This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Too many refs in the lead. Let's limit it to three instead of six. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
There is too many refs in the lede. I suggest we have only three refs instead of four. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that an entity's founder is the owner/entrepreneur, even if the creative work is shared. Eg - transitor was coined by somebody at Bell Labs. A transistor is an invention while Bell Labs is an enterprise. Who was the founder of Bell Labs? AT&T and General Electric, in 1925. Was the first president of Bell Labs its founder? Perhaps it would be more accurate to term him its "founding president"(?)
"One might also gather from some reports that the idea for Wikipedia sprang fully grown from Jimmy Wales' head. Jimmy, of course, deserves enormous credit for investing in and guiding Wikipedia. But a more refined idea of how Wikipedia originated and evolved is crucial to have, if one wants to appreciate fully why it works now, and why it has the policies that it does have.
For example, in the Nov. 1, 2004 issue of Newsweek, in "It's Like a Blog, But It's a Wiki," reporter Brad Stone writes:[Jimmy] Wales first tried to rewrite the rules of the reference-book business five years ago with a free online encyclopedia called Nupedia. Anyone could submit articles, but they were vetted in a seven-step review process. After investing thousands of his own dollars and publishing only 24 articles, Wales reconsidered. He scrapped the review process and began using a popular kind of online Web site called a "wiki," which allows its readers to change the content.
This capsule history is, of course, very brief and so should be expected not to have every relevant detail. But some of the claims made here are not just vague, they are actually misleading, and so several clarifications are in order (all of this is elaborated below):
The article makes it sound as if Jimmy were the only person making the relevant decisions. That is incorrect; the Nupedia system (indeed, seven steps) was established via negotiation with Nupedia's volunteer Advisory Board, mostly Ph.D. volunteers, who served as editors and peer reviewers. I articulated our decisions in Nupedia's "Editorial Policy Guidelines." Jimmy started and broadly authorized it all, but as to the details, he really had little to do with them.
[... ...]
Moreover, Nupedia had fewer than 24 articles when Wikipedia launched, being not quite a year old at that time. The idea of adapting wiki technology to the task of building an encyclopedia was mine, and my main job in 2001 was managing and developing the community and the rules according to which Wikipedia was run. Jimmy's role, at first, was one of broad vision and oversight; this was the management style he preferred, at least as long as I was involved. But, again, credit goes to Jimmy alone for getting Bomis to invest in the project, and for providing broad oversight of the fantastic and world-changing project of an open content, collaboratively-built encyclopedia. Credit also of course goes to him for overseeing its development after I left, and guiding it to the success that it is today.
[... ...]
In 1999, Jimmy Wales wanted to start a free, collaborative encyclopedia. I knew him from several mailing lists back in the mid-90s, and in fact we had already met in person a couple of times. In January 2000, I e-mailed Jimmy and several other Internet acquaintances to get feedback on an idea for what was to be, essentially, a blog. (It was to be a successor to "Sanger and Shannon's Review of Y2K News Reports," a Y2K news summary that I first wrote and then edited.) To my great surprise, Jimmy replied to my e-mail describing his idea of a free encyclopedia, and asking if I might be interested in leading the project. [...] To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely JimmyÃââs, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee; I thought I was very lucky to have a job like that land in my lap. Of course, other people had had the idea; but it was Jimmy's fantastic foresight actually to invest in it. For this the world owes him a considerable debt. The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on. [5]
↜Just M E here , now 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)*:How about Steve Jobs? How do reliable sources refer to these men? As I said, this has been beaten to death over the years(where does the time go :)). Both men seem to be "founders" of this project per numerous citations. How the leads are crafted has been debated. I never feel any "issue" should be "over" and not open to input and new perspective. Anyways, -- Tom (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Wales did not dispute the fact that he is the co-founder when Sanger was part of the project. Wales would have had to seen the Wikipedia press releases, early versions of Wikipedia articles, and several media coverage articles, all describing Wales and Sanger as the co-founders. He never publicly objected to being called the co-founder until at least late 2004 or early 2005. For example, the WF page clearly states that Wales is the co-founder of Wikipedia. It was not disputed until an IP changed it in 2005 after Sanger left the project. The same IP made an edit to the Jimmy Wales page. Then a minute later Jimmy Wales edited the Jimmy Wales page but did not revert the change the IP made to his birthdate. Another editor reverted the change. But then Jimmy Wales reverted back to the edit made by the IP. Wales had previously used the IP. Sanger became critical of Wikipedia after he left the project. That's when Wales began to claim that he is the "sole founder" of Wikipedia. According to Jimmy Wales the owner/entrepreneur was the founder. That means according to Jimmy Wales he was not the founder because Wales had two partners who were owners/entrepreneurs. When Wales claims the owner/entrepreneur should be a founder then the other two partners are the co-founders of Wikipedia. Wales did not dispute the co-foundership of Wikipedia until Sanger left the project. What did Wales actually do at Wikipedia in the early years. He was busy with Bomis. He hired Sanger because he needed someone to run Nupedia. When Wikipedia got started, Wales (along with two other patners) mainly paid the bills while Sanger was doing a lot of the work building and promoting Wikipedia. Wales provided the " financial backing" while Sanger " led the project". Jimmy Wales had a minor role in the early development of Wikipedia in terms of building the project. Sanger named the project, thought of using wiki software, conceived of Wikipedia, was an early community leader, and established Wikipedia's most basic policies including Ignore all rules and NPOV. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikilink in lede. Is it necessary to have this link in the lede. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"Wales has been historically cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, though he has disputed the "co-" designation, asserting that he was the sole founder of the encyclopedia." This makes Wikipedia proffer the opinion that Wales was a co-founder; eg it would be equally POV to say Wales has been historically cited as a founder, despite this statement's technically being true as well. Is there some way for Wikipedia to express the facts in a way that reflects disinterest in either belief/determination? ↜Just M E here , now 23:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
How about "Wales has been cited both as founder¹ and as co-founder² of Wikipedia, although he has disputed the latter designation, asserting that he was the sole founder³ of the encyclopedia."? With at least one citation wherever I've put a superscript, ¹ and ² from published material (from the NYTimes, say, or from Wikimedia press releases) and ³ from wherever it is that Jimmy currently maintains his claim that he was sole founder. (Sorry, I don't follow this dispute much, but I happened to come by. Also, do you know what they call the 4th o'July in England? <g>) — Toby Bartels ( talk) 16:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Probably been discussed before, feel free to direct me to appropriate archive, but can the internal link in the EL section be placed in a more "appropriate" section of the article? Is it repeated? Also, do we need the youtube links (they actually don't work with my browser?)? Is there some notability or reason for thier specific selection as opposed to the many (Iam guessing of course :)) other youtube links of Mr. Wales out there? Thanks, -- Tom (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I heard that Larry Sanger was the only founder of wikipedia and that Jimmy didn't join for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kus1234 ( talk • contribs) 03:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor put a sentence in the reference section. The sentence is not a reference. It is part of the article. The edit summary claimed combining birthdate cites. The sentence was not a cited reference. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Many of the early contributors to the site were familiar with the idea of a free culture and, like Wales, some of them sympathized with the open-source movement.[28]
This awkward sentence is still in the article. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Why does " Eat shit" redirect here? -- 116.14.26.124 (talk)
I cant understand why the image of sanders is relevant to the bio article of Jimmy. Do we put images of Clinton on pages on Bush (bad analogy, I know). The bottom line, this article is a BLP about Wales, why Sanders, do you want to continue the controversy, does Jimmy looks better with an image of Sanders. I wish that sysosp talk instead of unding "slaves" work (damn ant colony). You know discussing doesn't kill nobody. Unless. Im mistaken and this page is about the controversy about Sanders/Wales foundership (is that a word?) and not a BLP about Jimmy. Happy editing, -- J.Mundo ( talk) 07:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The image is free, relevant, and illustrative to the topic within the article. End of story. JBsupreme ( talk) 08:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hardly anyone even remembers Sanger any more, as this article makes clear Wales is known as the founder of wikipedia, anything else is blatant self-promotion. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, for anyone who hasn't seen it, I found Sanger's collection of evidence "My role in Wikipedia (larrysanger.org)", to be quite persuasive. -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 06:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I am seriously considering a significant block of SqueakBox if they continue to disrupt the editing environment with this quixotic Sanger/Wales crusade. This has been going on for years, has been discussed to death and consensus is abundantly clear. Skomorokh 09:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed it, it adds nothing to Wale's bio, and I notice that there is no picture of Wales on Sangers bio. You wouldn't put a picture of hilary clinton on Obama's bio would you? Yet they were so closely tied during the electioon campaign. Off2riorob ( talk) 12:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
We have been discussing meta issues here rather unproductively for the past hour - if you have a proposal to change the status quo regarding the image's inclusion, please join the discussion on its merits and we shall see what consensus emerges. Skomorokh 13:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The Sanger picture has been removed again, this time (by User:Steven Walling) and I support its removal. As I said here, there is no consensus to keep the picture in and it is clearly a contentious addition as it keeps getting removed. I suggest that we leave it out and have a discussion regarding it. Off2riorob ( talk) 07:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
User:JBsupreme has put it back with an edit sum of, please use talk page. He must have missed this, so it is clearly contentious as it is in out in out, so I 've removed it and suggest a discussion here. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
User:JBsupreme has inserted the picture again without any attempt to discuss it here on the talkpage? He used the edit summary of, he can see no consensus for removal, I thought that with a contentious edit inclusion was the thing that required consensus? I also think that the picture is only being inserted by editors with such strong opinions about the original debate regarding who created wiki that they have what could be described as a conflict of interest. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
meanwhile....I am here talking to myself..... Off2riorob ( talk) 08:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
THe image of Sanger is suitable because multiple paragraphs refer to him, continually by name and he had a defining role in the founding of wikipedia, which most of the article is dedicated to. Viridae Talk 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Quoting from "There's no end to it" by Curtis Krueger [7], St. Petersburg Times, 8 November 2004, page 1E:
“ | Wales, 38, has lived in St. Petersburg about two years. He spends countless hours working without a salary for Wikipedia, from his downtown office, from his laptop at Panera Bread or elsewhere, or at the Shore Acres house he shares with his wife and 3-year-old daughter. | ” |
Do we have any good photographers nearby? Ottre 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, I don't know how objective this sentence is:
"Wales has said that he initially was so worried with the concept that he would wake up in the middle of the night, wanting to check the site for vandalism."
How could he be completely convinced of any new technology right after losing most of his $500,000 investment in Nupedia? Far more important in my mind to show whether he was corresponding with people in the open-source movement. I think Andrew Lih describes some of those involved with the site as "programming gurus" who by 2003 had convinced Wales that the site was working. Ottre 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
@Spiderone: As far as I am aware, the only reliable source which has ever claimed that he is Welsh is "Milk, biscuits and thinking of Sydney... What else would we expect Rob Brydon's interests to be?" by Robin Turner, The Western Mail, 5 December 2008, page 12.
“ | In all there are 18 new Welsh entrants in the 2009 version of [Who's Who], which sees celebrities rubbing shoulders with artists, ambassadors and air vice-marshals. [...] There's comedian Rob Brydon, judge Tudor WynOwen, Specsavers co-owner and MD Doug Perkins, Rev Geoffrey Osbourne Marshall, actor Daniel Wroughton Craig, Mary Berry the TV cook, Pink Floyd co-founder David Gilmour, Annie Nightingale the veteran DJ, football pundit Mark Lawrenson and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. | ” |
Try searching combinations of those names. If you find two other reliable sources which mention him as being Welsh, we can include the information per WP:V. Ottre 20:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
From Wikia Wikia Green ... Wikia Green is a wiki operated by Wikia, Inc. focusing on environmental issues. [1] Jimmy Wales started the project after a conversation with environmentalist activist and politician Al Gore, who suggested creating a green wiki. [1]. "Wikipedia Founder Goes Green" announced on 9th of September, 2008 by 350.org regarding a new wiki. [2] [3]
There's a dead link from 2008 and a needs updating tag from 2007. Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
In the early development subsection of the Wikipedia section, the sentence "Wales has said that he initially was so worried with the concept that he would wake up in the middle of the night, wanting to check the site for vandalism" is tagged with {{ clarification needed}}. From the source:
Newsweek:] Weren’t you worried about what would be put up there? [Wales:] Yes, when I first started I would actually wake up at night to go down and check what was being posted.
What clarification is required here? Skomorokh 23:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
...How is that Newsweek interview a reliable source? It's clearly not fact-checked, and doesn't go into nearly as much detail about the production model as the Bruce Cole interview ("Building a Community of Knowledge" by Bruce Cole [9], Humanities magazine, Mar/Apr 2007, Vol. 28, Iss. 2, pp 6-14) Ottre 06:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I hate to open this can of worms again, but our (justly brief) paragraph on the matter at Jimmy Wales#Controversy is somewhat lacking from a reader's perspective. September 27, 2009 version, minus citations:
Wales has asserted that he is the sole founder of Wikipedia, and has publicly disputed Sanger's designation as a co-founder. Sanger and Wales were identified as co-founders at least as early as September 2001 by The New York Times and as founders in Wikipedia's first press release in January 2002. In August of that year, Wales identified himself as "co-founder" of Wikipedia. Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links with the intent of proving conclusively that he was a co-founder. Wales was quoted by The Boston Globe as calling Sanger's claim as "preposterous" in February 2006, and called "the whole debate silly" in an April 2009 interview.
Any insights supported by sources welcome, keeping WP:NOTAFORUM in mind. Cheers, Skomorokh 01:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Poor quality piece, but posting here for future reference: "Meet Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia". Although I chuckled at the subheading Skomorokh, barbarian 17:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
pig
Jimmy please publish the history from the lords of the british visiting, Me Lisha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.207.188 ( talk) 02:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
After the content dispute was over an editor went back to several articles and rewrote history (revisionism). The editor previously acknowledged Jimmy Wales is historically cosidered the co-founder of Wikipedia. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I propose we change back founder to co-founder per NPOV. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
From the way this article is put together it's like you worship the guy... Which of course you do. Hardly any negative comments on Jimmy Wales... Probably removed and considered offensive to your god. -- 207.68.234.177 ( talk) 05:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The article says, Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links with the intent of proving conclusively that he was a co-founder.[original research?]
Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007).
"Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia".
MSNBC.
Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-25. Sanger has assembled many links at his
Web site that appear to put the matter to rest. Among the citations are early news stories and press releases that say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger.
{{
cite news}}
: External link in
(
help) The source says something different than what is in the article. The part about "intent of proving conclusively..." is
WP:OR.
QuackGuru (
talk) 08:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
|quote=
You've just edit-warred back in the identical version that has been disputed without bothering to engage in discussion of the issues. That is extremely unhelpful and not at all congruent to collaborative editing or the development of a biography of a professionally-written standard. Please have the integrity to revert yourself and discuss the substance of the problem. Skomorokh, barbarian 19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007).
"Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia".
MSNBC.
Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-25. The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Wikipedia, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial — Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it. Sanger has assembled many links at his
Web site that appear to put the matter to rest. Among the citations are early news stories and press releases that say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger.
{{
cite news}}
: External link in
(
help)
|quote=
In the lead I added " historically" cited as the co-founder. This is closer to the source which is closer to NPOV. When early citations and press releases say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger it is more accurate to say "historically cited" than just "cited". QuackGuru ( talk) 17:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Wales' POV is never a reason to compromise the facts or change historical facts. The body of the article can and does explain Wales' point of view. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, WP shouldn't be writing a lede in a BLP that would blow up this distinction being discussed above into some kind subtle indictment of our entrepreneurial subject's character. Thus, better than the authoritatively sounding word cited, I think it would be better were WP to more innocuously simply say that many early reports label, give, say, or whatnot, that Wales is the co-founder, touching on the dispute without really highlighting it, and leave any further fleshing out of its details down in the body of the article.
(By way of analogy, of course, Henry Ford most definatively did NOT singlehandedly invent the assemblyline, he had a lot of competent help! -- ne'ertheless, Ford is rightly famous for having "founded" his eponymous company ((um, really, that is, his having co-founded Ford Motor Company, with his principal investors' money, with techniques Ford learned while working for the Edison company, with the assistance of some principal mechanical geniuses at his side; yet, no doubt Ford and others often would say, simply, that he "founded" Ford Motor Company, despite the many citations that also likely could be found saying that the enterprise was a group undertaking)). OK, with that premise, say that there had existed jockeying for credit among Ford and one or another of Ford Motor's co-founders. Such a thing would certainly merit encyclopedic mention in a Ford bio, IMO. Still, would such semantically turned points really deserve to be touched on all-too heavy handedly in the Henry Ford bio's lede?)
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we not just ask the big man himself his true DOB? Giant Snowman 23:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
We should ask to see his birth certificate to settle this conclusively and permanently. Power chicken, although being sarcastic, is correct. 71.109.148.127 ( talk) 21:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Under personal, the page gives a source saying his wife claimed that Wales had said that "altruism is evil." WHAT? Is that for real? Isn't that like against wikipedia's purpose? Haha please correct me if I'm wrong. 72.220.125.86 ( talk) 03:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I am in agreement with the above comments, and so have removed the W magazine material about Wales' first wife for now. As Seth says, it's a worthy topic, so if someone knows of coverage in a reliable source somewhere, I'd be happy to write it up. Skomorokh, barbarian 02:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I support Skomorokh's removal of the content, good edit. I don't really understand this other stuff though. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I find his objectivist belief confusing. I thought wikipedia relies on donations to function? I thought objectivists hated donations and anything that could be called self sacrifice? I thought this site is the "collective" knowledge of people about a certain topic. Isn't collectivism also evil to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.53 ( talk) 12:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The main point I wish to make is: I think it need not be removed since it doesn't exactly mean that Wales is evil or anything. Perhaps someone could add that the reason is due to him being an objectivist. That would clear things up. Creation of wikipedia can be argued as selfish(as absurd as it may sound, it's rational). Wales says that his life's purpose is to creat good quality free encyclopaedia or whatever. So it is selfish in that aspect too. I know, Rand uses words like "selfish", "egotist", etc in their very literal meaning. I think tht semantics would be a greater topic to discuss than philosophy when talking about objectivism! Mehfoos ( talk) 01:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Probably too softball an interview to be of use in this article, but worth noting for the record nonetheless. Interestingly, looks like Wales may have lost the "co-founder" argument in the MSM as well as here if even self-serving interviews don't defer to his version of events. Skomorokh 01:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
You know, he does have a account here. Ok, you all knew that.-- Daisy18108 Talk to me here! Sign my Guestbook! 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
According to this page Wales is now an honorary member of the University Philosophical Society. Is it worth adding to the awards section? Note it was mentioned in the article "'I wasn’t sure if anyone would use it'" by Fiona McCann, [11] The Irish Times, 27 November 2009, page 23. Ottre 13:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is indefinitely semi-protected, but looking through the the last 100 edits to September 2009, this gets little if any vandalism. Is there really a compelling rationale to preserve the indefinite protection? Skomorokh 05:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
There was rough consensus in this discussion from seven months ago (five in favour, three opposed) to move unnecessary references out of the lead and into the body of article text. Nobody has made the changes yet. One of the most cited references is the article by Marshall Poe, which was added in this edit over two years ago, and nobody appears to have checked the print version yet (that is, no page numbers are cited). I think we need to take a more proactive approach to copyediting, and set a date on which myself, QuackGuru, Skomorokh, and everyone else involved with the article, can collaborate on getting the refs into shape. Ottre 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've checked the print version of the Marshal Poe article. Ottre 03:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I just went to edit the lead section to get rid of some of the redundant citations, and it is an intimidating mess of code. Would anyone object to changing the referencing system to list-defined references? It moves the content of references to the References section, leaving just the tags behind. This would make it easy to compare and copyedit all the references in one place. You can see this system used in the Hawksian woman article. Skomorokh 19:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't there any information about his first wife? Like a name and year of marriage and divorce. Debresser ( talk) 12:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
says Michael Snow. Proper ref needed to update article. Skomorokh 21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that the IPA transcription of the pronunciation should also include the pronunciation of the first name (Jimmy), which it evidently does at the moment. Could you please add it? (I cannot do it myself, as the article is "semi-protected".) Or are there any suggestions to the contrary that I may be unaware of? (I have searched the archives, but found nothing controversial.) Simply stated, I see no reason why (only) the middle name and the last name should be transcribed, but not the first name. -- 84.47.117.130 ( talk) 11:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
on the stats page for wikipedia it list only Jimmy Wales as the founder. Special:Statistics Wasn't Larry Sanger a founder as well? -- 24.103.173.3 ( talk) 07:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed this youtube clip. Not sure how much it adds or if it is appropriate. Thanks, -- Tom (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone object to the to-and-fro about Wales' birthdate being relegated to a footnote? It seems much ado about nothing, and not of great interest to our readership. Thoughts? Skomorokh 23:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of the facts is as follows: His driver's license and passport have August 8, which presumably matches his birth certificate. He claims August 7, and used that date on his marriage license, which is then different from his driver's license and passport. The article should then use August 8, sourced to the Oregonian and possibly his statements, with something like the current footnote. The footnote in the article has a misleading paraphrase "he has stated that the August 7 date is incorrect". Basically, he plays games with this, so trying to paraphrase is just going to add to the confusion. -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 12:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
How about simply removing the birthdate entirely? This is the sort of personal info that really adds nothing to a BLP. Tarc ( talk) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's try and nail this once and for all. What Jimmy says about his birthdate is hearsay and a self-published source to boot. Superficially attracted though I am to the idea of a paid data search, Wikipedia leans against such sources on the ground of general verifiability. We have much the same problem with Beethoven, where the only available documentation is of his christening and not his actual birthdate; however we seem perfectly able to deal in that case with varying sources, and I see no rational reason not to do the same here, because in the long run it would save a lot of otherwise wasted time which might be more productively directed elsewhere. An ongoing argument about one day as against the next seems to me to be the ultimate in Oliver Wendell Holmes's "foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of tiny minds". Jimmy Wales is not going to complain because he gets a birthday card either one day early, or one day late. Some perspective, purr-lease!! Rodhull andemu 23:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
January 2010 interview. Only scanned it briefly, seems standard propaganda, nothing jumped out. Skomorokh 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I was reading about your information about IP addresses and I have looked elsewhere, but I can not find in your site or others why some ip addresses have different numbers. For example 192.168.1.148 is to a printer. The printer somehow stopped responding to the address. When you go to put the info backi n it won't accept it because the is not enough numbers 192.168.101.148. It is looking for the 101 (3 digits) rather than the 1.Is there a way to either trick it or use zeros that won't count? No matter what I do I can not get this printer to work as it says it is not a correct IP number. Can you or anyone help me? Jeank1 ( talk) 02:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jimmy,
I'm writting from France a,d english is not my mother language.
On January 27th, I tried my first article in Wikipedia : ACRYSTAL with user nam "Acrystaluk".
As you can check, my article has been rejected for 2 reasons : too commercial and user name of an organization.
The problem is that I can not get in contact wit the guy who rejected me... because he blocked me.
I'd just like to point out that I'm the managing director of Acrystal so it is normal taht I use an organisation name and second that the new product I'm talking about is totally innovative and there exist no current word to describe it, so I had to use the trade name.
Would you be so king to put me in contact with this man and ask him to contact me as I can not contact him.
Many tahnks
Serge ZEDER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.215.252 ( talk) 18:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Could be worth integrating into the article - A Life in the day: Happiness is my computer Laurent ( talk) 13:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/search?q=honoris+causa+jimmy+wales This honorary doctorate should be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloom54 ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I DID NOT SEE ANY REFERENCE OR INFORMATION ABOUT ED SULLIVAN LIFE DURING W.W.I I. I WAS TOLD HE HAD A STEEL PLATE ON ONE SIDE OF HIS JAW. THIS CAUSED HIM TO SPEAK WITH SOME DIFFICULTY. HE WAS MUCH CRITICIZED ABOUT HIS MANNER IN SPEECH BUT APPARENTLY NEVER ADVERTIZED HIS DISSABILITY. IN FACT HE EVEN ENCOURAGED COMMEDIANS TO MIMIC HIS INTRODUCTIONS AND MANNER OF SPEECH.I ALWAYS WONDERED IF THIS WAS A WAR RELATED INJURY.I DO NOT KNOW.I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF ANYONE HAS ANY INFORMATION ON THIS INTERESTING LITTLE KNOWN FACT.I THINK IT WAS TRUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.3.15 ( talk) 17:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Please unlock this article so that I can add his illustrious title of "KING FANBOY" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.182.141 ( talk) 04:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
So, there was an article on the SF Gate a while back... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/05/BUVFVDM3H.DTL
Was it ever addressed? I figured Wikipedia would at least make mention, but I can't find anything. Has it been debunked or has it been judged as not noteworthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.26.101 ( talk) 15:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Can we fully protect this article until April Fool's day is over with? Jhurlburt ( talk) 07:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably was not the best idea but it was part of a series of April Fools jokes discussed here. I apologize as this edit may have been misconstrued. -- Morenooso ( talk) 18:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the infobox picture isn't Jimmy. Jordan Payne T /C 17:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=358764887
Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales (pronounced /ˈdoʊnəl weɪlz/; born August 8, 1966[note])
Born Jimmy Donal Wales August 8, 1966 (1966-08-08) (age 43)[note]
Wales was born in Huntsville, Alabama in the United States on August 7, 1966.[8][note]
We should follow Britannica as the best secondary source: August 7. 86.41.92.143 ( talk) 15:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
(note, I've cancelled out the 'editsemiprotected' for now; obviously, this would need discussion and clear consensus, etc Chzz ► 17:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
The article contains two different dates and is internally contradictory. Please just pick one for the time being and let's not have ourselves look like complete idiots. 86.45.174.207 ( talk) 18:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
(EC)
Someone could ask him on his talk page. I don't know if we'd be able to cite his response as a source, though. ALI nom nom 17:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Does everybody forget Wikipedia:Verifiability which states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So, include BOTH dates and explain. Because if we make a decision either way, it is partially wrong regardless... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how relevant we would consider his appearances on America: The Story of Us on the History Channel. I figure that once the series is over, we can consider if it is worth mentioning in the article or now; but there's no reason we can't start discussion now. bahamut0013 words deeds 12:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales' Mexican lookalike: a Harvard professor -- http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=ovr&facId=296063 .-- 达伟 ( talk) 17:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Under Jimmy Wales "Honors, awards and positions"
should be added the following fact:
May 21, 2010 - Wales receives an honorary degree of doctor of laws from Stevenson University, Stevenson, Maryland. Wales said that this was the very first college commencement speech that he had delivered.
Reference: Stevenson University Newsroom
StevensonU ( talk) 13:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Not done: The reference says nothing about what you are requesting be added, only that he addressed the University. Spigot Map 13:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This may be useful in the meantime. Also this one see also this reference. Perhaps Stevenson needs to update their press release with more details.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 15:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Done Thanks Jimbo. Spigot Map 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
In a 2007 interview, Wales stated that he thought that "donating" Wikipedia to the foundation was both the "dumbest and the smartest" thing he'd done.
I think that it would be more accurate to say that I joked that I thought that - I have made this joke many times, and I always say it in a joking manner and nearly always explain that it is a joke - primarily because some people seem to think I mean it seriously. I think donating Wikipedia to the Foundation was arguably the smartest and greatest thing that I've ever done, full stop. What I don't want to see happen next, though, is people editing this to say that "Later, in 2010, he claimed this was just a joke" making it sound like it was bad when I said it, and then I backpedalled, etc. It was always a joke. It might not even be a notable enough thing to include in the article at all, but I have said it lots of times, so I suppose it might be.
I am also not sure why there are scare quotes around "donating".
What I recommend is this wording: "Wales has often joked that donating Wikipedia to the Foundation was both the "dumbest and the smartest" thing he'd done." And then a bunch of links to examples.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
As always, the thing to do in situations like this is let the reader decide. I had a look at the sources first, and I agree with Jimbo that this was always a joke, but would note that the joke seems to be the contrast between "smartest" and "dumbest", while the explanations in each case are quite rational. The current text ("Wales has often jokingly stated that donating Wikipedia to the foundation was both the "dumbest and the smartest" thing he had done. On the one hand, he estimated that Wikipedia was worth US$3 billion; on the other, he weighed his belief that the donation made possible its success.") captures that quite well and lets the reader decide whether it was "just" a joke or not.
Indeed the main weakness, in my view, is the final clause, which rather underplays why it was smart (I'm thinking e.g. of the quote "The smartest, though, because I don‘t think it could have been nearly as successful as it is and also because I think it will be remembered in the future. 100 or 200 years from now people will point to Wikipedia and say: That was a really good thing that did something beneficial for the world. So that is something I am very proud of.") Geometry guy 20:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I note that the source linked doesn't make that claim, and in any event, it's false. I've always been intensively involved in the day-to-day operation of the encyclopedia. This is the origin of the word in the article, a change from "decreasing", which is of course also false.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Mr. wales could you please assist in protecting the page Darrin McGillis from a politica witch hunt by two users of wikipedia including using the AFD page as a place to Libel Mr. McGillis a living person.-- 98.242.241.252 ( talk) 01:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be appropriate to document the allegations made against Mr. Wales regarding excessive/inappropriate spending by former Wikimedia executive Danny Wool that are detailed on his blog [13] that were reported in Wired Magazine [14]. I can't seem to find where on Wikipedia these allegation are addressed (and hopefully, responded to/put to rest). Wikipedia would only benefit from more information/context on this criticism. Mr. Wales responded to the more sensational allegations about Ms. Marsden, but I can't seem to find any response to the allegations about misuse of funds.-- DerekDeVries ( talk) 21:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales was elected to the Ashoka fellowship in the 2008.
Wikipedia's Parent Company Starts Purging Porn From Its Websites
Dispute brews over pornographic images on Wikimedia
Jimmy Wales wades into Wikipedia porn debate
Here are three articles open to discussion for inclusion. I think it is best to talk it over before adding any of these to this or other articles. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see Commons:News regarding the sexual content purge, which is the only list I've seen so far that's at all useful or comprehensive (though it doesn't claim to be such). -- Simon Speed ( talk) 10:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
These seem relevent to this page and other pages too. For example, Co-founder Jimmy Wales has given up some of his site privileges following protests by contributors angered that he deleted images without consultation. On Sunday, in response, Jimmy Wales voluntarily revoked many of the "permissions" given to him as Wikipedia's founder, to delete and edit "protected" content on Wikimedia Commons. Wales's status has changed is relevant to this page and the History of Wikipedia page. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think what Tarc is getting at is that the article is not a suitable place to criticize its subject. Editors should take their time, remember BLP rules and if they're feeling angry, just back off and leave it. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 22:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
We report facts from reliable sources. Those media stories are only just out and are either sensational tripe or just report that there's been a row. It is not at all clear what's actually happened to Jimbo's status, he's agreed to give up some stuff but could take it back any time he wants: everything is very fluid. If you are concerned about the issue then please get involved in the debates and consensus building at the Commons. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 00:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If newspapers are fully reliable when they're sensationalizing breaking news, how come what they report later is often so different? I'm just urging caution on a BLP and keeping feelings out of editing. I'm also urging everybody to get involved on the Commons: the issue has not gone away. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 01:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm concerned about reflecting either the moral panic or the Wiki-anger. I think that if you say no more than is accepted by the range of sources and use the least emotionally charged language available, you should be OK. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 08:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
How about Following controversy over the deletion of sexual images, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his founder status. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 23:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that, but I still think "controversial" is better: nobody outside Wikiland will understand the significance of "consensus". -- Simon Speed ( talk) 14:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I've already set out my stall on this, and Jimbo is already aware of it. In my opinion he acted in one sense quite properly to reduce the potential legal liability of the Wikimedia Foundation, by removing those images he considered to be illegal, with the proviso that they could later be restored after due consideration. Unfortunately, images, once deleted, are unavailable for rational comment, and that is perhaps, putting the cart before the horse. That leaves the question whether nominating the images for deletion, and opening up the debate, would have produced a different result. I'm not convinced it would have done so. Methodology aside, I dispute "later clarified as illegal drawings of children in sexual situations". Who has prescribed this? It's an unsourced opinion. The
FBI has conspicuously failed to take any action.
A different point is that Commons has been used to host multiple pornographic images with no obvious encyclopedic value, and most of those images are not used in any encyclopedic articles. In one sense, Commons is a repository of free-content images, yet it falls within the WMF free-content purpose, which overall seems to be educational rather than tittilational. Accordingly, there seems to be no reason why images not used in encyclopedic articles should not be deleted as redundant, and Jimmy was quite correct on that dimension; we are not Flickr.
Rodhull
andemu 00:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
New proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: Following a complaint by Larry Sanger to the FBI that he later clarified as obscene visual representations of children in sexual situations being hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete was done hastily, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status. He wrote in a message to Wikimedia Foundation mailing list this was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted." [19] QuackGuru ( talk) 07:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Jimmy was on the shows America: The Story of Us but it isnt mentioned in his article. Why? Spongie555 ( talk) 05:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Mr Wales, I noticed this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups . Does Wiki have a policy for resisting group attempts to skew its pages? If it does would you provide a link please. Thank you. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Lifestyle-oriented interview. Skomorokh 13:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
1. This article is one of the few on wikipedia that is describing itself (there's AFAIK no policy against this):
Funny!
2. I wish better sources for Wales'es objectivism (Rand) and libertarianism. They're kind of fundamental. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 08:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I think adding a reference citation to the lead is appropriate. There was past consensus to include citations in the lead. The references should come from the body. A new reference is not part of summarising the article if it is not already in the body. A possible compromise is adding the citation from the body but commenting it out. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jimmy Wales, Iam the wikipedia contributor with the name of Case_edu ( talk). my previous uder id was blocked due to the above users. They logged my complaint that i involve with some other users due to some AFD articles. they put charge on me of some jihad to protect things. i put my efforts for the positivity of wikipedia and they start investigation of fake things here. i leave wikipedia under protest permanently. this is last time to use my time for nothing. i forget that some wiki users have abuse you and involve you in religion issues. this is very negative thing. take it seriously other wise people avoid wikipedia from muslim countries. Slaughter00 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC).
Skomorokh, regarding your question as to "an account of why (Wales) set up the Wikimedia Foundation and stepped aside as its chairman", this is covered to some extent in the profile done by Trader Monthly, which has
Wales, meanwhile, has gone on to fame, if not exactly the enormous fortune one typically associates with Internet moguls. But it's not as if he's opposed to rectifying that situation. Early in Wikipedia's life, Wales and his partners considered selling ads on the encyclopedia's pages. The site was showing signs of explosive growth, and they certainly could have used the extra money. Though ultimately they nixed the proposal (Internet ad rates had fallen off anyway, of course), they didn't exactly do so for idealistic reasons. "We've never said, 'Absolutely not, we don't want to sell ads,'" Wales says, explaining that the decision had more to do with preserving the Wikipedia brand.
And with the advent of his for-profit venture, Wikia Inc., it appears Wales is finally ready to monetize.
Also, though original research, you may find interesting this part of the historical record
With the resignation of Larry, there is a much less pressing need for funds. Therefore, all plans to put advertising of any kind on the wikipedia is called off for now.
We will move forward with plans for a nonprofit foundation to own wikipedia, and possibly to solicit donations and grants to help us carry out our mission. (Ironically, I think that grant money would come with many annoying strings attached, which we could not accept, comparted to advertising money, which is virtually 100% string-free.)
-- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 01:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there any source that connects Wales to the LVMI? Auburn is notable for many things, so unless there is an actual connection I don't think it's necessary or even appropriate to mention an institute that occupied office space at the university. Will Beback talk 21:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
We describe it as "a small private school"; Wired describes it as "a tiny private school" [21]; SMH describes it as "the school was run by his mother and grandmother" [22]. The majority of this section of the article is dependent on Wales' Q&A [23], which is not independent. In Q&A, Wales says it wasn't homeschooling, but it sounds like it had around 10 students in total, four of which were the Wales children. Was this a registered school? I can't find any records online about it, but that isnt surprising. What offline resources would be helpful to consult in order to confirm it's status and/or find more information ? John Vandenberg ( chat) 23:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Our article says he taught at University of Alabama and Indiana University without giving a clear timeline, which may give readers the wrong impression. The Reason article [24] says "He did coursework and taught at Indiana University". The other source attached to this fact is the Q&A piece, but I can't see where it says he taught at University of Alabama. Is this covered in any other sources? What subjects did he teach? How long did he teach these subjects? John Vandenberg ( chat) 23:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Press Association reports that Wales has been granted an award by a Swiss organization called Im Grueene Foundation for "democratising the access to knowledge".
-- TS 20:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Whats Jimmys ancestry, first wales that came to the United States from which country??...im guessing its not the country wales.. and whats his religious beleifs?. Armenia81 ( talk) 20:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Well your paternal surname is of English origin see here: www.surnamedb.com, or www.houseofnames.com, not sure about your mother's surname, yes its interesting to research your family tree, especially if you really dont know much about it. It is also the 6295th most common surname in the US and 1774th most common in the U, so its not common at all. Armenia81 ( talk) 21:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
If it pleaseth the discussion, please keep your comments to reliable sources which discuss Mr. Wales' ancestry specifically. Speculative chitchat would not be unwelcome at User talk:Jimbo Wales, I suspect. Thanks, Skomorokh 17:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Wales says Wikipedia role unchanged, but editorial power has been curbed. This reference and matierial about role and power can be added to Jimmy Wales#Role. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
At the end of the Controversy section there are two sentences reading:
"The January/February 2006 issue of Maximum PC reported that Wales refused to abide by a request of the People's Republic of China to censor "politically sensitive" articles in Wikipedia. Other big business Internet companies such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft have already yielded to Chinese government pressure. Mr. Wales would rather see companies such as Google follow suit on Wikipedia's policy of freedom of information.[43]"
I thought Google had stopped censoring information in china... or maybe thats just Hong Cong... If anyone knows more about the Google/China issue this would be a good place to make an update.
Especially considering Jimbo started this all, and this section is already two years out of date and it is a fairly current issue.
Andrewxy (
talk) 21:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
who cares about the controversy of Jimmy Wales. I thought it was a waste of time of my eyes reading this idiotic controversy over who founded Wikipedia. Actually, why does anyone care? Not like it's a big money maker.
Actually it's a big deal. He runs wikipedia and his character and principles has a lot to do with that. People need to know, especially if their donating what kind of man runs this operation. Who is at the wheel. To that end the controversy around Rachel Masden needs to be greatly expanded. She did release chat logs which would imply he messed with her page while seeing her. A conflict of interest from the highest level of wikipedia is damning and important information relevant to wikipedia and jimbo wales. -A non-moose
Hey there!
I was just wondering while there is no mention to what Jimmy earns in the article. Being Wikipedia an institution founded by donations, shouldn't all its "numbers" be public? I don't know much about it, I suppose they already are, so I wonder why not mention it in the article?
Some personalities like Mark Zuckerberg or any other of these magnates have got their net worth or they income in the personal box, at least.
Why is this information nonexistent in Jimmy's case?
Cheers from Pakistan!!
Ahmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.157.111.182 ( talk) 19:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Apparently where it says "and had a daughter before separating.[57]" under the section Personal Life, the source provided at [57] says nothing of any daughter. It mentions that Wales and his wife were separated and were planning a divorce, but no mention of the daughter was made, and the sentence is even broken up by citations as follows "The couple were married in Monroe County, Florida in March 1997,[68] and had a daughter before separating.[57]", indicating the "daughter" portion had its own separate citation, though again I read the article 3 times and used several keywords in the find tool and found zero reference to the daughter. This is obviously not to say said daughter didn't exist, as I'm sure Jimbo could verify the existence of his own daughter, but the source should not be cited for that section and if possible a different citation added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.6.245 ( talk) 16:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe the bit about "Monroe County" is original research. I doubt if it appears anywhere other than in the original research, and in any event is pointless trivia which would only serve to confuse the reader. The existence of my daughter should be verifiable in any number of reliable sources.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 23:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The current google blurb/snipo for this article shows a vandalized name
Born, Jimmy F***n***** Donal Wales
I'm a novice wiki user so I'm not sure if this is a google crawiling or wikipedia issue, or how to correct it so I'll ask for help on this one.
Thanks Smile4Chomsky ( talk) 02:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
In all honesty the newest is extremely creepy and the ones of him staring honestly really bug me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.72.169 ( talk) 02:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
totally gives off a Hank Scorpio vibe....c'moooon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turingmachina ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this spam? People keep trying to sell these damn Turing Machines. I see you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.56.24 ( talk) 11:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jimmy Wales.
I appreciate your work as this is really helpfull in our daily life.I can not imajine what the world would be without Wikipedia.You have done an great job and still doing it while the whole world is getting benifit out of this site. I have a request that while searching to for EID-e GHADEER, I found it on Wikipedia as Eid al-Ghadeer. The page is very informative but there is one thing which is not acceptable and that is a Potrait or some kind of Picture attached at the left corner of the page written below to it is "The inventure of Ali(A.S) at Ghadir Khum".It is forbidden in Islam to draw Pictures of Hazrat Muhammad(S.A.W) or Mola Ali (A.S).I am from a Shia sect and if you want Shia's to visit this page I would request you to Please, remove this picture immediately.I know its just a picture for you but it is not acceptable for us.I would be very obliged if you can do this favour and remove this picture.
With Regards. ALI RIZVI. ali_ned@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.64.103 ( talk) 10:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the last comment ( diff) because it is offtopic. However, it may be worth noting here that Wikipedia is not associated with WikiLeaks. See WP:Wikileaks is not part of Wikipedia. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It is my understanding that he co-founded wikia. However there is no external link to his Wikia account. Shouldn't that be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.162.8 ( talk) 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh well they have the other co-founder's account liked here so I assumed that his should too. Just trying to help. 69.206.162.8 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC).
With all due respect it is annyoing to permanently see Jimbo Bimbo Wales popping up with his fake appeal to "donate" . -- Nostradamustk ( talk) 08:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. ~ Concerned Wikipedia user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.5.78 ( talk) 04:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello mistor Vales, I want to say that the Russian version of Wikipedia, one participant(Bff) did not want to gash full information about the famous Russian man who became famous thanks to a voluntary movement prank Valery Volnov.take action —Preceding unsigned comment added by Википедатор ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of discussion about Jimmy's head staring at you on every wikipedia page (LMGTFY), with a chrome extention. It's pretty lulzy.
Does anyone care about his apppeal anyway? NO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.43 ( talk) 14:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Is a section on this noteworthy?
Ogreenworld ( talk) 16:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Ogreenworld
Sorry, I'm not used to discussing on Wikipedia, but there's this: http://blogs.westword.com/showandtell/2010/11/4chan_founder_moot_trolls_jimmy_wales.php and ED parodied it too. There are plenty of parodies out there, but only with original research, unfortunately. Also plenty of articles on the chrome extension: http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2010/11/23/jimmy-wales-chrome-extension-wikipedia/ http://erictric.com/2010/11/24/google-chrome-extension-adds-wikipedias-jimmy-wales-mug-to-every-page/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/just-add-wales/ http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=jimmy+wales+chrome#q=jimmy+wales+chrome&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn&fp=f8d2d022449987d8 etc. Ogreenworld ( talk) 02:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Ogreenworld
I most certainly won't be making a contribution - except information, and even then reluctantly. Wikipedia is the most corrupt society on the web. Admin is stuffed with the dishonest. This lack of honesty in discussions I assume comes from the top. I therefore wouldn't trust Jimbo as far as I could throw him. No offence. But if there is nothing in policy about frowning (at least) on dishonesty, and an inability by anyone to call a liar a liar, then this lack at the root is Jimbo's inadequacy. Why can you call a vandal a vandal, a spammer a spammer, but you can't call a liar a liar? Especially if it's a group of Admin liars? Like User:Jehochman in the 2009 ArbCom elections? User:Ruslik0 in the same elections? User:YellowMonkey, User:Ckatz? 87.113.113.0 ( talk) 16:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Is this true or taken out of context. See Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 13#Editorial power has changed. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Wales says Wikipedia role unchanged, but editorial power has been curbed. This reference and matierial about role and power can be added to Jimmy Wales#Role. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
This is certainly not the correct place to place this question, but since (a) Wales' face is on every donation request and (b) I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia hierarchy, I'm asking it here anyway:
The donation requests include an "X" to close it for those who are not interested (in donating or staring deeply into Wales' expertly photographed face), however: it simply pops up again the next time you visit Wikipedia even if you're on the same computer as before.
That's very aggressive marketing right there. Can anything be done about this?-- Larssl ( talk) 15:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Jewish and Leftwing Controlled WikipediaPlease Jimbo, break the Jewish and Leftwing control of wikipedia. Please enforce brutally that wikipedia needs to be neutral. The best thing you could possibly ever do is liberate the Jewish Controlled areas of wikipedia and break the left wing cabel that controls wikipedia. That's worth a million dollar donation. If you can't do that, you might be surprised in the future when you are no longer #5. Build a NEUTRAL ENCYCLOPEDIA WITHOUT JEWISH SUPREMACISM. 195.91.56.231 ( talk) 03:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
|
Rob added a subsection at the top of the poll section putting in Wales's personal statement as its own subsection. He then put the poll itself as the next subsection. I think it's wrong. If Rob believes that Wales's statement is important, he is free to cite to it in his vote or in a comment or anywhere else, but to put it so prominently at the top of the section preloads the argument, which I tried to avoid when creating the poll by not putting in any arguments, just choices. I asked Rob, whom I like and respect, to remove it, but he refused. So, because I feel uncomfortable removing his changes (theoretically, you're not supposed to remove other people's comments, although this is an unusual twist on the guidelines), I'm posting my displeasure here. If I'm the only one who's bothered, I'll let it go.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds it a little ironic and strange that we can't be sure of the DOB of the founder of Wiki?
You'd think he would come here and correct it himself? 95.148.202.176 ( talk) 01:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
NickCT: Playing by the rules is not wikilawyering. We are an encyclopedia, this means that we follow sources and use them. In any case I don't object to using also Jimbo declaration as a primary source; I object to the removal of the information that was previously there. I see no reason to IAR here: we don't let people write their own bios, and I don't see why this should change here. If anything, given the obvious self-referentiality of a WP article on Wales, we should even be stricter here and held us to higher NPOV standards. -- Cyclopia talk 20:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
(rebooting) Why is this contentious? There's no dispute that his birth certificate says August 8. Even the words of Himself grant "My legal paperwork all says 8th of August, due to an error on my birth certificate.". The only evidence otherwise is sourced "according to my mother". The legal paperwork is the date of record. A statement of "according to my mother" is perhaps a worthwhile footnote (one could reasonably go either way on that, but I'd say it's a useful valid footnote, given the confusion). I'm at a loss to understand his reasoning behind completely ignoring the official document ("I am of the firm opinion that the discussion in the Wikipedia entry on me should all be removed in favor of simply saying that my date of birth is the 7th"), but that's really another topic. This item really needs a subpage FAQ. -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 22:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Of course reasonable judgment must be applied - born 1880 would be an obvious misprint, or a different person. However, if you were an actor or actress, and said the error was that it really should be 1990 - i.e. were ten years younger than the birth certificate would seem to indicate - and the official date should not be mentioned, then perhaps that account should not be taken as gospel. Now, regarding "Give me any reason to believe either of these are true in this case and I will change my mind." - do you really mean that? Or is it tautological challenge? Meaning, if I give you "any reason", will you change your mind, or will you proclaim you mind is unchanged hence I have not given you sufficient reason? Just as a comment on this thread, I sadly suspect, given our evident different perspectives, we are in a situation I call no-evidence-accepted. That is, whatever I say, since it will not be within your personal experience, you will deem it insufficient. But,
WP:AGF, let's try.
Now, disclaimer, I'm not saying I think any of the following are true, but they're conceivable: 1) Wales's mother might have made up the story as a way trying to inculcate skepticism against official accounts (i.e. "That's what the guvmint says, but I was there, and it's wrong"). 2) Wales doesn't talk about his politics in specific, but he has self-described "curious political views". For example, refering to UN grants as
"being corrupted with money taken by force". He might think spreading confusion about his date of birth as somehow a way to hinder government database tracking. 3) He might have made a mistake himself one day in giving his date of birth, come up with the story as a better alternative to saying "I goofed", and decided to stick with it.
Over the years, I have become extremely jaded and cynical, especially in writing about prominent people. They lie. They have agendas. There's a
journalism sourcing credo, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out.". Again, I am not asserting anyone is lying here. But I can certainly see reasons it could be possible. --
Seth Finkelstein (
talk) 01:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Poorly sourced text is a BLP violation. Please don't delete reliable sources. A talk page comment is not reliable. Wales says My legal paperwork all says 8th of August, due to an error on my birth certificate. According to Wales his legal date of birth is on the 8th. Wales was born on the 7th of August, according to his mother. This is an unreliable reference we can't use for this article. This from poorly sourced text claims the date of birth is 7 when the legal date of birth is 8 according to the unreliable reference. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The simple obvious answer is the one that should be followed here. All this nonsense about my birthdate should absolutely and finally removed from this article and people should be blocked as vandals if they try to re-insert it. I was born on August 7th. My legal paperwork says the 8th. I have joked around about this in the past, not realizing how humorless some people can be. The only thing this entry should say is that I was born on the 7th, with a footnote if absolutely necessary to explain that my legal paperwork says the 8th due to an error in my birth certificate. Any other solution is POV pushing, WP:UNDUE, etc. Take note of the edit history of those who are POV pushing to have this complex mess included here: Quackguru and Seth are clearly POV pushers who ought to be banned from editing my entry altogether as clearly having committed multiple BLP violations over a long period of time. Quackguru in particular is essentially a single-issue editor: the main topic he has ever edited at Wikipedia is: me. And the tone of his edits are uniformly attacking and negative. He's singlehandedly responsible for the ludicrous presentation of various issues in this entry, and he thereby lessens the accuracy of the encyclopedia to push his vicious agenda.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
An IP made this change to the DOB on this article. Wales also made the same change to 7. The same IP changed co-founder to founder at the Wikimedia Foundation page. An edit by the IP was signed by Wales. Now in 2010 Wales says 7 ( legal DOB is 8) is correct. Back in 2004 Wales wrote 7. However, for the BLP article we use reliable references. In June 2007 Mr. Wales notified Britannica that the date August 7 was incorrect. Where is the reference that said August 8 with citing the certificate correct? QuackGuru ( talk) 04:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Wales is notable for founding wikipedia, not for being born on some particular day. Hence, the 7th is as good as the 8th. There is no BLP issue here, unless Wales plans on suing himself, which I would consider unlikely. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The issue is easily resolved in one of two ways. Per BLP, we give subjects the benefit of the doubt when nothing hangs on the issue, and nothing hangs on whether he was born on the 7th or 8th. Or we remove the day entirely, also per BLP: "Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth ... err on the side of caution and simply list the year." So we could say 1966 or August 1966. What we must not do is include two dates in a way that implies there is something untoward. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Please vote on one of the items below. You can, of course, explain the rationale for your vote, but try to keep it brief.
Option One: List birth day as August 7. Cite to only third-party sources.
Option Two: List birth day as August 7. Cite to third-party sources and to Wales.
Option Three: List birth day as August 7 or 8. Cite only to third-party sources.
Option Four: List birth day as August 7 or 8. Cite to third-party sources and to Wales.
I didn't include an option for August 8 only because I didn't think anyone would vote for it (I could, of course, be wrong).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Option Five: List birth date as August 7th, with a footnote indicating that some sources have it as the 8th. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Option Six: Something other than Options 1-5, with explanation.
An admin, SlimVirgin, has revised the article, essentially choosing Option One. I reverted another editor who partly "resolved" the birth day issue, but I'm not reverting SlimVirgin. Whether SlimVirgin should or shouldn't have done this on his/her own I'll leave to others. (Baseball, thanks for adding Option Five.)-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Ugh.... right I guess. FAQs aren't typically read, but are commonly referred to when a question that has previously been debated is reposted by an editor that is new to the article. In my mind they help to prevent the same debate from being continually rehashed, adding stability to an article. Do you still oppose, or are you on board now? NickCT ( talk) 23:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey all, I have made an FAQ in response to the straw poll.
I did so b/c several editors including myself, seem to think it's a good idea.
See comments above from;
Off2rob objected above, so I am asking for comments from other editors before I put it in.
Anyone got any opinions? Thanks, NickCT ( talk) 20:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jimmy,
can you please help me to creat my Pag? Wikipedia germany did it too and now i have to put all my staff in it'll be great if you help me
Thanks Dinzey Dinzey ( talk) 14:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Jimmy, I know this isn't supposed to be a soapbox, but maybe you should consider changing some of the rules of the discussion page a little bit, because if someone has something urgent to say perhaps its best to break free from barriers which inhibit people. What I'm wanting to say to you, Mr. Wales, is I'm concerned about your health. Perhaps its just a trick of the camera or an optical illusion, but the picture from your urgent appeal looks a bit odd (not that I'm trying to insult you) But I think you should go get screened for jaundice because it looks as if your skin is yellowing, and that isn't a good sign. Get it checked out NOW so it doesn't turn out to be something BAD. I'm SERIOUS JIMMY WALES. Time is of the essence with that kind of thing. Again, I mean what I say with all the respect I have in my heart. I just don't want it to be anything bad. Again, maybe it was a trick of the camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.176.93 ( talk) 20:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia wouldn't need to raise so much this year if they hadn't blown so much money on professional photo shoots to make Jimmy's beard look good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.171.206 ( talk) 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Is this guy really notable? Who even cares about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.131.55 ( talk) 20:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
He's notable if you think that Wikipedia is notable (which I do, as do millions of others).
98.245.150.162 ( talk) 02:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I feel he has a point. Shouldn't he be, like, included in the Wikimedia Foundation article, for example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.79.174 ( talk) 21:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
If he didn't stick his face at the top of every page on this site, very few people would know about him. I think he's only notable because of his "personal appeal" and should be included in the Wikimedia Foundation article, as suggested above. 108.17.72.3 ( talk) 16:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Even if I did accept the fact that he deserves his own article, I still do not understand how an article like this could be rated B class. Continuing with my suggestion that this be merged with an article related to the Wikimedia Foundation, I don't really think that an article like this deserves a B class label. Especially when there are people who doubt whether this article should exist. Agreed, fame and popularity do not mean that a person deserves an article of his own, but it definitely influences it. Apart from moving for the setting up of Wikipedia and its sister projects (which I admit are no small feat), what has this man done? The Wikimedia Foundation is notable, not him. He should be a subsection of that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.125.43 ( talk) 19:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, the article proves his notability more than anything. − Jhenderson 777 20:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Is it not obvious that OP is trolling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.154.157 ( talk) 07:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors seem to be confused what 'trolling' refers to. Nobody knows who Jimbo Wales is, and people who know about Wikipedia know that it cannot be relied on for facts. Editors are now in control of all articles, normal folks don't waste time adding citations, etc, etc. Wikipedia is just another Content Management System of loosely checked facts that cite fake news organizations over eyewitness accounts. Example: The Black Bloc article. The drama that comes out of Wikipedia over edits and admin privileges shows how immature the Wikipedia Foundation can be. Wikipedia is a joke to most of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.51.186 ( talk) 17:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The one you guys are using now looks kind of creepy. For the owner of the site, that seems like a mean treatment. How about one of the ones from the fundraiser banner? Most of those are a lot better.-- 74.193.55.195 ( talk) 19:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
...Jimmy's eyes. It's as though he gazes into your soul, reading your every sin. Yet, he isn't judging you. These eyes of demise do not judge, for you feel no shame or regret. His stare still scares you, as if it is there to tell you something. A commodity you may already know of. Yes, something you may be obligated to do. This cannibalistic gaze is corrupting your sanity, desecrating it with incongruous thoughts, repeating the same word you've known for as long you were alive - Donate. That's the only way to absolve yourself from that vicious scowl. That is the only way to eradicate those revolting chains that have locked your own mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.217.206 ( talk) 21:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
1. The bit about the House of Lords is silly and should be removed. 2. The bit about Wikileaks, drawn from a highly inflammatory AFP article designed, as far as I can tell, to fuel controversy, misrepresents my position significantly. The quote from the recent article in The Independent (where the House of Lords nonsense comes from) is accurate and states my position so that the reader can understand. 3. There is much else wrong with this article, as usual. "Neither Wales nor Sanger expected very much from the Nupedia wiki initiative" is false and directly contradicts literally hundreds of statements from me over the years.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 10:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
1. I agree that "the bit about the House of Lords is silly", though I find it amusing too. But, formally, it's not really encyclopedic, so I'd vote to have it removed too. 2. Pass for the moment, I'd have to check further. 3. The phrasing "Neither Wales nor Sanger expected very much from the Nupedia wiki initiative" seems reasonable to me. There is much myth-making about the origins and founding of Wikipedia, that is, err, let us say at variance with the historical record. Checking the founding message from Larry Sanger, "Let's make a wiki", we find "Jimmy Wales thinks that many people might find the idea objectionable, but I think not.". Certainly that's less than a resounding vote of confidence. Skimming archives, I find Sanger saying "I have to say I'm quite pleased with our progress, and the dream of actually being complementary to Nupedia seems not entirely far-fetched. Quality of articles on Wikipedia so far, in general, isn't actually that bad. There are a few original articles that are already nearly at a level where they could be Nupedia rough drafts.". Again, this seems consistent with the article's phrasing. In fact, in those very early days, ironically Sanger seemed to have been much more evangelistic about Wikipedia (versus NuPedia) than Wales! -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 23:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki on January 10, 2001. The initial purpose was to get the public to add entries that would then be "fed into the Nupedia process" of authorization. Most of Nupedia's expert volunteers, however, wanted nothing to do with this, so Sanger decided to launch a separate site called "Wikipedia." Neither Sanger nor Wales looked on Wikipedia as anything more than a lark. This is evident in Sanger's flip announcement of Wikipedia to the Nupedia discussion list. "Humor me," he wrote. "Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes." And, to Sanger's surprise, go they did. Within a few days, Wikipedia outstripped Nupedia in terms of quantity, if not quality, and a small community developed. In late January, Sanger created a Wikipedia discussion list (Wikipedia-L) to facilitate discussion of the project.
