Revision as of 14:47, 18 March 2004 editSj (talk | contribs)Administrators25,846 editsm sections← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:00, 9 January 2025 edit undoChipmunkdavis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,844 editsm Reverted edit by 185.79.101.24 (talk) to last version by Nagae IkuTag: Rollback |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
| action1 = AFD |
|
|
| action1date = 14 October 2005 |
|
|
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales |
|
|
| action1result = kept |
|
|
| action1oldid = 14579563 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action2 = AFD |
|
== Talk from before Jimbo's Mar 16 Statement == |
|
|
|
| action2date = 14 August 2007 |
|
Jimbo Wales has requested that no article be written on him. -- ] 07:50, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (2nd nomination) |
|
|
| action2result = speedily kept |
|
|
| action2oldid = 151188864 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action3 = AFD |
|
:See for the mailing list post where he states this. ]] 07:53, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| action3date = 31 August 2007 |
|
|
| action3link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (3rd nomination) |
|
|
| action3result = speedily kept |
|
|
| action3oldid = 154846896 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action4 = GAN |
|
|
| action4date = 25 March 2012 |
|
|
| action4link = Talk:Jimmy Wales/GA1 |
|
|
| action4result = failed |
|
|
| action4oldid = 477279005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5 = AFD |
|
Anthony wrote in an edit summary "''this one is heavily linked to, though, we shouldn't have links going to user's pages)''" |
|
|
|
|action5date = 14:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
:It isn't actually. It is linked to from very few places, and not from anywhere in the main article namespace, apart from the ] article, so there is no reason not to redirect it to the user namespace. ]] 00:31, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (8th nomination) |
|
|
|action5result = speedily kept |
|
|
|action5oldid = 758452878 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus = FGAN |
|
:] is in the main article namespace. ] 00:33, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|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 = ] |
|
::Just delink it from there then. Geez. ] 00:34, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| 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}} |
|
:::Just leave this as a link to ]. Geez. ] 00:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
::] is not a real article anyway. You can't remove the redirect from here claiming it is a self reference, when the only page that links to it is entirely a self reference. ]] 00:36, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|target=Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=no |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 14 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
== 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. ] (]) 09:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::If ] is not a real article then delete it or move it to the meta namespace. Self-references are fine, but links into user: space from non-meta articles aren't. ] 00:41, 16 Mar 2004 (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) |
|
::::It's delinked now. Why didn't you just do that instead of trying to make a non-sensical redirect? ]] 00:51, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::@] 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 == |
|
:::There's nothing non-sensical about the redirect. It's actually quite consistent with Misplaced Pages standards. ] 00:55, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cut it out Anthony, you're way off on this one. ] | ] 00:51, Mar 16, 2004 (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) |
|
:No, I'm not, we don't link from articles into user: namespace. ] 00:53, 16 Mar 2004 (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) |
|
::We are not linking any articles to the user namespace. We are redirecting it. That is done for hundreds of user pages. ]] 01:02, Mar 16, 2004 (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 == |
|
:::It should not be done for pages which are linked to from the article space. ] 01:03, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{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) |
|
::::It should not be linked to from the article space then. ]] 01:39, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Delete. ] (]) 00:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Jimbo is an important figure, and should have a page. Not linking to him from the article space is a bad solution. ] 01:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*] which doesn't seem to have been closed or concluded (first item on the page). ] (]) 13:04, 1 July 2024 (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 ] == |
|
::::He doesn't want a page. End of story. ]] 01:47, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
:::He never said that. Read what he said more carefully. ] 01:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{For|the personal user page and related internal page|User:Jimbo Wales|WP:JIMBO}} |
|
"I would prefer if there were no article about me" == He doesn't want a page. Stop trolling Anthony. ]] 01:56, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
:That's a selective quote from over a year ago taken out of context. Stop trolling Angela. ] 02:08, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* '''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? == |
|
:: ] by you, either! Two wrongs don't make a right... -- ] 05:45, 16 Mar 2004 (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. |
|
]! I entirely agree with Anthony, for what it's worth. As I understand it (someone correct me if I'm wrong!), there was originally no "User:" namespace, and user pages were just mixed in with the articles. When the "User:" namespace was created, the user pages were moved there, and the resulting redirects were left as hangovers from the olden days. I've always thought that the links to these redirects should be corrected to point straight to the user pages, and then the redirects deleted (or turned into encyclopaedia pages), but I've never done anything about it because the task seemed too daunting. As I see it, the article space is the encyclopaedia, and somebody trying to access what they think is an encyclopaedia page should not be presented with something that isn't. It's confusing and misleading. |
|
|
|
<gallery> |
|
|
|
|
|
File:Jimmy Wales in New York City March 2023 blurred cropped.jpg|Current image |
|
As for the idea that Jimbo shouldn't have his own page, that's just silly. He's the founder of the world's largest online encyclopaedia, and he's been written about in national newspapers. Jimbo didn't say that no article be written on him, just that he would ''prefer'' there not to be one. And I understand that. I'd feel uncomfortable if people I'd worked with started writing articles about me! But in the spirit of neutrality, we should follow the same rules for articles about people who happen to be associated with Misplaced Pages as for people who happen not to be. -- ] 02:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
File:Jimmy Wales 2024 portrait 3x4 (1).jpg|A |
|
|
|
|
|
File:Jimmy Wales 2024 portrait 3x4 (2).jpg|B |
|
Jimbo should of course have an article. After all, so does ], and that is much less justifiable.] 02:07, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
File:Jimmy Wales 2024 portrait 3x2 (3).jpg|C |
|
|
|
|
|
File:Jimmy Wales 2024 portrait 3x2 (4).jpg|D |
|
:Note that following the protection of this page, ] has sprung up. |
|
|
|
</gallery> ]<sup>(])</sup> 21:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Let's get a renewed opinion from Jimbo. There seem to be three possibilities |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
::1) He doesn't object to an article. As no-one has given a reason for him not having an article other than him not wanting one, we have an article. |
|
|
|
:Here are a few new options, and I prefer option F 、 option G. |
|
::2) He objects strongly to an article. As he is final arbiter, we don't have an article. |
|
|
|
<gallery> |
|
::3) He objects, but not strongly (i.e. "prefers not to" as was the case a year ago). Open the debate whether we should have one anyway. Currently Anthony, Erik and Oliver think we should, Angela and Dori think we shouldn't. ] ] 13:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
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 |
|
:Wait a second. If Jimbo doesn't want an article, I don't think we should have one. I think we should redirect this page (and Jimbo Wales) somewhere within article space, or delete it. Someone else made ] into an article, I've only added to it, because again, if we're going to have an article, it shouldn't suck. ] 14:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
File:Jimmy Wales visited the Youth Affairs Agency (cropped).jpg|G |
|
|
|
|
|
File:Jimmy Wales welcome to Uzbekistan (cropped).jpg|H |
|
Please look at ] for my reasoning about the controversial edits/"rebirth" of a Jimbo article the last day. ] 13:39, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
File:Jimmy Wales in Uzbekistan (cropped).jpg|I |
|
|
|
|
|
File:Jimmy Wales and WikiStipendiya (cropped).jpg|J |
|
:It would be good to avoid another round of Anthony-bashing if we can. His borderline behaviour of making edits that, whilst not explicitly disallowed according to a formal policy, are widely denounced as not being in good faith, is currently under review by the Arbitration Committee. Let's stick to figuring out whether we should have an article at all. For this purpose, I've got in touch with Jimbo to ask for a more definite opinion. ] ] 14:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</gallery> ] (]) 12:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
::1. I haven't named ''anyone''. 2. I have not criticized anything else than the reluctance to just drop it, the action of just letting it slide until the mediation processes all are done. Also: the Arbitration Committee is pretty unknown to me. I'd suggest you letting out a bit more public info from Misplaced Pages's inner circle. ] 14:08, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm not sure what you're talking about. ] is policy. Linking to user pages from article space complicates forking. ] 14:16, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Talk since the Mar 16 statement == |
|
|
:::As is well known, despite my benevolent dictator position around here, I am loathe to actually forbid people from doing things. But for me, this is a matter of courtesy and respect, not just for me, but for the project itself. I know that my position may not be shared by all, so I don't mean to say that those who would like to see an article about me are being discourteous or disrepectful, quite the contrary actually, it's a bit flattering of course. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Speaking objectively and neutrally, if this were about anyone other than me, I would say that of course it's fine to have an article. But it is about me, and my position in the project is unique. Part of what I seek to avoid is a snarky reporter reporting on this article, as if to suggest that Misplaced Pages is absurd, and just a vanity project of some kind. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It's important to remember that although my name has been in the papers and whatever, my day to day life is not that of a famous person of any kind. I have a small home office in an ordinary middle-class home in an ordinary middle-class neighborhood. I have a 4 year old Hyundai with a dent in the side that I drive when I do go out. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I pop up here after breakfast each morning and type my wild thoughts about freedom and knowledge and neutrality and openness and wikilove. And then I go downstairs to play with my little girl. I don't feel very much like an encyclopedia-topic. :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I've discouraged other people from creating articles about themselves, and from editing articles about themselves, although of course we don't have a firm policy against it. But I want to set the best possible example in cases like this, and I fear that if we have a general "green light" for articles about ourselves, we'll end up having to put up with some very strange and annoying arguments. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Anyhow, so that's my position, and I suppose it isn't nearly as helpful as it might be if I just said "no". But I do feel pretty strongly against it. I suggest that we take a vote, and that the voters be made aware of my feelings against the existence of an article, and if nonetheless the consensus is to have it, then we may have it. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I'd prefer to wait until I win the Nobel Peace Prize, though. :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::] 14:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Jimbo, do you have any desire to have this redirect to your user page, or are you neutral on that issue? ] 14:28, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Well, Jimbo's last message is pretty clear. Before this message I would have voted in favour of a '''Jimbo Wales''' article. But indeed, as Jimbo suggests, maybe we will start a big ball turning with alot more people wanting their own article. People that aren't as deserving as Jimbo is. So I am in favour of letting the question rest.] 15:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: My position is very similar to yours. Let's wait to hear from others who have previously been in favour of having an article. If they still are, then we can set up a vote. ] ] 15:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::As I've said above, I'm neutral on the issue of whether or not to have an article on Jimbo. I'd prefer to have one, but at the same time, I respect his request not to. This should be formalized as a vote, though, because this issue will come up again in the future. ] 15:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Well we need to talk about it and explore the issues because this is an issue that will come up again. We only need to vote if a natural consensus doesn't arise. |
|
|
|
|
|
::I think we should vote to determine if there is a consensus or not. ] 15:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Voting comes after discussion. See ] and ]. ] ] 16:08, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I never said we should vote now (if I thought we should, I would have started the poll). I said we should vote eventually. ] 16:27, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I hope I never met you over the green baize of a poker table, Anthony. I never seem to be able to read what you mean :-). ] ] 16:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::If you've ever seen me go ], I think you'd wish you had. Anyway, sorry about the confusion. ] 17:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to argue with our great benevolent dictator. I don't think we should put an article in if he continues to strongly object, but I'm going to put forth some arguments against the ones he made in his statement. I doubt a snarky reporter would complain about a short NPOV article about a CEO of a company and leader of a large project. I think that Jimmy '''is''' important, whether he likes it or not, whether he feels like it or not. Do you really think that most people with articles "feel like an encyclopedia subject" whatever that means? Maybe for pop stars there's a feeling about it; I don't know. Does fame or achievement stop people from driving dented cars and playing with their children? I don't know many famous people, but my cousins ] and ] are regular people with lives, flaws, humanity. Neither are incredibly famous but they have articles here about which no one's objected. Jeff's daughter Jenna has lived a pretty much normal life, except that her father travels a lot to perform. Jimmy's modesty aside, he's an encyclopedia subject. ] 16:48, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==One size fits all== |
|
|
|
|
|
We need to formulate a policy on "Articles about contributors". It's a special topic. I can't think of a single case where complex or thorny problems haven't arisen. Easter Bradford got really upset with the article about him, after initially being jovial and buoyant about contributing here. Sheldon Rampton's article was the subject of a long mailing list discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever we decide, let's not use the Founder as the first case! Let's start with someone who is (a) not well known, (b) not controversial and (c) not a project leader. --] 15:18, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:We already have a policy. ]. As long as you don't create the article about yourself, it's perfectly fine, and should be judged by the same criteria as any other article. OTOH, I believe Jimbo '''is''' a special case, and if he doesn't want an article about him, I think we should oblige. ] 15:25, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well Jimbo's article is the one that blew up yesterday evening/today, so it has to be sorted. I agree with Anthony that the current "don't create an article about yourself" will do for starters. However I also we shouldn't be embarassed to make a special case for Jimbo and not have an article if we best serve Misplaced Pages by doing so. ] ] 15:39, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Jimbo's argument is that having an article for him does not best serve Misplaced Pages. His argument is unique to him. Further, I think the fact that the subject himself has requested not to be in Misplaced Pages is a factor. It shouldn't be the only factor, but in this case I think it pushes the matter over the edge. ] 15:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Not having an article about Jimbo is a General Case, not a special case. We don't have ANY articles about contributors -- other than their own user pages (which are clearly personal and considered off-limits to unwanted others). Problems with biographies of contributors/staff include: |
|
|
#Conflict of interest: everyone naturally wants to portray themselves in a good light |
|
|
#Bias: others can be tempted to retaliate for edit wars or administrative action by planting negative stuff in someone else's bio. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please give 2 or 3 examples of a satisfactory biographical article about someone who is a Misplaced Pages contributor, and I will change my mind! --] 16:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
::1. Sheldon Rampton 3. Osama bin Laden 2. JJ from ]-]</big><small>] 16:46, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
So if RMS decided to sign up for a Misplaced Pages account, we should delete his page? Who knows, maybe he already has one. Excluding articles about people just because they happen to be Wikipedians is a bad idea. According to ], " A few somewhat famous Wikipedians have significantly contributed to encyclopedia articles about themselves and their accomplishments, and this has mostly been accepted after some debate." So, while I don't have an example off the top of my head, apparently this does have precedent. ] 16:30, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, if ] starts contributing, we won't have to delete his page. If there's already a good bio in place, they shouldn't have to choose between being a contributor or the object of a bio. But we still need a policy (Steve was joking above, I assume). --] 16:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:Like I said before, we already have a policy. These pages are allowed, though it is discouraged for them to be significantly contributed to by the subject or a close associate of the subject. It just doesn't seem to be the policy you like. ] 17:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Compromise proposal == |
|
|
|
|
|
Jimbo has again asked us not to write an article about him. I disagree, but out of courtesy, we should let his opinion stand for now. The redirect currently in place should be kept, but all links to it from the article space should be removed so that ] don't run into problems. |
|
|
|
|
|
However, in the interest of our commitment to neutrality and collecting knowledge, we should set a reasonable threshold for including an article about Jimbo in Misplaced Pages, whether he likes it or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
I propose as such a threshold that all of the following conditions must be met: |
|
|
* English Misplaced Pages reaches 5,000 ''quality-controlled'' articles (which have been subjected to an ], possibly a more advanced form of ]) |
|
|
* Print edition is published |
|
|
* Wikimedia Foundation has raised more than $100,000 in donations |
|
|
|
|
|
I predict that this sets the time at which the article is allowed to about 2 to 4 years in the future. Alternatively, an article can be written in the event that Jimbo should die before these conditions are met, unless that unfortunate event is the result of the actions of a ] (we don't want to give any people ideas!).] 12:20, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'd prefer to redirect current links to ] (or whatever other title we decide which won't conflict with this page), but as long as this is made as an exception just for Jimbo I guess this isn't too bad. |
|
|
|
|
|
:As for not having an article on Jimbo, I'd like to make it clear that my vote is contingent on the fact that he doesn't want an article. If he changes his mind in the future (and I'd hope he would), my support for this compromise is revoked. ] 12:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::How about "no article about a contributor unless they are famous for something other than their involvement at Misplaced Pages"? --] 13:02, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Well, first of all, Jimbo would qualify for that, via Bomis. But no, I don't think lack of fame is a sufficient reason for deletion. If a contributor who was famous only for involvement at Misplaced Pages asked that we delete an article about him (and we could confirm that she was the one making the request), then I'd consider it. Even then, I don't know. In this case we're talking about the person who pays the bandwidth bills. I think we should grant