Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales

[rawringcawk]

....wow. i am amazed

 

[nbluth]

When I got on wikipedia today I couldn't quit looking at him! He's incredibly cute. Especially in that last picture

 

[freefall]

His top hair looks a little goofy, but it's compensated with the hotness and the facial hair! And his eyes are like wow!

Too bad he's married and straight

 

[nbluth]

His top hair looks a little goofy, but it's compensated with the hotness and the facial hair! And his eyes are like wow!

Too bad he's married and straight

I'm pretty sure he's not married anymore. Those pics may be old. So who knows? Maybe he's one of those guys that didn't accept he was gay until 40! But if that's the case...


DIBS!

 

[altlover85]

I'm on the fence about him. He's cute in some of the pictures and not so hot in other ones. I totally hate the first pic.

 

[azlovesyou]

I just went on his wikipedia and found you can't edit the information about him. go figure.

 

[braex27]

He's alright.

 

[loveolder18]

The first picture is definitely not one of his best but he looks nice in a few of the others.

 

[Scorpiodncr]

I'd do 'im.

 

[thevofl]

He's ok, but his web site is a steaming pile of shit. The most god-awful piece of pseudo-documentation ever created. And people take it so seriously.

Some of my peers tell their students that if they quote Wikipedia as a source, they will fail whatever paper they are writing.

 

[GuitarMan]

He's ok, but his web site is a steaming pile of shit. The most god-awful piece of pseudo-documentation ever created. And people take it so seriously.

Agreed. I don't understand the general consensus that if anyone has access to it on the internet and can add information to it, why is it therefore considered indisputably valid.

Also, nbluth, after you, he's mine.

 

[cropofthecream]

with that face who WOULDN'T donate money to Wikipedia

 

[ILMILM]

I was thinking of him yesterday, he is cute!

 

[ilovesocks]

Whoaa i gues its not just me who's into Jimmy Wales..
i mean he's damn hot and really turn me on. I just know this guy today when i stumbled on Wikipedia and i saw his picture..instantly i know he is cool mature and perfect oooh i dreamed of him ehmm must be delicious :q

p.s the third and the fourth picture is the hottest one

 

[Cub-in-the-Bluegrass]

I was on Wikipedia when his ad for donations popped up. I just sat there and stared at his pic for 10-20 minutes. Very attractive , though he's not consistently photogenic (just look at that 1st pic).

 

[Corny]

this is for everybody who is using chrome

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/idkjdjficifbfjjkdkiimioljbloddpl?hl=en-gb

 

[Rusty Crown]

Featured article

but seriously, wikipedia?

just for example see what they keep in the foot fetish page here

Neurologist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran proposed that foot fetishism is caused by the feet and the genitals occupying adjacent areas of the somatosensory cortex, possibly entailing some neural crosstalk between the two.

LOL!

and not to mention that they give the fanatics the hand in the arabic/persian/urdu wikipedia

they let everybody censor whatever he wants as "what acceptable and not in the society" which is nothing belong to the original wiki rules

and the worst ever.... this file

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ملف:No_Israel.svg

 

[Mazure87]

Agreed. I don't understand the general consensus that if anyone has access to it on the internet and can add information to it, why is it therefore considered indisputably valid.

Also, nbluth, after you, he's mine.

Uhh... Are you two ignorant or just plain dumb? Sure, not everything at Wikipedia is 100% correct, so not everything should be taken without a grain of salt, but there's that little fact that there are SOURCES for everything said in the Wiki articles (or should be, if there ISN'T, Wikipedia notifies you of that, which means you might want to find some of them). And as there ARE sources, if there are any errors, it's either due to the writers misunderstandings of a given subject (which often get corrected by time when someone notices it) or the source itself not being up to date or that good, not Wikipedia being shitty by default.

Wikipedia IS a superb source of information and it IS one of the greatest inventions of the past decade. It shouldn't always be taken at face value, but that's true for EVERY source (even "trusted" news papers etc.), not just Wikipedia's problem. And actually, I'd say it's a SMALLER problem for Wikipedia than for many other sources, as (at least usually, there are always exceptions) no one can post biased BS on Wikipedia and it sticking to Wikipedia for too long (at least if it's a subject anyone gives a shit about), not to even mention WP articles often/usually have multiple view-points on any given subject, so it's not just about having one "THIS IS WRONG" point of view, but more of a "Study A says X is this way while Study B says X is irrelevant and Y is more important."

The reason why most university professors don't want students using only Wikipedia articles for essays & whatnot is not because there are shittons of factual errors or anything, it's because they are just basically review articles of any given subject (which can't substitute, for example, reading a few super-detailed 50-page studies) and because, yes, sometimes they don't quite explain things in the best way possible. Also, one of Universities' jobs is to teach their students how to do actual research and how to look for information, Wikipedia shouldn't be the sole source for studies. But yeah, while Wikipedia isn't good enough a substitute for actually reading whole books written about different subjects, it CAN be an efficient & quick way to educate yourself of things you don't have the time to study for days, weeks or years AND it can give you some great source material if you DO want to study some things more in-depth. Wikipedia isn't perfect by any means, but it's not shit either. It's an amazing thing. Remember, if you KNOW something isn't correct in a Wikipedia article, YOU CAN CHANGE IT. No need to bitch about it and point out how shitty it is when you have every tool available for you to change it.



Also, to the one posting the crossed-through flag of Israel, it's not Wikipedia's fault what pictures the users upload to its servers. Even if that picture has been on Wikipedia's servers for a long time, is it actually used in any article? If it's a part of some informative, un-biased article about that particular subject (Israel-hate or something), I don't see why it couldn't be there, if that's a symbol the Israel-haters use. If not, you might want to try reporting it if you find that offensive. Also, if it's not used in any WP articles (in a good or bad way), don't make it seem like that thing is plastered all over Wikipedia.

and not to mention that they give the fanatics the hand in the arabic/persian/urdu wikipedia

As much as it sucks, if they are a big (or at least vocal) majority, then that's bound to happen. It's the users who make up Wikipedia and if a particular nation/region has plenty of moronic people who have the time and will to put effort into getting shit on Wikipedia, they can. It's more of a problem of the Arabic/Persian/Urdu culture than Wikipedia's, if what you say is true. It doesn't mean all of Wikipedia is shit if there's a large group of people in some region who abuse the system. The idea behind it is genius and it truly is one of the greatest things the Internet age has brought us, even with all of it's problems and whatnot. Though, this is spoken from a strictly English-language-Wikipedia POV. From my experience, the English Wikipedia is superior in most cases (longer, more detailed articles) whereas the articles in other languages are often lacking in depth, if there even are any articles of some subjects.

 

[AlmondMilk]

When I saw the last pic, I saw his toes but at first it looked like a flaccid penis and the couch was a weird kind of stomach of some guy. Yeah, I think I might need new glasses.

He's a good looking guy