what? --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Consensus has not changed. I don't see any evidence of editors agreeing to rewrite history. QuackGuru 19:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Jennavecia, thank you very much for acknowledging my position. Would you please clarify your position about the formulation of the first sentence? When you said, "I think the alternative proposed here is a good one" I'm not sure what you were referring to: were you supporting this version of the first sentence, mentioned earlier in that subsection? "Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales (born August 7, 1966) is an American Internet entrepreneur known for his role in developing Wikipedia, a free open content encyclopedia founded in 2001." Thanks. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I first did not agree with the change, but upon further consideration and the arguments here, I believe that it is a good compromise for the lead sentence, as long as "co-founded" is mentioned later in the lead where the details of the dispute can be explained. It also seems redundant to mention "co-founder" twice in the lead. لennavecia 19:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia was not founded in 2001, it was co-founded in 2001. If editors are going to change the lead it should be changed to something neutral such as launched in 2001. QuackGuru 19:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion! I fully support it! --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, I support the current version. The founded in 2001 is misleading and not NPOV. Launched in 2001 is another consideration. QuackGuru 19:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
If "launched" is neutral, as you asserted a few minutes ago, that should be the word used. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Co-founded in 2001 is neutral and accurate. I prefer the most accurate version. QuackGuru 19:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
How about this version? QuackGuru 22:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
(<--) I like the previous version better. I think "his role in the founding [...] launched in 2001" is good wording. With "his role" preceding "founding", it squashes that "sole-founder" mess. Using "developing" doesn't accurately state what he did, in my opinion. It's too vague and seems more appropriate for crediting early editors. I don't like the use of "started" in any use, whether it be "co-started" or without the co-, it just doesn't read well, imo. لennavecia 03:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I think from previous discussions editors had a problem with the "founding" part. It could be interpreted as the founder of Wikipedia. I think "his role in the creating" could be another option. "Launched in 2001" is a possibility but (I still prefer co-founded of 2001) this is heavily dependent on keeping the new co-founder sentence NPOV. If it is weakened again I think we should restore the "co-founded in 2001" part or a request for comment on this dispute could help with this content dispute. QuackGuru 05:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
As long as the co-foundership is mentioned later in the lead, I don't think it necessary to be so specific here. I like "his role in the creation of". That reads well and "creation" carries the same weight, I believe, as "founded". Because of the use of "his role", I just don't see the necessity to include "co-" in the same sentence following it. Although, I suppose it limits it to two (Jimbo and Larry) to have it read "co-founded", where as simply "founded" may imply more people were involved... but, again, as long as it's mentioned at another point in the lead, I think this is getting over-complicated with it. :/ لennavecia 05:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I like the current version of the first sentence: "...a free open content encyclopedia which he started, together with others, in 2001." I think we can all agree that that's fact (at least, I can). ☺Coppertwig(talk) 12:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole problem can be easily circumvented by avoiding the word "found" in any incarnation at all in the lead. Also, the current wording of "he disputes the "co-" part." is unprofessional language and sounds silly. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out #Lead sentence and first sentence of 2nd para. لennavecia 21:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

diffs as primary sources

Re SqueakBox's edit summary "you cannot use wikipedia edits as a ref, this is completely unacceptable practice" [17]: In general, I agree, but in this particular case I disagree. If a specific set of Wikipedia edits have been mentioned in the published sources, specific enough to mention who did the edits, then in my opinion in that case Wikipedia diffs can be acceptable as primary sources. This is rare enough that it's not worthwhile to rewrite the policy to take such exceptions into account; one uses common sense. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the policy that covers this is WP:SELFPUB. QuackGuru 21:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I restored the reference per WP:SELFPUB. QuackGuru 18:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
It is not self published, if his edits are quoted in other sources we just use those other sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The quote is self-published and this edit is difficult to understand everything that was done in the edit. QuackGuru 17:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
No, its published by the wikimedia foundation. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It was written by Jimmy Wales. That's what self-published is all about. QuackGuru 17:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
You are trying to set a precedent, I suggest you do so on a policy page. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I restored the references per WP:SELFPUB. The references are for the quotes. The quotes are self-published. QuackGuru 18:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, QuackGuru. لennavecia 03:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I already tried this on a policy page, many months ago, SqueakBox, and as well as I remember it, the answer was that it isn't worthwhile changing the wording of a policy for something that comes up so rarely and that when it comes up people will just use common sense and IAR, or will interpret the policy correctly as not having been intended (in spirit) to disallow this particular kind of thing. You have to look not only at the literal wording of a policy, but the reasons underlying it and the types of situations to which it was apparently intended to apply. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Per ASF

Unnecessary attribution per WP:ASF. QuackGuru 21:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the unnecessary attribution per WP:ASF. QuackGuru 18:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

