Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jimmy Wales/1

Jimmy Wales

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist per consensus below that the article falls well short of meeting the criteria at the moment. Geometry guy 09:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breaches many of the guidelines for BLPs, including the inclusion of trivial, intrusive and non-encyclopedic information in a way that tends to create a false light on the subject. Given the subject of this article, I felt a community rather than an individual reassessment was more appropriate. In particular I feel there are major problems with the 'personal life' section of the bio (see the article's talk page).River sider (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call - I think now we can get back to the reality of keeping it clean and NPoV in BLPs and ensure that editors try their best to stick to encyclopedic rather than news styles of writing. Looking much better today already !--Chaosdruid (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This GAR is going to be fun :) Majoreditor (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not so sure that GAR is the best venue to decide these BLP matters. That said, I wonder if the sentence "Marsden claimed to have learned about the breakup by reading about it on Wikipedia" is too much information for a biography. One could also suggest that that the voluminous material on the date of birth controversey is trivial and adds little to the article, although I'd prefer not to step into that content dispute arena. All in all, it's hard for me to put my finger on a smoking gun violation of GA criteria in this article; rather, I sense these are borderline issues which aren't easily agreed upon. Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<See talk page for reply concerning choice of venue and commentary tangential to whether the article meets the criteria> Geometry guy 12:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This review request is malformed to say the least; which of the Good article criteria is the article accused of not meeting? There is already a discussion on the article talkpage concerning the personal life section. That discussion ought to continue, at its original forum. Skomorokh 16:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Skomorokh, you're right that I should list more explicitly the ways that this article breaches WP:GA.

Specifically, it breaches:

Manual Of Style guidelines for lead sections, including information that is not important enough to be included in such a section.
It goes into unneccessary detail in aspects of the subjects' life that are trivial and not relevant to an encyclopedia
It no longer has (whether intentionally or not) a NPOV,
it is unstable, being subject to regular re-editing
it violates policy on BLPs for the various reasons I've listed higher on this page.

If this were not a BLP, I might have been happy to let the discussion continue on the article's talkpage. Given that it was a BLP, and therefore a more urgent priority to get right, I felt a more proactive approach was neccesary. The GAR process is now started, and as I understand it, is therefore now the appropriate place for this discussion.

Riversider (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's more like it. So as I see it, we are investigating the article's compliance with criteria 1 (b), 3 (b), 4 and 5 (meeting BLP is a not a GA criterion, beyond that contentious BLP claims are cited to reliable sources, which would not seem to be in contention for the Marsden claims). Shall we open up subsections here for each of the issues and get down to business? Skomorokh 17:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a way forward. I disagree with you that breaching basic WP Guidelines on BLPs is not a GA Criteria, for reasons of basic logic and common sense, but am seeking further clarification on this matter at the Village Pump.River sider (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that GAR assesses the article against all of the criteria, not only issues raised by the nominator. Geometry guy 22:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, it seems that BLP issues need to be taken care of in order to get "Start-class" status? --Malkinann (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  WikiProject assessments are not, and never have been, part of the GA criteria. Geometry guy 09:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for Lead Sections

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic"

The 'co-founder' controversy is not notable enough to be included in the lead section of the article, and is not an important enough episode in the subjects life to feature in the lead. Riversider (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with what the lead says about his role as co-founder: Although Wales has been cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia since 2001[8], he disputes the "co-" designation,[9] asserting that he is "the sole founder of Wikipedia". The article goes into greater detail on this topic, and its inclusion in the lead is not inappropriate nor does it reflect undue weight. Majoreditor (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate issues here: Wales' role in the founding of Wikipedia, and the controversy about it. The article sensibly discusses these separately, and if the lead covers the latter, it should as well. Further, the sentence in question is loaded: "although" is a word to avoid precisely because of constructions like this; also the use of "assert" suggests "contends", another word to avoid. The article, and especially not the lead, should not engage in the controversy: state the facts and let the reader decide. Geometry guy 12:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition this sentence is partially sourced to a Wikipedia edit. It needs to be reworked. Geometry guy 13:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unneccessary detail"

The article goes into unneccessary detail about several aspects of the subject's personal life, and gives the name of a person only briefly associated with the subject. These details tend to be trivial, gossipy and unencyclopedic. They also tend to focus on negative aspects of the subjects personality and life, tending to portray him in a false light.River sider (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is uneven in its level of detail. For example, it mentions random, almost trivial elements concerning Wales' brief relationship with Mardsen but largely ignores his relationship with his first wife, Pam. The section on his Wikipedia biography delves into great detail, yet I see relatively little on his administration of the Wikimedia Foundation. IMO the article could do without trivial details on his breakup with Mardsen (per my earlier comment) and will benefit from additional material on how Wales founded, grew and administered various wiki entities. Majoreditor (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with Majoreditor. Geometry guy 12:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; this article suffers of WP:RECENTISM: it focuses on issues that may have recently been of importance to Mr. Wales personally, but most readers would not care about. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me three. A much higher-quality treatment could be done. There's a favorable but still interesting profile at Life After Trading : The Jimmy Wales Experience, with much biographical information (also has a great line about "his effort to take the success -- and, indeed, the underlying philosophy -- of Wikipedia, and commercialize the hell out of it") -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Because of the prurient level of unneccessary detail, explained above, the article loses it's NPOV. The overall tone of the article is unbalanced and therefore does not accurately reflect the life and achievements of the subject Riversider (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unstable Content

"Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute."

Edit records show that the content of the article is unstable, with substantial changes occurring to the text, images and layout on an at least weekly basis.River sider (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I examined edit history over the past two weeks and don't find significant day-to-day changes. Nor does there seem to be an ongoing edit war at present. Majoreditor (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This diff over the past month is surprisingly clean. I also see no evidence of instability here. Geometry guy 12:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Comments on sources.
1. "Early life and education" is almost entirely sourced to the C-SPAN interview (footnote 17). It would be helpful to cite one or two secondary sources. For instance, the Reason magazine article (footnote 24) has assimilated some of this material, although this may not be the best choice.
2. talk.philosophy.misc (footnote 19) is not a reliable secondary source. At face value it only shows Jimmy Wales announcing his mailing list. Yet it is used to source the dates he ran the list and three unrelated claims. In particular "boredom" at the end of the first section is unsourced and should be removed. I suggest removing the talk.philosophy.misc ref: the mailing list is tangential, and not mentioned in the C-SPAN interview. The three additional cites were a tagging error, which should have been attributed to the Reason (magazine) article. Thanks to Skomorokh for noticing this. Geometry guy 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Three of the controversies are sourced to the Sydney Morning Herald. Care is needed when relying on one newspaper, as a newspaper may have an editorial agenda. If the controversy is notable, a variety of sources should be available. If the SMH is cited because it broke the story, then it should be attributed as a primary source, backed up by secondary reports so that the article does not present a newspaper's editorial spin in the unqualified narrative voice.
4. ~~The New Yorker quote needs quotation marks.~~ I fixed it. Geometry guy 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. ~~The whole birthdate nonsense is self-referential, unencyclopedic, confusing trivia, with barely a reliable secondary source. It should be cut.~~ — Cut. Geometry guy 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry guy 13:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the founder issue. Two key principles of NPOV are: (1) Describe controversies but don't engage in them; (2) State the facts and let the reader decide. "Founder" is just a word. What does it mean to found something? That you had the idea? That you put in the money? That you made it happen?

The article does a decent job with point (2) in the section "Nupedia and Wikipedia": here Wales' and Sanger's input into the early development of WP are described, and the reader can decide for themselves whether Sanger's input makes him a "co-founder". However, the article then goes on to screw it up in the "Roles of Wikipedia creators" section, which engages in the controversy from the very first sentence, where "Larry Sanger's role as co-founder of Wikipedia" palpably tells the reader what is the "correct view" contrary to point (1). It is like an article on Bill Clinton telling the reader whether oral sex counts as sexual relations.

The section is also too long and repetitive. What does it really need to say?

Larry Sanger has been described as a co-founder of Wikipedia in a variety of reliable sources.
In other reliable sources Jimmy Wales has been described as the founder of Wikipedia.
Larry Sanger has stated that he considers that he co-founded Wikipedia, and given his reasons.
Jimmy Wales has stated that he considers otherwise and given his.
The disagreement has attracted media attention.

That's it. Arguments and suggestions over who is "right" are not only contrary to NPOV, they represent unencyclopedic navel-gazing. Geometry guy 17:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is naval-gazing like trainspotting at sea?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe :) Actually this is a spelling error I have made on many occasions. It seems to be a blind spot for me, not sure why. I corrected it (naval->navel). So far, though, no one has disagreed with the substance of my analysis, which makes me optimistic that the article can be fixed. Geometry guy 22:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silence != consent. My conclusion, having researched this matter extensively, is that Jimmy Wales's "Sole Founder" contention should properly be regarded as a WP:FRINGE view, in light of the weight of the Co-Founder evidence. Where his position does seem to have an effect in terms of special treatment, is that I believe he would not be given even the politeness and deference granted now, if this were anyone else - especially given the self-editing on the topic. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you spoke up. I agree with you that the "sole founder" view should not be given undue weight, and no such viewpoint should be endorsed. However, that doesn't mean the view of JW as the founder of WP is WP:FRINGE. We should simply report what reliable sources say, what the protagonists say, and what the media say about the disparity. We should not engage in the dispute. Do you agree with that or not? Geometry guy 00:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key difference is the meaning of "engage in the dispute" - I would say that WP:UNDUE would be violated with wording that gave equal credibility to what Jimmy Wales states as his personal viewpoint, versus roughly the entire amassed historical references from 2001-2004. His position should be placed in the perspective of the reliable sources, which are solidly against it contemporaneously. The article notes the media coverage of the dispute, which is reasonable. It should not be constrained to echo the extensive PR campaign that Wales engaged in once Wikipedia became his claim to fame. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the first time I see a link to twitter page and a userpage in a Wikipedia article. I also think that the image of Larry Sanger is not relevant to a biographical article about Jimmy Wales. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. An image of the two together is useful, otherwise just link to the Larry Sanger article. Ottre 21:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. WP articles often contain photographs of antagonists or associates. I wouldn't think twice about using such a picture in another setting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the twitter link as unencyclopedic. I don't see why the photo of Larry Sanger is a problem: it seems entirely appropriate and well within the GA criteria. Geometry guy 22:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem as such, just that given the tone of the article it seems somewhat contrived. The subsection marks a clear shift towards the subject's position on issues with the project, yet the portrait of Sanger really does not say much of his professional capacity (he doesn't present like your typical philosopher). Ottre 22:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sanger photo doesn't strike me as contrived or unusual. Majoreditor (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as I noted above, is really the associated prose. Geometry guy 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I've seen some improvements in the article, but it still suffers from unnecessary details on his personal life and the date of birth tempest in a teapot. These result in a lack of focus and potential POV problems. The wiki self-references are also a problem, per Geometry guy's comments. I had hoped that editors would discuss these issues on the article's talk page and resolve them. I am leaning toward a weak-delist recommendation unless these concerns are addressed. Majoreditor (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Majoreditors anaylsis and weak delist. I think it also causes more drama than it is worth keeping the GAR open, with more posts here than actual improvments being attemplted. Further improvments can be left to the thousands of people watching his talk page, after delisting.Yob Mod 08:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Rereading the page today, it seems that little has been done to address the issue raised here. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be general consensus that the article does not reach 'Good Article' status in it's current form. I now accept that, by WP standards, the article is relatively stable, but given its clear faults, this is not neccessarily a good thing. I feel slightly sad, because I was hoping that suggesting the article should be delisted would provide the impetus for improvement needed, but instead very little has been done. Perhaps as Yobmod suggests, actual delisting will provide the motivation that still seems lacking, and reinforce the importance of the qualities that we strive for in Good Articles, especially in BLPs. Riversider (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Yobmod. If this article were on Joe Schmoe, it would not be considered to be close to GA.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delist per my above comments. Majoreditor (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The review appeared perfunctory. Protonk (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, this is a reassessment of the article, not the review. Geometry guy 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]