Note, this is founder of Wikipedia, and Yale has disabled comments and disabled ratings for this video. So, there you go. That's the future of free culture -- stifling discussion.

16:30 is about where Jimbo starts whoring his for-profit company that is "completely separate" from Wikipedia.

42:00 is the "co-founder" question!

45:50 is "how to edit your own Wikipedia biography against the guidelines and then mock those who catch you doing it".

53:30 hear the word "ganked".

53:55 is for anyone who ever cared about respect for free licensing terms -- Jimbo doesn't care!

I find that I can't bring myself to spend an hour listening to Jimbo ramble on about himself.

See my edited original post. You can trim it down to about 3 minutes that way, cutting out all the usual drivel.

I went ahead and watched (well, listened to mostly) the whole video while doing other tasks. It was nearly 100% the same old blather that Jimbo has put out for years. However, I did find a few things mildly interesting, though.

First, the topic was "The Future of Free Culture", but he barely made any mention of "free culture" at all beyond how it works at Wikipedia. No mention I can recall of the "free culture movement", nor any of copyright, outside of a very brief mention in his answer to a question on plagiarism.

You would think that appearing at a prestigious university and research institution like Yale might just induce Jimbo to depart from his standard stump speech for WP that then (none too) subtly morphs into a sales pitch for Wikia. But then, if you thought that, you wouldn't know Jimbo very well, would you? Writing a new speech to suit a particular audience is, like, sooooooo hard, man!

Speaking of which, Jimbo spent the first nineteen minutes of a thirty-three minute talk just making introductory remarks about what WP is and what it is about, then briefly contrasted that with Wikia. Why on earth does he need nineteen minutes to explain what WP is to a Yale University audience? Two or three minutes of introductory remarks would have been more than sufficient.

Interesting that the first question concerned criticism of WP. In his answer, he referred to the mainstream news media only, as if it were the only source for criticism of WP.

He also claimed that his editing of his own BLP was "non-controversial" within "the community" (at about 45:55), and that only the news media made an issue of it. Yeah, right.


EDIT: I forgot to mention my amusement at the new clean-shaven look Jimbo is sporting now. I guess Jimbo finally figured out that while a beard can do much to de-emphasize a weak chin, it also adds years to your appearance once you acquire a certain percentage of gray or white in that beard. (I'm a bit older than Jimbo and tell everyone I lose at least five years when I shave (which isn't far wrong, hee, hee!)). I also suspect that he is coloring his hair up top. Can another Jimbo bimbo eruption be far behind?

Yeah. It's non-controversial within "the community," since if you raise any controversy about it on WP, you'll soon not be part of "the community."

Of course Jimbo's not going to mention WR, even though he mentioned it to Rachel in his sex-chat, so he's certainly aware of us, and thinks about us. But he hopes the Ivy League won't find us. Like that will happen.

Still, it occurs to me, and not for the first time, and not with any originality, that Jimbo's BLP needs to be updated properly with all the published dirt, and posted someplace on WR where the Google spiders can find it easily. A dose of his own BLP medicine. The real thing, no lies, would be so salacious that it might even give WP's sanitized version a run for its money, after enough time had passed.

Of course, we'd take it down when WP changed its BLP policy.

Milton

"Don't send them to Yale, send them to jail!"

Please ensure that you abide by NPOV and RS when you do so, and of course don't give undue weight to minor details.

Yes, use the rule of thumb found on Elonka Dunin's Wikipedia biography. Things like "She is a founding member of the International Game Developers Association's Online Games SIG and edited two of their annual White Papers on various aspects of the online game industry: "Web and Downloadable Games" and "Persistent Worlds."" are NPOV and reliably sourced details of no minor importance!

I really can't stand that "rest of the library" analogy. The Wikimedia Foundation has a mission to build more than just an encyclopedia.



No dispute to the "co-founder" designation.



He also confirms (in what I guess counts as a reliable source) what seems to be the truth about his birth date, directly contradicting things he has implied about it in the past. (That his mother says he was born on August 7th, but his birth certificate says he was born on August 8th. The less likely possibility is that he made up the story about his mother, and has been lying about his birth date at least since applying for his marriage license in 1997.)

I say implied, because most of his comments on the matter are likely instances of "Jimmy Wales lying while being technically correct". Britannica says "In June 2007 Mr. Wales notified Britannica that this date was incorrect." But more likely he just misled them by saying something like "my birth certificate and driver's license have a different birth date than the one you listed". Look at his phrasing on his own blog (http://blog.jimmywales.com/2007/08/ webcited at http://www.webcitation.org/5l7QT8pun):



Hard evidence of exactly the type of liar that Jimmy Wales is. And yet people accuse me of assuming bad faith when I continue to ask questions after Wales has made a comment which can be interpreted multiple ways.

(Enterpising [sic] reporter's article webcited at http://www.webcitation.org/5l7QVQVsR)

I will decide what are "minor details," thanks! That's the way WP does it. There are paragraphs in LaRouche's bio about two dead people, one of whom there's no evidence he ever even met. Let alone had sex with.

How is it we have Jimbo promising Rachel Marsden he can get certain details in her BLP changed, so long as he gets her version, so he can get it right? Can't she do it herself? Golly, it's almost as though some cult groupie admin that Jimbo gets to make the changes, will see to it that they stick. Whereas, Rachel's changes wouldn't.


A woman scorned dumpped on Wikipedia, after she thought she had a back door into it. So to speak.