Talk:Jimmy Wales

County of Marriage

It was brought to my attention that in the archives of this page, Jimmy refers to how the county where he married his second wife, got into his biography. Here is the link to what he says linky link. Just to correct the record, it was I who added the county of marriage with a citation to where it lives in the public record. However I was never married in Monroe County. Rather that was another person who later commented on the coincidence of Jimmy and *him* having been married in the same county. I find it pretty humorous that either myself or that person is called a "stalker".

However the second point Jimmy brought up, was his belief that it shouldn't be there at all. I can't agree. In a biography, you present whatever details you can find, at least all those that aren't prurient or scandalous, and sometimes even those... I hardly think the place of marriage qualifies for any biographer's bar of exclusion. It's just one of those prices you pay for being famous. People peek into your life, even what you consider private, which it turns out isn't. Public documents are public.Wjhonson (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Prurient details should NEVER be included here or on any article, especially those articles about the living, for clearly stated and justified policy reasons AND out of respect for the private life of another human being. J Wales does not,should not, now cannot, and to be fair to the bloke, mostly has not, sought special status in his description on his article page.--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies to Wjhonson. This is still inappropriate for my biography because it is not notable, and original research. Unless you can find a reliable third party source making substantive commentary about it, it is not valid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that each fact in a biography must be notable, then you are not understanding our policies on notability. Notability applies to the article, not each sentence within it. Secondly you fail to understand the distinction between original research and source-based research. Original research is new facts that are presented, not previously published. Source-based research comes from published sources like this one. Third point, you fail to understand how we've defined the use of substantive commentary. We do not need this level of commentary to report each fact discovered, only that it's cited. Substantive commentary applies to the article in general, not each fact within it.Wjhonson (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

People are problem going to accuse me of Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem but I have to say, as a regular at WP:BLP I have a hard time believing we would mention what county someone is married in unless there's some established relevance or perhaps if it's widely quoted in most biographies concerning the person. Even more so if the subject objects and the only source appears to be WP:PRIMARY. However you're welcome to ask at WP:BLP. If you want you can even exclude the name initially in the hope people won't look themselves so they won't be influenced by their feelings for the subject. Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct. The notion that Wikipedia should amplify and permanently record every factoid that might be reliably sourced is misguided. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought place of birth was always included in a bio if known, as well as parentage. The field of history, after all, derives from genealogy, which was originally used to establish inheritance rights and land titles. And where is this policy against including prurient details in a bio? (And just for the record, I heard JW was born in Kenya, and until he can produce a birth certificate to the contrary, he's not eligible to run for president.) Tom Reedy (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The relevance is to establish residence in a particular place at a particular time. The article on Jimmy is after all a biography. Biographies do not focus on the period of time in which a person was already famous, but rather record their entire life, from birth to death, or to present if living. There are large periods of time in Jimmy's biography which are skipped with a gloss or a single sentence. By establishing the marriage location, we then establish that other mentions of "Jimmy Wales" or even "Christine Wales" in the newspaper of that place, also refer to him (them), and so on. This is how biographies are developed. Not by ignoring details, but by including details.Wjhonson (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As I see it the wikipedia doesn't work like that, ... the desperate discovery about minor personal details that lay undiscovered, we cover the notable widely reported details regarding their notability, we are not investigative reporters., seeking out and searching in local papers obscure mentions of their ex wife or suchlike. Off2riorob (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be an inappropriate use of primary sources. This article's job is to collate the narratives about Wales in the reputable press, not to concoct its own. Mr. Wales' comment above is apposite. Skomorokh 02:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me add to that. Wjhonson has accidentally here given us a perfect illustration of what is wrong with this kind of primary research, and what is wrong with including this particular tidbit in the article. "The relevance is to establish residence at a particular place at a particular time," he writes. Except that this little tidbit does not establish residence at all.

Monroe County, Florida is essentially the Florida Keys. I have never lived there. I did not even live in Florida at the time in question.

The reader who finds that tidbit will likely be misled, as indeed, apparently an experienced Wikipedian has here been misled.

He is right, of course, that for some kinds of original historical research, this is how it is done, bit by bit, piece by piece, reconstructing the story from old records. And it is hard to do well. And it is very very very far beyond the scope of Wikipedia, which is not a place for original research.

And this is why.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

CORUM award

2008 — CORUM awarded him The Global Brand Icon of the Year Award for 2008.[90]

What is CORUM or Corum? I would like to put a on it. If it is an acronym, it should be spelled out. Also, the source should be changed to -- the source given is a watch dealer's blog, and searching for Wales in the blog yields no hits. (I would have made these edits, but the article is protected.) — Solo Owl (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this seems to have some detail. http://designtaxi.com/news/19784/Jimmy-Wales-Recognized-as-Global-Brand-Icon-2008/ - Off2riorob - Corum are - http://www.corum.ch/site/ - (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-crime

"Contact Jimmy Wales here" it says, so I am. So: Some friends would like to start a wiki-style site dedicated to thriller/crime fiction. Articles about books, authors, characters, maybe publishers, agents, anything relevant. The big problem is we don't know anything about anything (except maybe crime fiction). So if Jimmy Wales, or anyone else, can help, I'd be most grateful (replies either here or to the email through my personal page). Thanks in advance. PiCo (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the best place to contact Jimmy, since he doesn't read it often. To start a new wiki-style project, the best place to start is here; it isn't part of the Wikimedia family, but was started by Jimmy and others, so you should be familiar with many of the concepts. You might also want to check whether a similar project already exists there, so as to avoid duplicating effort. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead :) PiCo (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Lacroix endorsements

