Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Jimmy Wales/1

Initial Comments

Comment. I'm not so sure that GAR is the best venue to decide these BLP matters... Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) <edited, from review>[reply]

Reply I've used GAR for 2 reasons: 1. Because if this article breaks policies on BLPs, then it cannot by definition be a 'good article'. 2. To bring the article to enough peoples attention that it can be substantially improved, hopefully enough for it to remain designated as a Good Article, which would be a far better outcome than losing this designation.

Jim himself has commented on the GAR on my talk page, raising issues other than the intrusive personal life content that could equally be seen as problematical for a 'Good Article', saying [QUOTE]"I think, in particular, that the ongoing highlighting of something entirely unimportant and barely mentioned anywhere else ("co-founder" pseudo-controversy) in the lead is just idiotic Is this really the most important component of my life story? I can't think of any rational argument that would support this "[/QUOTE] (you'll have to visit my talk page for the full quote).

Perhaps in some ways, people here know Jim too well, and haven't the neccessary distance and detachment to write a good BLP about him (It currently reads almost as if an alienated teenager had written a biography about their Dad). If we can get Jim's BLP right, then it could be an example of how we should handle all BLPs: - sensitive, accurate, proportionate, encyclopedic. (BTW to refute any suspicion of being a JW acolyte, you can check my record of strong opposition to Flagged Revisions - which incidentally would have done nothing to prevent the deterioriation in this particular BLP). Riversider (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the familiar "Jim" (which he prefers not to be called, anyway) belies any claim that you're going to be accurate or encyclopedic about this subject. I predict that what will happen is that third-party news and biographical sources that bear any significant detail about the legacy of Jimmy Wales will be classified by editors here into two categories: those sources that focus "too heavily" on personal flaws and complications, and those that "seriously address" the professional career of the man. I can only guess which class of reliably-sourced material will be thrown on the dustbin and which will be added to the sum of human knowledge.

Meanwhile, the lead on the article about Eliot Spitzer trumpets in the second sentence "his involvement in a high-priced prostitution ring", and later in the article, I can learn that a room at the Mayflower Hotel costs exactly $411.06 per night. Oh, wait, don't forget this "encyclopedic" body of work. And over on this "encyclopedia" article, I can learn what the subject posted on their MySpace page at various moments in time. Yes, certainly the "deterioration" of the long-time semi- and/or full-protected article about Jimmy Wales is where Wikipedians should begin their quest for encyclopedic improvements to BLPs. We will enjoy watching this particular script unfold according to plan. -- Watchlist access account (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The use of the familiar "Jim" (which he prefers not to be called, anyway) belies any claim that you're going to be accurate or encyclopedic about this subject." Exactly, which is another reason why I'm relying on the community to sort this out rather than rewriting the whole thing myself. I'm not claiming any special knowledge of JW, who I've never met. I am claiming that I know enough about what makes a good encyclopedia article to be able to tell that Jimmy Wales is currently not entitled to that designation. You point to a couple of other BLPs - Are Eliot Spitzer and Ashley Alexandra Dupré listed as 'Good Articles'? If they are, then I suggest you submit them for reassessment, just as I have with this one. It's important that we get Good Article status right, because when we say this is officially a 'Good Article' we are saying this is an example which other editors should follow.

There are ten thousand places to begin our quest, my experience of trying to change the culture of organisations, is that one good place to begin is at the top. Incidentally the argument that Eliot Spitzer is not a good article doesn't really help us decide whether Jimmy Wales is a good article or not, which is what we're trying to establish here. Riversider (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is compliance with BLP policy a criterion for Good Articles?

Logic would seem to suggest that an article that contradicts BLP in various ways must, by definition NOT be a Good Article. This is under dispute, as compliance with basic WP policies and guidance is not explicitly mentioned in the Good Article Criteria and I am therefore seeking clarification of this issue.River sider (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the whole idea of Wales' article being in a GA or FA process makes me vaguely uncomfortable that the outcomes will be shaped more by peoples' regard for Wales than by the quality of the article. We are all active members of the WP community, we all have a COI in a way due to our gratitude to Jimbo for creating this place that we value so highly. Just a thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there are many people who have no feelings of regard whatsoever towards Wales, due to...different things. That should balance things out, maybe. Just a thought. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being polite. He's been on the talk page of at least one party to this GAR, so for sure he is watching this. Hosannas, oh God King! Now where were we?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical about "balance things out" - just citing two possible factors doesn't establish they have equal effect. I've been tough on him and Wikipedia in some columns, and, well, one of his reactions to my participant observation is "... either be a journalist, or be a participant, you can't ethically do both" - note, I've never seen him express this conditional to journalists who are gushing and hagiographic towards him. I'd say he definitely puts his thumb on the scales, but intriguingly, that doesn't seem to be enough to outweigh everything else. It's actually a very interesting question to me - why doesn't he have the very best biography on the site, as the naive "Barbarian King" theory would predict? I'd say it's much better than many, but it sure isn't completely what he would like, in certain keys areas. The answer seems to be quite complicated, connected to wider media attention and how it inhibits or supports various factions. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why a GAR and Not AFD?

I've been asked why I nominated this article for a GAR, and not for an AfD. It's simple really, the article is not good enough to be listed as a 'good article', but not bad enough for deletion. Riversider (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a strange question with an even simpler answer: Jimmy Wales is clearly notable enough to have an article on him. Geometry guy 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gg. There are a lot of notable people around with poor articles on them. Including, it appears, Wales.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]