Jimmy Wales People Quotations

We've seen how grassroots journalism by blogs has had an impact at various points politically, as ordinary people have amplified stories that were being ignored by the traditional press.

Things work well when a group of people know each other, and things break down when it's a bunch of random people interacting.

People do fun and interesting things because they're fun and interesting.

The core of Wikipedia is something people really believe in. That is too valuable for the world to screw it up.

What can we put into the hands of people under oppressive regimes to help them? For me, a big part of it is information, knowledge - the ability to defeat propaganda by understanding it.

A huge amount of what goes on in the Middle East has to do with people being fed really bad information.

Somebody might contact you, but that doesn't mean they're administrators. They're just people who know how to use the search tool.

We have constant problems where we have people who are trying to repeatedly abuse our sites.

What we're hopeful to see is that by slowing that down to 1,500 a day from several thousand, the people who are monitoring this will have more ability to improve the quality. In many cases the types of things we see going on are impulse vandalism.

We've had a lot of interest from investors, and it was really a matter of sorting through the investors to be sure that people who are investing were people who were believers in our mission.

People shouldn't do it, including me. I wish I hadn't done it. It's in poor taste...People have a lot of information about themselves but staying objective is difficult. That's the trade-off in editing entries about yourself...If you see a blatant error or misconception about yourself, you really want to set it straight.

Especially with politics, it gets more and more borderline on what's in bad faith or good faith. Reasonable people can find a way to work together. Unreasonable people get blocked, of course.

I joke a lot that (choosing to be a nonprofit) was either the best thing or the worst thing I've ever done. But I think that the site wouldn't have been successful with ads. People might not be so quick to contribute.

The bigger it gets and the more people stumble across it, the more people are interested in volunteering.

A lot of people who work on open-source software don't mind making money elsewhere. They aren't anticommercial.

Freedom, liberty, individual rights, that idea of dealing with other people in a matter that is not initiating force against them, is critical to me.

People are not fundamentally bad. It only takes the smallest of correctives to take care of that tiny minority that wants to disrupt the community.

I have said this many times in the past and will say it many times in the future I am sure: some people need to find a different hobby...

Most people assume the fights are going to be the left versus the right, but it always is the reasonable versus the jerks.

I have my team focused on the front end, working on the user experience, and making sure we have all the wiki-like tools people need to work on the site. We're just cranking away.

Greatest misconception about We aren't democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we're actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn't be writing.

I think that argument is completely morally bankrupt, and I think people know that when they make it. There's a very big difference between having a sincere, passionate interest in a topic and being a paid shill ... Particularly for PR firms, it's something they should really very strongly avoid: ever touching an article.

It turns out a lot of people don't get it. Wikipedia is like rock'n'roll; it's a cultural shift.

In general, the best advice I can give people is to take criticism seriously, apologize for anything you have done wrong, and pull back from conflict. Of course, if you are right on a content matter, you should press forward in the interest of quality, but conflict often has a way of taking on a life of its own, unfortunately.

There's plenty of rude stuff online. People say things online that they would be ashamed to say face to face. If people could treat others as though they were speaking face to face, that would be huge.

It's kind of surprising that you could just open up a site and let people work.

Massive numbers of people are going to come online from cultures we don't normally interact with.

I have always liked the idea of going to print because a big part of what we are about is to disseminate knowledge throughout the world and not just to people who have broadband.

Simply having rules does not change the things that people want to do. You have to change incentives.

Frankly, and let me be blunt, Wikipedia as a readable product is not for us. It's for them. It's for that girl in Africa who can save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around her, but only if she's empowered with the knowledge to do so.

Wikipedia is the #5 site on the Web and serves 450 million different people every month - with billions of page views.

I think people have to recognise that the traditional modes of authority weren't that great.

When you consider the magnitude of how many people use Wikipedia globally, there is a potential here for really creating some noise and getting some attention in the U.S.

The Internet is allowing for us to really experience people in some of the most distant places in the world - as other people just like us. So get to know people, seek out bloggers from a country you're kind of curious about. It's about building empathy and breaking through to the point of recognizing people as people.

People who have achieved a public voice find it a mixed bag.