Misplaced Pages

Talk:Jimmy Wales: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:27, 6 March 2008 editCanuckle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,604 edits →Option B← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:16, 4 January 2025 edit undoNagae Iku (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions1,242 edits →Newer 2024 image? 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{Article history
{{talkheader}}
| action1 = AFD
{{ArticleHistory
| action1date = 14 October 2005
|action1=AFD
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales
|action1date=2005-10-14
| action1result = kept
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales
| action1oldid = 14579563
|action1result=kept
|action1oldid=25464126
|
|action2=PR
|action2date=23:22, 15 June 2006
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Jimmy Wales/archive1
|action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=58840827
|
|action3=GAN
|action3date=2006-07-05
|action3result=listed
|action3oldid=62024022
|
|action4=FAC
|action4date=2006-10-10
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jimmy Wales/archive1
|action4result=not promoted
|action4oldid=80703703
|
|action5=GAR
|action5date=2006-10-17
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Good_articles/Disputes/Archive_8#Jimmy_Wales
|action5result=kept
|action5oldid=81895538
|
|action6=PR
|action6date=2007-06-13
|action6oldid=137788265
|action6result=reviewed
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Jimmy Wales/archive2
|
|action7=AFD
|action7date=2007-08-14
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (2nd nomination)
|action7result=speedily kept
|action7oldid=151226064
|
|action8=AFD
|action8date=2007-08-31
|action8result=speedily kept
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (3rd nomination)
|action8oldid=154849721
|
|action9=GAR
|action9date=2007-12-20
|action9oldid=178824205
|action9result=delisted
|action9link=Talk:Jimmy Wales#GA Sweeps (on hold)
|
|currentstatus=DGA
|topic=Socsci}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPBiography |class=B |priority=Mid |living=yes|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages |class=B |importance=mid|nested=yes}}
{{WP Internet |class=B |importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Alabama |class=B|nested=yes}}
}}
{{WP1.0|WPCD=people|class=B}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align: left;"
|-
| ]
| '''If you need to contact Jimbo about something, please do so at ], not here.''' As Jimbo explains...


| action2 = AFD
"People who are trying to leave messages for me will likely be more satisfied if they leave messages on my ] 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. --] 06:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)"
| action2date = 14 August 2007
|}
| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (2nd nomination)
| action2result = speedily kept
| action2oldid = 151188864


| action3 = AFD
{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|Jimmy_Wales.ogg|small=yes}}
| action3date = 31 August 2007
{{wikipedian-bio|Jimbo Wales|Wales, Jimbo|editedhere=yes|small=yes}}
| action3link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (3rd nomination)
{{archives|auto=[long|small=yes}}
| action3result = speedily kept
| action3oldid = 154846896


| action4 = GAN
==CRITICISM==
| action4date = 25 March 2012
Most wikipedia articles on people have a section called 'criticism' or 'controvesies'. Now, why is Jimmy an exception? Because he founded wikipedia? Com'oon this is a 💕. We don't have any taboos here!
| action4link = Talk:Jimmy Wales/GA1
To give wiki users an idea on what to write in this section: please see http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4386200
| action4result = failed
And of course, users should include his responses to criticism too...
| action4oldid = 477279005


|action5 = AFD
P.S. for Jimmy: Please do not remove this post. Thanks...
|action5date = 14:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
|action5link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (8th nomination)
|action5result = speedily kept
|action5oldid = 758452878


|currentstatus = FGAN
|topic = Social sciences and society
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes |collapsed=yes |class=B |vital=yes |listas=Wales, Jimmy |1=
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Chicago|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=Mid |websites=yes |websites-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low |IN=yes |IN-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Alabama}}
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
{{WikiProject Objectivism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Open |importance=High}}
}}
<!-- Inactive Projects -->
<!-- End of Inactive Projects -->
{{Press
| subject = article
| author = Yermi Brenner
| title = Taking On Misplaced Pages's Bias
| org = Medium
| url = https://medium.com/better-humans/11acd4a7f44c
| date = {{date|24 June 2013}}
| quote =
| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/6ITfm2rhu
| archivedate = {{date|28 July 2013}}
| accessdate = {{date|28 July 2013}}
| author2 = Madeleine Spence
| title2 = Larry Sanger: ‘I wouldn’t trust Misplaced Pages — and I helped to invent it’
| org2 = The Sunday Times
| url2 = https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/larry-sanger-i-wouldnt-trust-wikipedia-and-i-helped-to-invent-it-cflrhmdhx
| date2 = {{date|1 August 2021}}
| quote2 =
| archiveurl2 =
| archivedate2 =
| accessdate2 =
| author3 = ]
| title3 = VIPs expect special treatment. At Misplaced Pages, don’t even ask.
| org3 = ]
| url3 = https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/wikipedia-jimmy-wales-john-eastman-editing/2021/10/28/f2d61bea-35fd-11ec-9bc4-86107e7b0ab1_story.html
| date3 = 28 October 2021
| quote3 =
| accessdate3 = 29 October 2021


| author4 = ]
| title4 = Misplaced Pages's Jimmy Wales Has Already Solved the Internet's Problems
| org4 = ]
| url4 = https://reason.com/video/2022/04/28/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-has-already-solved-the-internets-problems/
| date4 = 28 April 2022
| quote4 =
| accessdate4 = 6 May 2022
}}
{{Notable Wikipedian|Jimbo Wales|declared=yes|editedhere=yes}}
{{tmbox|type=content|class=tmbox-talk-notice|text=
<big>This talk page is '''only for discussions concerning Misplaced Pages's article on Jimmy Wales'''.</big>
* '''To talk to Jimmy Wales himself''', please use ''']'''.
* '''To get help with general Misplaced Pages questions''', see the ''']'''.
* '''To discuss Misplaced Pages policy or practices''', see the ''']'''.
* '''For other useful links''', see the ''']'''.}}


{{merged-from|Jimmy Wales Foundation|14 December 2020}}
{{pp-move-indef}}


{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
==So this man supersedes consensus?==
|target=Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive index
I long to stand on the shoulders of giants, but this man crushes his own 5 pillars with his own immense weight! ] (]) 04:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
|mask=Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0
== DOB ==
|indexhere=no

}}
There are conflicting sources as to what his birthday really is.
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}
The Florida public records say his birthday is August 8, 1966.
|maxarchivesize = 100K
Sources:
|counter = 14
http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2007/07/on_wikipedia_and_its_founders.html
|minthreadsleft = 4
and here: http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2007/08/08/my-birthdate/ he insinuates that his birthday is August 8, 1966 by saying Britannica is wrong (which lists his birthday as August 7).
|algo = old(30d)

|archive = Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive %(counter)d
I think we should change this article to list his birthday as August 8 instead of August 7 because according to his blog, August 7 is wrong, or at least give note saying that his DOB is debated. ]<sup><font color="3388AA">]</font></sup> 09:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=/Archive index
This is already covered in his ]. More reliable, ] list his birthday as Aug. 7th. I've copied the relevant information below. ] (]) 18:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
|mask=/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0
<blockquote>
|indexhere=yes}}
Wales had previously edited his entries on Misplaced Pages and on the Wikimedia Foundation's website in 2004 to indicate his date of birth is ], ].<ref name="original_birthday">
__TOC__
{{cite news
== Date/age issue ==
|first=Jimbo
|last=Wales
|title=Edit by Jimbo Wales at Wikimedia Foundation
|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/search/?title=Board_of_Trustees&diff=prev&oldid=406
|work=
|publisher=]
|date=]
|accessdate=2007-08-08
|quote=}}</ref><ref name="originalbirthday">
{{cite news
|first=Jimbo
|last=Wales
|title=Edit by Jimbo Wales at Misplaced Pages
|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=5987088
|work=
|publisher=]
|date=]
|accessdate=2007-08-08
|quote=}}</ref> He also made a statement in 2006 in which he wrote in part: "'''My date of birth is not August 8, 1966.'''"<ref name="DOBnot080866">
{{cite news
|title=Wales claim birthdate is not ], ]
|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJimmy_Wales&diff=63246911&oldid=63223187
|publisher=]
|date=]
|accessdate=2007-08-12}}</ref> The '']'', ], and ] support these statements.<ref name="dob">{{cite web|title=Jimmy Wales |url=http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9438001/Jimmy-Wales Britannica Book of the Year, 2007|accessdate=2007-07-25}}</ref><ref name=dob1">{{cite book|title=Current Biography Yearbook 2006 - Publisher: H. W. Wilson (], ]) ISBN 978-0824210748}}</ref><ref name="dob2">{{cite book|title=Who's Who In America: Diamond Edition - Publisher: Marquis Who's Who; 60th edition (], ]) ISBN 978-0837969909}}</ref> According to a researcher’s note on the Britannica’s website in June 2007, Wales contacted Britannica claiming that the date of ], ] was incorrect but was unwilling to provide them with a documented alternative.<ref name="researchers_note">
{{cite news
|first=
|last=
|title=Jimmy Wales's date of birth
|url=http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9439003/Jimmy-Waless-date-of-birth
|work=Researcher's Note
|publisher=]
|date=]
|accessdate=2007-08-08
|quote=}}</ref> '''On ], ], when asked by ] reporter Mike Rogoway when his birthday was Wales is reported to have mysteriously stated, "Nobody knows."'''<ref name="dob"/> Moreover, on his blog Rogoway claims that a Florida public records search shows that Wales’ drivers license lists his date of birth as ], ].<ref name="dob"/> In August 2007, Wales expanded on this in his Misplaced Pages talk page by stating, in part: "In any event, the quotes in the Oregonian are correct."<ref name="DOB"/>
</block(the above comment appears to be unsigned)

Note also that ] says that Jimmy stated his birthday was August 7, and then subsequently used the oversight function to remove his own comment.