He was removing the truth, but that wording seems appropriate all the same. لennavecia 06:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by truth? Your comment makes no sense as whether he was sole founder or co founder is a matter of opinion and has no relation to the word truth. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Truth: Jimmy Wales co-founded Wikipedia with Larry Sanger. Also, verifiable fact. I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round. لennavecia 18:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you discuss this with Jimbo directly. I take it you have read his comments re this issue on this page18:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox
We have evidence of him attempting to write Larry out of the history. The whole dispute in this article is about him disputing this fact. There is not one reliable source that disputes Larry's claim to co-foundership or that disputes any of the early sources, including the press release, that state them as co-founders. So what, exactly, are we supposed to take from Jimmy in determining this? If it wasn't about Jimbo, but some other guy for some other site, would we attempt to contact him and get his opinion on our coverage of the issue? Certainly not. لennavecia 18:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
SqueakBox, I've given due consideration to Jimbo's view. I believe I understand his theory - roughly, my paraphrase, that he is "sole founder" because he was the business-owner. I find that jargonistic and excessively self-serving (for example, it means no employee could ever have such status, the business-owner would always get the credit). Plus many of his statements, well, let us say they are directly contradicted by the historical record. Again, if this were not a case of him being so prominent here, there would not be any controversy. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
If a theory is jargonistic and self-serving, it is nevertheless still a theory, and for NPOV we have to report it. When it's stated by people other than Wales (for example, presumably most of the approximately two-thirds of Google hits that have "founder" rather than "co-founder") then I don't see how it's "self-serving".
In my opinion, the discoverer of a scientific theory deserves credit for the discovery regardless of whether the person is an employer or employee, professor or graduate student. But to me, the word "founder" or "foundation" carries a connotation of perhaps providing "funding"; so that someone can be the "founder" of something if they provide a chunk of money and a directive as to how to use it, even if others did almost all the actual work. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Repeat, it is a WP:FRINGE theory, having no evidence besides Jimbo's own statements which have extremely self-promotional and mean-spirited aspects, while being extensively contradicted by the historical record. It should thus not receive undue weight, i.e. not be presented as equally valid, even by implication ("Some people believe the earth is round, some people believe the earth is flat - we report, you decide"). Note people can be the founders of a project without being funders - e.g. "founder of a school of thought". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we can say Jimbo was (at least in the early days) the sole-funder of Wikipedia. QuackGuru 03:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The definition of "founding" is "To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence". Jimmy provided the cash, Larry set everything up. They each played a role in the founding of Wikipedia. As far as mentioning that Jimmy funded it all in the early years, it's already in the article with that source. لennavecia 03:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I acknowledge that you, Seth Finkelstein, believe that the "sole founder" idea is a fringe theory. I don't agree. I don't think "theory" is a good description of it; I would call it a label or an interpretation. I don't think there's a single well-defined definition of "founder" or "sole founder"; therefore I don't think it (or the "co-founder" idea) is the kind of thing that can be firmly established by evidence other than certificates, contracts, election results and the like. I see no particular reason to call it "fringe". Usually on Wikipedia we give considerable weight in biographies to what the person themself considers themself to be (e.g. ethnicity, religion, etc.) If Sanger had said all along that Wales was the sole founder, I think likely that would be generally accepted as fact. I don't think it's reasonable to label something a "fringe" theory if the opinion of one person could transform it into fact. I agree that someone can be a founder without providing any money. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 12:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, call it a fringe "position" or "stance" then. But it's not a category like ethnicity, religion, etc., where one has considerable latitude for self-identification. Moreover, this is more like a person saying someone else is not a true member of the ethnicity, religion, etc. If someone decided that they were the True Pope or Sole Real Priest of the Catholic Church, how kindly would that claim be treated? (no offense meant). I don't think we'd be seeing a serious argument that "Pope" or "Priest" have no well-defined meaning. Note I'd say Larry Sanger's opinion wouldn't change the historical facts, but of course it would be a factor in determining the history (hence the relevance of the evidence that this arose only when Wales and Sanger fell out and Wikipedia took off, and never was a controversy for years before then) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(<--) I just read this self-help book for my job, and it taught me to implement the same strategies that you (Coppertwig) are when dealing with difficult people or difficult situations. Anyway, I sort of agree. "Theory" isn't really it, but I'm with Seth that it's a fringe... belief, perhaps. And I disagree that there's no solid definition of "found" in the sense of "founded".

  • Wiktionary: v, 2. To set up; to launch; to institute
  • The Free Dictionary: tr.v, 1. To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence
  • Dictionary.die.net: v.t, 1. To lay the basis of
  • AllWords.com: v, 2. to set up; to launch; to institute
  • Answers.com: tr.v, 1. To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence
  • Merriam-Webster: tr.v, 1. to take the first steps in building; 3. to establish (as an institution) often with provision for future maintenance
  • Dictionary.reference.com: tr.v, 1. To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence

That's from the first page of the search, and I think it's probably the same idea that everyone else already had for the definition of "founded". I don't see what contracts, certificates or election results have to do with anything. If you're elected into something, it's probably already been founded. What evidences founding is the work put in to the creation of it. Larry played a key role in establishing Wikipedia. Even by his own words, IIRC (and I will look through the sources again to be sure), Jimmy said he provided the money, and Larry set it all up. I know Larry's claim is that he chose the name after suggesting it be a wiki. To me, all of this is clear evidence of founding the site. لennavecia 15:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence and first sentence of 2nd para

This is discussed above, but in separate sections. I think it's important to discuss them together as we don't want redundant wording.

Okay, so as it is, we've got:

  • "known for his role in developing Wikipedia, a free open content encyclopedia which he and others started in 2001."
  • "Although Wales has long been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, he disputes the "co-" part."

I propose that, in the first, "developing" be changed to "the creation of". Creation, I believe, carries the same weight and general meaning, in this case, as founder; and "his role" preceding it squashes any thought of sole-foundership. I also believe that "developing" is too vague and seems more appropriate for crediting early editors. Additionally, "which he and others started" or, as alternatively proposed, "together with others" is unnecessary extra wording. "His role" already establishes that it was not something he did alone, "with others" does not require "together" to precede it, as it is implied. Regardless, I propose that it be changed to "launched", which QuackGuru first proposed above.

For the second, I personally do not like "he disputes the 'co-' part." It doesn't read well. That surely not professional prose. Perhaps instead something like "he disputes this, asserting that he is actually the sole-founder." Or something like that. لennavecia 15:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Alternatively, I just saw Seth's wording above of "he disputes the 'co-' designation", which I think is good. لennavecia 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of your ideas on the lede. It's important to recognize Wales' unique contribution (whatever it was) as well as the fact that he was there from day one. I'm not sure the first sentence of the second paragraph is necessary at all for a basic overview of the subject. the skomorokh 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead isn't a basic overview of the subject. It's a summary of the article. The dispute has its own section in the article, thus needs to be mentioned in the lead. لennavecia 21:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Jennavicia, thank you for persisting in this discussion and contributing some great ideas. Let me see if I'm getting them:

  • Second part of lead sentence changed to: "known for his role in the creation of Wikipedia, a free open content encyclopedia launched in 2001."
  • First sentence of second graph of lead: "Although Wales has long been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, he has disputed this, asserting that he was actually the sole founder."

