Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 4

message: The full quote from the reference on the relationship between Objectivism and Altrusim:
Rand defined altruism as the principle ``that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue, and value.''
One must distinguish between altruism and helping others. Simply helping others is not altruism: altruism is the belief that you have a duty to help others, that you owe others. As Rand put it, the issue is not whether or not you should give a dime to a beggar, but rather if you have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. ...
On an interpersonal level, altruism leads to suspicion and ill will. Since any person's need is a blank check drawn against the lives of others, each person knows that any stranger may cash this check at any time, and conversely each person feels that every stranger owes him something. 
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Please settle content disputes on the talk page before editing. --JWSchmidt 02:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This dispute was settled on the talk page since Sept 28th, see talk history --Trödel 02:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New objectivist edits: 

message: It's about time. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{protected}}</nowiki> 

message: 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)
thread_title: On a lighter note

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quote about fixing NYT's errors? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: See the Wikimedia Foundation 2005 Budget for details. WAS 4.250 21:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting.  And what can we infer from all this? Smeelgova 21:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Salary 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hello 

message: "From 1992 to 1996, he ran the electronic mailing list "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy". "
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Moved from article

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't know if that is the best idea--SeadogTalk 16:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Blank space for date and place of death