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo's_birthday

This diff pretty much substantiates Wikitruth's claims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJimmy_Wales&diff=5987141&oldid=5973463
</blockquote>

Here's the redacted comment:

<blockquote>My actual birthday is August 7th, 1966. This is unverifiable information, I'm sorry to say, since my driver's license and passport say August 8. If we must revert on that basis, then I guess we must. *g*. Maybe I'll have to upload a signed note from my mom as documentary evidence; the only proof that I have is her sayso. :-) Jimbo Wales 20:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)</blockquote>

Please do not remove this comment. Wikitruth is obviously not a reliable source of information, so it took me a bit of digging to actually substantiate their claims. I don't want to make other people waste time repeating the work. --] (]) 02:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

His personal blog http://blog.jimmywales.com/ says that his wiki bio has a bad DOB.
In the same post, Jimmy Wales say "for the first time the world has a proper source" and link to this .
So please edit his Date of Birth quickly and set it at is "official" (driver licence) date : 8 Aug.
--] (]) 12:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

== How does he make money? ==

What exactly is his means of income? ] (]) 04:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

: ]. -- ] (]) 14:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:Not so, he apparently lives off money he made in the past, this is highly feasible so we have no reason to doubt it. Thanks, ] 15:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

== NPOV ==

Could some please explain to me how this phrase violates NPOV:

<blockquote>
Wales is one of the best-known entrepreneurs of the Web 2.0 revolution. Together with Larry Sanger, Wales has helped popularize a trend in web development that aims to facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing between users.
</blockquote>

Wales and Sanger worked together and both helped popularize the Web 2.0 revolution. This statement completely avoids mentioning anything about the founding of Misplaced Pages, which would be sponsoring a POV. ] (]) 19:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

<blockquote>Together with Larry Sanger, Wales founded Misplaced Pages, which has helped popularize a trend in web development (sometimes called Web 2.0) that aims to facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing between users.</blockquote>

I think this would be NPOV and the previous consensus before the edit war started. ] ] 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:FWIW, I found the first edit to the current software system ] from Jan 2002 and it describes them both as co-founders. Granted its original research on my part, so content couldn't be based on it, but I figured it would add to the discussion. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::I have made an attempt to put the second paragraph of the lead together somewhat differently. I realize the controversy over Sanger's role (and its presence or absence in the lead) is the subject of ongoing dispute. However, I'm proposing we separate the statement of the project's founding with a characterization of Wales' role in shaping the project long-term and his broader influence as its most visible spokesperson. This characterization may not be 100% accurate yet, but may I suggest that it wasn't just the founding that helped popularize the project, but an awful lot of work between then and now? The term Web 2.0 didn't even come along until 2004. --] (]) 01:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::An awful lot of work, certainly, but not by Wales but by the thousands of people who built it up. The content alone made it popular; Wales' travels and media appearances are quite superfluous and serve mainly his self-aggrandizement. I fail to see anything important he has done since the WMF was founded. ] (]) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:::: Your assessment of Wales' role is original research that does not square with the picture created by reliable sources. --] (]) 03:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::The reliable sources created a picture and not fact. Agreed. ] (]) 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::Yes, and according to ] the standard is verifiability, not truth. I can match Bramlet's personal perspective with the polar opposite personal perspective, because a radio interview Jimmy Wales did last spring was highly influential in my own personal involvement in the project. I'm guessing there are other wikipedians who would say the same thing. But that's also original research, no more valid than Bramlet's view. Instead of this debate, how about we discuss alternative wording approaches here in an attempt to reach consensus? Here's another try:

:::::::Together with Larry Sanger, Wales created Misplaced Pages, laying the foundation for its rapid growth and popularity. The success of the project popularized a trend in web development (called Web 2.0) that aims to facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing between users. As a result of his work with Misplaced Pages, which has become the world's largest encyclopedia, Wales appeared in Time magazine's 2006 list of the world's most influential people. Wales continues to influence the public's perceptions of Misplaced Pages's value and reputation by serving as the project's most visible spokesperson.
::::::--] (]) 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I would like to see the differences. Edit the article and then self-revert and then I can clearly see the differences. ] (]) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks for your response. I've made the edits I suggested a couple days ago; don't quite understand the need to self-revert -- you can see changes in my last diff. --] (]) 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::. References are need for this edit. Thanks. ] (]) 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::. References are needed for that edit. ] (]) 21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(undenting) I restored the first part of my suggested change, quoting from the Marshall Poe Atlantic Monthly history. With regard to the second suggested change -- "Wales continues to influence the public's perceptions of Misplaced Pages's value and reputation by serving as the project's most visible spokesperson." -- what of that is challengeable and needs to be sourced? Is there another more visible spokesperson that I'm not aware of? Cites throughout the article support the fact that Wales plays this role, and the sentence itself does not state whether that influence is always positive or otherwise, so by itself, I don't see how the sentence violates NPOV. --] (]) 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:Wales is Misplaced Pages's unofficial spokesperson. I gave it a try. ] (]) 06:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

== Honors and awards ==

I think the "Honors and awards" section should be renamed or some of those items need to be moved to a different section. It seems rather bizarre that the ''Chaser'' incident, for example, is being called an honor or an award. I'm sure Jimmy was personally very honored by their attention but still...;) Thoughts? ] 00:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:Attempt made: I started new section (section head may need further improvement) for "Other notable media appearances", since media mentions are interspersed throughout the article and every media appearance does not need to be added. Other editors may question whether the existing list of media appearances seems notable enough to mention, I for one don't think it adds much to the overall article but hesitate to delete it. --] (]) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

==Personal Life==
Anyone wanting to change this article to include new information on the subject's personal life, must provide really really really ]. Please don't even add information to this talk page without sources. ] applies here as much as anywhere, whether we like the subject or not.--]<sup>g</sup> 00:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed, poorly sourced smut has no place in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 01:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
::Agree wholeheartedly. Reliable sources must be used. <b style="color:#c22">^</b>]</sup>]]&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">15:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)</em>

:Yep, we are watching. Thanks, ] 19:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

==Statement from Jimbo admitting relationship with Marsden==
He admits being separated from his wife, and the relationship with Marsden in this statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Statement%2C_March_1st%2C_2008
This should be added to his page, as it is definitive, first-hand proof, straight from the horse's mouth. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:No offense, but who really cares? I mean my gosh. Suppose you had a biography here. Should we list every date you ever had on it? Give me a break. This is an encyclopedia for gosh sakes. Who cares about that nonsense?--] (]) 04:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
:: Agreed. Unless a reasonably reliable source discusses this (not a self-described silicon valley gossip magazine) we have no good reason to include this. ] (]) 06:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
::: Per ], the information stays out unless it's covered by a reliable source. And even then, we might want multiple reliable sources, since we've got three living people whose privacy we need to be aware of: Wales, Marsden, and Wales' wife. Though it ''might'' be reasonable to change the "Wales is married" line to "Wales is separated", since that seems a reasonable update of "marital status," which we can take someone's word on, per ]. --]]] 17:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:The separation is acceptable, to add the Marsden allegations right now is not, IMHO. Happy editing, ] 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
::It is not an "allegation"; Jimbo has ''admitted'' it. I agree that it shouldn't be added, but only because it isn't significant yet. Not because it'd somehow be a BLP violation to do so. -] <small>]</small> 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
:::The way worded it is fine but I would like to see a in the future. ] (]) 19:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Per Misplaced Pages policy, Wales' statement cannot be used as a source. See ], "Articles and posts on Misplaced Pages may not be used as sources." This certainly includes statements in user space. ] (]) 00:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:We can adhere to the letter of the policy and pretend that they aren't seperated, even though there is clear evidence that they are. Or, we can recognize that sentence as being a measure to prevent people from posting OR and then sourcing it elsewhere, and accept the man's statements about his life as definitive. I prefer the latter. -] <small>]</small> 00:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::There is no need to pretend anything. We can adhere to the policy by not addressing the matter, since it is not important and doesn't need to be in the encyclopedia. If it were important, there'd be a ]. There is not. ] (]) 01:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::Also, your argument seems to be "I want this poorly sourced statement, which violates both ] and ], to remain in Misplaced Pages to prevent someone from possibly adding original research to the encyclopedia." I suggest that this is not a very good argument to justify a violation of policy. ] (]) 01:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== Citation ==

can anybody cite that jimbo is the unofficial spokesperson for wikipedia as it says at the end of the intro?...thanks--] (]) 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:This was an attempt at characterizing Wales' continuing role with the media in a neutral way; see NPOV discussion further up the page. What of the statement is challengeable and needs citing? His media appearances related to Misplaced Pages have continued, and these, I believe, are adequately cited within the article. --] (]) 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

::That makes sense, isn't he the official spokesperson though?--] (]) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Technically, he is not the official spokesperson of Misplaced Pages. He has not claimed the title. However, if he says he is Misplaced Pages's spokesperson then we can change it officially. ] (]) 05:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

=="Early life" section==

As this section contains information as recent as "as of March 2008", shouldn't this section be renamed "Personal life", "Background" or something similar? ] ] 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

I removed that. Even if it is sourced, it has no relevance to the article, especially, like Jimbo says, it was a short-term relationship.

If we would keep that, what would be the next step? ''List of girlfriends, hookups and dates of Jimmy Wales''? We should keep only the personal details that are important. If this affair would have lead to a controversy which would be published by The New York Times, then yes, it should have been in the article, but otherwise, it's just a piece of trivia. ] (]) 01:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:I don't see why it has to be in the New York Times. The Canadian Press isn't trivial... -] <small>]</small> 01:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:: The source might not be trivial, but the information itself is trivial. ] (]) 01:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Why is the information trivial? They felt that it was important enough to devote an entire news article to. -] <small>]</small> 02:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, and in case you aren't satisfied with The Canadian Press, . -] <small>]</small> 02:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::: Yeah, that's not a tabloid by any stretch of the imagination. Given that article it would make much more sense to mention it here since it emphasizes the Misplaced Pages element. I'm not convinced that it should be mentioned here or on the Marsden page, but the case for here is looking much stronger. ] (]) 04:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

: Heh, has a story on this. ] (]) 14:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::I think the fact '']'' has now featured this suggests a neutrally-worded sentence or two is becoming more and more appropriate. I've added one. ] ] 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the only remotely notable aspect of this is as one instance of many, of the media leaping to conclusions about how Misplaced Pages works without doing full research (as in, criticizing Wales' editing of Marsden's entry, without realizing that the editing predated the personal relationship.) Beyond that, yawn. Not notable, just like any number of anecdotes about public figures, while covered in the media, do not belong in their WP article. -] (]) 18:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

