Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:55, 29 August 2007

Jimmy Wales received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

If you need to contact Jimbo about something, please do so at User talk:Jimbo Wales, not here. As Jimbo explains... "People who are trying to leave messages for me will likely be more satisfied if they leave messages on my user talk page than if they leave them here. This is the talk page for the article about me, not a place to talk to me. I rarely read this. --Jimbo Wales 06:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)"

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This 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

	Jimmy Wales has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 15, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 5, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 10, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 17, 2006 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Good article

Template:WP1.0

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This 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

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) / Wales, Jimbo This user has contributed to the article.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

yes]

WP Alabama

How could this article relate to WikiProject Alabama when the only (known) thing Jimbo has in common with it is his birthplace in Huntsville? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  02:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You answered your own question; the fact that he was born and raised in Alabama places him in the scope of the Alabama WikiProject. Nufy8 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Does he live there now? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Nufy8 03:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Being born in Alabama is not the only known thing Jimmy Wales has in common with Alabama. Wales was also educated in Alabama. He attended the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama. 24.181.107.187 19:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

what does he have to do with the state itself? should every american with an article on wikipedia fall under the scope of wikiproject united states? 82.112.143.249 00:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Website as Userpage

I removed his userpage link that was under the title "Website" per WP:NOT ie Misplaced Pages is not a Personal web page and thus should not advertise his userpage as a personal website. Instead of just reverting Freakofnurture edits i thought i would bring it here as WP:NOT is a policy. I would like to hear Jimmy's option if he considers this his personal website or not. ExtraDry 10:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not as much his personal website, as it is his official page as benevolent dictator of this project. Aum. <strikes forehead against floor>. Highly relevant to his main area of notability. Keep it. --AnonEMouse 12:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If we are looking for a link which directs people to further information about me, the best link will be my blog, which I consider to be my "personal website" in the relevant sense. My wikipedia userpage is a wikipedia userpage and therefore not a personal website. However, as to the question of whether this article should send people to my wikipedia userpage or not, I guess that is a different question, and I have no opinion. What do we generally do when subjects of articles also have userpages? We should be more or less consistent, I suppose.--Jimbo Wales 13:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Normally we use {{Notable Wikipedian}}. As this talk page has a special notice "If you need to contact Jimbo about something...", it might be a little spammy to add the NW template. KillerChihuahua 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

We already have that template here, disguised via a redirect. Look at the right column. --cesarb 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Having a link hidden in the talk page is not at all the same as having it in the article, I feel that the link Jimbo Wales should be kept in the article. Because the two subjects of Jimbo and wikipedia are innately woven together, coming from him being on wikipedia. Or to put it another way, a large part of his fame comes from the work he has done as a user on wikipedia. Thus it makes sense to link to his userpage on wikipedia. Exactly the same as if (pretend example here...) I became very famous for my writings the times, then it would makes logical sense to link to my userpage on the times (if it is informative). Mathmo 17:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

missing pictures

At least 2 pictures are missing from this article. I recommend the pictures be restored.  QuackGuru  talk 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is important, I thought. I think the pictures should be added back in.  QuackGuru  talk 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides picturing Wales they don't have anything to do with the article. They are redundant and should not be restored. 68.117.211.187 17:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

External link craziness

Check out the external links. Per link policy, the external links need a very good clean up.  QuackGuru  talk 01:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd just kill them all except the first 3 and then put in a link to dmoz or something. RN 03:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

About half of the external links should be removed. Thanks.  QuackGuru  talk 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it sad that the founders page has an external links user box?!?Gorkymalorki 08:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of my change to Jimmy Wales

(moved Tualha comment from QuackGuru's talk page by QuackGuru)  QuackGuru  talk 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello QuackGuru, did you read the edit summary of my change before you reverted it? I don't think we need to clutter up the citation with that rather long quote. The only way it supports the point is by referring to Jimbo as Misplaced Pages's "co-founder".

I observe that the text I removed was originally added by you. Allow me to remind you of what every page says when you edit it: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." You seem to be taking the removal of your text personally, or something. Please be assured I am just trying to improve the article. No one "owns" these articles, and insisting that one's changes be retained without justification is inappropriate.

I also don't understand why you summarized your change as ("quotes" in small), when you did not change any text size, but merely reverted the last change. Did some program insert that text? Edit summaries are a useful guide to other editors, so it's important to make sure they're accurate.

