Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Insurgency Contra Wiki

Your tactic of censorship for phony reasons will backfire. Soon no one from UC Berkeley, Stanford and major institutions all over USA will be able to post to Wiki because you will be blocking all of their ISPs. You can't win nor should you. http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Wikipedia.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.197.251.3 (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WP Alabama

How could this article relate to WikiProject Alabama when the only (known) thing Jimbo has in common with it is his birthplace in Huntsville? -  $PЯINGrαgђ  02:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You answered your own question; the fact that he was born and raised in Alabama places him in the scope of the Alabama WikiProject. Nufy8 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well there ya go! lol

Does he live there now? -  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Nufy8 03:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Being born in Alabama is not the only known thing Jimmy Wales has in common with Alabama. Wales was also educated in Alabama. He attended the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama. 24.181.107.187 19:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

what does he have to do with the state itself? should every american with an article on wikipedia fall under the scope of wikiproject united states? 82.112.143.249 00:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been in Alabama. We had engine trouble and had to stop for service at a garage. The car was a Ford. Perhaps automobiles should be part of the Alabama project too? They race through Alabama every day.

Hardly comparable to being born, raised, and educated in Alabama. Nufy8 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Website as Userpage

I removed his userpage link that was under the title "Website" per WP:NOT ie Wikipedia is not a Personal web page and thus should not advertise his userpage as a personal website. Instead of just reverting Freakofnurture edits i thought i would bring it here as WP:NOT is a policy. I would like to hear Jimmy's option if he considers this his personal website or not. ExtraDry 10:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not as much his personal website, as it is his official page as benevolent dictator of this project. Aum. <strikes forehead against floor>. Highly relevant to his main area of notability. Keep it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If we are looking for a link which directs people to further information about me, the best link will be my blog, which I consider to be my "personal website" in the relevant sense. My wikipedia userpage is a wikipedia userpage and therefore not a personal website. However, as to the question of whether this article should send people to my wikipedia userpage or not, I guess that is a different question, and I have no opinion. What do we generally do when subjects of articles also have userpages? We should be more or less consistent, I suppose.--Jimbo Wales 13:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Normally we use {{Notable Wikipedian}}. As this talk page has a special notice "If you need to contact Jimbo about something...", it might be a little spammy to add the NW template. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

We already have that template here, disguised via a redirect. Look at the right column. --cesarb 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Having a link hidden in the talk page is not at all the same as having it in the article, I feel that the link Jimbo Wales should be kept in the article. Because the two subjects of Jimbo and wikipedia are innately woven together, coming from him being on wikipedia. Or to put it another way, a large part of his fame comes from the work he has done as a user on wikipedia. Thus it makes sense to link to his userpage on wikipedia. Exactly the same as if (pretend example here...) I became very famous for my writings the times, then it would makes logical sense to link to my userpage on the times (if it is informative). Mathmo ^Talk 17:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

missing pictures

At least 2 pictures are missing from this article. I recommend the pictures be restored.  QuackGuru  talk 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is important, I thought. I think the pictures should be added back in.  QuackGuru  talk 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides picturing Wales they don't have anything to do with the article. They are redundant and should not be restored. 68.117.211.187 17:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

External link craziness

Check out the external links. Per link policy, the external links need a very good clean up.  QuackGuru  talk 01:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd just kill them all except the first 3 and then put in a link to dmoz or something. RN 03:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

About half of the external links should be removed. Thanks.  QuackGuru  talk 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it sad that the founders page has an external links user box?!?Gorkymalorki 08:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of my change to Jimmy Wales

(moved Tualha comment from QuackGuru's talk page by QuackGuru)  QuackGuru  talk 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello QuackGuru, did you read the edit summary of my change before you reverted it? I don't think we need to clutter up the citation with that rather long quote. The only way it supports the point is by referring to Jimbo as Wikipedia's "co-founder".

I observe that the text I removed was originally added by you. Allow me to remind you of what every page says when you edit it: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." You seem to be taking the removal of your text personally, or something. Please be assured I am just trying to improve the article. No one "owns" these articles, and insisting that one's changes be retained without justification is inappropriate.

I also don't understand why you summarized your change as ("quotes" in small), when you did not change any text size, but merely reverted the last change. Did some program insert that text? Edit summaries are a useful guide to other editors, so it's important to make sure they're accurate.

Cheers, Tualha (Talk) 15:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of surprising that you could just open up a site and let people work," said Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's co-founder and the chief executive of Bomis, a San Diego search engine company that donates the computer resources for the project. "There's kind of this real social pressure to not argue about things." Instead, he said, "there's a general consensus among all of the really busy volunteers about what an encyclopedia article needs to be like.

I added the "quotes" in small. To answer your question: I am a person and not a program. The quotes are very relevant and add to the article. Images are missing from this article. There is external link craziness. Relevant small quotes are being removed. Whats happening here?  QuackGuru  talk 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• It should be noted that the whole section above was not actually posted by Tualha, but was actually posted by QuackGuru (talk · contribs). It looks like a textdump for Quack's talkpage.--Isotope23 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I originally posted it on QuackGuru's talk page, he moved it here for some reason. Verbatim, I checked. Tualha (Talk) 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I noticed that after the fact. Cut and paste like that isn't the best practice because off the cuff it looks like impersonation since you were not in the edit log for having made that comment here.--Isotope23 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Responding to QuackGuru, my points were:

1. The quote is not relevant: where you have it, it should be supporting the statement "Sanger was identified as a co-founder of Wikipedia at least as early as September 2001". While the cited article does support that statement, the quote does not. All it does is refer to Jimmy Wales, in an offhand way, as "Wikipedia's co-founder". In my opinion, this rather lengthy quote doesn't carry its weight.
2. You reverted my change, but whereas the edit summary should say something like reverted Tualha's change or undid Tualha's edit, instead it says "quotes" in small, which means very little. The edit summary should briefly explain the change and its purpose.

Tualha (Talk) 19:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I will use a more relevant quote. Thanks for your concern. Please review.  QuackGuru  talk 20:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That one will do, though it can be trimmed. Thanks. Tualha (Talk) 21:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

First sentence in the education section

That part I fixed yesterday in the education section is logically inconsistent. It reads like the school was donating the software to itself. It's not Jimbo's user page so I have right to fix it, right? Why has it been undone then? greg park avenue 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate

I just blogged about this.--Jimbo Wales 09:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly, he was born on the 8th, and Britannica also thinks its the 7th. See this blog entry from The Oregonian newspaper. Also see the previous, related blog entry about an interview with him, Ward Cunningham and the newspaper, as well as a print article, Open-source thinking. Jason McHuff 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a reporter from a major newspaper has reported on a public records search, confirming what I have been saying for a long time. According to my birth certificate, August 7th is not my birthdate. Perhaps someday I will produce a note from my mom for another reporter. And perhaps I will just continue to have a bit of fun with this. :)--Jimbo Wales 09:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Wales has stated that his birthday is Aug. 7th, 1966. Links to these admissions can be found here and here. Also, both Current Biography and Who's Who is America list his birthday as being the 7th. 68.117.211.187 07:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope I am not the only one who is amused that this anonymous ip number calls a discussion of my date of birth an "admission". :) Perhaps I shall next confess to having brown hair. --Jimbo Wales 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I don't think I saw the archive of this page when I came here. I'm not seeing the first edit you link to in the page history, but the second one does seem somewhat conclusive. Its interesting, because here (at your links) he seems pretty firm that its the 7th, yet the blog post (written by a reporter for a major metro newspaper, so hopefully a reliable source) really sounds like he said that its not the 7th. Overall, it does seem that a difference of a day isn't much to worry about. Jason McHuff 09:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit weird. Here's a link that clarifies things a bit better than my first one. Of course, we can't use Wikepedia as a reliable source for information, which is why it's important to use more scholarly source like Current Biography. 68.117.211.187 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Another good link. I was really just comparing what Wales has said here and in the interview. I do see the awkwardness of citing something here inside Wikipedia. Source-wise, it seems to be Current Biography, Who's Who and Britannica vs. The Oregonian interview and this Britannica "research note". Assuming Current Biography and Who's Who don't also have questions about the date, for now I'm willing to leave the it as is, and use them as reference. Jason McHuff 08:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It might also be worth noting that on August 7 we list August 7 as his birthday. If this is incorrect, I think we look really, really stupid here. John Carter 20:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about providing verifiable information from reliable, published sources. I really don't thnk it's something to worry about. 68.117.211.187 21:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

His DOB is on August 8 according to Jimmy. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  22:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Sadly, Mr. Wales cannot be used as a reliable source since his statements about his DOB have been inconsistent. As previously mentioned only verifiable information from reliable, published sources can be used on Wikipedia. Even if that was not the case I can find no records where Mr. Wales has said that his birthday was on August 8th. If you can reference a source for that fact, which meets Wikipedia's guidelines, please do so. Till then I feel that we must continue to rely on the previously mentioned sources and keep his DOB as is. Jhurlburt 03:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Happily, Jimbo can be used as a reliable source per WP:SELFPUB policy. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  05:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You have failed to provide a source where Mr. Wales makes this claim. We can't just take your word for it. Jhurlburt 05:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to the most recent edits, a simple reminder; you cannot use Wikipedia or blogs as sources. Wikipedia is not its own reference and blogs are not acceptable as sources, according to policy. If we were to use Wikipedia as a source I would direct everyone to statements and edits made by Mr. Wales where he states,

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

However, since a number of verifiable resources do provide this information and no published, reliable source refutes it we must stick with what we got. Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Jhurlburt 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Oddly that was added not by Jimbo but General Patton. There is no contribution history from Jimbo with that timestamp or anything like it (not on meta either.) But, there is this where he sets it to the 7th. Boggle! See http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2007/08/08/my-birthdate/ ←Ben^B4 18:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the strange timestamp, that is odd. After doing some internet research it appears this is an old controversy and somebody with oversight powers on Wikipedia removed Mr. Wales' quote. However, as you pointed out with your example there have been times when Mr. Wales has edited his bio to state that his birthday is Aug 7th. As silly as it sounds given the fact that Mr. Wales has flip-flopped over when his actual birthdate is we can't use him as a reliable source. Three years ago he said it was the 7th, now he says it's the 8th. If next year he say's it's the 9th should we change it again? Remember, we need reliable, published sources for content.... Mr. Wales' blog never makes the claim that his birthdate is Aug. 8th.... it refers to another blog where Wales' states that "Nobody knows..." when his birthdate is and the blogger claims that it's the 8th. That's not good enough. Jhurlburt 19:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have flip flopped at all. I have had a bit of fun by being cryptic from time to time, but have been consistent throughout. At the present time, and for the first time EVER, we appear to have a reliable source: a reporter who has done a public record search.--Jimbo Wales 10:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's use a bit of common sense here... is Jimbo's birthdate being in February or August really all that contentious of a topic that it merits edit warring? I mean seriously.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. Jimbo first said his birthday is on the 7th and NOT on the 8th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=5987088 See here and...

http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Board_of_Trustees&diff=prev&oldid=406 here.

OK. This is a little weird. I am scratching my head. How can we NPOV this? I must say. This is a difficult one.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am confused too, hence my removing any date and putting on the totally disputed tag. Obviously I wont be reverting over this one, SqueakBox 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you ask me, it is entirely silly to have a section of the article on this topic. To my mind, this seems pretty simple. For the first time, we have a reliable source on the date, and currently we don't even mention it. Linking to Wikipedia diffs is invalid. Linking to my blog can be perfectly valid, and certainly linking to the Oregonian article is perfectly valid. Britannica is a tertiary source at best and should be ignored. The simple correction that was made yesterday seems best to me.--Jimbo Wales 10:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just say "Jimbo Wales was born on the International date line, and thus his precise date of birth can not be decided"? Sure, it's a little dubious, but if it would stop the fighting --Lucid 11:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is who oversighed this. It seems like a pretty obvious abuse of the oversight power. ←Ben^B4 13:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know what evidence there is it was oversighted. Neither your or I are admins so we AFAIK can't tell the difference between things that are oversighted and things that are deleted... Whatever the case, it would seem to me this doesn't really belong here. Perhaps the VP or Administrator's Noticeboard or some such Nil Einne 13:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was not oversighted, then General Patton signed Jimbo's name. Google a phrase from the edit in question and you'll see. ←Ben^B4 14:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That, sadly, is what makes this controversal and the fact that this matter is starting to get mentioned in outside media (e.g. Britannica, the blog of Oregonian reporter Mike Rogoway) makes it worthy of mention. Regardless, if General Patton falsified a record to masquerade as Mr. Wales, a record of this act should be made here. Likewise, if an admin abused the oversight function to make it appear that General Patton falsified a record than that needs to be recorded as well (although neither circumstance explains edits made by Mr. Wales where he changes his DOB from the 8th to the 7th, but that's a different story).68.117.211.187 16:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on, its not that important, falsify is completely OTT, SqueakBox 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't AFAIK say anything about the supposed oversighted deletion. All they say is that Jimbo Wales contacted them to say it was a different date but didn't provide proof. Jimbo Wales agreed with this in his blog. So again, if you think there is a controversy here, please show it Nil Einne 17:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about the deletion log [1]. From the deletion log, it appears that it was not simply deleted. There have been some deletions but it doesn't look to me like any of them were to remove the revision which is purported to be missing (although only an admin can say for sure). However it appears both Ben & 84 failed to consider it could have been deleted so my main point stands. Don't assume something is oversighted when it could have been deleted. And my second point also stands. If you have a complaint about 'abuse' of the oversight system, take it up in a more appropriate channel since it has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Nil Einne 17:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question now that the date has been reverted to Aug 8th. Why is the blog (not an article but a blog) of some reporter (for a local newspaper) considered to be more reliable than the Encyclopedia Britannica, Current Biography, and Who’s Who in America in light of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability? 68.117.211.187 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica? How is that a reliable source? Its a rival encyclopedia, SqueakBox 18:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Being a rival doesn't discredit ones credibility, especially when Wikipedia started the rivalry. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not doubting their credibility but they are not a reliable source, that is obvious. They themselves would need to use reliable sources to be our equal but even so they cannot be a reliable source precisely because they just use reliable sources, that would be a self-defeating catch-22 type situation, SqueakBox 18:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. "What is a reliable source? Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." So again I ask my question why is the blog of a reporter for a small-time newspaper considered to be more reliable than the Encyclopedia Britannica, Current Biography, and Who’s Who in America - each of which has a reliable reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight? 68.117.211.187 18:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about the Oregon web page though the fact that it is local makes no odds. I would clearly say EB does not fit the definition you have given of a reliable source, othjerwise we could just copy from them and it would make us absurd, SqueakBox 19:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI - the 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica is in the public domain and has been extensively copied by Wikipedia. We can't "copy" the current EB because that would violate their copyright terms. While I disagree with your claim that EB is not a reliable source, given that it contains some of the most extensive biographies of notable people found anywhere else, I don't think you can make the same claim for either Current Biography, and Who’s Who in America - whose bread and butter is personal biographies. 68.117.211.187 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Added the following quote from Wales, "My date of birth is not August 8, 1966." A link to statement can be found here. Hopefully, this page won't disappear like the last one. Just in case it does it was located between the following edits, 13:45, 11 July 2006 Theresa knott (Talk | contribs) (→The birth date....) and 16:27, 11 July 2006 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) (→A fine point about Jimmy's wealth).

Given that EB, Current Biography, and Who’s Who in America reports Mr. Wales' DOB as Aug. 7th, 1966 and only reporter Mike Rogoway's blog reports the date as the 8th, which contradicts Wales statement in the above quote, can we revert the article and list the DOB as the 7th instead of leaving it blank.? Jhurlburt 17:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the controversial date from the lead and added a comment.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As Australia is 15 hours or so ahead of the US, it WAS the 8th August here while it was the 7th August in the US - thereby showing why there is confusion. This means he was born on BOTH 7th and 8th August, meaning all his previous statements are correct. It is quite understandable as these sorta things tend to happen :) Floorwalker 03:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey hey who oversighted my comment? I don't think there was anything wrong with it... What I said was that we should put the 8th because that's what the official date is- for the same reason that the article is called Jimmy Wales instead of Jimbo Wales- that's his official name. W1k13rh3nry 14:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How the hell does any of this match the definition of "controversy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian?

can we list him as a libertarian even though he doesnt like the libertarian party? i mean you can be conservative but not be a republican or a liberal and not be a democrat. so would it be safe to add him to the "American libertarian" category?

Probably not.

I suggest talking to Jim, so he knows your adding him, and he can disagree or agree on it. Megan :) 05:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember that the threshold for inclusion of any information is verifiability in reliable, published sources, not truth. If the fact that he is Libertarian in his political philosophy has been published in a citable reliable source, then by all means add it to the appropriate section. VanTucky ^(talk) 06:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The only evidence we have of his libertarianism are his expressed support of ostensibly similar beliefs such as Objectivism. Seeing as Objectivists, such as myself, Ayn Rand, and those at ARI, often dislike the use of the term "libertarian" in regard to us, this is no proof that he identifies himself as a libertarian. Until there is expressed knowledge, it should be left out. D prime 15:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

As always, it is deeply inappropriate for Wikipedia to take a stand on any controversial issue. It is therefore wrong to call me the co-founder of Wikipedia. Please someone fix this. There has been a long standing consensus as to how to deal with this, a compromise that avoids the question. "best known for his role in founding Wikipedia". Whoever changed it should be asked not to do that again. --Jimbo Wales 09:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I made the change, but I have not been able to trace back to the editor that changed it, yet. Ursasapien (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to"known for his role in founding, running, and promoting" which I hope will remove the problem as Jimmy clearly isnt co-promoting or co-running wikipedia so hopefully this shouldnt happen again, SqueakBox 19:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers Controversy

I believe that this represents a legitimate controversy that's worth mentioning here. Mr. Wales's actions in this case were unprecedented and have some serious ramifications for Wikipedia in general. Moreover, the claim of controversy isn't out of place. --H4lf 15:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My actions were in no way unprecedented, and there was basically no controversy. There was an AfD, the article was deleted, and some trolls kept recreating it anyway, and I deleted it and said knock it off for a certain amount of time. When that time was up, the matter was considered and the article remained deleted. Of all the things that happen in Wikipedia that might be controversial this is pretty low on the list. --Jimbo Wales 18:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'd like to apologize for my rashness. With the discussion page blanked, I only had other pages to go by, which portrayed the event as more substantive than it actually is. --H4lf 16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the problem... you may consider this notable H4lf, but it doesn't seem to be very significant in regards to general media coverage of the incident. It really is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things and I don't see anything to indicate "serious ramifications" for Wikipedia in general. The other listed controversies have at least garnered some publicity.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Brian Peppers controversy" is such a non-issue it really does not warrant inclusion in Jimbo's biography at all. --Deskana (banana) 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

In February 2006, the Wikipedia article on Brian Peppers was deleted by Jimmy Wales. Since its creation in May 2005, the article was repeatedly deleted and recreated. When brought before a community review, most users supported keeping the article. However, on February 22, 2006, Wales removed the article in full, removed its discussion page, and issued a one year moratorium on the article's recreation. The page currently remains protected.

I do not see any references for the above information. Is this true and is there any references from the general media.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Page logs indicate not but without an outside relaible source there is no chance of including it anyway, SqueakBox 20:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We can cite primary sources when they aren't challenged, right? ←Ben^B4 09:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good luck not being challenged on this. I think the interpretation above is nonsense, suggesting that I acted (controversially) against community consensus. This is just more trolling about it if you ask me.--Jimbo Wales 10:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Um no you can't. For WP:BLP reasons in particular, you can't make up a controversy if none exists. Primary sources may be able to establish that something happened but they cannot establish it's controversial. Even if Jimbo Wales one time seriously said "I enjoy beating my wife and I think all men should be allowed to beat their wives" (random made up example) which is seemingly a controversial statement, it's not a controversy UNLESS other reliable sources establish it as a controversy Nil Einne

Firstly, I am opposed to the section; it has no place in this article because it is such a minor thing, one of dozens of such incidents. However, we have people citing primary sources in BLPs all over the place. Technically an autobiography is a primary source. ←Ben^B4 14:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And I would also be opposed to mentioning a supposed controversy that someone was involved in if the only source which shows it was a controversial is an autobiography (although this isn't such a big issue as editors claiming something is a controversy based on their intepretation of primary sources when no reliable source has claimed it's a controversy which is what I was talking about). If there are any BLPs you can show which claims a controversy when the only evidence for the controversy is an autobiography, please do remove it or take it up ay WP:BLP/N Nil Einne 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS MY LAST ENTRY IN WIKIPEDIA

1. I would like to thank Jimmy Wales for entertaining my interview last year prior to Wikimania 2.
2. I would also like to thank some of the constructive members of the community including Mark_Ryan for originally introducing me to wikipedia.
3. However, I cannot and will not go on receiving the blatant and total disrespect of the Wikimedia / Wikipedia communities in IRC and continue to sponsor this organization by making posts to it.
4. This is all that needs to be said I'm afraid. Nice spending time with you.
5. I'm really honestly sorry it has to close like this.

• chrisbradley@noisecontrolpublishing.com

--72.45.229.121 03:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate again

Jimmy's profile on Orkut [2] gives today (August 14th) as his birthday. Is that correct?--Seraphiel 04:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. As to the section recently deleted by Squeakbox, rejecting contributions based on the prejudicial history of the contributor rather than the merit of the contribution in question is an assumption of bad faith. The information is correct, is neutral (as it makes no affirmative statement of which date is right), and is properly verified. A discussion of the controversy surrounding his birthdate is certainly notable and encyclopedic, and does not violate the BLP. Futhermore, Jimbo stated that he though removing an affirmative statement of fact about his birthdate was a good idea, not that a neutral, balanced discussion of the debate surrounding the issue was bad. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think BLP does demand we take the wishes of the subject into consideration and especially in a case like this where it would be controversial for the subject himself to edit the article. I am not convinced that basing an opinion on an editor on their block log is showing bad faith, and basing myself on Jimbo's "I have had enough" statement and the fact that this is the article on Jimbo (I wouldnt use the block log to comment on this user's edits to otehr article), SqueakBox 20:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should ignore what Jimbo wishes, I'm saying that he supported a removal of a controversial fact. The current Controversy section is a well-rounded discussion about the debate, and doesn't make an affirmative statement as to which date is correct. To just leave out a precise date and no explanation of the obviously notable debate over the issue is failing the standards of a complete encyclopedia. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While I'm in no hurry to uphold JW's right to a quantum indeterminate DoB -- or as Tony S. said, two birthdays like his alleged role model -- I'm struggling to see that this is clearly either controversial or notable, as against the subject being somewhat silly, for no discernible reason. Wouldn't simply a sentence on which to "hang" the assorted sources (in which JW freely contradicts himself self and right) suffice? As opposed to an entire sectionated paragraph, which seems to have something of a "so what?" quality about it. Alai 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. People seem to be forgetting that to show something is controversial and relevant, especially in a BLP, you need to provide some evidence in a reliable source for this. The fact that it can be established that something happened is irrelevant. We shouldn't be writing about something using primary sources as our references when our only evidence it's controversial is the opinion of editors. Currently, the only RS I've seen which hints it's controversial is the Britannica thing and perhaps the 'who knows' bit. Nil Einne —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:58:45, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I think that the mention in EB and the article by Rogoway provide enough of a bases that a controversy exists. Plus, primary sources can be used in a BLP if the primary source is the person themselves (e.g. Wales' blog and his statements in his Wikipedia Talk page). Since some jokers keep on inserting Aug 8th as Wales' birthday every few months having a section that addresses the birthday issue along with all relevant sources seems pretty useful to me. 68.117.211.187 04:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Jimbo's blog, or any such primary source is sufficient to establish controversy. The fact that the person thinks there's a controversy is somewhat irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not there's a noteable controversy as recognised by other people Nil Einne 18:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section - has what he's done really been particularly controversial?

The sections in here don't deal with massively controversial issues. This may be an extension of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but in other biographies it's uncommon to have controversy sections over issues that are as relatively tame as the fact that he hosted erotic material online, that there was a small dispute over who founded the website, and, least important of all, his date of birth. Anyone else? It seems like the article is trying to adhere to NPOV as much as possible to avoid claims of hypocrisy, whereas the negative known aspects of Jimmy's life are quite insignificant.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, conflict of interest editing of his own wikibio for one thing. Next is the controversy over his downplaying of Bomis' adult content. Last was the controversy surrounding the accuracy of his birthdate. The birthdate thing is very notable because it's a microcosm of the larger debate surrounding Wikipedia's reliability; if we can't even get his birthdate right, how accurate is this project? It doesn't just have to be controversial things Jimbo has done, but controversies that center on him. As to the hypocrisy issue, I think the idea that we are being sensationalistic is folly. Surely Jimbo wouldn't hesitate to voice some concern or complaint if he thought this was rumor-mongering? I say, if the subject doesn't have a problem with the content in question, then it can't be doing him "harm". VanTucky ^(talk) 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the things mentioned..... Bomis, the co-founder debate, and Wales' birthday are all aspects of the controversy that arose from Wales' conflict of interest editing. You can't discuss that controversy without mentioning these aspects..... the DOB is just the latest, and silliest, outgrowth of this debate. Of course, the DOB thing wouldn't even be a controversy if Mr. Wales would just tell people when his birth is instead of telling people when it is not or going around saying "Nobody knows...". 68.117.211.187 23:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV again

I am the sole founder of Wikipedia. It is deeply inappropriate for Wikipedia to take a stand on this point of controversy. Please revert to the longstanding compromise version on this point. And I think it is time to start warning the trolls who keep doing this.--Jimbo Wales 01:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You're just like Stalin, Mr. Wales. Trying to erase history to your own benefit. Gostkowski 15:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're speaking of the first sentence of the "Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation" section? Or is it the intro's use of the term cofounder? Please clarify. But either way, you do realize that calling you the founder is also taking a stance on this, and possibly a more controversial and damning one for Wikipedia's reputation? We either don't use the term founder/cofounder at all (which, with the necessary explanation of your role, makes it verbose) or we choose the lesser of two evils and protect Wikipedia from being universally mocked like when we let you edit your own bio. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the co from the first sentence, SqueakBox 02:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo that this would be damaging to the project and re BLP we should always take the subjects wishes inot consideration, equally for Sanger, SqueakBox 02:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments above still stand, but I think I've changed my mind a bit. Simply saying founder, as long as we stay away from obviously inappropriate qualifiers such as "sole", leaves the implied possibility of other founders. Saying co does positively take the stance that Sanger's claim is valid, which is more a violation of NPOV. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an issue some are very passionate about. I tried to find neutral ground over on Wikimedia Foundation as was trounced on by someone who felt "co-founder" was better sourced than Jimbo owning Wikipedia before transferring it to the Foundation. I believe many articles can be made neutral by simply avoiding any sort of "stand", but there's enough who will edit war over it endlessly. It drew me into some very ugly behavior, and I won't touch the issue again. I think a larger portion of the community needs to address this issue and come up with a solution written into policy: how shall Wikipedia refer to itself and its history. I don't mean to suggest any articles be locked down permanently, I'm thinking more like a strict manual of style relating to Wiki-history to prevent these issues from flaring up ever few months. --InkSplotch 04:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have again removed the co. I think we can comment in the article about this, as we do, though I have NPOV'd that a bit, but we cant mention it in the opening. Sanger was a paid employee and that makes claims that he co-founded wikipedia extremely unlikley if not plain absurd, SqueakBox 21:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So absurd that it was written all over the official press releases, noted by the New York Times and other media, etc. without the slightest contradiction by anyone until 2004, and since then only by Jimbo himself, without a single notable source agreeing with him... Bramlet Abercrombie 21:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever my personal feelings concerning Sanger's status may be, I agree that the debate is real. It's not some inarguable WP:FRINGE idea to disagree with Jimbo, so we need to give equal weight here. Not that I think it should say co in the intro. But a lengthy discussion of the debate over the role Sanger played is better left to the main History of Wikipedia article I think. I say we mention it here, but keep it succinct enough that it doesn't turn into another battleground on the issue. Just summarize what the main history article says. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty much an inarguable WP:FRINGE idea to agree with Jimbo on this. His claim is completely baseless, not backed by one shred of evidence or by any notable source whatsoever, and his own mere say-so carries zero weight as he is obviously not an objective source in this - whereas the opposite view does not rely at all on Larry's say-so, it is backed by plenty of evidence. There is no "controversy" other than one between reality on one side and Jimbo on the other. Bramlet Abercrombie 22:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue is the wording in the inrto reads "is known for". Wales is in fact known for being the founder of Wikipedia; not for his role in finding it nor for being the co-founder (regardless of the truth... is he the founder or the cofounder? Doesn't matter, for he is known as the founder). Perhaps rewriting the sentence so it isn't as passive may help. But as it reads now it is just wrong. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if what he is known as is actually counterfactual, it would be wrong to state it like that and thereby give the impression that the view is correct. I think it's not particularly relevant that he's often misleadingly called "the founder" in the press; the article should be factual and thus state that he "is the co-founder". The "known for his role in founding" formula was some attempt at compromise, but apparently it didn't work. Jimbo's threat of "warning the trolls" suggests that he's intent on forcing the issue his way. Bramlet Abercrombie 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am confused then. Two entries above you say that Jimbo's claim is "not backed by one shred of evidence or by any notable source whatsoever", but here you say that he is called "the founder" in the press. So if the press calls him the founder (though it may be incorrect according to your beliefs), then why can't we say he is known as the founder here? That is what he is known for, truthful or not. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it's misleading. The press calling him "the founder" is not evidence of him being the sole founder. Jimbo just calls himself "the founder" everywhere, so to some extent that's what he's now "known as". But there's not a single press article which deals explicitly with the Sanger-Wales issue and takes Wales' side (while many take Sanger's side by calling them both co-founders). Bramlet Abercrombie 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence saying he is known as the founder is counter-factual. Sanger was a subordinate employee and subordinate employees cant claim to be the equal and co-founder, well they can claim but their claim has no valididty, it'd be like early Microsoft employees saying they built Windows. He is definitely known as the founder and while some claim that iosnt sso I agree with Van Tuckey that that should go into the History article. Certainly what iedited to just a bit ago is absolutely a succinct description giving both more or less Jimbo's POV and Sanger's POV. Note Jimbo says he is the siole founder, thatis his real POV and I agree that we shouldnt include either that or the co-founder int he opening, SqueakBox 22:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Insofar as "the founder" suggests "sole founder", there is plenty of evidence contradicting it by calling him co-founder. What on earth has employee status to do with whether one can be a founder of something? And if this employee argument held any water, how do you explain that no one found it strange when Larry was called co-founder all over the place before 2004? It was well known that he was an employee. Again, it's not "Jimbo's POV" versus "Sanger's POV". Both of those are biased, so their views don't matter. The objective evidence matters, and it goes all one way. Bramlet Abercrombie 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox on this. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In any event, there is a controversy about it, and all I ask is that Wikipedia remain neutral.--Jimbo Wales 23:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And if you said 2+2=5, we'd have to note this mathematical "controversy" too? Your assertion is backed up by nothing and is obviously self-serving, so has no factual value. The only fact is that you make the claim. But since the objective evidence is entirely sufficient to establish the facts, your claim is irrelevant as to the actual question of the founding of Wikipedia. The fact that you have been trying to rewrite the history, of course, should well be noted in your article. Bramlet Abercrombie 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say again in here. This is THE most important issue/edit war whatever the hell you want to call it to face this project, period. If the fact that Sanger was referred to as co-founder in the past(in here and in the media) and edit historys show that is how these articles used/still read, and this material can be so bastardized or whitewashed or whatever the hell you want to call it to the point where the guy who helped found this project WITH others is now posting to a talk page and proclaimed "I am the sole founder of Wikipedia." and that is how his entry will read, this project ain't worth a dam because how can ANY article will be safe from this type of distortion/write of history? My first reaction to seeing the lead post above was that it was the work of some Jimbo imposter. If that really is Jimbo, thats pretty sad, imho. --Tom 23:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I am definitely not an imposter of Jimbo's, lol. On the other hand I take BLP very seriously and as Jimbo cannot edit this article I am happy to at least make sure his views get a fair representation, though in this case I think we reached a neutral and balanced article with this version, the last I edited. Its been reverted so I am going to add an NPOV tag as I wont be edit warring over this again for at least 24 hours as that is no solution, SqueakBox 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How is the version you cited above neutral and balanced? Just for the record, you believe Sanger did not help found Wikipedia and Wales is the sole founder, is that correct? --Tom 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If what Jimbo says about Sanger being a subordiante employee is true I absolutely think that, SqueakBox 00:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is as clear cut as you (or Jimbo) wants it to be. If I give you money and resources and then stand back while you create SqueakBox Industries, then you are the creator in the "sweat-of-the-brow" sense, even if you didn't bankroll the project. The Wikipedia case is more ambiguous since Jimbo was actively involved in setting the direction of things, even though probably not with the same day to day intensity that Sanger had. If Sanger had been identified as a manager or employee (rather than as a founder) in the early press coverage, then that probably would have been fine. However, various pieces created during the early history of Wikipedia did refer to Sanger as a "founder" along with Wales, and that suggests either that Jimbo was comfortable sharing the credit at that time, or that Jimbo wasn't paying close attention to what people were saying (including Wikipedia's own press releases, e.g. [3]). Fostered by the press releases and such stalwarts of reporting as the NY Times, many people acquired the perception that Jimbo and Sanger amicably and openly shared credit for founding Wikipedia (Jimbo for his bankroll and guiding influence and Sanger for his day-to-day management). Since no apparent attempts to change that perception were made until after Sanger left the organization, the subsequent efforts have been percieved as revisionist and more than a little spiteful, hence the controversy. (And frankly, if Jimbo really never did try to "correct" the press coverage until well after Larry left, then he deserves that criticism.) 169.229.142.185 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well SqueakBox is my name (or my nick) but if I get employees to do something that I pay them to do and I take the boss role, indicating how to solve the problems as they arise, showing them how to resolve them etc, how to initiate processes that do that etc then its my baby. And I would not claim to be the founder of TV Genius (whom I work for albeit I havent been paid so far because I am ashare holder) nor expect anyone other than the real founder to do so, so I am basing this stance on my real exoperience of life as both boss and employee, SqueakBox 00:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And I would assume that TV Genius hasn't been issuing press releases calling you a founder. However, there are Wikipedia press releases over three seperate years (2002-2004) in which Wales and Sanger are jointly referred to as founders. Wales bankrolled things, but I think the perception many people formed is that they operated as partners rather than employee/employer. 169.229.142.185 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly true. But there are bits of TV Genius that i would claim (basically our video clip collection) and equally there may be bits of wikipedia that Sanger can claim, ie the specific work he did for the project as an employee. But that doesnt make him the founder, SqueakBox 02:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a controversy and we can report that controversy (but not in the opening) including the press statements, but that is about it, SqueakBox 02:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The status quo is perfectly fine. If we're not sure & Jimbo Wales & Larry Sanger disagree, then we should leave it as a controversy. If the sources are not supportive nor responsive to the facts/questions we seek, then again we leave them as controversies. (Wikimachine 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Capitalization

Why is there capitals in the first sentence? American can be american and Internet should be internet, right? thnx (86.82.184.75 19:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Both are proper nouns and should be capitalized. Nufy8 19:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

American is a proper noun, there is valid debate among linguists regarding internet or Internet. Riskier 08:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Am i allowed to remove vandalism warnings, copyright image notices, etc, from my user talk page? User:Yamakiri user has threatened to permanently protect my user talk page so that i cant edit it. Can i remove copyright image notices at least? i hope you see this soon. thx Modelun88 00:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, I'm just requesting it. And, you should post it at the help desk or something. Besides you're removing vandalism and block notices Yamakiri 00:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

He's right Modelun, you cannot remove vandalism and or block notices. Why would you want to remove them anyway?
→ jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 00:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually while discouraged there's nothing explicitly banning the removal of warnings from your own talk page. Primarily because the admins don't like the messy edit wars that result when someone tries to revert the removal of warnings and also because of the difficulty with defining what is acceptable given the clear allowance for removing inappropriate warnings and for archiving. So if someone removes warnings discourage them but don't revert or imply it's forbidden (since it's not). Block notices are probably a different matter though. I don't know what this has to do with the Jimmy Wales article in any case. If you were intending to ask Jimbo Wales then as the big header says at the top, this isn't the place nor is there a need to ask Jimbo such a question Nil Einne 19:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anybody explaine to me why Bomis or whatever is controversial?

Sure, if you're an 80 year old conservative it's controversial. ya, i'm taking it out. Duff man2007 01:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Or if you have a conscience. If you want to take something out of an article after proper discussion, fine. But don't think you can say in a round-about way,"Well, I know without a shadow of doubt that everybody thinks it isn't controversial, so I guess I'll just go ahead and omit that." If Wikipedia discussion boards ran that way and people would just speak in behalf of the whole planet on any issue, our articles would be in sorrier shape then they already are. Sorry, didn't mean to take a jab at the start, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not one that can be overun by people who think they are all-knowing. I'd be happy to explain why Bomis is controversial, but I already know I'll be speaking a foreign language. So forget it.

P.S. I hate to bring such shocking news, but I'm 22.

This article

This article is about the founder of wikipedia. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 04:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

One of them, at least. 68.117.211.187 22:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Rogers issue

Mr. Rogers merely accused Jimbo of removing references to Larry Sanger, I don't honestly think anyone here would accuse Jimbo of accually whitewashing the history of wikipedia intentually (Jimbo perhaps accidently edited the respective pages in question or it could someone else in the Wales household testing the respective pages in question)--Trulexicon 04:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened is clear; there is nothing allegation-like about it. Rogers' blog post contains link to specific diffs, such as this this and this. I removed the allegations qualifier. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Christine Wales could have been editing under Jimbo's name, perhaps she wanted to flatter her husband, it could have been anyone in the Wales household..as such it should be treated as an accusation--Trulexicon 05:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh... I can't say it's impossible, but I find it very unlikely that Jimmy's wife snuck on to Jimmy's computer to make a total of eighteen edits over several days. Especially considering that Jimmy accepted the blame and apologized for what he did. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the references is missing a reference. I fixed the reference and Trulexicon reverted it. Trulexicon also added controversial material to the lead. See here. It says reference 47 but it has no reference. It should say reference 3 b.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you create a wiki?

Exactly what it says on the tin. Magnus 11:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Moderator abuse

Uh, no. That's a franchisee (you?) and certainly not an independent source. NawlinWiki 03:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's another ad, or press release, or something other than independent coverage. You can stop now. If you want to try to reverse this deletion, go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and follow the instructions there. You're going to have to provide better sources there, especially given your admitted conflict of interest. And by the way, Jimbo is not a "super-admin" who reviews every administrator's deletion decisions. Good luck, NawlinWiki 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The above was the answer I received from the moderator - nawlinwiki He/She has repeatedly questioned my integrity as an editor in my contribution to the Wikipedia community. The community you created to let "all" people grow.

While I feel that the "living organism" named Wikipedia is a healthy entity, moderators such as nawlinwiki are a cancer that can rapidly kill all the ideology that stands behind Wikipedia.

Please be fair.

Ariverawpb 04:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK...

1. This is not Jimbo's talk page, as the header clearly points out, it is the page for discussion about his Wikipedia article.
2. Neither this page, nor Jimbo's talk page, is the place to complain about "admin abuse". The correct way to do that would be to raise a request for comment, or in serious cases arbitration case, or if it was something that needed urgent, immediate attention then perhaps a message on the administrators' incidents noticeboard.
3. This is not "admin abuse". This is a case of several administrators, on 6 different occasions, deleting an article which has been tagged by users as being eligible for speedy deletion.
4. NawlinWiki's comments to you have all been made in an attempt to get you to understand Wikipedia policy. You have been pointed to guidelines and policies that are supposed to help you understand why your article isn't acceptable. NawlinWiki has not "questioned [your] integrity as an editor".
5. Your "contribution to the Wikipedia community", as far as I can tell, has been to repeatedly recreate an article after it was speedily deleted, which is usually a sign that perhaps you're not going about things the right way - especially when it's not just one person telling you so.
6. You have, at least, finally done the right thing by listing the deletion at deletion review. Note, however, that in the light of what's been pointed out above, and there as well, it's unlikely to get restored - but that is not because of the actions of some single admin abusing their tools, but based on a consensus of regular Wikipedia editors.
7. We are trying to be fair, and indeed to assume good faith, but that works both ways. Just because someone is interpreting the rules in a way that is unfavourable to the way you think Wikipedia works, or how you want it to work, that they are "a cancer that can rapidly kill all the ideology that stands behind Wikipedia". Confusing Manifestation 07:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is his talk page then? Magnus 10:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobel

This guy should at some point or another, be nominated for the Nobel Peace prize (for bringing "enemies" together in order to produce a commonly accepted manuscript, for providing high-standard education for free, etc.). At least that's what I think. Kalambaki2 13:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia community should be nominated for the Nobel Prize, but I think they only give it to a single person. I don't think Jimbo is any more responsible for Wikipedia's success than the rest of the community. He is an important part of Wikipedia and of the community, as are the rest of us. a.z. 19:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone who acts like a digital Stalin as he did with that comment above isn't a peaceful person. It's fortunate that your comment won't be taken seriously by anyone who has any significance determining Nobel Prizes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gostkowski (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure saying the community is important is on the same level as communism.--Banana 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it turns out they do award the Nobel Prize to a lot of people! They awarded it to the IPCC. And I'm not sure, but I think Gostkowski was perhaps referring to the first comment, not the second, and they were trying to compare Jimbo to a dictator. A.Z. 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo plagarism conspiracy - is it real?

Hi. One of my friends keeps saying that the "founder of Wikipedia" (name uncited) was charged and arrested with a lawsuit of over $1 million. That person also claimed that Wikipedia is "completely plagarism". I know that is not true, because it is Wikipedia policy to cite sources and remove copyvios. However, where does this so-called "conspiracy under pressure" come from? Could there be any truth to it? Or, is it just a myth or an exaggeration? Thanks. PS the person I'm mentioning is severely biased against Wikipedia, and is also a former vandal. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes and No, no Mr. Wales was never arrested though; someone by the name of sollog did claim that jimbo was plagarizing some stuff he wrote (and was making a tonne of legal threats); but sollog is nothing but a quack and currently is a felon.--Trulexicon 05:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is no--Trulexicon 05:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What the? Can anyone say anything about the baldy bloke on who founded Wikipedia? That's a bit of a worry. Is it really vandalism to express your point of view on something which is publicly-accessible and encourages input? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.84.12 (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. It is vandalism to express your point of view because wikipedia is not written from a point of view. --Banana 01:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead photo not cheery enough

The lead photo seems just a little bit not cheery enough for a lead photo. Perhaps find and use a slightly more cheerful photo. Jidanni 09:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs work

Ok, in all the involved discussion over DOB and founding, I'm afraid the actual text of the article is suffering (as disputed text at WP so often does). Me, I'm mostly a copyeditor, so I immediately noticed this right up at the top of the page:

Most of the time there were four children in his grade so the school grouped the first through fourth grade students together and the fifth through eighth grade students together. In his adult life, Wales enjoys sailing and is an outdoor enthusiast.

Is it just me, or do those two sentences seem rather absurdly juxtaposed? I have no idea how to fix it; it probably needs insertion of more incidental material between the two. Actually, I recommend the first sentence should be removed shortened, since the grade-grouping of students at Jimmy's (or anyone else's) grade school seems unlikely to be particularly encyclopedic. Eaglizard 12:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Correction: sentence should shortened; 4 students in the school is interesting enough, I think. But then, transitional material needs to be inserted. IMO, ofc. :) Eaglizard 12:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tried removing the part about sailing and being an outdoor enthusiast because it makes the article sound like a personal ad for a dating site. However, it keeps on getting reinserted. 68.117.211.187 21:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

content deletion

Please move content to proper area rather than delete it.[4] Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Extensive Audio/video links

I don't think such an extensive list of links is appropriate, per WP:NOT and Wikipedia:External links. Quatloo 08:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Way too bloody long. But if you try to delete it someone will just undo it so it's hardly worth the bother. Maybe copy all the links over to a new page? 68.117.211.187 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mzoli's Meats Incident

Should it get a mention in here or no? --Is this fact...? 18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, it's simply not notable enough for an encyclopedic biography. It's fine for sensationalist newspapers trying to sell eyeballs for their advertizers (Delete generation rips encyclopedia apart, Wikipedia wars erupt (registration req.)) or blogs tho. -- Jeandré, 2007-10-16t11:21z

This isn't a Jimmy Wales controversy. He created the stub but the controversy really does not involve him, unlike the issues with Bomis, his biography or DOB. Jhurlburt 00:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy?"

As long as Jim's birthday is mentioned in that section it seems as if 'issues' would be a more fitting word for it. --Is this fact...? 18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is inane, this information is right on the Wikimedia Foundation website (editable only by Wikimedia employees), and if we don't trust Wikimedia with information about their own founders, why do we take money from them? I have included a citation from Wikimedia. Shii (tock) 00:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Frowned upon?

This article says that it's "frowned upon" for objects of biographies to edit their own articles, but I thought that the BLP policy encouraged great respect for people who edit out false or unsourced negative information about themselves. Doesn't this entitle Wales to clear out any number of "pornography" allegations, provided only that they're not strictly true? Or was the policy different back then? 70.15.116.59 19:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly support allowing Jimmy to edit this article, SqueakBox 20:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is generally frowned upon, definitely. There are some cases where nobody will care, and there always have been, but it's still correct to say that it's generally frowned upon. Especially since the pornography allegations were not clearly false, and in fact there is significant evidence that they are true. -Amarkov moo! 23:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I went back and skimmed through something like five thousand edits and looked at the effect of ten or so made by Wales. And out of all of them what I get on the pornography is that he replaced an unsourced "softcore pornography" with "adult content". Now the policy I linked to says subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material. So who's frowning? Seems to me this is one hundred percent consistent with policy.

Instead, the real stunner of these edits is a certain Jeremy Rosenfeld. Wales inserted the name as being that of the person who first suggested using Wiki to make Wikipedia. That got reverted to Sanger as co-founder and the person who first suggested. Now if you look up Jeremy Rosenfeld you get the History of Wikipedia article - in which he is not mentioned. He is mentioned once in the Larry Sanger article, which says Wales mentioned his name in that edit on this page - and that's all. What sense can you make out of that? Hmm, maybe he violated "no original research" (!)

Bottom line: let's cut the phrase "a practice frowned upon at Wikipedia". Wikipedia frowns on large expansive additions to biographies for apparent self-aggrandizement, but I see nothing in the policy banning little nip-and-tucks unless, as above, they might not be verifiable (though I don't know the Rosenfeld claim isn't). Even when I consider what I think the policy should be, I don't think it's realistic or enforceable to keep biography subjects from going in and tidying up the language, even if they have to do it from a throwaway account or IP. 70.15.116.59 03:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Guy Must be crying

Dam Jimmy must be pi*** that he unleashed such a terror upon himself, he created a wikipedia for articles yet he didnt foresee that his own personal life would be highlighted in a biography not written by himself. Poor guy got a taste of his own medicine, but maybe out of a bit of respect you guys could stop hounding him and let some facts about him remain secret, its not usual wikipedia policy but it seems an allowance you can make not to be too comprehensive on him, since he was the founder (cofounder?) of this wikipedia. Also the page seems a bit biased against him. Jimmy Wales if your there my heart goes out to you, and hopefully you will be able to keep some personal information secret, if only its the colour of your toothbrush.172.202.188.246 23:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe he has actually made public statements saying that he disliked this biography. A.Z. 23:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fast response! I was just looking at this archives, and this page seems to be at least (slightly?) biased against him, possibly because people think that if they make an example of Jimmy Wales then wikipedia gains more credebility, but the guy is obviously annoyed and perhaps its best just to ease off the criticisms a little? I know that sounds a bit exceptional, but I think the criticims of Jimmy Wales are delibertly exceptional to try and make wikipedia look completly NPOV, which it isn't anyway. The guy himself is obviously a bit annoyed and I see no reason why what he says about himself should be taken less factually than what media sharks say about him. Perhaps it is best to keep the wording of his past ('lucrative?') enterprises neutral.172.202.188.246 00:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You could be more specific about it, pointing out what are the offending parts of the section on Bomis. It seems pretty fair to me. A.Z. 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that sounds a bit exceptional, but I think the criticims of Jimmy Wales are delibertly exceptional to try and make wikipedia look completly NPOV, which it isn't anyway.

Have you read any books on leadership, organizational theory, or jurisprudence? It's extremely common in a fast growing company (or in any major change effort) that a disconnect forms between what the CEO declares as policy, the determination of the core group who attempt to impose this policy, and the sheer number of people who must be reached, convinced, and educated. When resources available for a change effort fall short of the full immediate scope of the problem, these efforts are focussed in areas of greatest visibility, as a leadership statement. Most people take this as common sense. The growth rate of Wikipedia has created a small crisis of perception concerning quantity over quality. Quantity is a faster process than quality. I have trouble believing any thoughtful person would not take this as given. NPOV is an ambitious goal, and there are philosophical reasons to suspect it might not be ultimately achievable as currently conceived, but Wikipedia is a long way yet from its progress becoming mired by these philosophical niceties. Even with its known problems, NPOV is one of the two or three strongest forces shaping Wikipedia in its present configuration and future trajectory. To put your words in the mouth of a Catholic priest: "Well, son, if you are going to do these kinds of things, there's no point confessing, you're not a Christian anyway". A mite defeatest, don't you think? MaxEnt 21:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not so much waht is being entered on the page (although I still think it is a little biased against him, adding comments that he disagrees with despite him knowing better, yes I undesrstand Wales may have an inherent point of view) just that on this page everyone seems to be going for his throat and (personal attacks? Pretty close and I dont think justified) it just seems a little unfair. I shoudlve been more clear that i was specifically referring to this page and the trolls on it. I dont think Jimmy Wales is perfect or anything, I just think that he is treated a bit harshly simply because he is the founder of wikipedia, which is a bit strange since you might have expected the opposite.172.202.188.246 00:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he does seem to want to remain "in charge". He also often "represents" Wikipedia in many places, and why? Just because he is the founder? I, for instance, totally dislike that there's a link to a video of Jimbo on every single page! There was no previous consensus for that. It was just done, and the contributors had to accept it. Why Jimbo, and not a randomly chosen group of contributors? Didn't it ever occur to him that this will be seen as using Wikipedia for self advertisement? If I were the founder of Wikipedia, I would be glad enough to be a normal user known as the founder, and to get some compliments every now and then, and to know that Wikipedia works, which is the most important. I wouldn't want to be the Queen of England of Wikipedia, nor to be famous for being the founder of Wikipedia, which is not an inherently notable position, in my opinion. I think others feel the same, and treat him harshly, but they wouldn't if he would just step back, become a normal user, and let the community be in charge. A.Z. 00:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think hes kicking himself for what hes unleashed, and again I hope that some aspect of your personal life remains personal if your looking (but I definetly wouldnt bet on it, youve created a monster).172.202.188.246 00:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To talk directly to him, just go to User talk:Jimbo Wales. A.Z. 00:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead?

Is that supposed to be a lead section? Doesn't anybody here understand the lead section guidelines? You don't have a one paragraph lead in a good article. It clearly needs to be longer. As is the reader has the choice of reading 3 pages about him or one bloody sentence... Richard001 07:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Age?

Arguments arise about the age about James Wales. Some say he is born on August 7th, while others say he is born on August 8th, discussion. Please? Ellomate 00:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not just discuss up under one of the several previous blurbs on his birthday? Epthorn 09:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Or read the section in his bio that covers the birthday controversy. 67.184.70.150 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? Why do Wikipedians waste so much time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.222.66 (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This whole exercise is, I think, just Wales trying to see how our process works and (unwisely, in my opinion) using himself as the guinea pig. The encyclopedia should apply the same standards as a newspaper or a historian. What you are looking for is the most verifiable reference material. In this case, it is the local officials of the municipality in which he was born. It specifically is not his mother. The officials are trained and paid to get the correct and consistent data. 100 year from now, Jimmy Wales will be still be recorded as being born on August 8, 1966. Ask yourself: what will he have put on his gravestone: three dates like Terri Schiavo or something?

Wales / Jimmy Donal / Beloved Husband
Arrived this Earth: August 7, 1966
Born: August 8, 1966
Died: November 21, 2051
(Dove with olive branch)
I kept my promise

or something like that?!? Puleez.--Straightpress 17:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)