: It is hard to see given the Times and other coverage why we shouldn't at least mention this. ] (]) 19:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages / Jimbo Wales / ] controversy and sources ==
{{refbegin}}
#{{cite news
| last = ]
| title = Canadian pundit, Misplaced Pages founder in messy breakup
| work = ]
| publisher = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/03/02/marsden-breakup.html
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Goodman
| first = Lee-Anne
| coauthors = ]
| title = Right-wing pundit Marsden turns to eBay after breakup with Misplaced Pages founder
| work = ]
| publisher = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.cbc.ca/cp/media/080302/X030204AU.html
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Goodman
| first = Lee-Anne
| title = Right-wing pundit Marsden turns to eBay after breakup with Misplaced Pages founder
| work = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSOd2XLhTZ0E3mtqlBZlhukSa21w
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Staff
| title = Spurned Marsden selling ex-beau's stuff: But Misplaced Pages founder admits to only 'brief' liason
| work = ]
| publisher = Pacific Newspaper Group Inc
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=b1c9eef3-679c-4f86-955e-aa7a7806475f
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Staff
| title = Pundit peddles ex's items online
| work = ]
| publisher = Canoe Inc
| date = March 3, 2008
| url = http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2008/03/03/4891171-sun.html
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Naughton
| first = Philippe
| title = Jilted lover uses eBay to hit back at Misplaced Pages guru
| work = ]
| publisher = Times Newspapers Ltd
| date = ], ]
| url = http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3475722.ece
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = O'Donoghue
| first = JJ
| title = Misplaced Pages break-up causes web stir
| work = ]
| publisher = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.webuser.co.uk/news/news.php?id=195750
| accessdate = 2008-03-03}}
#{{cite news
| last = Grabham
| first = Dan
| title = Misplaced Pages founder embroiled in online spat with ex-lover: You really could not make this stuff up
|page = Section: Internet
| work = Techradar.com
| publisher = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/wikipedia-founder-embroiled-in-online-spat-with-ex-lover-256202
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Megan
| first = McCarthy
| title = Misplaced Pages Founder Hit With Relationship Trouble, Allegations of Excessive Spending
| work = ]
| publisher = CondéNet, Inc.
| date = ], ]
| url = http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/03/scandal-in-wiki.html
| accessdate = 2008-03-03}}
#{{cite news
| last = Coleman
| first = Joey
| coauthors = Erin Millar
| title = Another chapter for one of SFU’s most (in)famous alumni
| work = ]
| publisher = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2008/03/03/another-chapter-for-one-of-sfus-most-infamous-alumni/
| accessdate =2008-03-03 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Cooper
| first = Charles
| title = My e-mail breakup with Jimmy Wales and other sordid doings
| work = ]
| publisher = CNET Networks, Inc
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.news.com/8301-10787_3-9884531-60.html
| accessdate = 2008-03-03}}
#{{cite news
| last =Moses
| first =Asher
| title =Ex takes her revenge on Mr Misplaced Pages
| work =]
| page =Section: Tech
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/revenge-of-the-ex-after-tycoon-dumps-her-online/2008/03/04/1204402405901.html
| accessdate = 2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last =Leonard
| first =Tom
| title = Misplaced Pages's Jimmy Wales in online love spat
| work =]
| publisher =Telegraph Media Group Limited
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/04/webay104.xml
| accessdate = 2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last =Ramadge
| first =Andrew
| title =Misplaced Pages icon's Silicon Valley sex scandal
| work =]
| page =Section:Technology
| publisher =News Limited
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23317586-5014239,00.html
| accessdate =2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last =Gardner
| first =David
| title =Dumped Dot Com: How Misplaced Pages founder used his website to break off relationship - and how she used eBay to get revenge
| work =]
| publisher =Associated Newspapers Ltd
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=525571&in_page_id=1770
| accessdate = 2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last =Naughton
| first =Philippe
| title =Misplaced Pages Founder's Fling With Columnist Ends in Nasty Public Breakup
| work =]
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334652,00.html
| accessdate = 2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Staff
| title = Dumped on Misplaced Pages, revenge on eBay
| work = Metro.co.uk
| publisher = Associated Newspapers Limited
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=109959&in_page_id=34
| accessdate = 2008-03-04}}
#{{cite news
| last = Nelson
| first = Sara
| title = Wiki love split cyber storm
| work = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article873835.ece
| accessdate =2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Pavia
| first = Will
| coauthors = Philippe Naughton
| title = Fury of a woman scorned – on Misplaced Pages
| work = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3475722.ece
| accessdate =2008-03-06 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Pavia
| first = Will
| coauthors = Philippe Naughton
| title = Misplaced Pages founder's dirty laundry for sale on eBay: It was a boy-meets-girl story for the Web 2.0 generation. But when it turned sour, the recriminations resounded through the blogosphere while the dirty laundry was put up for sale on eBay.
| work = ]
| publisher = News Limited
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23319878-2703,00.html
| accessdate = 2008-03-04}}
#{{cite news
| last = Agrell
| first = Siri
| title = Ms. Marsden's cyberspace breakup: tit-for-tat-for-T-shirt
| work = ]
| publisher = CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc.
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080304.wlbreakup04/BNStory/lifeMain/home
| accessdate =2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Staff
| title = Bidding war for Misplaced Pages T-shirts
| work = ]
| publisher = ]
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.webuser.co.uk/news/195964.html
| accessdate = 2008-03-04}}
#{{cite news
| last = Staff
| title = A 'Wiki' love gone wrong ends on eBay
| work = Canada.com
| publisher = Canwest Interactive
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/story.html?id=f96de9c9-1ba9-4079-bfd9-0ba77008b92e&k=58058
| accessdate =2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last = Staff
| title = Messy Break Up Posted on Blogs, Misplaced Pages and eBay: Misplaced Pages Founder, Internet Columnist Say Goodbye on the Web
| work = MyFoxNational Reports
| publisher = Fox Television Stations, Inc.
| date = ], ]
| url = http://www.myfoxstl.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5937107&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.3.1
| accessdate =2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last =Bergstein
| first =Brian (])
| title = Misplaced Pages's Wales Hit Over Expenses
| work =]
| publisher =]
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/04/AR2008030401869.html
| accessdate =2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last =McCarthy
| first =Megan
| title =Misplaced Pages Founder Hit With Relationship Trouble, Allegations of Excessive Spending
| work =]
| publisher =]
| date =], ]
| url =http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4386200
| accessdate = 2008-03-04 }}
#{{cite news
| last =Staff
| title =Misplaced Pages founder dumps girlfriend online
| work =]
| publisher =United Press International, Inc.
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2008/03/04/wikipedia_founder_dumps_girlfriend_online/2493/
| accessdate = 2008-03-05}}
#{{cite news
| last =Moses
| first =Asher
| title =Misplaced Pages's Jimmy Wales accused of expenses rort
| work =]
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.smh.com.au/news/biztech/wikipedia-head-accused-of-expenses-rort/2008/03/05/1204402516874.html
| accessdate = 2008-03-05 }}
#{{cite news
| last =Kim
| first =Ryan
| title =Allegations swirl around Misplaced Pages's Wales
| work =]
| publisher =Hearst Communications, Inc.
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/04/BUVFVDM3H.DTL
| accessdate = 2008-03-05 }}
#{{cite news
| last =Sheehy
| first =Kate
| title =One Wild and Wiki Breakup: Web Guru's Ex In Ebay Revenge Bid
| work =]
| publisher =]
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.nypost.com/seven/03042008/news/regionalnews/one_wild_and_wiki_breakup_100324.htm
| accessdate = 2008-03-05 }}
#{{cite news
| last =Times Staff Writer
| title =Wiki breakup calls for eBay revenge
| work =]
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/05/Southpinellas/Wiki_breakup_calls_fo.shtml
| accessdate = 2008-03-05 }}
#{{cite news
| last =Harris
| first =Scott Duke
| title =Misplaced Pages founder dogged by tawdry tales online: Internet Hosts Misplaced Pages Creator's Messy Breakup, Allegations of Financial Wrongs
| work =]
| date =], ]
| url =http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_8459494
| accessdate = 2008-03-05 }}
{{refend}}
Will update as more ]/] secondary sources become available. ] (]) 10:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
: Ok, that looks like more than enough sources. Inclusion is very hard to argue against at this point. ] (]) 19:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That last link, with the talk about excessive spending, is rather disconcerting to me. --] (], ]) 20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, it will be interesting to see if other financial-based secondary news sources pick up on that. ] (]) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::To get more to the point, my faith in Misplaced Pages's leadership may be lessening if Danny's statements turn out to be true. --] (], ]) 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, keep us posted if you come across any follow-up to that piece in other ]/] secondary sources. ] (]) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::I will. --] (], ]) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
So why is it not already included in the article? ] (]) 09:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:Good question {{user|146.110.102.218}}, good question. ] (]) 10:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

==Trash tabs==
Misplaced Pages may not replace the Encyclopedia Britannica, but it's well on its way to challenging the National enquirer for supremacy on its own turf. Time to get lives, folks. ] (]) 18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I see Jimbo's stuff is up to about $700 on eBay. Anyone else see the fundraising possibilities here? ] (]) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:Exactly! That was my first thought when hearing about this. "Oh, this must be Phase II of their fund raiser, great idea!" ] (]) 08:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

==Removal of sources?==
I am being edit-conflicted with someone who is bent on removal of sources from this biography while I'm trying to make corrections, some of which are required to make this article comply with ] policy. Is this appropriate? I'm done editing this article for the time being, I simply don't have time for this nonsense. ] (]) 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== Protected ==

I'm not getting involved in the details. But we DO NOT edit war on a BLP over issues covered by the BLP policy. Please discuss here and reach consensus over what should or should not be in the article, and what is or is not complaint with ] ] and ]. Once that is done protection can be removed.--]<sup>g</sup> 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== "Affair" and "breakup" ==
A one-night stand does not usually equal an "affair" or "relationship," and the idea of a "breakup" after a one-night stand, however it's done, seems a bit overblown. (Note that Mardsen appears to be the only one to have referred to it as such.) Nobody will care about this in a few months. -] (]) 19:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::Note that Wales appears to be the only one to have referred to it as a one-night stand. We don't know when it started. The term "affair" is vague enough to cover all possibilities. ] (]) 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::"Affair" does not have a good connotation, though. I think "relationship" is more appropriate. --] (], ]) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Uhhh, when you're not actually divorced; but merely separated from your wife, then it's an affair. ] (]) 08:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Like I said, "affair" is not neutral. We're not here to pass judgment on Wales's personal life. --] (], ]) 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Well I hope so, but I don't know if that's an argument against including mention of this incident, which isn't fully over. Otherwise, I'd have to agree, Marsden is making a mountain out of a molehill here. --] (], ]) 19:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:: I agree, it's possible the issue could expand and become more significant. In fact, adding a bunch of coverage to this article would likely contribute to that! On the number of sources that Cirt has diligently assembled, that does prove that the incident has some notability, but doesn't say that it should be included in ''this'' article. We don't cite every article that mentions Jimbo Wales. -] (]) 19:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::No, we don't need to reference every article, just whatever verifies the facts we state. --] (], ]) 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Pete, you say "in fact, adding a bunch of coverage to this article would likely contribute to that!" which is the best argument for not giving this subject any coverage right now that I have heard. Happy editing, ] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::News stories generally don't grow because other groups cover them. Pete's view seems pretty paranoid to me. What would we have to fear by covering something as we always have? --] (], ]) 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::: Paranoid? Oh dear...I just meant it as a joke. I don't really care that much about this issue, I'm gonna leave it to you guys. -] (]) 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::Okay, I didn't mean any hard feelings. --] (], ]) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== WP:UNDUE ==

