Welcome to uiboss.com on July 6 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Talk:Jimmy Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Former good article Jimmy Wales was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Information If you need to contact Jimbo about something, please do so at his talk page, not here. As Jimbo explains...

"People who are trying to leave messages for me will likely be more satisfied if they leave messages on my user talk page than if they leave them here. This is the talk page for the article about me, not a place to talk to me. I rarely read this. --Jimbo Wales 06:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)"
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
Birthdate discussions can be found Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate
An individual covered by or significantly related to this article has edited Wikipedia as Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs). This user's editing has included this article. Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] Speaking engagements

"Some have also pointed out that whereas Jimbo frowns on individual editors making cash from the free encyclopedia, he has no problem doing so himself. Wales makes upwards of $75,000 for each of his Wikipedia-centric speaking engagements."[1] QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Linking to this user page is blatant advertising because the user page is being used for promoton for possible speaking engagements. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged wikistalking again

If the source is a trashy tabloid not suitable for inclusion in any article because it isn't reliable, why are you posting it here? Your good-hearted nature? Looks like an idiot wrote it. Speaking in front of a large number of people and costs associated with it (plane tickets, hotel fees, etc.) is entirely different from users editing the wiki. What would you like to discuss about this? ...or are you just wikistalking again?⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it a problem when an editor uses his user page for promotion to make money. See Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 12#Problematic issue. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I see. You seem to think that one can't profit from Wikipedia. Why do you think that? What policy do you point to? I believe you can. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought admins would block editors who were paid to edit or used their user page for advertizing. But it seems okay for Wales to get paid. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Jimmy isn't being paid to edit Wikipedia (AFAIK!) apart from his salary. Wikipedia can self-advertise...nothing wrong with that. Again, are you citing a specific policy? This would be helpful.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
There is evidence of using Wikipedia for promotion. This edit allegedly made when Wales was not logged in changed Bomis to Wikia but Wikia did not exist when the Wikimedia Foundation was started. Changing Bomis to Wikia was promoting Wikia when Wikimedia Foundation's existence was officially announced by Bomis partner Wales, not from Wikia.
Is it okay for an editor to profit from Wikipedia from having a user page for self-promotion. Speaking engagements upwards of 75,000 is being paid. Having a user page with links to Wikia is self-advertizing. Is it okay for any editor to use their user page for self-advertizing to get paid for speaking engagements.
I suggest we include "Wales gets paid up to $75,000 for each of his Wikipedia associated speaking engagements.[2][3]" QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I did not make that edit. Judging from the topics edited, I believe that ip number was likely the ip number of the old Wikimedia office in St. Petersburg, Florida. The edit in question could have been made by any number of people. Additionally, the Register article is wrong on several important factual points, but this should surprise no one: the Register is a tabloid with a long history of wild claims designed to be, as far as I can tell, as controversial as possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The old IP number was signed by Wales. Additonally, the Register article is backed up by this ref. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said, it looks from the content of the articles edited that this was the old Wikimedia office in St. Petersburg, Florida. I did not make the edit that you're complaining about. The edit in question could have been made by any number of people. The Register article makes a b.s. case for a position which they allege that I hold, which I do not hold. The source you link to has no relevance to that argument. (Also, that source is not even my agent, as I am exclusive with Harry Walker Agency.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
(note, writing as a journalist here) I wondered about that, the "exclusive" aspect, but it's entirely possible there's some sort of authorized subcontracting. Are you claiming that listing is somehow false? Forget The Register article for the moment, that can be a distraction. The "above $75,000" listing is quite clear - do you deny it, and if so, how do you explain it? While we're on the topic, can you please confirm or deny some information I've obtained that the Harry Walker Agency asked $100,000 for your speaker's fee? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Revanche. Do you seriously think that Jimbo should lower himself to your level by responding to such a question? My own response to such would be "fuck off", but Jimbo has a more public persona than do I, and is arguably required to treat all such approaches in good faith. The fact that he manages to do so in the face of such opprobious attacks is testimony to his resilience. Meanwhile, some maturity and basic human respect from you would be welcome. Rodhullandemu 02:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? You, who talk of "lower himself to your level", and "fuck off", accuse me of "opprobious attacks"? Of course I think he should respond to such a question - I regard it as tough but fair. He has raised an issue about a public listing of "above $75,000" speaker's fee, with an implication though not an explicit statement which would seem to discredit it. I would say it is quite reasonable to attempt to solidly confirm or deny the listing and similar information. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
And of what use would a primary source be to the article? Rodhullandemu 12:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Philosophically, in the Verifiability vs. Truth debate, I'm on the side of Truth. Even if a primary source is not directly citable itself in an article, I believe it's very valuable to the article-writing process. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
But which article are you trying to write? Are you attempting to provoke a controversy so you can get a fee by writing an article? Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sigh. I meant "article" as in Jimmy Wales, responding to Rodhullandemu within the framework of Wikipedia reasons. But despite my apparent longstanding exemption as a target from the WP:NPA policy, I'll answer your motives question in good faith. First, I've already written and had published the relevant newspaper article (the number was $50,000 not $75,000 back then, so that's what I give in it). Second, my entire activism,journalism,academic, body of writing has been a profound financial negative for me. Whatever reasons I have for doing it, it sure isn't for the money! Third, there is so much drama and controversy that goes on every day at Wikipedia that my difficulty is in not overdoing it as a subject, and boiling down the essentials due to space limitations - I've already passed for the moment on paid editing, and accusations of Jimbo's abusiveness in blocking. I sure don't need to muck around on "Talk" pages to generate any. Fourth, if I were less ethical, and just interested in controversy, I wouldn't even bother asking Jimmy Wales about this material, but just go with the $100,000 number, attributing it to the source who provided the information (who agreed to go on-the-record). See, no evasions, no legalism, just facts and direct replies. I hope this allays your suspicions about motivations behind my comments. Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