Is it just me, or is naming the watchmaker and including an image of a newspaper ad sailing a little close to the wind of free advertising here? I'm not sure they are of sufficient encyclopaedic value for such prominence. Thoughts? Skomorokh 14:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Image removed so moot for now. Skomorokh 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

recent addition

This desired addition - looks just like a few small words but I thought the edit changed the WP:WEIGHT of a couple of important points so, here is the discussion, so please join in. Off2riorob (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? "He describes himself as" suggests that this act of public description is an ongoing event, which from the sources is just not true. "He identifies as" or perhaps "He has identified as" would seem to me to be both incontrovertibly true and more concise. Small fry, either way. Skomorokh 01:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to go off line now, tomorrow I will add more detail, please excuse me - yes that is imo a difference worthy of discussion and if as you say, they are both and another on was the addition of free wiki - . Off2riorob (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's cool, no rush, I've left your preferred wording of "describes himself as" in for the time being. As for "free wiki" I think this is an important point in clarifying for the reader the similarities and distinctions between Nupedia and Wikipedia – both were explicitly free to access and released under a free licence, that is both free as in "free beer" and "free speech". Regards, Skomorokh 01:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Items to cover

• Intervention in Kidnapping of David Rohde episode and what it says about Wales' role [2] nyt
• Controversy over sexual content on Commons in 2010 and the subsequent diminishing of Wales' de jure powers [3]
• Central role in fundraising, and the pop cultural impact.[4]

What else is conspicuously missing, dare I ask? Skomorokh 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for additional material relevant to Rhode incident - Guardian (:-))

And, at the risk of having Jimbo flame me yet again, I sincerely think the recent Spanish Fork and advertising material deserves consideration. It's additional insight into the crucial early thinking around Wikipedia. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that article is very interesting material for consideration for the entry Spanish Wikipedia, but doesn't seem particularly relevant to my biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Pre-emptive disclaimer - I've long been interested in the historical origin of Wikipedia, especially in regards to what I call the Dark Side of Open Source (a topic for another day). Anyway, I think it's relevant to the "Wikipedia" section, in the area of the sentence "In the early years, Wales had supplied the financial backing for the project,[clarification needed][27][32] and entertained the notion of placing advertisements on Wikipedia before costs were reduced with Sanger's departure and plans for a nonprofit foundation were advanced instead.[33]". The source supplies additional context and reasoning for the nonprofit, in particular with the sentence in the source "Wales was worried that other foreign communities would follow our fork". Now, I know well one shouldn't believe everything one reads on the Internet. Fact-checking it - using original research only for the sake of discussion, and not claiming the following mailing list posting should be cited in the article, but solely for informational purposes in evaluation - the statement appears supported by the historical record. In a July 2002 message thread, "possible explanation for Spanish 'pedia fork; plus some thoughts..." it's stated "A sponsor gets something in return -- advertising space. Based on the reactions against such ideas when floated in the past, and based on the overall low cost of keeping wikipedia going, I don't need that. I'm happy to be a small-time benefactor.". There's also (again, my emphasis) "It will cost some money to set up the nonprofit, and I chose recently to buy wikipedia a new $3000 server rather than set up some useless legal rigamarole. But I know that this can not continue indefinitely, particularly if the current situation leads to mistrust.". So the issues of "reactions" and "mistrust" are also part of the motivation for the already-mentioned decision to form a nonprofit foundation. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You've made your own reputation, such as it is, on the basis of free software; information is no different, and your ludicrous and continued attempts to dig beneath that which cannot be reasonably dug, since sources are in this respect notoriously self-serving, and thus unreliable. Seriously, Seth, as an an admin, I could block you for disruptive editing, but as it is, I like a good laugh from time to time. My advice to you would be to find some topic for which somebody, or indeed anybody, would care. Meanwhile, I suspect that you're on your own. Rodhullandemu 01:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Gottlieb Duttweiler price in Switzerland

We just witnessed here in Switzerland how Jimmy Wales gracefully accepted the Gottlieb Duttweiler price. It should me remarked, that wikipedia is not only beneficial for the readers and those who use this wealth of knowledge, it also has a positive impact on the authors. It liberated my way of thinking, and I learned how to discuss fairly, how to separate truth from fiction, opinion from fact and not least how to cite information correctly. Particularly in the sciences, wikipedia is excellent, since the text can be constantly adapted depending on how much more is discovered in a certain field or topic. But there are limits too; wikipedia cannot replace a medical doctor or a professor, and I am often more interested in the sources or references within a certain topic than the text itself. Readers and authors alike learn how to correctly cite sources which is central to all sciences and good journalism. I stated this earlier. Wikipedia is like an organism, or organisms, some survive as they adapt to their surroundings others die out because they cannot find a niche. It is evolutionary knowledge. One of the best aspects of the Internet. Questioned by a science journalist here on Swiss TV on the correctness of wikipedia entries, Jimmy Wales replied that "all information on the Internet or elsewhere can be wrong and needs to be verified" or something in that regard. And he is so right about that. We can even find mistakes in college textbooks not to mention in newspapers and bad dictionaries. We loved having Jimmy Wales here in Switzerland. Please come back! ML

If you intended this message for Jimbo, you may wish to consider posting at User_Talk:Jimbo_Wales NickCT (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)