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.
:This is an article talk page. You want ] ]] 01:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:This is an article talk page. You want ] ]] 01:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks - just realised that and posted there - I was trying to remove this section but we edit conflicted. That's what you get for editing while tired :) ] (]) 01:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks - just realised that and posted there - I was trying to remove this section but we edit conflicted. That's what you get for editing while tired :) ] (]) 01:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
== Co-founder dispute rumbles on and on (Revisionism) ==
Editors are looking through my edits and now are engaging in revisionism across numerous articles. See here. ] (]) 04:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
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 sourcedmust 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 article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This 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
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
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This 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
Jimmy Wales was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.
If you need to contact Jimbo about something, please do so at his talk page, 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 Wales06:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)"
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.
How much did Wales/Bomis spend on Misplaced Pages?
The Seattle Timessays Wales "draws no income from Misplaced Pages, which cost him $500,000 to launch", while The Independentclaims Wales "spent $100,000 (£60,000) of Bomis's money developing Misplaced Pages before creating a not-for-profit organisation to run the burgeoning encyclopedia". So either Wales invested 400k of his own cash or at least one of these claims is wrong. Anyone got any insight or further sources on this? Skomorokh 16:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
From the Cynthia Barnett article, cited in Rosenzweig:
"Wales estimates he spent $500,000 in Misplaced Pages's first three years to get it up and running. For the past two years, the project's annual budget of $500,000 has been funded fully with donations and grants, most of them small."
You're most welcome. Ottre 20:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
So the naive verificationist position here would be to state that Wales (estimates to have) spent 500k, including 100k from Bomis, on Misplaced Pages before turning it over to the WMF. I'm not entirely confident that is an accurate representation of what actually happened. Should we go with this in the absence of contradicting sources, only quote the sources' claims, or leave out the point entirely? Skomorokh 21:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you provide a reference for that? It seems to contradict Wales' statements above and here, as well as The Seattle Times' article above. Skomorokh 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
In 1996, Wales and two partners founded a Web directory called Bomis. We know there was two other partners who have been written out of Misplaced Pages. The other partners spent a lot of money too but Wales takes credit for that. Wales thrust himself into the media spotlight while the other partners did not want the media attention. The two other business partners had to bring money to the table. I find it odd Wales claims to be the sole founder because Misplaced Pages was part of Bomis when there was two other parteners who have vanished from the history of Misplaced Pages. Who told the media Wales spent money on Misplaced Pages while not mentioning the other partners. Hmmm. What you are reading in reliable sources is what they were told and what Wales wants you to believe. QuackGuru (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I've contacted Steven Levy to see if he can shed any light on the matter. Ottre 22:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence Wales directly spent any money on Misplaced Pages. All payments were made by Bomis which had two other partners. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I would read the above as 100K spent before the Foundation was created, and 500K-100K = 400K afterwards (not sure if that's accurate, just a way to resolve the two claims). Here is a reference about funding coming from Bomis's corporate account, not Wales's personal money - though to be fair it was Wales's decision to spend that business money on Misplaced Pages. In his own words "So long as wikipedia is part of Bomis, Inc., my costs are tax deductible as ordinary business expenses, with no paperwork and no complicated justifications to the IRS. I just spend money, the company is that much less profitable, and that's that. Any benefit to Bomis is highly intangible, but that's fine." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, checking over the Wikimedia Foundation's financial forms, I don't see how he comes up with 500K. I know he's said it, i.e. it's not a misquote. But it's very unclear to me how he reaches that sum, since e.g. the June 30 2004 numbers are 80K of income and 23K of expenses. I'd assume earlier numbers are even less. So how does he get to 500K from that? Someone should ask him, though it probably shouldn't be me (and take care in following-up the answer) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: Never heard back from Levy. No good reason to believe he is a reliable source on where the money came from, so I'm going with Seth on this. Ottre 21:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:LEADCITE indicates that references are needed for controversial or complex claims, and for contentious information about living people. Outside of the co-founder dispute, I really don't see any claims of sufficient acrimony – and outside the birthday there are none complex enough – to require referencing under this understanding. To survey the most recently-promoted featured biographies, it's clear that citations in the lead section are unconventional in the encyclopaedia's best work:
This article, in contrast, has twenty two citations in the lead, with two additional requests for citation – even thought the claims are clearly supported in the body of the article. I propose that this is bad practice, introduces redundancy and makes the the introduction aesthetically unappealing, more difficult to read and more apparently controversial than it in fact is. I propose we restrict citations to claims likely to be contested. Skomorokh 21:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Everything else in the lead is cited except for two sentences. I propose we improve the lead by adding two refs. QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. The main thing is to engage our readers, and having so many references in the lead is preconventional. It's certainly not formal practice for a biography.
I was just reading a book put out by NETIS that cites Misplaced Pages articles for several of the concepts it discusses. It's very likely that we'll have scholarly books on Misplaced Pages within a year or two, so I think we should actually start deleting the unnecessary refs. Ottre 22:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Due to the extreme circumstances of Wales's position within Misplaced Pages, I believe it is necessary to have as many references as possible to keep down the edit-wars and talk-page debates. Yes, I certainly understand the point that it's a stylistic drag. However, in terms of making trade-offs, I would contend the experience of this article shows it's necessary to be as much as possible on the side of safety and citations. Perhaps some of the articles above are in fact under-referenced, rather than being a norm for emulation. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Only exceptional claims need to be referenced in the lead. As long as everything else is referenced in the body, it's good to be summarized without citation in the lead. لennavecia14:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose we must reference all controversial claims in the lead. Any unref'd and controversial material in the lead must be removed, and lets face it there are at least 2 highly controversial assertions in the lead. Trying to remove these refs smacks of trying to play down the controversies as if somehow he really was the co-founder instead of this just being opinion, albeit ref'd opinion, ie I am suspicious of the motives of those who want to remove refs to disputed and controversial material in the lead. All it will do is make the article less NPOV than ever, and indeed imply that the article is not controversial. Thanks, SqueakBox14:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
SqueakBox, my proposal is to reference all controversial claims in the lead section, and the co-founder claim is one I explicitly specified as needing citation. What I don't see as requiring redundant references are claims like "During his graduate studies taught at two universities", "In 2004, co-founded Wikia, a privately-owned, free Web-hosting service, with fellow Wikimedia trustee Angela Beesley" or " self-identifies as an Objectivist and, with reservations, a libertarian". Skomorokh 18:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) SqueakBox, it seems that you perhaps misread a portion of the proposal. The contention is that everything is being sourced in the lead, and that it is unnecessary. Not to say there should be no sources in the lead, but that not everything about Jimmy Wales is controversial. Claims likely to be contested, or extraordinary claims (as I put it), in my mind, both fall under the term "controversial claims". Thus, those would be cited in the lead. However, other non-controversial claims, already sourced in the body, would not be cited per WP:LEADCITE. This would lighten the disruption caused on the flow, and it would prevent Jimmy from seeming more controversial than he really is. لennavecia18:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I doubt I could word my thoughts any better than Jennavecia already has. When the cites interfere with readability, it's time to do some pruning. — Ched : ? 18:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support although in some ways this puts the cart before the horse. The lead and body should be written in such a way that the lead does not need extensive citation. In other words, the lead should be a summary, not a synthesis. The reader should be able to infer the more delicate points from the body of the article, rather than being told what to think in the lead. Geometry guy19:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
# ], a.k.a ], cofounder of Misplaced Pages and editor-in-chief of Nupedia
The entry, dated January 22, 2002, also lists Jimmy Wales as "Jimbo Wales, the other cofounder of this great project".
For whatever reason, there is a glitch (unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible) that puts the chronology of the revisions out of order. The first actually being December 25, 2001 with this edit. If your click to show previous edit, it jumps to September 20, 2002. Regardless, this last diff indicates that from December 25, 2001, Larry and Jimmy were listed as co-founders of Misplaced Pages. This did not change until June 3, 2003, when Anthere cleared the list to Misplaced Pages:Alphabetical list of Wikipedians, now deleted. I have to go to work now, but I'll look into it a bit more. Regardless, more conclusive evidence from the early days. لennavecia19:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Upon further research, I found that the above remained in place until the page was soft-redirected to Special:ListUsers on November 27, 2006. Therefore, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger were listed as co-founders of Misplaced Pages on the site's de facto user directory for one month short of five years. Revision as of 22:37, November 26, 2006 shows the last edit to display the above. لennavecia22:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:( But seriously, as interesting and valuable to future historians as this is, I'm not sure there's a place for any of this in the article. The straw poll above was pretty conclusive on the co-founder issue. Skomorokh 00:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the straw poll above establishes the positions of the respondents. The historical record establishes the objective truth (inasmuch as that concept is meaningful, I know, etc. etc.). Hopefully, these two ideas are identical, but my inclination is to go to great lengths with referencing because I know how easy it is to have a point dismissed ad hominem as partisan (POV-pusher). I wouldn't make a crusade of this reference, and I understand the counter-argument about overkill. But I also have a feeling we haven't seen the end of the PR campaign either. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I just put this here for the next time the debate starts up, which hopefully won't be for a long time. لennavecia05:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
A qualified thumbs-up from The London Review of Books
Misplaced Pages still has its advantages, however. Despairing of discovering anything about Rand that I could make sense of, I looked up the article on Jimmy Wales, to see if that shed any light on his personal philosophy. This article is also long, but more reasonably so, given that Wales is responsible for one of the most significant inventions of the 21st century. It is also admirably even-handed, managing to convey that Wales is both something of a visionary and also something of a creep. The section on his personal life includes this detail, which neither he nor anyone else has seen fit to edit: ‘His first wife, Pam, was quoted in a September 2008 W magazine article as saying that Wales, because he believed altruism was evil, discouraged her from pursuing a nursing degree when they were married.’ The entry also details the break-up of Wales’s second marriage and the claims of a subsequent girlfriend, the Canadian conservative columnist Rachel Marsden, that she only discovered he was ending his relationship with her by reading about it on Misplaced Pages. I guess that’s ‘objectivism’ for you.
Thanks - just realised that and posted there - I was trying to remove this section but we edit conflicted. That's what you get for editing while tired :) Exxolon (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