The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on. So I arrived in San Diego in early February, 2000, to get to work. One of the first things I asked Jimmy is how free a rein I had in designing the project. What were my constraints, and in what areas was I free to exercise my own creativity? He replied, as I clearly recall, that most of the decisions should be mine; and in most respects, as a manager, Jimmy was indeed very hands-off. Nevertheless, I always did consult with him about important decisions, and moreover, I wanted his advice. Now, Jimmy was quite clear that he wanted the project to be in principle open to everyone to develop, just as open source software is (to an extent). Beyond this, however, I believe I was given a pretty free rein. So I spent the first month or so thinking very broadly about different possibilities.—Larry Sanger.
the current list is a little to exhanustive, can be cut down. we dont need links for the sake of it.
more importantly, should we include a link to his wikipedia page? ordinaril y not relevant, but here i think ti is.( Lihaas ( talk) 04:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).
how can this be a B? if any article should be a FA it should be this. I think with Jimbo here we can pretty much exhaust the details.( Lihaas ( talk) 04:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).
{{ edit semi-protected}} The reference to the Jon Stewart interview is misdated - the interview was January 5, 2011 not January 5, 2010.
67.188.210.193 ( talk) 06:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
He self-identifies as a volunteer, not a founder on a major TV show. He should be "Known As: Wikipedia Volunteer" 69.146.92.44 ( talk) 04:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.14.59.189 ( talk • contribs)
I agree as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddynyc ( talk • contribs)
I think it is important to note that he is a volunteer because it it shows how humble he is as a person. Would you prefer we place a personal judgement in there? Of course not. This allows the reader to appreciate the facts, levity and humanity all at once. I think it is a bit unfair to disallow "self-proclaimed" since, um, that is what he did, but who am I to point out the obvious. If you are uncomfortable with the first draft, how about we get concensus on this:
'Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales is an American Internet entrepreneur and a co-founder and promoter of Wikipedia. In addition to his formal roles, he prefers to considers himself one of a body volunteers that maintain Wikipedia.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by mbcopeland ( talk • contribs)
In the lede, this is completely unclear, jimmy is not notable for being a wikipedia volunteer, and he stills edit wikipedia - well if he is, please present the claims here, reverted back to the decent version , please look for support for such changes here, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 02:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Add it somewhere in the body of the article if you really think it has value. Jimmy said he wasn't getting paid for any contributions on the en wikipedia Off2riorob ( talk) 03:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Jimmy Wales' role at Wikipedia is "volunteer"
Jberge06 ( talk) 02:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales promotes himself on the main page? I was under the impression that no ads are allowed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.41.210 ( talk) 01:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Giving Jimmy's first wife Pam a surname in the article might be more respectful. Any views ?--— Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 02:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to you, Jimmy Wales, (and to Larry Sanger) for those 10 years of wonderful Wikipedia and wishing you another 10 great ones. Nice showing at John Stewart's. -- AlainR345 Techno-Wiki-Geek 08:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
2008 — CORUM awarded him The Global Brand Icon of the Year Award for 2008.[90]
What is CORUM or Corum? I would like to put a who? on it. If it is an acronym, it should be spelled out. Also, the source should be changed to citation needed -- the source given is a watch dealer's blog, and searching for Wales in the blog yields no hits. (I would have made these edits, but the article is protected.) — Solo Owl ( talk) 18:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
"Contact Jimmy Wales here" it says, so I am. So: Some friends would like to start a wiki-style site dedicated to thriller/crime fiction. Articles about books, authors, characters, maybe publishers, agents, anything relevant. The big problem is we don't know anything about anything (except maybe crime fiction). So if Jimmy Wales, or anyone else, can help, I'd be most grateful (replies either here or to the email through my personal page). Thanks in advance. PiCo ( talk) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It was brought to my attention that in the archives of this page, Jimmy refers to how the county where he married his second wife, got into his biography. Here is the link to what he says linky link. Just to correct the record, it was I who added the county of marriage with a citation to where it lives in the public record. However I was never married in Monroe County. Rather that was another person who later commented on the coincidence of Jimmy and *him* having been married in the same county. I find it pretty humorous that either myself or that person is called a "stalker".
However the second point Jimmy brought up, was his belief that it shouldn't be there at all. I can't agree. In a biography, you present whatever details you can find, at least all those that aren't prurient or scandalous, and sometimes even those... I hardly think the place of marriage qualifies for any biographer's bar of exclusion. It's just one of those prices you pay for being famous. People peek into your life, even what you consider private, which it turns out isn't. Public documents are public. Wjhonson ( talk) 18:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The relevance is to establish residence in a particular place at a particular time. The article on Jimmy is after all a biography. Biographies do not focus on the period of time in which a person was already famous, but rather record their entire life, from birth to death, or to present if living. There are large periods of time in Jimmy's biography which are skipped with a gloss or a single sentence. By establishing the marriage location, we then establish that other mentions of "Jimmy Wales" or even "Christine Wales" in the newspaper of that place, also refer to him (them), and so on. This is how biographies are developed. Not by ignoring details, but by including details. Wjhonson ( talk) 00:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is naming the watchmaker and including an image of a newspaper ad sailing a little close to the wind of free advertising here? I'm not sure they are of sufficient encyclopaedic value for such prominence. Thoughts? Skomorokh 14:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Image removed so moot for now. Skomorokh 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
We just witnessed here in Switzerland how Jimmy Wales gracefully accepted the Gottlieb Duttweiler price. It should me remarked, that wikipedia is not only beneficial for the readers and those who use this wealth of knowledge, it also has a positive impact on the authors. It liberated my way of thinking, and I learned how to discuss fairly, how to separate truth from fiction, opinion from fact and not least how to cite information correctly. Particularly in the sciences, wikipedia is excellent, since the text can be constantly adapted depending on how much more is discovered in a certain field or topic. But there are limits too; wikipedia cannot replace a medical doctor or a professor, and I am often more interested in the sources or references within a certain topic than the text itself. Readers and authors alike learn how to correctly cite sources which is central to all sciences and good journalism. I stated this earlier. Wikipedia is like an organism, or organisms, some survive as they adapt to their surroundings others die out because they cannot find a niche. It is evolutionary knowledge. One of the best aspects of the Internet. Questioned by a science journalist here on Swiss TV on the correctness of wikipedia entries, Jimmy Wales replied that "all information on the Internet or elsewhere can be wrong and needs to be verified" or something in that regard. And he is so right about that. We can even find mistakes in college textbooks not to mention in newspapers and bad dictionaries. We loved having Jimmy Wales here in Switzerland. Please come back! ML
This desired addition - looks just like a few small words but I thought the edit changed the WP:WEIGHT of a couple of important points so, here is the discussion, so please join in. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
What else is conspicuously missing, dare I ask? Skomorokh 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo quotes his personal Religious beliefs. I am not gonna add it quite yet beucase I want to gauge consensus on how to phrase it and WP:BLP is snippy with religious self identification. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Added a board membership to the infobox. CiviliNation may in the long run be the most notable thing Wales does with the influence he now has. Mentioned in a footnote in the WP policy "CIVIL", WSJ article, 29Dec2009. Ragityman ( talk) 21:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This is the article about the founder of Wikipedia, yet it is not a featured article, or even a good article? I find that humorous and at the same time peculiar. jsyk -- The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire ( talk) 01:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} Where it shows the age of Jimbo Wakes, can somebody please change the age from 44 to 55 because it is now 2011. Eglinton2 ( talk) 23:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Eglinton2 (
talk) 23:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Is Jimbo's name Jimmy or James? Jimmy is a nickname for James, so I would assume that his name is James - but what do you think (Maybe Jimbo himself would like to comment) PaoloNapolitano ( talk) 22:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
What else is conspicuously missing, dare I ask? Skomorokh 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
How about a medical pedia, that is interactive? the person puts in information and gets out information? Heidi D Fain Lunabats ( talk) 20:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Given the comparatively high number of posts to this page attempting to contact Wales, I'm inclined to suggest a custom editnotice directing them to User talk:Jimbo Wales, as the understated FAQ at the top of the page does not seem to be doing the trick. Thoughts? Skomorokh 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What's his username?-- Tepigisthe498th ( talk to me!) 18:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't there perhaps be something on the effort to draft Wales for U.S. Senate in Florida for 2012? Particularly since Mr. Wales has publicly indicated he's entertaining the idea?
http://draftjimmywales.wordpress.com/
http://race42012.com/2011/03/20/you-heard-it-here-first-jimmy-wales-considering-senate-run/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.10.150 ( talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
"In late 2005, Wales edited his own biographical entry on the English Wikipedia."
I'm reading about the article that I'm reading within the article I'm reading about someone who edited the article I'm reading and created the very site that contains the article I'm reading while the article I'm reading is about the very person that edited the article which event is being described in the passage of the article that I'm reading. Nex Carnifex ( talk) 16:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo quotes his personal Religious beliefs. I am not gonna add it quite yet beucase I want to gauge consensus on how to phrase it and WP:BLP is snippy with religious self identification. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This article could be updated by mentioning Wales' appearance on the Radio Four programme PM on May 11 2011. I think he was talking about privacy of celebrities, and the presenter mentioned that he was quite a well-known figure. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey all,
I'm changing this passage
“ | In May 2011, Wales commented on British super injunctions, stating that if information was published in a reliable source, the reported facts could be published on Wikipedia, provided the information was not life-threatening. He said that current UK privacy laws were "grave injustices and human rights violations". | ” |
to the following
“ | After Wikipedia became involved in a British super injunctions controversy in May 2011, Wales commented in a BBC interview in favor of freedom of speech, stating that current UK privacy laws were, "grave injustices and human rights violations". He went on to say that if information subject to a super injunction gag order was published in a reliable source, he'd support the reported facts being reproduced on Wikipedia, provided the information was not life-threatening. | ” |
for the following reasons 1) More context 2) The BBC article is a little unclear on the whole "reported facts could be published on Wikipedia" thing. The article says - "But if they appeared in say the New York Times or a French newspaper he would run them, "without question"." I'm pretty sure they're inaccurately paraphrasing him here, b/c I doubt he actually said that he personally would "run" or "allow" the material. That's not how WP works. I think "support" is probably better language. Of course, this rationale could be WP:OR.
As always, don't mind if anyone feels the need to mercilessly edit my revision..... NickCT ( talk) 14:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand the excitement in wanting to add new coverage on topical issues to the article, but is any of this really relevant to the life story of Jimmy Wales? He is a frequent interviewee, and is consulted on a vast range of issues from Chinese censorship to Wikileaks to Google's search engine dominance. Why do superinjunctions merit mention when the others do not? Skomorokh 12:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI - I've concluded a cursory examination of "super injunction scandal". This talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss, so I've posted User:NickCT/sandbox. NickCT ( talk) 01:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the paragraph for now; we can add it back in later if it becomes more relevant to the biography. Skomorokh 18:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Similar to the approved locations inviting more discussion at AfD's, would this Talk page be an acceptable place for such requests, because of its high visibility and large crossover of Wiki users, or would that really just detract from its usefulness as your personal page? My regards to you. -- Avanu ( talk) 11:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This link doesn't appear to have a permalink. Mirea gave me an honorary doctorate. The Russian Wikipedia has a much better article on the school than we do.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I remember - I think it was as long ago as 2006 - that my brother once told me that on the programme "Imagine" - the arts programme presnted by Alan Yentob - Jimmy Wales said that Wikipedia turned out to be something quite different to his expectations. Does any one know anything about this? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Something I did hear myself in 2006 was a programme on Radio Four, presented by Clive Anderson, called "The Wikipedia Story". Jimmy Wales was on that and said that most Wikipedia articles are not actually edited by a community, but just by one of two (and quite often only one) editors. Did any one else hear Wales on this programme? It might be worth a mention here, as it would show how Wales has been on the British media. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 23:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Added here - but I have never been an investment banker.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 05:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
How about a hedge fund manager? (As in paying the local landscape service to clip the garden hedge.) Something at least technically true. btw - you should ask the BBC if they could possibly slip in a mention of The Doctor and/or his companions editing Wikipedia. Perhaps even imply he invented it, which would in turn imply that you're an incarnation and perhaps inspire some new contributors. Remember the popular David Tennant/Catherine Tate Red Nose Day video? Wikipedia could contribute something funny to the next Comic Relief telethon, about you wanting to update a new record-breaking contribution total in their Wikipedia article as soon as it's announced. As you do. iow, do funny product placements about editing Wikipedia, as opposed to reading it. 99.50.189.108 ( talk) 16:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mr Wales,
I do undersatnd that tis forum is just for improving your Wiki page, but I have found no other way to contact you on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you would be interested adding one more sub-branch to your company. What I am trying to say is, you know how you have Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Wikiqoutes... Well I have a new Wiki idea and I was wondering if you would be interested discovering what it is.
Yours Truly, MYGAMEUPLAY ( talk) 12:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Two things that might be helpful:
Again, like the last two times the second issue has been raised, no-one, Mr. Wales included, has been able to come up with a reliable source which contradicts Marshall Poe's The Atlantic article. I for one am all ears. Skomorokh 12:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki on January 10, 2001. The initial purpose was to get the public to add entries that would then be “fed into the Nupedia process” of authorization. Most of Nupedia’s expert volunteers, however, wanted nothing to do with this, so Sanger decided to launch a separate site called “Wikipedia.” Neither Sanger nor Wales looked on Wikipedia as anything more than a lark. This is evident in Sanger’s flip announcement of Wikipedia to the Nupedia discussion list. “Humor me,” he wrote. “Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes.” And, to Sanger’s surprise, go they did. Within a few days, Wikipedia outstripped Nupedia in terms of quantity, if not quality, and a small community developed.
After a year, Nupedia had only twenty-one articles, on such topics as atonality and Herodotus. In January, 2001, Sanger had dinner with a friend, who told him about the wiki, a simple software tool that allows for collaborative writing and editing. Sanger thought that a wiki might attract new contributors to Nupedia. (Wales says that using a wiki was his idea.) Wales agreed to try it, more or less as a lark. Under the wiki model that Sanger and Wales adopted, each entry included a history page, which preserves a record of all editing changes. They added a talk page, to allow for discussion of the editorial process—an idea Bayle would have appreciated. Sanger coined the term Wikipedia, and the site went live on January 15, 2001. Two days later, he sent an e-mail to the Nupedia mailing list—about two thousand people. “Wikipedia is up!” he wrote. “Humor me. Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes.”
Wales braced himself for “complete rubbish.” He figured that if he and Sanger were lucky the wiki would generate a few rough drafts for Nupedia. Within a month, Wikipedia had six hundred articles. After a year, there were twenty thousand.
I have been searching for some details about this as Jimmy seems to be contenting the present content and has been rejecting the newyorker interview as incorrect. Here is some results that I feel clear up this issue. I will post them here for interested users to peruse and I would be grateful for any ideas for content additions to include something from them. The Sanger quote (number3) I am intending to add as is presented..as a quote, Sanger said.."..." Off2riorob ( talk) 15:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Charles Leadbeater is a respected author/writer..
1. "Sanger wanted to revitalise Nupedia, but Wales saw a more radical possibility: to create an entirely open, highly collaborative approach to knowledge.*"
URL: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ipHhSn00OeQC&pg=PA14&dq=sanger+wanted+to+revitalise+nupedia,+but+Wales+saw%22&hl=en&ei=eo7pTcGHBs-j-gaTmtDFDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sanger%20wanted%20to%20revitalise%20nupedia%2C%20but%20Wales%20saw%22&f=false > < http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ipHhSn00OeQC&pg=PA14&dq=sanger+wanted+to+revitalise+nupedia,+but+Wales+saw%22&hl=en&ei=eo7pTcGHBs-j-gaTmtDFDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sanger%20wanted%20to%20revitalise%20nupedia%2C%20but%20Wales%20saw%22&f=false
Ref template: <ref name="Leadbeater2009">{{cite book|author=Charles Leadbeater|title=We-Think: Mass Innovation, Not Mass Production|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ipHhSn00OeQC&pg=PA14|accessdate=4 June 2011|date=1 July 2009|publisher=Profile Books|isbn=9781861978370|page=14}}</ref>
2. "Wikis would speed up Nupedia's development /whilst transforming it into the true collaborative effort Wales dreamed of/. As a result of this new technology, Wikipedia was born in earnest on 15 January 2001."
URL: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lOr8ic7WVMEC&pg=PA84&dq=%22whilst+transforming+it+into+the+true+collaborative+effort+Wales+dreamed+of%22&hl=en&ei=PpbpTdKvC87OsgbopsDnCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22whilst%20transforming%20it%20into%20the%20true%20collaborative%20effort%20Wales%20dreamed%20of%22&f=false > < http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lOr8ic7WVMEC&pg=PA84&dq=%22whilst+transforming+it+into+the+true+collaborative+effort+Wales+dreamed+of%22&hl=en&ei=PpbpTdKvC87OsgbopsDnCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22whilst%20transforming%20it%20into%20the%20true%20collaborative%20effort%20Wales%20dreamed%20of%22&f=false>
Ref template: <ref name="Gobillot2011">{{cite book|author=Emmanuel Gobillot|title=Leadershift: Reinventing Leadership for the Age of Mass Collaboration|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lOr8ic7WVMEC&pg=PA84|accessdate=4 June 2011|date=28 June 2011|publisher=Kogan Page Publishers|isbn=9780749463038|pages=84–}}</ref>
3.(This is by Sanger himself.) To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative/encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee ..
URL: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q9GnNrq3e5EC&pg=PA312&dq=%22to+be+clear,+the+idea+of+an+open+source,+collaborative%22&hl=en&ei=OpfpTdv2DcPLsgaC1uHnCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22to%20be%20clear%2C%20the%20idea%20of%20an%20open%20source%2C%20collaborative%22&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q9GnNrq3e5EC&pg=PA312&dq=%22to+be+clear,+the+idea+of+an+open+source,+collaborative%22&hl=en&ei=OpfpTdv2DcPLsgaC1uHnCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22to%20be%20clear%2C%20the%20idea%20of%20an%20open%20source%2C%20collaborative%22&f=false>
Ref template:<ref name="DiBonaCooper2005">{{cite book|author1=Chris DiBona|author2=Danese Cooper|author3=Mark Stone|title=Open sources 2.0: the continuing evolution|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=q9GnNrq3e5EC&pg=PA312|accessdate=4 June 2011|date=1 November 2005|publisher=O'Reilly Media, Inc.|isbn=9780596008024|pages=312–}}</ref>
I think that there are a couple of articles in the Wikipedia that make sense to overview / manage separately. One of them is the Silicon Valley. If you will have a chance to take a look to the current discussion you will definitely have fun and perhaps some insight as well. -- PrqStar ( talk) 05:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
If that Guardian article is true, Mr. Wales might have a second child by this point in time, and be married to Kate Garvey. I tried Googling on this topic and found nothing. Does anyone know of any reliable sources which might help us keep Wikipedia current? Followship ( talk) 20:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Your early career in finance. ( permalink) where Jimbo responded to some questions. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is the place for original research by Wikipedia editors drawing primary source material from talk page interviews with Jimmy. However, he may be able to give some helpful tips on how to find reliable sources on this topic. That said, secondary sources often do get things wrong and this is someone's BLP, after all, so don't be startled if, when asking about something in a source, the answer's along the lines of, "that's flat wrong." Gwen Gale ( talk) 23:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i want to write about Jimmy wales in Punjabi Language. because there is nothing about jimmy wales in Punjabi.
Tinkuxlnc ( talk) 04:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The "External links" section doesn't seem the right place for a wikipedia article - Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales - what do others think? Totorotroll ( talk) 12:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Earlier today, i.e. 8 November 2011, I put in a reference to his talk on Radio Three on Wikipedia on November 4 2011. There were a lot of things I could put in this section - such as how he found that Wikipedia to him suggests that people are good, or how he likes the way in which Wikipedia sometimes says "The neutrality of this article is questioned" but I shall leave others to decide whether we need to include these details. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm referring to the sentence: "In 1996, he and two partners founded Bomis, a male-oriented web portal featuring entertainment and adult content," in which my edit to change the word "adult" to "pornographic" was reverted.
In the above sentence, "adult" is being used as a euphemism for pornography. This isn't a matter of opinion, this is an established, referenced fact (See Bomis). Using the word "adult" is ambiguous, and makes an implicit value judgement of the content. This is why it is preferred to simply use a more precise term and allow readers to make their own opinions. For further information: WP:EUPHEMISM. Dr. WTF ( talk) 04:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
There is some disagreement regarding the appropriate labeling of Bomis in the (lead "adult", "pornographic", or "erotic"?) and whether or not a more descriptive term than "adult" should be used. Prior consensus settled on "erotic" [45] (also see footnote in main article). Dr. WTF ( talk) 16:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Why not add such to the AOL, Netscape, Open Directory Project and Rich Skrenta articles, based on the Adult section of the Dmoz directory, part of their comprehensive coverage of the web? Or Yahoo Directory and Jerry Yang, based on an Adult section of that directory? It would be good if the Wayback Machine had an old copy of at least the front page of Bomis, which would make everything clear. Unfortunately, that's been blocked. "We were unable to get the robots.txt document to display this page. Our request Timed Out." 99.50.189.108 ( talk) 16:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Just from my personal experience, I only ever read anything about Bomis while first starting on WP and looking into what this Jimmy Wales guy was all about. From that brief encounter with Jimy's bio and the Bomis WP page (keeping in mind that this was a while back) I got the distinct impression back then that the site was largely depended on "adult content." I never really questioned that until encountering this discussion, so maybe, if false, that is a problem. Quinn ❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY 20:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Note that "Playboy of the Internet" is not necessarily the damning phrase it is construed to be.
Playboy historically prided itself in coverage of material other than "babes" - serialising Fahrenheit 451 and numerous other works by notable authors, and interviewing Martin Luther King, among many other. For anyone interested in the real "Playboy of the Internet" in the late 90s or early 2000s some UK Playboy servers were located in Telehouse, a few racks away from certain mailservers, firewalls, domain name servers, routers, switches and other infrastructure I was responsible for back in those days.
Rich
Farmbrough, 14:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC).
Comment. Responding thanks to RfC bot. I think "adult entertainment" is the most neutral term to utilize.
ScottyBerg (
talk) 14:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
“ | Bomis found its niche in erotica and adult content, making enough revenue from ads and paid subscriptions for premium X-rated content to support a few more intellectual sites. | ” |
Its audience was mostly men; pornography—videos and blogs—accounted for about a tenth of its revenues. [46]. If only ten % of its revenue was coming from "pornography—videos and blogs", where was the remaining 90% of its revenue coming from? It must have been doing things besides "pornography—videos and blogs"?- MW ℳ 14:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Per reading the guardian article [47] and it's subsequent clarification by [48] Ian Grant, Managing director, Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) per 25 February 2011, I visited the Britannica site only to found that they had change the birthday to 8 August 1966. The note reads: "There is some confusion over the date of Jimmy Wales’s birth. A number of sources—including Current Biography and Who’s Who in America as well as a marriage license filed in Monroe county, Florida—give his birth date as Aug. 7, 1966. In June 2007 Wales notified Britannica that this date was incorrect. However, Wales would provide Britannica with the correct date and appropriate documentation only if it was agreed that his date of birth would not be published, which runs contrary to Britannica’s policies. Given that the majority of sources reported Aug. 7, 1966, and without documentation that disproved this date, Britannica decided to give August 7. In 2011, however, Wales provided a scanned image of his passport showing his birth date to be Aug. 8, 1966. As this is the most authoritative source available to Britannica, his birth date has been changed to August 8." (emphasis mine). Therefore I decided to update Jimmy's bio accordingly. Bennylin ( talk) 13:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
A source says Florida and another source says the United Kingdom. Will add an unreliable source? tag to the source that appears that it may be outdated. Folgertat ( talk) 17:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like the Florida trips are just to visit his family. If I am understanding correctly, it sounds like he is living in the United Kingdom now.
00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folgertat ( talk • contribs)
It seems rather strange to me that Mr Wales has on his page something he doesn't have. And that is a Ph.D. If he doesn't have a Ph.D, why mention it? I'm sure there are plenty of people that don't have degrees, or don't have a Masters or don't have any qualifications altogether....so are wikipedia editors going to mention all of them as well? .....very strange..I am so tempted to remove it, but I don't want to cause an edit-war. ...and by-the-way I don't have a Ph.D either....but I do have common sense.... Veryscarymary ( talk) 14:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:L Sanger.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
I recently took the trouble to convert all the straight quotation marks to curly ones. I expected to be reverted, and indeed it was, but now the article has a combination of curly and straight quotes (inconsistent).
I just want to remember that MoS is just a guideline and not policy. This encyclopedia is not just online, its articles also end up printed in books.
I know that "
is easier for type, but you are not encouraged to use “
and ”
. If someone took the time to change those little signs, do not undo that just for following the manual of style. In that case, don’t you think that
this article also should follow strictly MoS? —
Fitoschido
[shout] \\ 19 July, 2011 [02:10]
In my humble opinion curly quotes are best in this very important WP page .!. . . . Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I think there should be a link to User:Jimbo Wales in the See also section of this article.
Thanks,
The Doctahedron, 16:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: "The Doctahedron" is not my user name. It is simply an alias by which I conceal my IP address.
Apologies for the un proffesional headline, and for the possibility that this is in the wrong thread. However I spent half an hour trying to figure out where to post this. I would like to commend Mr. Wales and the entire Wikipedia team for their action on the SOPA bill currently happening. It is a true stand for democracy and I only wish I had something to offer this cause. It will be inconvient to lose Wikipedia, but the greater cause is worth the inconvience. Whenever I actually have available funds to donate, Wikipedia is the first on my list. Again, respect for this stand against the censorship and eventual goverment take over on the worlds last chance for a transperant democracy. Cheers, Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.90.251.108 ( talk) 09:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This is big!! .!. It is important to this article about the Founder and leader of WP. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/wikipedia-blackout-coming-jan-18-says-co-founder-jimmy-wales/2012/01/16/gIQAh2Ke3P_blog.html Headline: “Wikipedia blackout coming Wednesday, says co-founder Jimmy Wales . . . If Wikipedia blacks out as promised, Wales expects an estimated 25 million daily visitors to be affected. [English-speaking]. His advice for students who might rely on the site: “Do your homework early.”
And Wikipedia editors and contributors can do their work ‘offline’ for a day.
Another ref.:
[50]
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk) 16:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to update Wales' biography with confirmation of his divorce from Christine ( http://pubtitlet.co.pinellas.fl.us/servlet/pcg.wsclient.servlet.CivilDocketServlet?CS__CASE=09011014FD&CS__RESULTS__KNT=10) and birth of his second child ( http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24028957-mr-wikipedia-on-todays-blackout-moving-to-london-and-marrying-a-blair-babe.do)? - Pinellas FL records ( talk) 13:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Either the WMF was "economical with the actualité" in its press release
here or the stated co-founder's (revisionist?) claim
here, restored by a recent edit, is ditto. Which is it?
Writegeist (
talk) 07:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Not mentioned at all is Jimbo's well publicized role in the Commons child pornography debacle, which ended with Jimbo shamed into giving up many of the powers that were built into the Founder flag. He's been involved in other screw ups too, but at the very least the child porn unilateral deletion thing needs to be covered. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( talk · contribs) 15:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
personality rights}}
, but all the rest of the images should too.On Mark Zuckerburg's page, we have his ethnicity there, but how come we don't have one for Jimmy Wales? We shouldn't leave him out, why is this only on certain people's discription page and not for everyone? 140.198.45.62 ( talk) 23:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy,
I am a student at the University of Hull and we are doing a project to create a page in a group and track engagement on the internet. We have just been introduced to the sandbox feature of wikipedia and come across a small problem. If i am logged in on my account and i click to look at someone else's Sandbox, it takes me back to my sandbox, its only a small problem but wondering if im doing anything wrong, sorry if you dont handle these problems but i thought who better to go to? Thanks for your time. -- JackMayhew ( talk) 11:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I found this happened to me earlier. I would visit a user profile, and click on 'My Sandbox' on their page. But it would direct me to my own Sandbox instead of the users Sandbox. An annoying issue that wikipedia could fix. Jack Greenaway ( talk) 11:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following two related and protected redirects need edits:
#REDIRECT [[Jimmy Wales]]
[[Category:Protected redirects]]
[[Category:Redirects with old history]]
to this...
#REDIRECT [[Jimmy Wales]] {{R with old history|printworthy}}
(PLEASE LEAVE THIS SECOND LINE BLANK)
{{This is a redirect|move|protected}}
In addition to keeping this redirect in its present Protected redirects and Redirects with old history categories, that edit will also add this redirect to Category:Redirects from moves and to Category:Printworthy redirects.
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Jimmy Wales]]
(PLEASE LEAVE THIS SECOND LINE BLANK)
{{This is a redirect|move|protected|to talk}}
Thank you in advance for your help with these edits! – PIE ( CLIMAX! ) 07:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
we are quite certain that all this information about jimmy "jimbo" wales is accurate and factual? Rasko99 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC).
File:Jimbo wales sig.gif has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_March_24#File:Jimbo_wales_sig.gif
70.24.244.198 ( talk) 05:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
¿Why an image of two axolotls appears in the box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.119.163 ( talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
If not asking him ;-), http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_tall_is_Jimmy_Wales by this he is 1.78 m. Please change the infobox, using tall parameter.
Everyone else in this article gets a first name and a last name except for poor Pam the first wife . Is this disrespectful to her or to women in general or to first wives or am i being a bit precious ? Does anyone know her last name ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Two edits about related links at the bottom: One, could User:Jimbo Wales be un-italicised un the "See also" section, since it is not a work title or similar, and two, could this line under "External links" be removed as it is a duplicate and not external:
I'm not sure if it's okay to have one request for two things, but they're small enough making two requests seemed pointless. Thank-you to whoever does it. 87.113.35.48 ( talk) 09:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
This article does not have any ethnic categories. Every Wikipedia biography must have ethnic categories, e.g. "American people of Welsh descent", etc. Please put them in. 24.146.209.180 ( talk) 01:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo,
If you could please help me delete an original article I authored (intelligent vehicle technologies)it would support wp policy and keep editors from irrevocably restoring the page.
Thanks,
Lperez2029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.5.245 ( talk) 01:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I removed the "see also" section since the current contents are a link to the Wikipedia page on "The Wikipedia Revolution", a book on the project and Jimmy Wales's user page. Both are not directly relevant for the biography article and should be removed. Jimmy Wales's user page on Wikipedia is self-referential, we do not link our users' biography pages to their own userpages on the project. Furthermore, there are numerous books written about Wikipedia and we cannot link to all of them here or any random topic which relates to Wikipedia. User:Acoma Magic does not seem to agree and they have reverted my changes, so I have initiated this thread here. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 08:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I only reverted the removal of the link to his user page that's at the top of the article. Regarding the book, if readers are interested in Jimmy Wales, they may want to see what that book is about.
Acoma Magic (
talk) 17:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Given the current and frequent pleas for money, I'm interested in knowing how much Wales personally takes from the revenue generated by donations. Why is this information hidden? It's a fair question, no? The answer should be published within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.56.184 ( talk) 13:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Any news on the wedding? Summer's over. Sole Flounder ( talk) 13:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a good example of why we should not use tabloids as sources.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 07:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
CURRENT TEXT: In a 2010 interview with The Independent, he expressed sympathy with the Occupy Wall Street and Occupy London protesters, saying, "You don't have to be a socialist to say it's not right to take money from everybody and give it to a few rich people. That's not free enterprise."[79]
EDIT: In a 2011 interview
99.71.133.35 ( talk) 00:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the birth date at the top should the citation not be outside the parenthesis? It is currently inside. -- 86.40.198.87 ( talk) 02:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I wish there was some way to get this into the article, but I don't see how. From the Colbert Report last week: "My guest tonight, Jimmy Wales. He is the driving force behind Wikipedia. Big deal! So is everybody else!" -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
One of the things that most interests me is whether this self-avowed objectivist thinks about creating what some have called a liberal propaganda machine. Has he ever read any of the stunningly biased articles about human biology or sexuality, where the National Review is considered an unreliable source? A sentence or two on this would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMBTC ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The unsigned reader has a point [({?})] but a more appropriate WP article exists on bias. Just saying, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 10:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The current text includes: " pouring [sic] over " when quoting a transcript of an oral interview. It is usual in such cases to simply correct the typo to " poring over " without highlighting the transcriber's error with "[sic]". The reason being that the current text gives the impression that the *subject* of the quote is illiterate, and the [sic] adds no useful information. 121.45.220.96 ( talk) 23:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Seems like a controversial change.
Vaca
tion
9 01:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The source describes the situation accurately: "Uncorrected transcript provided by Morningside Partners." It is grossly misleading to put a quote attributed to Wales from an uncorrected audio statement as "pouring [ sic]". Wales did not say "pouring"—he said "poring". The issue of a typo is of no consequence (is someone claiming that "pouring" has been the subject of significant comment, and so needs to remain?). Whatever MOS says about the matter, it is unacceptable to provide a quote as if it were written by the subject, and it is doubly unacceptable to draw attention to it with "sic" (as if Wales made the typo—why else include it? Who cares if a website which announces the transcript as uncorrected made a typo?). Moreover, MOS (at WP:MOSQUOTE) actually says that an inconsequential typo should be corrected without comment, as explained above. Is there any reason, based on common sense or guideline, to maintain "pouring"? Johnuniq ( talk) 05:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I raised this once before- every other person in this and most articles is afforded the respect of a surname. Why has this woman been denied this basic respect ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 21:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the links to Jimbo's user page and to WP:JIMBO are both listed in external links, rather than a 'see also' section. why? Aunva6 ( talk) 06:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
off-topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why dont you examine Turkish Administrators Superyetkin and GarbinoWhy dont you examine Turkish Administrators Superyetkin and Garbino? http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullanıcı:Superyetkin http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullanıcı:Garbino — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.212.230.49 ( talk) 11:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
|
There's this fine image of a painting of subject Wales by renowned Australian painter Pricasso. Where would be the appropriate section to list this well-licensed Commons image? Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
There is reason to believe that the creation of this image was instigated and publicized for the express purpose of harassing the subject of this BLP. As such, the image should not be included. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure if these will be useful, but I found:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Talk:Jimbo Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This redirect was incorrectly tagged with the {{ R to talk}} Rcat, which is used to categorize redirects from outside the talk namespace to a page in talk namespace. Please correct this error and, additionally, tag it with the {{ R from alternative name}} template in the following manner:
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Jimmy Wales]] {{This is a redirect|move|protected|to talk}}
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Jimmy Wales]] {{This is a redirect|move|from alternative name|protected}}
This
edit request to
Jimbo Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Also, please add the {{ R from alternative name}} template to the article redirect in the following manner:
#REDIRECT [[Jimmy Wales]] {{R with old history|printworthy}} {{This is a redirect|move|protected}}
#REDIRECT [[Jimmy Wales]] {{R with old history|printworthy}} {{This is a redirect|move|from alternative name|protected}}
Thank you in advance for your consideration! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 09:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
- the one that's been artificially coloured red for some reason - the page to be edited is
Talk:Jimbo Wales, which is fully protected.
Paine Ellsworth didn't use the first positional parameter of {{
edit protected}}
to specify that page, which is why all the links in that box were to
Jimmy Wales, and also why it showed up under the wrong name at
User:AnomieBOT/PERTable. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
, which will provide a second set of links, and should also give two rows in
User:AnomieBOT/PERTable. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no visible table of contents on this Talk page? - 2001:558:1400:10:E1C7:8438:5E48:3232 ( talk) 20:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Somebody should fix the biography to reflect Mr. Wales' statement here. - 2001:558:1400:10:DD57:6356:A8FF:8049 ( talk) 14:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't go unsourced, so I've restored the reference. Happy ending, I guess, but for the record I'd like to say that I think we should probably take any Wikipedian in good standing who edits under their real name at their word on basic stuff like what boards they do and don't currently sit on. Suppose Jimmy had still been listed as a board member on the Socialtext web site . . . what would he have to do, jump through OTRS hoops to get the article fixed? Complain to a fellow staff member and have it changed as an office action? It boggles the mind. Rivertorch ( talk) 09:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. Let me see if I can sum this up. Why don't we approach this like a pop quiz?
1. When an unnamed government official says famous person $foo is a card-carrying member of the communist party, and the year is 1952, and a newspaper reports it, what is the correct action?
2. When historical documents show that rocket scientist $baz was a card-carrying member of the nazi party, and the year is 1952, and no newspapers report it, what is the correct action?
3. When prominent hollywood celebrity $qux is claimed to be a follower of the church of scientology by a supermarket tabloid, and the celebrity denies it on their blog, what is the correct action?
4. When a not-very-well-known dotcom puts out a press release claiming that founder X of top-ten internet site Y has agreed to be on their board, and X denies this is true, what is the correct action?
For extra credit, does your answer to #4 change if the alleged press release is now a dead link?
[52]
[53] For double bonus points, if you are a volunteer on project Y, does your answer to #4 remain the same?
Hint:
[54] The correct sentence structure for this is: "Several years prior to 2013, Wales was on the board of SocialText, a wiki-technology startup founded in 2005; since then Wales has left the board, and the brand (and the startup) were acquired." Full disclosure, I have never met Jimbo, anybody who has ever even mentioned the *name* of SocialText to me, let alone anybody involved with the former or current corporations. And yes, I always edit as an anon. HTH. Oh... the answers: Joe McCarthy bad, Werner von Braun mixed, Scientology bad, Jimmy Wales good. In borderline cases, it pays to carefully assess the ethics and motivations of *all* parties involved, not just the ones that give you some editorial outcome you may prefer. Here, the situation seems glaringly obvious: Wales said he used to be on the board, and SocialText put out an old press-release to that effect. Wales says he has not been on the board for many years, and SocialText no longer lists him. tl;dr? suffice it to say that Rivertorch is correct.
74.192.84.101 (
talk) 02:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change this:
Into this:
Thanks. Or, if somebody disagrees, build a consensus-edited-version (I hereby pre-emptively agree to it), and use that. p.s. Semi-protected since January 2007? Don't we have enough regular wikipedians now, not to mention watchlists and bots and such, to make this somewhat-canonical page typical, rather than a special exception to the philosophy of the site? Just on first principles, this page of all pages ought to be something anybody can edit. If nobody else wants to propose de-protection, please ping me on my talkpage, and I will submit the proposal myself. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 03:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
With regard to #4: a press release is also self-sourced information, ideally we would have some third party journalist assert the status of membership in print, then we could rely on that journalist and news outlet for fact checking. If no reliable sources mention the fact we normally do not bother mentioning it either since it is probably not notable enough. That said, I do recognize that in completely uncontroversial cases we sometimes can accept less ideal sources, but I think we should show extra care with Jibos bio... -- Space simian ( talk) 23:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight. Wales says he's not on the Socialtext board. Socialtext's website indicates that he is not on their board. Why does his article, months later, still say he is on the board? I think the search for the perfect source obscures the fact that there is an untrue statement in this biography. Let me put it this way...is there a reliable sources that says he is on the board right now? Because if there isn't a recent reliable source that claims he is on the board (as of 2013), then this statement is no longer supported and can be removed. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure where this fits, but...
WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Make a page with advertisements near the donation link to everyone can come to and be there one minute. It will make money for you and make our life easier. Because not all people can donate. Just put a link "Help us" to ads page. Yegor S. 76.89.230.75 ( talk) 00:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
For the External links section, I am tempted to add:
@ Jimbo Wales: perhaps you'd like to add the link. – S. Rich ( talk) 06:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
− − NeilN ( talk · contribs) reverted my addition of stuff about Wales posting his Bitcoin account and subsequently receiving tons of donations, and his consideration of allowing Wikimedia to accept Bitcoin donations. NeilN did so because Wikipedia is " not news". ( Special:Diff/599074437) So does this seem like it is significant enough that it should be added (under a "pursuit" section or otherwise)? Jinkinson talk to me 16:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hoi, Could someone please update the person template with Jimmy's date of birth at the very end of the article ? Thanks, GerardM ( talk) 09:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Just at the end of the "Honors, awards and positions" section there currently appears the sentence: "On May 17, 2014 has become Doctor Honoris Causa of the Faculty of Communication Sciences of the Università della Svizzera italiana (USI Lugano, Switzerland). [137]" It seems a subject (such as "he" or "Wales") is missing (and should be placed between the date and "has become"). 2A02:8109:9340:136C:8CB1:CFCD:8297:438A ( talk) 02:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want insert new photos and informations about Wales. Ma2xlon ( talk) 00:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I was initially intending to only update the article in relation to Wales's comments on the ECJ ruling and, as I have not edited this page before, I realized that the "Views" section that is most suitable was in a substandard state. The order was not chronological, an unnecessary one-sentence paragraph had been inserted (the paragraph needed elaboration and the content to do so is available), and the grammar, syntax and diction needed improvement. When I opened the edit window, I realized that hidden content was guiding editors in regard to the placement of content and I initially adhered to these "headings". However, after a while, it occurred to me that these hidden guides would work better as visible subheadings and would not only create greater clarity, but would also improve the quality of the article. So, I have used the original wording of the hidden content to create subheadings and also created a separate subsection for the ECJ topic, as Wales is very vocal and passionate about the matter, and it seems highly likely that he will be commenting further on the topic in the future. I am not trying to sabotage the Jimmy Wales Wikipedia page in any way, so please engage with my Talk comment for the purpose of further refining this article.-- Soulparadox ( talk) 08:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Several sources (Including Jimmy himself recently on Radio 4) cite the currently shown birth date (August 7) as incorrect. A link on his own blog (specifically on this page: ( http://jimmywales.com/2007/08/08/my-birthdate/)) ( http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2007/07/on_wikipedia_and_its_founders.html) says that his birth date is, in fact, August 8.
Can I suggest that you two guys read Professor John Naughton's excellent article in "THE OBSERVER" of 10.08.14? If it helps you understand it, I can get it translated into Belgian (French or Walloon?) and into Dutch? I use both Wikipedia and ODNB and both are equally 'intransigent': "unwilling or refusing to change one's views or to agree about something. synonyms: uncompromising, inflexible, unbending, unyielding, diehard, unshakable, unwavering, resolute, rigid, unaccommodating, uncooperative, stubborn, obstinate, obdurate, pigheaded, single-minded, iron-willed, stiff-necked"; intransigeant; onverzettelijk: in french/dutch?
I CAN DEBATE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF WIKIPEDIA UNTIL (AS WE SAY IN COLLOQUIAL ENGLISH) "THE COWS COME HOME", BUT THERE IS NO COMPLETE AGREEMENT ANYWHERE IN THE ACADEMIC WORLD AS TO WHO EXACTLY CONSTITUTED THE BLOOMSBURY GROUP, SO ALL THE MEMBERS ARE A MATTER OF OPINION AND NOT FACT GUYS.
WHAT IS CERTAIN IS THAT A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF MALE MEMBERS WERE CAMBRIDGE APOSTLES.
Understand the above points and we may have the basis for further discussion? Otherwise.... 2.27.131.74 ( talk) 19:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Undeletion requires a "procedural error" or "significant new evidence" to open a case to a !vote at wikipedia:deletion review similar to a criminal court. Why can't "consensus can change" be a reason for undeletion. I have seen some articles nominated over 10 times until they were finally, and permanently deleted because "consensus can change". In the criminal court analogy, we do not have the equivalent of double jeopardy, we can keep prosecuting until we get a conviction. Why do we demand a higher threshold for undeletion? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
=
This page should be added to "Category:American pornographers" because this person was the founder of the online pornography distributor Bomis and was the co-owner of the company at the time that it distributed pornography.
From this article (which glosses over Bomis):
In 1996, he and two partners founded Bomis, a male-oriented web portal featuring entertainment and adult content.
...
Wales decided to leave the realm of financial trading and became an Internet entrepreneur.[17] In 1996, he and two partners founded Bomis,[11][22] a web portal featuring user-generated webrings and, for a time, erotic photographs.[23]
From the Bomis article:
Bomis became successful after focusing on X-rated media.[26] "Bomis Babes" was devoted to erotic images;[5] the "Bomis Babe Report" featured adult pictures.[7][12] Bomis Premium, available for an additional fee, provided explicit material.[4][27][26] "The Babe Engine" helped users find erotic content through a web search engine.[3][8][28] The advertising director for Bomis noted that 99 percent of queries on the site were for nude women.[29]
...
Bomis became successful after it focused on X-rated media.[26] Advertising generated revenue which enabled the company to fund other websites,[21][4][73] and the site published suggestive pictures of professional models.[74] In addition to Bomis the company maintained nekkid.com[42] and nekkid.info,[3] which featured pictures of nude women.[3] About ten percent of Bomis' revenue was derived from pornographic films and blogs.[58][3]
The website included a segment devoted to erotic images, "Bomis Babes",[5][6] and a feature enabled users to submit recommended links to other sites appealing to a male audience.[48] Peer-to-peer services provided by the site helped users find other websites about female celebrities, including Anna Kournikova and Pamela Anderson.[46] In the Bomis Babes section was the Bomis Babe Report, begun in 2000, with pictures of porn stars[7][12][61][15] in a blog format.[15][49][50] The Bomis Babe Report also produced original erotic material,[1][15] including reports on pornographic film actors and celebrities who had posed nude.[15] It was referred to as The Babe Report for short.[42]
Wales referred to the site's softcore pornography as "glamour photography",[75][76][47][45][38] and Bomis became familiar to Internet users for its erotic images.[77][78][79] During this period Wales was photographed steering a yacht with a peaked cap, posing as a sea captain with a female professional model on either side of him.[80][15][81] In the photograph, the women were wearing panties and T-shirts advertising Bomis.[80][15][81]
A subscription section, Bomis Premium,[3] provided access to adult content and erotic material;[26][27][4] A three-day trial was US$2.95.[81] While Bomis Babes provided nude images of females to subscribers,[27] Bomis Premium featured lesbian sexual practices and female anatomy.[15] Bomis created the Babe Engine,[3] which helped users find erotic material online through a web search engine.[8][28] According to Bomis advertising director Terry Foote, 99 percent of searches on the site related to nude women.[29]
The common definition of "pornographer" is "One who writes or sells pornography" ( [60]) or "One who is involved in the creation or dissemination of pornography" ( [61]) or "someone who presents shows or sells writing or pictures that are sexually explicit in violation of the community mores" ( [62]).
If you would like to not add this category please discuss your reasoning here. Hebrew Warrior ( talk) 08:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jimbo Wales proposed to be deleted on Russian Wikipedia [63] 77.234.42.180 ( talk) 19:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The Irish Independent says that Wales is worth "by some estimates, about $1m..." [64] and the New York Times Magazine says his net worth is, "by most estimates", "just above $1 million". [65] I think this should be included in the infobox rather than the "unknown" value currently in place. Everymorning talk 14:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I find it bizarre that the founder of WIKI is missing information. Can anyone add information about his involvement in Quora project? I am willing to help but I don't have that many secondary sources so I don't want to mess up the article with primaries. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 03:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Britannica now gives August 8th as Jimmy Wale's birthdate, with this researcher's note: http://www.britannica.com/topic/1192821/supplemental-information I think we can conclusively resolve this issue and make the correction. Brianbleakley ( talk) 00:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought this was interesting when it was mentioned in the 60 Minutes story last night. But its positive proof that print sources can be wrong and should be challenged and/or confirmed like any other source. Were it not for Jimbo challenging a Primary (and presumably definitive, his birth certificate) source, we would default to the print source and be done with it. Blocks and bans might even be handed out as a result of blind and uncompromising adherence to Policy. But the Editor corps has done the right thing, dug deeper, and incorporated accurate information. I'm heading back to the Special:PendingChanges list... Regards, -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Just for some readers' interests: http://stats.grok.se/en/201504/Jimmy_Wales The page view skyrocketed from 928 on Apr 5 to 4564 on Apr 6 thanks to the 60 Minutes segment. 119.67.113.78 ( talk) 06:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
In response to an appeal to Wikipedia on Change.org to request Wikipedia to "create and enforce new policies that allow for true scientific discourse about holistic approaches to healing," Wales said alternative medicine practitioners are "lunatic charlatans". [5]
webforum
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Where is the best place this can go? QuackGuru ( talk) 02:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
...and therefore mess up the ref numbering from there onwards. The two culprits are #24 (7x!) and #26 (once) in the article. Clicking on them doesn't take the reader anywhere. So 23 goes to 23, but 24 goes nowhere, causing 25 to go to 24. Then 26 also goes nowhere causing 27 to go to 25. From there on, the clicked ref goes to the one two numbers back (28 to 26, 159 to 157 in my edit above). Do Ctrl+F (Windows) on 24, and you will Find that occurrences 1,2,4 and 5 of #24 and the one of #26 have other working refs anyway, so just delete 24 & 26 there. But occurrences 3,6 and 7 have ONLY #24, so they need a working ref. Where did 24 and 26 go? Knowadiz ( talk) 00:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Wales is the guest on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs this morning: [66]. Should this be mentioned in his article? His chosen book was The Fountainhead. Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Brief intro - I'm an old fan and freelance net promoter of Wikipedia, but I'm just now starting to Edit. Been meaning to for a long time; now motivated by Jimmy (Mr. Wales?) being awarded the Dan David Prize last night (congrats!). Can't directly edit because I'm new and this is semi-protected, so I'm doing it here. Please let me know if I'm doing anything newbie-ly wrong.
While learning about him on this page, I saw this typo in the caption under the last picture about the prize:
It says "Jimmy Wales Accepting the Dan David Price at the Tel Aviv University, 2015" Should be Dan David Prize, not Price.
Furthermore, the article entry about the prize is still pre-occurance, even though he did accept the award last night (wish I could have been there). So it should also be edited to post-occurrance to match previous awards. Currently:
In February 2015, the Dan David Foundation announced that Wales would be awarded a Dan David Prize of $1 million at a May 2015 ceremony.[158] He was awarded the prize for "launching the world's largest online encyclopedia".[159]
Edit (2nd sentence unchanged):
On May 17th, 2015, Wales received the Dan David Prize of $1 million in the "Present" category (others won that amount for "Past" and "Future" contributions to society).[158] He was awarded the prize for "launching the world's largest online encyclopedia".[159]
The citations can also be updated when news articles or the foundation's website describe his being awarded the prize in the past tense.
May this be the first of many helpful edits! Knowadiz ( talk) 02:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems to have all been done now.
81.168.78.73 ( talk) 10:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
"When I first launched Wikipedia on 15 January 2001". [68] So who launched Wikipedia? Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 22:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
== Desert Island Discs ==
.Is it worth mentioning Jimbo's turn to be castaway on
Desert Island Discs, or is that too much like trivia? For those interested his Favourite was,
Bach, Violin Concerto in A Minor, first movement; his book choice was
Ayn Rand,
The Fountainhead; his luxury item was, A cellar full of Cabernet wine and a glass, (he did want a mobile phone with internet access, but naturally he wasn't getting it
).
[70] --
wintonian
talk 20:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict):Ignore me I didn't see the discussion above. [[File:|25px|link=]] -- wintonian talk 21:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Just a heads up that while the infobox source for Wales' net worth is reliable (New York Times), the article itself is apparently pulling numbers from nowhere. Says Wales of the article: "Notice that the reporter cites no actual sources, and indeed, since I'm in a position to know, she did not do any actual journalism to come up with the number. I don't know where she saw it in particular, but I know that it's a number made up out of thin air." While he's not explicitly denying the amount on Quora, the number was arbitrarily established. -- Zanimum ( talk) 11:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
He also contests the Guardian calculation. -- Zanimum ( talk) 11:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Wales’s total net worth, by most estimates, is just above $1 millionand the Gruniad;
Wales's 2011 divorce settlement with his second wife put his assets at $943,000. So I think that last one should go at least, as in my mind $943,000 in 2011 dosn't really equate to $1M in 2014. As for the Telegraph it doesn't state where these allaged estimates are from, perhaps they have just plucked them out of thin air? how are we to know?
This edit may get reverted, but on principle I have to add it. DOB data need to come from reliable sources. A person reporting their DOB in an interview is not an authoritative source. Hence, the 2011 Jerusalem Post interview stating that their interviewee "will turn 45 on the seventh of August" is reasonably presumed to be self-disclosed information, and therefore is not an authoritative statement of DOB (especially since, in this situation, there is documentary evidence to the contrary).
Moreover, there are better, more authoritative sources in the main body of the text.
No source actually need appear in the lede, since the body is thoroughly sourced. To omit this lede citation would perhaps be best; otherwise, move up the Britannica or similar inline citations appearing later, copying one or more to the lede. Either way, the Post citation should go. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 17:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Jimmy Wales which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
A funny thing happened while I was on vacation. I ran into someone I knew long ago and talked of old times. I looked up the Wikipedia page of someone he mentioned, Ed Esber. It is amazing how inaccurate it is, and he was editing it himself. I do not know Esber, never worked at his company but knew a few people who did. There is no relationship between reality and his description of himself in Wikipedia. It seems that there are just not enough people to look over the very, very large Empire you built. So everywhere one looks, there is (I am sorry to say) junk.
Now about the vacation, the page about the town says Diano Marina has a notable person Alessandro Valente who is an expert in theoretical chemistry. I was impressed, so looked him up and it seems to be a joke. He was a student in 2007 it seems and may have graduated now, but Google scholar shows very very little about him. He probably added himself as a joke.
So can any one do any thing to stop jokes and errors coming in, now that the Empire is so large? Can one still believe what Wikipedia says? Can you do anything about it? I am all out of idea. Are you? Sky is big, Emperor far away ( talk) 22:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Belongs on User talk:Jimbo Wales, not here |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello! You're a founder of Wikipedia, right? Thank you.-- 永続繁栄 ( talk) 03:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC) ROFL 97.91.30.86 ( talk) 15:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC) |
This
edit request to
Jimmy Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
capricornio picoo jimmy wales Marksoulk ( talk) 20:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You Should Give more information on when the website was updated, created, etc. You should make your home page information on wikipedia. 24.183.224.207 ( talk) 23:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The infobox lists Florence Devouard as Jimmy Wales' "successor". Is Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation the primary "role" that we would identify with Jimmy Wales through his career, that this is the demarcation for his infobox? Seems a bit odd. - 2001:558:1400:10:E096:6DEF:CDC3:B41D ( talk) 15:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I see Jimbo is 49, but I don't think that so when the photo was taken. PLEASE TAKEN ONE WHERE HE IS 49 because there could be at least 49 other Jimbo Waleses otherwise. Adam "The Brute" 81.153.54.222 ( talk) 01:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Jimmy Wales. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Is this page an exception to the "anyone can edit" line? In any case, there is no mention yet of the honorary doctorate from Louvain received on 2 February this year. It is already on the French Wikipedia. MHAN2016 ( talk) 11:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jimmy Wales. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The article suggests that Jimmy Wales has three daughters from two marriages (cited but the citations suggest ambiguousness). The summary says that he only has two daughters. Clarification is needed.
I think one from each! They aren't sisters. Half sisters. He is Jonathan Bowen, and they are not 1987, so that is my class! That's the only site college 2009 goes on, museums! -- violet nese 14:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
As this article mentions that Jimmy Wales has appeared on Question Time, should it not also mention that he has appeared on Desert Island Discs? Vorbee ( talk) 21:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
As an IP User, what should I do about a User repeatedly putting Copyright Infringing if not right out Privacy links to YouTube and webpages unpunished.
Not more than a day ago, this was posted a third time. https://zh.wikipedia.org/?title=%E9%BE%8D%E5%8A%8D%E7%AC%99&diff=39866954&oldid=39858538
There have been no English responses or actions from non-Chinese speakers since the report of said SPAMMY to the authority months ago.
"Twinkle" is what I myself understand to be the tool to stop such criminal action. Same User has not been subjected to such obviously for reasons beyond my understanding.
https://zh.wikipedia.org/?title=%E9%BE%8D%E5%8A%8D%E7%AC%99&action=edit&undoafter=39867019&undo=39867106 Posting again just minutes ago. 207.102.255.36 ( talk) 17:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1944-11-04-lps Problem solved. 207.81.183.250 ( talk) 17:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Today I started an article on Joseph T. Fuhrmann, and added four references within a few hours, there is also an entry in the Spanish Wikipedia. Then User:Doc James came up. The article was gone within 6 hours, although it says it needs at least one reliable source which could be the Mary Washington University, is not it? If that is not a reliable source than Wikipedia went crazy in my point of view. It is also says the article will be deleted within a week if there are no improvements.
I never saw the page he is referencing to. A new example that most people on Wikipedia are more interested in deleting than in improving. His bot did not tell me where to look, which is unacceptable, and nobody had a chance to improve it! I am not particularly interested in Fuhrmann, but some other people might be. He is an academic, one cannot change much in a account of universities he visited. Wikipedia became unacademic or should we say stupid? Taksen ( talk) 18:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Jimmy Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The leading sentence says Jim is an "internet entrepreneur". But wikipedia is a non-profit. He's not a businessman. I vote for alternative wording, something like "project developer"... and maybe "free knowledge activist". Right now he sounds less like a Stallman and more like a Zuckerburg.-- Monochrome_ Monitor 20:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes but I still think "entrepreneur" is ill-fitting.-- Monochrome_ Monitor 23:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Talk:Jimbo Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove |protected
from the {{
This is a redirect}} template on the page, changing the line to:
{{This is a redirect|move|from alternative name}}
The template automatically detects protection levels and the |protected
parameter is currently making it unnecessarily show "Fully protected" twice.
nyuszika7h ( talk) 17:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimbo Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the contents to the following:
#REDIRECT [[Jimmy Wales]] {{This is a redirect|with old history|p1=printworthy|move|from alternative name|printworthy}}
This moves the "with old history" rcat inside the {{ This is a redirect}} template and removes the redundant "protected" rcat to prevent it from showing up twice as the template already senses protection levels by itself.
nyuszika7h ( talk) 17:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
His twitter just claimed he had passed away.
https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/767078691100880896 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.148.116 ( talk) 19:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Update: Seems to have been some sick hacking -
https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/767082174482882564 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.2.148.116 (
talk) 19:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/767078691100880896
Also https://www.facebook.com/jimmywales/posts/10154276618892254
Even as a hoax, likely to lead to attempts at problematic edits. Semi should help though.
- David Gerard ( talk) 19:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Jimbo_Wales - to quote his own statement on his userpage - Hello! My name is Jimmy Wales, and this is my user page. I go by "Jimmy" in real life, but often by "Jimbo" online. People sometimes assume that "Jimmy" is only a nickname for "James", but it's actually my full first name. - Govindaharihari ( talk) 04:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
An edit on 13 August 2016 added the claim about "James" based on [72]. That is a very by-the-way announcement where "James" could easily be the result of an editor's opinion that "Jimmy" was a nickname and that the announcement should use formal language. From Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 1:
From Encyclopædia Britannica [73]:
The source to justify "James" is not reliable for the purpose of determining the legal name of a person, and until there is evidence to support a contrary view, the existing "Jimmy" should remain. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Too many refs in the lead. Let's limit it to three instead of six. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
There is too many refs in the lede. I suggest we have only three refs instead of four. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that an entity's founder is the owner/entrepreneur, even if the creative work is shared. Eg - transitor was coined by somebody at Bell Labs. A transistor is an invention while Bell Labs is an enterprise. Who was the founder of Bell Labs? AT&T and General Electric, in 1925. Was the first president of Bell Labs its founder? Perhaps it would be more accurate to term him its "founding president"(?)
"One might also gather from some reports that the idea for Wikipedia sprang fully grown from Jimmy Wales' head. Jimmy, of course, deserves enormous credit for investing in and guiding Wikipedia. But a more refined idea of how Wikipedia originated and evolved is crucial to have, if one wants to appreciate fully why it works now, and why it has the policies that it does have.
For example, in the Nov. 1, 2004 issue of Newsweek, in "It's Like a Blog, But It's a Wiki," reporter Brad Stone writes:[Jimmy] Wales first tried to rewrite the rules of the reference-book business five years ago with a free online encyclopedia called Nupedia. Anyone could submit articles, but they were vetted in a seven-step review process. After investing thousands of his own dollars and publishing only 24 articles, Wales reconsidered. He scrapped the review process and began using a popular kind of online Web site called a "wiki," which allows its readers to change the content.
This capsule history is, of course, very brief and so should be expected not to have every relevant detail. But some of the claims made here are not just vague, they are actually misleading, and so several clarifications are in order (all of this is elaborated below):
The article makes it sound as if Jimmy were the only person making the relevant decisions. That is incorrect; the Nupedia system (indeed, seven steps) was established via negotiation with Nupedia's volunteer Advisory Board, mostly Ph.D. volunteers, who served as editors and peer reviewers. I articulated our decisions in Nupedia's "Editorial Policy Guidelines." Jimmy started and broadly authorized it all, but as to the details, he really had little to do with them.
[... ...]
Moreover, Nupedia had fewer than 24 articles when Wikipedia launched, being not quite a year old at that time. The idea of adapting wiki technology to the task of building an encyclopedia was mine, and my main job in 2001 was managing and developing the community and the rules according to which Wikipedia was run. Jimmy's role, at first, was one of broad vision and oversight; this was the management style he preferred, at least as long as I was involved. But, again, credit goes to Jimmy alone for getting Bomis to invest in the project, and for providing broad oversight of the fantastic and world-changing project of an open content, collaboratively-built encyclopedia. Credit also of course goes to him for overseeing its development after I left, and guiding it to the success that it is today.
[... ...]
In 1999, Jimmy Wales wanted to start a free, collaborative encyclopedia. I knew him from several mailing lists back in the mid-90s, and in fact we had already met in person a couple of times. In January 2000, I e-mailed Jimmy and several other Internet acquaintances to get feedback on an idea for what was to be, essentially, a blog. (It was to be a successor to "Sanger and Shannon's Review of Y2K News Reports," a Y2K news summary that I first wrote and then edited.) To my great surprise, Jimmy replied to my e-mail describing his idea of a free encyclopedia, and asking if I might be interested in leading the project. [...] To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely JimmyÃââs, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee; I thought I was very lucky to have a job like that land in my lap. Of course, other people had had the idea; but it was Jimmy's fantastic foresight actually to invest in it. For this the world owes him a considerable debt. The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on. [5]
↜Just M E here , now 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)*:How about Steve Jobs? How do reliable sources refer to these men? As I said, this has been beaten to death over the years(where does the time go :)). Both men seem to be "founders" of this project per numerous citations. How the leads are crafted has been debated. I never feel any "issue" should be "over" and not open to input and new perspective. Anyways, -- Tom (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Wales did not dispute the fact that he is the co-founder when Sanger was part of the project. Wales would have had to seen the Wikipedia press releases, early versions of Wikipedia articles, and several media coverage articles, all describing Wales and Sanger as the co-founders. He never publicly objected to being called the co-founder until at least late 2004 or early 2005. For example, the WF page clearly states that Wales is the co-founder of Wikipedia. It was not disputed until an IP changed it in 2005 after Sanger left the project. The same IP made an edit to the Jimmy Wales page. Then a minute later Jimmy Wales edited the Jimmy Wales page but did not revert the change the IP made to his birthdate. Another editor reverted the change. But then Jimmy Wales reverted back to the edit made by the IP. Wales had previously used the IP. Sanger became critical of Wikipedia after he left the project. That's when Wales began to claim that he is the "sole founder" of Wikipedia. According to Jimmy Wales the owner/entrepreneur was the founder. That means according to Jimmy Wales he was not the founder because Wales had two partners who were owners/entrepreneurs. When Wales claims the owner/entrepreneur should be a founder then the other two partners are the co-founders of Wikipedia. Wales did not dispute the co-foundership of Wikipedia until Sanger left the project. What did Wales actually do at Wikipedia in the early years. He was busy with Bomis. He hired Sanger because he needed someone to run Nupedia. When Wikipedia got started, Wales (along with two other patners) mainly paid the bills while Sanger was doing a lot of the work building and promoting Wikipedia. Wales provided the " financial backing" while Sanger " led the project". Jimmy Wales had a minor role in the early development of Wikipedia in terms of building the project. Sanger named the project, thought of using wiki software, conceived of Wikipedia, was an early community leader, and established Wikipedia's most basic policies including Ignore all rules and NPOV. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikilink in lede. Is it necessary to have this link in the lede. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"Wales has been historically cited as the co-founder of Wikipedia, though he has disputed the "co-" designation, asserting that he was the sole founder of the encyclopedia." This makes Wikipedia proffer the opinion that Wales was a co-founder; eg it would be equally POV to say Wales has been historically cited as a founder, despite this statement's technically being true as well. Is there some way for Wikipedia to express the facts in a way that reflects disinterest in either belief/determination? ↜Just M E here , now 23:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
How about "Wales has been cited both as founder¹ and as co-founder² of Wikipedia, although he has disputed the latter designation, asserting that he was the sole founder³ of the encyclopedia."? With at least one citation wherever I've put a superscript, ¹ and ² from published material (from the NYTimes, say, or from Wikimedia press releases) and ³ from wherever it is that Jimmy currently maintains his claim that he was sole founder. (Sorry, I don't follow this dispute much, but I happened to come by. Also, do you know what they call the 4th o'July in England? <g>) — Toby Bartels ( talk) 16:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Probably been discussed before, feel free to direct me to appropriate archive, but can the internal link in the EL section be placed in a more "appropriate" section of the article? Is it repeated? Also, do we need the youtube links (they actually don't work with my browser?)? Is there some notability or reason for thier specific selection as opposed to the many (Iam guessing of course :)) other youtube links of Mr. Wales out there? Thanks, -- Tom (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I heard that Larry Sanger was the only founder of wikipedia and that Jimmy didn't join for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kus1234 ( talk • contribs) 03:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor put a sentence in the reference section. The sentence is not a reference. It is part of the article. The edit summary claimed combining birthdate cites. The sentence was not a cited reference. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Many of the early contributors to the site were familiar with the idea of a free culture and, like Wales, some of them sympathized with the open-source movement.[28]
This awkward sentence is still in the article. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Why does " Eat shit" redirect here? -- 116.14.26.124 (talk)
I cant understand why the image of sanders is relevant to the bio article of Jimmy. Do we put images of Clinton on pages on Bush (bad analogy, I know). The bottom line, this article is a BLP about Wales, why Sanders, do you want to continue the controversy, does Jimmy looks better with an image of Sanders. I wish that sysosp talk instead of unding "slaves" work (damn ant colony). You know discussing doesn't kill nobody. Unless. Im mistaken and this page is about the controversy about Sanders/Wales foundership (is that a word?) and not a BLP about Jimmy. Happy editing, -- J.Mundo ( talk) 07:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The image is free, relevant, and illustrative to the topic within the article. End of story. JBsupreme ( talk) 08:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hardly anyone even remembers Sanger any more, as this article makes clear Wales is known as the founder of wikipedia, anything else is blatant self-promotion. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, for anyone who hasn't seen it, I found Sanger's collection of evidence "My role in Wikipedia (larrysanger.org)", to be quite persuasive. -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 06:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I am seriously considering a significant block of SqueakBox if they continue to disrupt the editing environment with this quixotic Sanger/Wales crusade. This has been going on for years, has been discussed to death and consensus is abundantly clear. Skomorokh 09:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed it, it adds nothing to Wale's bio, and I notice that there is no picture of Wales on Sangers bio. You wouldn't put a picture of hilary clinton on Obama's bio would you? Yet they were so closely tied during the electioon campaign. Off2riorob ( talk) 12:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
We have been discussing meta issues here rather unproductively for the past hour - if you have a proposal to change the status quo regarding the image's inclusion, please join the discussion on its merits and we shall see what consensus emerges. Skomorokh 13:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The Sanger picture has been removed again, this time (by User:Steven Walling) and I support its removal. As I said here, there is no consensus to keep the picture in and it is clearly a contentious addition as it keeps getting removed. I suggest that we leave it out and have a discussion regarding it. Off2riorob ( talk) 07:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
User:JBsupreme has put it back with an edit sum of, please use talk page. He must have missed this, so it is clearly contentious as it is in out in out, so I 've removed it and suggest a discussion here. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
User:JBsupreme has inserted the picture again without any attempt to discuss it here on the talkpage? He used the edit summary of, he can see no consensus for removal, I thought that with a contentious edit inclusion was the thing that required consensus? I also think that the picture is only being inserted by editors with such strong opinions about the original debate regarding who created wiki that they have what could be described as a conflict of interest. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
meanwhile....I am here talking to myself..... Off2riorob ( talk) 08:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
THe image of Sanger is suitable because multiple paragraphs refer to him, continually by name and he had a defining role in the founding of wikipedia, which most of the article is dedicated to. Viridae Talk 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Quoting from "There's no end to it" by Curtis Krueger [7], St. Petersburg Times, 8 November 2004, page 1E:
“ | Wales, 38, has lived in St. Petersburg about two years. He spends countless hours working without a salary for Wikipedia, from his downtown office, from his laptop at Panera Bread or elsewhere, or at the Shore Acres house he shares with his wife and 3-year-old daughter. | ” |
Do we have any good photographers nearby? Ottre 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, I don't know how objective this sentence is:
"Wales has said that he initially was so worried with the concept that he would wake up in the middle of the night, wanting to check the site for vandalism."
How could he be completely convinced of any new technology right after losing most of his $500,000 investment in Nupedia? Far more important in my mind to show whether he was corresponding with people in the open-source movement. I think Andrew Lih describes some of those involved with the site as "programming gurus" who by 2003 had convinced Wales that the site was working. Ottre 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
@Spiderone: As far as I am aware, the only reliable source which has ever claimed that he is Welsh is "Milk, biscuits and thinking of Sydney... What else would we expect Rob Brydon's interests to be?" by Robin Turner, The Western Mail, 5 December 2008, page 12.
“ | In all there are 18 new Welsh entrants in the 2009 version of [Who's Who], which sees celebrities rubbing shoulders with artists, ambassadors and air vice-marshals. [...] There's comedian Rob Brydon, judge Tudor WynOwen, Specsavers co-owner and MD Doug Perkins, Rev Geoffrey Osbourne Marshall, actor Daniel Wroughton Craig, Mary Berry the TV cook, Pink Floyd co-founder David Gilmour, Annie Nightingale the veteran DJ, football pundit Mark Lawrenson and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. | ” |
Try searching combinations of those names. If you find two other reliable sources which mention him as being Welsh, we can include the information per WP:V. Ottre 20:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
From Wikia Wikia Green ... Wikia Green is a wiki operated by Wikia, Inc. focusing on environmental issues. [1] Jimmy Wales started the project after a conversation with environmentalist activist and politician Al Gore, who suggested creating a green wiki. [1]. "Wikipedia Founder Goes Green" announced on 9th of September, 2008 by 350.org regarding a new wiki. [2] [3]
There's a dead link from 2008 and a needs updating tag from 2007. Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC).
In the early development subsection of the Wikipedia section, the sentence "Wales has said that he initially was so worried with the concept that he would wake up in the middle of the night, wanting to check the site for vandalism" is tagged with {{ clarification needed}}. From the source:
Newsweek:] Weren’t you worried about what would be put up there? [Wales:] Yes, when I first started I would actually wake up at night to go down and check what was being posted.
What clarification is required here? Skomorokh 23:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
...How is that Newsweek interview a reliable source? It's clearly not fact-checked, and doesn't go into nearly as much detail about the production model as the Bruce Cole interview ("Building a Community of Knowledge" by Bruce Cole [9], Humanities magazine, Mar/Apr 2007, Vol. 28, Iss. 2, pp 6-14) Ottre 06:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I hate to open this can of worms again, but our (justly brief) paragraph on the matter at Jimmy Wales#Controversy is somewhat lacking from a reader's perspective. September 27, 2009 version, minus citations:
Wales has asserted that he is the sole founder of Wikipedia, and has publicly disputed Sanger's designation as a co-founder. Sanger and Wales were identified as co-founders at least as early as September 2001 by The New York Times and as founders in Wikipedia's first press release in January 2002. In August of that year, Wales identified himself as "co-founder" of Wikipedia. Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links with the intent of proving conclusively that he was a co-founder. Wales was quoted by The Boston Globe as calling Sanger's claim as "preposterous" in February 2006, and called "the whole debate silly" in an April 2009 interview.
Any insights supported by sources welcome, keeping WP:NOTAFORUM in mind. Cheers, Skomorokh 01:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Poor quality piece, but posting here for future reference: "Meet Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia". Although I chuckled at the subheading Skomorokh, barbarian 17:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
pig
Jimmy please publish the history from the lords of the british visiting, Me Lisha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.207.188 ( talk) 02:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
After the content dispute was over an editor went back to several articles and rewrote history (revisionism). The editor previously acknowledged Jimmy Wales is historically cosidered the co-founder of Wikipedia. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I propose we change back founder to co-founder per NPOV. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
From the way this article is put together it's like you worship the guy... Which of course you do. Hardly any negative comments on Jimmy Wales... Probably removed and considered offensive to your god. -- 207.68.234.177 ( talk) 05:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The article says, Sanger assembled on his personal webpage an assortment of links with the intent of proving conclusively that he was a co-founder.[original research?]
Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007).
"Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia".
MSNBC.
Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-25. Sanger has assembled many links at his
Web site that appear to put the matter to rest. Among the citations are early news stories and press releases that say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger.
{{
cite news}}
: External link in
(
help) The source says something different than what is in the article. The part about "intent of proving conclusively..." is
WP:OR.
QuackGuru (
talk) 08:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
|quote=
You've just edit-warred back in the identical version that has been disputed without bothering to engage in discussion of the issues. That is extremely unhelpful and not at all congruent to collaborative editing or the development of a biography of a professionally-written standard. Please have the integrity to revert yourself and discuss the substance of the problem. Skomorokh, barbarian 19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007).
"Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia".
MSNBC.
Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-25. The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Wikipedia, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial — Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it. Sanger has assembled many links at his
Web site that appear to put the matter to rest. Among the citations are early news stories and press releases that say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger.
{{
cite news}}
: External link in
(
help)
|quote=
In the lead I added " historically" cited as the co-founder. This is closer to the source which is closer to NPOV. When early citations and press releases say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger it is more accurate to say "historically cited" than just "cited". QuackGuru ( talk) 17:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Wales' POV is never a reason to compromise the facts or change historical facts. The body of the article can and does explain Wales' point of view. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, WP shouldn't be writing a lede in a BLP that would blow up this distinction being discussed above into some kind subtle indictment of our entrepreneurial subject's character. Thus, better than the authoritatively sounding word cited, I think it would be better were WP to more innocuously simply say that many early reports label, give, say, or whatnot, that Wales is the co-founder, touching on the dispute without really highlighting it, and leave any further fleshing out of its details down in the body of the article.
(By way of analogy, of course, Henry Ford most definatively did NOT singlehandedly invent the assemblyline, he had a lot of competent help! -- ne'ertheless, Ford is rightly famous for having "founded" his eponymous company ((um, really, that is, his having co-founded Ford Motor Company, with his principal investors' money, with techniques Ford learned while working for the Edison company, with the assistance of some principal mechanical geniuses at his side; yet, no doubt Ford and others often would say, simply, that he "founded" Ford Motor Company, despite the many citations that also likely could be found saying that the enterprise was a group undertaking)). OK, with that premise, say that there had existed jockeying for credit among Ford and one or another of Ford Motor's co-founders. Such a thing would certainly merit encyclopedic mention in a Ford bio, IMO. Still, would such semantically turned points really deserve to be touched on all-too heavy handedly in the Henry Ford bio's lede?)
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we not just ask the big man himself his true DOB? Giant Snowman 23:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
We should ask to see his birth certificate to settle this conclusively and permanently. Power chicken, although being sarcastic, is correct. 71.109.148.127 ( talk) 21:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Under personal, the page gives a source saying his wife claimed that Wales had said that "altruism is evil." WHAT? Is that for real? Isn't that like against wikipedia's purpose? Haha please correct me if I'm wrong. 72.220.125.86 ( talk) 03:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I am in agreement with the above comments, and so have removed the W magazine material about Wales' first wife for now. As Seth says, it's a worthy topic, so if someone knows of coverage in a reliable source somewhere, I'd be happy to write it up. Skomorokh, barbarian 02:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I support Skomorokh's removal of the content, good edit. I don't really understand this other stuff though. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I find his objectivist belief confusing. I thought wikipedia relies on donations to function? I thought objectivists hated donations and anything that could be called self sacrifice? I thought this site is the "collective" knowledge of people about a certain topic. Isn't collectivism also evil to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.53 ( talk) 12:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The main point I wish to make is: I think it need not be removed since it doesn't exactly mean that Wales is evil or anything. Perhaps someone could add that the reason is due to him being an objectivist. That would clear things up. Creation of wikipedia can be argued as selfish(as absurd as it may sound, it's rational). Wales says that his life's purpose is to creat good quality free encyclopaedia or whatever. So it is selfish in that aspect too. I know, Rand uses words like "selfish", "egotist", etc in their very literal meaning. I think tht semantics would be a greater topic to discuss than philosophy when talking about objectivism! Mehfoos ( talk) 01:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Probably too softball an interview to be of use in this article, but worth noting for the record nonetheless. Interestingly, looks like Wales may have lost the "co-founder" argument in the MSM as well as here if even self-serving interviews don't defer to his version of events. Skomorokh 01:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
You know, he does have a account here. Ok, you all knew that.-- Daisy18108 Talk to me here! Sign my Guestbook! 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
According to this page Wales is now an honorary member of the University Philosophical Society. Is it worth adding to the awards section? Note it was mentioned in the article "'I wasn’t sure if anyone would use it'" by Fiona McCann, [11] The Irish Times, 27 November 2009, page 23. Ottre 13:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is indefinitely semi-protected, but looking through the the last 100 edits to September 2009, this gets little if any vandalism. Is there really a compelling rationale to preserve the indefinite protection? Skomorokh 05:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
There was rough consensus in this discussion from seven months ago (five in favour, three opposed) to move unnecessary references out of the lead and into the body of article text. Nobody has made the changes yet. One of the most cited references is the article by Marshall Poe, which was added in this edit over two years ago, and nobody appears to have checked the print version yet (that is, no page numbers are cited). I think we need to take a more proactive approach to copyediting, and set a date on which myself, QuackGuru, Skomorokh, and everyone else involved with the article, can collaborate on getting the refs into shape. Ottre 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've checked the print version of the Marshal Poe article. Ottre 03:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I just went to edit the lead section to get rid of some of the redundant citations, and it is an intimidating mess of code. Would anyone object to changing the referencing system to list-defined references? It moves the content of references to the References section, leaving just the tags behind. This would make it easy to compare and copyedit all the references in one place. You can see this system used in the Hawksian woman article. Skomorokh 19:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't there any information about his first wife? Like a name and year of marriage and divorce. Debresser ( talk) 12:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
says Michael Snow. Proper ref needed to update article. Skomorokh 21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that the IPA transcription of the pronunciation should also include the pronunciation of the first name (Jimmy), which it evidently does at the moment. Could you please add it? (I cannot do it myself, as the article is "semi-protected".) Or are there any suggestions to the contrary that I may be unaware of? (I have searched the archives, but found nothing controversial.) Simply stated, I see no reason why (only) the middle name and the last name should be transcribed, but not the first name. -- 84.47.117.130 ( talk) 11:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
on the stats page for wikipedia it list only Jimmy Wales as the founder. Special:Statistics Wasn't Larry Sanger a founder as well? -- 24.103.173.3 ( talk) 07:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed this youtube clip. Not sure how much it adds or if it is appropriate. Thanks, -- Tom (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone object to the to-and-fro about Wales' birthdate being relegated to a footnote? It seems much ado about nothing, and not of great interest to our readership. Thoughts? Skomorokh 23:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of the facts is as follows: His driver's license and passport have August 8, which presumably matches his birth certificate. He claims August 7, and used that date on his marriage license, which is then different from his driver's license and passport. The article should then use August 8, sourced to the Oregonian and possibly his statements, with something like the current footnote. The footnote in the article has a misleading paraphrase "he has stated that the August 7 date is incorrect". Basically, he plays games with this, so trying to paraphrase is just going to add to the confusion. -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 12:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
How about simply removing the birthdate entirely? This is the sort of personal info that really adds nothing to a BLP. Tarc ( talk) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's try and nail this once and for all. What Jimmy says about his birthdate is hearsay and a self-published source to boot. Superficially attracted though I am to the idea of a paid data search, Wikipedia leans against such sources on the ground of general verifiability. We have much the same problem with Beethoven, where the only available documentation is of his christening and not his actual birthdate; however we seem perfectly able to deal in that case with varying sources, and I see no rational reason not to do the same here, because in the long run it would save a lot of otherwise wasted time which might be more productively directed elsewhere. An ongoing argument about one day as against the next seems to me to be the ultimate in Oliver Wendell Holmes's "foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of tiny minds". Jimmy Wales is not going to complain because he gets a birthday card either one day early, or one day late. Some perspective, purr-lease!! Rodhull andemu 23:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
January 2010 interview. Only scanned it briefly, seems standard propaganda, nothing jumped out. Skomorokh 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I was reading about your information about IP addresses and I have looked elsewhere, but I can not find in your site or others why some ip addresses have different numbers. For example 192.168.1.148 is to a printer. The printer somehow stopped responding to the address. When you go to put the info backi n it won't accept it because the is not enough numbers 192.168.101.148. It is looking for the 101 (3 digits) rather than the 1.Is there a way to either trick it or use zeros that won't count? No matter what I do I can not get this printer to work as it says it is not a correct IP number. Can you or anyone help me? Jeank1 ( talk) 02:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jimmy,
I'm writting from France a,d english is not my mother language.
On January 27th, I tried my first article in Wikipedia : ACRYSTAL with user nam "Acrystaluk".
As you can check, my article has been rejected for 2 reasons : too commercial and user name of an organization.
The problem is that I can not get in contact wit the guy who rejected me... because he blocked me.
I'd just like to point out that I'm the managing director of Acrystal so it is normal taht I use an organisation name and second that the new product I'm talking about is totally innovative and there exist no current word to describe it, so I had to use the trade name.
Would you be so king to put me in contact with this man and ask him to contact me as I can not contact him.
Many tahnks
Serge ZEDER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.215.252 ( talk) 18:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Could be worth integrating into the article - A Life in the day: Happiness is my computer Laurent ( talk) 13:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/search?q=honoris+causa+jimmy+wales This honorary doctorate should be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloom54 ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I DID NOT SEE ANY REFERENCE OR INFORMATION ABOUT ED SULLIVAN LIFE DURING W.W.I I. I WAS TOLD HE HAD A STEEL PLATE ON ONE SIDE OF HIS JAW. THIS CAUSED HIM TO SPEAK WITH SOME DIFFICULTY. HE WAS MUCH CRITICIZED ABOUT HIS MANNER IN SPEECH BUT APPARENTLY NEVER ADVERTIZED HIS DISSABILITY. IN FACT HE EVEN ENCOURAGED COMMEDIANS TO MIMIC HIS INTRODUCTIONS AND MANNER OF SPEECH.I ALWAYS WONDERED IF THIS WAS A WAR RELATED INJURY.I DO NOT KNOW.I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF ANYONE HAS ANY INFORMATION ON THIS INTERESTING LITTLE KNOWN FACT.I THINK IT WAS TRUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.3.15 ( talk) 17:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Please unlock this article so that I can add his illustrious title of "KING FANBOY" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.182.141 ( talk) 04:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
So, there was an article on the SF Gate a while back... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/05/BUVFVDM3H.DTL
Was it ever addressed? I figured Wikipedia would at least make mention, but I can't find anything. Has it been debunked or has it been judged as not noteworthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.26.101 ( talk) 15:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Can we fully protect this article until April Fool's day is over with? Jhurlburt ( talk) 07:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably was not the best idea but it was part of a series of April Fools jokes discussed here. I apologize as this edit may have been misconstrued. -- Morenooso ( talk) 18:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the infobox picture isn't Jimmy. Jordan Payne T /C 17:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=358764887
Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales (pronounced /ˈdoʊnəl weɪlz/; born August 8, 1966[note])
Born Jimmy Donal Wales August 8, 1966 (1966-08-08) (age 43)[note]
Wales was born in Huntsville, Alabama in the United States on August 7, 1966.[8][note]
We should follow Britannica as the best secondary source: August 7. 86.41.92.143 ( talk) 15:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
(note, I've cancelled out the 'editsemiprotected' for now; obviously, this would need discussion and clear consensus, etc Chzz ► 17:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
The article contains two different dates and is internally contradictory. Please just pick one for the time being and let's not have ourselves look like complete idiots. 86.45.174.207 ( talk) 18:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
(EC)
Someone could ask him on his talk page. I don't know if we'd be able to cite his response as a source, though. ALI nom nom 17:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Does everybody forget Wikipedia:Verifiability which states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So, include BOTH dates and explain. Because if we make a decision either way, it is partially wrong regardless... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how relevant we would consider his appearances on America: The Story of Us on the History Channel. I figure that once the series is over, we can consider if it is worth mentioning in the article or now; but there's no reason we can't start discussion now. bahamut0013 words deeds 12:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales' Mexican lookalike: a Harvard professor -- http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=ovr&facId=296063 .-- 达伟 ( talk) 17:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Under Jimmy Wales "Honors, awards and positions"
should be added the following fact:
May 21, 2010 - Wales receives an honorary degree of doctor of laws from Stevenson University, Stevenson, Maryland. Wales said that this was the very first college commencement speech that he had delivered.
Reference: Stevenson University Newsroom
StevensonU ( talk) 13:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Not done: The reference says nothing about what you are requesting be added, only that he addressed the University. Spigot Map 13:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This may be useful in the meantime. Also this one see also this reference. Perhaps Stevenson needs to update their press release with more details.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 15:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Done Thanks Jimbo. Spigot Map 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
In a 2007 interview, Wales stated that he thought that "donating" Wikipedia to the foundation was both the "dumbest and the smartest" thing he'd done.
I think that it would be more accurate to say that I joked that I thought that - I have made this joke many times, and I always say it in a joking manner and nearly always explain that it is a joke - primarily because some people seem to think I mean it seriously. I think donating Wikipedia to the Foundation was arguably the smartest and greatest thing that I've ever done, full stop. What I don't want to see happen next, though, is people editing this to say that "Later, in 2010, he claimed this was just a joke" making it sound like it was bad when I said it, and then I backpedalled, etc. It was always a joke. It might not even be a notable enough thing to include in the article at all, but I have said it lots of times, so I suppose it might be.
I am also not sure why there are scare quotes around "donating".
What I recommend is this wording: "Wales has often joked that donating Wikipedia to the Foundation was both the "dumbest and the smartest" thing he'd done." And then a bunch of links to examples.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
As always, the thing to do in situations like this is let the reader decide. I had a look at the sources first, and I agree with Jimbo that this was always a joke, but would note that the joke seems to be the contrast between "smartest" and "dumbest", while the explanations in each case are quite rational. The current text ("Wales has often jokingly stated that donating Wikipedia to the foundation was both the "dumbest and the smartest" thing he had done. On the one hand, he estimated that Wikipedia was worth US$3 billion; on the other, he weighed his belief that the donation made possible its success.") captures that quite well and lets the reader decide whether it was "just" a joke or not.
Indeed the main weakness, in my view, is the final clause, which rather underplays why it was smart (I'm thinking e.g. of the quote "The smartest, though, because I don‘t think it could have been nearly as successful as it is and also because I think it will be remembered in the future. 100 or 200 years from now people will point to Wikipedia and say: That was a really good thing that did something beneficial for the world. So that is something I am very proud of.") Geometry guy 20:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I note that the source linked doesn't make that claim, and in any event, it's false. I've always been intensively involved in the day-to-day operation of the encyclopedia. This is the origin of the word in the article, a change from "decreasing", which is of course also false.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Mr. wales could you please assist in protecting the page Darrin McGillis from a politica witch hunt by two users of wikipedia including using the AFD page as a place to Libel Mr. McGillis a living person.-- 98.242.241.252 ( talk) 01:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be appropriate to document the allegations made against Mr. Wales regarding excessive/inappropriate spending by former Wikimedia executive Danny Wool that are detailed on his blog [13] that were reported in Wired Magazine [14]. I can't seem to find where on Wikipedia these allegation are addressed (and hopefully, responded to/put to rest). Wikipedia would only benefit from more information/context on this criticism. Mr. Wales responded to the more sensational allegations about Ms. Marsden, but I can't seem to find any response to the allegations about misuse of funds.-- DerekDeVries ( talk) 21:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales was elected to the Ashoka fellowship in the 2008.
Wikipedia's Parent Company Starts Purging Porn From Its Websites
Dispute brews over pornographic images on Wikimedia
Jimmy Wales wades into Wikipedia porn debate
Here are three articles open to discussion for inclusion. I think it is best to talk it over before adding any of these to this or other articles. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see Commons:News regarding the sexual content purge, which is the only list I've seen so far that's at all useful or comprehensive (though it doesn't claim to be such). -- Simon Speed ( talk) 10:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
These seem relevent to this page and other pages too. For example, Co-founder Jimmy Wales has given up some of his site privileges following protests by contributors angered that he deleted images without consultation. On Sunday, in response, Jimmy Wales voluntarily revoked many of the "permissions" given to him as Wikipedia's founder, to delete and edit "protected" content on Wikimedia Commons. Wales's status has changed is relevant to this page and the History of Wikipedia page. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think what Tarc is getting at is that the article is not a suitable place to criticize its subject. Editors should take their time, remember BLP rules and if they're feeling angry, just back off and leave it. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 22:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
We report facts from reliable sources. Those media stories are only just out and are either sensational tripe or just report that there's been a row. It is not at all clear what's actually happened to Jimbo's status, he's agreed to give up some stuff but could take it back any time he wants: everything is very fluid. If you are concerned about the issue then please get involved in the debates and consensus building at the Commons. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 00:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If newspapers are fully reliable when they're sensationalizing breaking news, how come what they report later is often so different? I'm just urging caution on a BLP and keeping feelings out of editing. I'm also urging everybody to get involved on the Commons: the issue has not gone away. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 01:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm concerned about reflecting either the moral panic or the Wiki-anger. I think that if you say no more than is accepted by the range of sources and use the least emotionally charged language available, you should be OK. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 08:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
How about Following controversy over the deletion of sexual images, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his founder status. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 23:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that, but I still think "controversial" is better: nobody outside Wikiland will understand the significance of "consensus". -- Simon Speed ( talk) 14:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I've already set out my stall on this, and Jimbo is already aware of it. In my opinion he acted in one sense quite properly to reduce the potential legal liability of the Wikimedia Foundation, by removing those images he considered to be illegal, with the proviso that they could later be restored after due consideration. Unfortunately, images, once deleted, are unavailable for rational comment, and that is perhaps, putting the cart before the horse. That leaves the question whether nominating the images for deletion, and opening up the debate, would have produced a different result. I'm not convinced it would have done so. Methodology aside, I dispute "later clarified as illegal drawings of children in sexual situations". Who has prescribed this? It's an unsourced opinion. The
FBI has conspicuously failed to take any action.
A different point is that Commons has been used to host multiple pornographic images with no obvious encyclopedic value, and most of those images are not used in any encyclopedic articles. In one sense, Commons is a repository of free-content images, yet it falls within the WMF free-content purpose, which overall seems to be educational rather than tittilational. Accordingly, there seems to be no reason why images not used in encyclopedic articles should not be deleted as redundant, and Jimmy was quite correct on that dimension; we are not Flickr.
Rodhull
andemu 00:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
New proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: Following a complaint by Larry Sanger to the FBI that he later clarified as obscene visual representations of children in sexual situations being hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete was done hastily, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status. He wrote in a message to Wikimedia Foundation mailing list this was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted." [19] QuackGuru ( talk) 07:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Jimmy was on the shows America: The Story of Us but it isnt mentioned in his article. Why? Spongie555 ( talk) 05:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Mr Wales, I noticed this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups . Does Wiki have a policy for resisting group attempts to skew its pages? If it does would you provide a link please. Thank you. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Lifestyle-oriented interview. Skomorokh 13:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
1. This article is one of the few on wikipedia that is describing itself (there's AFAIK no policy against this):
Funny!
2. I wish better sources for Wales'es objectivism (Rand) and libertarianism. They're kind of fundamental. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 08:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I think adding a reference citation to the lead is appropriate. There was past consensus to include citations in the lead. The references should come from the body. A new reference is not part of summarising the article if it is not already in the body. A possible compromise is adding the citation from the body but commenting it out. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jimmy Wales, Iam the wikipedia contributor with the name of Case_edu ( talk). my previous uder id was blocked due to the above users. They logged my complaint that i involve with some other users due to some AFD articles. they put charge on me of some jihad to protect things. i put my efforts for the positivity of wikipedia and they start investigation of fake things here. i leave wikipedia under protest permanently. this is last time to use my time for nothing. i forget that some wiki users have abuse you and involve you in religion issues. this is very negative thing. take it seriously other wise people avoid wikipedia from muslim countries. Slaughter00 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC).
Skomorokh, regarding your question as to "an account of why (Wales) set up the Wikimedia Foundation and stepped aside as its chairman", this is covered to some extent in the profile done by Trader Monthly, which has
Wales, meanwhile, has gone on to fame, if not exactly the enormous fortune one typically associates with Internet moguls. But it's not as if he's opposed to rectifying that situation. Early in Wikipedia's life, Wales and his partners considered selling ads on the encyclopedia's pages. The site was showing signs of explosive growth, and they certainly could have used the extra money. Though ultimately they nixed the proposal (Internet ad rates had fallen off anyway, of course), they didn't exactly do so for idealistic reasons. "We've never said, 'Absolutely not, we don't want to sell ads,'" Wales says, explaining that the decision had more to do with preserving the Wikipedia brand.
And with the advent of his for-profit venture, Wikia Inc., it appears Wales is finally ready to monetize.
Also, though original research, you may find interesting this part of the historical record
With the resignation of Larry, there is a much less pressing need for funds. Therefore, all plans to put advertising of any kind on the wikipedia is called off for now.
We will move forward with plans for a nonprofit foundation to own wikipedia, and possibly to solicit donations and grants to help us carry out our mission. (Ironically, I think that grant money would come with many annoying strings attached, which we could not accept, comparted to advertising money, which is virtually 100% string-free.)
-- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 01:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there any source that connects Wales to the LVMI? Auburn is notable for many things, so unless there is an actual connection I don't think it's necessary or even appropriate to mention an institute that occupied office space at the university. Will Beback talk 21:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
We describe it as "a small private school"; Wired describes it as "a tiny private school" [21]; SMH describes it as "the school was run by his mother and grandmother" [22]. The majority of this section of the article is dependent on Wales' Q&A [23], which is not independent. In Q&A, Wales says it wasn't homeschooling, but it sounds like it had around 10 students in total, four of which were the Wales children. Was this a registered school? I can't find any records online about it, but that isnt surprising. What offline resources would be helpful to consult in order to confirm it's status and/or find more information ? John Vandenberg ( chat) 23:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Our article says he taught at University of Alabama and Indiana University without giving a clear timeline, which may give readers the wrong impression. The Reason article [24] says "He did coursework and taught at Indiana University". The other source attached to this fact is the Q&A piece, but I can't see where it says he taught at University of Alabama. Is this covered in any other sources? What subjects did he teach? How long did he teach these subjects? John Vandenberg ( chat) 23:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Press Association reports that Wales has been granted an award by a Swiss organization called Im Grueene Foundation for "democratising the access to knowledge".
-- TS 20:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Whats Jimmys ancestry, first wales that came to the United States from which country??...im guessing its not the country wales.. and whats his religious beleifs?. Armenia81 ( talk) 20:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Well your paternal surname is of English origin see here: www.surnamedb.com, or www.houseofnames.com, not sure about your mother's surname, yes its interesting to research your family tree, especially if you really dont know much about it. It is also the 6295th most common surname in the US and 1774th most common in the U, so its not common at all. Armenia81 ( talk) 21:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
If it pleaseth the discussion, please keep your comments to reliable sources which discuss Mr. Wales' ancestry specifically. Speculative chitchat would not be unwelcome at User talk:Jimbo Wales, I suspect. Thanks, Skomorokh 17:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Wales says Wikipedia role unchanged, but editorial power has been curbed. This reference and matierial about role and power can be added to Jimmy Wales#Role. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
At the end of the Controversy section there are two sentences reading:
"The January/February 2006 issue of Maximum PC reported that Wales refused to abide by a request of the People's Republic of China to censor "politically sensitive" articles in Wikipedia. Other big business Internet companies such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft have already yielded to Chinese government pressure. Mr. Wales would rather see companies such as Google follow suit on Wikipedia's policy of freedom of information.[43]"
I thought Google had stopped censoring information in china... or maybe thats just Hong Cong... If anyone knows more about the Google/China issue this would be a good place to make an update.
Especially considering Jimbo started this all, and this section is already two years out of date and it is a fairly current issue.
Andrewxy (
talk) 21:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
who cares about the controversy of Jimmy Wales. I thought it was a waste of time of my eyes reading this idiotic controversy over who founded Wikipedia. Actually, why does anyone care? Not like it's a big money maker.
Actually it's a big deal. He runs wikipedia and his character and principles has a lot to do with that. People need to know, especially if their donating what kind of man runs this operation. Who is at the wheel. To that end the controversy around Rachel Masden needs to be greatly expanded. She did release chat logs which would imply he messed with her page while seeing her. A conflict of interest from the highest level of wikipedia is damning and important information relevant to wikipedia and jimbo wales. -A non-moose
Hey there!
I was just wondering while there is no mention to what Jimmy earns in the article. Being Wikipedia an institution founded by donations, shouldn't all its "numbers" be public? I don't know much about it, I suppose they already are, so I wonder why not mention it in the article?
Some personalities like Mark Zuckerberg or any other of these magnates have got their net worth or they income in the personal box, at least.
Why is this information nonexistent in Jimmy's case?
Cheers from Pakistan!!
Ahmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.157.111.182 ( talk) 19:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Apparently where it says "and had a daughter before separating.[57]" under the section Personal Life, the source provided at [57] says nothing of any daughter. It mentions that Wales and his wife were separated and were planning a divorce, but no mention of the daughter was made, and the sentence is even broken up by citations as follows "The couple were married in Monroe County, Florida in March 1997,[68] and had a daughter before separating.[57]", indicating the "daughter" portion had its own separate citation, though again I read the article 3 times and used several keywords in the find tool and found zero reference to the daughter. This is obviously not to say said daughter didn't exist, as I'm sure Jimbo could verify the existence of his own daughter, but the source should not be cited for that section and if possible a different citation added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.6.245 ( talk) 16:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe the bit about "Monroe County" is original research. I doubt if it appears anywhere other than in the original research, and in any event is pointless trivia which would only serve to confuse the reader. The existence of my daughter should be verifiable in any number of reliable sources.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 23:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The current google blurb/snipo for this article shows a vandalized name
Born, Jimmy F***n***** Donal Wales
I'm a novice wiki user so I'm not sure if this is a google crawiling or wikipedia issue, or how to correct it so I'll ask for help on this one.
Thanks Smile4Chomsky ( talk) 02:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
In all honesty the newest is extremely creepy and the ones of him staring honestly really bug me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.72.169 ( talk) 02:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
totally gives off a Hank Scorpio vibe....c'moooon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turingmachina ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this spam? People keep trying to sell these damn Turing Machines. I see you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.56.24 ( talk) 11:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Jimmy Wales.
I appreciate your work as this is really helpfull in our daily life.I can not imajine what the world would be without Wikipedia.You have done an great job and still doing it while the whole world is getting benifit out of this site. I have a request that while searching to for EID-e GHADEER, I found it on Wikipedia as Eid al-Ghadeer. The page is very informative but there is one thing which is not acceptable and that is a Potrait or some kind of Picture attached at the left corner of the page written below to it is "The inventure of Ali(A.S) at Ghadir Khum".It is forbidden in Islam to draw Pictures of Hazrat Muhammad(S.A.W) or Mola Ali (A.S).I am from a Shia sect and if you want Shia's to visit this page I would request you to Please, remove this picture immediately.I know its just a picture for you but it is not acceptable for us.I would be very obliged if you can do this favour and remove this picture.
With Regards. ALI RIZVI. ali_ned@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.64.103 ( talk) 10:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the last comment ( diff) because it is offtopic. However, it may be worth noting here that Wikipedia is not associated with WikiLeaks. See WP:Wikileaks is not part of Wikipedia. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It is my understanding that he co-founded wikia. However there is no external link to his Wikia account. Shouldn't that be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.162.8 ( talk) 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh well they have the other co-founder's account liked here so I assumed that his should too. Just trying to help. 69.206.162.8 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC).
With all due respect it is annyoing to permanently see Jimbo Bimbo Wales popping up with his fake appeal to "donate" . -- Nostradamustk ( talk) 08:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. ~ Concerned Wikipedia user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.5.78 ( talk) 04:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello mistor Vales, I want to say that the Russian version of Wikipedia, one participant(Bff) did not want to gash full information about the famous Russian man who became famous thanks to a voluntary movement prank Valery Volnov.take action —Preceding unsigned comment added by Википедатор ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of discussion about Jimmy's head staring at you on every wikipedia page (LMGTFY), with a chrome extention. It's pretty lulzy.
Does anyone care about his apppeal anyway? NO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.43 ( talk) 14:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Is a section on this noteworthy?
Ogreenworld ( talk) 16:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Ogreenworld
Sorry, I'm not used to discussing on Wikipedia, but there's this: http://blogs.westword.com/showandtell/2010/11/4chan_founder_moot_trolls_jimmy_wales.php and ED parodied it too. There are plenty of parodies out there, but only with original research, unfortunately. Also plenty of articles on the chrome extension: http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2010/11/23/jimmy-wales-chrome-extension-wikipedia/ http://erictric.com/2010/11/24/google-chrome-extension-adds-wikipedias-jimmy-wales-mug-to-every-page/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/just-add-wales/ http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=jimmy+wales+chrome#q=jimmy+wales+chrome&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn&fp=f8d2d022449987d8 etc. Ogreenworld ( talk) 02:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Ogreenworld
I most certainly won't be making a contribution - except information, and even then reluctantly. Wikipedia is the most corrupt society on the web. Admin is stuffed with the dishonest. This lack of honesty in discussions I assume comes from the top. I therefore wouldn't trust Jimbo as far as I could throw him. No offence. But if there is nothing in policy about frowning (at least) on dishonesty, and an inability by anyone to call a liar a liar, then this lack at the root is Jimbo's inadequacy. Why can you call a vandal a vandal, a spammer a spammer, but you can't call a liar a liar? Especially if it's a group of Admin liars? Like User:Jehochman in the 2009 ArbCom elections? User:Ruslik0 in the same elections? User:YellowMonkey, User:Ckatz? 87.113.113.0 ( talk) 16:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Is this true or taken out of context. See Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 13#Editorial power has changed. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Wales says Wikipedia role unchanged, but editorial power has been curbed. This reference and matierial about role and power can be added to Jimmy Wales#Role. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
This is certainly not the correct place to place this question, but since (a) Wales' face is on every donation request and (b) I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia hierarchy, I'm asking it here anyway:
The donation requests include an "X" to close it for those who are not interested (in donating or staring deeply into Wales' expertly photographed face), however: it simply pops up again the next time you visit Wikipedia even if you're on the same computer as before.
That's very aggressive marketing right there. Can anything be done about this?-- Larssl ( talk) 15:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Jewish and Leftwing Controlled WikipediaPlease Jimbo, break the Jewish and Leftwing control of wikipedia. Please enforce brutally that wikipedia needs to be neutral. The best thing you could possibly ever do is liberate the Jewish Controlled areas of wikipedia and break the left wing cabel that controls wikipedia. That's worth a million dollar donation. If you can't do that, you might be surprised in the future when you are no longer #5. Build a NEUTRAL ENCYCLOPEDIA WITHOUT JEWISH SUPREMACISM. 195.91.56.231 ( talk) 03:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
|
Rob added a subsection at the top of the poll section putting in Wales's personal statement as its own subsection. He then put the poll itself as the next subsection. I think it's wrong. If Rob believes that Wales's statement is important, he is free to cite to it in his vote or in a comment or anywhere else, but to put it so prominently at the top of the section preloads the argument, which I tried to avoid when creating the poll by not putting in any arguments, just choices. I asked Rob, whom I like and respect, to remove it, but he refused. So, because I feel uncomfortable removing his changes (theoretically, you're not supposed to remove other people's comments, although this is an unusual twist on the guidelines), I'm posting my displeasure here. If I'm the only one who's bothered, I'll let it go.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds it a little ironic and strange that we can't be sure of the DOB of the founder of Wiki?
You'd think he would come here and correct it himself? 95.148.202.176 ( talk) 01:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
NickCT: Playing by the rules is not wikilawyering. We are an encyclopedia, this means that we follow sources and use them. In any case I don't object to using also Jimbo declaration as a primary source; I object to the removal of the information that was previously there. I see no reason to IAR here: we don't let people write their own bios, and I don't see why this should change here. If anything, given the obvious self-referentiality of a WP article on Wales, we should even be stricter here and held us to higher NPOV standards. -- Cyclopia talk 20:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
(rebooting) Why is this contentious? There's no dispute that his birth certificate says August 8. Even the words of Himself grant "My legal paperwork all says 8th of August, due to an error on my birth certificate.". The only evidence otherwise is sourced "according to my mother". The legal paperwork is the date of record. A statement of "according to my mother" is perhaps a worthwhile footnote (one could reasonably go either way on that, but I'd say it's a useful valid footnote, given the confusion). I'm at a loss to understand his reasoning behind completely ignoring the official document ("I am of the firm opinion that the discussion in the Wikipedia entry on me should all be removed in favor of simply saying that my date of birth is the 7th"), but that's really another topic. This item really needs a subpage FAQ. -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 22:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Of course reasonable judgment must be applied - born 1880 would be an obvious misprint, or a different person. However, if you were an actor or actress, and said the error was that it really should be 1990 - i.e. were ten years younger than the birth certificate would seem to indicate - and the official date should not be mentioned, then perhaps that account should not be taken as gospel. Now, regarding "Give me any reason to believe either of these are true in this case and I will change my mind." - do you really mean that? Or is it tautological challenge? Meaning, if I give you "any reason", will you change your mind, or will you proclaim you mind is unchanged hence I have not given you sufficient reason? Just as a comment on this thread, I sadly suspect, given our evident different perspectives, we are in a situation I call no-evidence-accepted. That is, whatever I say, since it will not be within your personal experience, you will deem it insufficient. But,
WP:AGF, let's try.
Now, disclaimer, I'm not saying I think any of the following are true, but they're conceivable: 1) Wales's mother might have made up the story as a way trying to inculcate skepticism against official accounts (i.e. "That's what the guvmint says, but I was there, and it's wrong"). 2) Wales doesn't talk about his politics in specific, but he has self-described "curious political views". For example, refering to UN grants as
"being corrupted with money taken by force". He might think spreading confusion about his date of birth as somehow a way to hinder government database tracking. 3) He might have made a mistake himself one day in giving his date of birth, come up with the story as a better alternative to saying "I goofed", and decided to stick with it.
Over the years, I have become extremely jaded and cynical, especially in writing about prominent people. They lie. They have agendas. There's a
journalism sourcing credo, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out.". Again, I am not asserting anyone is lying here. But I can certainly see reasons it could be possible. --
Seth Finkelstein (
talk) 01:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Poorly sourced text is a BLP violation. Please don't delete reliable sources. A talk page comment is not reliable. Wales says My legal paperwork all says 8th of August, due to an error on my birth certificate. According to Wales his legal date of birth is on the 8th. Wales was born on the 7th of August, according to his mother. This is an unreliable reference we can't use for this article. This from poorly sourced text claims the date of birth is 7 when the legal date of birth is 8 according to the unreliable reference. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The simple obvious answer is the one that should be followed here. All this nonsense about my birthdate should absolutely and finally removed from this article and people should be blocked as vandals if they try to re-insert it. I was born on August 7th. My legal paperwork says the 8th. I have joked around about this in the past, not realizing how humorless some people can be. The only thing this entry should say is that I was born on the 7th, with a footnote if absolutely necessary to explain that my legal paperwork says the 8th due to an error in my birth certificate. Any other solution is POV pushing, WP:UNDUE, etc. Take note of the edit history of those who are POV pushing to have this complex mess included here: Quackguru and Seth are clearly POV pushers who ought to be banned from editing my entry altogether as clearly having committed multiple BLP violations over a long period of time. Quackguru in particular is essentially a single-issue editor: the main topic he has ever edited at Wikipedia is: me. And the tone of his edits are uniformly attacking and negative. He's singlehandedly responsible for the ludicrous presentation of various issues in this entry, and he thereby lessens the accuracy of the encyclopedia to push his vicious agenda.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
An IP made this change to the DOB on this article. Wales also made the same change to 7. The same IP changed co-founder to founder at the Wikimedia Foundation page. An edit by the IP was signed by Wales. Now in 2010 Wales says 7 ( legal DOB is 8) is correct. Back in 2004 Wales wrote 7. However, for the BLP article we use reliable references. In June 2007 Mr. Wales notified Britannica that the date August 7 was incorrect. Where is the reference that said August 8 with citing the certificate correct? QuackGuru ( talk) 04:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Wales is notable for founding wikipedia, not for being born on some particular day. Hence, the 7th is as good as the 8th. There is no BLP issue here, unless Wales plans on suing himself, which I would consider unlikely. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The issue is easily resolved in one of two ways. Per BLP, we give subjects the benefit of the doubt when nothing hangs on the issue, and nothing hangs on whether he was born on the 7th or 8th. Or we remove the day entirely, also per BLP: "Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth ... err on the side of caution and simply list the year." So we could say 1966 or August 1966. What we must not do is include two dates in a way that implies there is something untoward. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Please vote on one of the items below. You can, of course, explain the rationale for your vote, but try to keep it brief.
Option One: List birth day as August 7. Cite to only third-party sources.
Option Two: List birth day as August 7. Cite to third-party sources and to Wales.
Option Three: List birth day as August 7 or 8. Cite only to third-party sources.
Option Four: List birth day as August 7 or 8. Cite to third-party sources and to Wales.
I didn't include an option for August 8 only because I didn't think anyone would vote for it (I could, of course, be wrong).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Option Five: List birth date as August 7th, with a footnote indicating that some sources have it as the 8th. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Option Six: Something other than Options 1-5, with explanation.
An admin, SlimVirgin, has revised the article, essentially choosing Option One. I reverted another editor who partly "resolved" the birth day issue, but I'm not reverting SlimVirgin. Whether SlimVirgin should or shouldn't have done this on his/her own I'll leave to others. (Baseball, thanks for adding Option Five.)-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Ugh.... right I guess. FAQs aren't typically read, but are commonly referred to when a question that has previously been debated is reposted by an editor that is new to the article. In my mind they help to prevent the same debate from being continually rehashed, adding stability to an article. Do you still oppose, or are you on board now? NickCT ( talk) 23:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey all, I have made an FAQ in response to the straw poll.
I did so b/c several editors including myself, seem to think it's a good idea.
See comments above from;
Off2rob objected above, so I am asking for comments from other editors before I put it in.
Anyone got any opinions? Thanks, NickCT ( talk) 20:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jimmy,
can you please help me to creat my Pag? Wikipedia germany did it too and now i have to put all my staff in it'll be great if you help me
Thanks Dinzey Dinzey ( talk) 14:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Jimmy, I know this isn't supposed to be a soapbox, but maybe you should consider changing some of the rules of the discussion page a little bit, because if someone has something urgent to say perhaps its best to break free from barriers which inhibit people. What I'm wanting to say to you, Mr. Wales, is I'm concerned about your health. Perhaps its just a trick of the camera or an optical illusion, but the picture from your urgent appeal looks a bit odd (not that I'm trying to insult you) But I think you should go get screened for jaundice because it looks as if your skin is yellowing, and that isn't a good sign. Get it checked out NOW so it doesn't turn out to be something BAD. I'm SERIOUS JIMMY WALES. Time is of the essence with that kind of thing. Again, I mean what I say with all the respect I have in my heart. I just don't want it to be anything bad. Again, maybe it was a trick of the camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.176.93 ( talk) 20:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia wouldn't need to raise so much this year if they hadn't blown so much money on professional photo shoots to make Jimmy's beard look good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.171.206 ( talk) 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Is this guy really notable? Who even cares about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.131.55 ( talk) 20:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
He's notable if you think that Wikipedia is notable (which I do, as do millions of others).
98.245.150.162 ( talk) 02:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I feel he has a point. Shouldn't he be, like, included in the Wikimedia Foundation article, for example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.79.174 ( talk) 21:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
If he didn't stick his face at the top of every page on this site, very few people would know about him. I think he's only notable because of his "personal appeal" and should be included in the Wikimedia Foundation article, as suggested above. 108.17.72.3 ( talk) 16:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Even if I did accept the fact that he deserves his own article, I still do not understand how an article like this could be rated B class. Continuing with my suggestion that this be merged with an article related to the Wikimedia Foundation, I don't really think that an article like this deserves a B class label. Especially when there are people who doubt whether this article should exist. Agreed, fame and popularity do not mean that a person deserves an article of his own, but it definitely influences it. Apart from moving for the setting up of Wikipedia and its sister projects (which I admit are no small feat), what has this man done? The Wikimedia Foundation is notable, not him. He should be a subsection of that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.125.43 ( talk) 19:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, the article proves his notability more than anything. − Jhenderson 777 20:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Is it not obvious that OP is trolling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.154.157 ( talk) 07:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors seem to be confused what 'trolling' refers to. Nobody knows who Jimbo Wales is, and people who know about Wikipedia know that it cannot be relied on for facts. Editors are now in control of all articles, normal folks don't waste time adding citations, etc, etc. Wikipedia is just another Content Management System of loosely checked facts that cite fake news organizations over eyewitness accounts. Example: The Black Bloc article. The drama that comes out of Wikipedia over edits and admin privileges shows how immature the Wikipedia Foundation can be. Wikipedia is a joke to most of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.51.186 ( talk) 17:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The one you guys are using now looks kind of creepy. For the owner of the site, that seems like a mean treatment. How about one of the ones from the fundraiser banner? Most of those are a lot better.-- 74.193.55.195 ( talk) 19:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
...Jimmy's eyes. It's as though he gazes into your soul, reading your every sin. Yet, he isn't judging you. These eyes of demise do not judge, for you feel no shame or regret. His stare still scares you, as if it is there to tell you something. A commodity you may already know of. Yes, something you may be obligated to do. This cannibalistic gaze is corrupting your sanity, desecrating it with incongruous thoughts, repeating the same word you've known for as long you were alive - Donate. That's the only way to absolve yourself from that vicious scowl. That is the only way to eradicate those revolting chains that have locked your own mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.217.206 ( talk) 21:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
1. The bit about the House of Lords is silly and should be removed. 2. The bit about Wikileaks, drawn from a highly inflammatory AFP article designed, as far as I can tell, to fuel controversy, misrepresents my position significantly. The quote from the recent article in The Independent (where the House of Lords nonsense comes from) is accurate and states my position so that the reader can understand. 3. There is much else wrong with this article, as usual. "Neither Wales nor Sanger expected very much from the Nupedia wiki initiative" is false and directly contradicts literally hundreds of statements from me over the years.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 10:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
1. I agree that "the bit about the House of Lords is silly", though I find it amusing too. But, formally, it's not really encyclopedic, so I'd vote to have it removed too. 2. Pass for the moment, I'd have to check further. 3. The phrasing "Neither Wales nor Sanger expected very much from the Nupedia wiki initiative" seems reasonable to me. There is much myth-making about the origins and founding of Wikipedia, that is, err, let us say at variance with the historical record. Checking the founding message from Larry Sanger, "Let's make a wiki", we find "Jimmy Wales thinks that many people might find the idea objectionable, but I think not.". Certainly that's less than a resounding vote of confidence. Skimming archives, I find Sanger saying "I have to say I'm quite pleased with our progress, and the dream of actually being complementary to Nupedia seems not entirely far-fetched. Quality of articles on Wikipedia so far, in general, isn't actually that bad. There are a few original articles that are already nearly at a level where they could be Nupedia rough drafts.". Again, this seems consistent with the article's phrasing. In fact, in those very early days, ironically Sanger seemed to have been much more evangelistic about Wikipedia (versus NuPedia) than Wales! -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 23:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki on January 10, 2001. The initial purpose was to get the public to add entries that would then be "fed into the Nupedia process" of authorization. Most of Nupedia's expert volunteers, however, wanted nothing to do with this, so Sanger decided to launch a separate site called "Wikipedia." Neither Sanger nor Wales looked on Wikipedia as anything more than a lark. This is evident in Sanger's flip announcement of Wikipedia to the Nupedia discussion list. "Humor me," he wrote. "Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes." And, to Sanger's surprise, go they did. Within a few days, Wikipedia outstripped Nupedia in terms of quantity, if not quality, and a small community developed. In late January, Sanger created a Wikipedia discussion list (Wikipedia-L) to facilitate discussion of the project.
The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on. So I arrived in San Diego in early February, 2000, to get to work. One of the first things I asked Jimmy is how free a rein I had in designing the project. What were my constraints, and in what areas was I free to exercise my own creativity? He replied, as I clearly recall, that most of the decisions should be mine; and in most respects, as a manager, Jimmy was indeed very hands-off. Nevertheless, I always did consult with him about important decisions, and moreover, I wanted his advice. Now, Jimmy was quite clear that he wanted the project to be in principle open to everyone to develop, just as open source software is (to an extent). Beyond this, however, I believe I was given a pretty free rein. So I spent the first month or so thinking very broadly about different possibilities.—Larry Sanger.
the current list is a little to exhanustive, can be cut down. we dont need links for the sake of it.
more importantly, should we include a link to his wikipedia page? ordinaril y not relevant, but here i think ti is.( Lihaas ( talk) 04:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).
how can this be a B? if any article should be a FA it should be this. I think with Jimbo here we can pretty much exhaust the details.( Lihaas ( talk) 04:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).
{{ edit semi-protected}} The reference to the Jon Stewart interview is misdated - the interview was January 5, 2011 not January 5, 2010.
67.188.210.193 ( talk) 06:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
He self-identifies as a volunteer, not a founder on a major TV show. He should be "Known As: Wikipedia Volunteer" 69.146.92.44 ( talk) 04:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.14.59.189 ( talk • contribs)
I agree as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddynyc ( talk • contribs)
I think it is important to note that he is a volunteer because it it shows how humble he is as a person. Would you prefer we place a personal judgement in there? Of course not. This allows the reader to appreciate the facts, levity and humanity all at once. I think it is a bit unfair to disallow "self-proclaimed" since, um, that is what he did, but who am I to point out the obvious. If you are uncomfortable with the first draft, how about we get concensus on this:
'Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales is an American Internet entrepreneur and a co-founder and promoter of Wikipedia. In addition to his formal roles, he prefers to considers himself one of a body volunteers that maintain Wikipedia.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by mbcopeland ( talk • contribs)
In the lede, this is completely unclear, jimmy is not notable for being a wikipedia volunteer, and he stills edit wikipedia - well if he is, please present the claims here, reverted back to the decent version , please look for support for such changes here, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 02:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Add it somewhere in the body of the article if you really think it has value. Jimmy said he wasn't getting paid for any contributions on the en wikipedia Off2riorob ( talk) 03:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Jimmy Wales' role at Wikipedia is "volunteer"
Jberge06 ( talk) 02:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales promotes himself on the main page? I was under the impression that no ads are allowed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.41.210 ( talk) 01:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Giving Jimmy's first wife Pam a surname in the article might be more respectful. Any views ?--— Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 02:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to you, Jimmy Wales, (and to Larry Sanger) for those 10 years of wonderful Wikipedia and wishing you another 10 great ones. Nice showing at John Stewart's. -- AlainR345 Techno-Wiki-Geek 08:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
2008 — CORUM awarded him The Global Brand Icon of the Year Award for 2008.[90]
What is CORUM or Corum? I would like to put a who? on it. If it is an acronym, it should be spelled out. Also, the source should be changed to citation needed -- the source given is a watch dealer's blog, and searching for Wales in the blog yields no hits. (I would have made these edits, but the article is protected.) — Solo Owl ( talk) 18:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
"Contact Jimmy Wales here" it says, so I am. So: Some friends would like to start a wiki-style site dedicated to thriller/crime fiction. Articles about books, authors, characters, maybe publishers, agents, anything relevant. The big problem is we don't know anything about anything (except maybe crime fiction). So if Jimmy Wales, or anyone else, can help, I'd be most grateful (replies either here or to the email through my personal page). Thanks in advance. PiCo ( talk) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It was brought to my attention that in the archives of this page, Jimmy refers to how the county where he married his second wife, got into his biography. Here is the link to what he says linky link. Just to correct the record, it was I who added the county of marriage with a citation to where it lives in the public record. However I was never married in Monroe County. Rather that was another person who later commented on the coincidence of Jimmy and *him* having been married in the same county. I find it pretty humorous that either myself or that person is called a "stalker".
However the second point Jimmy brought up, was his belief that it shouldn't be there at all. I can't agree. In a biography, you present whatever details you can find, at least all those that aren't prurient or scandalous, and sometimes even those... I hardly think the place of marriage qualifies for any biographer's bar of exclusion. It's just one of those prices you pay for being famous. People peek into your life, even what you consider private, which it turns out isn't. Public documents are public. Wjhonson ( talk) 18:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The relevance is to establish residence in a particular place at a particular time. The article on Jimmy is after all a biography. Biographies do not focus on the period of time in which a person was already famous, but rather record their entire life, from birth to death, or to present if living. There are large periods of time in Jimmy's biography which are skipped with a gloss or a single sentence. By establishing the marriage location, we then establish that other mentions of "Jimmy Wales" or even "Christine Wales" in the newspaper of that place, also refer to him (them), and so on. This is how biographies are developed. Not by ignoring details, but by including details. Wjhonson ( talk) 00:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is naming the watchmaker and including an image of a newspaper ad sailing a little close to the wind of free advertising here? I'm not sure they are of sufficient encyclopaedic value for such prominence. Thoughts? Skomorokh 14:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Image removed so moot for now. Skomorokh 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
We just witnessed here in Switzerland how Jimmy Wales gracefully accepted the Gottlieb Duttweiler price. It should me remarked, that wikipedia is not only beneficial for the readers and those who use this wealth of knowledge, it also has a positive impact on the authors. It liberated my way of thinking, and I learned how to discuss fairly, how to separate truth from fiction, opinion from fact and not least how to cite information correctly. Particularly in the sciences, wikipedia is excellent, since the text can be constantly adapted depending on how much more is discovered in a certain field or topic. But there are limits too; wikipedia cannot replace a medical doctor or a professor, and I am often more interested in the sources or references within a certain topic than the text itself. Readers and authors alike learn how to correctly cite sources which is central to all sciences and good journalism. I stated this earlier. Wikipedia is like an organism, or organisms, some survive as they adapt to their surroundings others die out because they cannot find a niche. It is evolutionary knowledge. One of the best aspects of the Internet. Questioned by a science journalist here on Swiss TV on the correctness of wikipedia entries, Jimmy Wales replied that "all information on the Internet or elsewhere can be wrong and needs to be verified" or something in that regard. And he is so right about that. We can even find mistakes in college textbooks not to mention in newspapers and bad dictionaries. We loved having Jimmy Wales here in Switzerland. Please come back! ML
This desired addition - looks just like a few small words but I thought the edit changed the WP:WEIGHT of a couple of important points so, here is the discussion, so please join in. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
What else is conspicuously missing, dare I ask? Skomorokh 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo quotes his personal Religious beliefs. I am not gonna add it quite yet beucase I want to gauge consensus on how to phrase it and WP:BLP is snippy with religious self identification. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Added a board membership to the infobox. CiviliNation may in the long run be the most notable thing Wales does with the influence he now has. Mentioned in a footnote in the WP policy "CIVIL", WSJ article, 29Dec2009. Ragityman ( talk) 21:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This is the article about the founder of Wikipedia, yet it is not a featured article, or even a good article? I find that humorous and at the same time peculiar. jsyk -- The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire ( talk) 01:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} Where it shows the age of Jimbo Wakes, can somebody please change the age from 44 to 55 because it is now 2011. Eglinton2 ( talk) 23:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Eglinton2 (
talk) 23:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Is Jimbo's name Jimmy or James? Jimmy is a nickname for James, so I would assume that his name is James - but what do you think (Maybe Jimbo himself would like to comment) PaoloNapolitano ( talk) 22:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
What else is conspicuously missing, dare I ask? Skomorokh 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
How about a medical pedia, that is interactive? the person puts in information and gets out information? Heidi D Fain Lunabats ( talk) 20:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Given the comparatively high number of posts to this page attempting to contact Wales, I'm inclined to suggest a custom editnotice directing them to User talk:Jimbo Wales, as the understated FAQ at the top of the page does not seem to be doing the trick. Thoughts? Skomorokh 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What's his username?-- Tepigisthe498th ( talk to me!) 18:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't there perhaps be something on the effort to draft Wales for U.S. Senate in Florida for 2012? Particularly since Mr. Wales has publicly indicated he's entertaining the idea?
http://draftjimmywales.wordpress.com/
http://race42012.com/2011/03/20/you-heard-it-here-first-jimmy-wales-considering-senate-run/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.10.150 ( talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
"In late 2005, Wales edited his own biographical entry on the English Wikipedia."
I'm reading about the article that I'm reading within the article I'm reading about someone who edited the article I'm reading and created the very site that contains the article I'm reading while the article I'm reading is about the very person that edited the article which event is being described in the passage of the article that I'm reading. Nex Carnifex ( talk) 16:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo quotes his personal Religious beliefs. I am not gonna add it quite yet beucase I want to gauge consensus on how to phrase it and WP:BLP is snippy with religious self identification. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This article could be updated by mentioning Wales' appearance on the Radio Four programme PM on May 11 2011. I think he was talking about privacy of celebrities, and the presenter mentioned that he was quite a well-known figure. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey all,
I'm changing this passage
“ | In May 2011, Wales commented on British super injunctions, stating that if information was published in a reliable source, the reported facts could be published on Wikipedia, provided the information was not life-threatening. He said that current UK privacy laws were "grave injustices and human rights violations". | ” |
to the following
“ | After Wikipedia became involved in a British super injunctions controversy in May 2011, Wales commented in a BBC interview in favor of freedom of speech, stating that current UK privacy laws were, "grave injustices and human rights violations". He went on to say that if information subject to a super injunction gag order was published in a reliable source, he'd support the reported facts being reproduced on Wikipedia, provided the information was not life-threatening. | ” |
for the following reasons 1) More context 2) The BBC article is a little unclear on the whole "reported facts could be published on Wikipedia" thing. The article says - "But if they appeared in say the New York Times or a French newspaper he would run them, "without question"." I'm pretty sure they're inaccurately paraphrasing him here, b/c I doubt he actually said that he personally would "run" or "allow" the material. That's not how WP works. I think "support" is probably better language. Of course, this rationale could be WP:OR.
As always, don't mind if anyone feels the need to mercilessly edit my revision..... NickCT ( talk) 14:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand the excitement in wanting to add new coverage on topical issues to the article, but is any of this really relevant to the life story of Jimmy Wales? He is a frequent interviewee, and is consulted on a vast range of issues from Chinese censorship to Wikileaks to Google's search engine dominance. Why do superinjunctions merit mention when the others do not? Skomorokh 12:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI - I've concluded a cursory examination of "super injunction scandal". This talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss, so I've posted User:NickCT/sandbox. NickCT ( talk) 01:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the paragraph for now; we can add it back in later if it becomes more relevant to the biography. Skomorokh 18:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Similar to the approved locations inviting more discussion at AfD's, would this Talk page be an acceptable place for such requests, because of its high visibility and large crossover of Wiki users, or would that really just detract from its usefulness as your personal page? My regards to you. -- Avanu ( talk) 11:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This link doesn't appear to have a permalink. Mirea gave me an honorary doctorate. The Russian Wikipedia has a much better article on the school than we do.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I remember - I think it was as long ago as 2006 - that my brother once told me that on the programme "Imagine" - the arts programme presnted by Alan Yentob - Jimmy Wales said that Wikipedia turned out to be something quite different to his expectations. Does any one know anything about this? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Something I did hear myself in 2006 was a programme on Radio Four, presented by Clive Anderson, called "The Wikipedia Story". Jimmy Wales was on that and said that most Wikipedia articles are not actually edited by a community, but just by one of two (and quite often only one) editors. Did any one else hear Wales on this programme? It might be worth a mention here, as it would show how Wales has been on the British media. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 23:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Added here - but I have never been an investment banker.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 05:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
How about a hedge fund manager? (As in paying the local landscape service to clip the garden hedge.) Something at least technically true. btw - you should ask the BBC if they could possibly slip in a mention of The Doctor and/or his companions editing Wikipedia. Perhaps even imply he invented it, which would in turn imply that you're an incarnation and perhaps inspire some new contributors. Remember the popular David Tennant/Catherine Tate Red Nose Day video? Wikipedia could contribute something funny to the next Comic Relief telethon, about you wanting to update a new record-breaking contribution total in their Wikipedia article as soon as it's announced. As you do. iow, do funny product placements about editing Wikipedia, as opposed to reading it. 99.50.189.108 ( talk) 16:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mr Wales,
I do undersatnd that tis forum is just for improving your Wiki page, but I have found no other way to contact you on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you would be interested adding one more sub-branch to your company. What I am trying to say is, you know how you have Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Wikiqoutes... Well I have a new Wiki idea and I was wondering if you would be interested discovering what it is.
Yours Truly, MYGAMEUPLAY ( talk) 12:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Two things that might be helpful:
Again, like the last two times the second issue has been raised, no-one, Mr. Wales included, has been able to come up with a reliable source which contradicts Marshall Poe's The Atlantic article. I for one am all ears. Skomorokh 12:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki on January 10, 2001. The initial purpose was to get the public to add entries that would then be “fed into the Nupedia process” of authorization. Most of Nupedia’s expert volunteers, however, wanted nothing to do with this, so Sanger decided to launch a separate site called “Wikipedia.” Neither Sanger nor Wales looked on Wikipedia as anything more than a lark. This is evident in Sanger’s flip announcement of Wikipedia to the Nupedia discussion list. “Humor me,” he wrote. “Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes.” And, to Sanger’s surprise, go they did. Within a few days, Wikipedia outstripped Nupedia in terms of quantity, if not quality, and a small community developed.
After a year, Nupedia had only twenty-one articles, on such topics as atonality and Herodotus. In January, 2001, Sanger had dinner with a friend, who told him about the wiki, a simple software tool that allows for collaborative writing and editing. Sanger thought that a wiki might attract new contributors to Nupedia. (Wales says that using a wiki was his idea.) Wales agreed to try it, more or less as a lark. Under the wiki model that Sanger and Wales adopted, each entry included a history page, which preserves a record of all editing changes. They added a talk page, to allow for discussion of the editorial process—an idea Bayle would have appreciated. Sanger coined the term Wikipedia, and the site went live on January 15, 2001. Two days later, he sent an e-mail to the Nupedia mailing list—about two thousand people. “Wikipedia is up!” he wrote. “Humor me. Go there and add a little article. It will take all of five or ten minutes.”
Wales braced himself for “complete rubbish.” He figured that if he and Sanger were lucky the wiki would generate a few rough drafts for Nupedia. Within a month, Wikipedia had six hundred articles. After a year, there were twenty thousand.
I have been searching for some details about this as Jimmy seems to be contenting the present content and has been rejecting the newyorker interview as incorrect. Here is some results that I feel clear up this issue. I will post them here for interested users to peruse and I would be grateful for any ideas for content additions to include something from them. The Sanger quote (number3) I am intending to add as is presented..as a quote, Sanger said.."..." Off2riorob ( talk) 15:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Charles Leadbeater is a respected author/writer..
1. "Sanger wanted to revitalise Nupedia, but Wales saw a more radical possibility: to create an entirely open, highly collaborative approach to knowledge.*"
URL: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ipHhSn00OeQC&pg=PA14&dq=sanger+wanted+to+revitalise+nupedia,+but+Wales+saw%22&hl=en&ei=eo7pTcGHBs-j-gaTmtDFDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sanger%20wanted%20to%20revitalise%20nupedia%2C%20but%20Wales%20saw%22&f=false > < http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ipHhSn00OeQC&pg=PA14&dq=sanger+wanted+to+revitalise+nupedia,+but+Wales+saw%22&hl=en&ei=eo7pTcGHBs-j-gaTmtDFDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sanger%20wanted%20to%20revitalise%20nupedia%2C%20but%20Wales%20saw%22&f=false
Ref template: <ref name="Leadbeater2009">{{cite book|author=Charles Leadbeater|title=We-Think: Mass Innovation, Not Mass Production|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ipHhSn00OeQC&pg=PA14|accessdate=4 June 2011|date=1 July 2009|publisher=Profile Books|isbn=9781861978370|page=14}}</ref>
2. "Wikis would speed up Nupedia's development /whilst transforming it into the true collaborative effort Wales dreamed of/. As a result of this new technology, Wikipedia was born in earnest on 15 January 2001."
URL: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lOr8ic7WVMEC&pg=PA84&dq=%22whilst+transforming+it+into+the+true+collaborative+effort+Wales+dreamed+of%22&hl=en&ei=PpbpTdKvC87OsgbopsDnCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22whilst%20transforming%20it%20into%20the%20true%20collaborative%20effort%20Wales%20dreamed%20of%22&f=false > < http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lOr8ic7WVMEC&pg=PA84&dq=%22whilst+transforming+it+into+the+true+collaborative+effort+Wales+dreamed+of%22&hl=en&ei=PpbpTdKvC87OsgbopsDnCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22whilst%20transforming%20it%20into%20the%20true%20collaborative%20effort%20Wales%20dreamed%20of%22&f=false>
Ref template: <ref name="Gobillot2011">{{cite book|author=Emmanuel Gobillot|title=Leadershift: Reinventing Leadership for the Age of Mass Collaboration|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lOr8ic7WVMEC&pg=PA84|accessdate=4 June 2011|date=28 June 2011|publisher=Kogan Page Publishers|isbn=9780749463038|pages=84–}}</ref>
3.(This is by Sanger himself.) To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative/encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee ..
URL: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q9GnNrq3e5EC&pg=PA312&dq=%22to+be+clear,+the+idea+of+an+open+source,+collaborative%22&hl=en&ei=OpfpTdv2DcPLsgaC1uHnCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22to%20be%20clear%2C%20the%20idea%20of%20an%20open%20source%2C%20collaborative%22&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q9GnNrq3e5EC&pg=PA312&dq=%22to+be+clear,+the+idea+of+an+open+source,+collaborative%22&hl=en&ei=OpfpTdv2DcPLsgaC1uHnCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22to%20be%20clear%2C%20the%20idea%20of%20an%20open%20source%2C%20collaborative%22&f=false>
Ref template:<ref name="DiBonaCooper2005">{{cite book|author1=Chris DiBona|author2=Danese Cooper|author3=Mark Stone|title=Open sources 2.0: the continuing evolution|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=q9GnNrq3e5EC&pg=PA312|accessdate=4 June 2011|date=1 November 2005|publisher=O'Reilly Media, Inc.|isbn=9780596008024|pages=312–}}</ref>
I think that there are a couple of articles in the Wikipedia that make sense to overview / manage separately. One of them is the Silicon Valley. If you will have a chance to take a look to the current discussion you will definitely have fun and perhaps some insight as well. -- PrqStar ( talk) 05:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
If that Guardian article is true, Mr. Wales might have a second child by this point in time, and be married to Kate Garvey. I tried Googling on this topic and found nothing. Does anyone know of any reliable sources which might help us keep Wikipedia current? Followship ( talk) 20:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Your early career in finance. ( permalink) where Jimbo responded to some questions. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is the place for original research by Wikipedia editors drawing primary source material from talk page interviews with Jimmy. However, he may be able to give some helpful tips on how to find reliable sources on this topic. That said, secondary sources often do get things wrong and this is someone's BLP, after all, so don't be startled if, when asking about something in a source, the answer's along the lines of, "that's flat wrong." Gwen Gale ( talk) 23:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i want to write about Jimmy wales in Punjabi Language. because there is nothing about jimmy wales in Punjabi.
Tinkuxlnc ( talk) 04:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The "External links" section doesn't seem the right place for a wikipedia article - Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales - what do others think? Totorotroll ( talk) 12:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Earlier today, i.e. 8 November 2011, I put in a reference to his talk on Radio Three on Wikipedia on November 4 2011. There were a lot of things I could put in this section - such as how he found that Wikipedia to him suggests that people are good, or how he likes the way in which Wikipedia sometimes says "The neutrality of this article is questioned" but I shall leave others to decide whether we need to include these details. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm referring to the sentence: "In 1996, he and two partners founded Bomis, a male-oriented web portal featuring entertainment and adult content," in which my edit to change the word "adult" to "pornographic" was reverted.
In the above sentence, "adult" is being used as a euphemism for pornography. This isn't a matter of opinion, this is an established, referenced fact (See Bomis). Using the word "adult" is ambiguous, and makes an implicit value judgement of the content. This is why it is preferred to simply use a more precise term and allow readers to make their own opinions. For further information: WP:EUPHEMISM. Dr. WTF ( talk) 04:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
There is some disagreement regarding the appropriate labeling of Bomis in the (lead "adult", "pornographic", or "erotic"?) and whether or not a more descriptive term than "adult" should be used. Prior consensus settled on "erotic" [45] (also see footnote in main article). Dr. WTF ( talk) 16:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Why not add such to the AOL, Netscape, Open Directory Project and Rich Skrenta articles, based on the Adult section of the Dmoz directory, part of their comprehensive coverage of the web? Or Yahoo Directory and Jerry Yang, based on an Adult section of that directory? It would be good if the Wayback Machine had an old copy of at least the front page of Bomis, which would make everything clear. Unfortunately, that's been blocked. "We were unable to get the robots.txt document to display this page. Our request Timed Out." 99.50.189.108 ( talk) 16:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Just from my personal experience, I only ever read anything about Bomis while first starting on WP and looking into what this Jimmy Wales guy was all about. From that brief encounter with Jimy's bio and the Bomis WP page (keeping in mind that this was a while back) I got the distinct impression back then that the site was largely depended on "adult content." I never really questioned that until encountering this discussion, so maybe, if false, that is a problem. Quinn ❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY 20:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Note that "Playboy of the Internet" is not necessarily the damning phrase it is construed to be.
Playboy historically prided itself in coverage of material other than "babes" - serialising Fahrenheit 451 and numerous other works by notable authors, and interviewing Martin Luther King, among many other. For anyone interested in the real "Playboy of the Internet" in the late 90s or early 2000s some UK Playboy servers were located in Telehouse, a few racks away from certain mailservers, firewalls, domain name servers, routers, switches and other infrastructure I was responsible for back in those days.
Rich
Farmbrough, 14:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC).
Comment. Responding thanks to RfC bot. I think "adult entertainment" is the most neutral term to utilize.
ScottyBerg (
talk) 14:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
“ | Bomis found its niche in erotica and adult content, making enough revenue from ads and paid subscriptions for premium X-rated content to support a few more intellectual sites. | ” |
Its audience was mostly men; pornography—videos and blogs—accounted for about a tenth of its revenues. [46]. If only ten % of its revenue was coming from "pornography—videos and blogs", where was the remaining 90% of its revenue coming from? It must have been doing things besides "pornography—videos and blogs"?- MW ℳ 14:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Per reading the guardian article [47] and it's subsequent clarification by [48] Ian Grant, Managing director, Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) per 25 February 2011, I visited the Britannica site only to found that they had change the birthday to 8 August 1966. The note reads: "There is some confusion over the date of Jimmy Wales’s birth. A number of sources—including Current Biography and Who’s Who in America as well as a marriage license filed in Monroe county, Florida—give his birth date as Aug. 7, 1966. In June 2007 Wales notified Britannica that this date was incorrect. However, Wales would provide Britannica with the correct date and appropriate documentation only if it was agreed that his date of birth would not be published, which runs contrary to Britannica’s policies. Given that the majority of sources reported Aug. 7, 1966, and without documentation that disproved this date, Britannica decided to give August 7. In 2011, however, Wales provided a scanned image of his passport showing his birth date to be Aug. 8, 1966. As this is the most authoritative source available to Britannica, his birth date has been changed to August 8." (emphasis mine). Therefore I decided to update Jimmy's bio accordingly. Bennylin ( talk) 13:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
A source says Florida and another source says the United Kingdom. Will add an unreliable source? tag to the source that appears that it may be outdated. Folgertat ( talk) 17:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like the Florida trips are just to visit his family. If I am understanding correctly, it sounds like he is living in the United Kingdom now.
00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folgertat ( talk • contribs)
It seems rather strange to me that Mr Wales has on his page something he doesn't have. And that is a Ph.D. If he doesn't have a Ph.D, why mention it? I'm sure there are plenty of people that don't have degrees, or don't have a Masters or don't have any qualifications altogether....so are wikipedia editors going to mention all of them as well? .....very strange..I am so tempted to remove it, but I don't want to cause an edit-war. ...and by-the-way I don't have a Ph.D either....but I do have common sense.... Veryscarymary ( talk) 14:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:L Sanger.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
I recently took the trouble to convert all the straight quotation marks to curly ones. I expected to be reverted, and indeed it was, but now the article has a combination of curly and straight quotes (inconsistent).
I just want to remember that MoS is just a guideline and not policy. This encyclopedia is not just online, its articles also end up printed in books.
I know that "
is easier for type, but you are not encouraged to use “
and ”
. If someone took the time to change those little signs, do not undo that just for following the manual of style. In that case, don’t you think that
this article also should follow strictly MoS? —
Fitoschido
[shout] \\ 19 July, 2011 [02:10]
In my humble opinion curly quotes are best in this very important WP page .!. . . . Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I think there should be a link to User:Jimbo Wales in the See also section of this article.
Thanks,
The Doctahedron, 16:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: "The Doctahedron" is not my user name. It is simply an alias by which I conceal my IP address.
Apologies for the un proffesional headline, and for the possibility that this is in the wrong thread. However I spent half an hour trying to figure out where to post this. I would like to commend Mr. Wales and the entire Wikipedia team for their action on the SOPA bill currently happening. It is a true stand for democracy and I only wish I had something to offer this cause. It will be inconvient to lose Wikipedia, but the greater cause is worth the inconvience. Whenever I actually have available funds to donate, Wikipedia is the first on my list. Again, respect for this stand against the censorship and eventual goverment take over on the worlds last chance for a transperant democracy. Cheers, Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.90.251.108 ( talk) 09:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This is big!! .!. It is important to this article about the Founder and leader of WP. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/wikipedia-blackout-coming-jan-18-says-co-founder-jimmy-wales/2012/01/16/gIQAh2Ke3P_blog.html Headline: “Wikipedia blackout coming Wednesday, says co-founder Jimmy Wales . . . If Wikipedia blacks out as promised, Wales expects an estimated 25 million daily visitors to be affected. [English-speaking]. His advice for students who might rely on the site: “Do your homework early.”
And Wikipedia editors and contributors can do their work ‘offline’ for a day.
Another ref.:
[50]
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk) 16:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to update Wales' biography with confirmation of his divorce from Christine ( http://pubtitlet.co.pinellas.fl.us/servlet/pcg.wsclient.servlet.CivilDocketServlet?CS__CASE=09011014FD&CS__RESULTS__KNT=10) and birth of his second child ( http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24028957-mr-wikipedia-on-todays-blackout-moving-to-london-and-marrying-a-blair-babe.do)? - Pinellas FL records ( talk) 13:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Either the WMF was "economical with the actualité" in its press release
here or the stated co-founder's (revisionist?) claim
here, restored by a recent edit, is ditto. Which is it?
Writegeist (
talk) 07:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Not mentioned at all is Jimbo's well publicized role in the Commons child pornography debacle, which ended with Jimbo shamed into giving up many of the powers that were built into the Founder flag. He's been involved in other screw ups too, but at the very least the child porn unilateral deletion thing needs to be covered. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( talk · contribs) 15:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
personality rights}}
, but all the rest of the images should too.On Mark Zuckerburg's page, we have his ethnicity there, but how come we don't have one for Jimmy Wales? We shouldn't leave him out, why is this only on certain people's discription page and not for everyone? 140.198.45.62 ( talk) 23:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jimmy,
I am a student at the University of Hull and we are doing a project to create a page in a group and track engagement on the internet. We have just been introduced to the sandbox feature of wikipedia and come across a small problem. If i am logged in on my account and i click to look at someone else's Sandbox, it takes me back to my sandbox, its only a small problem but wondering if im doing anything wrong, sorry if you dont handle these problems but i thought who better to go to? Thanks for your time. -- JackMayhew ( talk) 11:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I found this happened to me earlier. I would visit a user profile, and click on 'My Sandbox' on their page. But it would direct me to my own Sandbox instead of the users Sandbox. An annoying issue that wikipedia could fix. Jack Greenaway ( talk) 11:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following two related and protected redirects need edits:
#REDIRECT [[Jimmy Wales]]
[[Category:Protected redirects]]
[[Category:Redirects with old history]]
to this...
#REDIRECT [[Jimmy Wales]] {{R with old history|printworthy}}
(PLEASE LEAVE THIS SECOND LINE BLANK)
{{This is a redirect|move|protected}}
In addition to keeping this redirect in its present Protected redirects and Redirects with old history categories, that edit will also add this redirect to Category:Redirects from moves and to Category:Printworthy redirects.
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Jimmy Wales]]
(PLEASE LEAVE THIS SECOND LINE BLANK)
{{This is a redirect|move|protected|to talk}}
Thank you in advance for your help with these edits! – PIE ( CLIMAX! ) 07:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
we are quite certain that all this information about jimmy "jimbo" wales is accurate and factual? Rasko99 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC).
File:Jimbo wales sig.gif has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_March_24#File:Jimbo_wales_sig.gif
70.24.244.198 ( talk) 05:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
¿Why an image of two axolotls appears in the box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.119.163 ( talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
If not asking him ;-), http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_tall_is_Jimmy_Wales by this he is 1.78 m. Please change the infobox, using tall parameter.
Everyone else in this article gets a first name and a last name except for poor Pam the first wife . Is this disrespectful to her or to women in general or to first wives or am i being a bit precious ? Does anyone know her last name ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Two edits about related links at the bottom: One, could User:Jimbo Wales be un-italicised un the "See also" section, since it is not a work title or similar, and two, could this line under "External links" be removed as it is a duplicate and not external:
I'm not sure if it's okay to have one request for two things, but they're small enough making two requests seemed pointless. Thank-you to whoever does it. 87.113.35.48 ( talk) 09:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
This article does not have any ethnic categories. Every Wikipedia biography must have ethnic categories, e.g. "American people of Welsh descent", etc. Please put them in. 24.146.209.180 ( talk) 01:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo,
If you could please help me delete an original article I authored (intelligent vehicle technologies)it would support wp policy and keep editors from irrevocably restoring the page.
Thanks,
Lperez2029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.5.245 ( talk) 01:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I removed the "see also" section since the current contents are a link to the Wikipedia page on "The Wikipedia Revolution", a book on the project and Jimmy Wales's user page. Both are not directly relevant for the biography article and should be removed. Jimmy Wales's user page on Wikipedia is self-referential, we do not link our users' biography pages to their own userpages on the project. Furthermore, there are numerous books written about Wikipedia and we cannot link to all of them here or any random topic which relates to Wikipedia. User:Acoma Magic does not seem to agree and they have reverted my changes, so I have initiated this thread here. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 08:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I only reverted the removal of the link to his user page that's at the top of the article. Regarding the book, if readers are interested in Jimmy Wales, they may want to see what that book is about.
Acoma Magic (
talk) 17:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Given the current and frequent pleas for money, I'm interested in knowing how much Wales personally takes from the revenue generated by donations. Why is this information hidden? It's a fair question, no? The answer should be published within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.56.184 ( talk) 13:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Any news on the wedding? Summer's over. Sole Flounder ( talk) 13:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a good example of why we should not use tabloids as sources.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 07:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
CURRENT TEXT: In a 2010 interview with The Independent, he expressed sympathy with the Occupy Wall Street and Occupy London protesters, saying, "You don't have to be a socialist to say it's not right to take money from everybody and give it to a few rich people. That's not free enterprise."[79]
EDIT: In a 2011 interview
99.71.133.35 ( talk) 00:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the birth date at the top should the citation not be outside the parenthesis? It is currently inside. -- 86.40.198.87 ( talk) 02:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I wish there was some way to get this into the article, but I don't see how. From the Colbert Report last week: "My guest tonight, Jimmy Wales. He is the driving force behind Wikipedia. Big deal! So is everybody else!" -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
One of the things that most interests me is whether this self-avowed objectivist thinks about creating what some have called a liberal propaganda machine. Has he ever read any of the stunningly biased articles about human biology or sexuality, where the National Review is considered an unreliable source? A sentence or two on this would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMBTC ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The unsigned reader has a point [({?})] but a more appropriate WP article exists on bias. Just saying, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 10:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The current text includes: " pouring [sic] over " when quoting a transcript of an oral interview. It is usual in such cases to simply correct the typo to " poring over " without highlighting the transcriber's error with "[sic]". The reason being that the current text gives the impression that the *subject* of the quote is illiterate, and the [sic] adds no useful information. 121.45.220.96 ( talk) 23:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Seems like a controversial change.
Vaca
tion
9 01:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The source describes the situation accurately: "Uncorrected transcript provided by Morningside Partners." It is grossly misleading to put a quote attributed to Wales from an uncorrected audio statement as "pouring [ sic]". Wales did not say "pouring"—he said "poring". The issue of a typo is of no consequence (is someone claiming that "pouring" has been the subject of significant comment, and so needs to remain?). Whatever MOS says about the matter, it is unacceptable to provide a quote as if it were written by the subject, and it is doubly unacceptable to draw attention to it with "sic" (as if Wales made the typo—why else include it? Who cares if a website which announces the transcript as uncorrected made a typo?). Moreover, MOS (at WP:MOSQUOTE) actually says that an inconsequential typo should be corrected without comment, as explained above. Is there any reason, based on common sense or guideline, to maintain "pouring"? Johnuniq ( talk) 05:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I raised this once before- every other person in this and most articles is afforded the respect of a surname. Why has this woman been denied this basic respect ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 21:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the links to Jimbo's user page and to WP:JIMBO are both listed in external links, rather than a 'see also' section. why? Aunva6 ( talk) 06:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
off-topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why dont you examine Turkish Administrators Superyetkin and GarbinoWhy dont you examine Turkish Administrators Superyetkin and Garbino? http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullanıcı:Superyetkin http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullanıcı:Garbino — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.212.230.49 ( talk) 11:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
|
There's this fine image of a painting of subject Wales by renowned Australian painter Pricasso. Where would be the appropriate section to list this well-licensed Commons image? Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
There is reason to believe that the creation of this image was instigated and publicized for the express purpose of harassing the subject of this BLP. As such, the image should not be included. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure if these will be useful, but I found:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Talk:Jimbo Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This redirect was incorrectly tagged with the {{ R to talk}} Rcat, which is used to categorize redirects from outside the talk namespace to a page in talk namespace. Please correct this error and, additionally, tag it with the {{ R from alternative name}} template in the following manner:
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Jimmy Wales]] {{This is a redirect|move|protected|to talk}}
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Jimmy Wales]] {{This is a redirect|move|from alternative name|protected}}
This
edit request to
Jimbo Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Also, please add the {{ R from alternative name}} template to the article redirect in the following manner:
#REDIRECT [[Jimmy Wales]] {{R with old history|printworthy}} {{This is a redirect|move|protected}}
#REDIRECT [[Jimmy Wales]] {{R with old history|printworthy}} {{This is a redirect|move|from alternative name|protected}}
Thank you in advance for your consideration! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 09:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
- the one that's been artificially coloured red for some reason - the page to be edited is
Talk:Jimbo Wales, which is fully protected.
Paine Ellsworth didn't use the first positional parameter of {{
edit protected}}
to specify that page, which is why all the links in that box were to
Jimmy Wales, and also why it showed up under the wrong name at
User:AnomieBOT/PERTable. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
, which will provide a second set of links, and should also give two rows in
User:AnomieBOT/PERTable. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no visible table of contents on this Talk page? - 2001:558:1400:10:E1C7:8438:5E48:3232 ( talk) 20:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Somebody should fix the biography to reflect Mr. Wales' statement here. - 2001:558:1400:10:DD57:6356:A8FF:8049 ( talk) 14:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't go unsourced, so I've restored the reference. Happy ending, I guess, but for the record I'd like to say that I think we should probably take any Wikipedian in good standing who edits under their real name at their word on basic stuff like what boards they do and don't currently sit on. Suppose Jimmy had still been listed as a board member on the Socialtext web site . . . what would he have to do, jump through OTRS hoops to get the article fixed? Complain to a fellow staff member and have it changed as an office action? It boggles the mind. Rivertorch ( talk) 09:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. Let me see if I can sum this up. Why don't we approach this like a pop quiz?
1. When an unnamed government official says famous person $foo is a card-carrying member of the communist party, and the year is 1952, and a newspaper reports it, what is the correct action?
2. When historical documents show that rocket scientist $baz was a card-carrying member of the nazi party, and the year is 1952, and no newspapers report it, what is the correct action?
3. When prominent hollywood celebrity $qux is claimed to be a follower of the church of scientology by a supermarket tabloid, and the celebrity denies it on their blog, what is the correct action?
4. When a not-very-well-known dotcom puts out a press release claiming that founder X of top-ten internet site Y has agreed to be on their board, and X denies this is true, what is the correct action?
For extra credit, does your answer to #4 change if the alleged press release is now a dead link?
[52]
[53] For double bonus points, if you are a volunteer on project Y, does your answer to #4 remain the same?
Hint:
[54] The correct sentence structure for this is: "Several years prior to 2013, Wales was on the board of SocialText, a wiki-technology startup founded in 2005; since then Wales has left the board, and the brand (and the startup) were acquired." Full disclosure, I have never met Jimbo, anybody who has ever even mentioned the *name* of SocialText to me, let alone anybody involved with the former or current corporations. And yes, I always edit as an anon. HTH. Oh... the answers: Joe McCarthy bad, Werner von Braun mixed, Scientology bad, Jimmy Wales good. In borderline cases, it pays to carefully assess the ethics and motivations of *all* parties involved, not just the ones that give you some editorial outcome you may prefer. Here, the situation seems glaringly obvious: Wales said he used to be on the board, and SocialText put out an old press-release to that effect. Wales says he has not been on the board for many years, and SocialText no longer lists him. tl;dr? suffice it to say that Rivertorch is correct.
74.192.84.101 (
talk) 02:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change this:
Into this:
Thanks. Or, if somebody disagrees, build a consensus-edited-version (I hereby pre-emptively agree to it), and use that. p.s. Semi-protected since January 2007? Don't we have enough regular wikipedians now, not to mention watchlists and bots and such, to make this somewhat-canonical page typical, rather than a special exception to the philosophy of the site? Just on first principles, this page of all pages ought to be something anybody can edit. If nobody else wants to propose de-protection, please ping me on my talkpage, and I will submit the proposal myself. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 03:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
With regard to #4: a press release is also self-sourced information, ideally we would have some third party journalist assert the status of membership in print, then we could rely on that journalist and news outlet for fact checking. If no reliable sources mention the fact we normally do not bother mentioning it either since it is probably not notable enough. That said, I do recognize that in completely uncontroversial cases we sometimes can accept less ideal sources, but I think we should show extra care with Jibos bio... -- Space simian ( talk) 23:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight. Wales says he's not on the Socialtext board. Socialtext's website indicates that he is not on their board. Why does his article, months later, still say he is on the board? I think the search for the perfect source obscures the fact that there is an untrue statement in this biography. Let me put it this way...is there a reliable sources that says he is on the board right now? Because if there isn't a recent reliable source that claims he is on the board (as of 2013), then this statement is no longer supported and can be removed. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure where this fits, but...
WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Make a page with advertisements near the donation link to everyone can come to and be there one minute. It will make money for you and make our life easier. Because not all people can donate. Just put a link "Help us" to ads page. Yegor S. 76.89.230.75 ( talk) 00:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
For the External links section, I am tempted to add:
@ Jimbo Wales: perhaps you'd like to add the link. – S. Rich ( talk) 06:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
− − NeilN ( talk · contribs) reverted my addition of stuff about Wales posting his Bitcoin account and subsequently receiving tons of donations, and his consideration of allowing Wikimedia to accept Bitcoin donations. NeilN did so because Wikipedia is " not news". ( Special:Diff/599074437) So does this seem like it is significant enough that it should be added (under a "pursuit" section or otherwise)? Jinkinson talk to me 16:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hoi, Could someone please update the person template with Jimmy's date of birth at the very end of the article ? Thanks, GerardM ( talk) 09:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Just at the end of the "Honors, awards and positions" section there currently appears the sentence: "On May 17, 2014 has become Doctor Honoris Causa of the Faculty of Communication Sciences of the Università della Svizzera italiana (USI Lugano, Switzerland). [137]" It seems a subject (such as "he" or "Wales") is missing (and should be placed between the date and "has become"). 2A02:8109:9340:136C:8CB1:CFCD:8297:438A ( talk) 02:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want insert new photos and informations about Wales. Ma2xlon ( talk) 00:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I was initially intending to only update the article in relation to Wales's comments on the ECJ ruling and, as I have not edited this page before, I realized that the "Views" section that is most suitable was in a substandard state. The order was not chronological, an unnecessary one-sentence paragraph had been inserted (the paragraph needed elaboration and the content to do so is available), and the grammar, syntax and diction needed improvement. When I opened the edit window, I realized that hidden content was guiding editors in regard to the placement of content and I initially adhered to these "headings". However, after a while, it occurred to me that these hidden guides would work better as visible subheadings and would not only create greater clarity, but would also improve the quality of the article. So, I have used the original wording of the hidden content to create subheadings and also created a separate subsection for the ECJ topic, as Wales is very vocal and passionate about the matter, and it seems highly likely that he will be commenting further on the topic in the future. I am not trying to sabotage the Jimmy Wales Wikipedia page in any way, so please engage with my Talk comment for the purpose of further refining this article.-- Soulparadox ( talk) 08:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Several sources (Including Jimmy himself recently on Radio 4) cite the currently shown birth date (August 7) as incorrect. A link on his own blog (specifically on this page: ( http://jimmywales.com/2007/08/08/my-birthdate/)) ( http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2007/07/on_wikipedia_and_its_founders.html) says that his birth date is, in fact, August 8.
Can I suggest that you two guys read Professor John Naughton's excellent article in "THE OBSERVER" of 10.08.14? If it helps you understand it, I can get it translated into Belgian (French or Walloon?) and into Dutch? I use both Wikipedia and ODNB and both are equally 'intransigent': "unwilling or refusing to change one's views or to agree about something. synonyms: uncompromising, inflexible, unbending, unyielding, diehard, unshakable, unwavering, resolute, rigid, unaccommodating, uncooperative, stubborn, obstinate, obdurate, pigheaded, single-minded, iron-willed, stiff-necked"; intransigeant; onverzettelijk: in french/dutch?
I CAN DEBATE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF WIKIPEDIA UNTIL (AS WE SAY IN COLLOQUIAL ENGLISH) "THE COWS COME HOME", BUT THERE IS NO COMPLETE AGREEMENT ANYWHERE IN THE ACADEMIC WORLD AS TO WHO EXACTLY CONSTITUTED THE BLOOMSBURY GROUP, SO ALL THE MEMBERS ARE A MATTER OF OPINION AND NOT FACT GUYS.
WHAT IS CERTAIN IS THAT A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF MALE MEMBERS WERE CAMBRIDGE APOSTLES.
Understand the above points and we may have the basis for further discussion? Otherwise.... 2.27.131.74 ( talk) 19:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Undeletion requires a "procedural error" or "significant new evidence" to open a case to a !vote at wikipedia:deletion review similar to a criminal court. Why can't "consensus can change" be a reason for undeletion. I have seen some articles nominated over 10 times until they were finally, and permanently deleted because "consensus can change". In the criminal court analogy, we do not have the equivalent of double jeopardy, we can keep prosecuting until we get a conviction. Why do we demand a higher threshold for undeletion? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
=
This page should be added to "Category:American pornographers" because this person was the founder of the online pornography distributor Bomis and was the co-owner of the company at the time that it distributed pornography.
From this article (which glosses over Bomis):
In 1996, he and two partners founded Bomis, a male-oriented web portal featuring entertainment and adult content.
...
Wales decided to leave the realm of financial trading and became an Internet entrepreneur.[17] In 1996, he and two partners founded Bomis,[11][22] a web portal featuring user-generated webrings and, for a time, erotic photographs.[23]
From the Bomis article:
Bomis became successful after focusing on X-rated media.[26] "Bomis Babes" was devoted to erotic images;[5] the "Bomis Babe Report" featured adult pictures.[7][12] Bomis Premium, available for an additional fee, provided explicit material.[4][27][26] "The Babe Engine" helped users find erotic content through a web search engine.[3][8][28] The advertising director for Bomis noted that 99 percent of queries on the site were for nude women.[29]
...
Bomis became successful after it focused on X-rated media.[26] Advertising generated revenue which enabled the company to fund other websites,[21][4][73] and the site published suggestive pictures of professional models.[74] In addition to Bomis the company maintained nekkid.com[42] and nekkid.info,[3] which featured pictures of nude women.[3] About ten percent of Bomis' revenue was derived from pornographic films and blogs.[58][3]
The website included a segment devoted to erotic images, "Bomis Babes",[5][6] and a feature enabled users to submit recommended links to other sites appealing to a male audience.[48] Peer-to-peer services provided by the site helped users find other websites about female celebrities, including Anna Kournikova and Pamela Anderson.[46] In the Bomis Babes section was the Bomis Babe Report, begun in 2000, with pictures of porn stars[7][12][61][15] in a blog format.[15][49][50] The Bomis Babe Report also produced original erotic material,[1][15] including reports on pornographic film actors and celebrities who had posed nude.[15] It was referred to as The Babe Report for short.[42]
Wales referred to the site's softcore pornography as "glamour photography",[75][76][47][45][38] and Bomis became familiar to Internet users for its erotic images.[77][78][79] During this period Wales was photographed steering a yacht with a peaked cap, posing as a sea captain with a female professional model on either side of him.[80][15][81] In the photograph, the women were wearing panties and T-shirts advertising Bomis.[80][15][81]
A subscription section, Bomis Premium,[3] provided access to adult content and erotic material;[26][27][4] A three-day trial was US$2.95.[81] While Bomis Babes provided nude images of females to subscribers,[27] Bomis Premium featured lesbian sexual practices and female anatomy.[15] Bomis created the Babe Engine,[3] which helped users find erotic material online through a web search engine.[8][28] According to Bomis advertising director Terry Foote, 99 percent of searches on the site related to nude women.[29]
The common definition of "pornographer" is "One who writes or sells pornography" ( [60]) or "One who is involved in the creation or dissemination of pornography" ( [61]) or "someone who presents shows or sells writing or pictures that are sexually explicit in violation of the community mores" ( [62]).
If you would like to not add this category please discuss your reasoning here. Hebrew Warrior ( talk) 08:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jimbo Wales proposed to be deleted on Russian Wikipedia [63] 77.234.42.180 ( talk) 19:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The Irish Independent says that Wales is worth "by some estimates, about $1m..." [64] and the New York Times Magazine says his net worth is, "by most estimates", "just above $1 million". [65] I think this should be included in the infobox rather than the "unknown" value currently in place. Everymorning talk 14:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I find it bizarre that the founder of WIKI is missing information. Can anyone add information about his involvement in Quora project? I am willing to help but I don't have that many secondary sources so I don't want to mess up the article with primaries. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 03:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Britannica now gives August 8th as Jimmy Wale's birthdate, with this researcher's note: http://www.britannica.com/topic/1192821/supplemental-information I think we can conclusively resolve this issue and make the correction. Brianbleakley ( talk) 00:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought this was interesting when it was mentioned in the 60 Minutes story last night. But its positive proof that print sources can be wrong and should be challenged and/or confirmed like any other source. Were it not for Jimbo challenging a Primary (and presumably definitive, his birth certificate) source, we would default to the print source and be done with it. Blocks and bans might even be handed out as a result of blind and uncompromising adherence to Policy. But the Editor corps has done the right thing, dug deeper, and incorporated accurate information. I'm heading back to the Special:PendingChanges list... Regards, -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Just for some readers' interests: http://stats.grok.se/en/201504/Jimmy_Wales The page view skyrocketed from 928 on Apr 5 to 4564 on Apr 6 thanks to the 60 Minutes segment. 119.67.113.78 ( talk) 06:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
In response to an appeal to Wikipedia on Change.org to request Wikipedia to "create and enforce new policies that allow for true scientific discourse about holistic approaches to healing," Wales said alternative medicine practitioners are "lunatic charlatans". [5]
webforum
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Where is the best place this can go? QuackGuru ( talk) 02:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
...and therefore mess up the ref numbering from there onwards. The two culprits are #24 (7x!) and #26 (once) in the article. Clicking on them doesn't take the reader anywhere. So 23 goes to 23, but 24 goes nowhere, causing 25 to go to 24. Then 26 also goes nowhere causing 27 to go to 25. From there on, the clicked ref goes to the one two numbers back (28 to 26, 159 to 157 in my edit above). Do Ctrl+F (Windows) on 24, and you will Find that occurrences 1,2,4 and 5 of #24 and the one of #26 have other working refs anyway, so just delete 24 & 26 there. But occurrences 3,6 and 7 have ONLY #24, so they need a working ref. Where did 24 and 26 go? Knowadiz ( talk) 00:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Wales is the guest on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs this morning: [66]. Should this be mentioned in his article? His chosen book was The Fountainhead. Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Brief intro - I'm an old fan and freelance net promoter of Wikipedia, but I'm just now starting to Edit. Been meaning to for a long time; now motivated by Jimmy (Mr. Wales?) being awarded the Dan David Prize last night (congrats!). Can't directly edit because I'm new and this is semi-protected, so I'm doing it here. Please let me know if I'm doing anything newbie-ly wrong.
While learning about him on this page, I saw this typo in the caption under the last picture about the prize:
It says "Jimmy Wales Accepting the Dan David Price at the Tel Aviv University, 2015" Should be Dan David Prize, not Price.
Furthermore, the article entry about the prize is still pre-occurance, even though he did accept the award last night (wish I could have been there). So it should also be edited to post-occurrance to match previous awards. Currently:
In February 2015, the Dan David Foundation announced that Wales would be awarded a Dan David Prize of $1 million at a May 2015 ceremony.[158] He was awarded the prize for "launching the world's largest online encyclopedia".[159]
Edit (2nd sentence unchanged):
On May 17th, 2015, Wales received the Dan David Prize of $1 million in the "Present" category (others won that amount for "Past" and "Future" contributions to society).[158] He was awarded the prize for "launching the world's largest online encyclopedia".[159]
The citations can also be updated when news articles or the foundation's website describe his being awarded the prize in the past tense.
May this be the first of many helpful edits! Knowadiz ( talk) 02:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems to have all been done now.
81.168.78.73 ( talk) 10:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
"When I first launched Wikipedia on 15 January 2001". [68] So who launched Wikipedia? Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 22:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
== Desert Island Discs ==
.Is it worth mentioning Jimbo's turn to be castaway on
Desert Island Discs, or is that too much like trivia? For those interested his Favourite was,
Bach, Violin Concerto in A Minor, first movement; his book choice was
Ayn Rand,
The Fountainhead; his luxury item was, A cellar full of Cabernet wine and a glass, (he did want a mobile phone with internet access, but naturally he wasn't getting it
).
[70] --
wintonian
talk 20:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict):Ignore me I didn't see the discussion above. [[File:|25px|link=]] -- wintonian talk 21:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Just a heads up that while the infobox source for Wales' net worth is reliable (New York Times), the article itself is apparently pulling numbers from nowhere. Says Wales of the article: "Notice that the reporter cites no actual sources, and indeed, since I'm in a position to know, she did not do any actual journalism to come up with the number. I don't know where she saw it in particular, but I know that it's a number made up out of thin air." While he's not explicitly denying the amount on Quora, the number was arbitrarily established. -- Zanimum ( talk) 11:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
He also contests the Guardian calculation. -- Zanimum ( talk) 11:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Wales’s total net worth, by most estimates, is just above $1 millionand the Gruniad;
Wales's 2011 divorce settlement with his second wife put his assets at $943,000. So I think that last one should go at least, as in my mind $943,000 in 2011 dosn't really equate to $1M in 2014. As for the Telegraph it doesn't state where these allaged estimates are from, perhaps they have just plucked them out of thin air? how are we to know?
This edit may get reverted, but on principle I have to add it. DOB data need to come from reliable sources. A person reporting their DOB in an interview is not an authoritative source. Hence, the 2011 Jerusalem Post interview stating that their interviewee "will turn 45 on the seventh of August" is reasonably presumed to be self-disclosed information, and therefore is not an authoritative statement of DOB (especially since, in this situation, there is documentary evidence to the contrary).
Moreover, there are better, more authoritative sources in the main body of the text.
No source actually need appear in the lede, since the body is thoroughly sourced. To omit this lede citation would perhaps be best; otherwise, move up the Britannica or similar inline citations appearing later, copying one or more to the lede. Either way, the Post citation should go. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 17:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Jimmy Wales which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
A funny thing happened while I was on vacation. I ran into someone I knew long ago and talked of old times. I looked up the Wikipedia page of someone he mentioned, Ed Esber. It is amazing how inaccurate it is, and he was editing it himself. I do not know Esber, never worked at his company but knew a few people who did. There is no relationship between reality and his description of himself in Wikipedia. It seems that there are just not enough people to look over the very, very large Empire you built. So everywhere one looks, there is (I am sorry to say) junk.
Now about the vacation, the page about the town says Diano Marina has a notable person Alessandro Valente who is an expert in theoretical chemistry. I was impressed, so looked him up and it seems to be a joke. He was a student in 2007 it seems and may have graduated now, but Google scholar shows very very little about him. He probably added himself as a joke.
So can any one do any thing to stop jokes and errors coming in, now that the Empire is so large? Can one still believe what Wikipedia says? Can you do anything about it? I am all out of idea. Are you? Sky is big, Emperor far away ( talk) 22:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Belongs on User talk:Jimbo Wales, not here |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello! You're a founder of Wikipedia, right? Thank you.-- 永続繁栄 ( talk) 03:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC) ROFL 97.91.30.86 ( talk) 15:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC) |
This
edit request to
Jimmy Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
capricornio picoo jimmy wales Marksoulk ( talk) 20:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You Should Give more information on when the website was updated, created, etc. You should make your home page information on wikipedia. 24.183.224.207 ( talk) 23:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The infobox lists Florence Devouard as Jimmy Wales' "successor". Is Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation the primary "role" that we would identify with Jimmy Wales through his career, that this is the demarcation for his infobox? Seems a bit odd. - 2001:558:1400:10:E096:6DEF:CDC3:B41D ( talk) 15:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I see Jimbo is 49, but I don't think that so when the photo was taken. PLEASE TAKEN ONE WHERE HE IS 49 because there could be at least 49 other Jimbo Waleses otherwise. Adam "The Brute" 81.153.54.222 ( talk) 01:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Jimmy Wales. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Is this page an exception to the "anyone can edit" line? In any case, there is no mention yet of the honorary doctorate from Louvain received on 2 February this year. It is already on the French Wikipedia. MHAN2016 ( talk) 11:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jimmy Wales. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The article suggests that Jimmy Wales has three daughters from two marriages (cited but the citations suggest ambiguousness). The summary says that he only has two daughters. Clarification is needed.
I think one from each! They aren't sisters. Half sisters. He is Jonathan Bowen, and they are not 1987, so that is my class! That's the only site college 2009 goes on, museums! -- violet nese 14:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
As this article mentions that Jimmy Wales has appeared on Question Time, should it not also mention that he has appeared on Desert Island Discs? Vorbee ( talk) 21:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
As an IP User, what should I do about a User repeatedly putting Copyright Infringing if not right out Privacy links to YouTube and webpages unpunished.
Not more than a day ago, this was posted a third time. https://zh.wikipedia.org/?title=%E9%BE%8D%E5%8A%8D%E7%AC%99&diff=39866954&oldid=39858538
There have been no English responses or actions from non-Chinese speakers since the report of said SPAMMY to the authority months ago.
"Twinkle" is what I myself understand to be the tool to stop such criminal action. Same User has not been subjected to such obviously for reasons beyond my understanding.
https://zh.wikipedia.org/?title=%E9%BE%8D%E5%8A%8D%E7%AC%99&action=edit&undoafter=39867019&undo=39867106 Posting again just minutes ago. 207.102.255.36 ( talk) 17:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1944-11-04-lps Problem solved. 207.81.183.250 ( talk) 17:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Today I started an article on Joseph T. Fuhrmann, and added four references within a few hours, there is also an entry in the Spanish Wikipedia. Then User:Doc James came up. The article was gone within 6 hours, although it says it needs at least one reliable source which could be the Mary Washington University, is not it? If that is not a reliable source than Wikipedia went crazy in my point of view. It is also says the article will be deleted within a week if there are no improvements.
I never saw the page he is referencing to. A new example that most people on Wikipedia are more interested in deleting than in improving. His bot did not tell me where to look, which is unacceptable, and nobody had a chance to improve it! I am not particularly interested in Fuhrmann, but some other people might be. He is an academic, one cannot change much in a account of universities he visited. Wikipedia became unacademic or should we say stupid? Taksen ( talk) 18:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Jimmy Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The leading sentence says Jim is an "internet entrepreneur". But wikipedia is a non-profit. He's not a businessman. I vote for alternative wording, something like "project developer"... and maybe "free knowledge activist". Right now he sounds less like a Stallman and more like a Zuckerburg.-- Monochrome_ Monitor 20:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes but I still think "entrepreneur" is ill-fitting.-- Monochrome_ Monitor 23:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Talk:Jimbo Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove |protected
from the {{
This is a redirect}} template on the page, changing the line to:
{{This is a redirect|move|from alternative name}}
The template automatically detects protection levels and the |protected
parameter is currently making it unnecessarily show "Fully protected" twice.
nyuszika7h ( talk) 17:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimbo Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the contents to the following:
#REDIRECT [[Jimmy Wales]] {{This is a redirect|with old history|p1=printworthy|move|from alternative name|printworthy}}
This moves the "with old history" rcat inside the {{ This is a redirect}} template and removes the redundant "protected" rcat to prevent it from showing up twice as the template already senses protection levels by itself.
nyuszika7h ( talk) 17:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
His twitter just claimed he had passed away.
https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/767078691100880896 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.148.116 ( talk) 19:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Update: Seems to have been some sick hacking -
https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/767082174482882564 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.2.148.116 (
talk) 19:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/767078691100880896
Also https://www.facebook.com/jimmywales/posts/10154276618892254
Even as a hoax, likely to lead to attempts at problematic edits. Semi should help though.
- David Gerard ( talk) 19:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Jimbo_Wales - to quote his own statement on his userpage - Hello! My name is Jimmy Wales, and this is my user page. I go by "Jimmy" in real life, but often by "Jimbo" online. People sometimes assume that "Jimmy" is only a nickname for "James", but it's actually my full first name. - Govindaharihari ( talk) 04:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
An edit on 13 August 2016 added the claim about "James" based on [72]. That is a very by-the-way announcement where "James" could easily be the result of an editor's opinion that "Jimmy" was a nickname and that the announcement should use formal language. From Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 1:
From Encyclopædia Britannica [73]:
The source to justify "James" is not reliable for the purpose of determining the legal name of a person, and until there is evidence to support a contrary view, the existing "Jimmy" should remain. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)