Talk:Jimmy Wales

If you need to contact Jimbo about something, please do so at User_talk:Jimbo Wales, not here. As Jimbo himself 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)

Archives
September 2004 – March 2006 April 2006 – June 2006

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)

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)

This "child in Africa" thing

I am very sympathetic to the idea of providing the "child in Africa" (not any specific one, I suppose, just all of them that have regular access to the Internet or at least to computers) with a free encyclopedia of Britannica quality or better information in it. Jimbo and I have deeply shared common values in this respect. However, I find that an inordinately high percentage of the material currently maintained in Wikipedia is little more than entertainment content (TV, science fiction, popular music) that is still under copyright and therefor makes Wikipedia little more than a marketing of Western entertainment products for sale to this African child. Provided that my assertion is true and fair, how best can we go about conveying this fact and apparent discrepancy to the reader? Perhaps more importantly, does such content belong in Wikipedia or is it better suited for Wikia — where the profit motive is overt? If this is not the proper place to discuss this "child in Africa" paradox, then where is such a place? -- 67.119.192.158 01:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In case the paradox is not clear: providing that wonderful encyclopedia to that child seems like a beneficial thing in that it might help to educate the child about practical matters and assist in lifting them out of the grinding poverty in which they are otherwise trapped, while marketing entertainment products to them merely exacerbates that same poverty. What is Wikipedia supposed to be doing? The former, the latter, both (if you are prefer not to recognize the logical inconsisency of such an option) or neither? -- 75.26.6.135 01:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh. No reponse. What about this apporach: Is that whole "child in Africa" thing true, and notable? --75.24.104.22 01:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, people, I am getting a impatient about this "child in Africa" thingy. Now, come on. What is the real deal here? You have all been staring at that text for months now. Is it a line of bull? If none of you collaborate with me pronto, I will update that g-d section myself as I see fit in a rather hard-hitting but utterly NPOV and factual manner. I am waintg... -- 67.121.113.14 08:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Some points of style

• Footnotes at the end of sentences only please. Do whatever it takes to achieve that - preferably ensuring that sentences are focused, concise and coherent.
• If you have a choice between talking about Jimmy vs. some group he is in, such as his grammar school classes, talk about Jimmy.
• Always state the Truth first in Wikipedia's own authoritative voice. Then quotes by Jimmy. Then hairsplitting by Jimmy. Then, if needed, hairsplitting by others. Then rebuttals. Try to focus on who, what, when, where and try avoid the "why" if it is going to lead to long-winded or off-topic explanations
• I reserve the option of building up this list: we seem to have some persistant bad habits that make the prose more difficult to digest. -- 04:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is 50 edits, but it so much more readable and clear now. Why, even a teenager can could comprehend the aritlce now. -- 75.24.214.113 06:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing: I do not really like pin-point links to multi-page web articles in the External links and footnotes for average-size news articles of, say, one to five or even ten web pages. My reasoning is that the page breaks are driven by formatting and it is too easy to lose context if the reader skips straight to page four or something like that. Think about it: the only reason the newspaper did not put the whole article on one web page is for force the reader to slog through pages of advertising. In this case, is it NOT our job to save our readers from having to slog through the ads - our job is to avoid presenting the article in a manner that might give the reader an out-of-context viewpoint. The author of the story wrote it as a whole and we should present it as a whole.

More speicifically, I do not want us to take the reader to a web page that starts "And some clearly thought he should be taught a lesson..." which is where [1] currently takes the reader. I am going to chop off the "page=4" CGI argument and leave a spelled-out HINT (for those readers who are in a super-duper rush) in the footnote to see "page 4". If the reader wants to skip to page 4, then let them, but do not do it for them because it narrows their view and tends to encourage them to ignore context. -- 67.116.253.84 09:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, boston.com is very clever and suddenly challenges the user for a registration after three or four web page visits. Sigh. I will leave the link in for now, but New York Times and Boston Globe articles should, in my opinion, eventually get retired and replaced with links that, in a more persistent fashion, do NOT require registration. -- 67.116.253.84

The "banned users" reference

Now, let us get something straight here. If you check out what Nick Carr has been saying, like [2] and [3] (and any of you can sit down and talk to him if you are going to Wikimania 2006 if you just schedule an appointment with him and can stay over an extra day) I think you will see that including the link to the list of banned users is a fair and balanced approach. Based on my personal knowledge of him as his biographer (at least for today) I am sure that Jimmy was not in his right mind when he wrote that his critics were "quite simply, mental cases" and that with the passage of time, he has come to regret those words. Of course, if the list of banned users becomes less of concern to Jimmy over time, well, then perhaps we can avoid that information as well. -- 75.24.214.113 06:25, 10 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)

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)