Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The sound file

I'm not saying that I could do it better, but the sound file in this article is of poor quality. I think it should be removed. --Candide, or Optimism 06:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How Good Looking is Jimbo

On a scale of 1-10, 1 being really ugly 10 being really attractive, what would you give give ol' Jimmy.

• 7 Jimster 260 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• 8 Canadianshoper 01:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• 6 HighInBC 23:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• -2 Dfrg.msc 07:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

hey there, I created the infobox yesterday,, umm I don't think there's enough info there. maybe someone who know's him better can add some more info to make a nicer box I guess.. thanks --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 13:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The Gadget Show

The Gadget Show a Five (TV) television program today showed a feature on wikipedia. In that program they vandalised this page and possible also Larry Sanger. Apparently it took 40 minuites for the first edit to be reverted, then 20min and their final edit was reverted in 20 seconds. I did not see the program myself so I can't give further info. --Salix alba (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"few means"

I'd like to call attention to the description of Jim's family as having "few means," in the Life Before Wikipedia section. I believe this phrasing is unusual (with "simple means," and "modest means," being much more common) and inaccurate (in the sense that few is not specific) and could be replaced with something both accurate and NPOV (few implies that more is normal, when his family may have been economically average in some respects). Possibly no reference is needed to his family's socioeconomic status, though that would seem the be removing information from the text. It is also possible "few means," is meant to suggest few means of income, rather then economic status, in which case given the description of his parent's occupations, it is redundant.

Copied from my talk

--Light current 20:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I saw that you made some positive and useful edits to my bio, thanks. One thing that has bugged me for a long time is that "few means" comment... you left it in, now attributing it (loosely) to me, but I would never say such a thing.--Jimbo Wales 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you did not say it, it shall be removed!--Light current 20:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

--Light current 20:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same Jimmy Wales

http://www.dnr.ohio.gov/enews/resource0206/default.htm

Apparently there is a Jimmy Wales from Ohio - the Ohio Department of Natural Resources - who works in Real Estate and Groundskeeping. —Chantessy 16:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Our Jimmy is a busy chap and lives in Florida, so it's probably not the same guy who's keeping Ohio looking good. Pcb21 Pete 09:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Self-editing?

Has Jimbo Wales ever made any edits to this article himself? — SteveRwanda 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I see from your talk page that people are forever asking about your experiences in Rwanda. I am sure I will be another trotting along for advice myself soon enough having got the go-ahead from the wife to take our next holiday there (had to sweeten her up with the promise of a few gorilla permits, boy they are expensive :) ). Anyway to your question. Yes Jimbo has made a few edits to this article. He also got a bit of kicking for it from a few elements of the media - if you care to read the long archives of this very talk page you will see the criticisms were largely unjust but Jimbo seemed to take it on the chin and I believe from what he's said on the mailing list and elsewhere that he regrets the action even given the circumstances. I for one would be very surprised if he does it again, but you never now. See you in Kigali! Pcb21 Pete 22:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, he has. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this edit. Hessam 14:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Education

I changed the "home-schooling" and added "taught at home", which makes more sense to Europeans. andreasegde 21:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor Verification Issue

'Wales spent many hours poring over the World Book Encyclopedia during this time'; do we have a source for this claim? --Robdurbar 14:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

He didnt deny it when he posted me regarding edits to his article! But Ive changed it to 'reported' now. -Light current 21:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of Jimbo

I know he's handsome, but do we need two pictures if him right near the top of the page?--Light current 23:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd like to see who got rid of the overlord picture. I know Jimbo didn't like it, but it was better than the main one we have now, where a shadowy Jimbo seems to blend into an overly busy background. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 00:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

.;..and another one near the bottom?--Light current 04:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Expand SlimVirgin

Do not remove the tag. The article is pitifully short for such a tall person. 4.249.6.72 17:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are we expanding SlimVirgin? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Because she likes to be everywhere at once. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the expansion tag; if it must be reinserted, please do it on the talk page where it is intended to be used. --Robdurbar 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Pornography

A few editors - some on the peer review - have criticised this article for its lack of content on the supposed pornographic material that was sold through Bomis. A few editors have tried to expand on this recently, but I feel it deserves a little discussion here. To me, the best approach would be to note more clearly that though some describe it as 'pornography', Jimbo rejects this accusation, saying only that 'adult content' was provided through its 'male-orientated' features. I think that's the current point that is attempted with the interview quote, though its a little unclear and can give the impression that we're ducking the issue. --Robdurbar 15:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that pornography is a loaded word which means different things to different people. We can't really answer the question whether the stuff is "really" pornography - all we can report is that it fits some people's definition and not that of others. The article shouldn't duck this "issue" but it shouldn't give undue weight or attention to it either. How much attention is appropriate I have little idea. A bit more than we currently have would be okay but not much more since this is not what Wales is notable for and it's rarely mentioned in the press. A more difficult question is whether it is significant enough to mention in the lead. In any case the lead definitely needs expansion. Haukur 15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in the lead; as you commented, its not what he is notable for. I would propose one or two sentences; I think its enough to say that some (possibly with their own agendas) call it pornogrpahy but that Wales doesn't. In the end, if we tackle the issue, we can avoid the inevtiable accusations of censurship that would come otherwise. --Robdurbar 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Closet case

The same as Bush41 and Bush43 are closet cases, this Jimbo is a certain swishie, gurlie guy, likely on many lists also ....

What does jimbo do with our money

Does jimbo use up our money,what does he do? It would not cost 100,000 dollars a month to run this site...so um im wondering what he does with the money.

[1]. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 07:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Two words: Bling bling. Everyking 07:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that he's constructing an army of dwarfs with which he's going to conquer Djibouti. --Robdurbar 08:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

heh

The " [citation needed] " to the birth dates made my day :). Hilarious! Even funnier, it probably good use a reference :). It is as it always was ^{T | @ | C} 12:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales in Milky Way commercial

I just saw Jimmy Wales in a Milky Way commercial, and he was talking to a candy bar that looked like a tiny woman! Did anyone else see this? He was described as a "buffet of manliness." I like Vike 02:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see that commercial. Maybe you just imagined seeing it. If not, and it is real, be bold and add it to the article. Factitious 09:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sensationalist?

So now any news report that makes Jimbo look bad is sensationalist, even when it comes from a reliable independent media outlet? Can we at least try to stay NPOV about this? He's not going to always get glowing press coverage. -- LGagnon 04:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources again, and I still don't see what the problem is. This isn't a blog we're dealing with; this is a reputable news source with some of the biggest names in journalism writing for it. -- LGagnon 13:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, even if its a rather trivial point. --Robdurbar 19:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Some notes

First, the lead needs expansion. Second, more importantly, there are some bias issues here - the main problem there is that it approaches basically every controversy with a combative, defensive stance, which looks really silly. A good example is the Bomis stuff (again...):

In an interview with Wired, he also explained that he disputed the categorization of Bomis content as "soft-core pornography

First off, it never says who called it soft-core pornography, so its like he's disputing something that doesn't exist... there is a similar problem with the time magazine + homeschooling example, for instance (which not only seems biased but is horribly confusing as well, because it says it was "incorrect" but then goes on to say that while "strictly speaking" it wasn't he was educated by his parents etc.(a better approach IMHO in this and other instances is to simply state what the source said, and then go on to explain/rebut rather than saying it is incorrect before actually doing anything...). Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 22:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Im a bit confused as to your comment on the homeschooling. It seems clear enough to me. He wasnt home schooled but he went to a school that was baisically run by his family (is the impression I get). Even if its worded confusingly I don't see how its bias per se.

I've said before that the porn thing needs tidying a little though. --Robdurbar 22:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Style

I changed a use of "Jimmy" to "Wales" in the early life section. I hope this is OK.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 05:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. RN 22:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Birth date

I put in a reference for his birth, but I'm unsure whether it meets biography guidelines or not. Better one would be appreciated (I scoured the internet for a while for something not looking like a complete copy of the wikipedia article) RN 22:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Objectivist or Roman Catholic?

On the category selection Jimbo is labeled both as an Objectivist and as a Roman Catholic which is technically impossible since the highly atheist philosophy of Objectivism is incompatible with Roman Catholism (and religion in general). So which is he, an Objectivist or a Roman Catholic? The Fading Light 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The ususal dreadful mistake

I made the usual dreadful mistake of reading the bio about me.  :(

• Well, I think everybody has the right to cpmplain about their own bio at wikipedia, who else knows best what is factual incorrect. :-) I will look through them and make changes when needed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

1. "Although Objectivism holds that selfishness is good and altruism is evil, Wales claims that his Wikipedia activities do not serve a selfish end but are for the good of the world ("I am doing this for the child in Africa")." Do we have a source for me claming that my "Wikipedia activities do not serve a selfish end"? No, we do not. That's an interpretation of what it means when I say "I am doing this for the child in Africa"! (For what is it worth, I think it is in my rational self interest to care about what happens to kids in Africa, and far from being destructive of my self-interest, it is beneficial to my self-interest.

2. My alleged date of birth is sourced to a website which clearly just copied the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article about me. Circular. :)

• I agree, I removed it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

3. "To this end, he travels both to conferences and Wikimedia functions (like "Wikimeets" and Wikimania) on the Foundation's travel budget ($25,000 in 2005 [10])" - this makes it sound like I spend $25,000 per year of the foundation's money on travel. Totally untrue.

• Agreed, as I would guess from the normal workings of compagnies and foundations, most is spend on travel of the developers and such who maintain the hard and software. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

4. "The article suggests that Wales attempted to escape the social stigma of having within Bomis "a section with adult photos called 'Bomis Babes.'"" - the article in question says nothing about social stigma.

• Agreed, removed it as it is not notable either in the context. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

5. "He was even once described as "Ayn Rand-obsessed".[22] " - by anyone notable, or a blog?

• Humm, he calls you that, I have changed it to reflect it is a blogger. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

6. The link to Slashdot's publication of Larry's memoir incorrectly attributes the work to Timothy Lord. Timothy Lord is the slashdot editor who posted it. :)

• Has been changed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

7. "though he has acknowledged that there was no causal connection between this suggestion and the creation of Wikipedia." - no, that isn't what I said. There is a big difference between acknowledging that Larry's mention of wikis to me "actually and directly" led to me installing the first wiki software, and "acknowledging" that there was no causal connection at all between Jeremy's suggestion. Jeremy suggested it first, then my daughter wa born and I was busy with that, and when I got back Larry suggested it, and I set up the wiki. There is more to the story than that, but I am just making light editorial comments today, and have no desire to see this edit linked to as even more original research in the article. --Jimbo Wales 21:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• At the last point, this was the most ambigious source I ever saw, it could mean so many things. Hence, I have removed it as the only way to include it is by original interpretation, which as far as I am concerned is a violation of WP:NOR. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, this is the same old misunderstanding of objectivism. There's no contradiction between being an objectivist and doing things for children in Africa (not that I'm an objectivist by any means). Haukur 22:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

1. "Reporters are always asking me why I�m doing this ... I'm doing this for the child in Africa" is as plain as could be. You did not say "I'm doing this out of rational self-interest", you said you're doing this for the child in Africa. Or were you just pretending to be noble and selfless in order to get donations? If you were acting out of self-interest, then the correct answer to "why I'm doing this" would have been "for myself".

This sentence is interpretation, and as such, original research. Self-interest and altruism are a funcky intertwined couple, and in nature, nothing is done out of althruism, everything has in the end a selfish purpose. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not interpretation. If anything, your last statement is OR and POV. Outside of Randist circles, most people can and do differentiate between selfish (egoistic) and selfless (altruistic) actions, and they will take "I'm doing this for the child in Africa" as a claim of the latter. And it is a notable contradiction to his Randism, which glorifies selfishness. Beyond that, everyone can make the necessary interpretations for themselves. I'm not proposing to put into the article the conclusion that he was making ridiculous claims to get donations. Kasuro 16:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You make guesses about this motivations based on a single statement, which is original research, and it should not be included in the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No I don't. I'm simply citing his own quote and putting it in context. Where is the "guess"? Either his primary motive is to help the child in Africa (as he made people believe in his donation appeal), or it is to further his own selfish ends (as any Objectivist would; other people may sometimes benefit ancillarily from one's selfish action, but that benefit wouldn't be one's primary motive). You can't talk this obvious contradiction away. Kasuro 17:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be or the one, or the other? That is where you interpret. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Because, you know, A is A and not B. Altruism and selfishness are two different things. Jimbo doesn't want to renounce his Objectivism but then he claims altruism when it suits himself. (The thing about the child in Africa is absurd, anyway. As if the child in Africa has no more important needs than an encyclopaedia. And even if that were so, the child in Africa doesn't have a computer so it would need a paper version - what exactly is Jimbo doing to bring that about?) Kasuro 22:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Altruism and selfishness are two different things, maybe for you, not for me. Please see this site for some biological explanations why altruism is in fact a form of selfishness.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

They are plainly different for most people. If your primary motive is helping the child in Africa (i.e. even if no third party would know about it!), it's altruism. If your primary motive is gaining a reputation as a great benefactor, and you do that by helping the child in Africa (or just pretending to do so, like Jimbo who is of course actually not doing anything for the child in Africa), it's selfishness. Kasuro 17:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And how are you going to distinguish between the two? Did he ever talk about his primary motivation? And what about other possible motivations? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes he did, in the very quote you keep removing. It was an answer to the question that reporters supposedly "always ask him" - why he's doing what he's doing? Clearly that's asking for his primary motivation. And he says, "I'm doing this for the child in Africa." If that were just a secondary motivation, his answer would have been dishonest. Kasuro 18:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on that, and so seem others. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You disagree with what exactly and why? Others are welcome to discuss the issue too, but so far no one has. Kasuro 02:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

3. If it's "totally untrue" that you spent $25,000 of Foundation money for travel in 2005, how is that budget used then? Sure, part of it may be used by Angela and Anthere, but there can be no doubt that you do most of the traveling. Kasuro 00:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There are more people in the foundation that Jimbo, so they can spend part of that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I just said that above. I also said that Jimbo as dictator is no doubt spending the lion's share of it, and quite possibly the tiger's share as well. It's Jimbo who's holding those speeches everywhere, not so much Angela or Anthere, to say nothing about Jimbo's business buddies Tim and Michael who are just on the foundation as proxy voters for Jimbo (they sure aren't noticeable on the wiki). Kasuro 16:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You have no data to show who is using which part of the travel budget, so what you write is interpretation. Besides that, caling someone a dictator is not civil, and highly inappropriate. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim in the article that he's using all of the budget, I'm just saying what the budget is, which is relevant since it's reasonable to assume he's using most of it and it gives some rough idea as to the extent of his traveling. And if Jimbo isn't a dictator, what is he - a democrat? When exactly was he elected to his position? Kasuro 17:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to assume that, that is what YOU assume. Secondly, he is the founder of a foundation, and foundations like compagies are not democratic, nor dictatorial. Or is every CEO a dictator as well? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to assume. After all he's the chief (if you don't like "dictator"). His numerous travels can easily be documented. Who else travels nearly as much? This would have to be secret travels. Private companies are controlled by their owners, but Jimbo doesn't call himself the owner of Wikipedia. Foundations normally don't have chairmen-for-life; most have a democratic setup, but Jimbo doesn't trust the community of Wikipedians which he makes everyone believe is in charge. The composition of the Board is a blatant setup to fool the public into thinking there's some collective leadership, while in fact Jimbo permanently controls 3 out of 5 seats after having appointed two business partners who aren't active Wikipedians (but who share his political views). Kasuro 22:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets agree to diagree. I have no problem with how wikipedia is set up, nor do I have a problem with how Jimbo runs the place, nor do I have the feeling to live under a situation I would prefer not to live under. However, I do look at facts, and the facts do not support what you try to claim. If you have a source that makes clear how much he spends on travel each year, it can be added, but I disagree with how you want to force it into the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The facts do support what I put in the article, namely that the travel budget in 2005 was $25,000. And I disagree with how you want to force it out of the article. So how do you propose we solve that dilemma? Kasuro 17:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The facts support that the foundation spends that money. This is the article about Jimmy Wales, so I suggest you add it to the article about the foundation as it is not related to him. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, in case you forgot, is the chairman of the foundation, so it's absurd to say it is not related to him. Kasuro 18:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It related partially to him, as we have no way in knowing which part of that money is spend by him or by others. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Partially is good enough. It gives a maximum and lets anyone make reasonable estimates. Kasuro 02:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

2 - Yea, as per my comment above I scoured the net for an hour or so looking for something as unrelated as possible to the WP article - that was it. Looks like it could just be another copy though. Circular indeed :) RN 00:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed, there is no need to wait for consensus when things are clearly incorrect. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Kim asked me to comment here about the budget issue. I agree it's not relevant. This article needs to stick very closely to the three content policies, because its the biography of a living person. In particular, it shouldn't include any novel synthesis of information intended to advance a position (see WP:NOR), but quite a few sentences in this article do exactly that, and the budget thing is an example. We should only report what reliable sources have published; nothing more. We shouldn't be adding our own views, or things we think we've picked up on Wikipedia. The page would actually benefit from a fairly comprehensive rewrite, but I hesitate to get stuck in, for obvious reasons. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the budget thing is plain fact. Leaving anything out that you think might reflect bad on him is POV on your side. The Foundation site is a reliable source for the Foundation budget. Kasuro 22:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The interview being used as a source about his travel being mostly financed by conferences doesn't seem to exist any more [2] so I'm going to remove the reference to money entirely, until it can be re-sourced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Page might have been moved to here]. However, I think that the whole who finances which travel is notable by itself, so as far as I am cioncerned, leave it out. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the link, Kim. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. It seems not to cover the claim btw. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

There are quite a few quotes in here without citations. Could people please be sure to add a citation after everything in quotation marks? Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the size of the Foundation travel budget, because it smacked of original research. I've also tried to copy edit a little, although I found it very difficult to get any kind of narrative flow going with all these citation templates. Just a note about punctuation: footnotes come after punctuation, not before it; so not like this , but like this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It smacked of original research? How is going to the foundation site and looking up the budget original research? Kasuro 22:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kasuro, our no original research policy says we're not allowed to put facts together in a way that appears to advance an argument or point of view that has not been published. Your synthesis of (a) "he travels to speak about Wikipedia," and (b) "the Foundation's travel budget is X" suggested (c) "he spends X amount of the Foundation's money on travel," when in fact we have no reason to believe that. If you want to publish that synthesis, you'll have to find a source saying "Wales spends X amount on travel and it comes from the Foundation," or a source saying "He travels a lot, and the Foundation's travel budget is X." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't advance any POV. I don't claim that he spends X amount. I cite the total travel budget and leave it to the reader to estimate what share of that total budget Jimbo, the boss, uses. At the very least, it gives a maximum: it shows he didn't use any more than $25,000 of Foundation money on travel in 2005. That is a useful information and no original research at all. Kasuro 23:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It gives a certain impression, which may be false. Someone else may have written about this, in which case we can use that publication as a source. I can't see anything about travel in the interview that was linked to. [3] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

People can get false impressions from anything. If it's factual and relevant, which I maintain it is, it should stay in. Kasuro 00:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree on that. And as far as I am concerned, we should try to avoid that as much as possible here at wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you might as well blank all articles. Kasuro 17:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholics category

I'm removing Category:Roman Catholics because it is not supported by the article text, which contravenes WP:BLP. Alan Pascoe 13:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?

PhilWelch reverted an addition I made by saying "consensus is clearly against your edits" even though no one had yet commented about it. Or does he mean the consensus of reverts by him and KimvdLinde? I don't think consensus is supposed be established by one set of editors outreverting another. Please state your objections here before reverting again. Kasuro 18:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The objections to some of your edits (i.e. your misinformed blather about Objectivism) have already been stated here. If you revert again you will be in violation of 3RR. — Philwelch t 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

But you reverted entirely different edits. And as to the earlier ones, I have replied to the objections and I don't see a consensus since far too few people have participated in the discussion to make such a determination. And calling something "misinformed blather" is not exactly a valid objection either. Kasuro 19:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of information is based on consensus, and as far as I can tell, at least three people disagree with your earlier insertions. On the later, that is two. So, I can not call that consensus for inclusion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, anyone can add information without getting a prior consensus; if you want to remove it, the burden is on you to explain yourself. Tag-team reverting alone doesn't cut it. Kasuro 20:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral reverting doesn't cut it either. The least you can do is try to compromise instead of just reverting back to your version. — Philwelch t 00:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not just reverting, I'm discussing here, unlike you. And how can you say "The least you can do is try to compromise instead of just reverting back to your version" right after you just did the latter? Please also note that "rollback" is to be used only for reverting vandalism. Kasuro 02:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like repeating myself. In any case, I was hoping to see that you'd decided to compromise and only re-implement *some* of your changes. If so, I was willing to let you go or be selective about it. But you demonstrated no interest in working towards consensus. If it's all or nothing, well, it's you against everyone else, so that's what you get. — Philwelch t 01:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I do work towards consensus, by discussing it here, to get to the bottom of any disagreement. You have yet to make any constructive post here relating to the substance of the dispute. You have only reverted, and supported this by nothing more than calling my edits "questionable" and "misinformed blather". That is not good enough. Kasuro 02:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a tip then: try making compromise edits that add in some things you feel you can defend easier while leaving out parts that most people are clearly against. — Philwelch t 02:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I can defend all my edits. I don't know what most people are for or against, since few have commented so far. Just because it may be three against one doesn't mean the three can force their way simply by saying "we're against this". This is not a numbers game. Kasuro 01:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, it does mean the three can force their way simply by saying "we're against this", especially if you won't try to come to a compromise. — Philwelch t 05:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that because you say so, or can you show me a policy that backs this up? I don't have to compromise with someone who refuses to discuss. Counting numbers is only applicable for stylistic or otherwise intrinsically subjective matters, but anything else will have to be discussed, and then only arguments count. Kasuro 02:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that even with a consensus, you can not insert incorrect information or speculation into the article. Consensus is not trumping policy, especially policies as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ISNOT are not negotiable at the article level. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions

Recent additions that need to be removed and why:

• and so did the Wikipedia community added after While Larry Sanger referred to himself as the co-founder of Wikipedia as early as January 2002, is unsourced.

  Just look at the article history. After Jimbo dropped his initial opposition to having an article about him (September 9, 2004), on that very day the article said that he "is an Internet entrepreneur, most famous for his founding, with Larry Sanger, of Wikipedia ... Wales became famous after he co-founded Wikipedia in January 15, 2001".[4] This stood unchallenged until March 28, 2005, so it was surely the community view. In 2005 Jimbo himself edited the article and of course no one dared to revert him, until this was reported on in the press, when he backpedalled; the article then settled on describing him as "an original creator", implying he was not the only one. Kasuro 20:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  So, if there was incorrect information in the original article, it is now proof of that it was true? This is a circular issue, and therefore we need external sources to proof it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  It is proof of what the community view was at the time, which is what we're talking about. There's no objective truth about it anyway, it's a semantic question. Kasuro 02:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  That is your interpretation. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  What is yours then, considering that dozens of users edited the article in over six months, and all the time it said Jimbo was co-founder? Kasuro 02:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

They propably did not know it was incorrect. The issue is simple, you need a external source to back this up. Without that, it is not acceptable for inclusion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• To add, based on your own words: "and of course no one dared to revert him", it can not be implied that the community, who does not dare to revert him, endorses what it does not dare to revert. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  No idea what you're saying here. The view of the community is evident from its original edits to the article before Jimbo started his self-aggrandizement as "sole founder". Kasuro 02:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that your own words where pretty clear. The view of the community is not clear, it could be just something that they had incorrect (No, wikipedia is not error free), missed to notice, or whatever. As I mentioned above, you need an external source. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about an objective truth (which doesn't exist here anyway, there isn't really any dispute about who did what in 2001, just about what constitutes "founding"), we're talking about what the community view was, it doesn't matter if you think the community view was "incorrect". I don't need an external source, this is a fact related to Wikipedia itself, so Wikipedia is a valid primary source. Kasuro 02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Foundation's travel budget was $25,000 in 2005; it is not known how much of this total was used by Wales himself. Budget is foundation issue, not for this page. Second part just plain ambigious. See also discussion above.

  Indeed, see above. Jimbo is head of the foundation. What's ambiguous about the second part? The reader can estimate for himself how much of the total may be used by the highly-visible chairman as opposed to the other, comparatively obscure Board members. Kasuro 20:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Support this point. --Robdurbar 22:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• The following text was based on this source http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-August/003916.html
  • Wales' style of leadership has been criticized as secretive and cabalistic. Not supported by e-mail.

    Which part of "forming secret clubs, deceiving people about your intentions" do you not understand? Kasuro 20:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    • • The quote is about the board, not about Wales. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• • The Wikimedia Foundation's chief research officer, Erik Möller, resigned in August 2005 because of a "breakdown of trust" between him and members of the Board, which he ascribed to "the fact that I *do* operate openly, document what I do, and enter discussions -- and when I enter discussions, refuse to just accept that someone else is correct based on their position in the food chain or the volume of their voice. It is easy to avoid controversy by operating in the dark, forming secret clubs, deceiving people about your intentions, and sucking up to the ones above you." Quote is correct, but points to the members of the Board, unclear what Jimbo's role in this is, and obvious not the right article to place that information. Furthermore, read the follow up messages to that e-mail, they shred some additional light on the issue.

    Jimbo is head of the Board and obviously responsible for the atmosphere. Do you think Möller would have resigned if he got along with Jimbo and just had some issues with one or two minor Board members? Also the second quote shows he had issues with Jimbo specifically. Kasuro 20:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    I do not speculate, I look for facts. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    So do I. The question was rhetorical, there's nothing to speculate about it. Kasuro 02:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    • • • • Well, maybe give your argument different than in a retorical question. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Möller further said: "As for me and Jimmy, I feel that the project can only tolerate one person with an ego the size of a planet, and he was there first. ;-) The truth is that Jimmy has put his life into this project, and the main thing he expects in return is recognition and the continued leading influence over its direction. I know that he has often perceived me as a major threat to this goal, as someone who might try to undermine or replace him, and this, too, has made cooperation sometimes difficult." This quote is correct, and might be valid to add.

    Why did you remove it then? Kasuro 20:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    Because it was embedded in the massive non-acceptable questionable information. Try this, just insert those edits that are supported here, and bring them as NPOV as possible. It will do wonders. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

    Non-acceptable and questionable to you. You don't have a veto on other people's edits. Try this, just remove edits as long as you can defend that removal here. Kasuro 02:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• The following is based on this source: http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales
  • A major website critical of Wikipedia, Wikitruth: Major website is unsourced, maybe get alexa traffic data to back this up?.

    Not "major website" per se, but "major website critical of Wikipedia" (or do you know many more-significant Wikipedia-critical websites?). If you think it's not clear enough, reword it, don't remove it. Kasuro 20:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    • • See below. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikitruth, says: "Jimbo does not issue commands. He likes to pretend he's leading, not coercing. ... So Jimbo likes to 'wonder'. It's wikicode for 'Do it.' ... Jimbo's wonderings can cause enormous conflict. ... He 'wonders' whether you'll consider doing something that he makes clear will be done by fiat if you don't. But in this way, he can convince himself you are not coerced, but are simply following his lead." Sorry, what I read here is speculation, trying to make something that is not bad sound bad by implying all kind of things in his motivation etc, without any source to back this up. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    It's a quote from a notable critical website. That you personally disagree with the content of the quote is irrelevant. Including the quote as a quote doesn't mean endorsing what it says. Kasuro 20:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't support this one... Wikitruth is critical, perhaps, but many of its arguments are based on personal interpretations of comments, heresay and a severe agenda. --Robdurbar 22:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Any criticism is necessarily based on someone's personal interpretation of things. Again, that you disagree with their arguments or what you think they're based on, is not a valid reason not to include the quote. This article should include critical views like any other and not be exempt from NPOV. Kasuro 02:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikitruth does not fullfill WP:RS. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So, I would remove the objectivism bit per talk above; trim the Wikittuth/Moeller bit as giving too much space to a minor pov; keep the foundation budget bit with the note. --Robdurbar 22:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Which part of the talk above exactly? I still don't see what's wrong with it, i.e. how you can reconcile Jimbo's adherence to a philosophy which says altruism is evil and his claim that the reason why he's doing what he's doing is "for the child in Africa". In any case, we can let the reader decide that. I just think the quote about the child in Africa should be included, and it fits best in the context of the paragraph about his Objectivism. Kasuro 02:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that your understanding of Objectivism is rather superficial. It is at best a tangental issue anyhow. � Philwelch t 01:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Then explain where I'm wrong; empty ad hominems are not helpful. And what issue is tangential to what exactly? Kasuro 02:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in schooling you in the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and hardly consider myself qualified to--suffice it to say that under Objectivism, Jimbo can rationally value the encyclopedia and its benefits to the child in Africa without being an altruist. — Philwelch t 02:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that is what Jimbo above called his "rational self-interest". But rational self-interest is still self-interest, and then "I'm doing this for the child in Africa" is the wrong answer to the question as to "why he's doing this", because he's doing this for his self-interest, not the child's interest. Kasuro 01:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the basic thing is (and Im over simplifying here) - objectivism states that selfishness is a good thing; that we should thus do things that are in our interest; that claiming to have a goal of helping children in Africa is, for Jimbo, in his self interest as it forwards a certain image of himself and the project. Its like when Gordon Brown increases state pensions every year before a General election; it might appear altruistic but its definitely in his interest to do so. --Robdurbar 08:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That said, I agree with the idea that that quote could be fitted in somewhere. --Robdurbar 08:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Kasuro 01:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what it is at all—that would imply a dishonesty, and Objectivism definitely opposes *pretending* to be altruist for personal gain as much as it opposes genuine altruism. — Philwelch t 18:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has to be one or the other, since his statement is on its face altruist - doing something directly in order to help others, without some ulterior motive to benefit oneself, that's what altruism is. Whether it's more likely for an Objectivist to pretend altruism for personal gain or to have a fit of actual altruism, that's what the reader can decide for himself. Kasuro 01:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't have to be for one or the other. Stop forcing your ignorance on others. — Philwelch t 05:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you have no arguments, just name calling. If it's on its face altruist, it has to be either honest or fake altruism - what else? And if you don't think it's on its face altruist, then I wonder what you think altruism is. According to Wikipedia, it's "the practice of placing others before oneself." That's what he did, by citing the child in Africa as his motive before any selfish reasons. If he weren't placing the child before himself, he couldn't have honestly said "I'm doing this for the child in Africa". Kasuro 02:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That is YOUR POV, and as such does not belong in the article. And I would warn you against continuing to insert this over and over again. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much POV as (perhaps) original research. But it's not a strong case that makes it revertible without discussion IMO. This is the disputed addition: "Although Objectivism holds that selfishness is good and altruism is evil, Wales claims that his Wikipedia activities do not serve a selfish end but are for the good of the world ("I'm doing this for the child in Africa" [5])." What we have here is:

(1) a statement that "Objectivism holds that selfishness is good and altruism is evil". Seems correct to me.

(2) a statement that "Wales claims that his Wikipedia activities do not serve a selfish end but are for the good of the world ("I'm doing this for the child in Africa" [6])." The quote is certainly correct, and sources what comes before it: "for the child in Africa" is not a "selfish end". This is self-evident; if you think it's "interpretation" it might as well be removed; no need to spell out the obvious.

(3) an "Although" which implies some contradiction between (1) and (2). This is the weakest part if this apparent contradiction has not been written about before in a notable source. NOR policy says that we can't write "A and B, therefore C" (even if A and B are well-sourced facts and C follows from elementary logic) if the conclusion C has not been published before.

So how about simply stating the facts: "...adherent of Objectivism, a philosophical system which holds that selfishness is good and altruism is evil..." and then "Wales explained his motivation for his Wikipedia work by saying "I'm doing this for the child in Africa" [7]." Margana 14:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, the Objectivist conception of altruism is significantly different than the everyday conception of altruism most people use. Stating that Objectivism "holds that selfishness is good and altruism is evil" is a gross, gross oversimplification. Objectivism also holds, for instance, that reality is independent from mind, that art is the selective re-creation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value judgments, and that capitalism is the only moral political and economic system. Isolating any one of these beliefs when Objectivism is mentioned only serves to bias and oversimplify the matter, and to give a balanced accounting of Rand's Objectivism in an article about Jimmy Wales is tangental. I think the best thing to do is leave it linked so that the reader can, if interested, read more about Objectivism in the balanced and comprehensive way that our article about the issue presents it. As for the "child in Africa" bit, it's a bit misplaced under "other activities", that should really belong in the article about his founding and running of Wikipedia. — Philwelch t 14:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that "significantly different" conception? It must have escaped Britannica, which describes Rand's philosophy as "elevating the pursuit of self-interest to the role of first principle and scorning such notions as altruism and sacrifice for the common good as liberal delusions and even vices". That is also no doubt the central and most controversial tenet, hence Britannica's entire opening paragraph on Rand says (emphasis mine): "Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism, essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic." Many readers will not be aware of what Objectivism is; a short explanation is in order within the article so that they don't have to follow the link to get the essence of it. Margana 15:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is another place, I think, where Britannica gets it wrong. Do I have a reliable source? Where do you want me to start? I could quote Ayn Rand at you all day, but I don't think it's worth it for such a small point. Let me know when you finished Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and then we can start on the nonfiction, okay? — Philwelch t 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't want to do original research. Britannica is a reliable source, do you have a source of comparable standing which contradicts it? If not, we can conclude that the essence of Objectivism is indeed that it turns traditional ethics upside down. Margana 00:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I can cite numerous summaries by Ayn Rand herself—nonetheless, there is no reason, content-wise or stylistically, to mention that even if it were accurate. — Philwelch t 05:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to add that I studied Ayn Rand quite obsessively back in the day, and even had a large part in writing our article about Objectivist philosophy, so I think I have a very good idea what I'm talking about here. Rand is a lot more simple than her supporters give her credit for IMO, but her ideas are still somewhat complex and very, very easy to misunderstand. Throwing around oversimplifications about what Objectivism "holds" when those opinions only describe a small (albeit controversial) part of Objectivism as a whole only serves to foster these misunderstandings. — Philwelch t 14:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kasuro's definition of altruism is (a) probably not the same as the Objectivist definition of altruism and (b) either way, Kasuro's point of view. Kasuro, you're outnumbered. You can't win a revert war. You need to either give up or try another tactic. — Philwelch t 05:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not start making threats or breaking WP:CIVIL. --Robdurbar 08:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I also find Phil and Kim's tactics here a bit low. For the record, if you want to "outnumber" instead of engage your opponents, count me down on Kasuro's side so we have a balance. Margana 14:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We've stated our arguments multiple times and even cited policy. — Philwelch t 14:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did you do so? Kim engaged Kasuro for a while, then stopped and resorted to bullying tactics like you did from the start. Margana 15:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to engage in a discussion, but in the end, it came down to a repeated argument. The same interpretations were reinserted over and over again, and the suggestion was made that the person objecting should proof it was wrong. This is an unfortunate misinterpretation of policy, in which the insertion of information needs to be sourced, not the removal of unsourced information. Furthermore, personal interpretation (a combination of POV and original reseach as far as I am concerned) does not have a place in wikipedia in general, and specifically not at high level pages like this in particular. As I said somewhere above, it is also not true that consensus at the talk page can overule Wikipedia policies. In the end, this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox on which personal interpretations can be expressed. If editors, after repeated requests not to insert their interpretation continue to do so, and after repeated indications that they can add what is sourced and factual, it should not come as a surprise that patience with the renewed insertion of the same biased info is getting somewhat lower. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you overestimate your own interpretive powers as to what is unsourced/POV/original research/etc.; you take your interpretations in that regard as fact and then claim authority to revert without discussion. It is true, nothing can overrule those policies. But it is not established at all that Kasuro violated them. You're not an infallible authority there, it has to be discussed here on the talk page. Kasuro has contested your accusations of policy violation, and in the end you just asserted "it is YOUR POV". Try to explain how it is POV, what valid alternative POV there could be, etc. Margana 15:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Humm, lets see:

• Unsourced is simple, it does not have a source (a verifiable and reliable source). based on a verifiable and reliable source.
• POV, anything that requires interpretation of motivations based on what people have said, intended, did not say, motivated or what ever. Some of it might be original research. It often comes with constructions like: "The quote is about the board, so J.W. does.....". That is interpretation.
• Original research, I interpret that more as new research into something in which new sources are combined. Maybe part of what I normally interpretated as POV should be interpreted as OR.

I am fully aware that I am not infallible, nobody is, and as you can see, I have agreed on inserting some pieces after new arguments were brought forward. I have repeatedly done what you suggested, given examples that it could be interpret differently. Despite that, the exact same quotes, for which by then were at least two interpretations, were inserted again with one single interpretation.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced is not that simple. What is a reliable source? Do you need another reliable source saying the first source is reliable? At some point you need to make interpretations. The same goes for the facts themselves. You have to draw elementary conclusions sometimes. For example, words can have different meanings, but you can often conclude safely enough which is meant, you don't have to stick to the source's exact wording just to be sure you are not "interpreting". That the quote about the board necessarily implicates J.W., its head, is such a case where you seem to be splitting hairs. Original research should be avoided, but that's easy to do by just stating the facts; if a conclusion is obvious it doesn't have to be stated, but everyone should be allowed to make it for himself. I tried that with the Objectivism/"child in Africa" thing (before Phil sabotaged it): mention that he is an Objectivist, noting the essence of that philosophy, and then give his "child in Africa" quote without further comment. Those who would see a contradiction in the two, will see it; those who don't, won't (and can have no reason to object, unless they in reality see the contradiction themselves but for their own POV reasons don't want others to see it). Margana 01:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced is simple, it is a black and white thing, there is a source or there is not, and several issues where about that. Reliable sources are less simple, especially when opinions come in play. and there can be some discussion about that. However, partisan sources are generally not reliable, just as most blogs, tabloids, gossip magazines, etc. Personally, I like how the WP:RS page is dealing with it, and that is roughly how I deal with it in daily life. I agree with you, that you do not have to stick to the original wording of a quote. However, to use your example in which I split hairs, the board quote and the interpretation that it thus J.W. "style of leadership has been criticized as secretive and cabalistic", is just not true at all. The quote "It is easy to avoid controversy by operating in the dark, forming secret clubs, deceiving people about your intentions, and sucking up to the ones above you" could easily fit the rest of the board who, by doing this, try to gain some power, which is a perfect alternative interpretation of the quote. I am not saying that it is true, but to interpret that as that Jimbo is doing that is overinterpretation as far as I am concerned based on the argument that I just gave. The africa issue could indeed be nicely dealt with the way you decribe. It is a far more neutral way of describing it that how Kusaro wanted to introduce it. However, I do think that such a fundamental concept needs to be described carefully. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Blogs etc. are reliable sources about what they themselves say. Explicitly quoting Wikitruth is OK; putting that criticism in the article without quotes and just footnoting it to Wikitruth would be a different thing. We'll have to disagree about the board quote; your alternative view doesn't seem at all credible to me. Is Jimbo not in any case responsible for what goes on at the board under his direction? If we had an analogous quote about the current British government, we'd put it in the Tony Blair article, not in Government of the United Kingdom. The sentence preceding the quote could be modified, but the quote itself is relevant. If you agree on the Africa issue, I'll try to put this in again. Margana 18:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, blogs and websites as wikitruth are not reliable sources. For blogs see WP:RS#Reliability. For Wikitruth, see WP:RS#Partisan websites. About the board quote, what you say is that if someone on a board does something wrong, the chair is responsible? No, people are themselves responsible, otherwise it would be a good deal. I can do something wrong, get rich by fraude or so and the chair has to go to jail. Sorry, you analogy goes wrong, becasue that should indeed not go on Tony Blair's page, nor is Tony Blair responsible for that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything is a reliable source about what itself says. No one proposes to use Wikitruth as a reliable source for anything else. The chair of a board is not responsible for isolated misdeeds, but certainly for prolonged states of discord. If Blair's government was accused of such conditions ("operating in the dark, forming secret clubs, deceiving people about your intentions, and sucking up to the ones above you") it would imply that Blair was either unwilling or incapable to rectify this. Margana 13:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, for example, a website made to distort the truth is never a reliable source, regardless. And I strongly disagree that "either unwilling or incapable to rectify this", it could also mean that he just does not know (and I have seen this from close by in a different context, where the chair had no clue untill the shit hit the fan). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even "a website made to distort the truth" is a reliable source for what that website says. If website X says "1+1=3", you can't put in the article "1+1=3 (source: X)", but you can write "Website X says '1+1=3'". And the possibility of a leader "just not knowing" what's going on in his direct surroundings is equally telling about him; the buck stops with him either way. Margana 18:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, such statements, even when written as "Website X says '1+1=3'" do not have a place in an encyclopedia, not even to debunk that the website is wrong, unless and only when a substantial percentage of the population things that it is true (e.g. >40 of the US population that evolution is bogus). That the buck stops with someone is one thing, that does not equate to that he is the cause and that his leadship is secretive. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Are you not familiar with all the articles that have "Criticism" sections which all the time cite criticisms that are not necessarily held by "substantial percentages of the population"? Wikitruth is one of the two or three major websites critical of Wikipedia and thus its criticisms are notable. We don't have to say Wales is the cause of the problems, but the Möller quote is still notable as a piece of evidence for the conditions on the Board under Wales' leadership. Margana 18:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am very aware of the critisim sections, as a mater of fact. Critisim is one thing, untruths are another. So, I disagree, for the reasons I have given several times, to include it. And for that reason your re-inclusion of the inforamtion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

On what basis do you call the Wikitruth quote an "untruth"? Margana 19:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

When a website needs to resort to ad hominem arguments, it is not reliable source anymore. It becomes then a problem to distinguish between valid critisms, untruths and soapboxing. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not used as a reliable source. The very concept of a "reliable source" is only relevant to facts, not opinion or criticism. It is just your interpretation that the site "needs to resort" to ad hominems. That's just its style. But the quote in question is clearly a serious criticism. You don't have to agree with it. Margana 20:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sanity de-indent Exactly, it is used only as an opinion of a website resorting to ad hominem's, name calling (Jimmy Wails), etc. It was indeed my interpretation that the website does need to resort to that. However, the ad hominem's are still there. If the quote would come from a serious website, that does not include ad hominem arguments, it might have a place, but it is not, and the origin does make it impossible to distinsguish between valid critisms and attack. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it impossible? The quote in question, which is supported by specific examples, is clearly not an ad hominem, and the site as a whole clearly is making serious criticism. Margana 21:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So, how would someone tell whether those specific examples are not made up? It is impossible to determine which quotes are honest and which are smears when a website uses namecalling and ad hominens to get their message around. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can check them out and decide for themselves. We're giving the link. I don't see any evidence of Wikitruth trying to pass off any definite untruths as truth; it just includes some personal things which arguably are not relevant to the criticism, like exposing some admin's diaper fetish etc. (does that count as a "smear"?), and it makes some obviously facetious comments, but none of this applies to the quote about Jimbo which is clearly a seriously meant criticism, and I repeat Wikitruth is one of the most important critical sites (we have already established its notability by having an article about it). Margana 12:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You provide exactly the reasons why it should not be included in this article. There is no way to check the comment about Jimbo on validity. Notable is not the same as reliable. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, "reliable" is not a criterion for criticism, only for facts. Being a notable critical site is all that matters to justify quoting its criticism. And anyone can check the validity of the criticism by following the links on Wikitruth; or they can check out and form an opinion about Wikitruth in general based on which they may either dismiss its criticism or take it seriously. It's the same as with any other criticism - how does one check any criticism for "validity"? Well, either one knows and trusts the source of the criticism, or one knows but doesn't trust it, or one doesn't know it in which case one may investigate the matter for oneself. Margana 15:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand some things here. Critisism can be included, but not from websites that use ad hominen's and namecalling among other tactics. And no, it is insufficient that people can check it out. That is not how wikipedia works. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you just making policy up? Where does it say criticism can not be included from a website that may also use ad hominems? Margana 15:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

See below at reminder and WP:RS and WP:V among others. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The presence of those quotes in close proximity either (a) is a thinly veiled attempt to lead the reader to an unfavorable conclusion about Mr. Wales or (b) represents a piece of trivia stated in close proximity to a mis-placed fact that should be in the section about Wikipedia. Either way it's a nightmare when it comes to actually writing the thing. — Philwelch t 05:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would a reader come to an unfavourable conclusion if there's no basis to it, or why shouldn't he come to such a conclusion if there is? The proximity is justified because both his Objectivist philosophy and the quote refer to his general motivations. You have moved the quote away saying it doesn't belong under "Other activities", but adherence to Objectivism is not an "activity" either. Maybe both should be moved to another section. Margana 18:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy and motivations

What do Jimbo's interest in Objectivism and his "child in Africa" statement have to do with each other? Why are they in the same section? This makes no sense—I've re-separated. — Philwelch t 05:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I left it for discussion, but I think this is better. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I explained it right above. The old section made little sense, neither his views nor his awards are "activities". Margana 13:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and we don't agree with your explanation despite already reading it. Again, why the obsession with putting that quote right next to the Objectivism thing, while using a misleading quote from Britannica? — Philwelch t 14:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no, you asked a question that I had already answered. You didn't say you don't agree with the answer (and certainly not why you don't agree). Again, why the obsession with moving that quote away from the Objectivism thing when it is clearly related (both say something about his motivations)? You have now even tried to reword the original Objectivism section so that you can better keep it in the "Other activities" section. I wonder why you felt a need to do that. His being an adherent of Objectivism is notable in itself; his activities with those mailing lists just illustrate the degree of his commitment to that philosophy. Margana 15:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I agree with phil. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What question of mine had you already answered? First off, it's a bit of an assumption to say that Jimbo's personal interest in the child in Africa is in any way related to Objectivism and Ayn Rand, or that Objectivism is specifically related to his motivations for founding Wikipedia. By "a bit of an assumption", I mean a flight of fancy. By "flight of fancy", I mean completely made up without any backing. By "completely made up without any backing", I mean original research.

My rewording of the lines about Objectivism are because those lines fit within a section about Wales' other activities, which include administering two Objectivist discussion lists. As Wales hasn't talked much about his personal beliefs and philosophy outside the context of Wikipedia, we don't exactly have enough information to write a decent section about it anyhow. In any case, unless we can develop a fully sourced and referenced section about Wales' personal philosophic beliefs, it's better the way it is now. — Philwelch t 02:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I had answered your question "What do Jimbo's interest in Objectivism and his "child in Africa" statement have to do with each other?" I'm not saying Objectivism is related to his motivations for founding Wikipedia specifically. It just gives him moral guidance in general. And now you haven't read me again, since I have just answered the point about the mailing lists. I repeat: his being an Objectivist in itself (i.e. holding ethical views that are diametrically opposed to those of most people) is more important than the secondary information that he ran those mailing lists (which are not otherwise important, they just prove how strong an adherent he is). Margana 12:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but we have enough information to write a section about his other activities and not enough information to write a section about his life philosophies. — Philwelch t 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not enough? You mean there are too few words for a separate section? I've seen shorter sections. Or do you mean that it's too incomplete because he may hold other philosophies we don't know? Well, we also don't know all of his activities, but we write down those that we know of. Margana 14:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There's not enough information in the article to write a complete section. Limited or incomplete information makes for an unavoidable bias if you want to talk about something in particular. Also, since the "child in Africa" quote relates to Wikipedia and not to Wales' personal philosophy, it would be out of place in such a section anyway. — Philwelch t 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why not delete the "Other activities" section? Why mention any of his awards if we can't be sure we're listing all? You're making increasingly transparent bogus arguments. The "child in Africa" quote relates to Wikipedia which in turn is a central activity in his life, so it is of course saying something about his fundamental philosophy. Margana 15:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons is applicable to this page. Some points:

• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
• The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject
• Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion and without regard to the three-revert rule. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves.
• Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.
• Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.

I hope this clarifies things.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think that justifies you forcing your way in the present dispute, it doesn't. Everything I add is sourced, NPOV, and relevant. You seem to misunderstand the part that says "criticism should be sourced to reliable sources". Since "reliable" can't apply to the criticism itself, it only means that you have to be sure your quotes are authentic (and of course from a relevant source). You can't just say "so-and-so has criticized X for Y" without giving a source where it can be verified that this criticism has been made. But you don't have to have a source showing that the substance of the criticism itself is "true" - this doesn't apply because criticism is always subjective. Margana 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, keep the discussion to the content, and not to the person. Reliable extends to all sources, and the source is unrelaibale, as it used ad hominem's, namecalling, etc. to make its point. Furthermore, I think the quotes above are clear enough. If you do not like them, start a discussion at the talk page of the relevant policies and guidelines to change them. It is not here that we can decide to overrule those. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how often I have to say it, but "reliable" doesn't apply to criticism. Sources of criticism may not deal at all in reporting facts, they may be all opinion. I have no idea how you get the concept of "reliable" in there. How are Roger Ebert's film reviews "reliable"? They're pure opinion, and we're quoting from them in numerous movie articles, because it's a notable reviewer, like Wikitruth is a notable Wikipedia-critical site. Nowhere does the policy say anything about entire sources becoming unquotable just because they use ad hominems somewhere. No one wants to quote ad hominems themselves. Margana 16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As reminded above: Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources. I do not think there is any doubt about what this means. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it means what I just said. If an unreliable source says "X criticized Y" you can't use that criticism. But if you have source X directly criticizing Y, you can. Every site is a reliable source about what it says itself. From WP:RS: "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." There can't be a better source for the fact "X holds opinion Y" than X itself! Only if you don't have this primary source will you need a reliable secondary one. Margana 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I follow Margana's argument here. If we are including an opinion in the article (and whether this opinion should be in or not is a different point here) and so long as we explicitly state that it is an opinion and attribute it accordingly, then the source can be:

• 'Primary' - i.e. from the criticiser him/herself.
• 'Secondary' - i.e. from a reliable source who we can trust to have accuratly and honsetly quoted and depicted the primary source.

So though the primary source may not qualify as a reliable secondary source, it is perfectly acceptable to use it in this other sense. --Robdurbar 22:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, WP:RS is a general guideline covering the whole of wikipeida, while WP:LIVING is much more specific to biografies. The later states explicitly: Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources, which Wikitruth is not. The quote in question is an analysis of the way how Jimbo deals with things, and that is partially an opinion, and mainly unsourced speculation based on unsourced facts, speculation rumors, whatever. As such, it does not belong in this article. Furthermore, repeated reinserting of disputed information is disruptive, and can only be reinserted when it does not violate policies and when there is consensus here among the editors, which is still lacking. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, now you're willfully obtuse: you just keep repeating what I have debunked above no less than three times, plus Robdurbar once. Maybe five times is the charm: "Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources" means you need a reliable source proving that this criticism was made, anything else doesn't make any sense, since criticism isn't fact. And the best possible source showing a criticism was made is the primary source that makes the criticism. Thus Wikitruth is a 100% reliable source about criticisms made by Wikitruth. Your personal opinion about the criticism itself is irrelevant. Also, you need a consensus for removing something, not for adding it. And you don't have that. Margana 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are pertinent wrong on the need for consensus before something can be removed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I? Then quote the exact policy. All you have shown so far is that unsourced information can be removed. You are removing sourced information. Margana 02:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikitruth.info is a joke site, assuming "Wikipedians are ugly lol" qualifies as a joke, and is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. Kim is right. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Way of missing the point. Read the previous discussion before making an argument already debunked six times. Seventh time: It is entirely irrelevant if you think Wikitruth is not a reliable source for facts, it is a perfectly reliable source for its own opinions. If you want to argue that its opinion is somehow not relevant to quote, it's an entirely different argument. Then please provide a reliable source for your contention that it is merely a "joke site". That's not what the Wikitruth article says. Margana 13:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Wikitruth is that it is not notable or reliable - sure it can be a source of it's own opinions, but to then include them here is to include original research because they are not referenced anywhere else. I oppose including thier rumor an innuendo - especially given their crusade to get people fired, and otherwise supress free speech on wikipedia by intimidation. Trödel 14:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would they have to be referenced anywhere else? It's a major website critical of Wikipedia. The quote in question is not "rumor" or "innuendo", it's specific criticism. Where do you see a "crusade to get people fired" or "supress free speech on wikipedia by intimidation" on Wikitruth? Margana 14:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A major website? Wikitruth as of today has 13 registered users, of which almost half are either marked as a bot, sysop or bureaucrat [8]. . -- Longhair 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not what makes it a major website. There are major websites with a single person behind it. It's not an open wiki after all. A better measure is that it's ranked about 80,000 on Alexa which is remarkable for a website criticizing another website. Margana 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to autobiography criticism revert

In page history: 19:53, 4 June 2006 Trödel (jimbo specifically requested that there not be an article about him - and if you check the history edited it only a few times - this is definately not an autobiography)

>If you go to Wikipedia:Autobiographies, it clearly says that there is a debate about Jimbo Wales's article. (I put in a hyperlink to Jimbo Wales there.) It gives an external link to a discussion by some guy who talks about Jim editing his own article. Jim already has a user page, User:Jimbo Wales. Isn't it redundant? And even if not, maybe there should be a template saying that the autobiographical/biograhpical content is disputed as unencyclopedic/NPOV/etc. instead of just making that accusation outright? Or, maybe it should be humbler and say "there is concern that this article..." etc. But I think that, even if the dispute or concern is unconfirmed, users should still see some statement including a link to the page Wikipedia:Autobiography, especially since that page talks about a dispute with this one in particular. That WP page references this article, so maybe this article should, in turn, reference that page. --Ajo Mama 23:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not an autobiography, and if it is linked from there as such, it is wrong. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Kim. It isn't an autobiography. The controversy was over changes regarding labeling Larry as co-founder and an edit that called Jimbo a pornographer. Those small changes don't make the article an autobiography anymore than a call requesting a change from the subject of a biography that ends up in the final book makes the book an autobiography.

Secondly, as I expected you object to the article because it isn't "humble" since he already has a userpage - as I mentioned in the edit comment - Jimbo objected (and was able to keep an article about himself off wikipedia) for some time - even though he met all of the standards of notability required for an article. Finally, this article, I think, is one of the reasons that Jimbo is so careful about articles on living people - he has seen edits here that are very objectionable - so he sympathizes with those that are similarly effected - especially when the article is being used to attack the person.

Finally, please check the edits - this obviously isn't the work of one person - especially not Jimbo. Trödel 01:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The current edit war

Please stop reverting to your preferred version without yielding an inch and try to work together on this. Several editors have violated the WP:3RR or are very close to doing so (see [9] [10] [11] [12] for example). I dislike blocking people for 3RR violations and I dislike protecting pages to stop edit wars but if this doesn't stop now it is likely that someone will do exactly that. Consider this your last warning. "The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am." :) Haukur 14:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have undone my last revert, and taken his page of my watchlist.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That was very big of you. I hope you come back to editing this article after a short break, you have made good arguments. Haukur 14:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Or it would have been big had it been true. She abandoned the discussion but keeps reverting. Margana 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read the talk section before editing, so I didn't realize this page was in the midst of an edit war. To clarify my edit: in the prior version, it stated that "within a few years [he] had earned enough [as a hedge fund manager] to 'support himself and his wife for the rest of their lives.'" I found this a bit shocking, really, so I read the source. Turns out he worked as a hedge fund manager for six years. Which is not very long to work before retiring from the industry, but it's not quite as shocking as "a few years." So I changed "a few" to "six." I'm only explaining because this seems to be such a sensitive page. As an aside, I'm now looking into hedge fund jobs. Aroundthewayboy 16:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Strawpoll: Wikitruth quote insertion

I would like to have an idea how people think about the insertion of the wikitruth quote (see discusssion above). Please sign with ~~~~. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not include

• -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC) per discussion above, not notable, minor website, speculation based on half truths and generally website that uses ad hominen's, name calling etc to get its point around.
  • The phrase is "ad hominem," from the Latin for "to the man." For the record, I have no opinion about the Wikitruth quotation. I just have a copy editor's eye for mistakes like this, sorry.Aroundthewayboy 23:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• JoshuaZ 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Kim has summarized the matter well. 13 registered users? Give me a break. JoshuaZ 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• User:Longhair -- As per my point above, this is a recently created website, with a mere 13 registered users. Also interesting is the fact Wikitruth is 'an anti-censorship' wiki website which has 'closed membership' (registration isn't open to everyone, nor can anons edit?). Who's censoring who? -- Longhair 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• — Philwelch t 16:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wikitruth is nowhere near approaching the notability required to be given so much space on this article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• User:Trödel - per Deathphoenix Trödel 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Sam Blanning - per above. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Do include

• Margana 16:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Relevant criticism from notable source. Point about 13 users is absurd. If it were an open wiki, you could say 13 users is pathetic, but it isn't. There are major websites run by a single person.
• Kasuro 01:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Not that consensus is established by straw polls. There's a reason "VfD" became "AfD". Some of the voters above have not taken part in the discussion at all. Just adding "dittos" doesn't make an argument any stronger.
  • And sockpuppets who have less than 40 edits Special:Contributions/Kasuro should be given extreme deference as long as most of their edits are to the subject at hand. Trödel 04:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

--Robdurbar 09:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC) It IS perfectly well sourced but I don't see the need to have a whole paragraph-long quote in there. Possibly include a refernece to it in any 'praises and criticisms of Wales' section, if one were to emerge.

More philosophy and motivations

I've split this section into two:

(1) A section about "philosophical and political views", with ample quotes from Q&A. (2) A subsection of the Wikipedia section about "motivations", including the "child in Africa" and "free access to the sum of human knowledge" quotes.

I daresay this is a better solution. — Philwelch t 17:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree!-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Though not perfect - this version is better. Trödel 20:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, a transparent attempt to hide the apparent contradiction between his adherence to a philosophy that says "altruism is evil" and his claim that he's motivated by helping the child in Africa. The two things belong in one section. The Slashdot quote you added, however, is quite unrelated to the "child in Africa" quote, because it merely describes what the aim of Wikipedia supposedly is, not what drives him personally. Margana 18:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

First, Rand's philosphy is not that "altruism is evil." The relationship between altruism and capitalism is not that simple. A better description would be that in a Capitalist society, altruism becomes evil because when one helps those who do not work, one undermines the risk/reward push/pull supply/demand nature of capitalism. I can see two ways an objectivist such as Wales could believe both these things and not be contradictory - 1) the poor in Africa are deserving, and 2) proper education of the poor will provide them with the skills they need to properly participate in a capitalistic society. There are probably other rational reasons, as I have spent very little time thinking about this. Trödel 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly not familiar with Rand's philosophy. It is not just about capitalism. It does hold that selfishness is good and altruism evil, and not because altruism would interfere with capitalism. It's a much more fundamental tenet than capitalism, which just follows as the logical political philosophy from the personal philosophy of selfishness. I also have no idea where you get the identification of altruism with "helping those who do not work". Now as to your two explanations: 1) the poor, in Africa or elsewhere, are not deserving of anything in the Objectivist view, beyond what they can "earn" for themselves under conditions of capitalism; Jimbo does not owe the poor in Africa anything, therefore he would only do anything for them (according to Objectivist morals) if that served some selfish end, and then that selfish end would be "why he's doing it". 2) The Objectivist moral imperative is selfishness, not "helping others to participate in capitalistic society". And again it boils down to this: either Jimbo takes some selfish benefit from his action (then "the child in Africa" is not "why he's doing it") or he doesn't (then it's an altruist action which is contrary to Objectivist morals). It is easy to see why Jimbo does not talk much about his Objectivist view, since it is repulsive to most people in the world. He played it down in the C-SPAN interview (even calling the comparatively moderate Libertarian Party "lunatics"!) and when it suited him, i.e. in the donation appeal, he faked altruism because he could hardly expect many donations if he said "I'm doing this for my planet-sized ego" or "I'm doing this for the great power it gives me". BUT, be that as it may, remember that I don't want to put any of my interpretation into the article. I'm just saying the two things are related, and people should be able to draw their own conclusions. If you think there's no contradiction, the article won't tell you otherwise in any way. Phil, however, is hell-bent on moving the two things apart under always new pretenses, obviously to minimize any possibility that readers may come to the conclusion that there's a contradiction. Indeed, all his (and Kim's) other edits are manifestly aimed at "protecting" Jimbo from anything that may in any way reflect negatively on him. This article is not exempt from the NPOV policy. Criticism of Jimbo exists, and the article should mention it; hence the quote from Wikitruth, one of the most notable sources of Wikipedia criticism outside Wikipedia itself. Margana 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with Rand; however, my current familiarization of her writings is a little dated. With that said, I think you are purposefully misrepresenting the view. From my memory, like most philosphers, definition of terms is very important, and altruism has a very specific meaning which is inconsistent with what you are arguing above (that the view point is contradictory).

Additionally, it is always interesting to me when people say - well X says he belongs to Y so although X says she believes A, we know that is a lie since Y believes B (which is inconsistent with A). From what I can tell this is basically what you are arguing here. The assumption of this argument is that if X is a member of group Y then X must believe all things that Y believes. To me this is obviously a fallacy and denies X her right to have a veiwpoint independent of any group to which she belongs.

All in all, having jumped into the middle of this discussion, it looks to me like you have a specific POV that you want ot make sure is adequately covered in the article regardless of the reliability or notability of the sources. Trödel 05:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you think altruism means that is inconsistent with what I'm arguing? And Jimbo's full adherence to Objectivism is evident from hundreds of newsgroup posts that are preserved on Google Groups. Margana 16:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, here are some choice quotes from this great "benefactor" Jimbo Wales, all on Google Groups:

"Social contract? *snort* I'm an egoist, and so I could give a rat's ass about any alleged social contract. You might want to appeal to my *self-interest*."

Here he justifies lynching: "You have an old friend over for dinner. Everything is going great when he suddenly produces a gun and kills your wife. He then leaves. You call the cops. You know who did it, and you tell them. They check you for gunpowder residue, find none, and conclude that you didn't do it. (Anyhow, they don't have enough evidence to charge you.) But your old friend has an alibi. 5 people claim to have been with him at that time. You know better. If you take things into your own hands at this point, you are justified."

"I, however, am a person who never violates any Objectivist principles whatsoever." (Any more questions, Trödel?)

Another good one: "Keep in mind that I agree with Ayn Rand that Kant is the most immoral person in history."

Margana 18:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The only quote above I can see as relevant to this conversation is the "...never violates any Objectivest principles whatsoever." The rest only go to further expose your bias concerning Wales. Trödel 04:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not denying that I personally have a low opinion of Wales, as I have of anyone who adheres to a wacko anti-social cult of selfishness and thinks Hitler was more moral than Kant. However, my edits are strictly neutral. Anyone who still wants to worship him given the facts is free to do so. Anyway, I contradicted your theory that he isn't a "real" Objectivist. So do you have an argument left here? Margana 09:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never suggested he isn't a real objectivist only that your use of quotes of others (out of context) and ascribing them to Wales is not justified when there are plenty of quotes from Wales himself. I have also challenged your assumption that a person who follows objectivism and the idea that "altruism is evil" implies that one can not act charitably. Additionally, your description of objectivism as a "wacko anti-social cult of selfishness" and to draw the conclusion that Hitler is moral from the a superlative statement about Kant makes me wonder what your self-interest is in bashing Wales and maligning objectivism. Trödel 15:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You said "The assumption of this argument is that if X is a member of group Y then X must believe all things that Y believes." So you implied that even if Wales is an Objectivist, he may not believe in all Objectivist principles. I gave you a quote to contradict that. So what are you arguing here? Which quote of others is "out of context"? I have made no assumption that an Objectivist can not act charitably. He just won't act charitably as an end in itself, only as a side effect of some fundamentally selfish action. And yet he claimed that the reason why he's doing what he's doing is "for the child in Africa". If he's an Objectivist, his original motivation for everything he does is his self-interest, not the interest of the child in Africa. The question about my self-interest, on the other hand, is misplaced as I'm not an Objectivist; I'm rather a Kantian. But to go into further detail on this would be off-topic here. Margana 20:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Being a true "objectivist" and agreeing 100% with everything someone says are not the same. I am only advocating that Wales clearly identified his self interest and that is all we need - to try to impose on him the writing/sayings of others because he describes himself as objectivist fails to meet wikipedia standards for articles.

I'll give you an unrelated example, a true member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or mormon) does not believe that the flood really happened. LDS doctrine is that the scriptures are true. To draw the conclusion that the member must believe the flood happened because it is in scripture and he is a true Mormon would deny him the right and the ability to apply the religious philosphy for which he is a believer to his life.

I see something similar here - we read the writings of Rand, we have a viewpoint on what those writings mean, and how they should be interpretted (we may even think it is obvious). However, Wales understanding of the meaning of the writings and how it is applied in his life can only be ascertained through understanding his worldview. We can be assisted in that understanding by understanding more about Rand (since he claims to be an adherent) but his own actions/explanations should trump our imposed view based on our interpretations of Rand. Thus I don't understand why you would want to remove the quote from Wales himself addressing the self interest issue.

As to the question about your self-interest being misplaced; fortunately you answered me anyway. As it appears to me you are motivated by some Kantian vs Objectivist battle that I probably should learn something about if I am to intelligently continue the discussion - and your self-interest appears to be related to that. Trödel 13:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you not stop with all the strawmen? Who said anything about "agreeing 100% with everything someone says"? The point is Wales adheres to all principles of Objectivism. (And, by the way, he even named his daughter Kira, like the heroine of Rand's We the Living.) What exactly do you think we are "imposing" on him? He's an Objectivist - fact. Objectivism considers altruism evil - fact. He made an ostensibly altruist statement in the donation appeal - fact. We don't have to say explicitly there's a contradiction. Just let readers decide. Why are you afraid of that? I don't know what point you're trying to make with the LDS example. You mean a "true X-ist" may still disagree about part of the doctrine of X-ism? Well, that's a semantical question. I don't see what it matters to Wales, since he explicitly said that he is "a person who never violates any Objectivist principles whatsoever." Wales' quote from this talk page is inappropriate in the article unless quotes from other people here can be included, because it would always give him the "last word" - he might as well edit the article himself then. My reply to his quote is that it shows he admits to being motivated by self-interest, thereby contradicting his show altruism about the "child in Africa". The child in Africa is not what motivates his actions, he may merely do something for the child in Africa in order to serve some self-interest of his own. And no, my motivations are not the issue here and you don't need to learn anything about them. My arguments stand on their own, deal with them. Margana 14:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What strawman are you talking about? - you are the one who says that objectivism considers altruism evil without any explanation of the definition of altruism which is the "Unselfish concern for the welfare of others" and try to use it to prove that Wales can't be helping kids in Africa - ignoring the possiblity of "selfish concern for the welfare of others." As for the example - the point is that being a follower/believer in a philopshical school of thought/religion necessitates one to internalize that philosophy/belief system - and thus one's understanding of the applicability to situations is controlled by that internalization. I know Christians who are objectivists - and to me that is rationally explainable even though your britannica quote claims that they are incompatible. Trödel 15:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I told you what strawman. I agree with your definition of altruism, and it fits Wales' statement in the donation appeal. He said he's doing what he's doing for the child in Africa, i.e. not for himself, hence unselfish. If he just has a "selfish concern for the welfare of others", he couldn't have honestly said he's doing it for the child in Africa. Instead he should have explained his selfish reason, because that is "why he's doing it". The welfare of others is secondary to his self-interest. (And that must be about the 15th time I explained this.) Again, I don't see the point in your example. Some people may say they are Christians and Objectivists, but they can't be at the same time "true Christians" and "true Objectivists" (in the sense of "never violating any principles" of either). But we know Wales is a "true Objectivist". Margana 18:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

<<—— for ease of reading

Clearly it is not a strawman argument when in your reply you say that one can't be a true Christian or true objectivist at the same time - Your arguments require a level of agrement in order to be labled a "true objectivist" - so far I have seen no evidence from you that that level of agreement is less than 100%.

Additionally, there can be multiple reasons for taking an action; thus saying "I'm doing someithing for the child in Africa" and leaving out, "which also serves my own purposes" is just smart (i.e. good public relations). That is the world we live in. Additionally, my own view is that motiviations are less important than the actions. Generally, I don't really care what a person's reason is (or what they believe) for doing good - doing good is good - regardless of the motivation. Note that this is different than an end justifies the means argument (since using bad means is different than doing good)

Finally - that you believe one can't be a true Christian and a true Objectivist is true - the internalization of those viewpoints for you mean that they are incompatible - but someone else could internalize the values a different way such that they aren't incompatible. Trödel 21:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want my motivation everytime, I still think the arguments of Phil, Trödel are much are better. You have not convinced me to change it to your version. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A meaningless statement. So long as you want to revert, you have to take part in the discussion. You can not preemptively say that you agree with whatever another user says. By the way, didn't you say you took this page off your watchlist? Amazing how quickly you can revert still. Margana 14:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I am following the discussion, and I agree with some people, so I can say that and add that to the overall disucssion, without having to add new arguments. And as it is clear that your changes are not based on consensus, I have the full right to undo them in favour of the wider carried version. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Your changes aren't based on consensus either, and I don't know what policy says anything about "wider carried versions". Margana 18:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You're equivocating, and now you openly admit you're trying to bias the article towards the point of view that Wales' motivations and beliefs are contradictory. What Rand means by "altruism" is not "helping others", but rather, sacrificing one's own values for the benefit of others. The key term is "sacrifice" "If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor's child and let your own die, it is." (Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged.) Jimbo himself clarified this point on this very talk page: "For what is it worth, I think it is in my rational self interest to care about what happens to kids in Africa, and far from being destructive of my self-interest, it is beneficial to my self-interest." Jimbo may live by Rand's selfish morality, but under Rand's selfish morality, as long as one rationally values the child in Africa, one may seek to help that child and remain selfish. Why would one rationally value the child in Africa? If the child in Africa is well-educated (through the assistance of Wikipedia), Jimmy and people Jimmy cares about will benefit. That's how the world works—education leads to economic development in Africa, which leads to increased trade with the US, which makes the world wealthier and Jimmy better off. It's like an investment—give free knowledge to the world, and in return, the world will develop economically, artistically, and in myriad other ways that will enrich everyone's lives. In summary, your argument seems to rest on the assumption that it isn't in Jimbo's interest to help Africa, which is an enormously dumb premise. It's in everyone's interest to help, because the world in which everyone has free access to the sum of human knowledge is a better world to live in. Rand's ideal of human interaction is a world in which all human interactions are consensual and beneficial to both parties. Jimbo Wales founding Wikipedia and working to get Wikipedia sent to Africa is beneficial to everyone involved. — Philwelch t 20:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bias the article at all, I'm saying the two things should be in proximity because they're related, everyone can draw his own conclusions. I didn't say altruism is simply "helping others", it's indeed "helping others without drawing some benefit from it". If you have some ulterior motive, it's not altruism. But then the ulterior motive is the reason "why you're doing it". You can't get around this - "I'm always asked why I'm doing this - I'm doing this for the child in Africa" is an inherently selfless statement. He didn't just say in a matter-of-fact way that his activities help the child in Africa, he said that's why he's doing what he's doing. The idea that Jimbo's activities in any way lead to economic development in Africa and increased trade and ultimately economic benefit to him is bizarre enough on its face, especially when you consider that he isn't actually doing squat for the child in Africa (they don't have computers, Jimbo's not buying them any nor is he pushing a print version in any effective way), but even if that was his motive, it would mean he's doing it for himself, not for the child in Africa, which would just have a collateral benefit from Jimbo's selfishness! Margana 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion of Mr. Wales and you have every right to it. Please do not pollute Wikipedia content with your personal opinions. — Philwelch t 04:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just replying to your personal opinion of Mr. Wales. I don't want to put either opinion in the article, just the facts. Margana 16:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Print Version Probably Not Feasable

I move this to User_talk:Jimbo Wales where it is probaby better located. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing cites to inline cites

I find the recent change to inline cites to make the article harder to navigate in edit mode - but was wondering if there is some style standard for this in considering whether it should be changed back. help? Trödel 00:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think there is a standard for this, and I see literaly everything happening at various pages. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 10:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Margana and I seem to agree on the cite issue - lets restore them Trödel 15:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

CRO controversy

I really, really don't think I'm notable enough (or that the CRO issue is significant enough) to be mentioned in Jimmy's biography. Could someone please remove this since I'm biased?--Erik Möller 17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I second this. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable on this topic at all, but I disagree; the issue seems relevant enough. I'm very open to being convinced otherwise, though. --Ashenai 18:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The quotes from your resignation statement shed some light on how the Board is run by Jimbo. Why is that not notable? Margana 18:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy doesn't "run" the Board, he is its President. This is the article about Jimmy Wales, not about the Wikimedia Foundation or its history. The CRO issue is indeed briefly mentioned in that article (in reasonable proportion to the article as a whole). This article should be a biography of Jimmy first and foremost. The dispute was not between me and Jimmy, but between me and members of the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation. Finally, the CRO was not even a paid position; it was a community role. There's no need to carry every little bit of Wikimedia politics into what is supposed to be a biography.--Eloquence* 18:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear on this, are you saying the dispute was between you and members of the Board excluding Jimmy, or are you just saying it was not exclusively between you and Jimmy? And if Wikimedia politics are so unimportant, we wouldn't need an article about Jimmy. But if we have one, I think his role on Wikimedia is of central importance to it. He wouldn't be notable just for installing a piece of wiki software once in 2001, nor for his founding of a barely-notable company selling porn, nor as an options trader. He's notable for his ongoing role as president of the Wikimedia Board (which seems to me to be equivalent to "running" it given that the president controls 3 of the 5 seats, making any voting a farce - he can always have his way). Margana 19:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It was not exclusively between me and Jimmy. Wikimedia isn't unimportant, but some of the internal politics thereof are. I have seen no evidence that Jimmy personally "controls" the two Board members he installed when he created the Foundation, and in fact, Tim Shell has abstained from most recent votes and will likely be replaced by the end of this year according to Jimmy.--Eloquence* 19:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Who do you think picks the replacement? From the bylaws: "Should a Trustee resign, become incapacitated or otherwise be unable to serve the remaining Trustees shall appoint an interim representative if such Trustee was a Member Representative until such time as a new election can be held to fill such office at the next annual election. If not, the remaining Trustees may elect a replacement. In such case should there be a tie vote the Chair shall cast the deciding ballot." So, when one non-community seat becomes vacant now, Jimbo, together with his remaining appointee (Michael Davis), can appoint whoever he wants; if the community representatives disagree, it's 2-2 and Jimbo breaks the tie. Note in this connection this interesting announcement from the message you quoted: "My expectation is that we will see at least one additional member from the community, and one additional member (likely from the free software / free culture world) to provide additional external oversight." Once again he shows that he doesn't trust the community. The Board will just go from 3-2 to 4-3 against the community. And the non-community seats will be controlled by Jimbo because he can force any appointment and he will appoint only people he trusts not to go against him. It's funny how he speaks of "expectations" as if those decisions weren't solely in his hands. Changing the bylaws to enlarge the Board just takes a simple majority of the Board. So unless Jimbo makes a mistake and appoints someone he thinks he trusts who later betrays him, there's no way he can lose his sole, absolute, lifelong power. And you say he isn't running things! Margana 20:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You're going deep into "original research" territory here. If you want to speculate about the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation, this is not the appropriate venue. For the record, your speculation is based on the assumption that Jimmy's appointees will vote whichever way he wants, at least in some cases. While this may or may not be the case, there is no evidence one way or another.--Eloquence* 20:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

Isn't it fair to have a section about the criticisms of Wales' management practices? He has some very vocal (albeit few in number) opponents. Rompe 00:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

see Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Strawpoll:_Wikitruth_quote_insertion for the opinion of wikitruth. It saves you a lot of work. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What about Daniel Brandt and others? Rompe 00:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I could see, that was unsourced so not allowable, as other need to be able to verify the content, and it need to be reliable sources. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Brandt is covered in his own article (whether he likes it or not) and relevant information can be found there. But one person's allegations don't count any more than an anonymous site, and don't think Brandt's Jimbo-related activities have approached that level of notoriety, even if we'd like to think of him as Jimbo's arch-nemesis. Moulder 01:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

agree! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why?(Brian Peppers article)

Hi, Mr. Wales. Why did you delete the article about Brian Peppers?(And why was the talk page deleted?) I want to know more about him. I come to Wikipedia to get all my information, and I would be glad if you could give me an explanation. Thanks. 209.214.200.167 1:43 11 June, 2006

You better post this at User talk:Jimbo Wales, this is a biography, and I am not sure how often he reads it here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Ok. My mistake. I`ll go post it at the other talk page. 209.214.200.167

NPOV tag

The thing is ugly and should be removed as soon as possible. What exactly are the issues? --Banana04131 00:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly singing monkeys...

It was introduced by a user who could not convince the other editors of this article that her additions where conform WP:NPOV and not original research. Discussion has stopped. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh. . .finding no other objection then the singing monkeys, im going to remove it. --Banana04131 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales the sole founder?

I thought Larry Sanger was a co-founder? MisterCheese 02:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is one of those ongoing controversies, in which much is said, but little proven. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be put that he's the disputed founder of Wikipedia in the entry then? MisterCheese 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is quite clear from the text that there is some controversy about it, and I do not think there is a need to make it more explicite. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

At one time the article named Sanger as a co-founder, but I think Wales removed it. This only increased the controversy and raised the question of Wales editing his own biography. . .Wales and Larry are the only ones who know for sure. --Banana04131 23:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the facts are, mostly, not disputed but rather that the terminology is what is at issue. Wales feels that as the executive/employer and the person who had the idea for an open collaborative encylopedia and then made the idea reality he should be credited as the founder. Sanger feels that as the "editor-in-chief," project organizer, day-to-day manger, etc. he should be credited as co-founder. The only fact I can find in dispute is who suggested using a wiki to make collaboration on the encyclopedia easier. Wales credits Jeremy Rosenfeld. Sanger claims he suggested it to Wales. Both agree that Wales setup the first wiki, supported the project 100%, and allowed Nupedia to suffer neglect. Trödel 03:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Date of Birth

This article never states Wales's date/year of birth. Why not? SCHZMO ✍ 22:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It can't be verified and Jimbo challenged its accuracy (see item 2). Trödel 23:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't Wales know when he was born? MisterCheese 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

He most likely doesn't want people to know. — Wackymacs 14:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. If you're a highly public figure who's daughter's name/home address/employment history/schooling has been bantied around the Internet, do you want yet another piece of information floating out there? -- Zanimum 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that he challenged the source of the birthdate, not its accuracy. According to public records for Huntsville, AL and St. Petersburg, FL, he was born Aug. 8, 1966, the son of Jimmy Don Wales (b. 1942) and Doris Ann Dudley (b. 1944). [ancestry.com] Questors 18:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:LIVING, material such as this shouldn't be used. "Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources. If X's arrest records are relevant to his notability, someone else will have written about them." Birth dates are also specifically mentioned later on.

I don't think his birth date has anything to do with his notability, and it shouldn't be put either on the page or here. Ken Arromdee 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we either have the birth date in, and it should be based on solid evidence, or we do not have it at all. The "circa 1966" is way to vague for this as far as I am concerned, but I personally do not see the peoblem in not having the date. It is not making him special or anything like that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Having some date is better than no date at all - for instance circa 1966 lets the reader know he is about 40 - which is much different than about 30 or about 50 - Trödel

Sure, but I find 'circa 1966' not really encyclopedic to be honest.... And such a circa statement is not exempt from having a source, and we have only a few primary sources at the moment :-( -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Audio file

The audio for this article is pretty bad, no offense to whoever made it, but the person speaks a bit too quickly in some places. — Wackymacs 17:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not the first one to say the exact same thing (see the very top post above), and I aggree, too. It needs to go or someone else needs to step up. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Bacherlor / Master in ?

What subject(s) has he earned his university degrees in?--84.61.140.111 00:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

He claimed to go to both Auburn and Univ of Ala and graduate from one or the other ... then has on the main page a joke article claiming markets are random (extreme silly) as his claim to scholarly fame (joke)