All your links show is that you have a long-lasting obsession with Wales and Wikipedia. It may be time to look for something constructive to do. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Your statement is both false and a personal attack. You asked about my articles, impugning my motives. I gave you examples and replied in good faith, and which you took only as an opening for still more personal attack. I have nothing more to say on the matter, because I try to keep to WP:CIVIL, a courtesy you do not extend to me. What it does is drive me away from participating in discussions with people, since it's just an opportunity for some to freely sling mud and try to provoke me. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The fee category listed is actually ABOVE 75k. I support the general idea, but I think the sentence could use a little tweaking - it's the asking price, not pay (the agency gets a commission), and he'll claim they're not "Wikipedia associated", though it's an arguable point. Maybe something along the lines of "Wales is listed as above $75,000 speaker's fee, and descriptions heavily stress his Wikipedia role". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

<== The sentence doesn't need the tabloid as a ref but the speaking.com ref would do. Quack, you have been implying wrongdoing on Jimmy's part but I have yet to see the rule or policy that he has supposedly broken. Bomis? How is changing a fact a form of promotion? Doesn't bother me. You're stretching things by leaps and bounds with your exaggerations. "Is it okay for an editor to profit from Wikipedia from having a user page for self-promotion?" Funny, I thought the page already existed and this was about a single link that was added. But back to the speaking engagements...why is that wrong?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing a fact from Bomis to Wikia is promotion because Wikia is for profit and was not associated with Wikimedia Foundation. Is it okay to advertize Wikia for speaking engagements on a user page.
In a comment dated March 7, 2008 on his Wikipedia talk page Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has stated

While I continue to oppose the introduction of any advertising in Wikipedia, I also continue to agree that the discussion should evolve beyond a simple binary. I believe that if we looked at putting ads into the search results page (only), with the money earmarked for specific purposes (with strong community input into what those would be, either liberation of copyrights or support for the languages of the developing world or...). As the Foundation continues to evolve into a more professional organization capable of taking on and executing tasks (yay Sue and the growing staff!), it begins to be possible to imagine many uses of money that would benefit our core charitable goals. Lest I be misunderstood: I am not saying anything new, but saying exactly what I have said for many years.