In relation to the Marsden issue, ] without doubt applies. ''If'' the issue is worthy of mention at all, the '''''maximum''''' coverage permissible without giving undue significance to this event is the following: "In 2008 he had a brief affair with Canadian journalist Rachel Marsden." Furthermore, 6 or 7 sources do not need to follow this sentence: 1 is sufficient, for instance the CBC source currently used. Any further discussion of this issue in the article violates WP:UNDUE and is simply prurience. ] (]) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:The incident is not notable because he had a brief relationship, it's because of what happened when the relationship ended. And I don't think calling it an affair is appropriate. Wales said he was already separated from his wife. --] (], ]) 19:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

::There is nothing notable about "what happened when the relationship ended." "Affair" does not imply cheating, but if you prefer, the sentence could be formulated, "In 2008 he was briefly involved with Canadian journalist Rachel Marsden." ] (]) 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::That wording is okay. What I mean is that it seems the reason that this story is going anywhere is because Marsden wigged out and put a t-shirt and other stuff on eBay. --] (], ]) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Like I said, nothing notable. ] (]) 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::If we were talking about Jane Doe, sure. --] (], ]) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::Jimmy's T-shirt being sold on e-Bay by an ex-lover doesn't seem notable to me, and certainly not for our encyclopedia. Happy editing, ] 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::It is notable in the context. I'm not sure we'd have all those sources if it hadn't happened. --] (], ]) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::It is possible to have sources about non-notable events; this is one of them. • ] <sup>]</sup> 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Non-notable to you. These are pretty respectable sources, not some Internet zine. And without the second half of the story, which, if I may say so, appears to be what most of the reports are focusing on, it becomes pretty much worthless trivia. --] (], ]) 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Reminds me of the Corey Delaney incident... • ] <sup>]</sup> 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:(un-indent) How so? --] (], ]) 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::Something the media loves to publicize, and is news on most notable websites/newspapers, but inevitably dies down in a few weeks because it isn't very notable (well, the other one was BLP as well). • ] <sup>]</sup> 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I see. In any case, I don't think this has died down just yet. --] (], ]) 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::May I point out that Corey Delaney's article was deleted before the fuss had died down, because he wasn't notable? I think the same applies here: who cares with whom Wales slept with on a random night? Doesn't seem notable&mdash;or encyclopedic&mdash;to me. • ] <sup>]</sup> 21:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::] isn't notable now? Or their relationship? Seems that enough people care that there are umpteen separate stories about it. --] (], ]) 21:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure why this incident is mentioned on Wales' page, but not Marsden's. Seems to me that her notability is largely defined by this kind of occurrence, and it might therefore be better to have the information there, rather than here. And about the stories, like I said, those same people won't care about this in a few weeks... • ] <sup>]</sup> 21:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Nothing wrong with mentioning it in the Marsden page. Actually, that should be done ASAP. I won't do it, though, for COI reasons. --] (], ]) 21:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I've moved the text over to the Marsden page, and removed it here. • ] <sup>]</sup> 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::(copied from ]) Sounds good to me. After all, it's a lot more relevant to Marsden. This way we can treat the subject with a brief mention in the Wales article and go into it in better detail on Marsden's. --] (], ]) 21:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Since we don't know if it started only in 2008, it is wrong to write "In 2008 he was..." ] (]) 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
: The undue an argument might apply in the Marsden article but it is hard to see how it would apply here since Wales is specifically notable for his work with Misplaced Pages and the news reports have specifically brought up the affair in that context. ] (]) 20:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:: I beg to differ. The fact that we have some ] does not mean that we ''have'' to use these sources. We have to respect ], ] as well. The incident is frivolous and has no place in a biographical article besides a short mention. ] <small>]</small> 21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Agreed. • ] <sup>]</sup> 21:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::: I agree that it shouldn't be long but it still needs a mention. ] (]) 22:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:::: I tried to leave this comment here before but it got deleted and I was banned. Apparently it's OK to leave it though so I'll try again. The comment was
::::: ''It doesn't just need a mention, it needs to be added properly. You're in denial and trying to cover up if you think otherwise. If people read all those reports (from respectable sources) and then see this article and the cover up you're doing (WP:UNDUE. Yea right! - who do you think you're kidding?), you're just damaging your own reputation and confirming the claims of the critics. Pretend it's not Jimbo's article. Edit it like you would any article on Misplaced Pages. Be honest, that's all anyone can ask. Have some respect for yourselves and show Misplaced Pages (and all those thousands that have contributed to make it what it is) the justice it deserves''.
::::In the half day it's taken me to get unbanned and confirmed that I'm allowed to leave a disagreeing comment I've had some more thoughts on the matter as I've had a chance to read your policies a few times while waiting. The WP UNDUE policy talks about a "view held by a small minority" and this discussion section is saying that the recent news can't be added to the article because it would be against WP UNDUE because a minority view would be exerting undue weight to the article. So if that's true then what exactly is the "minority view" that's being held and who are the "small minority" that hold it. They must exist or the argument can't be true. The minority view must be one of the views expressed in the media sources so it must be one of these; That there is an auction for Jimmy's clothes. That he had a relationship of some sort with someone and it's over. That he used his position to have an article on this person changed, That he spent some money on expenses. If WP UNDUE is a reason not to add something to the article, could someone explain which of the above are the minority views and who the minority is that's expressing them? Also, if you're going to ban me for leaving this comment, could you leave a comment or message on my page explaining what policies it's broken. Thanks ] (]) 11:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::Quoting from WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." In this case, the issue in question is trivial. ] (]) 12:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Hi, thanks for answering the question rather than banning me. You mention that the issue is trivial. Can you define exactly what issue or collection of issues it is that you're talking about. I noticed that the discussions on this page mention different ones at different times. To get a consensus you need to all be talking about the same ones or the same thing probably. Is it one of these issues; That he had a relationship of some sort with someone and it's over. That he used his position to have an article on this person changed, That this person is auctioning Jimmy's clothes, That someone says he spent money on expenses in some kind of inappropriate way, or another issue or a combination or them? Also, you've quoted the WP UNDUE policy to support the argument that "in this case the issue in question is trivial", but the WP UNDUE policy doesn't mention or concern triviality. Are you saying that the issue or issues are trivial, or that they're are being given undue weight, or either or depending on which keeps them out of the article? Thanks ] (]) 12:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

*The reason it was mentioned here and not at Marsden's article is a result of two things: 1) where each article was in its respective edit war when it got protected and 2) the fact that the authors here started by adding one reasonable sentence and then edit warred over expansion, while over there there never was a just one reasonable sentence version. Factor 1 is pure luck, factor 2 is a result of more admins who work on this article. ] 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

==Criticism==

Jimbo fanboys are repeatedly removing the Criticism section. Please leave it in. I realize the man has accomplished many great things, but a balanced and NPOV article should also have criticism about him, of which there is quite a lot circulating.--] (]) 20:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:Fanboys? I haven't seen anybody like that around here. Happy editing, ] 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

::Please - from the current status of the page, you wouldn't even realize there is a flap, and a notable one at that. Misplaced Pages runs the risk of being percieved as covering up for its leadership... ] (]) 09:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== In the name of balance and fairness, the Jimmy Wales article should include ==

] (]) 20:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The controversy over the Mzoli entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/Mzoli%27s

The LA Times take: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-webscout30sep30,0,344107.story

Here's the original Misplaced Pages article about Snuh: http://www.thehumphries.org/SNUH%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia2.htm

It wasn't considered worthy and after all references to Internet Snuh was obliterated, was merged with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Itchy_&_Scratchy_&_Marge

It's too bad what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Ridiculous stubs about the founder's favorite eatery is okay, but not a referenced entry. If you not going to hold Mr. Wales to his own standards, at least be public about it.

:The Mzoli's article was turned from a teeny stub into a respectable article. --] (], ]) 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

::Good. Then the people that worked on expanding it would have no problem working on other articles deemed for rejection. I'm sure Mr. Wales didn't experience any special treatment, Misplaced Pages editors always help all equally. ] (]) 22:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I think in all honesty and with some experience following Wales as subject matter at wikipedia that he is generally held to higher standards than normal. Happy editing, ] 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:The subject matter was always notable. Some people seemed to object to it because Mzoli's isn't in America or Europe. Happy editing, ] 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

::My god, that is extremely subjective. ] (]) 22:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Well I won't go into more details but will say that some people behaved very badly. Happy editing, ] 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I believe the term is ]. --] (], ]) 23:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

==jimmy separated or divorced?==
citation please? --{{user|71.123.183.141}} 21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:Here's one: http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/statement/
:He's separated according to his own blog. -Sam <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Change back to the version the article was protected on, please ==

Seeing as the protection was due to this same thing, continuing to remove the information when the article is protected seems questionable at best. Actually, it's near-abuse of admin priveleges. -] <small>]</small> 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
:I think only a short mention is necessary. A better treatment can go in the Marsden article. I partially reverted, it couldn't be any more neutral now. --] (], ]) 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::Admins editing a protected article per their own POV or wishes is a clear abuse of admin privileges. ] (]) 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Agree w/ {{user|Amarkov}} and {{user|Sethie}}. ] (]) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:::(2x ec) I only reverted to the protected version, with a slight wording change. I intend on preserving the protected version until the dispute here is resolved. --] (], ]) 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, it my fault. My suggestion was only discussed for a few minutes in a section I imagine not many people read, and therefore my edits were uncalled for. My apologies for not discussing further. • ] <sup>]</sup> 01:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Not blaming you. I was under the assumption that we'd only have that one sentence in the Wales article, and deal with it further on the Marsden article where it's more relevant. --] (], ]) 01:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::That could work as well (at least until the buzz dies off). • ] <sup>]</sup> 01:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries, {{user|AndonicO}}, and thanks for the comment/explanation here. And I think that the edit by {{user|Merovingian}} is minor enough to be okay even though it was made while the article is protected. But for future edits to the article while it is protected, probably best if we discuss here first? ] (]) 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. • ] <sup>]</sup> 02:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
A question - why should a better treatment go in the Marsden article than this one? Incidentally, that article has been protected on a version that contains no mention whatsoever of the story. And this one has a single nondescript sentence. The story (incident, issue, whatever) now has '''fifty-eight''' media articles written on it (). ], ], ], the ], ], ], ], ], front page of ], ], ], ], the ], the ], and 45 other news sources () have all considered it notable but we apparently do not. I wonder why? ] ] 09:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Either we're extremely biased, or they're just publicizing this like any other "personal" scandal. • ] <sup>]</sup> 11:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Personally, I'd like to see a decent treatment of the incident in both articles. --] (], ]) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Nobody cares about the Marsden angle. They only care about the Jimbo angle, i.e. did he cross conflict-of-interest lines. At this point it's on the front page of ABCNews.com, yet all we have here is a terse mention of a "relationship"? ] is one thing, but the Misplaced Pages connection is the ONLY reason it's news. --] | ] 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

==Protected==
Can we please use semi-protect 1000 times more than full protect? There's almost never any good reason for full protection.] (]) 06:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Correct - there are obvious reasons, but rarely good ones. ] ] 10:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

== Full Protect?? ==

Why in the hell is this page currently on full protect? Wouldn't semi-protect be good enough?

(Also, just throwing it out there....Can we please, please have someone else figurehead Misplaced Pages? I mean, seriously, this guy is embarrassing ...) ] (]) 18:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:It's protected because a minority of admins believe well-sourced, neutrally worded facts that make Jimbo look bad are not allowed, and will edit war to ensure the article gets protected on their preferred version. I would like to see the article back down to semi-protection, and a neutrally worded sentence or two stating the facts (like we had before BCST2001 - a new editor - butchered it misquoting WP:UNDUE ). ] ] 09:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::: Hi. I tried to add a comment saying exactly the same thing, that WP UNDUE was being misused, but I got banned for saying it. I've been unbanned now though. Is there somewhere I can get permission to leave the comment. I tried asking the person that banned me but they banned me and I've tried asking the person that unbanned me but I guess they're busy. Where can I get permission to leave a comment on Jimbo's talk page. The comment is . I'm sorry for leaving this comment on this page to ask permission to leave a comment on this page and I realise that might be against the rules. If you're going to ban me for doing that, when you're banning me can you can you leave a comment on my page letting me know where I can get permission. Thanks ] (]) 10:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::BCST2001 is not a new editor - see the blanked history in their talk page. ]] 09:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I love the fact you think you can read my mind. *I* protected this, because it's a biography and there was *unseemly edit-warring*. Once there's some sort of consensus developed as to what should go in the article, then, whatever the consensus may be, it can be unprotected. That means people talking and collaborating (like with a collaborative project). Shouting and throwing allegations will only result in the protection remaining. If I undid my protection right now, there would be an edit war, as people put in what they thought without discussion with others. So discuss it and get a consensus, if you are so desperate for a resolution.--]<sup>g</sup> 09:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:I am always desperate to see disputes resolved. See below. ] ] 10:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Jimbo Wales is someone who is always going to be in the Wikilimelight as long as Misplaced Pages exists, my point here being, this doesn't so much prevent an edit war but forestall it. The reality is, it's a subject that's going to be addressed, and full protecting this page was an unnecessary step. ] (]) 18:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::Full protect should never be used in content issues like this. *Admins have NO priveledged editing position*. And should not imho. Semi is the preferred protection. Thanks. ] (]) 18:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::No, semi-protection is intended for preventing vandalism (by new or anonymous users who are too numerous to block or by one vandal using several IPs or sockpuppets). It is never appropriate to use semi-protection in a legitimate content disputes. — ] 19:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree it needs to be full or nothing. While I hate to see this article fully protected i can predict what would happen if it were unprotected today. Happy editing, ] 19:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The community never agreed to use full-protection to allow admins to edit what-they-will while established editors have to sit and spin. It's not a fair use of full-protection. It creates a two-tiered society of "haves" and "have-nots" in the editing camp. There is no consensus that admins should be "haves" for content-editing purposes. That was never the agreement we reached. ] (]) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

==Consensus==

Simple question - do we:

:'''A''') Mention the Wales/Marsden thing with one referenced sentence ("Wales had a brief relationship with Canadian journalist Rachel Marsden.") - this is what we currently have.

:'''B''') Expand that, ensuring all information is referenced (e.g. something along the lines of "Wales had brief relationship with Canadian journalist Rachel Marsden which has attracted media attention. In March 2008, she stated that he announced their breakup through Misplaced Pages, referring to a statement. Wales published a statement on Misplaced Pages in which he said he was "no longer involved with" Marsden. Marsden subsequently advertised items of clothing belonging to Wales on eBay.)

:'''C''') Remove it entirely.

It's not a simple vote, so please try and explain your view. I am for '''B''' - given the weight of recent media coverage, I think a short, neutrally worded paragraph is wholly appropriate. If we go for this, the precise wording and what we do and do not mention is an aside; once we have an agreement for a couple of sentences, then we can thrash out the wording later. ] ] 10:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

*Hm, dunno. But not A. We don't list people people slept with. We don't list short affairs, unless they are significant. Is this significant? That's the question. I don't think we know yet.--]<sup>g</sup> 10:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*:The affair in itself I would agree is wholly insignificant, but the media furore over the aftermath warrants a mention (and then the affair has to be mentioned for context). ] ] 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''B''' for the same reason as Neil. ]] 10:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*I think '''C''' ('''A''' would also be acceptable), but '''B''' in the Marsden article. • ] <sup>]</sup> 11:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*:Question - why no mention here but one in the Marsden article? ] ] 12:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*::Self-quoted from above: "''I'm not sure why this incident is mentioned on Wales' page, but not Marsden's. Seems to me that her notability is largely defined by this kind of occurrence, and it might therefore be better to have the information there, rather than here.''" • ] <sup>]</sup> 13:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Two to tango. Surely this event should either be mentioned in both articles, or not mentioned in either article. — ] 15:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*I'd say '''B''', as the notable thing is not the affair, but the fact that she claims he actually broke up with her via Misplaced Pages, the ''encyclopedia'' that was founded by him. --] (]) 12:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
**He denies that. So, do we generally include unsubstantiated allegations by an ex with an obvious axe to grind in a biography? I'd say not.--]<sup>g</sup> 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
***Possibly, as its exclusion could be noticeable; especially if its quoted in a "reliable source". A he said/she said can be short and sweet, given the context I'd think Jim would have the last word. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 15:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

*The A B C is a limited list of things to get a consensus on. The best thing to do is to be honest and include all the sourced and reported possibilities so when there is a consensus there can't be any allegations that consensus was manipulated by only allowing consensus on a few options, like having a democracy where you hold free elections but you can only vote for members of the one and only party that is allowed to exist. Isn't it also about the allegation (sourced and reported) that Jimbo exerted influence to have her article changed, which is mixed in with IM conversations (alleged but reported) while he's doing it. I'm not saying it's true but it must be relevant to the page of the founder of a Misplaced Pages with rules that say you can't do that. You have her (reported) side. You have his side. You can be balanced and fair. There's also the mention of unrelated expenses, although I'm not sure how reliably that is being reported. To me, it would make sense to first reach consensus on what should be included, then consensus on how much they should be included and in what way ] (]) 13:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

*:The ABC options provide an outline of the direction to go. B allows for a broader story, which is what you are aiming for. However, attempting to get a "consensus on what should be included" will be a long/complicated task, and will only be possible down the road when the dust settles. We need a starting point, and that is what these options provide. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 15:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:::The task is the same length or complexity but just has a different starting point. Deliberately choosing a starting point that eliminates one of the major reported and relevant issues is a way of keeping it out because it's unpalatable to some. It's relevant, of significance, very widely reported and sourced and both his and her points of view have been reported so it can be added neutrally. If it was an article about anyone else it would be added ] (]) 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

::::It is false to argue that if the article was about someone else the material would be added. The contrary is the case. ] (]) 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

::::: And yet the material is not being offered up for consideration to be added. It's conspicuous by it's absence. A proposed discussion about what should be added doesn't include the material, when in the vast majority of sources it's intricately linked with the reporting of the material that is being considered, as well as being relevant, of significance, well and reliably reported and easily to add from a neutral point of view perspective ] (]) 23:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

*I'm initially unsure if '''B''' belongs here or in Marsden article, I agree with AndonicO's point on her notability; but this break-up is mostly notable because of Jim and the involvement of Wiki. So that drags it back here to some extent. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 15:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*:I think the only way to avoid claims of "one rule for Jimbo" is for the same content needs to be on both articles - I don't see why it couldn't be. ] ] 15:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*:I agree with Neil that the level of detail regarding this event should be equal in both articles. I doubt it could be objectively demonstrated that one person is more "notable" than the other, and do not believe that the "relative notability" of either person would be a meaningful factor in deciding whether or not to include this information in either person's article. — ] 15:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
* If we are going to go with B (which I favor some variant of) we should mention the claims that this resulted in a COI. I don't think personally there were any actual COI issues but reliable sources have discussed the concern. I disagree with Charlotte's claim above- this is actually much more about Jimbo than it is about Marsden. If anything there should be more content about this here than on his page. The only reason this has gotten any coverage at all is because of the COI issues. ] (]) 16:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*:You mean because the community of Misplaced Pages editors expected better from Jimbo, but not from Rachel? If there are "COI issues" or "concerns about COI issues" it's still equally about both of them, as it would be ''his'' suspected conflict of interest regarding the content of Misplaced Pages's article about ''her''. — ] 17:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*** No, but the press coverage has focused on Wales, not Marsden. Furthermore, the responsibility is essentially his; there's no accusation that I can see that she had a COI that was at work here; the accusation is that Jim had a COI due to her relationship with her. ] (]) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

*As indicated at ], I believe that option '''A''' is the maximum permissible coverage of this issue within policy. The other option is '''C''', which would not bother me at all: it is probably preferable. ] (]) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*:Information should be given weight in proportion to available sources. It is misguided to impose artificial restrictions on the detail of one section or article based on the lack of detail in other sections or articles. Every Misplaced Pages article is inherently an unfinished work. Articles should ultimately reflect what our sources say, no more, no less. The order in which pieces fall into place isn't of major consequence. — ] 17:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*::Actually, according to ], one of the core content policies of Misplaced Pages, "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The question is what is appropriate, not some formula weighing the "proportion" of sources. In this case, the material is trivial, and inclusion of detail on this matter is ''not'' appropriate. It is also invasive, and raises ] concerns. If, somewhere down the track, some weighty significance is found to attach to this material, then it can be re-weighed. As it stands, there is no such significance and, as I indicated earlier, much of the attempt to include this material amounts to prurient interest. ] (]) 17:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
*:::You are wholly wrong. There are no BLP concerns. Please actually ''read'' ]. It requires information must be reliably referenced and neutrally written (all it really amounts to is a particularly emphatic rewriting of ]) when dealing with articles about living persons. ] ] 17:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::I have read WP:BLP and it says substantially more than you suggest. ] (]) 18:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

*I would support '''B'''. We should include whatever can be appropriately referenced. Maybe we can put more in Marsden's article than in Wales's. --] (], ]) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:I have been thinking that the current sentence should be altered with the clause "that attracted media attention" -- essentially the first sentence of '''B'''. I see little reason to go further than that at this moment. I think the media attention is the only reason this topic has become notable, and the only justification for mentioning it at all. I would also like to point out that arguing for a lengthier treatment in Marsden's article could also be perceived as systemic bias (based on Wales' role in Misplaced Pages AND his gender) and I would argue against that. --] (]) 17:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::I agree entirely with the last sentence of your comment, but explicitly mentioning that something has "attracted media attention" and implicitly suggesting that "this is why we have published this information" seems a bit tautological as we generally don't publish information that has not attracted coverage in secondary sources, i.e. mediums independent both from the subject and from ourselves. Perhaps to use a more descriptive summary word than "attention", or better yet to actually explain the nature of the "media attention", would better serve our readers. As a rule, if Misplaced Pages didn't read it somewhere else, you wouldn't be reading it here. To a cynical reader, emphasizing what should already be taken for granted can actually make us sound defensive. — ] 19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, you're probably right, perhaps the "attracted media attention" part should be amplifed, so long as the summary does not wander into original research or synthesis, which is the problem I see with the approach attempted below. That said, however, I think the rest of the attempted approach in '''B''' above misses the point -- it gets into the he-said, she-said chronology, but does nothing to characterize the story's significance, which may require slightly more perspective than we have (through reliable sources) at the moment. --] (]) 21:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"In March 2008, Jimmy Wales was claimed to have ended a relationship with ], a Canadian political columnist, on Misplaced Pages. The original announcement was moved to his private blog, but not before a minor backlash occurred online on blogs and other websites. There is also some doubt as to the veracity of the claim that Wale's first mention of it occurred online; Marsden's romantic interests found their way to public attention on several occasions, involving both harassment of a counter-terrorism officer / boyfriend and the ]. ] (]) 18:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

* I want to remind the editors here that want to shove the bulk of the coverage into RM's article that we shouldn't use ] to judge whether this is more significant to her life than Jimbo's. Every Misplaced Pages editor has heard of Jimbo while they may not have heard of RM before. But that is systemic bias in our editorial knowledge. I also want to remind editors here that we've already had one ArbComm case about BLP violating edits on her article, and that once this article mentions RM, it is subject to remedy #2 of ]. "Articles which relate to ], may, when they violate Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit." I encourage editors here to assume that they can't rely on any coverage remaining in her article. ] 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

* Most of these versions miss the relevant point; the accusations of COI. Any mention of this is going to have to make that clear. ] (]) 02:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

* In all honesty, I think if we were to ignore personal issues the event would probably merit a subsection with a couple paragraphs. Jimbo's been in the press plenty, but the previous upsets hardly compare. But in Jimbo's words, "Misplaced Pages is not here to make people sad." I think a 2-3 sentence summary (possibly longer if it's necessary) that avoids personal details would be reasonable. So something like '''B'''. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 03:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

===Option B===

Seems the obvious choice is B, I assume this goes under Personal; and allegations go under a new section such as "Controversy"? Where does that leave the COI issue, in controversy or mentioned with Marsden in Personal? - ]] <sup>]</sup> 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
: Under "Wikimedia Foundation" seems most appropriate for intuition and flow. Creating a "Controversy" section just for this would probably draw more complaints. –] 10:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
::A and C are so poor that clearly it should be B with a see also to ]. The section there should cover off both COI and the financial matter] (]) 13:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== T-shirt ==

If his or more, I think that should be mentioned. No doubt it will appear in reliable sources. ] (]) 10:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:I agree. --] (], ]) 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
: That's gotta be some soft cotton, for sure. ] (]) 18:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well the price has fallen from $15,000 last night to only $2,000 today. Perhaps some <s>insane</s> people have withdrawn their bids. I am not sure I could agree that a merely two thousand dollar t-shirt is actually notable. ] (]) 22:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:Publicized auctions tend to attract hoax bids, which eBay removes when information can't be verified. --] | ] 23:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

== democracy the wiki way ==

I used to love wikipedia. Is there ANY REASON why there are 60 TOPICS here on a closed page that won't allow alterations, all of them negative, when the profile is so glowing and complimentary? There is a balanced view on many subjects on WIKI, that's the point. Be it in relevant historical articles, or irrelevant ones on Tom Cruise etc. Yet Jimmy Wales' is solely complimentary. Any balanced journalist would notice that there's 60 topics here needing addressing, yet it is vert clear to the Wiki community that none of these will ever be allowed through , blocked by legions of admins. So I merely am asking a simple mundane question in this post - Should the community be able to voice their (60+) opinions or should they be ignored ? hope to hear a nice diplomatic answer. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:They don't require the ability to edit the article if the talk page is meant for discussion. If the article were unprotected, everyone with the 60+ opinions would try to edit at once, and would undo the edits of people that disagree with them. It is better to discuss rather than have edit wars. I hope that answers your question. (Oh, and ].) • ] <sup>]</sup> 11:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:: They should be able to voice their opinion, because the idea of a full protect on an wiki was absurd to begin with. Ban users, ban IPs, don't prevent who actually do this wiki thing as a long-term hobby from being able to edit it just because a lot of people might go after it at once -- so what? If it turns into a morass, just revert. I thought we have reliable servers, so I know it can't be that. Is there a fear of having his page be in a state of construction for more than a day at a time? It's not like schoolchildren are busy doing research papers on this man, and college students have more interesting people to write about. This is solely my opinion, but I think this full protect is unfounded and represents a sick bit of censorship being claimed to be in the best interests of the community and encyclopedia. ] (]) 19:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

== wired.com ==

here is a link to a recent well established wired.com article. I presume this wont be banned as its a reputable online magazine..
<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Hi 68.122 - it's not banned, but it's a copyright thing (we can't copy entire articles, even to talk pages), so I've replaced it with a link. No judgement on whether this should be in the article. ] ] 10:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

::It's also a blog on Wired.com, not the magazine itself, so therefore of dubious reliability. --] (]) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::This is true. If I were referencing the statements, I'd probably go with another source. --] (], ]) 17:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:::: Er, we've discussed this before at RS and elsewhere. Just because a reliable source labels some of their coverage a blog doesn't make it a blog for our purposes. What matter is that it has editorial oversight and such (which they do). This is why for example the New York Times "blogs" are citable. ] (]) 17:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Right, I understand, but except in the case of obscure events, there are other more traditional stories about something. We're at the point in this incident that blogs are good sources, but not the best. And I think we should also probably point out in the text when something comes from a blog. --] (], ]) 17:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::The Danny/spending issue from the Wired article, at the very least, can be cited to . One imagines, notwithstanding the A/B/C !vote supra, that whatever we write about the Marsden issue will ultimately focus on untoward conduct, either vis-à-vis the Foundation's finances or in the context of any editorial involvement with the ], that is alleged&mdash;the associated controversies, after all, appear on their way to becoming rather notable&mdash;and the MSNBC article is perhaps as good a source as any we have at present. ] 22:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

==Wales statement re Marsden==

We don't need to self reference now - if we do choose to mention it - as Jimbo has moved it to his blog (), which I believe we can link as a primary source. ] ] 10:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)





== can this be included on jimmys page or does it have to stay here? its true so why cant it be posted? ==

http://valleywag.com/362814/the-goodbye-email-from-jimmy-waless-girlfriend <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Blogs are not considered particularly ] for something like this, where they are being used as a "secondary source". They're only really okay when used as a "primary source" (e.g. a statement from and about the blog owner, for an article on them). ] ] 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::I would suggest this as a source: . The Times (London). 4 March 2008.
<blockquote>

There was some uncertainty as to whether Mr Wales could write about his past romance from a “neutral point of view”; equally, it was unclear whether his statement that the affair was ended constituted a “novel narrative or historical interpretation”.

What Mr Wales acknowledged was a “far more important” issue was the allegation that, as he became involved with Ms Marsden, he intervened to redraft her Misplaced Pages biography.


...

History will decide whether Mr Wales broke his own principles, although before that happens there may well be a Misplaced Pages page devoted to the controversy.

</blockquote>
I would suggest that failure to include anything on this makes wikipedia look poor.] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 16:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080304.wlbreakup04/BNStory/lifeMain/home

==Oh dear==

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2008-03-04-wikipedia-wales_N.htm?csp=34 ] ] 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

:I believe it's the same Brian Bergstein Associated Press article already listed as #24 in the ref list higher on this page. Certainly we don't need to note every appearance of the same article. Please take the time to compare before adding. --] (]) 02:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Why no mention of his alleged expense "rort" (see for example http://www.theage.com.au/news/biztech/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-accused-of-expenses-rort/2008/03/05/1204402516874.html ) --] (]) 09:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:Basically because at this point it is only accusations. When the media (or Danny for that matter) comes up with something more concrete there will be something added I am sure. ]] 10:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
::Allegations themselves can, of course, in certain situations, become sufficiently notable (whether by virtue of their being leveled by someone relevantly notable or of their being widely covered/reported on, even if only as allegations) as to merit mention (for various reasons, I think it to be quite clear that a treatment of the issue is appropriate here, but my comment means only to address the broader issue). ] 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

::::Allegations were always welcomed on the ] page. ] (]) 00:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

:: I am baffled that you would require 'concrete' evidence from the media. ]: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." ]: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." –] 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Unfounded accusations sail pretty close to the wind with BLP, especially those which are not being made by the newspaper, but are being repeated from a blog. ]] 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:::: Sometimes blogs make unfounded accusations, sometimes they turn out right. I'm not in a position to judge. If reliable sources find certain blogs noteworthy in specific instances, then we report it with ] and ]. The facts here are not contentious at all. The claim of frugality being made in the article right now, backed by one source only, is more contentious and quite possibly as misrepresentative of his character. –] 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::After I wrote my reply, I rethought that answer. I now tend to agree, that a well sourced sentence that indicates that claims of impropriety have been made but not confirmed should probobly be included. ]] 02:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

==This Article Is Biased==

To Whom It May Concern,

I used to edit Misplaced Pages frequently, but unfortunately I can not the find the time to do so any more, thus so, I went into retirement. Yet, I still use Misplaced Pages often, because, for the most part, it is a great source of information.

But, when I read this article, it got me so angry that inspired me to come out of retirement just to say this:

This article is the most biased article on Misplaced Pages!

Wales and his minions are removing anything the least bit negative at all about him from this article.
I looked at the history of this article and the criticism section has been removed by Wales fanclub! Now all of Wales' admin buddies made it so only they can edit the page.

Basically, this article is just propaganda about promoting Wales and saying how "great and smart" he is.

There is not one word in here about Wales' recent private troubles and his other controversies. All this article says regarding Wales controversial relationship with his former lover, Rachel Marsden, is that he had "a brief relationship" with her. If that's not biased, I don't know what is.

According to MSNBC what really happened is that "Marsden published steamy and embarrassing online chats with Wales, and dumped his clothes on eBay. Wales, 41, also became the subject of an eyebrow-raising blog entry by Danny Wool, who until last year worked for the nonprofit, donor-supported Wikimedia Foundation that runs the encyclopedia. Wool wrote that Wales had asked the foundation to reimburse him for costly items like a $1,300 dinner for four at a Florida steakhouse. Wool alleged that at one point Wales was short on receipts for $30,000 in expenses before settling the matter with the foundation's lawyer and paying the organization $7,000. Wool added that Wales' foundation credit card was taken away in 2006. Wales denied that, saying in an interview over instant message that it was his own decision to stop seeking reimbursements even for business travel for the foundation, where he is "chairman emeritus" and one of seven board members." (You can see more here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23470060/)

Well, There you have it...

For all you admins, who are covering Wales ass, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Sincerely,


There is a date/age issue in the second paragraph of the "Early life and education section". "When he was three, in 1968" cannot be correct if he was born on August 7 or 8, 1966. In 1968 he was either one or two, not three. ] (]) 09:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 22:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


:That ''Daily Beast'' source says "When he was three, his mother bought a World Book Encyclopedia from a door-to-door salesman..", so no year mentioned. I am unable to open the first source, ''The News Courier'', either original or archived, so can't see what it says. ] (]) 09:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
P.S. for Mr. Wales: Please do not remove this post. Thanks... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::@] Returning to this, the other source says: "Doris Wales’ husband, Jimmy, wasn’t sure what she was thinking when she bought a World Book Encyclopedia set from a traveling salesman in 1968. Their first-born son, also named Jimmy, was not yet 3." So the cited sources disagree about whether he was 3 or not yet 3. ''''']''''' (]) 05:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


== Jimbo ==
:Thank you for your concern. For further reference, please see pretty much every other section on this page, plus presumably the Rachel Marsden article, where people are trying to deal with this while the article is protected to stop edit warring over the whole issue. Thanks, ]<small>(])</small> 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Sure we need to mention he’s username in the intro? Barely any sources mention it, and it isn’t a common name given to him. Cheers. ] (]) 16:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


:Errrm, the article opens with: "{{tq|'''Jimmy Donal Wales''' (born August 7, 1966), also known on Misplaced Pages by the nickname '''Jimbo Wales'''...}}" So that's the 15th word in? ] (]) 16:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::What? That’s my point. It’s in the intro. Yet it’s a username without any real-life importance. (I mean that it’s not notable enough to be mentioned in the intro. It’s not a common name, it’s his username). Jimmy Wales has no special rights! Down with the dictatorship! ] (]) 16:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I think it's been there for quite a long time. And I think it probably makes him more accessible, to editors and readers alike. I also can't imagine anything much less like ]. ] (]) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Martinevans123}} Inform yourself better before making bold claims with no factual truth (see: ]). As to Jimbo Wales, you might think I’m a picky asshole, and I might think it myself, and it might be true, but clearly this goes against policies, or more generally the way biographies are written. This is just a guy who created an online encyclopedia, might be this one, who knows? That this guy is also coincidentally a user on Misplaced Pages should not be in the article, and definitely not in the intro. Cheers. ] (]) 17:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::What an wonderfully enlightening essay, full of "factual truth". Thank you so much for sharing that. And yes, what an amazing coincidence that is - an inventor occasionally using his own invention. Who knows, maybe that nice ] will be using ] before too long? ] (]) 17:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::: {{ping|Martinevans123}} This biography is like any other. The username Jimbo Wales, is not a common way of calling him, and is not described ''enough'' in the sources to be notable. ] (]) 17:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::And this is an article Talk page, like any other. So, as per ], we need to arrive at a consensus to remove that detail, instead of just edit warring? ] (]) 17:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Martinevans123}} Sorry. Then let’s discuss. Taking aside what I said before, I did genuinely want to discuss if his username, which is not really notable in any way, should be mentioned in his article. Considering that, yes, genuinely, this article is nothing special, and if Elon Musk was editing Misplaced Pages, his account would not be mentioned. In other words, stating that he edits Misplaced Pages under Jimbo Wales, provided there is a source, can be added, but having Jimbo Wales in the intro just seems a little bizarre. He is not commonly referred to as such, and the ] has nothing to do at the very top of an article. He is not commonly referred to as such, only in Misplaced Pages, and only by those who know he is there. ] (]) 18:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Experience shows that no good comes from new editors popping in here and poking the bear. I know it's terribly unfair that Jimbo gets special treatment just because he founded Misplaced Pages but most of us have learned to live with it. See ] and ] for why rules that generally apply are not always applied if there is a good reason to do otherwise. ] (]) 00:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{ping|Johnuniq}} I get it. Again, sorry if it seemed that way. What I find frustrating is that what I said on my first message was serious, I genuinely want to discuss if we need to put his username in the Intro. It legitimately feels bizarre. It’s not a common name by which he is called, I also know that Misplaced Pages "rules" are just recommendations, and I also do not care that much about this intro. Cheers. ] (]) 01:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::]… This sums it up perfectly. I am legitimately asking if we can keep a not commonly known ''username'' of an online encyclopedia, as an alt/name of Jimmy Wales, in addition to making it sound professional by writing "is known on Misplaced Pages", instead of "known on Misplaced Pages by his username". And in fact, it makes this article a lot less professional, seriously, I’m not kidding. Cheers. ] (]) 01:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::, took about 20 seconds to find this one. ] (]) 01:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Ok. I better shut up now shouldn’t I? Cheers, and happy new year. ] (]) 02:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::<small>Looking forward to Twitterpedia. Now that might well be a ]? But at least we'd get updates . ] (]) 10:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC) </small>
For the next time this comes up, {{user|Encyclopédisme}} was CU indeffed and globally locked on 27 June 2024. ] (]) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)


== Hatnote ==
==Article source regarding current controversialities (financial and moral)==


{{u|JLCop}} recently removed the hatnote. I reinstated it for now but I do think this subject is worth discussing, given that projectspace links within mainspace are generally discouraged. I noticed that ] also has a similar hatnote but that this is not the case for the average person listed at ]. Thoughts? ] ] 03:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/biztech/wikipedia-head-accused-of-expenses-rort/2008/03/05/1204402516874.html


:Delete. ] (]) 00:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It has been accused of Administrator Mr Wales improper usages of fund from Wikimedia Foundation. I believe it appropriate to be include in Mr Wales Wiki, please provide towards it your skilled attention.] (]) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
*] which doesn't seem to have been closed or concluded (first item on the page). ] (]) 13:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
: Don't mean to be rude, but this isn't unique. ] posted the same link a while ago, along with links to a dozen similar articles. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
* I removed this before seeing this discussion. This is a clear case of ], as the edit notice itself says. I also removed the hatnote from ], for the same reason. ] ] 03:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Fair enough. Given recent events, I think it's best to stay away from this article going forward just to be on the safe side. I appreciate the input from others in this discussion. ] ] 03:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


== RfC using ] to link ] and ] ==


I propose that we add something like this to the top of the article, as Jimbo has an information page other than user page, and there are many other mainspace articles related to Misplaced Pages that links to internal pages like this.


{{For|the personal user page and related internal page|User:Jimbo Wales|WP:JIMBO}}


There was a ] on this, editors refused to link the user page in the article itself because it would constitute an exception, but the new proposal using a "for" template to link the user page does not constitute an exception per above. ] (]) 22:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
== Unprotected ==
* '''Oppose''' per the previous discussion, this is still a blaring ] violation. It shows internal strength to not let our guard down when writing about Misplaced Pages, and instead write the article in the exact same way we would about unrelated subjects. In no other context would it even be conceivable to link to someone's official website at the very top of the article rather than at the bottom in the "external links" section, so we must not do so here. ] ] 22:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*:] only applies to ] and not ] though, and this is an internal link, not jimbowales.com which would belong at the bottom. ] (]) 00:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*:: It's only a "internal link" because you're letting your guard down in exactly the way I said not to do. Please read the edit notice: "This article relates to Misplaced Pages itself. Please note that links to non-article namespaces should be treated as external links and not included in the body. Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, so references to it must comply with WP:ABOUTSELF." ] ] 01:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::That edit notice exists in other pages such as ], ], ], etc and still use hats containing internal links. Do you suggest to remove those hats? ] (]) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::Pinging participants in ] @] @] @]
*::::Pinging participants in ] @] @] @]
*::::Let's see which is the consensus on this. ] (]) 21:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::<s>Whoever this Noel Body is, I just don't trust him.</s> Whatevs. ] (]) 22:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Per the newly added COI section on my user page, I don't think I'm the best person to be commenting here. ] ] 22:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Pppery, non-article namespaces are treated as external links in articles related to Misplaced Pages itself. Also, the fact that other pages also use these hats isn't a good argument, and I would suggest also removing them: someone searching for our project page ] most likely isn't going to type ]. ] (] · ]) 23:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)


== Newer 2024 image? ==
After a third request on ] I have reduced the protection level to semi-protection. I (and no doubt other administrators) will be keeping a close eye on the article and any poor behaviour will result in quick re-application of protection. Play nice. ] (]) 09:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:I protected the page due to edit warring, so that consensus might be arrived at on the talk page. Since I see no evidence that a consensus has been reached, I'm a little confused by this unprotection. Is this a case of cross our fingers and hope for the best? Because I don't think that will work. We protect "UNTIL disputes are settled on the talk page" - that hasn't happened.--]<sup>g</sup> 10:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
::It seems to be close to resolution above (in the Consensus section). But you (or any other admin) can and should reinstate protection in the case of edit warring and BLP violations, and I waive any and all wheel war protections and any other policies that would stop you or anyone else from doing so. ] (]) 10:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Not sure whether or not it'd be right from me to change the infobox portrait myself, so I decided to ask y'all here. I propose that the current 2023 image (which has an admittedly distracting blurry background) is changed to a newer, fresher image from the 2024 Wikimania. Below are my proposals. I personally favor Option C.
==Silly article - a new article about what happened is needed ==
<gallery>
Interesting that there is ''nothing'' in the article about the Wikimedia Foundation controversy, where funds have allegedly been used for Wales and his personal expenses. But if this particular article should not reflect the truth: How about a new article named ]? --] (]) 11:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
File:Jimmy Wales in New York City March 2023 blurred cropped.jpg|Current image
{{wikinews|Misplaced Pages founder embroiled in affair and financial allegations}}
File:Jimmy Wales 2024 portrait 3x4 (1).jpg|A
:I added a link to wikinews. It will probably be deleted in a flash... --] (]) 12:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
File:Jimmy Wales 2024 portrait 3x4 (2).jpg|B
* This really is absurd. I work for a fortune 500 company, we've had many cases where expenses have been mishandled far worse than this, in the end Brad Patrick states that Jimbo provided receipts and paid the balance out of his own pocket (SOP in such cases) and that really is an end to it. It's a storm in a teacup. On the scale of financial scandals this barely reaches the level of trivial. WMF is a very small business anyway. Basically it's a case of <big><span style="color:red">'''ZOMG! JIMBO WAS A BIT SLACK WITH HIS EXPENSES!'''</span></big> <small><span style="color:#77777">''but he squared it all and the Foundation lawyer signed it off.''</span></small> Talk about ]... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
File:Jimmy Wales 2024 portrait 3x2 (3).jpg|C
**Sure, this might be a storm in a teacup, but why are all notions about this controversy deleted from the article? --] (]) 12:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
File:Jimmy Wales 2024 portrait 3x2 (4).jpg|D
::* At a guess, I'd say it's because there is no properly objective analysis of its significance. The expenses thing is stale and was dealt with to the satisfaction of Brad Patrick (whose integrity is not, I think, in question), and the Marsden bit is salacious gossip, as indeed is just about everything related to Rachel Marsden. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small>
</gallery> ]<sup>(])</sup> 21:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:I prefer the current image. It's better lit and less grainy than the other options provided. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 18:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:Here are a few new options, and I prefer option F 、 option G.
<gallery>
File:Jimmy Wales visited the Youth Affairs Agency. Photo portrait 2024 (cropped).jpg|E
File:Jimmy Wales visited the Youth Affairs Agency. Photo portrait 2024 (cropped 2).jpg|F
File:Jimmy Wales visited the Youth Affairs Agency (cropped).jpg|G
File:Jimmy Wales welcome to Uzbekistan (cropped).jpg|H
File:Jimmy Wales in Uzbekistan (cropped).jpg|I
File:Jimmy Wales and WikiStipendiya (cropped).jpg|J
</gallery> ] (]) 12:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:16, 4 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jimmy Wales article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Former good article nomineeJimmy Wales was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 14, 2005Articles for deletionKept
August 14, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
August 31, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
March 25, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
January 5, 2017Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternet culture High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconChicago Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconComputing: Websites Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBusiness Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Indiana Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconAlabama
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconObjectivism (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism
WikiProject iconOpen (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
This talk page is only for discussions concerning Misplaced Pages's article on Jimmy Wales.
The contents of the Jimmy Wales Foundation page were merged into Jimmy Wales on 14 December 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.


Date/age issue

There is a date/age issue in the second paragraph of the "Early life and education section". "When he was three, in 1968" cannot be correct if he was born on August 7 or 8, 1966. In 1968 he was either one or two, not three. Timothy Cooper (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That Daily Beast source says "When he was three, his mother bought a World Book Encyclopedia from a door-to-door salesman..", so no year mentioned. I am unable to open the first source, The News Courier, either original or archived, so can't see what it says. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Martinevans123 Returning to this, the other source says: "Doris Wales’ husband, Jimmy, wasn’t sure what she was thinking when she bought a World Book Encyclopedia set from a traveling salesman in 1968. Their first-born son, also named Jimmy, was not yet 3." So the cited sources disagree about whether he was 3 or not yet 3.  Mystery Merrivale  (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Jimbo

Sure we need to mention he’s username in the intro? Barely any sources mention it, and it isn’t a common name given to him. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Errrm, the article opens with: "Jimmy Donal Wales (born August 7, 1966), also known on Misplaced Pages by the nickname Jimbo Wales..." So that's the 15th word in? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
What? That’s my point. It’s in the intro. Yet it’s a username without any real-life importance. (I mean that it’s not notable enough to be mentioned in the intro. It’s not a common name, it’s his username). Jimmy Wales has no special rights! Down with the dictatorship! Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I think it's been there for quite a long time. And I think it probably makes him more accessible, to editors and readers alike. I also can't imagine anything much less like a dictatorship. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Inform yourself better before making bold claims with no factual truth (see: Dictatorship of neo-socialism). As to Jimbo Wales, you might think I’m a picky asshole, and I might think it myself, and it might be true, but clearly this goes against policies, or more generally the way biographies are written. This is just a guy who created an online encyclopedia, might be this one, who knows? That this guy is also coincidentally a user on Misplaced Pages should not be in the article, and definitely not in the intro. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
What an wonderfully enlightening essay, full of "factual truth". Thank you so much for sharing that. And yes, what an amazing coincidence that is - an inventor occasionally using his own invention. Who knows, maybe that nice Mr Musk will be using "X" before too long? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: This biography is like any other. The username Jimbo Wales, is not a common way of calling him, and is not described enough in the sources to be notable. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
And this is an article Talk page, like any other. So, as per WP:BRD, we need to arrive at a consensus to remove that detail, instead of just edit warring? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Sorry. Then let’s discuss. Taking aside what I said before, I did genuinely want to discuss if his username, which is not really notable in any way, should be mentioned in his article. Considering that, yes, genuinely, this article is nothing special, and if Elon Musk was editing Misplaced Pages, his account would not be mentioned. In other words, stating that he edits Misplaced Pages under Jimbo Wales, provided there is a source, can be added, but having Jimbo Wales in the intro just seems a little bizarre. He is not commonly referred to as such, and the Misplaced Pages:Glossary has nothing to do at the very top of an article. He is not commonly referred to as such, only in Misplaced Pages, and only by those who know he is there. Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Experience shows that no good comes from new editors popping in here and poking the bear. I know it's terribly unfair that Jimbo gets special treatment just because he founded Misplaced Pages but most of us have learned to live with it. See WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR for why rules that generally apply are not always applied if there is a good reason to do otherwise. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I get it. Again, sorry if it seemed that way. What I find frustrating is that what I said on my first message was serious, I genuinely want to discuss if we need to put his username in the Intro. It legitimately feels bizarre. It’s not a common name by which he is called, I also know that Misplaced Pages "rules" are just recommendations, and I also do not care that much about this intro. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Ignore every single rule… This sums it up perfectly. I am legitimately asking if we can keep a not commonly known username of an online encyclopedia, as an alt/name of Jimmy Wales, in addition to making it sound professional by writing "is known on Misplaced Pages", instead of "known on Misplaced Pages by his username". And in fact, it makes this article a lot less professional, seriously, I’m not kidding. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
New Scientist Jimbo nickname source, took about 20 seconds to find this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok. I better shut up now shouldn’t I? Cheers, and happy new year. Encyclopédisme (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Looking forward to Twitterpedia. Now that might well be a dictatorship? But at least we'd get updates 25 times a day. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

For the next time this comes up, Encyclopédisme (talk · contribs) was CU indeffed and globally locked on 27 June 2024. Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote

JLCop recently removed the hatnote. I reinstated it for now but I do think this subject is worth discussing, given that projectspace links within mainspace are generally discouraged. I noticed that Steven Pruitt also has a similar hatnote but that this is not the case for the average person listed at List of Misplaced Pages people. Thoughts? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. JLCop (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC using Template:For to link User:Jimbo Wales and WP:JIMBO

I propose that we add something like this to the top of the article, as Jimbo has an information page other than user page, and there are many other mainspace articles related to Misplaced Pages that links to internal pages like this.

For the personal user page and related internal page, see User:Jimbo Wales and WP:JIMBO.

There was a previous discussion on this, editors refused to link the user page in the article itself because it would constitute an exception, but the new proposal using a "for" template to link the user page does not constitute an exception per above. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Newer 2024 image?

Not sure whether or not it'd be right from me to change the infobox portrait myself, so I decided to ask y'all here. I propose that the current 2023 image (which has an admittedly distracting blurry background) is changed to a newer, fresher image from the 2024 Wikimania. Below are my proposals. I personally favor Option C.

  • Current image Current image
  • A A
  • B B
  • C C
  • D D

Nursultan Malik 21:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the current image. It's better lit and less grainy than the other options provided. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Here are a few new options, and I prefer option F 、 option G.
  • E E
  • F F
  • G G
  • H H
  • I I
  • J J

Nagae Iku (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: