Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

An important question...

Why does the article not even bother to mention Jimbo's birth date?--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 06:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Because there is no good source for it, see discussion above. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 08:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Look up three entries. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I know the birthdate has been June 1966, 6 August 1966, and 8 August 1966 - however, I believe there are now sufficient references for 7 August 1966. While some of these may have gotten their information from an old version of this article, I believe the conferences mostly got their information independently and are reliable sources. --Trödel 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just ask Jimmy? MisterCheese 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

doesn't look good to me

The page seems all screwed up to me - it starts with a description of "infobox celebrity" with a couple of examples following and the actual text is only a screen or two below. Must be some trivial markup mistake but I wasn't going to try to fix it myself - perhaps there's somebody more competent --Dzordzm 06:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK now it's good. Somebody's been playing with it :) --Dzordzm 06:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive by copy and paste

Is there some policy on archiving - as it makes more sense to me to move the talk page rather than copy and paste the text since the history then goes with the archive page. --Trödel 03:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the official policy page, you can do either, as long as you follow the same procedure each time on the same page. --Robdurbar 08:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thx --Trödel 14:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy vs. James

I think the page should start with Mr. Wales' verifiable name — that which is on his birth certificate or his current legal name. I expect that such evidence would demonstrate that his name is James, not "Jimmy". If the name "Jimmy" must be presented — no matter how much he prefers it or even how much it happens to appear in Google — it should always be in quotes so that the reader does not have to worry about the truth of the matter. I am operating on the assumption that James Wales best reflects the truth at the moment. -- 75.25.183.186 20:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:NCP: "the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". Titoxd^(?!?) 20:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That is fine for the name of the article. But the standard practice - even for Linda Lovelace, is to put the true legal name of the person in bold print first - no matter how cumbersome it might be. Check out Napolean's entry, for instance. Wait, those are dead people. Check out, uh, Juan Carlos I of Spain. Super-long name, all spelled out. As much detail as possible about the true name. And let me acknowledge: many, perahps most, people want to be known by there nickname or informal name because because it is more friendly. We can do that to some degree, but let us report the Ojbective truth first. -- 67.116.255.227 22:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe Jimmy has stated here in the past that this is indeed his given name, and that this is not uncommon in Alabama. Dig through the archives.--Eloquence* 22:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks El! It is Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 1#"James"?. Quote:

I'm from Alabama. My real name is Jimmy. Strange, perhaps, but true.--Jimbo Wales 09:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to assure our readers of this strange fact. I chose to juxtapose the two facts but not attempt to develop a cause/effect relationship. I leave that to Tom Lehrer, such as in his "Who's Next?". -- 67.116.255.227 22:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A fine point about Jimmy's wealth

Community property#United States does not list Illinois or Florida as a commnity property state and Jimmy clearly made his millions while a resident of Illinois. Should the lead section state that Jimmy is wealthy or that both he and his wife are wealthy? I am just looking to made a de facto statement about how much claim Christine has to that pile of dough. Jimmy's income is for the purposes of a DissoMaster child support calculations (no good page on Wikipeida..yet) is probably negligeable so it is not like child support would ever amount to much. What say you all? -- 67.121.146.37 06:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: DissoMaster™ is a registered trademark of Thomson West - and should not be used as a generic term. --Trödel 15:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Mr. name-with-the-umlaut-in-it, that term sure as heck is used as a generic tern in my U.S. state because is has a pratical and profound impact on everyday people. You slashing it out only impairs communication but I will find a more appropriate phrase is you continue to quibble so. -- 67.119.194.1 16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That hasn't gained prominence in my state as a generic term - and, as an attorney, you should know that in addition to being disrespectful to misuse a trademark - the misuse of a trademark in a publication can subject one to a Cease and desist order - ps --Trödeltalk 01:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not have millions of dollars. I do not even have one million dollars.--Jimbo Wales 16:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

But you're still rich thanks to this gigantic helpful site, so you should feel happy about it Master of Wikipedia, or founder of the site, Jimbo Wales. 24.188.203.181 22:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon - we're all rich thanks to this gigantic helpful site. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Some information about the start

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJimmy_Wales&diff=55321582&oldid=55105689, where Jimbo himself explains a bit more:

"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.

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

FloNight is being destructive

Would somebody let FloNight know that her mindless revert is not welcome? Sorting out how Wikipedia got started is a lot of work and her revert is easy and mindless. -- 67.119.194.1 08:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Again: this is A LOT of work. FloNight: please make changes in a forward fashion by reading, comprehending and THEN carefully modifying and commiting your changes. -- 64.175.42.120 08:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I stongly suspect that this is a banned user (see contributions) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Theresa, I do not mean to be disrespectful, but... so what? -- 64.175.42.120 09:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to post. Everything they add can be reverted. Now please go away. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Theresa Knott is being much more destructive

because she is not just deeply reverting but using her admin privledges to impose her will on the rest of the worldwide Community and supress a very clear and useful version of this article. That will destroy much more of the Community shared trust than anything FloNight ever did. -- 67.119.195.139 09:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly will prevent a banned user from editing the articles in question. That's for sure. Bye Bye. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Theresa, I have only six additional years of experience and living than you do, but I suspect that your attempts to dust me off will be considerably more than you bargained for. Good luck, my dear. -- 67.116.255.7 10:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It must really kill you that i have that protect button. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Page should be reverted to version before anon edits

The extensive recent anon editing to this page have made it significantly worse than normal, and should be, in my opinion, reverted or anyhow significantly edited. I note the following factual errors, some of which are based on original research:

I am commenting today on this version. I will not bother commenting on some of the really bad writing, such as "modern computer labs and other technology equipment".

1. I have never been a foreign currency speculator.
2. My date of birth is not August 8, 1966.
3. My father is not retired.
4. "Within two years (1994 to 1996) had earned enough to "support himself and his wife for the rest of their lives." - We state as fact something that even Wired Magazine does not state as fact (because, as written, it is not true).
5. "he has since then declined to comment about the matter" is false.
6. "He is a vocal supporter of David Kelley" is false.

--Jimbo Wales 16:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not an expert on this subject so I'm not sure I reverted far enough back. Would SOMEONE that is an expert on this topic let me know. (Banned users excluded). --FloNight ^talk 16:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How far back did you revert? I was planning to revert back to 2 days ago did you go that far? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, farther. I went to the 7th, I think. After that there were too many edits that I didn't know about. --FloNight ^talk 16:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that everything with IP address 75, 68, or 67 is Morrow. Maybe some other ones too. Not to worry, he will call me or write if I am wrong. ; - ) FloNight ^talk 17:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

More complaints

1. Atlantis was never a moderated mailing list, and I was never the moderator of it. This was a mailing list which was hosted as a courtesy to a friend for a few years, and it was owned and operated by him. If you follow the link to the archive.org page (WP:NOR, not that this rule seems to apply to my article for some unexplained reason!) you will find my name listed as "run by"... this only means that I was the administrator of the mailing list in the technical sense at that time. Not moderator. (I frankly think that the entire mention of both this mailing list and the other one are absurd original research unless and until they are mentioned in a publication!)

   Removed per WP:V, dead link. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

2. It is quite frankly absurd to quote the talk page of the article in the article. WP:NOR. If it is not published in a mainstream publication, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Period.

   Agreed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

3. 3 days ago, my father was not retired. Today, he is still not retired.

   Removed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Again, the "earned enough to support himself" is contested, and should be written as "According to Wired Magazine" if it is to be included at all.

   The source is not what I would call a reliable source, so I have removed it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

5. Claiming that "the Wikipedia community" considered Larry to be co-founder wildly oversteps the cite, which indicates that perhaps some people thought so.

   Agreed, was inserted during a bout of edit warring. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

6. Wired Magazine and Wired News are entirely separate entities. See the Roger Cadenhead reference.

   It just should link to the correct name, and also to the actuall website, not to Roger's webpage, and it was a different editor as well. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

--Jimbo Wales 14:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have done that were easy, and I will look at the others in due time.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have gone through your comments, and changed them as I think they should be represented. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wired Magazine and Wired News are not entirely separate entities. But that's a very new development you might not have known about. --Michael Snow 16:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but my point still stands. :) The Cadenhead story was in Wired News, not Wired Magazine.--Jimbo Wales 20:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the difference does matter, particularly at the time of the publication in question. --Michael Snow 20:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

DOB self references

Many references at the web have used previous wikipedia articles to get their information abouyt Jimmy Wales, and it has been copied many times over the internet, often quite literally. This results in a serious circular problem and requires extreem care in which sources are used. As an example, the sentence "Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales (born August 7, 1966)" results in 36 google hits [1]. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should avoid duplicate phraseology which is why I use didn't use all those and except for the Holland conference and the jp article you edited out - sorry I didn't notice the "-Wikipedia" at the end of the bio - the other references do not include this phrase. --Trödel 05:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think all of those are copies of some text, be it wikipedia, wikimedia or whatever. A source that I think is reliable is the foundation website, and Jimbo himself added his DOB[2], and I have changed the cite to "Wikimedia Foundation Inc. "Board of Trustees". Retrieved 2006-07-15.". -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that Jimbo would have no reason to lie - that is original research. Where the press release from the Foundation would not be - even if Jimbo was the source - since they have an interest in making sure the information is correct. Additionally - the same is true for the speaker bios - when I have spoken at conference they made some minimal effort to verify my bio even though my company provided it. I would keep the press kit - or the PDF of the press kit. --Trödel 17:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources: Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject, and as such, this counts as a source that can be used as it is written by himself. The press kit can (and has been edited) by others, which has the same problem as this website, that everybody can add what they want. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I seriously don't understand verifiability - as the same is true about anything that anyone rights - they can add whatever they want. But an employer has access to factual information like a driver's license that can verify a bd, where I can claim I was born years earlier or later should I have motive to do so - and if I self-publish - that can be reported as fact? I would think it would have to be reported as "xx claims he was born xx/xx/xxxx" --Trödel 19:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand verifiability is that people should be able to check the facts added to wikipedia using reliable sources. As Wikipedia:Verifiability explicite states, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth. That leads to the next question, is this source reliable? I think the websites of compagnies are acceptable sources for what they say about themselves (See for example SMS.ac, Inc., where Jimbo himself has been editing recently). The foundation website is equivalent to that (not free to edit by unapproved people), and as such, the information added by Jimmy Wales about Jimmy Wales is a pretty strong source as far as I am concerned. But I might have the interpretation of the policies and guidelines wrong ..... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The source is, of course, not reliable. Jimmy Wales doesn't remember his birth, so he would have no idea what the actual date was. The mother of Jimmy Wales, on the other hand, would be a reliable source. -anon

Well given the policy wording 'written by the subject' and the fact that we link to the diff, should we make the author of the source 'Jimmy Wales', rather than 'Wikimedia Foundation inc'? --Robdurbar 17:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sounds reasobnable. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

edits by a banned user

75.24.215.50 and other similar IPs are being used by banned user Amorrow. --JWSchmidt 05:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And apparently was last here as 67.119.194.1 on 11 July 2006. It might be wise to semiprotect unless someone wants to deal with a new round of Amorrow. --JWSchmidt 05:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection is back on. --JWSchmidt 05:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinion Essay: The Overuse of Anonymity at Wikipedia and a Proposal

Moved to User_talk:Jimbo_Wales per Kim's comment below. Click here:

Opinion Essay: The Overuse of Anonymity at Wikipedia and a Proposal

Ben, you might want to post this at his user talk page instead: User_talk:Jimbo Wales. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

An even better place would be it's own page, for example Wikipedia:The overuse of anonymity at Wikipedia and a proposal and then tag it with {{essay}} /wangi 21:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The New Yorker Interview

There's some good stuff that should be included, especially the following section which talks about this article: "Even Wales has been caught airbrushing his Wikipedia entry—eighteen times in the past year. He is particularly sensitive about references to the porn traffic on his Web portal. “Adult content” or “glamour photography” are the terms that he prefers, though, as one user pointed out on the site, they are perhaps not the most precise way to describe lesbian strip-poker threesomes. (In January, Wales agreed to a compromise: “erotic photography.”) " --172.193.51.67 20:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, see "Controversy". -- Zanimum 17:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

vandalism and unprotection

almost 3 hours before the first one - that is much better than I expected when I saw the summary. --Trödel 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

40th Birthday

So is there going to be a gigantic Wiki-birthday in three days when Jimbo turns 40? BirdValiant 04:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I could see one happening, maybe Jimbo will get a present or two for his birthday, can't wait for it. Volt M 23:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Jimbo Wales, Wednesday, May 17, 7:00 p.m. lecture at the Peter Wallenberg Learning Theater, Wallenberg Hall, Stanford University

I was at the Stanford talk in May and took a dozen photos. This is the best one. Shortly afterwards, my camera died.

I fully realize this is a pathetic photo, but I like the profile, and the thoughtful expression. All of the photos on commons look like tourist shots or candid someone-at-computer stuff. Anonomister 08:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe we have a formal photographer going around the conference, and taking formal photos of the board. We'll wait until then to make any decisions. -- Zanimum 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding in a pic from the photoshoot now. -- Zanimum 18:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

First name

Professionally, he is Jimmy. Personally, he is Jimbo. Legally he is James. Why don't we mention his birthname anywhere? -- Zanimum 17:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe his legal name is Jimmy - can't remember where I verified that though. --Trödel 22:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look further up the talk page, you'll see that Jimbo actually verifies that his legal name is Jimmy Donal Wales. --Jrothwell 19:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal life

Trodel deleted "Wales lives in St. Petersburg, Florida with his wife and daughter." This has been in the article forever, and is verifiable, and is the sort of stuff you see in many articles. Why don't we keep it? -- Zanimum 17:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source?--Jimbo Wales 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well we can certainly prove that you lived there as of July 2005 [3] (see paragraph 'I live in St. Petersburg, Fla. If something big were to happen here, I could go out and write up a report on it and interview some local people, and it should be as credible as any news report because I'm a known, respected person in the community and beyond the community.') Robdurbar 08:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And this site - though its not one that I'm familiar with - reckons that you're married with kids [4]. --Robdurbar 08:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This site does not appear to be an independent source, and it says only that Jimbo "is based " not lives in - which are different - where one works vs where one lives. So I removed it. Personally, I think that it will be very difficult to get a reliable source for this since unverified information was in the bio for so long and got propogated out on the net - but why waste the time trying to find it - there are plenty of better things to do on the encyclopedia. --Trödel 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Two points - the place of residence is backed up by the other source above, in which Jimbo states unequivocally that he lives in St Petersburg. Secondly, the other webstie gives a date of marriage etc. - has that ever been included in this article. As for why look for it - why look for any little bit of information in any article? Every little helps. --Robdurbar 09:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Encyclopædia Britannica

I referenced this quote; however, I think it shows that EB doesn't follow a neutrality standard rather than being a good reference - thus I think it should be removed. --Trödel 00:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How is EB not neutral? On the contrary, it's Wikipedia's coverage of Objectivism which tends to be biased, since a disproportionate share of those who edit the related articles are themselves Objectivists, while in the general population they are marginal. It's the same with many fringe groups; most people who are interested enough to write about them are adherents, so you get a systemic bias. Margana 01:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism, essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic." I would say that to make that final clause shows bias. It may be the majority view - but there is a minority view that has fit the Judeo-Christian ethic into objectivism. The wikipedia article says: "Objectivism holds: that there is a mind-independent reality; that individuals are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that they gain knowledge by processing the data of perception using reason or 'non-contradictory identification;' that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or 'rational self-interest;' and that the only social system consistent with such a morality is laissez-faire capitalism." Thus, it describes the philosphy without making a judgment on its effect on the ethic. What does refersing mean - does it mean that objectivism created the "me-generation," are they implying that the Judeo-Christian ethic is not being followed, there are many issues with this phrase. --Trödel 10:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The essence of Objectivism is that it glorifies selfishness and condemns altruism (the Wikipedia article is obfuscating there as it puts the non-controversial things about mind-independent reality and reason first, which is not particularly specific to Objectivism). Christian ethics, on the other hand, say "love thy neighbour as thyself". Margana 11:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism is overrepresented online so gets treated more sympathetically than most new philosophical movements. I don't know if it's necessary to get into a big discussion in this article on what it is. Brief mention of Objectivism as an atheistic philosophy of enlightened self-interest would be enough I'd think.--T. Anthony 07:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Margana, it would behoove you not to speak in such a way about things you don't know. — Philwelch t 08:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

American educator?

I do not think that Jimmy qualifies as an American educator? Can we remove that catory? -- 69.104.88.65 14:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed --Robdurbar 18:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Occupation

His occupation is listed as "Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation". Seeing that he doesn't get paid directly for it, it's a really time consuming hobby. Running Wikia is his occupation. I propose "President of Wikia, Inc.; President of Wikimedia Foundation". -- Zanimum 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? -- Zanimum 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would interpret no response as no objections and be bold --Robdurbar 18:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Philosophy

I'm again removing the Encyclopedia Britannica reference and characterization of objectivism. It's not the source, it's the characterization that is problematic. To distill an entire EB article down to those few words -- "essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic" -- is in and of itself a POV addition to the article. People can decide on their own what the essential nature of objectivism is, including by following the link to the Wikipedia article.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
(crossposted to User talk:Margana)

No, Objectivism is not known to most people so a short explanation should be in this article. Also, the Wikipedia article is, as I explained above, subject to systemic bias. The EB is much more objective, and the particular quote is not out of context. It is precisely the definition the EB gives of the essence of Objectivism, and EB is a reliable source. Margana 12:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Margana, the entire "personal philosophy and motivations" is an obvious attempt by you to make Jimbo look bad. On Wikipedia we take biographies of living persons pretty damn seriously, and while I don't see Jimbo suing us for libel, we need to apply the standards fairly. Your intentions here are transparently obvious enough—if you revert again, you *will* be blocked. — Philwelch t 18:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My intention is to bring all verifiable facts on the table and leave the reader to interpret them. If the facts make Jimbo look bad, it's Jimbo's problem. If in your view there's nothing bad here, why do you resist putting the facts up? It is obviously your intention to deflect any possibility of Jimbo looking bad, but we don't use a "sympathetic point of view" here. We have plenty of biographies of living persons which make people look bad, simply through a neutral presentation of the facts. Please review the blocking policy in order to avoid your threatened violation of the same. Margana 21:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:LIVING, our policy on biographies of living persons. There is no verifiable, published source regarding Wales' *current* philosophical opinions, and your selective presentation of information presents an obvious bias. — Philwelch t 23:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Philwelch, I can guarantee that you would not have contested this had the EB article said "essentially reversing the traditional Satanist ethic," because most people agree that Satan is "bad." You contest, however, because Christianity in the West is seen as more or less "good," and you want Wales' image associated with that. By attempting to protect Jimbo's image by associating it with "good," you yourself are demonstrating the same bias of which you accuse Margana. I agree with her in this case, let the facts speak for themselves. I have noticed Wikipedia degenerating into an oligarchy of administrators who believe that "they know" what is right for the encyclopedia and not the common user. This is contrary to the Wiki's principles. 198.148.166.5 12:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

nndb is not a reliable source

It is clear to me, based on what is on that page, that the source of the information there is mostly the Wikipedia article. Therefore, citing it as a source is brain dead. In my opinion, NNDB should never be cited as a source anywhere in Wikipedia, but I can tell you with some certainty that using it as a source about me is silly at very best.--Jimbo Wales 21:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I included it on the basis that its info was more specific than anything that (as far as I am aware) has ever been in this article; it would follow logically that it was not sourced from here. It is not a website that I have ran into before, so I don't know much about its agenda/standpoint either. If it is the privacy of the information that you obejct to then, re WP:LIVING, someone (or indeed you, under that policy I think) could remove the content. --Robdurbar 19:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, someone has removed it over the last 24 hours anyway. --Robdurbar 19:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It might follow that it was not sourced from here. It might also follow that it was not sourced at all.--Jimbo Wales 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Accountability

Is there some reason you can not support accountability for editors on Wikipedia? I can see no reason to keep Wikipedia from being sued if you do not have a way to make sure editors are responsible for their entries. Attempts to avoid responsibilty for entries by claiming anyone can correct the entries are hopeless at best. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 04:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I chose the wrong word. Perhaps it would be better to say "require" accountability. As long as people can edit anonymously there will be a problem. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 05:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You may mean to post at Jimbo's talk page; this is the talk page for a mainspace article apropos of Jimbo. Joe 06:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jimmy Wales/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

An excellent article, though it could do with a tad more expansion of certain sections, such as other activities, and the lead. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 08:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Message from an Attorney on Living People Bios Abuse

"I think that Wikipedia is going to bite the big one anyway. They're fast and loose with untrustworthy and incorrect information, always on the edge of libeling someone, and very easy to manipulate by anyone with an angle to play. I believe there are lawyers out there with very sharp knives looking them like a tempting Thanksgiving turkey. We just have to find the right cause of action so as to create a class of plaintiffs."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.151.244 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC), the snfc21.pacbell.net anon (SBC Internet in the Bay area)

This is not the right page for this comment. This is a talk page for the article about Jimmy Wales, not about Wikipedia biographical articles in general.

The IP address 68.121.151.244 (talk · contribs · block log) corresponds to the snfc21.pacbell.net anon (SBC Internet in the Bay area). This ISP has been frequently used in the past by user JackSarfatti (talk · contribs · block log), IRL Jack Sarfatti, who was permabanned 14 December 2005 by Jimbo himself for repeatedly making legal threats against numerous users (including myself), among various other offenses. In two other edits by this anon:

1. vio of WP:NLT (see last line; Sarfatti has previously threatened and harassed User:Calton),
2. vio of WP:HAR (Sarfatti is known to mailbomb and otherwise harrass persons he doesn't like, specifically including Shermer and Jimbo Wales; posting Shermer's email address is of course an invitation to spammers to spam Shermer; I have removed the email address from this talk page).

Sarfatti should not be editing the Wikipedia at all, and this activity has been reported. ---CH 19:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Bias and blocking re: SGGS on Meat and Parables

Further to the continuous violations of various legislations, and my constant attempt to see reason prevail, I have reached the end of my patience and reasoning.

In my opinion, it is clear from the discussion on the above article page that there is blatant bias shown by the users between this article and Parables. Please read the discussions on both articles or get someone to prepare a brief for you.

The management in violation of their duties to ensure fairness on account of race, colour, religion, etc have failed to take any steps to stop this bias being perpetrated. In fact there is not even a warning regarding the violation of these basic human values. In the UK and EU, bias of this nature is against the Race Relation Act.

Further various Users have been wrongly "blocked" or accused of "imitation of other people" and have therefore been stopped from making a contribution to the discussion. No evidence to support these accusations have been produced despite various requests. The wrong and unsupported blocking of users is a direct violation of their Human Rights. Accordingly, after this message and a confirmation of safe receipt, a summons will be issued in the High Court in London against Wiki Foundation and all users who have taken part in this violation. If we do not have names of the guilty users, we shall ask the Court for Wikipedia to produce their details. We will ask the Court for the records from Wikipedia to be produced so that Joint Summons can be issued to all violators of these legislations. Please acknowledge safe receipt of this message on behalf of the Management of Wikipedia, so that we can proceed. --MxM Peace 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:MxM Peace (who presumably meant to post his rant at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales), has been blocked by an admin for legal threats. - David Oberst 23:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Rationale behind WP Policy of blocking/banning users/editors who take legitimate recourse to their rights under law..???Plz do not refer to another page on WP policy..i can read it on my own.Plz clarify the reasoning or logic or ground behind this term of agreement between WMfoundation and its users/editors who decided to edit the article. If this is not the right page..ur welcome to move it to its right place.Brothers in Arms 17:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

External link

There is an external link to User:Jimbo Wales. Why isn't that an internal link? I was about to change it, but there was an HTML comment saying not to turn it into an internal link. It told me to "see below", but I didn't see anything there.
'FLaRN' (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Take a look at the Wikipedia:Avoid self-references style guide. The editors are adhering to that standard. Hope that helps. :) – ClockworkSoul 16:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yearbook photo

I'm sitting on the complete set of Jimmy Wales' high school yearbook photos. The senior pic is in color and higher quality than the others, and there are pictures of him in the computer club and stuff like that. Would the senior photo be appropriate or of interest here? -- ke4roh 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, though you would need to own its copyright (i.e. be the photographer or possibly a representative of the school, depending on who owns it), or have the copyright holder's explicit permission, for you to be able to upload it. --Robdurbar 19:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point. There is no copyright asserted on the yearbook and I'm not a representative of the school. I wonder if such an application might fall under fair use. (There was a fizzled spark of conversation about fair use and yearbook photos at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Archive_2#Yearbook_photos.) -- ke4roh 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideology censored

Funny that Jimbo's Ayn Rand fandom is gone from the article at the same time that the Ayn Rand related articles are going bezerk due to POV taking them over. We used to have a citation in the article in which the media called him "Ayn Rand obsessed". With such history erasing and massive pro-Rand bias on Wikipedia (which the admins refuse to stop for reasons I can take a wild guess at), I wouldn't doubt the journalist had very good reason to make that statement. -- LGagnon 02:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you joking? —Centrx→talk • 07:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

The "controversy" section is almost entirely biased language, thinly veiled by putting things in quotes (since they're technically from a source. Also why does it have to mention that it's unclear how much jimbo spent of WP dollars in travel... give the guy some credit --Froth 17:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I see your point about the travel comment: some readers might mistakenly think there has been controversy over the travel budget. Originally, it was probably just added to provide a published reference for the previous sentence about his travel for the Foundation. I have made an edit so that it is now just a parenthetical, which should prevent it from being overemphasized and potentially misleading. --Satori Son 13:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Need to restrict admin's power

hi, founder...I am korean wikipedian. I use kowiki for 2 years. I get delete attack by some kowiki admins. it is not one time. I think that admin's power must restriected by sharp rules. Make a world-wide rules for admin's power restriction. My enlgish is not good, so I can't tell you well...so I feel tight and I am angry...Admin's power...I am very angry. I feel that they are owners and I am a slave... You need to know about kowiki official policy. You will be angry like me. Anyone can edit any policies. And admin says that wikipedia's highest policy is wikipedia have not many rules and...admin's realtime thinking is a policy, even delete policy. :( -- WonYong ^{(Talk / Contrib)} 09:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Child in Africa" quote

The quotation from A Personal Appeal from Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales currently reads "I'm doing this for the child in Africa." It's improperly truncated: the quoted sentence continues on and thus should be closed with an ellipsis before the period. More importantly, I think the resulting lack of context makes the quote sound abrupt and a little odd. I would like to change the quote to the full sentence, which reads, "I’m doing this for the child in Africa who is going to use free textbooks and reference works produced by our community and find a solution to the crushing poverty that surrounds him." Any objections? --Satori Son 17:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Objections?yes. of course there are.as an african i'd say the africans children doesn't need encyclopedias they need first and foremost computers to access wikipedia themselves.so my solution is turning wikipedia into profit,by admiting ads like youtube,myspace so we can afford a lot of money to donate africans children with computers instead of flawed encyclopedias so the african childrens can access and contribute to wikipedia too as the americans,europeans,asians do. everthing else is worthless. User:Felisberto22 september2006(UTC)

• Um, wow. I didn't mean objections to giving African children free reference materials, I meant objections to including the entire quote from Mr. Wales in the article. --Satori Son 21:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No objection, be bold! Sdedeo (tips) 18:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• The full quote also now makes a good contrast to the recently added "Objectivism" info. An argument could be made that his attitude concerning altruism has softened somewhat over the past ten years. --Satori Son 06:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Protect?

This page has been on my watchlist since I reverted an edit, and it's almost always at the top because everyone else is vandalising and reverting vandalism. Wouldn't it be easier to semi- or fully protect it? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lacks Objectivity-General Observations

The article is self promotional,lacks objectivity.I suppose it has been Vandalised.WPEDIANS ..plz look into this article.Brothers in Arms 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

objectivism quote

It is silly to have EB's quote on Objectivism -- and not a very helpful one ("reverses the JC ethic" -- like, what, Jesus descends to the dead?) that I presume has been put in by people who want Wales to look evil or something. We have an article on Objectivism, plenty of stuff. I've removed the quote again. Sdedeo (tips) 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Browsing the talk page I see that it is one editor who seems to be continually replacing this, because s/he feels that the current Objectivism article is "controlled by objectivists." Sdedeo (tips) 18:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think Britannica wants Objectivism to look evil? It is a perfectly apt description. Objectivism reverses traditional ethics by glorifying selfishness and condemning altruism. That's the opposite of "love thy neighbour as thyself". Our article on Objectivism is, naturally, being watched mainly by pro-Objectivists and is accordingly hopelessly POV. Since this is a fringe philosophy (and practically nonexistent outside the U.S.), and there's little danger of Objectivists gaining political power anywhere, most people just ignore it, and there aren't many ardent anti-Objectivists who would watch the article in the same way as anti-Bush people watch the George W. Bush article to prevent pro-Bush editors from establishing their POV there. Margana 19:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Take your complaints of NPOV to the Objectivism page; Wales' page is not the appropriate place to have this debate. In the meantime, the Britannica quote appears, from a reading of the Objectivism page, to be a serious misrepresentation, and rather hard to understand (as you see yourself, in as much as you keep having to explain it.)

In the meantime, I think something along the lines of "Objectivism believes that the" "proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest", and that the only social system consistent with such a morality is laissez-faire capitalism." (taken from the Objectivism page) is good. What do you think? Sdedeo (tips) 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just replying to you. I'm not even bothering with the Objectivism page; as I said, it's hopeless to achieve NPOV on a topic like that which is naturally guarded by biased people. It is quite amusing that you compare the Britannica and Wikipedia and, noticing the incongruence, conclude that Britannica must be wrong! In fact you're only proving my point. It is of course the Wikipedia article which is a major misrepresentation. Which is not hard to understand, as it is maintained by Objectivists. Accordingly it uses Objectivists' own euphemistic, self-serving self-definition, completely obscuring the essence of their philosophy. "Rational self-interest", for example, if not further explained, sounds like something everyone could agree with, like "self-interest within the reasonable bounds of the categorical imperative" etc. Nor does it show how they consider any altruist deed as positively evil. Margana 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you believe the Objectivism page is "self serving" etc., etc., then go and fix it. I am not unfamiliar with Objectivism (everyone passing through the American high school and college system is passingly familiar with it), and defining it as a religious attitude is really missing the point. You seem to have a passion for the subject, but EB's quote is really misleading. What is your objection to the Objectivist description? What does "opposed to JC ethics" add that is not POV? Sdedeo (tips) 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not reading what I say. I already explained why I don't go and fix it. And who is defining it as a religious attitude? It's an ethical attitude. You have not explained how EB's quote is supposedly misleading. I, however, have already explained why I object to the Objectivist description. "Reversing JC ethics" is a perfectly succinct description for a philosophy that considers selfishness good and altruism evil; it is not POV at all. Margana 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

We're going to have to come to a compromise here. Can you suggest an alternative sentence? Sdedeo (tips) 20:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So long as you can't explain how the EB quote is POV, there's no need for a compromise. Margana 21:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am disatisfied with the EB quote for many reasons, one of which is the fact that it is wildly unclear -- as you implicitly acknoledge by having to reexplain it to everyone who comes along. Can you make an alternate suggestion? Sdedeo (tips) 21:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardly everyone who comes along. Well, alternatively we could say "a philosophy which holds that selfishness is good and altruism evil". Margana 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I'll make the edit. Sdedeo (tips) 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I reworded this a little and provided some context in a footnote. I think it is important to understand the definitions that Rand used, rather than through around words and expect everyone to assign the same meaning to them. For example some define "Altruism [as] a socio-political doctrine that attempts to justify the sacrifice of the individual to a greater good, such as society or the state." --Trödel 18:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)