The issue has been the topic of ongoing discussion. Revenue generated from advertisements could improve the website and help achieve its goals. On the other hand, advertising may be at odds with the mission of a neutral, non-profit website which aims to educate. See Wikipedia:Advertisements.
I think we can add "Wales is listed as above $75,000 speaker's fee, and descriptions heavily stress his Wikipedia role."[4][5]" QuackGuru (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I made this change to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Where could we add this to this page. "Wales is listed as above $75,000 speaker's fee, and descriptions heavily stress his Wikipedia role."[6]" QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I would put it in this section, perhaps at the end of the first paragraph or in a separate paragraph between the current two paragraphs. Needs to be introduced and specified. For example, Wales also accepts paid public speaking engagements. In July 2009, an agency representing him listed his fee as "above $75,000"[7], with promotional copy that heavily stressed his Wikipedia role.
I believe the word "listed" adequately conveys that actual arrangements could in fact be lower than $75k. We can take it as common knowledge that agencies take their cut out of the gross before the client gets paid and of course speaking fees are taxable income etc.
Perhaps tack on another sentence listing recent speaking engagements? In April 2009, Wales gave a keynote speech at the ad:tech conference in San Francisco, in which he suggested that "newspapers cannot compete in some fields… they should just give up."[8] --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
For now I made this change. This could be expanded using more references. QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you meant to write "above $75,000", instead of "about $75,000". The way you wrote it, in my opinion, is somewhat unclear; a casual reader might get the impression that every time Wales flies somewhere to appear in public, he gets paid. I doubt that is the case; more likely the majority of his appearances in public on behalf of Wikipedia are unpaid, such as interviews with television and print media. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I have edited the passage in question for clarification (as I explained above) and also to incorporate the most recent information provided by Wales.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] [15][17][18][19][20][21]

Too many refs in the lead. Let's limit it to three instead of six. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

For the refs that are only used to cite this sentence, we can combine them into one ref. لennavecia 22:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I split 'em out to see which ones could be used elsewhere; feel free to merge the single use refs as Jenna proposes.  Skomorokh  14:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to merge the refs together. At least three refs should be deleted and can be move to the talk page after they are deleted from the page. I suggest the first sentence have three refs and the rest of the sentences have one ref after each sentence for the lead. We can start with removing three refs from the last sentence in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ref 48 says "In the latest twist of controversy to affect the volunteer-compiled online resource, Jimmy Wales told Times Online that he regretted repeatedly revising the encyclopaedia's entry on himself." But the other refs in the lead do not explicitedly use the word "controversy". QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed one, it wasn't even accessable, why are all these links necessary? they are only supporting one sentence, one or two is enough. To me a line of links like this always looks like pushing a position. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

[edit] [3][4][5][6]

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)

[edit] Is this O.K.?

Here the given name of Wales' daughter, who is a minor, is mentioned. As this person is (a) non-notable and (b) under age, shoould this information be removed (and possibly oversighted)? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wales speaks freely about his daughter Kira in interviews, and mentioning the name has encyclopaedic value due to the relationship to Objectivism. I'll ask him if he has a problem with it.  Skomorokh  11:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Kira's name is publicly known in reliable sources, and so it can stay. I do appreciate very much being asked.
The following is just FYI, and in my opinion should not be used directly as a source in any article (mostly because it's pointless trivia), but could be used to give a deeper understanding to those who would write about this:
Despite there being a reliable source for it, it is not correct (too simplistic) to say that she's named after a character in We The Living. She's actually more named after her grandfather and uncle, with the coincidence of also being named after a character being noted but secondary. Additionally, her first name is said to mean "brilliant light" and her middle name has a meaning connected to "waves" - sun and waves, a nod to her birthplace, San Diego. My point in raising all this is that the reader is misled (and this is not the fault of the person who wrote it, having no other information than the magazine article's claims) by the simple explanation given. In my opinion, therefore, mentioning her name is fine, as a simple biographical detail, but tying it to Objectivism is overstating the case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful response; given that, as you say, reliable sources discuss Kira and you do not object to her being mentioned, I don't think there are grounds for removing references to her from the article at this point. I've also gone ahead and removed the "We the Living" claim given your informative account (though if anyone disagrees with this, please discuss here). Regards,  Skomorokh  15:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Donal?

Donal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mladen George Sekulovich (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, it's Wales' middle name. I believe it's an anglicization of the Irish/Scots Gaelic name Dónall/Domhnall, and is pronounced Doh-nul. Regards,  Skomorokh  16:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Semantics of 'founder' wrt Sanger

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"(?)

  1. Recently the NYT has been terming Wales Wikipedia's co-founder. But not that long ago it always termed him its founder. (Eg here).
  2. Britannica says, "Sanger and Wales parted company in 2002, but they continued to dispute who first came up with the idea of using the wiki software." Did they really dispute who came up with the idea? Or did their disputation concern whether the noun founder most correctly applied to them both or not? (I don't know, I'm just curious.)
  3. Wikipedia sez, "In the autumn of 1999, Wales began thinking about an online encyclopedia built by volunteers and, in January 2000, hired Sanger to oversee its development."
  4. And the following (also from Wikipedia): "Wales claims to be the founder of Wikipedia."
  5. 29Jun2009 Christian Science Monitor calls Wales simply "founder"[9] ↜Just M E here , now 23:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Lede in The Atlantic's "Common Knowledge": "[...T]wo men named Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched a project that shook the foundations of the traditional encyclopedia. They created a Web site called Wikipedia, an online knowledge base that could be edited or expanded by anyone who came along."
  7. Same article, further down: The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, subscribes to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism."
  8. 2nd sentence of Wales's user page: "I founded Wikipedia in 2001."
  9. Forbes, 2004: "...Wales, the founder of the Wikipedia, says, "The wiki model is different because it gives you an incentive when you're writing. If you write something that annoys other people, it's just going to be deleted. [...] Wales and Larry Sanger, a professor whom Wales had hired to help organize Nupedia, came upon the idea of creating a truly collaborative Web-based encyclopedia."[10]
  10. Wikimedia Foundation: "...Wales is an Internet entrepreneur and wiki enthusiast, and founder of the Wikipedia project."[11]
  11. Larry Sanger:

    "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.[12]

↜Just M E here , now 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you proposing something here or opining or asking something or what? Just asking, TIA --Tom (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Tom: Yes, asking about/gathering citations wrt (the word) founder applied to Sanger. (Applicable snippets/odds-'n'-ends I come across, I'll add above.) ↜Just M E here , now 16:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Still not sure what you are talking about. There are lots of citations for Sanger as co-founder/founder but maybe this is more appropriate for the Sanger talk page? Regardless of the nonsense below, this "issue" has been discussed ad naseum by many many editors but nothing wrong with continued discussion imho. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
He should definitely and unequivocally be called founder and not co founder, but this is opposed by a minority of editors who appear to have an agenda re Wales and use the fact that he cant fight back due to his position on wikiepdia to attack without mercy; such is human nature. The main argument is that founder can also be taken to mean co-founder whereas co-founder is very restrictive and just plain wrong given Sanger was a paid employee folowing Wales orders and using Wales cash. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. I see you are still at it. Awesome. --Tom (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • How bout we avoid the founder in the lede? I surfed to "Henry Ford": mainly verbs used, eg "credited with Fordism" &c, but not founder. (Nouns are weird: Someone authors a book. Is s/he an author in hi/r lede? writes a poem -- a poet? &c.) ↜Just M E here , now 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oops! I missed it: founder is like the 3rd word of Ford's bio. Notice that his many co-founders aren't alluded to, though, via calling Ford the co-founder. ↜Just M E here , now 17:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Who were the other founders at Ford? --Tom (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Others built cars in the Roaring 20s while Ford did so as well, with the added idea, of course, of the industrial assembly line. He didn't work alone, I'm sure (but I'd have to research who his main co-founder/s were!) ↜Just M E here , now 18:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
(According to Wikipedia): Co-credit for the developments at the Ford Motor Company (along with, of course, Ford) belongs to people such as a pricipal driving force behind Ford's moving assembly line Clarence Avery, early production executive Peter E. Martin, patternmaker/foundry engineer/mechanical engineer/industrial engineer/production manager/executive Charles E. Sorensen, and initial empolyee/co-designer of the Model-T C. Harold Wills. (Ford was encouraged in working on automobiles by Thomas Edison while Ford worded for the Edison Illuminating Company. Who founded this last-named enterprise? I'd have to check but doubt it would be inaccurate to say -- Edison.) ↜Just M E here , now 22:35, 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)

I propose, per the spirits of BLP and NPOV, we respect the subject's own take and "encyclopedically" state either that (1) Wales asserts he is the founder (noun) of Wikipedia (too long/awkward) or that (2) Wales dreamed up and built Wikipedia (verb; check thesaurus for appropriately toned lexical entry. I like this one). ↜Just M E here , now 18:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Would this wording be better, as in Steve Wozniak's article lead? --Tom (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll go check it, Tom. (I have to mow my lawn.) ↜Just M E here , now
Co-founder discussion rumbles on

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)

Dueling ledes(!! at a certain online, open-source encyclopedia we know and love):
  1. In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of the differential and integral calculus.
  2. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz[...]invented infinitesimal calculus independently of Newton, and his notation is the one in general use since then. -- With this pair supplemented by a 3rd article's lede, as follows.
  3. The calculus controversy was an argument between seventeenth-century mathematicians Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz over who had first invented calculus. Newton claimed to have begun working on a form of the calculus (which he called "the method of fluxions and fluents") in 1666, but did not publish it except as a minor annotation in the back of one of his publications decades later. Gottfried Leibniz began working on his variant of the calculus in 1674, and in 1684 published his first paper employing it.
  • My proposal - in NPOV fashion, mimic the 3 ledes above, avoiding the demonstratably controversial "co-founder" term (hence the Wales-Sanger tugofwar, QuackGuru, you've refernced in your just-above graf). Viz, boil down the sentiments/oberservations of your/Tom's/&c's understanding as combined with the gist of observations of the subject/Squeakbox/and like-minded contributors. ↜Just M E here , now 20:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You were unable to provide a direct response to my comment. So that make your argument irrelevant. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
So, QG, you're giving me the go-ahead to pursue my proposal? (I didn't make any argument, as yet.) ↜Just M E here , now 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that you "didn't make any argument, as yet." So there is no point to your proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
By not making an argument, IOW, I'm saying I'm not trying to advance either a pro or anti here (by analogy, either "pro-life" or "pro-choice") but, rather, am wondering if it might be possible for us to all to arrive at some mutually agreed upon, NPOV text? ↜Just M E here , now 20:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
To reiterate, here's the lede of WP:BLP: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: - Neutral point of view (NPOV) - Verifiability - No original research."
QG, you provide the information, above, that the subject of the BLP finds something in it to be false. But, how does this info support the inclusion of the material? What it would seem to point to, instead, is for contributors to Wales's BLP to handle this issue with sensitivity, with our carefully avoiding O/R and POV, right?
(Note: I've started a parallel discussion at WP:No original research/Noticeboard#Is Sanger a co-founder of Wikipedia?...where I ask, "Is Sanger a co-founder of Wikipedia? I contend whether he is/is not, as a topic of controversy, must be explicitly quoted from published sources, which sources contradict; therefore, for WPaedians to advance either side via their own argumentation is original research.") ↜Just M E here , now 21:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Above, Tom writes, I never feel any "issue" should be "over" and not open to input and new perspective. I agree with that in principle, however in my opinion it does get a little silly if we keep reopening the same discussion so soon after it has been settled by a consensus of editors.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Historically cited" in lede

"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)

  • {crickets}
  • I know it's the freakin 4th[intheUS]o'July but the lack of immediate response to my Q makes me guess the existing "fait accompli of the majority" of ed.s hereabouts is gonna let WP's declarations of Jimbo as co-founder (despite OR/NPOV) to stand.*
    _____
    *a good bio -- just more skewed than appropriate under BLP, IMO ↜Just M E here , now 16:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilink in lede

Wikilink in lede. Is it necessary to have this link in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I believed the contribution helpful (which is why I made it). IAC, someone felt the same -- as, oops! it was already is in the lede's 2nd graf. ↜Just M E here , now 23:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that was you, just now, QG, who contributed it there. Thanks! - I take back anything I've said about you -- :^) ↜Just M E here , now 23:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] External links section

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Wales"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs