Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 5

message: The infobox for me lists information that is not typically listed for other people's biographies.  Generally, when we do not have information, we do not put it in the infobox.  I think it looks very strange to have my salary net worth listed as "unknown".  In a random sample of pages I looked at which also have this infobox, it is normally blank (so it does not show at all) unless we have an actual figure.
Additionally, a quick search on the net on the name "Christine A. Wales" reveals that the Wikipedia article itself is essentially the only place on the web where this name appears.  There is no source given.
In my opinion, the entire discussion of Larry's spurious claim to be cofounder of Wikiepdia is about as horrible and biased as it has ever been, but years of complaining about this have done me very little good.  Still if there could be some appreciation of the fact that Larry's claiming something loudly and for a long time does not change the facts, that would be a very good thing. --Jimbo Wales 20:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Worth listing in further reading? Hammer Raccoon 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian article 

message: There's this interview with Jimbo on YouTube. "Jimmy Wales from Wikipedia". --71.224.24.99 00:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube 

message: Have a question. Jimbo's talk page is protected, why is that? -71.224.24.99 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi again 

message: i fear that someone is trying to hack onto my wikipedia accound since he knows my password. But when i created my account i opted for no email adress so i cant get a password is there another way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stone not Wood house (talk • contribs).
:This is not the place to ask. Try the Pump. oTHErONE (Contribs) 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hackers

message: Can someone please remove the penis at the bottom of the page? i cant seem to find it in the code to remove myself --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: This page should be moved to Jimbo Wales per WP:NAME. Let's face it. Hardly anyone ever calls him Jimmy. And besides, his user name is User:Jimbo Wales. I'd move it, but it's protected. --AAA! (AAAA • AAAAAAAA) 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please set up the proper header (see WP:RM). Patstuarttalk|edits 14:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, please set up the proper survey section for the move (all see WP:RM).  --Serge 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It takes less than a minute to do.  Better to light a candle than curse the darkness.  Dragons flight 04:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move Patstuarttalk|edits 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support====
# Weak Support per nom   Patstuarttalk|edits 12:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Weak Support per nom   Patstuarttalk|edits 12:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support

message: #Oppose - if Jimbo wanted there, it'd be there. -- Beardo 04:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose

message: Beginning the article "Jimmy Donal Wales ... is the founder" of Wikipedia implies that he is the sole founder of Wikipedia. Since this is a much-disputed subject, we have to avoid taking sides, and so we cannot use "the founder" without qualification.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy gevalt. Not this again. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 04:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm, after looking at Larry Sanger's helpful section above: "The facts according to Wikipedia press releases and page histories", if Wikipedia had at one point itself acknowledged Sanger as a Founder as well - perhaps the intro paragraph to Wales should read "co-founder". Smeelgova 09:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That just leads to edit wars, clarifications and mess. Better to just say "founder" and leave the discussion of Sanger's involvement to the later part of the article. This debate isn't the most important factor. -- Beardo 10:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, Sanger seems to make a really good case above, and using Wikipedia's own history no less.  Smeelgova 11:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not trying to argue the case one way or the other. Just saying that debate does not belong in the intro paragraph here. -- Beardo 11:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, "Jimmy Wales is founder of Wikipedia" is not much better than "Jimmy Wales is the founder of Wikipedia". Beside being mildly dysgrammatical, it still implies that there is one founder. I don't know if it is a good idea for us to discuss the controversy in the intro, but, if not, it appears that the balance of citations so far point to Wales being the co-founder. Accordingly, I'm going to change the text to that effect.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See my explantion of restoring "founder" above --Trödel 23:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Founder" strongly implies he is the only founder, whether or not that is the intention. Perhaps we can say "a founder" as a compromise? Though admittedly that suggests he is not the only founder, it is certainly not inaccurate, and doesn't emphasize the debate. Owen 23:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to suggest the same thing.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "A founder" is acceptable, but why not summarize the whole matter in one sentence (see my last edit which Beardo reverted)? Bramlet Abercrombie 00:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last version by User:Bramlet Abercrombie seemed reasonable.  Smeelgova 00:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with Bramlet Abercrombie's version: I don't think this controversy should be summarized in the intro paragraph.  But I do agree with the "a founder" suggested compromise. -- Satori Son 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly - rather than ask why not ?  Ask why ?  The controversy is really not thta important and does not deserve to be in the opening paragraph - especially not in a manner that causes a casual reader to stop and have to puzzle out what is being said. -- Beardo 04:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think "a founder" does not imply co-founder or only founder - so it could be a solution that would satisfy most. --Trödel 04:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. It's always a relief to see such a simple compromise working for people. Much better than having to add a clarifying blurb or leaving the article taking a definitive position. Owen 08:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree, co-founder works best here IMO, but "a founder" will work as long as it says "along with Larry Sanger". Just H 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the confusion:  I'm not debating whether the Sanger controversy should be addressed at all or not (currently, it is covered fairly extensively in the "Wikipedia" section of the article). I'm just trying to confirm what the consensus is for the wording in the very first intro paragraph. -- Satori Son 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion is "co-founder". Just H 20:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the "a founder" language. It has, in addition to almost total neutrality, a tasty ambiguity to it that characterizes the entire project's multiplicity of authorship.  The use of the indefinite article "a" underscores the fact that Wikipedia is a collaboration, while offering a respectful recognition for Wales' important role in its inception.--Crestodina 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "tasty ambiguity"? Ambiguity is bad in any case, "tasty" or not. Just H 01:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has a strict policy of "not biting the newbies". I like "a", and I'm particularly fond of "tasty ambiguity". NinaOdell | Talk 01:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, Nina. That wasn't right of me in regards to that edit summary, but I still stand with removing the "a" and any ambiguity. I only like "tasty" things that I can eat. :-) Just H 12:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the founder" 

message: To the best of my knowledge, I was first described as co-founder of Wikipedia back in September 2001 by The New York Times.  That was also my description in Wikipedia's own press releases from 2002 until 2004.  With my increasing distance from the project, and as it grew in the public eye, however, some of those associated with the project have found it convenient to downplay and even deny my crucial, formative involvement.  In fact, in the early years of the project, my role was not in dispute at all.
The following links have come to light, and they should dispel much of the
confusion:
http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html
--Larry Sanger 22:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While you were certainly influential in the early project, the first of these press releases was essentially all written by you. Mav copied the sentence in question, which you wrote, directly to the second press release, perhaps not bothering to question the information found in the original release. Note that you also wrote the original article on "Wikipedia", on 6 November 2001, citing yourself as co-founder.  --  Zanimum 21:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a very weak reply.  There's plenty of other evidence on the Web page linked above, first of all; second of all, all three of those press releases, no matter who wrote them, reflected the very public stance of Wikipedia as an organization.  That's what press releases do: they explain the sense of an organization. --Larry Sanger 02:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. What's given as press releases can be taken as the official opinion of the organization; it's unlikely that Jimbo wasn't reading them. If designating you as a co-founder is truly "preposterous", you think he might have intervened much earlier. Owen 22:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links of interest 

message: "By the end of its February 2005 fund drive, the Wikimedia Foundation was supported entirely by grants and donations.[citation needed]" <-- Can we cite the external audit by  Gregory, Sharer & Stuart, P.A.? --JWSchmidt 05:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the Foundation released the document into the public, as per what I believe is necessary as a US charity, I'd say yes.  --  Zanimum 21:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia Foundation sources of support 

message: In one of the references, there is "Wikipedia diff showing modification by Mr. Wales". Are Wikipedia diffs counted as reliable sources? Anomo 13:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question RS 

message: I just need to make a comment: Why the policy of allowing annonymous users to edit Wikipedia? registering as a user is quick and simple, and you stay just as annonymous as before. But 99% of the time vandalism is done by unregistered users. I probably revert at least 5 vandalisms to wiki every day; multiply by all the editors, and the amount of time fixing vandalism is staggering. I don't see a benefit to allowing unregistered users to edit. But there is tremendous downside. The policy should be changed in my oppinion. Dullfig 07:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the place for that discussion. -- Beardo 11:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just telling me that this is not the place to discuss this, without telling me where you would suggest i go, is not very helpful at all. Where you expecting me to guess? Wher should i take my comments? Dullfig 19:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, heh; this isn't the right place to ask where to take your comments, either! Just kidding. You might try Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Cheers, Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Dullfig
Nonetheless, MOST edits by anonymous editors are valid contributions. Michael Hardy 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is apparently the appropriate place for such discussion as long as it involves endorsing policies Wales has declared to be sacrosanct. The real reason registration is not required is because most competent attorneys will tell you registration to a Web site is best coupled with terms of service. If people were required to agree to terms of service before registering, that would spoil the fun of inviting anybody in the world to edit then chasing half of them away. Mergerlomanica 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Annonymous edits to Wikipedia