(I placed this sentence in past tense, as I think that is more accurate and true to sources.)

If I've gotten those changes right, I fully support them. --Sfmammamia (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we stick to the sources. Where in the ref that we are using in the lead does it say anything about "asserting that he was actually the sole founder."? QuackGuru 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Sfmammamia, pretty much. I'm not really fond of "long been cited", but otherwise, yes. QuackGuru, shall we start a debate over semantics? Did I miss something? When he said that Larry was not deserving of co-founder status, did he have someone else in mind for such a status? If not, then he was asserting sole-foundership. لennavecia 03:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we edit according to the sources presented. You are unable to provide any text from the source for "asserting that he was actually the sole founder." QuackGuru 03:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
You could have just responded with "Yes." لennavecia 03:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, okay. Since absolutely everything has to be challenged, how about this: "Although Wales has long been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, he disputes this, stating that Sanger is 'not deserving of co-founder status'."[Ref] لennavecia 03:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? If you need a ref, direct quote: "I am the sole founder of Wikipedia" - Jimbo Wales -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This gets more amusing every day. Thanks, Seth. Alternative now struck. لennavecia 04:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I added the sole founder thingy to the lead. QuackGuru 19:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I tweaked it just slightly, removing the "I" from the quote, rewording so that it is "he", as I think it reads much better this way. I also formatted the reference. I wasn't sure exactly what to name the link, so if anyone wants to change that, feel free, of course. Reading the lead now, I think it's completely neutral. It doesn't seem, in my opinion, to lean in either direction. The only thing left about the lead that I don't care for is the "Together with others". It's pointless extra wording. "Together" could be removed, though I think for the matter of professional prose, we can word it better. That is, however, uncontroversial and unrelated to this content dispute that I hope is now over. لennavecia 20:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I restored it to the correct tense IMHO. Wales has not changed his position. QuackGuru 01:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
QuackGuru, if this version has your agreement, keeping it in the present tense is no big deal with me. Can we call it consensus for now? --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is conditional that the new sentence is not heavily changed or deleted. For example, if the new sentence is deleted we should restore the co-founded in 2001 to the lead. Howvever, I still prefer the co-founded in 2001 for the lead sentence. I understand this is a bit complicated.
If editors prefer we can change the tense back. QuackGuru 01:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no strong preference, really. I'm fine with the change to present tense. لennavecia 05:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "co-designation" still sounds unprofessional in my opinion. Are there objections to change that sentence to "Although Wales has long been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, he disputes this designation,[8] asserting that he is "the sole founder of Wikipedia."? --Reinoutr (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewording it to "this designation" seems vague. The "co-designation" is very specific. QuackGuru 23:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not "co-designation". It's "'co-' designation", with a quotation mark and a space between the hyphen and the word "designation". I think it's perfectly good grammar to refer to a part of a word by putting it in quotation marks; for example, I could refer to "cor-" and "-rect" as the two syllables of the word "correct". (However, saying "he disputes that designation" or something similar is also fine with me.) Thanks for the talk page edit, by the way, Jennavecia. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's fine either way. لennavecia 03:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented the alternate suggestion; the "co-" wording is a little clumsy and unnecessary, as it's easy for the reader to tell the difference between "co-founder" and "sole founder". I hope this is ok with all. the skomorokh 10:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To say "that designation" is vague. QuackGuru 16:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not at all vague – the only designation in the preceding clause is "the co-founder of Wikipedia". Please explain yourself. the skomorokh 18:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The "'co-' designation" is specific. It explains to the reader that he disputes the "co-" part. QuackGuru 18:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Look, I can appreciate the greater specificity, but I really don't our readers unable to distinguish between "co-founder" and "sole founder". The current version uses clumsy English, in my opinion. the skomorokh 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
We both disagree with each other on this. If you still feel stronger about the version you prefer you could open a RFC on this content dispute. I think the "'co-' designation" is the best version because it is specific. QuackGuru 18:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need to open an RFC on this. Perhaps other who watch this page can weigh in with their opinions on the matter and a consensus can be reached. We got this far, I'm sure we can get one more step. I'll say that I do agree with Skomorokh that the prose is not impressive in this article, so anything we can do to improve it is good. Also, while I don't particularly have a preference between the two options at this time, I also agree that readers should easily be able to comprehend the meaning without being specific. It's one sentence. I'm pretty sure they can figure out the second half of the sentence refers to the first half. لennavecia 05:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Any time we can be more specific without adding a lot of extra words it is better. I think the previous version introduced vagueness which can easily be confusing for the reader. A RFC can sometimes help in disputes like this. QuackGuru 05:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please add a protected template

{{editprotected}} Please add a {{pp-dispute}} template to the article. Thanks in advance. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done, but no need to have it full-size. --Rodhullandemu 20:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright, cheers! It Is Me Here (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Where did the controversy section go? I recall it told how he spent some of the charity money on lunches and things, and I would like to know where it went unless he edited his own article again. Could not find it in the edit history. Reply on my talk page, not here. Anthony cargile (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Un-semi-protect?