Cheers, Tualha (Talk) 15:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of surprising that you could just open up a site and let people work," said Jimmy Wales, Misplaced Pages's co-founder and the chief executive of Bomis, a San Diego search engine company that donates the computer resources for the project. "There's kind of this real social pressure to not argue about things." Instead, he said, "there's a general consensus among all of the really busy volunteers about what an encyclopedia article needs to be like.

I added the "quotes" in small. To answer your question: I am a person and not a program. The quotes are very relevant and add to the article. Images are missing from this article. There is external link craziness. Relevant small quotes are being removed. Whats happening here?  QuackGuru  talk 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• It should be noted that the whole section above was not actually posted by Tualha, but was actually posted by QuackGuru (talk · contribs). It looks like a textdump for Quack's talkpage.--Isotope23 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I originally posted it on QuackGuru's talk page, he moved it here for some reason. Verbatim, I checked. Tualha (Talk) 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I noticed that after the fact. Cut and paste like that isn't the best practice because off the cuff it looks like impersonation since you were not in the edit log for having made that comment here.--Isotope23 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Responding to QuackGuru, my points were:

1. The quote is not relevant: where you have it, it should be supporting the statement "Sanger was identified as a co-founder of Misplaced Pages at least as early as September 2001". While the cited article does support that statement, the quote does not. All it does is refer to Jimmy Wales, in an offhand way, as "Misplaced Pages's co-founder". In my opinion, this rather lengthy quote doesn't carry its weight.
2. You reverted my change, but whereas the edit summary should say something like reverted Tualha's change or undid Tualha's edit, instead it says "quotes" in small, which means very little. The edit summary should briefly explain the change and its purpose.

Tualha (Talk) 19:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I will use a more relevant quote. Thanks for your concern. Please review.  QuackGuru  talk 20:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That one will do, though it can be trimmed. Thanks. Tualha (Talk) 21:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

First sentence in the education section

That part I fixed yesterday in the education section is logically inconsistent. It reads like the school was donating the software to itself. It's not Jimbo's user page so I have right to fix it, right? Why has it been undone then? greg park avenue 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate

I just blogged about this.--Jimbo Wales 09:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly, he was born on the 8th, and Britannica also thinks its the 7th. See this blog entry from The Oregonian newspaper. Also see the previous, related blog entry about an interview with him, Ward Cunningham and the newspaper, as well as a print article, Open-source thinking. Jason McHuff 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a reporter from a major newspaper has reported on a public records search, confirming what I have been saying for a long time. According to my birth certificate, August 7th is not my birthdate. Perhaps someday I will produce a note from my mom for another reporter. And perhaps I will just continue to have a bit of fun with this. :)--Jimbo Wales 09:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Wales has stated that his birthday is Aug. 7th, 1966. Links to these admissions can be found here and here. Also, both Current Biography and Who's Who is America list his birthday as being the 7th. 68.117.211.187 07:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope I am not the only one who is amused that this anonymous ip number calls a discussion of my date of birth an "admission". :) Perhaps I shall next confess to having brown hair. --Jimbo Wales 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I don't think I saw the archive of this page when I came here. I'm not seeing the first edit you link to in the page history, but the second one does seem somewhat conclusive. Its interesting, because here (at your links) he seems pretty firm that its the 7th, yet the blog post (written by a reporter for a major metro newspaper, so hopefully a reliable source) really sounds like he said that its not the 7th. Overall, it does seem that a difference of a day isn't much to worry about. Jason McHuff 09:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit weird. Here's a link that clarifies things a bit better than my first one. Of course, we can't use Wikepedia as a reliable source for information, which is why it's important to use more scholarly source like Current Biography. 68.117.211.187 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Another good link. I was really just comparing what Wales has said here and in the interview. I do see the awkwardness of citing something here inside Misplaced Pages. Source-wise, it seems to be Current Biography, Who's Who and Britannica vs. The Oregonian interview and this Britannica "research note". Assuming Current Biography and Who's Who don't also have questions about the date, for now I'm willing to leave the it as is, and use them as reference. Jason McHuff 08:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It might also be worth noting that on August 7 we list August 7 as his birthday. If this is incorrect, I think we look really, really stupid here. John Carter 20:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't about truth, it's about providing verifiable information from reliable, published sources. I really don't thnk it's something to worry about. 68.117.211.187 21:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