him his request not to have an article written about him, at least at the current time, when he's not really ''that'' famous. ] 13:15, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Under that rule, we wouldn't have an article about the emperor of ] either. ]] 15:31, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:My vote for a compromise: Misplaced Pages will not be the first comprehensive, mainstream encyclopedia to include an article on Jimmy Wales. But as soon as Britannica or someone other inserts an article on JW, we'll show them that we cover this subject (as any) best! :-) ] 20:17, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Many Misplaced Pages forks already have an article on Jimbo, and they are comprehensive, mainstream encyclopedias :). ] 20:22, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Now that it seems like we're not having an article for the time being, at ] there has been a suggestion to redirect both Jimbo and Jimmy pages to ], thus avoiding cross-namespace redirects, which is very appealing. However there may be links to these pages that we can't update (cos they are beyond our control) that are intended for the user page. This would mean that we should consider having a "Looking for Jimbo's user page? Click " line at the bottom of the ] article. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have unprotected this page, as it seems daft to have ] protected and ] unprotected. , let's pick a redirect and aim both pages there. ] ] 15:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Cross-namespace redirects are a bit ugly, but not really an issue. It's the cross-namespace ''links'' which we should avoid.] 17:59, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:We definitely don't want a link at the bottom of the Misplaced Pages article. The problem with this particular cross-namespace redirect is that it will almost certainly turn into a cross-namespace link. ] 18:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
Bottom line, we don't want articles about Wikipedians who are noteworthy ''for wikipedia'' - otherwise we will have articles about all sysops, all frequent edit warriors, all slashdot users with excellent karma... ]] 18:45, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think we can draw a line between people who are noteworthy only within Misplaced Pages (sysops, high-conflict users) and people who are noteworthy ''even outside Misplaced Pages'' for Misplaced Pages. ] 19:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Jimbo is noteworthy for Bomis, though. ] 19:59, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Moved Talk from Talk:Jimbo_Wales, now redirected here == |
|
|
|
|
|
<small> |
|
|
''Note this page is for talking about the article ]. To write a general message ''to'' Jimbo, visit the talk page for his user page at ]'' |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
There appears to have been a bit of squabbling about whether there should be an article at this location, or merely a cross-namespace redirect to Jimbo's user page. I think there is a strong case for an article. ] ] 13:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hmm, seems like there was a big discussion over at ], where the important information was that Jimbo doesn't want an article about himself. This changes the complexion a bit, to my mind. See that page for continuing talk. ] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
Since ] is protected, and this article and that one are on the exactly same subject, you are essentially violating protection and proper order of process when creating this duplicate article. Please stop editing until the issue is settled! ] 13:28, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I think whoever edits this page is doing something ''at least'' '''highly controversial''' if not '''clearly wrong'''. ] 13:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
: I agree. ] 13:34, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This article was explicitly unprotected. The proper solution is to unprotect ] as well. ] 14:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Following Jimbo's input at ] there seems to be little appetite for a main namespace article on Jimbo, see e.g. Eloquence's comment there. Obviously ] and ] need to have the same solution so I am redirecting this page too. Should the old content be stored somewhere? ] ] 14:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This page should be redirected to ], not to Jimbo's user page. ] 15:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That seems like a reasonable idea. But it seems mad to have ] redirecting to his user page and ] redirecting to ]. They should both point to the same thing. The advantage is that we don't have cross-namespace redirects, which is nice, but we may break links (in particular links beyond our control to change. What's the most important priority here? ] ] 15:28, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Agreed. Unprotect ] so we can fix this. The more important thing is to not have cross-namespace redirects. At least not for encyclopedic topics such as this one. ] 15:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It's unprotected. I have opened up the question of the best redirect location on the other talk page too. I am not sure I agree with you, but let's see what the balance of opinion is. ] ] 15:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
</small> |
|
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)
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)
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 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.