This article has been semi-protected since March. The reason given is "trolling". Does anyone here think that it's time to un-semi-protect? Sole Flounder (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I conjecture that the majority of IP edits would be vandalism or trolling, but support relaxing protection on such a high profile article on philosophical grounds. With so many editors watching this page, vandalism would be quickly reverted; we can afford a few hours. the skomorokh 20:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Failed verification

This newly added sentence failed verification. QuackGuru 21:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the source said no such thing. I've reverted it. Skomorokh 21:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Syn

We may have a slight problem with a sentence in the lead according to Skomorokh edit summary. QuackGuru 21:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)(QuackGuru 05:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

I think Sko's edits are good. It carries the same general meaning but more closely follows the source. No complaint from me. لennavecia 05:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
My initial commnet was too vague. I tried to clarify what I meant to write. QuackGuru 06:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I still have no complaint. Both sentences convey the same meaning, in my opinion. لennavecia 06:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
According to this edit summary the current version is possibly a syn violation. QuackGuru 06:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I took the edit summary to refer to the sentence before s/he changed it. In the body, it reads "Sanger dubbed the project "Wikipedia" and, with Wales, laid down the founding principles and content, establishing an Internet-based community of contributors during that year." By removing "with others" and leaving it simply as "helped", it makes no assumptions about how many other people were involved. If it was just Jimbo and Sanger, then "helped" summarizes that. I see no need to change it to something else. Doing so would require mentioning Sanger in the lead, and we've already established that some are wholly opposed to that. لennavecia 16:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
This is about syn. The edit summary was clear to me. SqueakBox added the words the "other founder" to the lead of the Larry Sanger article. He is very happy with mentioning the other founder in the lead. We should have consistency according to Jennavecia. QuackGuru 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my edit summary was ambiguous. I was indeed referring to the current sentence. Our sentence reads as if Wales is being praised for his role in WP's success, whereas the source, as I read it, does not assert a causal link between Wales' actions and Wikipedia's success (beyond bringing WP into existence). Skomorokh 20:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The current sentence puts two different references together to come to a new conclusion. A classic case of syn. QuackGuru 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Larry Sanger in the lead

For the moment I reverted my edit because of SqueakBox's unhappiness of Larry Sanger in the lead. But what is more interesting is that SqueakBox added Jimmy Wales to the lead of Sanger's article. He is happy with adding Wales to the lead of Sanger's article but is clearly unhappy with adding Sanger in the lead of the Wales' article. QuackGuru 20:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I do see your point. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
We should have consistency between the two article. Also, if there are desired changes to the lead wording agreed upon on this page a few weeks ago, it should be discussed here first. لennavecia 21:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have tried to edit both Wales and Sanger for some type of conformity per other bios of co-founders, see Microsoft and google co-founder's bios for example. That way, readers can know who the othe co-founder was and easily click to read their bios. This seems pretty straight forward and balanced. Thanks, --Tom 16:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think SqueakBox is going to be happy with the edit based on past comments. QuackGuru (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I made this change to remove the extra detail from the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Why?? --Tom 14:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)ps, adding the name of the other co-founder is not a "low level detail", even for a bio rather than the Wikipedia article. --Tom 14:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Pay And Wealth

Reviewing the recent edits, I noticed this: "The work he carries out for the foundation has always been unpaid, including his appearances to promote the organization at computer and educational conferences.". While technically true as written, the statement has a misleading implication, as it omits his extensive paid speaking fees, which he keeps entirely as "inviting me in my personal capacity". I've been able to confirm these fees are now an asking price of AT LEAST more than 50K, and have an unconfirmed report of 100K. The more than 50K fact can be WP:RS'ed to my column "Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Jimmy Wales says". Also, it should be noted he's claimed "I do not have millions of dollars. I do not even have one million dollars." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Video

The video here, which is too big for me to attempt to download, seems to suggest that only a small part of it contains Wales. What license is this file released under? To me the .ogg seems to suggest it may be Wikipedia compatible, in which case the part where Wales speaks can be clipped out an uploaded to Commons. We don't currently seem to have any audio or video of him, which is a bit of a disappointment. Richard001 (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sectioning

It strikes me that the text of this article could be better arranged in three sections; a section encompassing "Personal life and education" and "Personal philosophy", the existing Career section, and a third section covering the issues with his self-portrayal (founder status and date of birth) and his attempts to influence what is written about him. This would seem a more natural and logical mode of presentation than ghettoising personal philosophy at the bottom of the article and having two separate top-level sections each covering an issue regarding Wales' identity and its coverage in the media. Thoughts? Skomorokh 15:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Note also that the Personal philosophy and Roles of Wikipedia creators sections are each short and made up of a single paragraph at present. Skomorokh 15:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. لennavecia 20:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Groovy. Skomorokh 20:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Relationships

Is it just me, or does this sentence in the first paragraph of the "Relationships" sentence seem completely out of place?

"Ayn Rand, creator of Objectivism, the altruism-critical philosophy that he ascribes to, however, did not consider being a nurse altruistic."

I don't know, but as a reader, when I read that paragraph, it seemed like an odd point to make in the context of the rest of the paragraph, and of questionable relevance. Even if it belongs there, the verb "ascribe" doesn't make much sense in this sentence. MisterSquirrel 00:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in the rest, but you're right that "abscribes" is the wrong word. It should be "subscribes", and to that extent I'll edit the sentence. Loganberry (Talk) 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification for birthdate info

The article currently reads:

Wales had edited his entries on Wikipedia and on the Wikimedia Foundation's website in 2004 to indicate that his date of birth was August 7, 1966.[61] In a 2006 discussion on Wikipedia, he outright declared "My date of birth is not August 8, 1966."[62] The Encyclopædia Britannica, Current Biography, and Who’s Who in America support these statements.[clarification needed][2][3][4]

What needs clarification? لennavecia 14:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Which statements the three sources support. It reads as if they support Wales' quote and the (non-statement) edits he made to WP/WMF; but the only online ref, Britannica, did not endorse Wales' version of events according to the article. Skomorokh 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger majored in philosophy. See Hometown kid an Internet revolutionary. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We've known this and have long referred to him as a philosopher, no? لennavecia 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
He has a doctorate from a top-30 Philosophical Gourmet university - there is no question as to his right to the designation. Skomorokh 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Main Article

Thank you Jimmy, for founding Wikipedia! Rich nffc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaid100 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes to date of birth

I noticed the date of birth has changed. Someone may want to have a look at this. QuackGuru (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The dates have been restored to a previous version. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Role within Wikipedia