His DOB is on August 8 according to Jimmy. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  22:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Sadly, Mr. Wales cannot be used as a reliable source since his statements about his DOB have been inconsistent. As previously mentioned only verifiable information from reliable, published sources can be used on Misplaced Pages. Even if that was not the case I can find no records where Mr. Wales has said that his birthday was on August 8th. If you can reference a source for that fact, which meets Misplaced Pages's guidelines, please do so. Till then I feel that we must continue to rely on the previously mentioned sources and keep his DOB as is. Jhurlburt 03:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Happily, Jimbo can be used as a reliable source per WP:SELFPUB policy. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  05:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You have failed to provide a source where Mr. Wales makes this claim. We can't just take your word for it. Jhurlburt 05:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to the most recent edits, a simple reminder; you cannot use Misplaced Pages or blogs as sources. Misplaced Pages is not its own reference and blogs are not acceptable as sources, according to policy. If we were to use Misplaced Pages as a source I would direct everyone to statements and edits made by Mr. Wales where he states,

"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)"

However, since a number of verifiable resources do provide this information and no published, reliable source refutes it we must stick with what we got. Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. Jhurlburt 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Oddly that was added not by Jimbo but General Patton. There is no contribution history from Jimbo with that timestamp or anything like it (not on meta either.) But, there is this where he sets it to the 7th. Boggle! See http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2007/08/08/my-birthdate/ ←Ben 18:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the strange timestamp, that is odd. After doing some internet research it appears this is an old controversy and somebody with oversight powers on Misplaced Pages removed Mr. Wales' quote. However, as you pointed out with your example there have been times when Mr. Wales has edited his bio to state that his birthday is Aug 7th. As silly as it sounds given the fact that Mr. Wales has flip-flopped over when his actual birthdate is we can't use him as a reliable source. Three years ago he said it was the 7th, now he says it's the 8th. If next year he say's it's the 9th should we change it again? Remember, we need reliable, published sources for content.... Mr. Wales' blog never makes the claim that his birthdate is Aug. 8th.... it refers to another blog where Wales' states that "Nobody knows..." when his birthdate is and the blogger claims that it's the 8th. That's not good enough. Jhurlburt 19:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have flip flopped at all. I have had a bit of fun by being cryptic from time to time, but have been consistent throughout. At the present time, and for the first time EVER, we appear to have a reliable source: a reporter who has done a public record search.--Jimbo Wales 10:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's use a bit of common sense here... is Jimbo's birthdate being in February or August really all that contentious of a topic that it merits edit warring? I mean seriously.--Isotope23 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. Jimbo first said his birthday is on the 7th and NOT on the 8th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=5987088 See here and...

http://wikimediafoundation.org/search/?title=Board_of_Trustees&diff=prev&oldid=406 here.

OK. This is a little weird. I am scratching my head. How can we NPOV this? I must say. This is a difficult one.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am confused too, hence my removing any date and putting on the totally disputed tag. Obviously I wont be reverting over this one, SqueakBox 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you ask me, it is entirely silly to have a section of the article on this topic. To my mind, this seems pretty simple. For the first time, we have a reliable source on the date, and currently we don't even mention it. Linking to Misplaced Pages diffs is invalid. Linking to my blog can be perfectly valid, and certainly linking to the Oregonian article is perfectly valid. Britannica is a tertiary source at best and should be ignored. The simple correction that was made yesterday seems best to me.--Jimbo Wales 10:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just say "Jimbo Wales was born on the International date line, and thus his precise date of birth can not be decided"? Sure, it's a little dubious, but if it would stop the fighting --Lucid 11:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is who oversighed this. It seems like a pretty obvious abuse of the oversight power. ←Ben 13:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know what evidence there is it was oversighted. Neither your or I are admins so we AFAIK can't tell the difference between things that are oversighted and things that are deleted... Whatever the case, it would seem to me this doesn't really belong here. Perhaps the VP or Administrator's Noticeboard or some such Nil Einne 13:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was not oversighted, then General Patton signed Jimbo's name. Google a phrase from the edit in question and you'll see. ←Ben 14:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That, sadly, is what makes this controversal and the fact that this matter is starting to get mentioned in outside media (e.g. Britannica, the blog of Oregonian reporter Mike Rogoway) makes it worthy of mention. Regardless, if General Patton falsified a record to masquerade as Mr. Wales, a record of this act should be made here. Likewise, if an admin abused the oversight function to make it appear that General Patton falsified a record than that needs to be recorded as well (although neither circumstance explains edits made by Mr. Wales where he changes his DOB from the 8th to the 7th, but that's a different story).68.117.211.187 16:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on, its not that important, falsify is completely OTT, SqueakBox 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't AFAIK say anything about the supposed oversighted deletion. All they say is that Jimbo Wales contacted them to say it was a different date but didn't provide proof. Jimbo Wales agreed with this in his blog. So again, if you think there is a controversy here, please show it Nil Einne 17:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about the deletion log . From the deletion log, it appears that it was not simply deleted. There have been some deletions but it doesn't look to me like any of them were to remove the revision which is purported to be missing (although only an admin can say for sure). However it appears both Ben & 84 failed to consider it could have been deleted so my main point stands. Don't assume something is oversighted when it could have been deleted. And my second point also stands. If you have a complaint about 'abuse' of the oversight system, take it up in a more appropriate channel since it has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Nil Einne 17:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question now that the date has been reverted to Aug 8th. Why is the blog (not an article but a blog) of some reporter (for a local newspaper) considered to be more reliable than the Encyclopedia Britannica, Current Biography, and Who’s Who in America in light of Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability? 68.117.211.187 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica? How is that a reliable source? Its a rival encyclopedia, SqueakBox 18:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Being a rival doesn't discredit ones credibility, especially when Misplaced Pages started the rivalry. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not doubting their credibility but they are not a reliable source, that is obvious. They themselves would need to use reliable sources to be our equal but even so they cannot be a reliable source precisely because they just use reliable sources, that would be a self-defeating catch-22 type situation, SqueakBox 18:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote Misplaced Pages's policy on reliable sources. "What is a reliable source? Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." So again I ask my question why is the blog of a reporter for a small-time newspaper considered to be more reliable than the Encyclopedia Britannica, Current Biography, and Who’s Who in America - each of which has a reliable reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight? 68.117.211.187 18:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about the Oregon web page though the fact that it is local makes no odds. I would clearly say EB does not fit the definition you have given of a reliable source, othjerwise we could just copy from them and it would make us absurd, SqueakBox 19:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI - the 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica is in the public domain and has been extensively copied by Misplaced Pages. We can't "copy" the current EB because that would violate their copyright terms. While I disagree with your claim that EB is not a reliable source, given that it contains some of the most extensive biographies of notable people found anywhere else, I don't think you can make the same claim for either Current Biography, and Who’s Who in America - whose bread and butter is personal biographies. 68.117.211.187 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Added the following quote from Wales, "My date of birth is not August 8, 1966." A link to statement can be found here. Hopefully, this page won't disappear like the last one. Just in case it does it was located between the following edits, 13:45, 11 July 2006 Theresa knott (Talk | contribs) (→The birth date....) and 16:27, 11 July 2006 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) (→A fine point about Jimmy's wealth).

Given that EB, Current Biography, and Who’s Who in America reports Mr. Wales' DOB as Aug. 7th, 1966 and only reporter Mike Rogoway's blog reports the date as the 8th, which contradicts Wales statement in the above quote, can we revert the article and list the DOB as the 7th instead of leaving it blank.? Jhurlburt 17:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian?

can we list him as a libertarian even though he doesnt like the libertarian party? i mean you can be conservative but not be a republican or a liberal and not be a democrat. so would it be safe to add him to the "American libertarian" category?

Probably not.

I suggest talking to Jim, so he knows your adding him, and he can disagree or agree on it. Megan :) 05:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember that the threshold for inclusion of any information is verifiability in reliable, published sources, not truth. If the fact that he is Libertarian in his political philosophy has been published in a citable reliable source, then by all means add it to the appropriate section. VanTucky 06:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The only evidence we have of his libertarianism are his expressed support of ostensibly similar beliefs such as Objectivism. Seeing as Objectivists, such as myself, Ayn Rand, and those at ARI, often dislike the use of the term "libertarian" in regard to us, this is no proof that he identifies himself as a libertarian. Until there is expressed knowledge, it should be left out. D prime 15:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

As always, it is deeply inappropriate for Misplaced Pages to take a stand on any controversial issue. It is therefore wrong to call me the co-founder of Misplaced Pages. Please someone fix this. There has been a long standing consensus as to how to deal with this, a compromise that avoids the question. "best known for his role in founding Misplaced Pages". Whoever changed it should be asked not to do that again. --Jimbo Wales 09:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I made the change, but I have not been able to trace back to the editor that changed it, yet. Ursasapien (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to"known for his role in founding, running, and promoting" which I hope will remove the problem as Jimmy clearly isnt co-promoting or co-running wikipedia so hopefully this shouldnt happen again, SqueakBox 19:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers Controversy

I believe that this represents a legitimate controversy that's worth mentioning here. Mr. Wales's actions in this case were unprecedented and have some serious ramifications for Misplaced Pages in general. Moreover, the claim of controversy isn't out of place. --H4lf 15:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My actions were in no way unprecedented, and there was basically no controversy. There was an AfD, the article was deleted, and some trolls kept recreating it anyway, and I deleted it and said knock it off for a certain amount of time. When that time was up, the matter was considered and the article remained deleted. Of all the things that happen in Misplaced Pages that might be controversial this is pretty low on the list. --Jimbo Wales 18:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'd like to apologize for my rashness. With the discussion page blanked, I only had other pages to go by, which portrayed the event as more substantive than it actually is. --H4lf 16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the problem... you may consider this notable H4lf, but it doesn't seem to be very significant in regards to general media coverage of the incident. It really is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things and I don't see anything to indicate "serious ramifications" for Misplaced Pages in general. The other listed controversies have at least garnered some publicity.--Isotope23 19:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Brian Peppers controversy" is such a non-issue it really does not warrant inclusion in Jimbo's biography at all. --Deskana (banana) 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

In February 2006, the Misplaced Pages article on Brian Peppers was deleted by Jimmy Wales. Since its creation in May 2005, the article was repeatedly deleted and recreated. When brought before a community review, most users supported keeping the article. However, on February 22, 2006, Wales removed the article in full, removed its discussion page, and issued a one year moratorium on the article's recreation. The page currently remains protected.

I do not see any references for the above information. Is this true and is there any references from the general media.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Page logs indicate not but without an outside relaible source there is no chance of including it anyway, SqueakBox 20:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We can cite primary sources when they aren't challenged, right? ←Ben 09:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good luck not being challenged on this. I think the interpretation above is nonsense, suggesting that I acted (controversially) against community consensus. This is just more trolling about it if you ask me.--Jimbo Wales 10:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Um no you can't. For WP:BLP reasons in particular, you can't make up a controversy if none exists. Primary sources may be able to establish that something happened but they cannot establish it's controversial. Even if Jimbo Wales one time seriously said "I enjoy beating my wife and I think all men should be allowed to beat their wives" (random made up example) which is seemingly a controversial statement, it's not a controversy UNLESS other reliable sources establish it as a controversy Nil Einne

Firstly, I am opposed to the section; it has no place in this article because it is such a minor thing, one of dozens of such incidents. However, we have people citing primary sources in BLPs all over the place. Technically an autobiography is a primary source. ←Ben 14:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And I would also be opposed to mentioning a supposed controversy that someone was involved in if the only source which shows it was a controversial is an autobiography (although this isn't such a big issue as editors claiming something is a controversy based on their intepretation of primary sources when no reliable source has claimed it's a controversy which is what I was talking about). If there are any BLPs you can show which claims a controversy when the only evidence for the controversy is an autobiography, please do remove it or take it up ay WP:BLP/N Nil Einne 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS MY LAST ENTRY IN WIKIPEDIA

1. I would like to thank Jimmy Wales for entertaining my interview last year prior to Wikimania 2.
2. I would also like to thank some of the constructive members of the community including Mark_Ryan for originally introducing me to wikipedia.
3. However, I cannot and will not go on receiving the blatant and total disrespect of the Wikimedia / Misplaced Pages communities in IRC and continue to sponsor this organization by making posts to it.
4. This is all that needs to be said I'm afraid. Nice spending time with you.
5. I'm really honestly sorry it has to close like this.

• chrisbradley@noisecontrolpublishing.com

--72.45.229.121 03:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate again

Jimmy's profile on Orkut gives today (August 14th) as his birthday. Is that correct?--Seraphiel 04:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. As to the section recently deleted by Squeakbox, rejecting contributions based on the prejudicial history of the contributor rather than the merit of the contribution in question is an assumption of bad faith. The information is correct, is neutral (as it makes no affirmative statement of which date is right), and is properly verified. A discussion of the controversy surrounding his birthdate is certainly notable and encyclopedic, and does not violate the BLP. Futhermore, Jimbo stated that he though removing an affirmative statement of fact about his birthdate was a good idea, not that a neutral, balanced discussion of the debate surrounding the issue was bad. VanTucky 20:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think BLP does demand we take the wishes of the subject into consideration and especially in a case like this where it would be controversial for the subject himself to edit the article. I am not convinced that basing an opinion on an editor on their block log is showing bad faith, and basing myself on Jimbo's "I have had enough" statement and the fact that this is the article on Jimbo (I wouldnt use the block log to comment on this user's edits to otehr article), SqueakBox 20:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should ignore what Jimbo wishes, I'm saying that he supported a removal of a controversial fact. The current Controversy section is a well-rounded discussion about the debate, and doesn't make an affirmative statement as to which date is correct. To just leave out a precise date and no explanation of the obviously notable debate over the issue is failing the standards of a complete encyclopedia. VanTucky 21:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While I'm in no hurry to uphold JW's right to a quantum indeterminate DoB -- or as Tony S. said, two birthdays like his alleged role model -- I'm struggling to see that this is clearly either controversial or notable, as against the subject being somewhat silly, for no discernible reason. Wouldn't simply a sentence on which to "hang" the assorted sources (in which JW freely contradicts himself self and right) suffice? As opposed to an entire sectionated paragraph, which seems to have something of a "so what?" quality about it. Alai 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. People seem to be forgetting that to show something is controversial and relevant, especially in a BLP, you need to provide some evidence in a reliable source for this. The fact that it can be established that something happened is irrelevant. We shouldn't be writing about something using primary sources as our references when our only evidence it's controversial is the opinion of editors. Currently, the only RS I've seen which hints it's controversial is the Britannica thing and perhaps the 'who knows' bit. Nil Einne —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:58:45, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I think that the mention in EB and the article by Rogoway provide enough of a bases that a controversy exists. Plus, primary sources can be used in a BLP if the primary source is the person themselves (e.g. Wales' blog and his statements in his Misplaced Pages Talk page). Since some jokers keep on inserting Aug 8th as Wales' birthday every few months having a section that addresses the birthday issue along with all relevant sources seems pretty useful to me. 68.117.211.187 04:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section - has what he's done really been particularly controversial?

The sections in here don't deal with massively controversial issues. This may be an extension of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but in other biographies it's uncommon to have controversy sections over issues that are as relatively tame as the fact that he hosted erotic material online, that there was a small dispute over who founded the website, and, least important of all, his date of birth. Anyone else? It seems like the article is trying to adhere to NPOV as much as possible to avoid claims of hypocrisy, whereas the negative known aspects of Jimmy's life are quite insignificant.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 17:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, conflict of interest editing of his own wikibio for one thing. Next is the controversy over his downplaying of Bomis' adult content. Last was the controversy surrounding the accuracy of his birthdate. The birthdate thing is very notable because it's a microcosm of the larger debate surrounding Misplaced Pages's reliability; if we can't even get his birthdate right, how accurate is this project? It doesn't just have to be controversial things Jimbo has done, but controversies that center on him. As to the hypocrisy issue, I think the idea that we are being sensationalistic is folly. Surely Jimbo wouldn't hesitate to voice some concern or complaint if he thought this was rumor-mongering? I say, if the subject doesn't have a problem with the content in question, then it can't be doing him "harm". VanTucky 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the things mentioned..... Bomis, the co-founder debate, and Wales' birthday are all aspects of the controversy that arose from Wales' conflict of interest editing. You can't discuss that controversy without mentioning these aspects..... the DOB is just the latest, and silliest, outgrowth of this debate. Of course, the DOB thing wouldn't even be a controversy if Mr. Wales would just tell people when his birth is instead of telling people when it is not or going around saying "Nobody knows...". 68.117.211.187 23:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I am the sole founder of Misplaced Pages. It is deeply inappropriate for Misplaced Pages to take a stand on this point of controversy. Please revert to the longstanding compromise version on this point. And I think it is time to start warning the trolls who keep doing this.--Jimbo Wales 01:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors