Wikipedia

Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 14

< Talk:Jimmy Wales
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Coda Sapiens in topic Critic of alternative medicine??
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14
Latest comment: 12 years ago29 comments18 people in discussion

I'll start by saying that I have yet to see a good reason why this article should link to user:Jimbo Wales, but hopefully the following is a fairly neutral and comprehensive presentation of the issue.

There has been a slow moving edit war about putting a prominent wp:selfref in the wp:infobox first, and now at the top of this biog. I may have missed some relevant edits, especially early edits

As far as I know, user pages of all other notable Wikipedians are tagged on the article talk page with {{notable Wikipedian}} and dropped into Category:Connected contributors, sometimes included as an external link using {{srlink}}, but never mentioned in infoboxes or hatnotes, and I dont think Jimmy's bio should be an exception. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you JV for initiating the RFC. I am against linking to Jimmy's userpage via hatnotes or infoboxes from the mainspace article as per your commentary and the reasons which I have stated in the section above. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur that his page should get standard notability treatment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keeping a small link to User:Jimbo Wales in his infobox was a seemingly reasonable exception to an otherwise perfectly valid guideline about cross-namespace links, considering his position. I liked it. ζompuλacker (tlk) 12:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ultimately, it is going to come down to why should we make an exception. Jimbo is very "special" to us all (well most of us anyways), but that is not a practical reason. A more practical reason is people who are not familiar with how Wikipedia works will come to this article and this talk page and try to leave messages for Jimbo. Putting a link in the hat note or towards the top or the article would help direct them to the correct page. I am not saying this compelling enough reason to make an exception, since there are clearly people who are annoyed at the idea of treating Jimbo's page different. I'm aware there are lots of people who watch this page and will direct them to the correct page, but this would help people find it themselves. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's helpful for people to get in contact with Jimmy, especially those who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. That's a good enough reason to keep a short sentence at the top of the article. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • In what scenario are people going to have difficulty contacting Jimmy, *and* would find communicating via wiki text easier than other forms of online communications?
      http://jimmywales.com/ is his homepage; it lists twitter and facebook as ways of contacting him, and I expect that is the preferred way for people to get in contact with him. He doesnt list his email address on his website, except for for speaking requests where it offers walesgroup harrywalker.com, and he also doesnt link to his enwp user page. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Most contact via his user page will only be concerning Wikipedia. Some issues concerning Wikipedia will be discussed via his user page. Other issues will usually go through what you mentioned. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
        • This is a non-issue for an encyclopedia. We are primarily concerned with maintaining encyclopedic styles and standards. Most of the comments on his talk page are misplaced anyway, they should be reported on other forums. If someone is in need of getting in touch with him, they can reach him through his website, email or his user page which, actually, is the second page which turns up when you google his name. We cannot justify the practice of placing user page links in hatnotes of encyclopedia articles, much like we cannot justify doing it for any other biography articles. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 02:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • My opinion: The link to his user page should not be in the intro. There is a link to his userpage in the external links section and that is OK. Iselilja (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weakly against link - Honestly it does seem a little unusual to have the link to his user page; however, I think it would be hard for folks to deny that Wales is special. ζompuλacker's "reasonable exception" logic holds water. In the end though, I think Mr. Wales' user page is plenty easy to find. I'm not sure linking to it is really that helpful. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose linking to Jimbo's user page in mainspace, but the supporters have a point - this page gets used a lot by people trying to contact Jimbo. It might be a good idea to have a custom template at the top of this talk page; similar to the standard talk header, but expanded to read "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jimmy Wales article. To contact Jimmy Wales, please visit User talk:Jimbo Wales", with maybe some other contact details. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support linking to Jimbo's user page at the top of this talk page. I am also okay with a link at the top of the article page. Part of Wikipedia's charm or aura is that the man who started it all makes himself available to the rank and file. When I first discovered this my appreciation for the ways of wikipedia went up considerably. For the founder to be so accessible is important, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I really don't think it matters much one way or the other -- the fact that this article has over 1000 watchers and so few comments (I'm here as a result of a solicitation from the RFC Bot) seems to suggest that may be a common belief. In any event, a new or infrequent reader arriving here in error should have a one-stroke option to find what they're looking for (someone above says this happens frequently). In order to find the user page from this article, the only way to do it is to type "USER:Jimmy Wales" in the search -- I noted that simply typing "user jimmy wales" (which an unfamiliar reader would probably do) doesn't bring up the user page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose linkage as the infobox link does not further the encyclopedic value of the article. The only valid reason for anything being in any article is to provide useful information to the reader - where no such value is apparent, I suggest the material is not of value to the purpose of Wikipedia - to provide a free encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose linkage but i do like doc kubla's suggestion very much. Soosim (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose linkage—I'm a little surprised that this is controversial. Linking to his blog makes sense; linking to his user page doesn't. If Sting started editing Wikipedia, would we put a link to his user page on his bio page? No, because his editing has nothing to do with his bio. The argument about cross-namespace links is also convincing to me. Abhayakara (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose no reason for an exception. We can provide a link here if its really needed. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose While Jimbo is indeed special to many of us (hey, it's his appeal that got me contributing money and time), but I think that consistency is important and therefore, I am against an exception being made. Thanks for the RFC. Vertium When all is said and done 01:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Users dont always know that this forum is open to all. 176.222.33.57 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

How much does Jimmy make from all Wiki pursuits?

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

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)

In what way are you entitled to know? Why don't you feel that this is a personal question?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Because the foundation is asking for donations again, and as a donor, do I not have the right to ask where the money goes? I'm not interested in Wales' income or net worth outside of Wiki. I just want to know where the revenue from donations goes, and I think it should be included in the article how much Wales personally takes from donations. That's all. As a donor, I'm absolutely entitled to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.56.184 (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
This may not count as a reliable source for the article but I think it lays out the gist of what you are looking for.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo has said on many occasions that he earns no salary from the Wikimedia Foundation and none of the donations go to him (see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_68, for example). Since the WikiMedia Foundation is a non-profit organization, financial records are public. You can find some information here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en (specifically the section titled "If I donate to Wikimedia, where does my money go? " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.210 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Does anyone know how much of the donation revenue (indirectly, I guess) goes to Wales as head of Wikia? Presumably Wikipedia pays some kind of royalty for the use of the technology developed by Wales? Who decides how much this is? No ill-intent meant, I'm just after some info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.56.184 (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
To answer the question, although I suspect that since someone is sincerely asking, we might regard it as an editorial failure of the article that we don't explain it there as well. There's good information up above. I take neither salary nor expenses from the Wikimedia Foundation, and that includes my travel to and from board meetings, accommodation for board meetings, travel to and from Wikimania, accommodation there, etc. No donation revenue goes directly or indirectly to Wikia. Wikipedia pays no royalties for technology developed by me (and there's none of that anyway, to be sure!) "Who decides how much this is?" Well, referring to royalties, the question doesn't make sense, since there's no such thing. In terms of my expenses, it is my choice to forego the standard expenses given to board members.
Trying to be sure to cover all the bases here. I sometimes accept meals during board meetings, including board dinners. I will often get a free softdrink and snacks during board meetings. I have sometimes accepted a flight from the UK to Germany, paid for by the German chapter, in order to let them film me for a fundraising/prmotional video - but I have also come to Germany to give a speech in exchange for a donation of tens of thousands of dollars to them, so they've made good money on me.  :-)
I am a board member at Wikia, but there too I do not take a salary nor expenses.
I make my living on a day-to-day basis by giving inspirational speeches to big companies and tech conferences. I charge a lot of money for this, and my customers are very happy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Related Q: Does Wales have a WP:COI charging a lot of money from big companies which also have articles with their name /products all over the Wikimedia Project?
A: Not unless he edits his corporate benefactors' articles. Writegeist (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Wedding

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Any news on the wedding? Summer's over. Sole Flounder (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed it from the lede, but it is still under personal section.--Mollskman (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
You may be right, but how often do we see Mr Wales (or even a wedding) on the front page of The Times? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I did my part, against no policy, guideline, or MOS. Too bad for readers visiting the article, seeing a bloated, fatuous lead paragraph with no mention of the wedding. --Lexein (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

New York Post

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a good example of why we should not use tabloids as sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The soundclip of Jimbo's voice

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It has him saying "I am the founder of Wikipedia" rather than "I am the Co-founder" of Wikipedia. Is this a sneaky way of getting in Jimbo's POV? Solntsa90 (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't include that sound bite since it is contentious material. It also doesn't reflect well on the subject of the article to maintain the falsehood of being "founder", imho of course. --Malerooster (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Note fashionable whiskers. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Original research

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

After reading this article and the history of Wikipedia I am wondering what did Wales do to create Wikipedia. Almost nothing because there is almost nothing he did to create Wikipedia according to Wikipedia articles. It is a stretch to claim in the lede he is a "promoter of Wikipedia". The source used in the lede says no such thing. What does it say? See "Wikipedia belongs to a non-profit foundation and, being an exercise in collaboration among volunteers, it has no boss. But Mr Wales, with his scruffy beard, piercing blue eyes, black mock-turtleneck and velvet coat, has become the public face of Wikipedia by default. He is the closest thing it has to a spokesman, the occasional monarch who intervenes in editing disputes, and the ambassador—both inspiring and controversial—of the Wikipedian idea."[2]

The part "and promoter of the online non-profit encyclopedia, Wikipedia" failed verification and the part "he became the project's promoter" is unsourced. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd keep "scruffy beard, piercing blue eyes and black mock-turtleneck". But "velvet coat"...! who is this, ffs, the Scarlet Pimpernel, or something? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Zero editors have checked every sentence in this article to ensure the text is sourced. There is more unsourced text. See "...as Wikipedia's public profile grew, he became the project's promoter and spokesman." QuackGuru (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I suppose it was only a matter of time before your "not my interpretation therefore blatant OR" bullshit made it to this page. Guy (Help!) 01:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The text is unsourced. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
See "He is the co-founder of the online non-profit encyclopedia, Wikipedia,[5] and the for-profit Wikia web hosting company.[6]" I placed the refs where they verify the claim and removed the unsourced part. The sky is not blue. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
AAWWWK! Original Research! AAWWWK! QuackGuru's parrot cry of boredom. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Give it a rest QG! It was fun arguing about Jimmy's date of birth but debating how many reliable sources fit on the head of a pin regarding obvious obvious OBVIOUS stuff is ridiculous. By all means hunt around for sources but removing known-good text is a waste of everyone's time. For anyone who doesn't know who Jimmy Wales is, you might browse the archives of User talk:Jimbo Wales and check the sources given when people either congratulate him for delivering yet another great promotional talk, or abuse him for delivering yet another great promotional talk. Johnuniq (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Broken link in External links for Charlie Rose appearances should be https://charlierose.com/guests/3804

2600:1008:B124:FADD:A4D6:BA74:B69E:A12E (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done  Paine  u/c 13:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Britannica and the birth date

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

The Britannica article used as a reference for the birth date now says August 8th, as opposed to August 7th, and the research note also used as a reference no longer exists at the given link. An updated research note now says that Britannica's opinion is that it should be August 8th. Does this mean that the birth date on here should be updated? Younotmenotyou (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Jimbo Wales would say no. If you go into this talk pages archives and type in "date of birth" this has already been discussed many times before.--5 albert square (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything in the article appears to be relevant. It begins with the most important information and then gives a biography of all the important parts of Wales' life in chronological order. By starting with the most important information readers can quickly get answers as to why Wales is famous. The information then proceeds in typical biography fashion with it being chronological. There are specific details such as his birthday and hometown and things like that but it also sticks to the important content like his world recognized accomplishments and his educational background. Ryanalmer (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The original research distracted me. Why Wales is famous? Because of Larry Sanger. Sanger created Wikipedia from a blank canvas, while Wales was mostly uninvolved. QuackGuru (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Jimmy doesn't get much defense her from the trolling. How come? :-)) --TMCk (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikitribune

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Jimmy has started a major project, WikiTribune. The project doesn't seem to appear on Wikipedia yet, nor is it mentioned in this page. Here is the site: https://www.wikitribune.com ...it's being crowdfunded, but is already receiving mainstream press (eg: Wired UK) and is probably notable. Is now a good time to add it (working on the assumption that even the crowdfunding campaign and related publicity are notable) or is that something we should wait until it is launched to mention? It's probably his primary activity this year, so it seems worth at least a mention on his own page (imho) even if it doesn't get its own page yet.
-SColombo (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You spelled it wrong. It's Wikitribune. It was in the article and I just updated it. The Kingfisher (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Founder or not

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The first bit says he's the co-founder, then later it says he declares himself the sole founder. I think it would be better to say maybe "co-founder (or sole founder[1])" at the beginning so we know there is a difference of opinion.Rex Iudaeorum (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ footnote goes here
I think it would be better to avoid claiming he is the sole founder when it is a bit stretching the facts according to Larry Sanger's NPOV to even call him the co-founder. Wales did not create Wikipedia and he was busy with other projects including Bomis. Wales was in the background and very hands-off. The only reason he is called the co-founder because he spoke to the media about Wikipedia. He was the public face of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
What has Jimmy Wales done for us? Apart from pay for everything until it became self-sustaining? And hiring Larry Sanger to implement plans? And developing self-governance and bottom-up self-direction by editors? And a lot more? Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Bomis paid for it not Wales. Bomis was founded by Jimmy Wales, Tim Shell, Michael Davis, and Tim Shell. They contributed to paying for Nupedia and Wikipedia. Larry Sanger is also the co-founder of Nupedia. The idea that anyone can edit Wikpedia was not even Wales' idea. Sanger took a blank canvas and created the most critical policies editors continue to cite. Jimmy Wales, Tim Shell, Michael Davis, and Tim Shell lost potential billions for not knowing how to profit from Wikipedia. Wales' idea was to make money from an online encyclopedia. We are here today because Bomis failed to turn a profit and because Sanger created and pushed the policies that made Wikipedia possible. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Well Wales hates women because he founded a mistognist site Bormis. No denying that, but Wales had the whole sticker idea and sought out that Wiki guy Larry? Orvitz to create a pedia anyone can edit (even filthy commoners like Kassianto and 6iano and Fat Eric). For better or worse Jimmy founded this site. Quack man, you are usually on the money fighting pseudo science on this site (even though you associate with misogonist skeptics). But you are wrong here. I remember going to Wikpipedia when i was 10 where i tried but failed to create my first account (in summer 2001) and Jimmy was very hands on then. If only he'd be like that now, we'd have less Framgates and more Gender Gap closing.

signed by the Great Gormidini (watch as I try to make misgotnists and Worm that turned Cabal members disappear from Wikipedia)

The REAL net worth of Jimmy

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Genuine question about Mr. Wales' net worth. How is it possible that he can be cofounder and acting president (since 2004-present) of a top 50 web property in Wikia and have a net worth of just $1m USD? I understand net worth is assets MINUS liabilities/debts, but Mr. Wales has had a lot of successful ventures even if they are non-profits or only modest successes.

Even generic website worth estimators rank top50 Wikia at $2b in valuation with over $250m in potential ad revenue per month: http://www.worthofweb.com/website-value/wikia.com/

Even if he has no stock as a cofounder (extremely doubtful, let's assume though), how can his net assets/worth be around $1m if he's acting president for over 14 years? Are we to assume he also has a negligible salary as well? Again, with all due respect, I'm not here to start any conspiracy theories or anything, I'm just genuinely curious if 1-2 lines in an interview with him is valid to cite even though it seems to contradict common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenSHK (talk • contribs) 04:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Religion in the infobox

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

There have been several RfCs on religion in the infobox:

15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter from the infobox for individuals (living, deceased, and fictional), groups, schools, institutions, and political parties that have no religion, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations.

17 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter for countries, nations, states, regions, etc., all of which were determined to not have religions.

31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

This RfC was a response to certain individuals insisting that the previous RfCs did not apply to their favorite pages (schools, political parties, sports teams, computer operating systems, organized crime gangs...) and had a clear consensus that in all all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the "Religion=" parameter of the infobox.

11 April 2016 RfC: RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes.

In this RfC, there was a clear consensus to remove the "religion=" and "denomination=" parameters from all infoboxes, not just the ones that call atheism/agnosticism a religion.

There have been four RfCs on this, and all four showed the same overwhelming consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It's unbelievable, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. It is unbelievable that it took four RfCs (and a bunch of blocks for editors not willing to accept the consensus) to finally get certain editors to stop putting "religion = atheist" in the infobox. In an amazing coincidence, the argument "Atheism is just another religion! You need to have faith to not believe in God!!" is an extremely popular argument among fundamentalist Christians, and is vigorously denied by multiple annoyed atheists.[3][4] We don't call people names created by their enemies that they deny. We don't call abortion opponents "anti-choice". We don't call those who oppose them "anti-life". And we don't call atheism a religion.
The addition of "religion = None (atheist)" was 10 March 2017 by Captain Cornwall. Please don't do that. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, we all know that Wikipedia is the only true faith. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
In all fairness not everyone knows about these RfCs, they're not common knowledge and not widely available. If an infobox has a parameter and we don't want a particular value to be used for that parameter then it should be noted in the notes and guidelines for that infobox. This has obviously been a large enough problem to have all these RfCs so lets get the notes in the infobox pages so people at least have a chance of knowing not to do this. Canterbury Tail talk 11:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Template:Infobox person already has the following instruction at the top...
...and the "religion=" entry has already been removed. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
But not child infoboxes like Template:Infobox officeholder which actually has a lot of description on how to use the Religion parameter. All I'm saying is don't have a go at users for using a parameter the templates support. And as a result that parameter is being used on many world leader's articles (Tony Blair, John Major for example.) Canterbury Tail talk 18:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Married in 2000 or not?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Infobox about Mr. Wales states he has been married to Christina Rohan until 1998.

In the section Career of the article, there is a picture showing the workers from Bomis in the year 2000. The description about the picture says, Wales is shown with this then-wife. How could Christine Rohan his wife in 2000, if he was married to her until 1998? Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

New worth

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

10 million?[5] QuackGuru (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

That source doesn't seem wholly reliable. However, in an interview with the guardian[1], Wales stated:

Q:In a New York Times profile of you last year, there was a suggestion that it might be nice for you to do something that you actually get paid for.

A: Well, that was the weirdest piece I've ever read. It was false on multiple points.

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/07/jimmy-wales-wikipedia-interview

In sum, he states that there were inaccuracies about the NYT piece; and he doesn't confirm or deny if his net worth is 1 million USD. It is worth taking a look at though - I can't find any good sources one way or the other. --‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

He does not confirm his net worth because he is probably worth a lot more. QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Happy 51th Birthday, Jimmy Wales

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You're now 51 years old now. --Eloc08 (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Reward from within, instead of paid from outside

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
 
Shields up!

The solution to paid operatives is some kind of incentive reward system whereby editors can receive bitcoin micropayments on a the basis of merit, rather than external sources of income on the basis of promotion. Jimmy they are coming for us, like they are coming for every single other major internet platform. Lets set up the appropriate defenses now.

Jimmy (or some other initial small subset) could pass some bitcoin to whoever they trust for doing meritable work at their leisure. Then that editor can move some coin to another editor they think deserves a reward. And so forth, all publicly verifiable. See how good that would be? We could set upper limits or other transfer constraints if needed. Its not paid work because there is no agreement. Just incentive and reward, a tip or a gift, if you like. If a micropayment is not deserved we will work out a solution. They might loose trust and the system will punish, for example. The system will generate trust consensus. It will be self-reinforcing. With this we can also destroy our backlogs. We need the extra motivation to do the hard work now and to get it done sooner. There are lots of benefits. Think of it as taking WikiLove messages to the next level. We could create bounties, pools for prizes that jackpot for difficult tasks, other groovy competitions, bonus rewards, leaderboards and whole host of incentives to encourage existing editors and to bring in new editors who want to be part. Think of the buzz this would create. This way, we control the gifting economy rather than external forces by marketing and promotion. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice how the Village pump discussion has been misconstrued as paid editing, shut down and the problem forgotten without being mentioned? Not addressing this is like Youtube doing nothing about pornography. That problem, like the political propaganda and paid operatives here, would not just work itself out, it would only get worse. I predict my solution would fix this and make a whole lot of others things better around here. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Go for it Jimmy. I will support you from the paid operatives who are against protecting Wikipedia in this manner. Trust me, on this, please. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

What I have suggested is Web 3.0, not digital restrictions management promoter Tim Berners-Lee suggests is the Semantic Web. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Lede

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"Wikipedia, the online non-profit encyclopedia" Is it really necessary to state that in the lede? NoMoreHeroes (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. This thing is not compiled for wikipedia contributors. It is compiled for intelligent and inquisitive folks many of whom (think they) have better things to do than actually write stuff here. Some of them hadn't heard of wikipedia till google landed them on one of its pages. And for the anglophones among us there is the particular challenge that many readers of English-language wikipedia don't have English as a mother-tongue and don't share your (or my) cultural assumptions. Like "everyone knows what Wikipedia is". You need to try and get enough in the lede to make sure (as painlessly as possible) that those guys "hit the rest of the article running". Success Charles01 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

2008

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Did Wales lose control over Wikipedia after 2008?--Saramag (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is still a member of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation, and still has certain rights as the founder of Wikipedia. He is also the most prominent spokesperson for the project. And it has been a collaborative project since the beginning. So, are you referring to any specific event in 2008? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Talk:History of Wikipedia#Jimmy Wales. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is this only a B-Class Article?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Seriously, he's the founder of this site. Why is his article not one of the best? I'm so confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMitochondriaBoi (talk • contribs) 17:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe because he is only the co-founder? Not really sure. --Malerooster (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:ASSESS. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe all the dumb jokes about him. ThePRoGaMErGD (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Internet's only non-billionaire

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What about Larry Sanger? QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no way to verify whether Sanger is a billionaire, given the confidential nature of his royalties agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation. MW131tester (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' voice in infobox

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The file is 9 seconds long and he said "Hello, my name is Jimmy Wales. I was born in Huntsville, Alabama, in the United States and I have been founder of Wikipedia since 2001." Should this be removed because, if such free file exist, the editors wouldn't want to include it in infobox about other founders? Also the file is redundant because all information in the file already exist in the lead. Hddty. (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about free files and stuff... but I don't think the file is redundant; it's not supposed to say information per se, but to convey what his voice sounds like. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Suggest updating contact information. If Jimmy is such a large proponent of freedom of speech why does he lock certain pages from being edited? Either freedom of speech is truly free or it is not. Removal of certain material and/or entire articles should be allowed. For instance Donald J. Trump's link in locked because apparently people have "vandalized" it. Wikipedia is supposed to be open source is not private property (unless of course they want to provide information that it is actually protected under copyright i.e. software). 2605:6001:EB4D:1200:B00F:910E:72E2:58DC (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any contact information. You may be getting the article about him confused with his userpage. Article talk pages are supposed to be used for discussing improvements to the article - the rest of your statement is not about that.-- 5 albert square (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Politics?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

His political position is variously described as being a supporter of Ayn Rand, "libertarian", "centre right", being a supporter of the Democratic Party of the USA, being a supporter of the British Labour Party (though he has attacked Jeremy Corbyn), and being sympathetic to the Occupy movement. Can we clarify this? Has he changed his opinions? Does he have a very individual point of view? Are these descriptions just wrong? Or is there a clearer way to explain this?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit-restricted

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is literally Wikipedia’s founder’s article. This should be highly protected. E Super Maker (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion but pages are protected when needed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It's semi protected but there is no need for full protection Dq209 (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could the link to Wikia in the article lead (and wherever else it is mentioned) be changed to link to Fandom? According to the article, Wikia was rebranded in 2016, which was 4 years ago.
5225C (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"Jumbo Wales" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jumbo Wales. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"Jirnbo Wales" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jirnbo Wales. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

World Book Stickers?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the Early Life section, it says that World Book sent out stickers for owners to update their encyclopedias. The citation links here. But aside from this Wikipedia article and the cited article, I can't find any references to this on the web, nor any pictures of these World Book Stickers. Can someone give me a link to a picture of some World Book stickers, or some web-page on the topic (for more evidence that this is actually true)? --LiamM32 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is a Knowledge Engineer

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jimmy Wales is a knowledge engineer.

Let us find some sources. Then we can update this Wikipedia page accordingly.

Best wishes,

184.22.202.253 (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Passionate chef?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all, should this be added to the article? He said in an interview it is a shame the article doesn't mention he enjoys cooking. Garfield, Simon (2020-10-20). "What We Know And Can Agree On: Wikipedia At 20". Esquire. Retrieved 2020-10-31. (not totally sure how relevant it is, but since he was talking explicitly about it, I figured I would put here to let others know) Footlessmouse (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Footlessmouse: Added it to the article. X-Editor (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Passionate in the kitchen?? He loves "hugs and quiches." Allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Jimbo Whales" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jimbo Whales. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 2#Jimbo Whales until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Anarchyte (talk • work) 05:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

It is sad that it has come to one of the co-founders of Wikipedia (Larry Sanger) having to start a competing service (Encyclosphere) because of the abandonment of NPOV by Wikipedia. If anything should be a wake-up call for Wikipedia, it should be this. -108.48.52.228 (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Larry Sanger has been consistently wrong about Wikipedia for 19 years, and has repeatedly tried to start competing encyclopedias, failing each time. There is nothing new or worthwhile about his latest comments. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. See also his blog post on the bias of Wikipedia. We need to return to NPOV. Wilh3lmGo here to trout me if I do a stupid 12:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
We never left, so we can not return. Wikipedia is currently less biased than that Sanger came up with, because we are not indiscriminately using sources. Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Change of cause of death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I urge you to kindly change the cause of death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput based on updated and authentic references dated 30th December 2020 . The CBI themselves said that they are still investigating the case. Raj jadhav2000 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't normally get involved in routine editing discussion. Please ask your question at the article Talk page, or indeed be WP:BOLD and make the changes yourself citing reliable sources, WP:RS thanks. -Roxy . wooF 11:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes ago the cause of death was mentioned as "Under Investigation" but changed to "Suicide by hanging" since the case is still under investigation so request you to change the cause of death to "Under Investigation". Ashish Bohra SSRian (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote ? -Roxy . wooF 21:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you guide me how to ask that question to him directly or the editing team? Ashish Bohra SSRian (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you understand the words "Jimbo doesn't normally get involved in routine editing discussion."? That means that he would not be expected to comment on questions like this. To talk to "the editing team", if you mean the people who edit the article you are talking about, go to the Talk page for that article. -Roxy . wooF 23:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"Adult" content - WP:EUPHEMISM?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm aware this has been discussed many moons ago (most recently in 2011, to be specific), but a lot of time has passed since then. I don't really see any encyclopaedic reason to want to avoid language that might be perceived as risqué (such as "pornographic" or "erotic"), at the expense of clarity. "Adult" can mean any number of things in any number of contexts, and as an encyclopedia we probably want to be blunt and call a spade a spade rather than rely on obfuscatory euphemisms like "adult" (see WP:EUPHEMISM); as the article on Bomis describes, the type of "adult" content we're talking about here is pornographic images. So, anyone opposed to changing it? "Pornographic" is probably the most blunt, but I wouldn't be opposed to "erotic" either I suppose as it's arguably more specific to the content Bomis served. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It's because porn has an entirely different meaning now and it would be extremely misleading to describe the material as porn. Using erotic is an affected way of saying porn. There is no euphemism involved. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Regarding "consult a dictionary", I think suitable only for adults (used euphemistically to refer to a sexually explicit film, book, or magazine) is probably accurate and supportive of my point. I also don't think anything but "adult" would be misleading, the article on Bomis describes it variously as "X-rated", "erotic", "adult", and "softcore pornography" (and even just "pornographic" once), but most commonly as either erotic or softcore pornography. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


Critic of alternative medicine??

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I just came across Mr. Wales' name listed under Category:Critics of alternative medicine. I had never heard his name referenced in that regard, so I decided to have a look at his article. To my surprise, I was unable to find anything in the article that would lend any support to that description. So I am going to remove that category from the article; if the editor who added it (or anyone else) can provide confirmation, feel free to add it back. Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anomalous+0: He is a critic of alternative medicine [6]. X-Editor (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@X-Editor and Anomalous+0: I'm a little late to the party, but this is still confusing: Why is the article categorized as such, but nothing in the prose explains it? I think this should be added to the article, or the category removed. Not sure it fits the article scope, and since this is such a potentially high-profile article I'd like to get some feedback first. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
So is Uncle Fester. Too few See also lines anyway... Coda Sapiens (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Salary

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I think his salary should be on this page, just curious since this website seems too ready to ask for donations every 10 minutes then. 75.166.191.5 (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Find a good source and add it then? CT55555 (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
$0 (self-reported but apparently undisputed) --mfb (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Need Bangla Translation.

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Need Bangla Translation. তাহসিন আহমেদ আমির (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

If you speak Bengali, you can translate it bhai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.22.25 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Wales/Archive_14&oldid=1186148565"