There should probably be a paragraph or section on what Wales' role/position is within Wikipedia. At one point the page says he has been described as a 'benevolent dictator', but there is nothing else to indicate he has any more power than any other admin. --Helenalex (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that on a day to day basis, he doesn't have any more power above the norm, although for specific purposes, Jimbo can, and will, assume powers on a temporary basis for specific cases. This is transparent for all practical purposes, and is exercised so rarely that I don't see it as an issue worthy of mention, beyond that in most cases where this has been done, it does not seem to be notable enough to warrant mention here otherwise than in the most general terms. However, I personally don't know what the "Founder" permission flag implies; but neither do I assume that Jimbo is likely to abuse it. In general terms, to reply to your comment, I'd assume that Jimbo can do anything permissible by the technology we have. Why should this article imply otherwise, or even set it out? --Rodhullandemu 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
He definitely does have a role within the arbcom elections. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be best to write text according to a reference. First find the reference and then we can add something to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

how notable is this man?

Is he worthy of his own article? Wartortle28 (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think the cited sources are inadequate to establish notability?--Rodhullandemu 21:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was asking to hear other people's opinions Wartortle28 (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Those opinions are set out in the cited sources and it would appear that consensus is that they satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO. --Rodhullandemu 00:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting he isn't notable, Wartortle28?⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL! with some of the bio's on wiki, Jimbo is THE most deserved person for a bio !
If you dont believe me, go and look at his talk pages and see how much work he does and has done for this and other projects
Chaosdruid (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of us do work for this and other projects. That does not establish notability. What does, however, is the abundance of reliable sources reporting on Jimbo and the widely popular and notable website that he co-founded. He is unquestionably notable, and the person who asked apparently already knew that. So let's not waste time on the equivalent of discussion whether or not water is wet, and instead go do something productive. لennavecia 16:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
lol - that sounds like a Jimbo-ism (Zebras are black and white etc) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As if to prove a point... --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Twitter

I added the Twitter feed to "Websites" in the infobox. Not sure whether it's relevant, but he does update it increasingly regularly and he has over 4500 followers at present. Not quite Stephen Fry level, but quite a lot. --TS 20:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I keep removing it from articles on the basis of WP:ELNO in that it is little more than a blog and doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic purpose. However, that's in the External Links sections, not the infobox. Even so, I feel it's stretching it a bit to include it. --Rodhullandemu 20:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It's linked to from his blog. Don't see much reason to put it in the infobox. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy or James

Just confirming - is his birth name actually "Jimmy," as the opening paragraph suggests, rather than "James"? — SteveRwanda (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Britannica says it's Jimmy.[18] I don't know of any source that suggests otherwise. Skomorokh 18:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

USA Network "Character Approved" Honoree

I was surprised to see this on television today: http://www.usanetwork.com/characterapproved/honorees/wales/index.html --Antoshi~! T | C 15:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

They just had a commercial at c. 11:40 Eastern Time where they said "Jimmy Wales is character approved" and focused on the contribution of free knowledge that moves away from traditional, limited histories. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather intrusive content on Personal Life

Frankly the content of this section is not acceptable in any BLP. Get a grip, gossip is not encyclopedic. Riversider (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because information isn't flattering doesn't make it inappropriate. faithless (speak) 22:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Which sections do you find to be intrusive or gossip? The Marsden content is relevant to his role in Wikipedia, (thus recognized by our policy on biographies of living people), the philosophy content gives vital content to his life's work. If we did not mention his marriages and his child, this would not be a comprehensive biography of the subject. Skomorokh 22:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The sections I deleted I consider to be gossipy and non-encyclopedic, the fact that an ex girlfriend sold items on ebay is deeply irrelevant to the life of anybody, and would have been deleted as vandalism on any other BLP. The other sections you mention I did not touch. Flattering information would have been even worse... Riversider (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

For most people, yes, that information would be irrelevant, because most of us don't have the details of our personal lives covered by the media. Flattering or unflattering, the event received extensive media attention, and shouldn't be removed just because someone finds it in poor taste. faithless (speak) 22:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not really that it's poor taste, more that it is highly trivial and gossipy. I would expect to find information of this nature in a celebrity gossip magazine, or the National Enquirer, and possibly even enjoy reading it there, but definitely not in an encyclopedia, which I would access for entirely different reasons. Riversider (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
If you examine the sources cited, you will see they are not of the National Enquirer standard. Regards, Skomorokh 16:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This does not surprise me, but at least the Enquirer sets a standard which one day they could aspire to. :) Riversider (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Ha! FWIW, I don't have a problem with your removal of the eBay line, though I think the link between Marsden-Wales and Wikipedia ought to be preserved. Skomorokh 16:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I can see the argument for keeping the rest. It was nonsense about selling smalls on eBay that rang my editorial alarm bells. We need to keep a sense of what is encyclopedic, and what is tripe.Riversider (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I was mostly playing devil's advocate with you here, I don't much care either way. Best, faithless (speak) 20:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel a bit of sympathy for JW too, I had an almost identical experience, except it was my entire Guns N' Roses collection she sold.Riversider (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) One of the deep issues I have with Wikipedia is the way in which it's much too easy for someone who has a grudge against to you to create a minor bit of media sensationalism, then it's "notable", and Wikipedia may make that little contretemps prominent forever as part of your so-called "biography". Though it may be poetic justice and a kind of karmic retribution for sins to have the Rachel Marsden affair haunting Jimmy Wales in this manner, I'll come down on the side that it's an example of an endemic problem that afflicts even Himself. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Public figures are arguably "up for grabs", and as far as I understand current UK law, there is little expectation of privacy unless it is explicitly sought. The flipside, of course, is that minor celebs will exploit their fifteen minutes of fame to the max, in order to make money from a lumpenproletariat, and largely uncritical market. Notwithstanding that, I don't perceive Jimmy as milking that cash-cow, but, of course, you may know better. As regards Marsden, it's a matter of supreme indifference to me, and I cannot understand why anyone would think it important in absolute terms. The problem we have with this encyclopedia is those who think that each and every detail of any topic whatsoever should be reported here; it largely comes down to "because someone else has reported it, so should we". No. WP:NOT proscribes us being an indiscriminate collection of information; but you try to explain why Girls Aloud's unannounced but rumoured forthcoming single isn't worthy of mention, and they just don't get it. Flagged Revisions aside, perhaps it's time for some professional editors. --Rodhullandemu 23:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Aww - now I had to go and learn something :¬( AH! Anarcistic pimps, gansters and other lovely ppl lol :¬)
Himself - lmao
I have been watching and wondering why this is necessary - it just doesn't seem nice. It's not like we need it in here, if anything it's a bit of a hatchet job. It isn't really notable, nor is it long lasting. If I were to read this sort of thing on other BLP I would perhaps think that I should edit them out - why should Jimmy's bio be different to anyone elses ?
It seems a little uncivil and seems to be up on a soapbox requiring some pruning with hanlons razor
We are supposed to keep BLP clean, civil and NPoV - is this NPoV ? is it tendentious minitrolling ? Ive not been around long enough to know - can someone tell me ? (Personal opinion excluded as per NPoV) - btw, do we always put pics of short term fling girlfriends on BLP's ?
Anyway - forgive me - I have to go and sort out a minor dispute over Argentina as well as the collaborators of world war two - I would have got involved earlier only I have spent four days trying to sort those out as well as stop two articles demotion from "Good"
--Chaosdruid (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment

I've nominated the article for a Good Article Reassessment for the reasons listed above. Rereading the policy on BLP suggests this article breaches it in several ways. I hope this action will enable the community to set a standard for the handling of BLPs that we apply to all equally.Riversider (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Main photo

Isn't the main photo with the text "Jimmy Wales in December 2008" the exact same one shown here, in a 2005 version? Jack forbes (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the text mentioned above without replacing dates, as I've no idea when it was taken. Jack forbes (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth

This change makes the sentence correct but failed verification. I agree that Wales has historically been known as co-founder. See WP:Consensus, not truth. QuackGuru (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus not truth ?? you might as well say that genocide is ok because its the minority that are being killed. I along with a great many other editors spend hours ensuring we give fact and prove it by citing refs !
"Jimmy Wales jwales at bomis.com Tue Oct 30 22:02:03 UTC 2001 ... After a year or so of working on Nupedia, Larry had the idea to use Wiki software..." An idea is not the basis for credit as co-founder, however involvement in the setting up of the infrastructure coupled with sending out encouraging e-mails is a possible reason for assuming co-founder, however by Larrys own admission, this was not the case (see below) and as it was mentioned by Ben Kovitz, I do not see how Larry can possibly claim to have had the idea. That's like someone claiming to have the idea to wash when someone hints to them about soap and water.
"Wikipedia, the brainchild of Wales and its full-time editor Larry Sanger" [1] This statement cannot apply, as it was not Wiki that Sanger was full time editor of, but Nupedia. He was employed by Jimmy and worked on the projects as such (and as soon as the money ran out so did he IMO) and Wikipedia was editorial contributions by anyone.
Most importantly there is an email form Larry Sanger that states "It was the first I had heard of Jimbo's idea of an open content encyclopedia, and I was delighted to take the job.[2]
Def of "Founder" - One that founds or establishes :-
Def of "Found" - (noun)
1: to take the first steps in building
2: to set or ground on something solid As in to hit a sand bank
3: to establish (as an institution) often with provision for future maintenance
In my opinion Jimmy was the founder, he took the seed provided by the three of them (including Ben Kovitz as it seems they all had the conversation together and it was Ben him that brought up WikiWikiWeb) and Jimmy that then provided Wikipedia with everything it needed and the impetus from that point onwards.
Now I do not wish to open up any wounds, but it seems to me that not only should the date be left in, but the "co-" should be taken out - by Larry's own admission he clearly states that it was Jimmy's idea.
so there we have it, the debate continues, but I for one will not, after seeing and reading those emails, believe that Jimmy was anything other than the founder, with help from his paid staff, Larry, and after hearing about WikiWikiWeb from Ben
Please do not shoot the messenger ! --Chaosdruid (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ cite web| url= http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=12586&ch=infotech&a=f
  2. ^ "Larry resigns". Wikimedia.org. 2002-03-01.
According to Jimbo in 2001, "After a year or so of working on Nupedia, Larry had the idea to use Wiki software for a separate project specifically for people like you (and me!)"[19] QuackGuru (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes I did put that in the prev post ↑ --Chaosdruid (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) see my ref no2 -Chaosdruid (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The "2001" part failed verification. According to what policy we can use a reference and write text that is not given in the citation. As editors we don't decide truth. We write text according to the references presented. Wikipedia policies are to be respected. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite follow you - are you accusing me of not following Wikipedia policy ? I have shown the refs in this chat page and I am not deciding the truth, I am merely showing what the refs say. The refs are to emails written and articles written and are correctly cited by me and so as they follow Wikipedia policy, guidelines etc they should be credible enough to be used. I have not decided any truth, the truth is that those emails were written and they say what they say. Wikipedia policies are to be respected and that includes the truth by consensus or any other method. --Chaosdruid (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not seek truth by consensus. We seek to write text according to the references presented, not truth.
I have followed the reference currently being used. It failed verification. No part of the current ref in the article uses the date "2001".
If we want to include the "2001" part we need to use a different reference and rewrite the text accordingly.
It would be best we use references from the body of the article. This would best summarize the article. See WP:LEAD.
The current text: Although Wales has been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia since 2001[failed verification], he disputes the "co-" designation,
Change back to: Although Wales has long been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, he disputes the "co-" designation,
I suggest we restore the text to the verified version unless there is a good reason to violate policy. See WP:Consensus, not truth. QuackGuru (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to keep directing me to the page WP:Consensus, not truth - I have read it and I understand it. What you are saying is that the reference cited does not refer to the "since 2001" statement which I fully understand, but which you keep referring to as if I do not. Simply change that from 2001 to 2002 and that is satisfied with the ref [20]
What I am saying is that by Sangers own admission Jimmy instigated the idea of Wikipedia [21] and that by Jimmy's admission (which you yourself tried to show me even though I had already quoted it) Larry was the one who suggested Wiki software [22] which implies to me that it would be ok to remove the "co-" suggestion as here not only do we have the 2002 date needed for the "long been" but also Sanger saying it was Jimmy's idea all along.
--Chaosdruid (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The current ref used in the article does not say 2002.
This reference[23] and this reference[24] is not specific to the text currently in the article.
Sanger did not say Jimmy instigated the creation of Wikipedia. Sanger conceived of Wikipedia and gave this project its name.
We should not change the date to "2002" when it would still fail verification. QuackGuru (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have cited references that clearly state information and yet you choose to ignore them.
From the third ref in your previous post Sanger writes :- "It was the first I had heard of Jimbo's idea of an open content encyclopedia, and I was delighted to take the job."- how is that not relevant to the article
I know the current ref doesn't say 2002 that's why I said change it to 2002 and use the ref I gave which you obv did not read. It is the same one, it say Jimmy's idea for open source Wikipedia, and it was 2002 - how is this not correct ? --Chaosdruid (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sanger was writing about the job at Nupedia. The idea Sanger was writing about was Jimmy's idea for Nupedia.
You have cited references that fail verification. This is current ref we are using. The other references are not a replacement to verify the text.
Only one ref verifies the text: Although Wales has long been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, he disputes the "co-" designation,[25]
Confounding different references together to draw a different intended conclusion would be WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there a reference on Larry Sanger's page "My role in Wikipedia (links)" which would suffice? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The refs from Larry Sanger page would not verify the text long been cited or since 2001. We write text according to the reference presented. We would have to rewrite the sentence and start over if we used a ref from the Larry Sanger page. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well this ref [26] does show it was at least 2002 so are we going to change it to 2002 and add that ref ? --Chaosdruid (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
We would have to rewrite the sentence and no specific replacement text has been been. Adding the ref would be confounding two refs to come to a new conclusion. That would be a direct violation of WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
That is just nonsense, if we put the date to 2002 and change the ref to the one I have given, it would not be OR and it certainly would not be confounding anything, it would just be stating a fact and citing the ref. Why are you against that being put in there -Chaosdruid (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
If we switched references we would have to rewrite the text to match the different reference. No specific proposal has been made.
2002 may not be accurate because there is The New York Times dated 2001 describes Wales as the co-founder of Wikipedia. Per WP:ASF, we should not assert it as fact when dates differ. There is disagreement over the dates. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'v said my peace. I'll defer to other editors here. Let me know on my talk page if I can be of assistance. I have other things to do. QuackGuru (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I replaced the "fv" template in the lead with a ref tag going to the NYT article which was already cited in the body of the article. "Although Wales has been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia since 2001<ref name="sanger-NYTimes"/>". I think this is good enough. Someone might want to try tweaking the words: "at least since 2001", "at least since the year Wikipedia was founded", "was cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia as early as 2001" or something. but I think it's good to try to keep the lead short and simple.
Oh. I said in my edit summary that citations are not necessarily required in the lead, but I just read WP:LEAD#Citations and I guess in this case (BLP, controversial matter) they are. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
This change makes the sentence incorrect and thus failed verification. The reference is from 2001 and does not predict the future since 2001. How could a reference from 2001 claim to cite Wales since 2001. According to this comment the editor obviously knows his edit needs tweaking (failed verification). But there is a bigger issue, the reference does not summarize the co-founder issue in any way. The reference shows Wales was cited as co-founder in 2001 but fails to summarize the co-founder issue or the Jimmy Wales#Roles of Wikipedia creators section. QuackGuru (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The first part of the sentence failed verification and does not claim since 2001 that both are co-founders. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Although Wales has long been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, he disputes the "co-" designation,[1] asserting that he is the sole founder of Wikipedia.[2]
Here is a sentence that the reader will better understand. The current sentence in the lead is vague and partially failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I previously explained which references would fail verification but this edit was made against Wikipedia's WP:V and against my comments. The 2001 reference does not summarize the Jimmy Wales#Roles of Wikipedia creators section. There is no point to keeping the historical reference in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
According to Coppertwig: "Hello, QuackGuru. This seems to me to be a content dispute. Because of the number of messages you've put on my talk page recently, for the next few weeks at least I would prefer that you put comments about content disputes on the relevant article page rather than my talk page, so that I can choose to participate or not depending on my available time and interests. Politely-worded messages about my behaviour are still welcome here as I say at the top of the article. When I did that edit, I got the reference from another part of the same article. I didn't get it from Larry Sanger's page. I didn't know what references were or were not used on Larry Sanger's page."[27]
But Coppertwig failed to provide verification for his controversial edit against Wikipedia's WP:V. Getting the reference from another part of the same article does not verify anything. The edit by Coppertwig still failed verification. Coppertwig mentioned he did not get the reference from Larry Sanger's page. But that is irrelevant where he got the reference from. What is relevant is that the reference failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
This change does not properly summarize the Jimmy Wales#Roles of Wikipedia creators section. I don't see any point to include that text in the lead. We should include something in the lead that summarizes the body of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I made a specific proposal here. QuackGuru (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
News media
Audio/video

Here are a few links and images that might be helpful. QuackGuru (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth

Is Jimbo a reliable source for his birthdate? Can his denial be relied upon? It is surely not independent and third party. Indeed when he applied for his driving licence, would he have filled in a form or have had to prove the date? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I follow you; the four refs supporting his DOB are the Monroe County Clerk website, Britannica, Current Biography and Who's Who. Skomorokh 21:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
What is confusing is that the present article cites an apparently reliable secondary source (the Origonian article) which asserts that the 7 August date is wrong (attributing this to JW), and that his driving license has 8 August. My best guess is that a joke/game is being played, but my speculation has zilch to do with writing an encyclopedia article.
Quite frankly, the whole section on the birthdate controversy should be binned as pointless trivia. We have a simple choice: declare the date is 7 August, based on sources cited (per Skomorokh) and be done with it, or give the date as "August 1966" with a brief footnote citing the reliable sources for the two viewpoints.
In the latter case, if I were JW, I would be embarrassed that the article cannot reliably source his birthdate. However, clarification cannot come through comments on this talk page. We should not cite Wikipedia edits, anywhere. They are not reliable secondary sources: in particular, those by JW on himself are primary, with no independent editorial verification. The driving license is also a primary source: it could be wrong. Geometry guy 22:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank Geometry guy for these remarks, which I think are exactly on-target. Citing Wikipedia edits is completely wrong, and a practice that would not be tolerated anywhere else in Wikipedia, as far as I know. More than anything else on the topic of my date of birth, I think it completely absurd that we devote more than 200 words to a discussion of my date of birth. "Quite frankly, the whole section on the birthdate controversy should be binned as pointless trivia". We now have perfectly reliable sources for two different dates: we have a newspaper article referencing what my driver's license says, and we have (though it is original research, I won't complain too much about that) a claim that someone looked up a marriage certificate, with a different date. I have indicated in the past which of these is not on my birth certificate (and driver's license, and passport).
Whilst confusion about my date of birth (which, by the way, has existed since I was born!) has always amused me, we should not let an amusing situation get in the way of a good encyclopedia article. An extended discussion like this must strike most readers as very much "inside baseball" and quite tedious and pointless. I am adding some analysis to assist with the resolution of this delightful little mystery to Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate, along with a recommendation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've clarified that the marriage license check isn't OR in the sense that Britannica quotes it. Geometry guy 19:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I've seen suggestions that in these days of identity theft, we should be wary about using precise Dates of Birth in BLPs, particularly where the subject would prefer them not to be used.
JW's imprecision about the exact date of his birth, and his reluctance to clarify could be interpreted as a defence of his right to keep these details as private as is possible in this day and age. Riversider (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
These are additional reasons to go with the second option. Geometry guy 22:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The DOB section was thoroughly vandalized at some point; I've corrected some of it, but someone needs to go through the references and check whether or not they verify the claims they are cited for. Skomorokh 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've consolidated the refs for August 7. I think someone needs to make a more radical edit to fix ideas. I'm willing to do that if no one else steps forward. Geometry guy 21:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. What do you mean by "fix ideas"? Skomorokh 21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I mean to see concretely what it would mean for the article to accept that the birthdate is uncertain, or alternatively to see what it would mean for the article to insist that RSS show the birthdate is August 7. Geometry guy 21:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I've created a subpage: Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate. This is the place for speculation and discussion of unreliable sources to determine The TrueTM date of birth. However, the article should be based purely on what reliable sources have to say, and the history demonstrates that while Jimmy Wales' edits may have been "the truth", they are not reliable sources, without using synthesis to interpret them as I am doing now. Indeed, I believe this is part of the point he was trying to make. Geometry guy 23:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Synthesis necessitates a novel conclusion; what novel conclusion do you see being made here? Skomorokh 00:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how you inferred that from WP:SYN. Synthesis is unsourced analysis. " 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article." In the case at hand the sources reach apparently contradictory conclusions. It is unsourced analysis to provide an explanation for this apparent contradiction, unless a reliable source has published the same argument. Geometry guy 10:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In recent edits, I've proposed a solution in which the article follows the majority of reliable sources, but acknowledges the uncertainty. Other solutions are possible: the main thing is to remove the in-house trivia and unreliably sourced material. Geometry guy 20:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I made this edit. Numerous failed verification. Perhaps a more neutral word can be used that will be verified. QuackGuru (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The source (Britannica) has: "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." "Numerous" is almost a synonym, but I have replaced it by "a number of" anyway. Geometry guy 19:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, Jimbo. I agree with your suggestions re the content of this particular article. With considerable respect, I disagree in general with your statement "Citing Wikipedia edits is completely wrong". I agree to the extent that citing Wikipedia edits is almost always inappropriate. However, there are situations where I believe they are appropriate. One is where Wikipedian edits have themselves attained a degree of notability by being mentioned in reliable sources. In such cases, it might sometimes be appropriate in my opinion to use the original edits (with caution) as primary sources to establish facts such as the content and timing of such edits. Another such situation can occasionally arise in cases where the author of a Wikipedia edit is openly displayed and can be reliably verified. In such cases, I suggest that citing a Wikipedia edit can sometimes be rather similar to citing a personal website or blog. Such references are sometimes acceptable on Wikipedia under WP:SELFPUB. For example, I would consider that the website belonging to a band could be used as a reliable source for who the members of the band are, though not as a source for whether or not the band is the greatest band in the world. There is nothing special about Wikipedia edits: Wikipedia is a website like any other and the same rules apply as to whether a website is or is not usable as a reliable source in a given context. If a notable person posts their birthdate on their personal website, I would be inclined to take that as factual if there are no other sources available and no apparent reason for the person to have a motivation to misrepresent it and if there is no discrepancy or contention about the birthdate. However, in the present case there is discrepancy, and reliable sources (well, conventionally published sources) are available, so for the short mention that would be due weight in this article there is no need nor justification to use the Wikipedia edits as sources. (Whimsical "unless" clause deleted per WP:BEAN) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Larry_Sanger_Springs_Citizendium was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Olson, Parmy (October 18, 2006). "A New Kid On The Wiki Block". Forbes. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Wales/Archive_11&oldid=1240696431"