Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

New objectivist edits:

The full quote from the reference on the relationship between Objectivism and Altrusim:

This is why the word forced is there. "every person feels that every stranger owes him something." Thus every stranger is "forced" to be altruistic to others whether through peer pressure or government collecting taxes from him to give to others. --Trödel 01:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's just what she claims altruism leads to, it's not her definition of altruism. Her definition is "altruism is the belief that you have a duty to help others", and she condemns that already, i.e. even if you, without any outside force, feel such a duty to your fellow man, you're "immoral". Margana 01:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I clarified, though I think "forced altruism" is more concise. The contemporary definition of altruism does not match the defintion above; thus the adjective forced is shorthand to accurately modify the poplular definition to be close to how Rand/Objectivism defined the word. --Trödel 01:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please settle content disputes on the talk page before editing. --JWSchmidt 02:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This dispute was settled on the talk page since Sept 28th, see talk history --Trödel 02:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

{{protected}}

It's about time. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Personal philosophy" section

Is it wise to have a "Personal philosophy" section in the article? --JWSchmidt 05:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it is; however, if there is such a section, I think that it is important that we not misrepresent Jimbo on his world view and how objectivist theory applies. Inclusion of his "help the child in Africa" comment and commenting that it is inconsistent with Objectivist principles was part of the language that this section has descended from. See some of Jimbo's latest comments on altruism --Trödel 13:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not exactly true. The "child in Africa quote" has been in the article for quite some time, albeit in the "Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation" section. The "Personal philosophy" section and objectivism info was added very recently. I did not move the quote to the new section, but when someone else did I mentioned that if we were going to have the objectivism info at all, I thought the "child in Africa" quote provided some contrast. My intention was not to insinuate that the two were inconsistent, but simply to provide some balance to negatively presented information (originally the article had some garbage about the philosophy of objectivism usurping Judeo-Christian values or some such). I personally would not be opposed to deleting the new section and objectivism info and moving the "child in Africa" quote back to its original location. --Satori Son 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is true, Margana added this information in May, in April it was added by an John8923, in ?? ..., and probably before then by someone else. At this time it was under a section titled "Other Activities." It was later moved to the area in Wikimedia Foundation under a controversy subsection...etc.

I am not saying that the child in africa quote should not be there, I think it should be. Viligence is required to keep the atribution of specific objectivist-like ideas to Wales that he has never said , as that has been a continuing subtle vandalism for as long as I have watched this article (more than a year) - and all have been unverifiable since they attribute to Wales certain attitudes based on objectivism, rather than quoting a reliable source. --Trödel 19:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. My perspective was more short term, and I now see this has been a problem for much longer than I realized. Apologies for not checking the history more thoroughly. I also agree with you that attempts to portray the subject's personal philosophy with broad generalizations instead of providing specific quotes is inappropriate. --Satori Son 19:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Np - together I think we can make this article better --Trödel 03:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a section called "Personal philosophy" is too ambitious. Personally, I would be offended to see people trying to define my personal philosophy in a few lines of text based on assorted comments I had made in the past. --JWSchmidt 01:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Trödel's last edit is the most accurate to date. Here is the quote directly from the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article: "It should be noted that Ayn Rand did not oppose helping others in need, provided such actions are voluntary. What she opposed was the use of coercion — that is, the initiation of physical force — in social relationships. The doctrine of altruism, in Rand's view, is evil partially because it serves to justify coercion, especially governmental coercion, in order to benefit some people at the expense of others." Thus, force is clearly an element of what Objectivism is opposed to. If Margana disagrees with this, he or she needs to discuss it at Objectivism (Ayn Rand), not here. --Satori Son 04:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't need to do that. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. If you want to put a certain claim into this article, you have to justify it on this talk page with reliable sources. Trödel's own quote of Rand above shows that force is not part of her definition, and even your quote from Objectivism (Ayn Rand) includes the word "partially". It is completely wrong to suggest that Objectivism only opposes "forced" altruism. Rand's definition of altruism - "altruism is the belief that you have a duty to help others" - is quite reasonable and matches common usage. It is curious how you think the term "altruism" alone could be misleading while at the same time you restore the pure Randian jargon term "rational self-interest" which any non-Objectivist will definitely understand differently than what Rand means by it. Margana 15:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I will say again, this is clearly not the place for this debate. You are only here because you have been unable to convince others of your views over on that article, so you think we will be more easily manipulated over here. I will wait to revert until other editors have time to give their opinion, but I am quite sure that your opinion will yet once again be shown as a minority of one. --Satori Son 18:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't a minor opinion worth just as much as a majority opinion? Isn't wikipedia for everyone? 86.137.58.180 10:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally, yes, everyone has a voice a Wikipedia and minority opinions are not immediately discarded because of that minority status. But when an editor has clearly failed to convince others of the verifiability and accuracy of his or her views, it is not appropriate to continue to add that personal view over the objections of the majority. For example, when, in your next edit after this one, you stated "Yahoo! now sucks ass!" in the Yahoo! article, that personal view was a minority opinion and removed as such. Hope this helps. --Satori Son 12:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard response

I am looking carefully at this article in response to concerns expressed by the subject on the BLP Noticeboard, regarding poor sourcing and original research. My initial observation is that he has some valid concerns. I will be making a series of edits, and will attempt to give good edit summaries, and comment on my edits here. - Crockspot 04:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Controversy section - I removed an unsourced statement that Sanger was frequently mentioned in the press as co-founders. Such a statement requires citations of these alleged frequent mentions. I also removed several sources that self-reference Wikipedia diffs. Wikipedia is not a reliable source according to WP:RS, and is not allowed. I also removed a bit of original research based upon these removed references. - Crockspot 04:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Personal philosophy section - I cut it down quite a bit. First, newsgroup postings are not considered reliable sources. Also there was way too much synthesis, some if it of dubious accuracy, going on. Objectivism is wikilinked, so if the reader is interested in the nuts and bolts, they can go read it for themselves. No need to explain it here. On the running of the message board, a secondary source needs to be cited for any claims of the subject "running" any message boards, discussion groups, mailing lists, etc. - Crockspot 04:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation - No edit made, but the subject is curious why a fairly routine lecture for the Long Now Foundation is featured in particular? I am guessing that the contributor attended that lecture. But consider that the subject gives dozens of similar lectures per year.

Those are my edits. Thank you for your patience. - Crockspot 04:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made some further edits, mainly to the career section, to add a source to a statement, and to remove unsourced or improperly sourced statements. Also removed birthdate, as it is incorrect, and the source was a self-published source. Crockspot 16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Mr.Jimmy on wikipedia???

Mahawiki 14:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the entire "controversy" section. All of Sanger's statements are from non-reliable sources. There is no evidence presented that there was an actual "controversy", and I don't see what is notable or important enough about this to merit inclusion. For the second "controversy", pretty much the same reasoning. There is no rule on Wikipedia against editing one's own article. People "frown upon" a lot of things, so what? Crockspot 21:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are controversies about a lot of things. So what? So we write about them. I don't know what your definition of controversy is, but a dispute about whether Wales is "the founder" or a co-founder of Wikipedia seems notable enough, and the conflicting views of Wales and Sanger are evident. Where do you see a non-reliable source? Sanger's memoir has been published everywhere. And so what if there's no hard rule against editing one's own article? No one claimed there is. It's still a faux pas, as Wales admitted himself, and the matter was reported in the media. You shouldn't edit the article if your whole objective is to "whitewash" the subject. Margana 21:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The problem with the Sanger "controversy" is that all of his statements were sourced from non-reliable sources. Wikipedia and Kuro5hin are not reliable sources. If there are Sanger articles in reliable sources, then by all means, provide them, if they are relevant to a bio of Jimmy Wales. It seems like a "controversy" more relevant to the Sanger article than to this one. As to the "editing controversy", that may be up to debate, but it doesn't seem notable or controversial to me. We don't write about every non-notable bit of trivia that is probably only important to Wikipedians. I believe that qualifies as cruft. - Crockspot 22:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What's non-reliable about the Boston Globe? And statements made by Sanger on Wikipedia or Kuro5hin or anywhere else are perfectly valid sources for Sanger's opinions, so long as there's no question about the authorship (and clearly User:Larry Sanger is indeed Sanger). I don't see why those controversies - directly related to the very thing Wales is famous for - should be "non-notable bits of trivia," whereas the details about his early education - which are in fact entirely trivial - are supposed to be important. Margana 22:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR carefully. Wikipedia is not ever a reliable source. The only wiki source I judged to be acceptable was the by-laws of the Foundation, which is an uneditable pdf, and an official document of the Foundation. Self-published sources can only be used to source information in articles about the author (that would be Sanger's article, not Wales'), and when the work can be attributed without question to the author (have seen no evidence of that. What is stopping me from signing up at Kuro5hin at Jimmy Wales, or George W. Bush?). So without Sanger's statements, you only have the Boston Globe that you can use, unless you can find more solid sources. If you want to rewrite using only the BG source, go for it. But I consider your wholesale revert of the section to be a violation of WP:BLP, and am reverting to the previous edit. - Crockspot 23:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "when the work can be attributed without question to the author", that's what I just said, "so long as there's no question about the authorship", isn't it? I don't see any reference to Kuro5hin in the Controversy section. Which source in that section do you not accept? Unless you can be specific, there's no WP:BLP issue and I am reverting to the previous edit. Margana 23:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You keep claiming that there is no question to the authorship at Kuro5hin, but I have seen no evidence either here or at Kuro5hin verifying his identity. If you can provide me with a link to such verification, I will still direct you to add the information to Sanger's article, and add Sanger to "See also". Self-published sources cannot be used to verify negative information in someone else's biography. I should also advise you that reinsertion of information that violates WP:BLP is a blockable offence, and removal of such information is exempt from WP:3RR. Crockspot 23:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no Kuro5hin reference! And we're quoting Sanger, not taking what he says as fact. A quote requires nothing more than certainty of authorship, and his Wikipedia account is beyond doubt. I should advise you that blocking for the reinsertion of information that you arbitrarily and falsely claim to be a WP:BLP violation (despite it having been in the article forever), is a grave abuse of adminship, and the removal of such is not exempt from 3RR. Margana 23:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess it's a good thing that I am not an admin. I am a volunteer on the Living people patrol, and am only editing this article in response to a request by the subject of this article on the BLP Noticeboard. I have taken several days to investigate all the sources, and all the relevant policies, and I am certain I can justify my edits to any entity. Again, I invite you to find sources that are allowable for BLP articles, and rewrite the section. But please stop wholesale reverting. - Crockspot 23:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's indeed a good thing. The section is fully sourced via Boston Globe, Newsweek, and Wired, plus Sanger's opinion being referenced (i.e. not used as an information source) through edits made by him on Wikipedia through his undoubtedly genuine account. No rewrite necessary. Now please stop wholesale reverting. Margana 00:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits made on Wikipedia are not allowed as a reliable source, ever, anywhere. Other self-published sources can be used in the author's article, if authorship is verified, which it has yet to be, but not to source negative information in someone else's article. Is that not clear? I started to remove just the offending sources, but it left the article choppy and incoherent, so I removed the section so that someone like you can create and source it properly. The edit history reflects my very careful and documented edits over the past week. I have not taken any action here unless I was positive it was the right one. Crockspot 00:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The concept of a "reliable source" obviously refers to facts, not mere quotes. Self-evidently a quote is properly sourced as soon as the authorship is verified. In the case of Sanger's edits on Wikipedia as User:Larry Sanger, it is. The only question then is, is it relevant? And since the matter has been reported on in mainstream media, it is. Again, we are not using a "self-published source" for original information, negative or otherwise. What BLP says is, for example, if Jimbo comes here on the talk page and tells us his birth date, we could use that, since there is no particular reason to disbelief him on that matter (he certainly knows it, and has no imaginable reason to falsify it), but we wouldn't accept it if anyone else privately told us Jimbo's birth date, because it might be made up. But we're not using Sanger's quotes for any such external fact. We're referencing only his opinions, and there's no doubt that his Wikipedia account is genuine. The only fact in question is "Sanger says X", not "X" itself. And the fact that "Sanger says X" is beyond doubt once you have a source where he in fact says X and the authorship is clearly authentic. Is that not clear? Margana 00:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving back to the margin. I submit to you the following quote from WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles may not cite Wikipedia as a source, because it is a wiki that may be edited by anyone and is therefore not reliable." How much more clear can that be? - Crockspot 00:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That applies to citing facts from Wikipedia based on edits by "anyone", or citing wiki pages where you never know what the current version says. In this case we can cite a specific edit. I see this wasn't done here, but it's easily done. Will you stop objecting if we link directly to Sanger's edit of that page where he calls himself a co-founder? I also see Sanger's memoir was referenced by Slashdot; maybe that's what you confused with Kuro5hin. Since it's a top-level Slashdot story where the editors vouch for it coming from Sanger, and not just some random comment, it is authentic, and if you need more proof, Sanger's website, larrysanger.org, also links to it. Margana 01:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any exception for diffs in WP:RS. It is true that diffs can be used on talk pages, and should be used on administrative pages for reporting 3RR, etc., but I do not believe that they are allowed in articles themselves as sources. If I am wrong there please point me to the policy that says so. I cannot simply take your word for it. I need it verified. Larrysanger.org is a self-published source, so it can only be used in the Larry Sanger article as a primary source, but it cannot be used to support negative information about a third party in that third party's article. As I have said repeatedly, if you have a truly reliable sources for Sanger's statements, I don't object to you using them to rewrite a new controversy section. In fact, I encourage it. Crockspot 01:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to expand on the above quote with a completely plausable scenario: Suppose another editor changes Sanger's user page to say something completely different. Now suppose that a casual reader of Wikipedia, who has no knowledge of how to look at edit histories, or even that they themself can edit Wikipeda, reads the Wales article, and follows the cite to the Sanger user page, before Sanger or a vandalbot can revert the user page. That reader is being fed unreliable information, couched as reliable information. That is why wikis are not reliable sources. Do you understand now why an editable page from Wikipeia is not, under any circumstances, considered a reliable source for a Wikipedia article to cite? - Crockspot 01:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

See above. A wiki page per se should not be cited, but a diff may well be. Margana 01:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Usually this is true, but if you are citing specific statements by specific individuals identified through the edit history, then I would say you have eliminated the problem that it is "editted by anyone". Since the identities of User:Larry Sanger and User:Jimbo Wales are not in dispute, I don't consider that part of RS to be a problem in this case, though I suggest linking to a diff or static version rather than the current wikipage. Beyond that, I don't see what your problem is with the other controversy section sources. The fact that the dispute over founding is mentioned in Wired and Newsweek is more than proof that there has been a dispute of some prominence. Dragons flight 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You are attributing a lot of wiggle room to the sentence I quoted above that simply isn't there. It says that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, period. That's what the policy says, and that interpretation has been confirmed by Jimbo. As to the removal of the entire section, as I have said several times, I invite the section to be rewritten with proper sourcing. When I removed the poor sources and the claims they supported, the section made no sense, so I removed it all. WP:BLP clearly places the responsibility of properly sourcing negative information on the shoulders of the editor who wishes the information to be included. If you want it in, source it with sources that meet WP:RS strongly. I don't have time to properly source it for you, and it isn't my responsiblity to do so. Crockspot 01:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say Wikipedia is never a reliable source for anything. It clearly says you can't cite wiki pages because "they may be edited by anyone". This is not the case if you cite a specific edit by an editor whose identity is not in doubt, and if you use it only as a reference to that person holding a certain opinion rather than using him as a source for an external fact. Margana 01:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It says Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Because of why is irrelevant, because no further exceptions are referenced. I submit that your interpretation of the policy is itself Original Research. You are synthesizing and presuming something that isn't stated in the policy. The "because" is there as a courtesy to help us understand the policy, not as a loophole to use to get around the policy. Crockspot 02:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Interpreting a policy doesn't fall under the original research rule. The ban on original research means that statements in articles may not be original research. It does not mean that original research can't be used to decide how to edit. By your reasoning, we couldn't even do a Google search to prove that a topic is notable, since doing a Google search is original research. If a policy is there for a stated reason, and the reason clearly doesn't apply to your case, you're allowed to disregard the policy. (Notice that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is also a policy.)

Moreover, the reliable source "policy" isn't a policy, it's a guideline, and it's considered poorly written and has been controversial. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws. Ken Arromdee 07:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is there to explain the point of the policy, and to prevent people like you from trying to misapply it in a way it wasn't designed for. Citing Sanger's edit in this case does not imply that Wikipedia is a reliable source. It could be any other wiki or any website or any other source which in itself is not a reliable source - you can always point to someone expressing his opinion, wherever, so long as the authorship is verified. Margana 02:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be citing Wikipedia, it would be citing Larry Sanger. As long as there is confidence in his identity and the accuracy of the statement, the venue in which they were made is immaterial. RS is a guideline, so one must expect exceptions to be made when there is reasonable justification for doing so, even if there is no explicit exception written into the guideline. Policy is not a straitjacket; we follow policies because the reasons behind them make sense. Dragons flight 02:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have joined you on the RS talk page in requesting a clarification, but I would direct you to the discussion just above your contribution, as it discusses the same subject. Crockspot 02:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the Controversy section to add sources and improve the flow. I kept both sources Crockspot disputes as I believe they are relevant and appropriate (though I know he disagrees), however, I have modified the text so that it does not rely on them for any of the basic details. I considered this sufficient to address the BLP concerns regarding sourcing. Beyond this though, in editting the page, I have some concern that this section is awkward and overlong given the current scope of the article. A small controversy section regarding issues reported in the international press certainly is appropriate for a biography, but given the relatively small size of this biography and the neglible long-term importance of the dispute in question, I am concerned that the Controversy section is over long for the current context. In other words that it tends to draw too much attention to a minor negative issue relative to the size of the biography. Dragons flight 06:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• I applaud your work on the controversy section. This is all I was asking for, solid secondary sources. The wiki self-references are now being used as primaries to verify solid secondaries. While that may still be less than kosher, I am not going to dispute them any further. It wasn't so hard, was it? Now the discussion can shift from BLP issues to a normal content dispute. (I recommend a different discussion section be started.) I would recommend an "undue weight" argument, that the "controversy" is trivial to the context of a bio on Wales. Perhaps, as I have stated previously, the meat of the story can be in the Sanger article, with a short mention here, and a link to there. But that is for others to argue. My concerns are more or less satisfied. - Crockspot 12:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

On a lighter note

Does this article attract some of the most inane vandalism imaginable, or what? Poop references, eating babies... Anyway, I will be off wiki for 24 hours, so the policy war will have to wait. Have a good weekend. Crockspot 03:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote about fixing NYT's errors?

I'm looking for a quote - I think I remember Jimbo saying "Whenever I read the New York Times (online), I keep looking for the edit tab so I can fix the errors." - maybe it was at Wikimania, maybe in the plenary opening session. Anyway, if someone has a reference to the correct version that would be great. (I tried googling it but with no success, so I may have it wrong.) Thanks --Singkong2005 · talk 07:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/17/the-new-york-times-gets-it-exactly-backwards/ Dragons flight 07:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. It's the perfect quote for a post on my blog, Watching the news is bad for you. :) --Singkong2005 · talk 02:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Salary

I'd like to question why Wikipedia does not know the salary of its president. Unless it has a good reason for not disclosing Mr Wales' earnings, I suggest that they are included as you will find them in articles about men of similar stature, e.g. Steve Jobs. Algebra Man 16:32, 21 October 2006 (GMT)

The exact salary I receive from the Wikimedia Foundation is zero.--Jimbo Wales 14:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you have a reliable, reputable source for it, put the info in the article and cite it. The applicable standard here is WP:Verifiability. -- Satori Son 16:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I know what his salary is, I don't, or that I could find it, I couldn't. What I'm saying is that someone within the Wikimedia Foundation, aside from Wales himself, must know what it is and that I find it hard to believe that the opppsoite is true. Algebra Man 19:01, 21 October 2006 (GMT)

• Someone "knowing it", and then putting it in this article, would be original research. As Mr. Wales has indicated above, he receives no salary from the Wikimedia Foundation. I believe, as a primary source from the subject himself, that statement may be includable. Anything else regarding salary would have to be reliably sourced from secondary sources. We just finished cleaning out most of the original research from this article. Please don't add more. Crockspot 17:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge he has put substantial money into this not for profit foundation, and not recieved any money from the foundation; but accepts personal payment from other organizations for things like travel expenses and giving speeches. As near as I can tell his financial benefit from creating wikiedia comes solely from money he makes off his resulting personal fame and none at all from the foundation itself. WAS 4.250 20:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps, if we were to find references for an estimate of yearly personal revenue from speaking engagements, we could write something like "yearly income, speeches." There are lots of people who get their sole income from that and do pretty darn well. The only thing would be to see if there are sources out there. Smeelgova 20:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

I would doubt that he pulls no salary at all from Wikipedia and related Wiki-stuff. Most likely in addition to the speaking engagements he gets some sort of salary from the Wiki-stuff, probably not enough alone to be an accredited investor on that, but something. Sources anyone? Smeelgova 20:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

He said somewhere that he believed the law did not allow him to be paid by wikipedia. I don't quite get that but the implication is that he doesn't get paid. Further the foundation publishes its expenses including all its saleries and Jimbo is not one of the people recieving a salery from the foundation. And it is nonprofit so there is no dividend and no asset accumulation involved. As for researching his actual income and publishing it in all its privacy invading detail, there are privacy laws that make that sort of thing illegal and Wikipedia BLP policy that makes it against policy. When a respected reliable source publishes financial data on Jimbo then we can repeat it. Jimbo would be wise to be transparent about his finances, but that is his decision to make; not mine or yours. WAS 4.250 21:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See the Wikimedia Foundation 2005 Budget for details. WAS 4.250 21:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. And what can we infer from all this? Smeelgova 21:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Well it explains why he says making it nonprofit was either the smartest thing he ever did or the dumbest. Smartest if it would have fizzled if it was a for-profit but dumbest if it would not have made a difference and now he's not a billionaire because of it. WAS 4.250 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Bomis paid for Wikipedia's hosting and bandwidth fees before the Wikimedia Foundation (2001-October 2004), and later paid for half of the Foundation's operating costs. (October 2004-February 2005)" says Wikimedia Foundation Benefactors. WAS 4.250 21:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So if "Bomis" paid for the startup costs, does that mean that Jimmy Wales did not personally pay for this out of his own pocket, as previously stated above? I'm confused a bit about the financials. Yours, Smeelgova 04:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Date of birth?

How old are you Jimmy? Date of birth omission seems to ignore Wikipedia standards.XSebX 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I'd like to call your attention to a comment I left on http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911_talk:General_disclaimer Sillybilly 07:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

"From 1992 to 1996, he ran the electronic mailing list "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy".^[1]"

was in the article and is moved here for discussion. It was originally added by someone else, got lost or deleted on purpose - I don't know which. I restored the text. On my talk page Jimbo says:

"This edit is original research, and actually a very good example of what is wrong with original research... "

"First, the cite (to Usenet, which is hardly a reliable source) does even, if valid, match the claim you wrote. How can a newsgroup post from 1992 support the claim that I did something between 1992 and 1996? It can not."

"Second, another major problem with original research has to do with "undue weight". This is an extremely trivial point about my entire career. I have said and done many other things in my life, inculding managing and participating in a major way in probably 100 different mailing lists. Why is this one so important? If it is that it shows that I am or was an Objectivist, well, so what? There are reliable sources for that which don't require us to post sloppy original research about trivialities.--Jimbo Wales 23:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)"

I believe the statement is true. I haven't looked at the source, but I have no reason to doubt it as I've read similar several times elsewhere. As far as what sources wikipedia accepts, without reviewing this source I lack an opinion on it but notable blogs can be used for some purposes and often it is clear who wrote what as is made clear in the sources for our article spoo. I read somewhere that Jimbo and the "cofounder" of wikipedia met and/or got to know each other on this blog and if so that would make it significant. If one were to read comments made by Jimbo at such a blog (I have not) I would guess it would provide insight into who Jimbo was then and so seems relevant to the "personal life" section of an article about him as wikipedia, like any encyclopedia is at least partly also about providing sources of further data. This then was my thinking when I restored the sentence in question. The biggest argument I can think of for keeping it removed is privacy as Jimbo clearly indicates he wants it out and its notability as written is clearly a matter of his personal life. So I won't be restoring it. As leader of the Wikipedia community, Jimbo's personality is clearly important and this article lacks any real meat with regard to his personal qualities that impact that leadership role. I had hoped this sentence would over time grow into something useful in that regard. WAS 4.250 12:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate the need for, and desirability of, personal background color, this is not really the way to go about it. The way to go about it, for Wikipedia, is to avoid original research. Leave that to reputable publications with editors, reporters. Leave that to historians. The article spoo that you mention is a very good example of a specatularly horrible use of original research. This is Wikipedians obsessed with trivia trying to be historians rather than encyclopedists. This should all be nuked from the encyclopedia with extreme prejudice, in my opinion. Finally, privacy is not the point here at all. The point is the quality of our encyclopedic work, which is clearly degraded when we engage in this kind of inappropriate mock-historianship.--Jimbo Wales 14:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Blank space for date and place of death

This seems a little creepy to me. I tried to remove it but for some reason that had no effect. I would like to take out the whole box thing since all the information is probably given in the article already. What do you think? Steve Dufour 13:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if that is the best idea--Seadog^{Talk 16:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)}

No need to remove the entire infobox. When a data point is left blank, it does not show at all in the article (it is only displayed in the editing box). As such, the resulting infobox graphic is fine and does not appear to be "missing" information. -- Satori Son 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It shows on my screen, but I'm using a Mac with their browser. So maybe it's not a problem after all since most people are using PC's. Steve Dufour 03:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC) I see that it is gone now.

This isn't about PC vs. Mac; this is the browser issue. Is Safari really that bad, or are you just using an eariler version of it? Hbdragon88 05:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)