Talk:Jimmy Wales

If you need to contact Jimbo about something, please do so at his talk page, not here. As Jimbo explains... "People who are trying to leave messages for me will likely be more satisfied if they leave messages on my user talk page than if they leave them here. This is the talk page for the article about me, not a place to talk to me. I rarely read this. --Jimbo Wales 06:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)"

requesting references

The success of the project has helped popularize a trend in web development (called Web 2.0) that aims to facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing among users. As Wikipedia expanded and its public profile grew, Wales took on the role of the project's spokesperson and promoter through speaking engagements and media appearances.

The above sentence is in the lead but is not referenced. We need to reference this stuff before it gets deleted.

Please read WP:V, where it says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". QuackGuru 20:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jimmy Wales/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article presents an unusual opportunity due to the person who it is on. According to criterion 1, a Good Article is well written. Writing quality falls into two categories. I feel that the quality of writing is sufficent for this article to be considered to pass 1(a). The Manual of Style has been adhered to and the reasons for delisting have been dealt with. Therefore 1 has been passed.

Now to criteria 2, factually accurate and verifiable. It appears that all major areas of contention are properly sourced and there are no apparent inaccuracies. 2 is also therefore Pass. Criteria 3 is broadness of coverage. This article both (a) addresses the main aspects of the topic and (b) stays focused on the subject. Neutrality is also apparent (4) Stability (5) is another area that led to delisting. At this point in time, this article is stable. Almost every article will go through conflict at some point in time, especially something as controversial as this. Under IAR, I do not think that minor edit conflicts should delist this article, provided that it meets all other criteria. Images (6) are available in an abundant amount and are properly tagged

The combination of the above lead me to pass this article as GA.

Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian: Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says

• Finkelstein, Seth (September 25, 2008). "Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2008-09-25.

Has some interesting info about a new association for Jimmy Wales with a speaker's agency which includes other notable individuals. Cirt (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

nationality

"The American People" article is not about nationhood in the US. There is a concept of nation and there certainly is nationalism, although actual scholars as well as Americans debate whether there is an American "nationality" - most Americans have hyphenated nationalities. In any case, when they say "America" they are referring to the United States. People living outside of the United States, from the Hudson Bay to Tierra del Fuego, are all Americans too. So we have to specify the United States. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to WMC

All I see is Quote and News; where is the link to Commons? Surely there was one before - why would you take it out? Or has there actually never been one (that is the case sometimes). Richard001 (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Online Scientific Publications

Dear Jim,

You might be interested to read info below (from Doctor Stodolsky who is considered to be an expert in that area) .

What is your opinion on that with regards to articles published in Wikipedia ?

Best Regards, Alexander R. Povolotsky

---

Forwarded message ----------

From: David Stodolsky Date: Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:06 AM Subject: Re: Online Scientific Publications To: apovolot@gmail.com

The criteria for any document to be considered a scientific publication is peer review. This criterion is met by the OEIS, however, without publication also in an archivable format, it might not be regarded as such by many and there is the risk that the database would go off-line making it impossible to verify a contribution. Those contributions appearing in the books, however, would escape these considerations.

dss

================================

On 19 Oct 2008, at 05:03, Alexander R. Povolotsky wrote:

> Dear Doctor Stodolsky, > What is the criteria for the Information posted online be considered as official > scientific publication ? > For example please consider > OEIS (The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences) posted at > www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences ...

David Stodolsky, PhD Institute for Social Informatics Tornskadestien 2, st. th., DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark Apovolot (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Transnational Qualification Framework

Dear Jimmy Wales,

This is just to share a thought that I think essential.

While going through different Transnational Qualification Framework movements to write an article in Wikipedia, I thought it would be ideal if such efforts could be coordinated to a global level to achieve real Transnational Qualifications Framework. Then the educational institutions and educators all over the world will be able to collaborate effectively in the process of providing quality education to all.

I have added the article with mimimum details, I will be strengthening the article with more information shortly. Please make TQF issue live in discussions, if you think it appropriate.

Warm regards Anil (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Founder versus co-founder

There seems to be controversy over whether Jimmy Wales is the "founder" or "co-founder" of Wikipedia. For example, here's an article that names him as the "founder": [1]. I don't know whether one view or another predominates in the reliable sources, but NPOV suggests not stating one or the other as fact. Please don't have the article assert that he's the "co-founder", because it contradicts the source I just gave, for example. In discussion "NPOV", linked above, it is stated (eponymously, so to speak) that there was a longstanding version with the words "best known for his role in founding Wikipedia". I support this version, because it is NPOV: it doesn't take a stand as to whether he was "the" founder or "a" co-founder. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, being described as "founder" does not rule out "co-". We might be wrong, however, to describe as "sole founder", because that would be against the reliable sources. It's a jejune argument anyhow. --Rodhullandemu 16:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference provided by Coppertwig says "Jimmy Wales, founder (co-founder) of Wikipedia." in the image to the left of the article. The reference provided by Coppertwig is further evidence co-founder is correct. Primary and historical references say co-founder. The Larry Sanger article says co-founder. We should not rewrite history anyhow. QuackGuru 18:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but paradoxically, Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable source. I don't understand why people make such a big thing of this anyway; we should have better things to do. --Rodhullandemu 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The ref provided by Coppertwig says co-founder. Here are more refs from the same website that say co-founder.[2][3]

There are many refs stating Larry Sanger is co-founder. When one person is a co-founder that means there is another co-founder. QuackGuru 18:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's another source that says "the founder", and this time, under his picture it just says "Jimmy Wales": [4]. For 'founder "Jimmy Wales"' I get 187,000 Google hits; for 'co-founder "Jimmy Wales"' I get 97,900 Google hits. There is disagreement about whether he is a "co-founder". It seems possible to me that by putting "co-founder" inside parentheses, the first source may have been indicating that there is a dispute with two sides. QuackGuru, you need to understand that finding a source that states something does not, in general, give you the right to insert that statement into a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not always parrot whatever its sources say. Wikipedia writes from NPOV; sources write from various points of view. The existence of a source or many sources that say something is not, in general, sufficient to establish that the statement is a "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" (WP:NPOV). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You added a claim that Jimmy Wales founded Wikipedia in 2001. That is false information. Rewriting history is not NPOV. QuackGuru 19:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, everyone's original idea was that Jimbo was a co-founder. Even before Jimbo decided to call himself the sole founder, many sources and many places referred to him as a founder as the terms, without an existing controversy, are interchangeable. Most sources aren't aware of the situation even today, so they see the difference between founder and co-founder to be irrelevant. For that reason, we can't judge on the issue based on the numbers on Google. The NPOV way appears to be either "co-founder", or very quick explanation of the dispute, so as not to give it undue weight. In that case, I could support a neutral wording in the lead, "...was founded..." or "...had a role in founding...", but with explicit clarification in the appropriate section. Discombobulator (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify, my first choice would be with "co-founder" in the lead. Discombobulator (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I understand that you interpret the sentence as being a statement that Wales founded Wikipedia. The sentence is "Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales (born August 7, 1966)[1][2][3][4] is an American Internet entrepreneur known for his role in developing Wikipedia, a free open content encyclopedia which was founded in 2001." I don't interpret it as a statement that Wales founded Wikipedia. I interpret it as a sentence which does not state that Wales was the founder and does not state that Wales was the co-founder. I invite you to suggest on this talk page one or more alternate versions of this sentence which don't seem to you to mean that he was the founder, and which don't seem to you to mean that he was a co-founder. How about "is an American Internet entrepreneur known for his role in developing and running Wikipedia, a free open content encyclopedia with which he has been involved since its beginning in 2001."

In this reliable published source, [5] (Boston Globe; Bias, sabotage haunt Wikipedia's free world; By David Mehegan, Globe Staff, February 12, 2006), it says there is a "dispute" and quotes Wales as saying that it's "preposterous" to call Sanger a "cofounder". This establishes clearly that there is a controversy. I think it would be fine to briefly describe the controversy in an appropriate section of the article; whether this is done or not, I think there probably isn't room in the first sentence for this, and as Discombobulator says, to do so might give undue weight to the dispute. The first sentence must be NPOV; anything which contradicts the statement that he is the founder, or which contradicts the statement that he is the co-founder, is not NPOV. So what we need is a first sentence which makes neither claim. We could even go with something very simple such as "is an American Internet innovator associated with Wikipedia", though that doesn't seem ideal to me: doesn't provide as much information to the reader. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is quite an unusual debate. It's no secret to anyone who's spent a decent amount of time on Wikipeida that Jimmy is the co-founder that attempted to write Larry out of Wikipedia's history. Early sources indicate the partnership that built Wikipedia. Newer sources are confused. When addressed as the co-founder in an interview, he turned red, got deer-in-the-headlight-eyes, but made no attempts to "correct". Unless you can find a source to dispute everything that discusses Larry Sangers' involvement and someone erases all the early sources, there's no reason to change to "founder" or "sole founder". And it's not an NPOV issue by any means. Reverting the article without or against consensus will result in blocks instead of protection. Right now, consensus clearly is on the side of "co-founder". As one who is officially weighing in, I won't be carrying out any blocks, as I consider this involving me in the discussion. لennavecia 20:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not advocating changing the article to assert that he is "the founder", and I don't understand why you say this is not an NPOV issue; in my opinion it is. It's not up to Wikipedia to weigh the evidence and decide that one version is fact. "Founder" or "co-founder" isn't a true or undisputed fact; rather, it's a description, label or interpretation. Just because one of those was being asserted during one time period doesn't necessarily mean it's correct in some absolute sense. The point of view of Wales himself, quoted and published in reliable sources, can't reasonably (in my opinion) be dismissed as a "tiny-minority" or "fringe" POV. In my opinion, his own POV is a significant POV in this dispute. Later in the article, where there's more room, if there's a lot of support in reliable sources for the "co-founder" POV, perhaps it could say something like "widely considered the co-founder, though he disputes that" or "was described in early press releases as the co-founder, though he now disputes that" etc. Just stating baldly that he's the co-founder contradicts NPOV by contradicting a significant POV, his own as stated in published sources. What is your reason for opposing a neutral first sentence that doesn't assert that he is or is not "the" founder? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I support Coppertwig's suggestion here with a slight modification. I think a neutral first sentence could be worded "...known for his role in developing Wikipedia, a free open content encyclopedia founded in 2001." Hard to dispute that this is, in fact, what he is known for, and it does not take sides either way. However since the lead section is supposed to highlight any major controversies discussed in the article, a brief introduction to the controversy, worded in some way similar to Coppertwig's suggestion, seems to me an appropriate compromise. How about this: before the sentence that starts the second paragraph of the lead, add a sentence that states "Wales is widely considered the co-founder of Wikipedia, although he now disputes that. Together with others..." I know this editing dispute is long-standing, but I see nothing wrong with continuing to tweak the article, and consensus on the best way to do this seems far from fixed. --Sfmammamia (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I don't think there's room in the first sentence to describe the controversy, briefly describing it in the lead seems fine to me. I wrote those words quickly and now see a couple of problems with them. "disputes that" could be taken to mean he claims he isn't a founder at all. And we may not have sources to support the word "now" (which seems to imply he had a different opinion previously). How about "Wales is widely described as co-founder of Wikipedia, although he disputes the "co-" part." Although I don't strongly oppose the version you just agreed with. Note that QuackGuru may consider the version of the lead you suggest to be a statement that Wales founded Wikipedia, though I don't see it as meaning that. If QuackGuru (QG) opposes it, then I think QG should explain why QG interprets it that way, and suggest alternative text that gets the desired meaning across. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In Wiki-jargon, Jimmy Wales's view that he is the "sole founder" of Wikipedia should properly be regarded as a WP:FRINGE theory "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior ...". If he did not have such prominence within Wikipedia, these arguments would not be an issue. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Flashlight

Is a flashlight notable? QuackGuru 18:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus about a year ago says not. Can't put my finger on it right now. --Rodhullandemu 19:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mine or yours probably wouldn't be, but we (myself, at least) aren't notable, and we consider our flashlights to be our dearest possessions. If I recall correctly, the time it was last added was during a heated debate about the flashlight's own article which IMO skewed the opinions of many people. I'd like to hear what others think, of course, as I'm not completely convinced of its notability myself. Discombobulator (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the Favorite place to visit or Place he spends most time was more notable for inclusion. I recommend we keep the reference but replace it with something else. QuackGuru 19:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not either-or, feel free to add it to the article. I was trying to add links to the SureFire M6 Guardian article which seems lonely at the moment. Discombobulator (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Birthday controversy

One source says August 7 and another source says the August 8. QuackGuru 18:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales#Editing of own Wikipedia biography. لennavecia 21:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)